‘Dildo bandit’ lifts lid on ethics of shaming

A Newfoundland sex store’s social media shaming of an alleged shoplifter has raised ethical questions around retailers who display security footage in a bid to catch thieves.

Provincial privacy commissioner Donovan Molloy has reportedly encouraged businesses to take such footage to police, rather than share images of people who have not been found guilty of a crime.

A downtown adult shop in St. John’s, N.L., shared images of a woman on social media this week, requesting the public’s help in identifying her.

“A Christmas dildo bandit has struck, Harry & Marv style, and we need your help to identify this sticky bandit,” the post read.

“The individual pictured decided to help herself to some of our Christmas toys, and we need your help to find her!”

The post was later updated saying the woman had been identified, but the photos had quickly spread with commenters poking fun at the alleged thief ’s appearance and the humorous nature of the stolen object.

The episode raised questions about the ethics and legality of sharing photos from security footage that implicate people in crimes.

Molloy gave several media interviews commenting on the practice, saying retailers who post footage to catch suspected thieves are sharing information in a way that conflicts with federal law, and that it often does more harm than good.

In order for there to be legal consequences for public shaming through security footage, someone would have to complain to the office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

A spokesperson said in an email that the office has received “a handful” of such complaints over the last few years, including one case study posted to the commissioner’s website.

In 2015, an unidentified store stopped posting bulletin board pictures of suspected shoplifters after the commissioner found the practice “not permissible” under the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, according to the commissioner’s web site.

“The major lesson learned here is that publicly displaying, without consent, photographs of individuals recorded on a business’ video surveillance system for the purposes of identifying alleged shoplifters is not permissible under PIPEDA,” the email read.

Privacy lawyer David Fraser said even if a retailer could argue they disclosed footage for a reasonable purpose, the nature of the acts captured on camera could have unintended negative effects on the person once they spread online. “If you have a store that exclusively sells adult products that shows someone sneaking away with a sex toy, I can certainly see that there is a potential element of stigmatization and shaming,” he said from Halifax.