Should UK Stores Use Facial Recognition Tech to Fight Shoplifting? (yahoo.com) 109
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."
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."
Society of laws (Score:1, Troll)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> you can make a store in the style of Amazon Go
Every store already is like Amazon Go...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Needs Controls (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're also sharing the info. Be pretty shitty to look similar to a shop lifter and be banned from all stores.
Re:Split on this (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would you give shoplifters such a free pass as to make real video evidence of their crime inadmissible? What happened to you to make you think this is okay? Are you a career shoplifter? Nothing else makes sense. Is that how you were raised? Were your parents shoplifters too?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I am against mass surveillance used selectively to harass, things like that.
That isn't at all what you said you were against.
You said me, as a single individual, meaning one person not capable of mass-anything let alone mass surveilling, can't use anything I record on my cell phone documenting a crime committed against me, in court.
You described me recording a person walking in my house and stealing something, a crime the courts should ignore.
Look at your words:
Just make petty crime video surveillance inadmissible in court and illegal to use for any purpose other than resolving vio
Re: (Score:2)
Try again .. I obviously didn't mean the extreme situations of someone burglarizing a home. I never said robbery was OK .. quit projecting that on me you ass .. nor did I say anything about burglary of a residence. Someone who shoplifts an item from the store is not necessarily the type to burglarize a store. How did they stop shoplifting before video surveillance? Last I checked people have been convicted of shoplifting long before cameras were invented. It's a non-issue. I specifically said petty crimes.
Re: (Score:1)
Where do I say that I am cool with people stealing though, which is what you implied. I am against mass surveillance being used for harassment which can come about when you have every little city ordinance and minor violation captured on camera. You really want the police filled up with having to deal with every little petty ordinance violation instead of catching dangerous criminals you want neighborhood kids arrested for skateboarding and things like that?
Re: (Score:2)
And btw, I have a lot of cameras all over my property. I am not against surveillance .. just using it for petty shit.
brutal logical fallacy (Score:2)
Hey, this makes you unfit for any reasonable discussion: "you want neighborhood kids arrested for skateboarding?"
non-issue? $30 billion! (Score:2)
"How did they stop shoplifting before video surveillance? Last I checked people have been convicted of shoplifting long before cameras were invented. It's a non-issue."
How did they stop shoplifting, you ask? The answer is simple: they didn't.
Your "non-issue" has some $30 billion in size. From the most recent Retail Security Survey:
- 1.4% of inventory gets lost which represents $95 billion
- 37% is attributed to "external theft" (mostly shoplifting, plus "organized retail crime" which itself consists mostly o
Re: (Score:2)
Based on those numbers, it sounds to me like they would be better off using technological advances to track their actual products rather than the faces of their customers.
Re: (Score:2)
"track their actual products"
You didn't know they actually do this?
But for cheap items, it's not economically viable.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant track the products in real time with the same kind of technology they use to track the customers. Instead of recognizing customer faces, use the security cameras to track the products. Figure out when it's taken off the shelf in real-time and where it goes. If it goes out of site into a bag or something like that, follow the bag and watch for it to come out again. That obviously requires some reasonably sophisticated AI, but we are to the point where we should be able to build that, and you only nee
one entrance, many shelves (Score:2)
"Figure out when [a product is] taken off the shelf "
How many cameras would you need in a typical store?
Re: (Score:2)
How many cameras would you need in a typical store?
Many, many cameras. Several for every aisle. Cameras are pretty cheap though. Of course, multiple layers of middle men and specialists can make cheap cameras pretty expensive. Still, if the loss numbers are as bad as they're claimed to be, then it would probably be worth it. Certainly more worth it than banning for life anyone who has shoplifted in the past or who just looks like someone who has shoplifted in the past. Brick and mortar retail stores just can't afford to alienate customers like that. Make no
oh, you care about store owners... (Score:2)
I thought this is a privacy issue.
If it's about the risks for stores, let their owners decide whether to use facial recognition or deploy an inventory-tracking solution.
Probably, they will opt for some combination of the two - important is that they have a choice.
You know, effectivity/economic viability is essential: we don't want to subsidize the losses from shoplifting, do we?
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely more of a privacy issue with the facial tracking/personal identification aspect than just product tracking, even if it requires a ton of cameras in the store. We've already had no reasonable expectation of not being on camera at stores for a good what few decades. Maybe half a century at this point. If a tracking AI gets thrown into it, then it's more creepy if it's focused on people's identities. I suppose I was thinking that, if you could choose between the two, it would be better to go with th
home burglary in not high felony (Score:2)
"Just make petty crime video surveillance inadmissible in court and illegal to use for any purpose other than resolving violent felonies or high crimes."
