Rite Aid Banned From Using Facial Recognition Software 60
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Rite Aid has been banned from using facial recognition software for five years, after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) found that the U.S. drugstore giant's "reckless use of facial surveillance systems" left customers humiliated and put their "sensitive information at risk." The FTC's Order (PDF), which is subject to approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court after Rite Aid filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in October, also instructs Rite Aid to delete any images it collected as part of its facial recognition system rollout, as well as any products that were built from those images. The company must also implement a robust data security program to safeguard any personal data it collects.
A Reuters report from 2020 detailed how the drugstore chain had secretly introduced facial recognition systems across some 200 U.S. stores over an eight-year period starting in 2012, with "largely lower-income, non-white neighborhoods" serving as the technology testbed. With the FTC's increasing focus on the misuse of biometric surveillance, Rite Aid fell firmly in the government agency's crosshairs. Among its allegations are that Rite Aid -- in partnership with two contracted companies -- created a "watchlist database" containing images of customers that the company said had engaged in criminal activity at one of its stores. These images, which were often poor quality, were captured from CCTV or employees' mobile phone cameras.
When a customer entered a store who supposedly matched an existing image on its database, employees would receive an automatic alert instructing them to take action -- and the majority of the time this instruction was to "approach and identify," meaning verifying the customer's identity and asking them to leave. Often, these "matches" were false positives that led to employees incorrectly accusing customers of wrongdoing, creating "embarrassment, harassment, and other harm," according to the FTC. "Employees, acting on false positive alerts, followed consumers around its stores, searched them, ordered them to leave, called the police to confront or remove consumers, and publicly accused them, sometimes in front of friends or family, of shoplifting or other wrongdoing," the complaint reads. Additionally, the FTC said that Rite Aid failed to inform customers that facial recognition technology was in use, while also instructing employees to specifically not reveal this information to customers. In a press release, Rite Aid said that it was "pleased to reach an agreement with the FTC," but that it disagreed with the crux of the allegations.
"The allegations relate to a facial recognition technology pilot program the Company deployed in a limited number of stores," Rite Aid said in its statement. "Rite Aid stopped using the technology in this small group of stores more than three years ago, before the FTC's investigation regarding the Company's use of the technology began."
A Reuters report from 2020 detailed how the drugstore chain had secretly introduced facial recognition systems across some 200 U.S. stores over an eight-year period starting in 2012, with "largely lower-income, non-white neighborhoods" serving as the technology testbed. With the FTC's increasing focus on the misuse of biometric surveillance, Rite Aid fell firmly in the government agency's crosshairs. Among its allegations are that Rite Aid -- in partnership with two contracted companies -- created a "watchlist database" containing images of customers that the company said had engaged in criminal activity at one of its stores. These images, which were often poor quality, were captured from CCTV or employees' mobile phone cameras.
When a customer entered a store who supposedly matched an existing image on its database, employees would receive an automatic alert instructing them to take action -- and the majority of the time this instruction was to "approach and identify," meaning verifying the customer's identity and asking them to leave. Often, these "matches" were false positives that led to employees incorrectly accusing customers of wrongdoing, creating "embarrassment, harassment, and other harm," according to the FTC. "Employees, acting on false positive alerts, followed consumers around its stores, searched them, ordered them to leave, called the police to confront or remove consumers, and publicly accused them, sometimes in front of friends or family, of shoplifting or other wrongdoing," the complaint reads. Additionally, the FTC said that Rite Aid failed to inform customers that facial recognition technology was in use, while also instructing employees to specifically not reveal this information to customers. In a press release, Rite Aid said that it was "pleased to reach an agreement with the FTC," but that it disagreed with the crux of the allegations.
"The allegations relate to a facial recognition technology pilot program the Company deployed in a limited number of stores," Rite Aid said in its statement. "Rite Aid stopped using the technology in this small group of stores more than three years ago, before the FTC's investigation regarding the Company's use of the technology began."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, the (market) failure we observe here is that people still go back to a business that treats them like thieves by default.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Ironic that stores get persecuted for finding ways to defend themselves against shoplifters, while there are little to no consequences for theft. This is why the majority of SF is an urban dystopia with almost all stores, with Austin, Seattle and NYC in similar straits.
