Slashdot Mirror
Big Blue's Big Blue Eyes Are Watching You
russellamiller directs your gaze to this Technology Review article on eye-tracking, customer-watching camera systems based on IBM research from the company's Almaden reasearch campus. The tracking systems are set up to observe and interpret the behavior of those observed -- not just in casinos, or at the Superbowl, but in retail stores you may have already been in. Though names aren't named, the researchers say "a number of large retailers have implemented" the systems already. Does this bother you like it bothers Steve Mann?
Bet you don't shop at Walmart.
Infra-red light, such as what the BlueEyes system uses, can see right through regular sunglasses. So you're not safe there.
However, someone out there may sell sunglasses that block infra-red.
At a recent cypherpunks meeting, someone suggested wearing an infra-red light-source on a cap. It would be invisible to humans, but would blind many video cameras, as they tend to be sensitive to infra-red light. It would probably be especially effective against the BlueEyes system.
Anonymity is power!
But this makes me think about one of the arguments that I heard in a recent court case about using drug-sniffing dogs on a routine police stop. Those in favor of the use of the dogs asked if those opposed to the dogs would, hypothetically, be opposed to having a police officer with a "really good sense of smell" conduct the stop. To me, this raised the question of "how do you determine what is/isn't reasonable?"
Perhaps this nascent A.I. is all esoteric and high-tech stuff. But so was mp3 once upon a time. I was using computers back in the day of 2400 baud modems (and before) when the thought of a service like Napster was absolutely ludicrous and completely impractical. But today, we've gotten to the point where such technology is cheap and affordable to just about anyone. It seems crazy to try to stop it, if only because it is so easily and freely available. I have no doubt that some day such behavior-interpreting software will be easily and freely available as well. Maybe even Open-Sourced. And then how will we cope with such a world?
So what is my rambling point with this? Simply that, at some point, any advanced technology will eventually become so routine, commonplace, and easily available that trying to legislate it away becomes absurd. Imagine trying to argue that the use of glasses, contact lenses, or a hearing aid by a police officer constituted some sort of stepping over the bounds of governmental self-restraint. (And, yes, I realize that glasses, contact lenses, and such don't really enhance an individuals sensory abilities so much as raise them up to the level that a normal person posesses. But what happens when they can drastically extend a normal person's senses without them having to be burdened by carrying bulky attachments? And it's now commonplace in the U.S. for police cars to have a laptop computer with access to a large database of automobile license plates that are associated with outstanding warrants. Is that so different from other forms of sensory enhancement?)
One could make the argument that all this stuff is not that different than having an employee (or employees) of the store -- with has a high degree of perception about human nature and marketing -- stand out on the floor, making the same observations that the software is making. Except that using the software does it more efficiently and on a larger scale.
Don't get me wrong. I'm struggling to find a good argument against this stuff. Coz I hate it and it angers me. But I really don't know where it is reasonable to draw the line between using a sharp, perceptive person to make these observations and using cameras and software to do it. Especially when the cameras are already there. And the store does belong to them. It is their property, and customers are there of their own volition.
This stuff really bothers me, but where do you draw the line? What is it about using software to do this, instead of using a really perceptive person, that makes it going too far? How is this so different from the philosophical battle over DeCSS -- that one group of people wants to use some software that another group of people finds objectionable?
I am a strong supporter of Napster and DeCSS (and the Princeton professor who just withdrew his paper about cracking the SDMI watermark). I consider myself a big civil libertarian. I love the ACLU. But am I the only one who is bothered a little by the way that the lines can seem to be drawn somewhat arbitrarily?
Right now, the only clear distinction that I can see is "who are the Big Guys and who are the Little Guys?" If a big corporation wanted to use DeCSS and a lot of individuals were concerned that it would infringe on their individual rights (although it's difficult for me to envision right now exactly how that could come about, but please indulge me for just a moment), would Slashdotters be arguing the other direction?
