Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI Crime United Kingdom

Should UK Stores Use Facial Recognition Tech to Fight Shoplifting? (yahoo.com) 109

Posted by EditorDavid from the robo-cops dept.
The New York Times tells the story of Simon Mackenzie, a security officer at a U.K. discount store uploading security camera footage of shoplifters into a facial recognition program called Facewatch. "The next time those people enter any shop within a few miles that uses Facewatch, store staff will receive an alert."

Facewatch — now in nearly 400 stores across Britain — licenses facial recognition software made by Real Networks and Amazon. Though it only sends alert about repeat offenders, "Once added, a person remains there for a year before being deleted." For as little as 250 pounds a month, or roughly $320, Facewatch offers access to a customized watchlist that stores near one another share. When Facewatch spots a flagged face, an alert is sent to a smartphone at the shop, where employees decide whether to keep a close eye on the person or ask the person to leave. Mr. Mackenzie adds one or two new faces every week, he said, mainly people who steal diapers, groceries, pet supplies and other low-cost goods. He said their economic hardship made him sympathetic, but that the number of thefts had gotten so out of hand that facial recognition was needed. Usually at least once a day, Facewatch alerts him that somebody on the watchlist has entered the store...

Among democratic nations, Britain is at the forefront of using live facial recognition, with courts and regulators signing off on its use. The police in London and Cardiff are experimenting with the technology to identify wanted criminals as they walk down the street. In May, it was used to scan the crowds at the coronation of King Charles III. But the use by retailers has drawn criticism as a disproportionate solution for minor crimes. Individuals have little way of knowing they are on the watchlist or how to appeal. In a legal complaint last year, Big Brother Watch, a civil society group, called it "Orwellian in the extreme...." Madeleine Stone, the legal and policy officer for Big Brother Watch, said Facewatch was "normalizing airport-style security checks for everyday activities like buying a pint of milk."
There is a human in the loop, the article points out. "Every time Facewatch's system identifies a shoplifter, a notification goes to a person who passed a test to be a 'super recognizer' — someone with a special talent for remembering faces. Within seconds, the super recognizer must confirm the match against the Facewatch database before an alert is sent."

The company's founder tells the Times that in general, "mistakes are rare but do happen... If this occurs, we acknowledge our mistake, apologize, delete any relevant data to prevent reoccurrence and offer proportionate compensation."

And the article adds this official response from the U.K. government: Fraser Sampson, Britain's biometrics and surveillance camera commissioner, who advises the government on policy, said there was "a nervousness and a hesitancy" around facial recognition technology because of privacy concerns and poorly performing algorithms in the past. "But I think in terms of speed, scale, accuracy and cost, facial recognition technology can in some areas, you know, literally be a game changer," he said. "That means its arrival and deployment is probably inevitable. It's just a case of when."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Should UK Stores Use Facial Recognition Tech to Fight Shoplifting? More

Should UK Stores Use Facial Recognition Tech to Fight Shoplifting?

Comments Filter:

  • Make it as illegal as shoplifting, a crime of course .. but don't prosecute anyone for it. As for what happens to shoplifters, what would a shoplifter do to you if you stole back stuff they stole?

  • Split on this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mattventura ( 1408229 ) on Saturday July 01, 2023 @06:19PM (#63649632) Homepage

    Orwellian? Certainly. But you do have the right to monitor and record your premises, and prohibit people from entering your property. We're also at the point where many police departments are overloaded or don't care about small-value thefts like this. Shoplifting as a criminal career has the advantage that if you steal a little from one store, a little from another store, it all adds up, but no individual incident is enough to trigger a proper police response.

    But from a privacy standpoint? On one hand, I wouldn't trust them at all to not misuse this data. They could easily track anyone's shopping habits and behavior using this system. On the other hand, the recording and monitoring already happens - they are merely using the data in a different manner, rather than collecting more data, and it might even be naive to assume they aren't already doing this. From a privacy realism standpoint, you might be able to stop giving a particular piece of data, but once the data has been collected, it's an exercise in futility to tell them how they're allowed to use the data.

    • Now, I would also like to add that there's an alternative - you can make a store in the style of Amazon Go. But that has a few problems. It doesn't scale down - a mom and pop shop can't afford a system like that, whereas the facial recognition option really just requires a camera and an online service. It also is inconvenient due to needing an account, acting as a minor deterrent to shopping at new places. Finally, it doesn't fix privacy issues much, since you need an account with attached electronic paymen

    • Orwellian? Certainly. But you do have the right to monitor and record your premises, and prohibit people from entering your property.

      There are more limitations on this when you are providing a public service but in general I would agree with one very important proviso. Anyone they ban should be able to claim significant compensation should the allegations prove to be wrong e.g. if the recognition system incorrectly identified someone.