Shoplifting, and the lack of interest with governments enforcing laws is why the US has no malls anymore
Many malls were dead by 2009, deserted enclosed malls and also shopping centers; deserted, tumbleweeds blowing by. I saw lots of once-thriving, once pretty shopping malls closed and abandoned. It was eerie how fast it happened. (It may have been preceded by some over-building, don't remember). The problem was NOT theft and danger. It was sweeping economic downturn in many areas.
The other that killed many of the remaining malls was Amazon.
One of the major shopping malls just a couple miles outside of DC (nic
Re:Nothing done about larceny... (Score:5, Informative)
Ironic that stores get persecuted for finding ways to defend themselves against shoplifters, while there are little to no consequences for theft.
Seems to me the problem is that they were having so many false-positives, and accusing and even arresting perfectly innocent shoppers. Citizen customers who get no justice for such terrible assaults upon themselves. That's the real crime in this story.
Re: Nothing done about larceny... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Being asked/told to leave private property is not a "terrible assault". You must live in a very sheltered world if you think it is.
In fact, it's not even legally an assault of any sort.
So, there's actually NO crime in this story.
False arrest, for starters. Depending on exactly what transpired, possibly battery, very likely unlawful detainment (a variant of kidnapping). There is also defamation, according to the facts in the article. None of that is covered by shopkeeper's privilege laws, which do not allow for undue force, false imprisonment, false arrest (no probable cause, according to this report), and certainly not public defamation and resulting damages (including emotional distress).
But given your ad hominen, perhaps you are
Re: (Score:2)
Ironic that stores get persecuted for finding ways to defend themselves against shoplifters, while there are little to no consequences for theft.
Seems to me the problem is that they were having so many false-positives, and accusing and even arresting perfectly innocent shoppers. Citizen customers who get no justice for such terrible assaults upon themselves. That's the real crime in this story.
Indeed, making the average law abiding person suffer seems counter intuitive to me.
If theft is such a huge problem, maybe we should look at addressing the causes of theft, rather than make the stores into Fort Knox.
Nah, that's just too sensible.
Sigh (Score:5, Informative)
California voters passed Proposition 47 in November 2014. It downgraded many nonviolent offenses, including some nonviolent property crimes where the value does not exceed $950, into misdemeanors, according to the text of the measure.
It did not give shoppers a license to steal beneath that threshold, experts say.
Fact check: Illegal to stop retail theft in California? No, bill never proposed this
“What Prop 47 did was reclassify some low-level drug and property offenses as misdemeanors rather than felonies – still keeping them as crimes,” Kubrin said.
It established shoplifting as a misdemeanor and defined it as entering an open business with the intent to steal merchandise worth $950 or less. A conviction carries a punishment of up to six months in county jail and a $1,000 fine, according to its text.
Any other such entrance into a building with the intent to steal would qualify as burglary, according to the text of the measure. Second-degree burglary – which involves non-residential structures including stores and businesses – may be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony in what is called a “wobbler.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is why the majority of SF is an urban dystopia
obligatory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/1... [nytimes.com]
Re:Nothing done about larceny... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a reminder that false accusations of criminal activity and false filing of criminal complaints are themselves crimes. And of course using false information to have even licensed store security personnel detain Citizens is not only a crime but can be prosecuted as abduction.
Re: (Score:3)
You whooshed. The problem that got Rite-Aid in trouble isn't banning shoplifters or watching them closely. It's wrongly accusing innocent people of being shoplifters and banning them because a defective AI has confused them with an accused shoplifter.
The data they were using (photos) were poor quality and likely to cause mis-identifications. Since they obviously ham fisted the whole thing and in the process made many false accusations and mis-identifications, they have been ordered to destroy the dataset an
Re: (Score:2)
Shoplifting, and the lack of interest with governments enforcing laws is why the US has no malls anymore
Dude, not even. How can you say there are "no malls anymore"? On what cornfed hole do you live?
, or any retail spaces that are fun or pleasant to go to
I really wonder where you live.
Being banned and trespassed on site should be the consequences for shoplifting. Don't like it, don't steal from stores.
Cool rant, bro. It has nothing to do with the specific technical problem discussed in the article.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironic that stores get persecuted for finding ways to defend themselves against shoplifters, while there are little to no consequences for theft. This is why the majority of SF is an urban dystopia with almost all stores, with Austin, Seattle and NYC in similar straits.
Shoplifting, and the lack of interest with governments enforcing laws is why the US has no malls anymore, or any retail spaces that are fun or pleasant to go to.
