Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Borders to Use CCTV Face Recognition 380

Posted by michael from the seventeen-years-late dept.
albanach writes: "This story at the Sunday Herald newspaper says Borders Bookshop is to become the world's first retailer to use face recognition software linked to their in-store CCTV cameras to automagically identify known shoplifters."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Borders to Use CCTV Face Recognition More

Borders to Use CCTV Face Recognition

Comments Filter:

  • That does it! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Voline ( 207517 )
    I give up. I'm just going to walk down to the police station and let them implant a chip under my scalp.

    I saw a woman the other day who had a bar code tattoo on her arm. I thought it was funny (wry comment on the commodification of all life. ha ha). Now I'm not so sure.
    • So THAT'S what that was. The gentleman who delevered the newspaper to house where I spent my teen years was older, Jewish, and had little blue numbers tattooed on his wrist. Maybe he was involved in an early version of this sort of thing?

      Seriously, whether it's companies, the Fourth Reich, or parents tattooing their children "for safety", I find it to be disgusting. It's just one step closer to slavery.

  • What worries me most about this.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phaze3000 ( 204500 ) on Sunday August 26, 2001 @12:37PM (#2218549) Homepage
    Is where exactly are they going to get the database of 'known shopfilters'? And who is to be listed as a 'known shoplifter'?

    If it will contain only those who have been convicted of shoplifting, then surely this is wrong; our system of justice is based on the concept that once someone has paid the penalty for their crime, they have reformed and should no longer be punished further. If it will contain those accused of shoplifting, but not prosecuted, then Borders will be acting as judge and jury without any proper process.

    Who is to vet this database? Will the database be shared with other retail establishments who want to implement a similar system?

    I find the whole idea deeply, deeply troubling.

    • What worries me, actually, is what they're going to do about it. If it just alerts them and they keep a closer eye on the guy, that's one thing-- he might not feel entirely welcome, but he can still come in and buy books. On the other hand, if they just kick him out, that's pretty terrible.

    • Re:What worries me most about this.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Huw ( 234808 ) on Sunday August 26, 2001 @12:45PM (#2218583)
      True. The possible problem here is that you're going to end up with a single class of criminals, once a criminal, always a criminal.

      How about the kid who nicks something from a shop when they are in their early teens? As a 40 year old, are they still going to be asked to leave the shop, or have their every move watched?

      Let's just hope we don't end up with a case of "I got a speeding ticket a few years back, and they won't let me into Tesco because I'm a known criminal. Maybe a little extravagant, but I think you can see where I'm coming from.

      In the US, prisons are being dubbed "Correctional facilities", I believe. This is more the sort of attitude we need. "You've done the crime, been punished, now get out there and live your life normally. Don't do it again."
    • Yes, the technology scares me. However, FWIW I -initially- don't see much of a problem with it. The problems will arise within a few years when every company begins using the technology.

      Here's the way I see it: Companies often have a hard time catching shoplifters, because, 1) they acn't (legally) restrain a person before they've left the store. (I can put a book into my pocket and still go to the checkoput and pay for it; it's not shoplifting until you've left the store.) and 2) Once you leave the building, store security can not restarin you. They can only ask you to stay. (Howver, a shoplifter is allowed to legally walk away, as only police officers are allowed to restrain them.), and 3) the store can't prosecute them unless the have evidence (video cameras will work, but the employees' words can be easily beaten in court.)

      Now supposing someone steals a book from the store, gets caught, but leaves anyway, the store can't really do anything, except to ban the person from entering the store (which they can legally do to anybody, as long as it's not due to racial or sexual discrimination.

      The video camera can identify known shoplifters (for that store) and security can then ask them to leave the store. Whether the database can legally be shared with other stores or not I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that that issue will eventually go to court.

      • Re:What worries me most about this.. (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Here's the way I see it: Companies often have a hard time catching shoplifters, because, 1) they acn't (legally) restrain a person before they've left the store. (I can put a book into my pocket and still go to the checkoput and pay for it; it's not shoplifting until you've left the store.) and 2) Once you leave the building, store security can not restarin you. They can only ask you to stay. (Howver, a shoplifter is allowed to legally walk away, as only police officers are allowed to restrain them.), and 3) the store can't prosecute them unless the have evidence (video cameras will work, but the employees' words can be easily beaten in court.)


        That's incorrect. In most places you can restrain and report to the police anyone you see who commits a crime. This is what a "citizen's arrest" is. A few state laws are mentioned here [constitution.org] including DC, Tenn, Mass, Kentucky, Utah. California is mentioned here [csudh.edu]. Of course its tricky business and you can get yourself in legal trouble if you harm the person or falsely accuse them. A short guide on that is here [yahoo.com]. I remember a show where this guy comes into a cafeteria with a baseball bat. So the staff takes the bat and beats the guy for about 10 minutes. Now they restrained a lawbreaker, but they got sued theirselves. So that kind of restraint is not legal, but it is legal to have a system that automatically locks the doors so the person can't leave. By the way, I am not a lawyer so don't go out being batman without consulting a lawyer first.

        • A short guide on that is here [yahoo.com]. I remember a show where this guy comes into a cafeteria with a baseball bat. So the staff takes the bat and beats the guy for about 10 minutes. Now they restrained a lawbreaker, but they got sued theirselves. ... By the way, I am not a lawyer so don't go out being batman without consulting a lawyer first.