It seems "obvious" to me that the use of this software by governments and corporations is wrong. But as I've discovered many times in the world of math and computer science, what at first seems "obvious" can often turn out to be quite false.
I, for one, would just feel a lot better if I could clearly delineate why this use of controversial, unpopular technology is Bad, but in the case of Napster and DeCSS the use of that controversial, unpopular (so to speak) technology is Good.
Anyways, those are my rambling thoughts. And I may be the only one who sees things that way. But if someone could make the good argument for me, I would greatly appreciate it.
He brings up some good points. "Shooting back"
Store owners see a lot of theft. A huge amount.
I remember once while I was in a 7-11 the store owner saw kids trying to steal beer on the camera.
The dome refereed to in his concerns are not to hide the existence of the camera.
No body will be fooled by that facade.
The function is to cover for a defect. Cameras swaying back and forth.
Sure you know there is a camera but you don't know where it is pointing at a given moment.
Those cameras are good. They serve a function.
The abuses have to do with cameras placed in dressing rooms and manual control cameras.
Manual control isn't worth the investment. Cameras are 90% deterrent.
In fact there is a big market for fake cameras.
But far to many people risk the camera. So you need the real thing.
Steve Mann makes a very good point.
"Shooting back"...
Cameras in the consumers hands are equally good.
Full disclosure.
They can have them so can you.
You should have every right to carry a camera.
Why the hack not?
I don't like people taking my picture.
But surveillance is just part of life.
Why should only they have that right?
Personal cameras are a good thing...
Any store that won't let people carry personal recording equipment should be devoid of recording equipment.
I don't actually exist.
Why can't we complain about the abuse of information gathered about us without our knowledge or consent? We quite rightly can complain about it, disrupt their data collection until it leaves our hands, and discover and disclose the use this technology wherever we find it. We have no obligation to the merchant to let them use our involuntary reactions so they can harass us with higher prices and more pressure to buy, and we have no obligation not to mess with their system until mall security escorts us off the premises. Naturally, since we're in public, the Supremes will say that they certainly can, but any merchant who would press the issue so far has already lost in the court of public opinion by the time the first appeal is filed.
(Incidentally, the heat signature given off by blood vessels in the forehead is as or more unique than fingerprints.)
Oh yeah, that's "speech", not "speach".
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
Credit cards are voluntary. Its very difficult to find a walk-in type store that won't take cash. Sure, Rat shack always asks for your name and address, but I simply decline to give it to them. If you choose to give up that information willingly, you deserve everything you get.
:)
However, if you don't have a choice about revealing your identity and interests to marketers, then this is where the line gets fuzzy. If a store is required to disclose that systems such as these are in use, then thats one thing. You can just avoid shopping there, or can take precautions to prevent them from being useful.
However, there IS a potentially useful side effect here. I ignore advertisements. In fact, I RUTHLESSLY avoid them. I never look at banner ads, I never click on them, I don't look at junk mail, no matter what it might be. The crap people like to hang on my doorknob goes in the trash without a glance. When I go to the store, I know what I'm going to get, and I don't waste much time looking around at subtle advertising to see what I can't live without.
IF these systems pick up my complete lack of interest in ALL advertising, do you think its possible that they might mark me as a lost cause and save their precious marketing dollars by simply not sending me anything? Yeah.. I can hope.
Another angle of the same issue.... notice how nobody really cares about intrusion into our lives when its our choice to allow it. How many people have webcams? Now, see how many of those same people would be willing to go along with mandated cameras in their houses. The end result is the same, but in one case, "Big brother is watching you", in the other case, "Bring it on Big Brother".
This newfangled marketing strategy would probably gain public acceptance if not for its secrecy. Just offer it as a free service and everyone wouldn't be able to wait to have it installed everywhere. "Sign up for this free service to automatically notify you when your favorite products go on sale!!!!" Sale of course is an arbitrary term. A store near me has a "temporary lower price" tag on EVERY SINGLE ITEM IN THE STORE, no matter what the price is. The point is... right now, at this instant, its temporarily lower, so you better get it now or the price might go up. People are morons. They don't care. They'd be an easy sale.