Why do you pretend in this discussion you didn't write this?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you pretend in this discussion that I wrote high felony when I wrote high crime. I don't see the point of this BS argument if you are going to make it about technicalities and semantics. I told you my position clearly and the reasons:
1. I am not in favor of people getting away with crime.
2. I don't believe mass surveillance should be allowed to be taken advantage of for the purpose of harassment, therefore I don't think it makes sense to allow prosecutions of minor crimes via it.
3. I brought up the 4
Re: Split on this (Score:5, Informative)
They aren't stealing bread, they are stealing high value small items like razor refills and baby formula, usually to sell in other shops at a discount. There are gangs of mostly Eastern Europeans targeting stores in the U.K. with special made dresses that can hold a serious amount of theft.
But nobody goes to jail for shoplifting here, it's community sentences with fines, and they are back doing it again next week.
Re: (Score:2)
There are gangs of mostly Eastern Europeans [...] But nobody goes to jail for shoplifting here.
But if they are gangs, it's not simple shoplifting, it's organized crime. Shouldn't it prosecuted more seriously? At least from what I hear outside UK, the issue is not necessarily that "nobody goes to jail for shoplifting", it's that the perpetrators are often minors so milder rules apply, and the gang leaders are clever enough to not get caught.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Run a shoplifter through the system and incarcerate them, now what? It actually costs more than doing nothing, if you have a system that has anything like checks and balances in it. It wasn't a problem before you had so many people with so little hope. Capitalism keeps promising solutions to this problem and then making it worse. The system is collapsing under the weight of the greed that created it. The idea that it's more noble to protect profits for a privileged few than to care for all people is not onl
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I couldn't help noticing that they mentioned "high value small items like razor refills and baby formula" Both of those items being high value in the first place demonstrates a diseased society, each in its own way. The baby formula one is an example. A functional society just wouldn't allow for the possibility that anyone would need to steal to feed a baby. The razor refills are talking about cartridge razors which are a completely unnecessary and wasteful expense which are encouraged by manufacturers and
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't stealing it to feed a starving baby. Baby formula from the UK, Australia etc commands a big premium in China and other countries because it is absolutely guaranteed to be free of contamination etc or counterfeit.
Supermarkets were being stripped by Chinese of Baby Formula to send to China. Now they operate a purchase limit system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Not enough at this point actually. (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
Every good moral panic (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
That is all.
Design vs Behavior (Score:1)
With Proper Notice (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
They do. Normally someone at the door with a CCTV panel in front of them.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: With Proper Notice (Score:2)
Camera surveillance signs are in a lot of places already.
Or they could end austerity (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This is because they didn't brexit properly.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Idaho residents certainly are free to subscribe to ACA insurance. What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
Re: (Score:3)
people shoplift because they don't have taxpayer-funded midnight basketball.
https://www.theguardian.com/so... [theguardian.com]
enrichment activities often based around youth centres, as well as targeted provision for vulnerable young people, including teenage pregnancy advice, youth justice support, and drug and alcohol misuse services.
So go fuck yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
So go fuck yourself even more.
Press Your Luck (Score:2)
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)
Bigger problem (Score:2)
That being said, I can forecast a future news headline: "Should UK Stores Use Guillotines to Kill Shoplifters?"
right for anonymity? (Score:2)
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"...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
shoplifting to have your basic needs met? (Score:2)
"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.
This is already implemented at Targets and WalMart (Score:2)
Re:This is already implemented at Targets and WalM (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not murder if it's self-defence (by the police in this case I presume).
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?
Re: (Score:1)
"You have 10 seconds to comply," comes to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the store is called TARGET. What did you expect was going to happen?
The shit is already illegal. (Score:2)
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.
And in other news... (Score:2)
Sales of high quality Boris Johnson masks have skyrocketed.
Already another solution (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This will be the same Tory party which was voted back into office with a massive majority over Labour
Re: (Score:2)
How good is this tech? (Score:1)
"Youâ(TM)ve got to help yourself," (Score:2)
"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.
Data retention is part of the problem (Score:2)
melanin (Score:2)
The darker the skin, the less reliable is face recognition. So, this would actually be anti-racist.
Gathering data on individuals ... (Score:2)
...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 ...
They already do... (Score:2)
Facial recognition for security? You mean like security guards and staff that can recognize trouble makers?
Re:no of course not (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
your a bigot.
That's you're problem
Re: (Score:2)
So, burn security guards and staff who are able to remember troublemakers and repeat shoplifters. Gotcha.