          C'mon, you're PUNishing us!
        • In Michigan at least, you can't make a citizen's arrest unless a felony was committed (in the case of shoplifting, stealing $1k or more of goods). Practically, this means that security guards can't detain you unless they know offhand the price of what you stole, because if they are wrong about the value of what you took, they go to jail (kidnapping I believe). Practically, it means nobody can stop a shoplifter.

      • >Companies often have a
        >hard time catching shoplifters, because, 1)
        >they acn't (legally) restrain a person before
        >they've left the store.

        I don't know what the laws are in your state,
        but at least in Texas (the only state where I've
        worked retail) the law is based on the point of
        concealment. You don't have to wait for the perp to leave the store at all. They only need to conceal the merchandise in such a way to make you suspicious.

    • When they review security camera tapes at the end of every day/week, they will spot a few shoplifters. They have no idea who they are, though, until they come into the store again, and the face recognition software spots them.

      Very straightforward, assuming the software works in a very high percentage of cases.
      • "They have no idea who they are, though, until they come into the store again, and the face recognition software spots them."

        Up until reading this comment, I wasn't especially scared of the system. I assumed they'd populate the database with individuals who had previously been caught shop-lifting at Borders and had been asked never to return. In short, it would've been a high-tech version of the Simpsons's Comic Book Guy's "Banned for Life" wall.

        But now I'm worried. Enough people look like me that my friends at school have told me about how they ran into several dopplegangers of me, who they mistook for me until they got closer. I suspect people who know me would have a hard time telling the difference from security camera footage. I suspect strangers and a computer system would easily be fooled.

        It gets worse, however. My one defense against being mistaken for the shoplifter is that I've got a state-issued piece of paper that I carry around that says who I am. Unfortunately, if they don't know who the videotaped shoplifter was, pulling out my id will serve exactly one purpose -- to get my name listed on their records as the shoplifter.

    • "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

      I, personally, don't have a problem with this, as long as they're targeting specific individuals, and not profiling races or other demographics.

      Having worked in retail, I can tell you that 90% of the people who shoplift or try to shoplift don't end up on the wrong side of a conviction, either because they get away with their $5 book, (or $70 textbook), or for various other reasons, never go to trial, often being let off with a warning, or banishment from the store.

      If I see someone attempting to shoplift from my store, or if they actually get away, I feel that I'm fully within my rights to tell them that they can't come back in my store. If I have a security system that lets me know when they try to, so much the better. If I own 200 stores and I can make sure that someone who was seen shoplifting in one of my stores doesn't get inside another, that's great.

      The difference here is that I'm basing my 'block list' on my company's personal experience with the individual in question, which I have more faith in than a master list of convicted shoplifters.

      I wouldn't want to block everyone some government list says is a likely shoplifter, but I want to be able to control entry to my store, blocking people I personally don't trust, or have been victimized by in the past.

      To put it another way: Is there something wrong with me seeing someone steal a book, then come in the next day, and my telling them that they have to leave? Is it wrong if I have a system that will watch the doors to help me with this task? How is this more onerous than a standard security system which, in effect, is saying "I don't trust anyone."

      Would a facial recognition system at the entrances and exits be a good thing if it meant that I could get rid of the security cameras along every aisle, spying on everyone, all the time?
    • Is where exactly are they going to get the database of 'known shopfilters'? And who is to be listed as a 'known shoplifter'?
      Lets see. they can build the database from people the they catch shoplifting. And my guess as to who is going to be lsited as shoplifters would be "the people that they catch shoplifting". Sounds simple enough to me. what part don't you understand again?
    • What really worries me is that the best proceses in the world screw up ocassionally. Let's say for the moment that they have 99.99% accuracy in identifying accurately those who are shoplifters. That means that for every 10,000 people who visit Borders, one will be falsely harassed as a suspected shoplifter.

      Beyond the issue of mistakes, it's disturbing to consider the possible future of this technology. Their databases will be filled with people they thought were shopilifting, or people accused of shopilifting later found innocent, and people who were convicted but have since reformed. One of the biggest hurdles to overcome as a convicted criminal is getting beyong the image of being a convicted criminal, and being locked out of stores isn't going to help that.

      Think for a moment how many stores you visit that use video cameras. Now just imagine if all of them had facial recognition technology. I mean why wouldn't they use it? It reduces shrink problems, and overall costs will drop exponentially making the technology viable for even the smallest stores. Hook these up to a police database, and think of what happens...

      You, a convicted criminal are now out of prison ready to straighten up and fly right. You go to the local liquor store, a camera identifies and tags you as a criminal. The manager asks you to leave. So you go to the grocery store and get the same treatment. How can you really get on with your life if nobody will let you be a part of society again?

      I dunno, I begin to think that maybe you accept a certain amount of entropy in the system. That you, as a business plan for a certain portion of your stock getting stolen and a certain portion of money going to pay for security, etc. Maybe there's a certain point of diminshing returns where the cost for our society is not worth the economic efficiencies of it.

  • A way around this... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MentlFlos ( 7345 ) on Sunday August 26, 2001 @12:42PM (#2218568)
    Lets all purchase Nixon masks and go running into borders with them on... Immagine what the logs would look like..

    Nixon entered via west entrance
    (last message repeated 27 times)

    Yeah, I know its stupid, but thats why its a joke.

    -paul

  • don't shop there (Score:3, Informative)

    by jchristopher ( 198929 ) on Sunday August 26, 2001 @12:43PM (#2218573)
    As long as we continue to give our rights away, companies will continue to take them!