      Claiming "it was just the algorithm" should not be an excuse that lets them off the hook. If they are going to use an automated system to effectively accuse people of shoplifting then they need to be hel

      • Re:Needs Controls (Score:4, Insightful)

        by kmoser ( 1469707 ) on Saturday July 01, 2023 @11:15PM (#63650144)
        It's not automatically accusing anyone of shoplifting. It's comparing their image to images of known shoplifters, and giving the store owner a reason to kick the person out of their store if they so desire. "You look like a known shoplifter" is not the same as "you *are* a shoplifter." The outcome wouldn't be any different if the store owner thinks they recognize a shopper from a previous shoplifting incident, but turns out to be wrong. The main difference in this new scenario is that an AI is doing the initial recognizing, and it's happening at scale.

        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by splitstem ( 10397791 )

          You don't have to even tell someone why they are not allowed in the store. A lot of Las Vegas casinos share blacklists, and if someone hits their facial recognition system, they are told to leave or face trespass charges, and if they ask why, it is the decision of the casino that they are not going to do business with them, and that is all that is needed to know.

          The problem is that even with a system like this in the US, someone who is on the ban-list is still going to come in and steal stuff, and the LP g

          • One day they will turn away someone rich enough to sue for discrimination. Someone who has not been a shoplifter but has just gone shopping and finds that the security system doesn't like his face.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dryeo ( 100693 )

          They're also sharing the info. Be pretty shitty to look similar to a shop lifter and be banned from all stores.

    • I don't mind, providing the data stays internal to the shop brand. What I don't want to see is the data/service going corporate. A world where G4S is on every door providing security services could be terrible for identical twins or similar who are wrongfully profiled. Could really ruin someone's life if they're in a situation that they didn't create.

      If, the service included several biometric points, their gait, their face etc *and* internal shop monitoring may help. IE, flag them up near the exit to make s

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      This is an area actively being fought over. It was initially thought that GDPR made using CCTV and face recognition data for more than loss prevention was not allowed, but lately companies have been arguing that they have a "legitimate interest" in tracking people because it helps their business.

      That claim is, IMHO, very weak and not at all what GDPR was designed to do. The problem is that it needs regulators to making rulings confirming that, and they tend to be slow doing it.

    • My town has a solution for this: close the shops. Our shopping centre (aka. mall) is about half full, and all that's left are jewelers and mobile phone shops. Elsewhere there are plenty of empty shop fronts too. Those that still trade look like they're either haemorrhaging money, or else they're just there to launder money or something.

      Shoplifting ought to be on the major decrease - there are less shops to lift. A trend seemingly set to continue (not least because who wants to be surveilled?). It's much har

  • Stores will have to use "membership" programs and other mechanisms of verifying ID more explicitly. Along with automatic doors that only open once ID is validated.

    Too many stupid people not appreciating the consequences.

    And anywhere "this" doesn't work... prepare for a complete wasteland. No one is going to sell you things if you all you do is steal.

    Also, as risk is going up, all the prices are going up.

    And unemployment is going to go up for obvious reasons.

    Play stupid games... win the stupidest of prizes.

    • I have a feeling that what we will see stored evolve into are automated, drive-through places, as well as lockers. One places an order via an app online, goes through the drive-through, their stuff is placed in a window, and bulletproof doors open, similar to how a lot of gas stations operate after midnight, doing all transactions through a deposit drawer. The lockers will be for the big stuff, and one will go there, fetch their items.

      The problem is that businesses can only so much. If we wind up going b

      • Consider the counter point of Detroit or Chicago... and yet no ground swell for republicans despite decades of fraud, failing institutions, and incompetence.

        Sometimes the doom loop just takes a place... and then like the monkey that orgasms every time he presses the button wired to his brain... the whole community... country... people... just keep pressing the button that leads to ruin until someone else comes along... and conquers them.

        I'm seeing a lot of doubling down on a lot of stupid things. People sta

  • needs to end with giving up some of your rights.

    • needs to end with giving up some of your rights.

      These are private businesses. This is only the next step in stores already recording you. The government is not taking anything away from you.

  • No (Score:2)

    by Morpeth ( 577066 )

    That is all.

  • It's interesting how they design this system that's able to delete some privacy, and they sell it to you as ok by describing planned or operational behaviors for how they use it. If they're going to describe behaviors that make it ok, maybe they could describe how their operation of this system is externally audited by an organization that in invested in monitoring for privacy abuse. Sort of how, if you have centrifuges that are designed to be able to enrich uranium, the IAEA is much less interested in yo
  • Require signs as large as the largest signs on the premises stating that all customers are constantly surveilled and recorded, along with PA announcements to that effect every 3 minutes.