Being banned and trespassed on site should be the consequences for shoplifting. Don't like it, don't steal from stores.
RiteAid has stolen more in wages than have been stolen more from by shoplifting. Wage theft eclipses all other forms of larceny, combined. Malls going out of business has nothing to do with shoplifting and everything to do with being a shit shopping experience. https://popular.info/p/rite-ai... [popular.info]
Low Effort Race-Baiting (Score:2, Insightful)
A Reuters report from 2020 detailed how the drugstore chain had secretly introduced facial recognition systems across some 200 U.S. stores over an eight-year period starting in 2012, with "largely lower-income, non-white neighborhoods" serving as the technology testbed.
Or maybe they chose stores with high shoplifting rates, i.e. something relevant to their goal instead of relevant to a ideological propagandist at Reuters.
Re: (Score:1)
It's the US, it's just as likely, "Do it in the [x] neighborhood, nobody will care" where 'x' can be 'black' or 'poor'.
Let's do some math!
Statistically the US is about 60% white and 12% black. 8.6% of American whites live in poverty compared to 17% for blacks. That means there are over twice as many poor white people as poor black people, simply because there are so many more whites.
To deploy something to "largely lower-income, non-white neighborhoods" sure as hell looks like you're targeting blacks, beca
Re: (Score:1)
That would be the racist assumption, yes. "Let's assume black people are animals with shitty cultural values and inherently inferior, and stop looking at other possibilities we might not like".
At least you were smart enough to post that as AC, there's hope you might figure your shit out some day.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it looks more like the innocent until proven guilty assumption.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true, or at least not what studies show. Studies that have actually been done on socioeconomic shoplifting find that shoplifting rates go up with income. "In fact, research consistently points to the wealthy being more apt to cheat, steal, and make unethical decisions than the poor."
A lot of shoplifting problems today are due to an increase in organized retail theft. "Organized retail crime now accounts for about half of store losses from theft."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
https://business.t [time.com]
It's extremely well documented (Score:4, Insightful)
As a direct result it was inevitable that a large percentage of African-American customers who had done absolutely nothing wrong would be asked to leave. That's not race-baiting that's just facts it make you personally uncomfortable.
As always facts don't care about your feelings and reality has a left-wing bias. But I'm sure you knew all this when you put your post up. It's a remarkably low effort troll post that you put up as quickly as possible so you could be at the top of the thread and get a few upvotes.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe they chose stores with high shoplifting rates, i.e. something relevant to their goal instead of relevant to an ideological propagandist at Reuters
That still doesn't explain, let alone justify, the profiling of innocent customers. That's how you lose customers.
But we hear your rant, loud and clear. You do you, bo.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe ... (some unsubstantiated bullshit)...
"I can't prove it, but I can say it." - Stephen Colbert
I don't see anything to complain about (Score:4, Informative)
They targeted thieves. The situation led to misidentification. OK. Still, the entire process was justified.
35 years ago, I toured a casino behind the scenes. The entire place was covered in cameras that could zoom in and see every single person and every single hand. Human beings monitored who came in and out, identifying cheaters. It was 100% justified.
I'm sad our local RiteAid shut. The workers and pharmacy staff all delivered great service. Now I'm even sadder.
Racism is real, but this false alarm BS is just pissing me off.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much the opposite of what Benjamin Franklin said. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
In Franklin's version, what makes a person guilty? Once you answer that, why should society allow 100 criminals to continue to make new victims? To make the idea clear, would you rather imprison 100 murderers and one innocent person, or none of them?
It is morally bankrupt to take that as an unqualified axiom.
Re: (Score:2)
The rationale is clearly expressed in various writings of the time. While they more usually said 10 guilty than 1 innocent, the argument holds.
If actual innocence cannot protect you from conviction, where is the incentive to be actually innocent? How can an actually innocent person feel secure if at any time they might be tried and convicted? In such a situation, the police and the courts become just yet another band of thugs you might fall victim to.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you'll think differently if you're the 1 innocent person in jail.
How would your life be if say tomorrow you were arrested and instead of celebrating the holidays, you got to spend it in a damn
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you are very righteously outraged, I am super impressed (/s). What if you or your loved ones are the next victim of one of those murderers that went free? Isn't catching criminals one of the main functions of the government?
Re: (Score:2)
Because someone, somewhere did something bad at Rite-aid? Descendants of slaves want to meet you. Descendants from countries invaded by European colonialists want to meet you. Their complaints against you, are totally justified.