    Don't shop there, and tell all your friends why, too.

    • Re:don't shop there (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Claudius ( 32768 )
      Remember back in the day when you could just walk into a store, drop a not-insignificant amount of money at the register, and then walk out of the store with an item you just bought? Seems quaint, no? Nowadays, after your purchase you get to stand in yet another line while a puke with an attitude and a pink magic marker signs his name ("X") on your receipt and "authorizes" your exit with your personal property. The entire legal concept of quid pro quo has been turned on its ear to accommodate these pink X's--we apparently no longer own the item when we exchange money for it, but rather the store can demand that you produce proof that your property didn't magically turn back into the store's property in the 10-foot walk from the register to the door. Remember the indignation we all used to feel at being treated like criminals just so a store Fry's Electronics could cut down on cash-register fraud? (Apparently, it's much less expensive to alienate customers than to just pay the employees enough to make them value their jobs). Remember how we all vowed never to shop in such a place anymore? Now this behavior is endemic--like the sheep we are, we accept it for that extra 5% off the purchase price.

      Be sure you get rankled now. Five years from now, when the only place that'll sell you food is a urine-stained 7-11 in Compton because your face is a 92.4% match to a convicted felon in Joliet, you'll be forced to accept it. By then it'll be too late.

      "If you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to fear."...
      • With regards to the guy demanding to sign off on your receipt with a highliter, why do you let them do it?

        CompUSA, Fry's electronics, etc... they are all the same. Just walk right by them, what are they going to do?

        It's kind of funny, actually, to hear them going "sir, SIR, excuse me..." as you just walk out the door.

        I'm eagerly waiting for the day when one of them grabs me as I walk out so I can sue the shit out of them.

      • Re:don't shop there (Score:3, Informative)

        by .@. ( 21735 )
        At least in California, stores have no right to search you in this manner, and it's entirely legal for you to walk right out, ignoring these unwarranted searches.

        According to California Penal Code section 490.5. (f) (1):

        A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken merchandise from the merchant's premises.

        ...and from (3) of the same part of the code:

        (3) During the period of detention any items which a merchant or theater owner, or any items which a person employed by a library facility has probable cause to believe are unlawfully taken from the premises of the merchant or library facility, or recorded on theater premises, and which are in plain view may be examined by the merchant, theater owner, or person employed by a library facility for the purposes of ascertaining the ownership thereof.

        So you see, unless they already have reason to suspect you've broken the law, they cannot require you to submit to these searches.

        Unfortunately, I do not believe the same (or similar) law would apply to facial recognition. You have no reasonable assumption of privacy with respect to your physical appearance when in a public place (commercial private property included).
      • There was an interesting report (heavy $$$ for a printed copy, no online link, sorry) on the security aspects of Fry's stores I read a while back. The owners take to heart the statistics that 70% of "stock shrinkage" comes from employee theft, the remaining 30% from a wide variety of external criminal forces, from spur-of-the-moment shoplifters to organized armed gangs. In a high value environment of consumer electronics, nearly 40% of stock is lost to theft. Fry's has cut that number down to less than 8%, due to heavy-handed physical security procedures.

        The paper was a justification for having well documented security procedures (the paper authors would like to sell clients very expensive consulting) and thorough physical security. The paper detailed Fry's internal auditing team, the daily (and sometimes bi-hourly) stock inspection, the separation of duties, the use of cages for extremely high value small components with two-person "concept team" pass-through to checkout(did you ever notice that no disk or simm reaches the counter until after your credit card has been approved or the cash is in the drawer?), and the final security guys with their pink X's on the customer receipts. The cash counting rooms were set up by Las Vegas security experts who take the movement of large value receipts very seriously.

        All of those procedures are designed to make criminals think twice about targeting Fry's. Just by raising the bar slightly, at a slightly increased cost, they have lowered their losses from 40% of all stock to just 8%, and if you multiply that by their annual turnover, the savings is huge.

        The guys on the door don't actually stop any theft by checking bags and receipts, their job is to put fear into stupid thieves before a crime takes place. It is very effective, even if the X'ers don't find one theft in an entire week.

        I was in a Fry's last month, the whole purpose was to check out if all their security was just like in the consulting paper (I didn't need to buy any gadgets, since I had just come from SE Asia :-) Its all there, most the customer never sees, but keeps the employees slightly more honest and the customers slightly affronted but not enough to lose revenue.

        the AC
        • "I was in a Fry's last month, the whole purpose was to check out if all their security was just like in the consulting paper (I didn't need to buy any gadgets, since I had just come from SE Asia :-) Its all there, most the customer never sees, but keeps the employees slightly more honest and the customers slightly affronted but not enough to lose revenue."

          This reminds me of my battle with my local wal-mart over their incompetently run shoplifter scanners...

          Something like 5 times in a ROW, the fucking scanner went off when I tried to leave after buying a movie... The last time, I blew up on them, demanded the manager (who was VERY unapologetic). After he copped his `tude with me I demanded my cash back, which they did, after some reluctance. I've never been back there again.