    • Require signs as large as the largest signs on the premises stating that all customers are constantly surveilled and recorded, along with PA announcements to that effect every 3 minutes.

      Most stores I've been in have such signs up. Some even use the cutesy, "Smile, you're on camera" signs. This is in the U.S., but I'm fairly certain UK stores do something similar.

    • First of all, no one's going to follow your suggestions.
      Second, no government is going to require anyone to follow your suggestions.
      Third, facial recognition is pretty much everywhere already.

  • Or they could end austerity (Score:3)

    by The Evil Atheist ( 2484676 ) on Saturday July 01, 2023 @07:56PM (#63649798)
    Maybe cutting youth services was not a good idea?

    • This is because they didn't brexit properly.

      • There was no "proper" way to Brexit. The UK didn't know how good they had it as part of the EU, until they cut the cord. There are major advantages to belonging to a free trade union, as the 50 United States of America have so clearly illustrated.

        • Sure! Free trade union! People in Idaho, for example, are totally free to subscribe to medical insurance offered next door in Washington! Oh, wait...

          • Yes, Idaho residents certainly are free to subscribe to ACA insurance. What's your point?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dryeo ( 100693 )

            At the worst, they free to move across the State border, unlike if they want to go next door to BC to subscribe to BC Health.

    • What the UK is finding out, is that you can't just magically fund everything with government spending. The NHS is a prime example. It's been held up as an example of how nationalized healthcare should be done. It started out great, but pretty quickly the government ran out of money to fund the program. That's how it *always* happens. Give away free stuff, the people will take more and more of it, until there isn't enough to go around.

      • Re:Or they could end austerity (Score:4, Insightful)

        by The Evil Atheist ( 2484676 ) on Sunday July 02, 2023 @02:28AM (#63650358)
        No, the government has been playing from the conservative handbook and defunding things that were working and providing value, and then pointing at the expected failures and saying "see government doesn't work!".

        You fell for it.

        The NHS was not supposed to make a profit. It did what it set out to do, which was decrease healthcare costs to the whole country. The government's continued cuts is what is making it fail.

        • Here's the thing. If you design a government program so that it only works when liberals are in power, you've failed already. The fact is that roughly half of Americans and Brits are conservative, and will elect conservative officials now and then. A government program, to be effective and lasting, has to be designed to work well for all major political parties. This is called negotiation. Yes, it works. In the US, the Social Security System has withstood challenges from both parties over decades. Nobody ge

    • Maybe cutting youth services was not a good idea?

      Right ... people shoplift because they don't have taxpayer-funded midnight basketball.

      (And that's stipulating your premise that they don't, which I don't buy, BTW. Nothing has been "cut". Possibly not raised quite as fast as you would have liked, but even that I doubt.)

  • This is standard operating procedure for casinos in the USA. If you are a suspected card counter (which is in no way illegal), you'll get facialed and all the other subscribing casinos will get an alert the next time you show up on anyone's properties.

    I think they also probably do it to favorite customers, with the opposite polarity at the door, of course. They probably don't share those records except for partner casinos, though; not anyone subscribing to the database.

  • Hell yeah (Score:3)

    by FudRucker ( 866063 ) on Saturday July 01, 2023 @09:12PM (#63649910)
    If security cams catch a known habitual shoplifter, then have security guards kick em out of the store, and if they return they get arrested for trespassing too
  • If you're suggesting that an entire country should use facial recognition tech to fight shoplifting, I'd say you have a much bigger societal issue on your hands that facial recognition can never fix. I'd also say you're willfully ignoring that problem, and probably part of the cause, by trying to automate away your troubles.

    That being said, I can forecast a future news headline: "Should UK Stores Use Guillotines to Kill Shoplifters?"

    • The underlying issue here is whether there should be a right to remain anonymous.
      To all those who think so: please note that in history, you never had this right. You were pretty well-known in your circles.
      Until relatively recently, the level of privacy people enjoyed had been much lower than what will likely remain even after all these Orwellian tools are in place.
      Just for all of us to understand what is "normal"...

      • The underlying issue here is whether there should be a right to remain anonymous.

        The underlying issue here is whether there should be a right to have your basic needs met.

        • "The underlying issue here is whether there should be a right to have your basic needs met."
          How does the issue of facial recognition used to curb shoplifting relate to whether or not you have a right to have your basic needs met?

          The only connection I can see is that shoplifting serves as a social justice tool.
          Is this what you wanted to say?

          If yes - well, this takes the whole discussion to yet another level :-)
          If not, your comment makes no sense to me.

