'Orwellian' Facial Recognition Cameras In UK Stores Challenged By Rights Group (reuters.com) 23
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Shoppers at a supermarket chain in southern England are being tracked by facial recognition cameras, prompting a legal complaint by a privacy rights group. Big Brother Watch said Southern Co-operative's use of biometric scans in 35 stores across Portsmouth, Bournemouth, Bristol, Brighton and Hove, Chichester, Southampton, and London was "Orwellian in the extreme" and urged Britain's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to investigate whether it breaches data protection legislation.
The complaint claims the use of the biometric cameras "is infringing the data rights of a significant number of UK data subjects." It outlines how the facial recognition system, sold by surveillance company Facewatch, creates a biometric profile of every visitor to stores where the cameras are installed, enabling Southern Co-operative to create a "blacklist" of customers. If a customer on the list enters the store, staff are alerted. [...] "We take our responsibilities around the use of facial recognition extremely seriously and work hard to balance our customers' rights with the need to protect our colleagues and customers from unacceptable violence and abuse," Southern Co-operative said. It said it uses the facial recognition cameras only in stores where there is a high level of crime to protect staff from known offenders and does not store images of an individual unless they have been identified as an offender. Kmart and Bunnings stores in Australia are also being investigated for the privacy implications of their facial recognition systems. The two chains were trialing the technology to spot banned customers, prevent refund fraud and reduce theft.
The complaint claims the use of the biometric cameras "is infringing the data rights of a significant number of UK data subjects." It outlines how the facial recognition system, sold by surveillance company Facewatch, creates a biometric profile of every visitor to stores where the cameras are installed, enabling Southern Co-operative to create a "blacklist" of customers. If a customer on the list enters the store, staff are alerted. [...] "We take our responsibilities around the use of facial recognition extremely seriously and work hard to balance our customers' rights with the need to protect our colleagues and customers from unacceptable violence and abuse," Southern Co-operative said. It said it uses the facial recognition cameras only in stores where there is a high level of crime to protect staff from known offenders and does not store images of an individual unless they have been identified as an offender. Kmart and Bunnings stores in Australia are also being investigated for the privacy implications of their facial recognition systems. The two chains were trialing the technology to spot banned customers, prevent refund fraud and reduce theft.
They do this in Vegas... (Score:1)
In Vegas, a number of casinos use a service that does a facial scan of people, and if they are on a blacklist (usually because they were caught cheating), they are whisked out the front door or arrested for trespass. Pretty much, get banned from one casino, get banned from them all.
This is a good idea for shoplifting. Wish we had this in the US in grocery and retail stores, as it is the only real deterrent, since in some cities, at most, a shoplifter might get a ticket, or if it is below a certain amount,
Re: (Score:1)
Wish we had this in the US in grocery and retail stores
In the US, the employees steal nearly as much as the shoplifters [latimes.com].
It's why you've probably noticed self checkout lanes are all the rage lately. The store gets to eliminate some of those thieving employees, they don't have to write as many paychecks, and customers get a big fat camera pointed in their face while they scan their items (which probably does deter some percentage of fraud). It's wins for the store, all the way around.
Also, I'm too lazy to look up the statistics on it, but stores get rid of a to
Hmmm..... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Yep. It really is the same in the US. "You have the right to not speak, and we will arrest you for it." On a much smaller scale. I am somewhat terrified of what the UK has become. I am mostly terrified of who *let* it happen, though. Inevitably, people who approve such measures are those whose station makes them immune to such dystopian surveillance state practices.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to assume that they're ok with this sort of thing.
* That's Conservative with a capital "C", not conservative with a capitol riot, for you Americans.
Re:Hmmm..... (Score:4, Informative)
First past the post. The highest vote share the Conservative party has had over the 11 general elections you reference is 43.9%. If you want to assume that the UK populace is ok with having a Conservative government, you have to at least mention the referendum on ditching first past the post (and for balance it's worth also mentioning that it was a concession to the junior partner in a coalition and the proposed alternative, AV, wasn't actually what the junior partner wanted. If they'd negotiated harder and got a referendum for STV instead, perhaps the result would have been different because there would have been more people enthusiastic about it and campaigning for it.)
Re: (Score:2)
The referendum was set up to fail, as neither Labour nor the Conservatives want proportional voting, and they saw what happened when the voters of New Zealand went against the guidance of their political masters and not only ditched first past the post, but also opted for a mixed member proportional system which keeps the big two in check even more than other systems.
Re: (Score:3)
That comment made my day - thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You better believe that there's a pretty significant list of VIPs whitelisted because the company responsible for the hardware/software/contracts heavily "lobbied" them to get to where they are.
The hand that feeds, and all.
Re: (Score:1)
If you read the article, you will learn he was fined for swearing at the police rather than not showing his face.
does not store images of an individual? (Score:2)
So it does store the images then. People don't offend instantly.
New technology is good and bad. (Score:2)
Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
All new technology brings benefits and problems. Regulation can dramatically lessen the latter, when regulators catch up. I just hope it is done by well-planned legislation based on expert advice, and not courts making rules based on old laws that were never made with this technology in mind. Yeah, good luck!
Some Americans seem to be concerned about racism, but I don't get that. If you can identify people and judge them as individuals, there is less reason to p
Re: (Score:2)
I read your entire comment as roughly equivalent to "Let's just leave loaded guns lying around in public places, because they'll be convenient and because they might help some people to thwart some crimes. Regulation, when it catches up, will address any problems encountered in the early stages".
I implore you to give your head a shake, and to think about the inevitable and ongoing abuses and dangers that ubiquitous facial recognition will represent. As a starting point, think about "the uber-rich and the re
Orwellian and data rights? (Score:3)
"Orwellian in the extreme" and "infringing the data rights" just don't go together.
There were no rights rights in 1984. It's kind of the whole premise of the book, that even your thoughts are not yours. Technology was a gimmick to make the comically over the top hyper-fascism one step ahead of you, it's not really needed to tell the story. Spies on every corner morphed into listening devices in every bush, to make you feel utterly hopeless. The book still strings you along with maybe there's a resistance, maybe there's a way out, only to reveal that no, this is already a very solidly established, extremely fascist society, and it's too late. You don't need technology for that, the thing he's really warning you about.
The book is a warning about societies like North Korea, not the audacity of security cameras in the supermarket or any other technology for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the abundance and ultra-efficiency of surveillance technology contribute significantly to the hopelessness the protagonists and the readers feel. An observer in every room 24/7? In the countryside? Cannot be done with a spy network unless half the population is enlisted.
And even in democracies there are situations where some people and organizations have factual power over you and where only privacy protects you to some extend.
Repeat after me . . . (Score:2)
... Your right to privacy ends at your doorstep !
You do not have a right to privacy in a public place. You waive many of your rights when you enter into a privately owned building. Hell, you probably waive even more of your rights when you enter into a municipal building.
Re: (Score:2)
... Your right to privacy ends at your doorstep !
You do not have a right to privacy in a public place.
Says who? Obviously there are certain qualifications on your right to privacy, such as it is not a violation of that right to merely be observed, within reason, but that's hardly the same as saying there is no right to privacy at all. In particular, the use of CCTV is still governed by data protection laws.
You waive many of your rights when you enter into a privately owned building.
Which rights would those be? Again, data protection still very much applies.
Covid Bonus (Score:2)