          Would THAT get me on the scanner as a "suspected shoplifter"? Because a wal-mart minumum wage slave wage slave can't desensitize their fucking VHS tapes?
    • Well, or you could use this kind of behavior to your advantage. I persoanlly charge a $500 bag viewing fee to anyone who wishes to look inside my bag. Just stop me and ask. I'll present the form for you to sign, and after you hand me the money you get to look in my bag! Just like you can't force the doctors who walk into your store to perform surgery, you can't force me to open my bag. Of course, I am not allowed to shop too many places nowadays... :)
  • then just don't shop there! It's pretty damn simple if you ask me. You could write a letter, hold a meeting, contact your local civil liberties group, but really nothing will hurt the business more then if you just don't shop there, and tell your friends not to either. Besides, if you're so concerned about your face getting on camera, then just shop from your bedroom on amazon.com or something. I dont understand why any company would do this to their customers.

    1) Load gun

    2) Aim at foot

    3) Pull trigger
    • I dont understand why any company would do this to their customers.

      Do what to their customers? Video monitor them and try and prevent shoplifting? They've been doing that for ages. You just have a huge database to match from rather than one security guard's mind now. This will only affect two groups of people: shoplifters and people who look like shoplifters. Group A probably don't "shop" at Borders anyway, so by them boycotting Borders. Borders isn't losing any money (in fact, they're probably gaining money). Group B aren't Group B until they're actually accused, and if Borders is really smart, they won't actually do anything with the "accused" until they break the law by actually shoplifting something (ie. use the system to keep a closer eye on people who may be potential shoplifters). Of course, details are fuzzy, but the Slashdot crowd jumps on the worst-case-scenario bandwagon and proceeds to shoot themselves in the foot.

      You're right, if you don't like it, don't shop there. If you're really lucky, you'll end up with no bookstores to shop at all because you're paranoid.
      • You're right, if you don't like it, don't shop there. If you're really lucky, you'll end up with no bookstores to shop at all because you're paranoid.

        Or you'll end up with bookstores that don't treat their own customers like criminals.

        Either way, you end up with fewer bookstores that do treat their customers like criminals.
    • Did you click on the Borders Bookstore [borders.com] link? It goes to Amazon, bub. so you can support them, or, support them! I suppose there's always barnes and nobles, but are they really any better? They just didn't think of this first.

      Why not try building a relationship with a *local* bookstore that'll bend over backward to order or find books for you, and doesn't infringe on your rights? You might be surprised that the concept of customer support can involve friendly bookophiles who treat you respectfully. Might even help out your local economy by putting money back into it directly...

    • then just don't shop there! It's pretty damn simple if you ask me.

      Well, I just returned from a conference in Dublin, Ireland, and I was terrified to see that there are cameras everywhere! I mean, it's probably not an inch of that city that isn't covered, and it's not only indoors, but outdoors as well. Even the university campus has infrared cameras all over the campus. I wasn't really concerned about this issue before I went there, I didn't think it could ever be that bad. But the simple fact is, they are all ready to implement this, if they can get away with it.

      When that happens, you have to boycot a whole city. OK, you're not living in Dublin, so why should you care? Because it's going to happen in the city you live in too!

  • As much as I support the proposed anti-video surveillance law [zdnet.com] as it applies to surveilence on public property, I can't find fault with the Borders arrangement. If they feel it will reduce instances of shoplifting, more power to them, although I'd like to see if they can get any shoplifter they catch, to pose for a picture (unless they have been arrested and charged). If borders expects to hold shoplifters they catch, expressly for the purpose of taking their photo for addition to their system, that will prove legally problematic for them.

    The public has a right to be angered by public surveilence as was done at the Super Bowl [rand.org] but if you don't like being surveiled on provate property, don't enter that private property. It's as simple as that.

    --CTH
  • 'It is very difficult to distinguish one face from another with the human eye,' she said. 'If the system infringes on anyone's human rights then Borders wouldn't be using it.'

    Bullshit, and bullshit. I'm not going to even comment on the first sentence. The second is ridiculous. Anyone who actually thinks a large corporation truly cares about human rights gets their views on corporate America solely from TV ads. The statement might be true, if it were instead "If the system got us enough bad publicity that it threatened our bottom line then Borders wouldn't be using it."

    Which of course means that the only way to stop them from using it is to not shop at Borders, and to let them know why.

    Sigh. Look -- I understand this is how capitalism is supposed to work, but I get a little sick of having to perform an endless series of boycotts in a desperate game of wack-a-corp just to try to get shit upon less frequently.

  • Several interesting papers of Facial Recognition (Score:3, Informative)

    by hillct ( 230132 ) on Sunday August 26, 2001 @12:59PM (#2218647) Homepage Journal
    RAND.org [rand.org], a public policy group, has a number of interesting papers on the legal, ethical and sociological implications ob Biometrics [rand.org] and specifically Facial Recognition as used at the Super Bowl this year [rand.org].

    -CTH

  • Quick! (Score:3)

    by Mawbid ( 3993 ) on Sunday August 26, 2001 @01:02PM (#2218660)
    Everybody, boycott Borders!

  • I will probably not go back to Borders. There are other bookstores.

    I've never stolen anything, and until now have been a loyal Borders customer. However, suppose the equipment makes a mistake? (Has any Slashdot reader ever known software to be less than perfect?) Suppose the equipment thinks I resemble someone else? The Border's management may think they've caught someone; they will find it difficult to recognize that the equipment has failed.

    Sure the liklihood is small. But I stay away from dangerous areas of my city for the same reason. I don't want even a small chance of a hassle.

    It's easy to just switch bookstores.
    • they will find it difficult to recognize that the equipment has failed.