  • Hate to break it to you folks, but they've been running with this for years. A target near me has has the system auto dial the cops and they will nail them on vide4o evidence the stuff they stole last week. You see, the theft is reviewed by humans to really decide if there was a crime. If so, they just wait for the face top walk into any of the Target Stores, and if so the police are called by the system.. No human interaction is necessary until the guys with the guns show up. This had even led to a sh

    • Re:This is already implemented at Targets and WalM (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LubosD ( 909058 ) on Sunday July 02, 2023 @02:03AM (#63650336)

      Never had a murder by gunshot occurred in this town

      It's not murder if it's self-defence (by the police in this case I presume).

      Who will be accountable for the wreckage?

      How's that even a question? The guy with a gun who decided to shoot at the police is responsible.

      Do you think we should ignore crime just to that it doesn't escalate?

    • "You have 10 seconds to comply," comes to mind.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cstacy ( 534252 )

      So, let's recap. a pair of thieves come to TARGET, one goes inside and shoplifts while the wheel-man waits outside. The AI recognizes the known criminal who comes into the store and it calls the police to report shoplfting. The cops show up to investigate the crime. The wheel-man sees cops (who don't even know who they are yet) and suddenly pulls a gun on the police. Cop responds in self-defense and a gun battle ensues, killing the armed robber who attempted the surprise attack.

      Your analysis: it doesn't mat

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cstacy ( 534252 )

      Well, the store is called TARGET. What did you expect was going to happen?

  • No.

    This is just a back door into the surveillance state.

    Kick all the police off their computers and stop harassing people on Twitter.
    Retrain them for stopping actual street crime.
    Then ARM THEM and put them out on the damn street to do their fucking jobs.

  • Sales of high quality Boris Johnson masks have skyrocketed.

  • Already another solution (Score:4, Interesting)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Sunday July 02, 2023 @06:15AM (#63650584)
    In the UK, supermarkets are taking a different approach: If you're poor & can't afford to buy basic things that you need, i.e. nappies, sanitary care products, milk, etc., you can ask at customer service & they'll provide those items to you free of charge. That greatly reduces the 'shoplifting' out of desperation & prevents criminalising people for being poor. It also provides the opportunity to direct people who are struggling towards social services, food banks, & other community care organisations.

    Another point is, if you want to catch shoplifters who do so out of criminal intent, how well does face recognition technology work out in the real world with adversarial targets? Let's see some independent data to support their claims & give careful consideration to the broader consequences before we literally give carte blanche to private companies to start gathering photos & video of everyone without oversight or right to privacy or appeal. These companies have a long history of seeking higher-paying clients in law enforcement & security agencies, which brings up additional concerns about civil liberties & human rights, as well as selling people's data on to data brokers to be used & abused outside of the relevant countries' jurisdiction.
    • It's worth adding that the current administration in the UK, the Tory Party, has a decades-long track record for abusing human rights & for trying to weaken existing human rights laws, e.g. the courts have just struck down an attempt to deport refugees to internment camps in Rwanda. Yes, you read that right, Rwanda: https://www.hrw.org/world-repo... [hrw.org]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hoofie ( 201045 )

        This will be the same Tory party which was voted back into office with a massive majority over Labour

        • Yeah, it would appear that the UK electorate either don't care about or are directly opposed to human rights & living in a kind society. That, or the Tory Party lie, misdirect, bait-and-switch, constantly renege on their promises/commitments, & seem to be more swayed by their extremist, borderline fascist (& I'm sure some closet outright fascist) donors than the people they serve. Luckily, they're so incompetent that the total amount of damage they can do is at least somewhat limited but they ha
  • Unless it's a standing still high pixel/high detail reference, like they are getting their portrait taken, I feel like it's going to do false positives - I've seen at least a few people walking around looking like me - or am I the only one?

  • "Youâ(TM)ve got to help yourself," he said. "You canâ(TM)t expect the police to come."

    I don't like the facial recognition idea, but you can't argue with that.

  • At least this particular provider sunsets data after a year. A lot keep it indefinitely to build a massive database to sell which makes this *slightly* better than a lot of options in that end of things

  • The darker the skin, the less reliable is face recognition. So, this would actually be anti-racist.

  • ...is heavily regulated ... I suspect the stores are going to fall foul of this very quickly

    Some tried this a few years ago, and stopped because they were paying the surveillance companies more than they were losing in revenue due to shoplifting, and they were horrifically unreliable and regularly accused people with no criminal record ... and lost more in compensation ...

  • Facial recognition for security? You mean like security guards and staff that can recognize trouble makers?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Survey says..." -- Richard Dawson, weenie, on "Family Feud"

Close