Great. You won't complain when you're identified as a pedophile, or drug-dealer or foreign terrorist (with a fake accent). Then it will be okay to tell your friends and colleagues of your criminal status: Even better, your home address and criminal 'record' on the internet. It
Re: (Score:1)
stalk, belittle and molest
Woah, I missed this part of the article. I thought they were simply asked to leave.
Re: (Score:2)
They targeted thieves. The situation led to misidentification. OK. Still, the entire process was justified.
Good thing the courts disagree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
They targeted thieves. The situation led to misidentification. OK. Still, the entire process was justified.
35 years ago, I toured a casino behind the scenes. The entire place was covered in cameras that could zoom in and see every single person and every single hand. Human beings monitored who came in and out, identifying cheaters. It was 100% justified.
I'm sad our local RiteAid shut. The workers and pharmacy staff all delivered great service. Now I'm even sadder.
Racism is real, but this false alarm BS is just pissing me off.
This isn't a false alarm. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.
However your story about casinos indicates part of the problem. One of the biggest deterrents to crime is a visible law enforcement officer... or even a security guard. Shops want to cut costs by eliminating as many people as they can. Theft is largely a social problem so technological solutions are largely useless as humans are not making the decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the casinos ALSO banned people who were just too good at it.
It becomes much more serious when the activity is non-optional (gambling is just one form of recreation, but you may actually NEED a prescription) and the ban comes with an explicit public criminal accusation.
They didn't target thieves (Score:1)
This is all extremely well known and documented. Do even a little bit of googling and you'll find reams of articles and scientific journals about the problems facial recognition
Re: (Score:2)
Still, the entire process was justified.
Sure, the process itself is justified; however, the results are absolutely NOT justified. Some of the people caught up in the process were entirely innocent. That is 100% unacceptable.
Fix the process.
Re: (Score:2)
And how many people will be denied access to Rite-Aid (and other stores)?
I write "punishment" because the OP's blurb doesn't say that the USA Federal Government requires Rite-Aid to develop a functional system but The Federal Government required Rite-Aid to stop trying to reduce crime against their stores. Rite-Aid and its customers are the losers.
Every system can be improved and, in other areas, the Federal Government re
Re: (Score:2)
All that matters is what is the predominant race of who got approached. It doesn't actually matter whether the match was correct, or whether they actually were criminals, or whether 95% of customers are also that race.
Re: (Score:1)
No. Simply observing a pattern.
The government loves them some spy gear. THEN it's all "okay"!
But a corporation uses it to stop theft and the like and "NO! ACHTUNG! IST VERBOTEN!"
At no point did I say that facial recognition is AT ANY POINT okay.
Re: (Score:1)
It's funny how generalizing about one racial group as some kind of "enslavers" is perfectly acceptable and culturally normal, while generalizing another racial group based on criminal statistics is "racist".
This whole Rite Aid thing... on one hand people here scream for freedom, but then when a store wants to exercise their freedom to choose theft protection system they're all for regulation/courts/restrictions all of a sudden. Who cares what Rite Aid does, if it's more profitable for them to accuse people
The problem isn't the facial recognition (Score:4, Insightful)
In principle I don't see an issue with a private store having facial recognition to identify potential shoplifters. Walk into any corner store in NYC and you'll see the cashier has a list of names or photos of people that are not welcome. This is just an automated version.
The problem to me is that Rite Aid used it in really irresponsible ways. First, facial recognition is known to have false positives, so relying upon it to stop crime is ridiculous. The fact that this wasn't shut down immediately upon the first false positive tells you what Rite Aid thinks of their customer base. Second, asking store employees to confront people that are "recognized" by the facial recognition, even if those people aren't actively engaged in shoplifting, endangers the employees and legally exposes Rite Aid. I'm shocked the company doesn't have a legal division that could see this problem coming from a mile away.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm shocked the company doesn't have a legal division that could see this problem coming from a mile away.
Maybe they do, and they decided the money saved from reduced shoplifting was greater than any future fee.
Or maybe the legal team said the worst "problem", that they could see from a mile away, is that they would be banned from facial recognition software in the future. Aka the story we are commenting on. Who knows.
In trouble for doing the police's job (Score:4, Interesting)
Often (Score:2)
"Often, these "matches" were false positives". In other words, we can prove it happened 3 times.
Facial recognition? (Score:1)