      It is, in fact, incredible how much trust people have in computers. I just recently read an editorial in a german computer magazine how they received, thanks to code red, confidential documents from another company, tried to inform them by email about the problem, and were ignored. Finally they called them, and were told that this couldn't be true, the company would be using virus scanning software.

      It's easy to just switch bookstores.

      If the majority of people continues to applaud at the installation of such system because it "fights criminals", it won't stay that easy. More and more stores will install surveillance systems, until eventually you'll have a hard time getting everything you need without being watched.

  • By all means install such a system at your own front door to identify employees of corporations that spy on you and/or support the DMCA, so they can be relentlessly kept out of your home, your business, your life. Personal ostracization can be very effective, on a wide-spread scale.


    Plus, it works well for predators of other kinds, such as convicted rapists and murderers and pedophiles, of which record may be kept on private networks.

  • Thank God, maybe prices will drop... (Score:4, Troll)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Sunday August 26, 2001 @01:12PM (#2218697) Homepage Journal
    I've been involved in helping stores cut back loss, and let me tell you that 70% of the theft that has occured after I've installed cameras has been by employees, and a lot of the time in those cases, management.

    I still don't see the problem with this. I'm for any business enacting any policy they please within the confines of their store.

    If you don't want to be watched, don't go there, and make it a habit to write letters about it to advertisers and distributors.

    I don't mind it a bit, since I haven't done anything wrong. If they want to watch me closer because they think I'm a thief, good for them.

    If the thieves stop going to those stores because they bet profiles, maybe prices will drop.

    If you want privacy, go get some acreage of land in the mountains and stay out of civilization. I don't see ANY privacy loss if you're as much at fault for entering THEIR private property.

    Its cameras on the street that worry me, but we get videotaped by ATMs and banks and at the McDonald's and the convenient store, whats so wrong with filtering those images so security can do a better job?

    • "If the thieves stop going to those stores because they bet profiles, maybe prices will drop."

      That is the consumer's hope, but the reality is that once prices go up they never come back down. If stores can do anything to decrease loss, it goes straight into their pockets.

      Have you ever heard of a shop declaring that it is lowering prices thanks to a decrease in shoplifting? No, of course not. That goes to shareholders.

      For the record, I will never patronize Borders again, and hope that enough of the word gets out to enrage a noticeable portion of their customers.
    • The whole worry here is not so much this specific act, but the slippery slope. Right now, perhaps Borders is kicking known Borders shoplifters from their stores. Next it might be any shoplifters. Then it might be anyone convicted of any crime. Then it could be anyone who is currently receiving unemployment or otherwise on the dole. Then it could be anyone with a poor credit history or any other characteristic Borders deems as untrustworthy. And let's assume other stores start implementing this practice. What will happen? You'll wind up with tiers of stores...certain stores will only cater to the rich -- in the sense that the non-rich won't even be allowed in. Other stores will cater to the "honest" middle class. And finally there'll be "sub-stores" which charge tremendously marked-up prices and have guards and cameras and all sorts of onerous procedures, but the poor and "untrustworthy" will find that these types of stores are the only ones where they will be permitted to enter.

      • Next it might be any shoplifters

        Actually, one of the next steps is most likely going to be in the field of gesture/behaviour recognition. Granted, its probably in the region of five to twenty years from actual commercial products, but long-term, I plan to be living on this planet much longer than that. The general idea is that image-processing software will examine the CCTV image, and in real-time attempt to characterize and describe what you are doing. So the software might be able to determine itself with reasonable probability whether or not you are attempting to shoplift. It might characterize "suspicious behaviour", and not unthinkably, "pedophile behaviour". Basically, anything that a human watcher is capable of doing, software is theoretically capable of doing as much at a minimum, and potentially more.

        This type of software already exists (I worked with some researchers doing this several years ago), and while it is still somewhat primitive, it won't be for too much longer. In general there seems to be a dearth of long-term thinking here on /. (and in the general populace actually)

        The software will almost certainly be able to record facial signatures, one relatively benign use of which would be to identify repeat customers (a real-life cookie), but I'm sure anyone with a bit of imagination could come up with less benign uses. Compare, for example, to the web-tracking techniques in use today - since the majority of banner ads on the web are served by a tiny handul of companies, the use of cookies can be used to "track" web surfer movements, building a database. It would only take a few affiliations between such companies and companies on the web who know your actual identity for them to connect their surfing-habit database to specific individuals. Fast-forward to 2030 - now almost any shop you enter has a CCTV system, and a tiny handful of companies provide this service to all shops. By networking the systems (computer technology will have improved a lot by then), these companies could now track individuals as they moved through various shopping malls. A database of your mall-surfing habits, even your purchasing habits. A few clever affiliations (e.g. with some stores who have "member cards"), and suddenly these companies can associate the facial-signature/mall-surfing database with a specific persons identity. Some more imagination required to extrapolate what might follow from that ..

        • The general idea is that image-processing software will examine the CCTV image, and in real-time attempt to characterize and describe what you are doing. So the software might be able to determine itself with reasonable probability whether or not you are attempting to shoplift.

          Actually, most shoplifters have nervous behaviors that are precursors to the actual shoplifting. And indeed, software can (probably already) recognize these behaviors. Presumably dispatching a security person to the suspects elbow, or electrifying the shelf or whatever...

    • Give me a break. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DreamingReal ( 216288 ) <dreamingreal@@@yahoo...com> on Monday August 27, 2001 @01:48AM (#2220304) Homepage
      I've been involved in helping stores cut back loss, and let me tell you that 70% of the theft that has occured after I've installed cameras has been by employees, and a lot of the time in those cases, management.


      Which of course, begs the question, if three quarters of their theft is internal why are they monitoring customers instead of their employees?


      On top of that, in most of the Borders I've been in, most employees do not respond to the beeping security gate at the entrance. Half the time they wave the patron through! Perhaps if they stationed a security employee at the door to check those instances (ala Best Buy) maybe that level of security would actually be effective.


      I still don't see the problem with this. I'm for any business enacting any policy they please within the confines of their store.


      What if they could perform random searches of your person? Your car? (Hey, it's in their lot!) Unlikely? Of course. But what if this became widespread and unavoidable? (as a lot of the video monitoring we find commonplace today was 30 years ago) When does it become too intrusive?


      If you don't want to be watched, don't go there, and make it a habit to write letters about it to advertisers and distributors.


      I always preferred Borders to Barnes & Noble, but I'm switching now (with a handwritten letter to both to let them know why!).


      I don't mind it a bit, since I haven't done anything wrong. If they want to watch me closer because they think I'm a thief, good for them.


      Would you mind if a security guard followed you around the store? Would you mind being randomly searched by a Borders supervisor in the middle of your browsing? Would you allow the police to search your car without a reason? What about your house without a warrant? You've done nothing wrong, so you shouldn't mind, right? I'm sorry but I will never understand this type of mentality. Just because you've done nothing wrong does NOT justify their intrusion. The burden of proof lies with them to prove your guilt, not with you, your innocence. If people's commitment to privacy only revolves around how inconvient a search is, then we have already lost.


      If the thieves stop going to those stores because they bet profiles, maybe prices will drop.


      And I bet I can walk on water and turn water to wine. Customer discounts winning over higher profits would only be a miracle.


      If you want privacy, go get some acreage of land in the mountains and stay out of civilization. I don't see ANY privacy loss if you're as much at fault for entering THEIR private property.


      See my comment above for my take on your mentality. Would it be okay for them to record and broadcast your conversations while in their store? Would it be okay for them to record you in the bathroom and broadcast that? Would it be okay for a hotel manager to watch your wife shower because you are renting his rooms? Just because you in on private property does not mean you do not have a reasonable expectation to privacy.


      Its cameras on the street that worry me, but we get videotaped by ATMs and banks and at the McDonald's and the convenient store, whats so wrong with filtering those images so security can do a better job?


      I am absolutely baffled why recording on public streets would bother you and recording at Borders does not. When did it become common thought that the (imagined) right to corporate profit trumps individual human rights? Corporations and businesses are legal fictions that exist at the leisure of the public, not the other way around. We seem to be forgetting this, at our own peril.

  • Why this differs from what Tampa is doing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tbo ( 35008 ) on Sunday August 26, 2001 @01:23PM (#2218739) Journal
    I'm going to take my turn as the token Slashdot libertarian today, and defend Borders while criticizing the Tampa municipal government for doing the same thing [slashdot.org].

    First of all, Borders is legally within their rights to do this. The store is private property, and they're perfectly within their rights to do this. Hell, I think it would even be legal for them to say something to say, "no customers of skin color X allowed", although the public relations disaster would destroy them instantly (note: they couldn't do the same for employees).*

    OTOH, different laws and standards apply to what governments can do. City streets are public property, not private. It's highly inappropriate for the government to forcibly take your money (taxation), then use it to institute machine surveillance of you and other innocent citizens.

    I used to work at a grocery store, and, if we ever caught a shoplifter, we would make them sign something acknowledging their crime, and make them promise never to enter one of our stores again. If they did, we'd prosecute. Enforcement was left to in-store detectives, and I can tell you they weren't 100% accurate. Even if the occasional false alarm happens with the Borders system, it only has to be better than a detective to be worth-while and a benefit to everybody.

    The appropriate response to a "positive" ID by this face recognition system is closer surveillance by humans. If a human confirms that the person in question is a previous shoplifter, then they should be asked to leave. If, on the other hand, Guido and his rent-a-cop friends immediately start beating you with the Webster Unabridged New English Dictionary because their system beeped, then you can sue them. If it offends you on principle, shop elsewhere.

    Here's a quick summary of why this is different than the Tampa situation:
    With Borders, if you don't like it, you can shop elsewhere. With Tampa, you have to move and never visit the
    entire city.

    The Borders system is funded by money voluntarily given to them by customers (i.e. from profits). The Tampa system is funded by money they forcibly take from citizens through taxation.

    Borders stores are private property. Tampa streets are public property.

    Borders can legally ask you to leave the store for any reason they want. Tampa can't do the same. (This highlights differences in what legal protections you have on private vs. public property).

    Somebody in an earlier message said something to the effect that it's not right to further persecute shoplifters who have already been prosecuted and done their time. Of that person, I ask, if somebody stole from you, did a few weeks in jail, then was released, would you feel obligated to let him back in your house? Why should it be any different for Borders?

    *Generally, private organizations are allowed to discriminate with their membership on racial, religious, or sexual lines. Obviously, the Catholic Church down the street isn't legally obliged to allow Church of Satan members to join, even if denying them constitutes religious discrimination. Gyms are allowed to restrict their customer base to women-only. If they can do that, then bookstores can restrict customers to people who aren't in their database of shady characters. When you start employing people for money, then different laws apply.
    • >With Borders, if you don't like it, you can shop elsewhere.

      Until B&N and every other bookstore starts doing it.

      I mean, if Borders starts getting SPECTACULAR results from it - a very low false positive rate, decent PR, etc - then you can be sure others will adopt it.

      That's why it bothers me. While I agree with you, before long, there won't be many places to shop that don't implement this - if it works.

      Re the last comment (allowing them back in your store): you know, I agree with you here, too, but the whole point of the judicial system was SUPPOSED to be for rehabilitation. Yes, you lock up violent offenders and such, but for "the rest of them", it's supposed to make you not want to go to jail anymore, fly straight and narrow.

      It's probably a tangential, "offtopic" argument, but have we just completely surrendered any notion of rehabilitation? Once a criminal, always a criminal? Must they wear that scarlet letter forever? Given the rates of recitivism (sp?), maybe.
      • That's why it bothers me. While I agree with you, before long, there won't be many places to shop that don't implement this - if it works.

        True. If it works, everyone will use it. So where's the problem?

        Re the last comment (allowing them back in your store): you know, I agree with you here, too, but the whole point of the judicial system was SUPPOSED to be for rehabilitation.

        No, that's just one of the four purposes of imprisoning criminals. Here are the other three: punishment, getting them off the streets so they don't break more laws, and appeasing victims.

        Yes, you lock up violent offenders and such, but for "the rest of them", it's supposed to make you not want to go to jail anymore, fly straight and narrow.

        Sure, and maybe, after you start getting kicked out of all the Borders stores around, you'll realize that, if you keep shoplifting, you won't be able to shop anywhere.
  • We should wear our halloween mask all day this coming halloween, and visit popular retail stores (Borders, for example) or cities using facial recognition software. Mayhaps we can get The Alien loaded into national crime databases for jaywalking.

    I'm only half kidding about this.

  • Hmmm (Score:2)

    by JohnG ( 93975 )
    1984 - Big Border is watching.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • This is a classic case where the market will decide what degree of difficulty / embarassment / prying consumers will tolerate. If they drive off 1% of their customers but cut shoplifting by 30%, it makes sense for them to do so. More power to 'em.


      Just like every other time this is said, this will be a classic case of people not knowing what hit them. They'll tolerate it at one chain, maybe two. People put up with a lot of shit, especially if it isn't affecting them (directly, immediately). By the time every major store jumps on the bandwagon, it'll be too late to stop it and there will be nowhere else to go.


      Then, of course, everyone will wonder how this could have happened... shouldn't "the market" have "decided" against it?


      Sorry, but people who think "the market", if left to itself, will "decide" on the best course of action for all involved have thoroughly ignored the glaringly obvious in the history of capitalism.

      • "Just like every other time this is said, this will be a classic case of people not knowing what hit them. They'll tolerate it at one chain, maybe two. People put up with a lot of shit, especially if it isn't affecting them (directly, immediately). By the time every major store jumps on the bandwagon, it'll be too late to stop it and there will be nowhere else to go. "

        Sure there will be. An internet bookseller has an infinately larger selection than a Borders store.

        Brick and mortars have much to lose by flocking to something like this.

        • Sure there will be. An internet bookseller has an infinately larger selection than a Borders store.

          No, it doesn't. They both have roughly the same selection... whatever's in their supply catalogues. Besides, Amazon stands alone, but can you think of another major online bookseller that isn't tied to "brick-and-mortar" shops? One that would actually be a competitor? (Not incidentally, Barnes & Noble owns [wired.com] one of its-- and Amazon's-- biggest distributors now.)

          borders.com
          bn.com
          booksamillion.com
          chapters.ca

          Even fatbrain.com is owned by Barnes & Noble.

          But you're right, I'm sure "the market" will sort all of this out if we just give it time to think about it. After all, laissez-faire economics worked so well for steel, and railroads, and medicines, and meat, and waste disposal, and housing, and... oh, wait.

  • Snail-mail letters are much more effective than e-mail. Write to Gregory Josefowicz, the CEO of the Borders Group, at 100 Phoenix Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108. Here's the letter I'm sending:

    I write to indicate my extreme distaste for a recent development in Borders's UK operations which I fear may rear its head on this continent as well. I refer to the use of SmartFace (or FaceIt), the face-recognition technology, in Borders retail outlets to locate known shoplifters, as reported in the British Sunday Herald newspaper on August 26. I find the use of this technology by both government and commercial agencies highly disturbing; its use is fraught with peril, and is simply too open to abuses.

    If Borders proceeds to use this technology in its US retail outlets, I will no longer shop at Borders retail outlets and Borders.com, and will also inform my friends and acquaintances of the fact that they will be under this unusually obtrusive form of surveillance when they shop at Borders stores.

  • A while back Gello Biafra was talking about the ubiquity of commercial advertising and the commercial lifestyle in the US. He said the only person he knew of who'd managed to completely isolate himself from all the commercialism in the US was the Unabomber.


    How long do you think it will be before the only way not to cause thousands of blips in various companies' databases every time you go outside will be to live in a shack in Montana? And you will have no recourse, in the name of private property.

  • Well, I guess that's one more place to add to the ever-growing places where I won't shop. Pretty soon I'm going to have to become a hermit and start hunting and foraging for food. There won't be any place else left for me to go. :(

    FP
  • I called a local borders to complain, and they gave me a customer care line at 1(800)566-6616 give em a call, and let them know why theyve lost your business.
  • The problem with this is that the software needs a source of poeple who shoplift. You could a) Digitize public record information. You could take all those arrested or convicted, etc. Generally speaking a merchant will ask a known shoplifter to leave. I had a friend of mine asks to leave a Barnes and Noble as he was walking up to the check out counter. Sure, they were merchant was right on, as a teen he'd ripped them off. He was asain. However, my other friend who was white and had been ripping them off on a weekly basis walked around the store without a word.

    So, basically we are creating a system where the crimes of a youth could haunt those into adulthood. This isn't exactly a good thing for thge merchant. People grow up, and when they do they tent to buy things. Although I think in the long run the merchant loses out, the merchant is free to act however they please in this country. Just as I am free to not buy from them, or someone else is free to sue them for discrimination.

    My biggest fear to using public records for face reconition is that you create a system where those who can afford good representation often won't be convicted when they should. Even with a Public Defender a white person is far more likely to be offered a special program that will not place the shoplifting conviction in the public record.

    B) Would be to digitize ID from those caught shoplifting on tape. This has the same problem as normal CCTV. You have so much information you have to decide who you are going to concentrate on. There have been a number of shows on racial profiling in retail security over the years. Almost all have demonstrated that minorities are targeted. So when security adds faces to the database are they getting 80% of the minorities caught on tape shoplifting while at the same time getting only 30% of other groups.

    While most companies have policies that are designed to avoid profiling and discrimination the fact is you cannot anticipte the how every employee is going to act.

    The best idea is not to have a system that tracks peoples faces, but instead tracks the books and detects when people take them.
  • What's really odd about this is that Borders, like most retail outlets, really does little to combat shoplifting other than post signs like "we prosecute shoplifting" and placing token (and often fake) security cameras. I've known several people in retail marketing and they had rules stating that they could not stop someone shoplifting. They could try and guilt them into retreat ("My what a bulging purse you have") or something, but were not allowed to actually accuse the person. The retailers are too scared of lawsuits to do this. At stores like Best Buy with higher value items, they have security systems where official guards will monitor cameras and then get conclusive evidence, but at clothes outlets and places like Borders, there's no such security. There are tons of folks who go around casually stealing items, walk out, and then go across town to return the items to a different store for cash or credit. It's amazing how many upper middle class people do this. I guess it's some way to break the monotany of suburban life.



  • Well here's an interesting thought. Having done some work in biometric identification, there are a couple of questions I'd like to see Borders answers before snappng my photo. First, who owns the data of my image ? Second, having never committed a crime more than perhaps checking out a book there before buying it from Amazon.com, are they entitled under the law to scan and process my image without my permission ?


    As for the pre-online buy purchase, those of us in the D.C. area can now save a trip Borders altogether with our local ReadMeDoc.com [readmedoc.com]. THough anyone, anywhere can still enjoy their steep discounts. I know, because I'm good for at least 1 book a month from them. And the only facial scan I get is the smiling young lady at the cash register who makes everyone feel welcome.

  • Good thing most industrialized nations are (at least in theory) democratic. This sort of thing is probably not illegal. It probably should be. Call your reps.


    It's one thing for Borders to watch their own stores... if they license the software and maintain their own database, fine. But if a single company is selling access to a central database to multiple clients, we're on dangerous ground. One could reduce this to a weak metaphor involving neighboorhood watches or some such, but the fact remains that we're talking about something entirely new.


    This is a snowball, rolling downhill. We're talking about a network effect that's capable of galvanizing a class system that's already largely in effect in the United States. Consider the social costs of commercial ostracization. Imagine an entire class of people who are barred permanently from all major stores.


    Think that's a stretch? Have you noticed how hard it is for fugitives to evade detection by police agencies? Consider yourself in the same situation, always watched, an outcast... despite having (A) not committed a crime, or (B) having committed a petty crime sometime in the past, for whatever reason. Would someone who doesn't have such troubles want to spend much time with you, the branded criminal? And remember, this is not a system under public control.


    I don't believe the intentions of those deploying this system are sinister-- they just want to protect what's theirs. I don't believe the technology itself can or should be stopped-- as I said before, I'm okay with Borders watching its own doors. It's the network effect, the sharing/selling/distribution of this information, that is dangerous and that we need to prevent.

  • The story mentions Borders using a union-busting firm. [jacksonlewis.com] Maybe this is really to recognize known union organizers.
    • " The story mentions Borders using a union-busting firm. [jacksonlewis.com] Maybe this is really to recognize known union organizers."

      I'd imagine this will be used for MANY purposes, not to mention, marketing purposes.

      All the more reason to buy your stuff online, from a reputable supplier.

      This is definately a chance for the ./ crowd to make a difference... Where do we geeks have MORE disporportionate purchasing power than at the bookstores?
  • I've bought a lot of Linux books there too. I spend $200 a month on books, if not more, but I'll not feed a company that uses such evil technology.

    The average computer (which runs Doze) can't run for a week without crashing, what makes anyone think that they can accurately identify people from fuzzy photos?

    I'm thinking that there is going to be a HUGE market in the near future for hats/headgear that mask your face from cameras.
  • ...then I strongly encourage you to read the book Database Nation [databasenation.com].

    Just don't buy it at Borders...
  • Could I use this technology to scout for hot babes? Can it recognise a super model? Besides face recognition, could it also identify a sweet piece of ass that I might be interested in talking to? What about boob-scanning capability? We need to use this technology wisely is all I'm saying.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Close