But no, they have to conceal it. Hide the identities where these systems are in place. Get the ACLU involved. Way to go there. Way to market your product you bozos. Lets make it extremely obvious that you might have nefarious motivies. At least you're making it easy for us.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
While I dont believe that this would work in stores, it still would be interesting. Build a very small and very simple IR detector circuit. Which would notify via a beep or tone, that you have been swept with a IR source. This can be built for less than a few bucks. Wear it on your shirt! Even better would be to build two small IR emitters into the arms of your sun glasses. This would make it impossible for your eyes to be scanned as it would blind their eye scanning system. For sure, if they were monitoring you, you would get assistance if a flash. As you would show up on there monitors with glowing eyes!
Ewige Blumenkraft!
Ewige Blumenkraft!
If they hold you and file a police report without giving you a chance to leave then they have broken several big fat laws (false police report, false arrest, civil rights violation) and it would be well worth your while to retain counsel, because you can sue their asses off.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
But the first practical use for the research turns out to be snooping on shoppers.
;)
The whole idea itself does not bother me one bit since I have to choice of entering the store or not so I see no problems with it however I see it as overhyped market hooplah.
Lets see how well the software determines my thoughts based on my eyes when: I have red eye, I jokingly widen my eyes to purposely look like I'm going to do something evil, begin to look around erratically just to piss security off, etc.. What are they going to do charge me with using my eyes for my own actions?
If department stores are stupid enough to think some camera and its software are able to determine my actions, they're dumbasses. Maybe I'll just get those joke glasses with the eyes attached to those slinky links that droop down.
Did their faces register boredom or delight? How many reached for the item and put it in their shopping carts?
Well once many people get a whiff of this I'm sure the jokesters will find ways of shaming IBM's system, and exposing it for the joke I see it as.
When monitoring pupils, the system uses a camera and two infrared light sources placed inside the product display. One light source is aligned with the camera's focus; the other is slightly off axis.
I wonder who will be the first to sue a department store for causing deterioration in their eyesight with their toy
"Soon you won't only be able to capture how many people stopped by, but who they were,"
This doesnt bother me at all I would have nothing to hide going in a department store. "Hrmm that tiger print thong looks tight!
Sometimes people go overboard and wanna bitch about everything, well I think the department stores stand more to lose by placing this in their stores than I do having to worry about what DKNY or Tommy Hilfiger sweater I'm buying.
"Once identity is established it will be cross-referenced to capture that person's income and buying preferences. It's only a matter of time."
What a sad excuse give me a damn break. Advertising agencies have been target marketing for years using other means, so where is the ACLU to bitch about all those Malt Liquor and Cigarette posters in my neighborhood? Shit last time I saw pics of Rodeo Drive there were none.
no respect
360 degrees of Karma
If you REALLY want to find out what stores are using this technology, then spend $5.99 @ The Shack and go find out for yourself.
I had one of these in my junkbox (Oops, that just dated me, didn't it?) that I bought years ago, it works.
Infrared Sensor Card
Special coating allows you to see infrared light. Use to check remote controls, security systems, and more. Locates near-infrared radiation from laser or LED sources.
http://www.radioshack.com
Now go on out and report back your findings, so we can know which stores are using this invasive technology.
And as far as sunglasses that block infrared, any "high end" pair should block at least 90% of the infrared spectrum. My prescription Revo's block more than 95%, plus they look sooooo cool.
If it don't GO... chrome it. ~ Frank Banks
.. a grocery store I used to work at. If you where caught shoplifting in the store you where banned from ALL sites around the country for 100 years. I thought it was a little anal at times since they would actually file trespassing charges against people that came back in the store. They had a big book upstairs with pictures of ALL the people cought shoplifting since the store opened.
The big problem was that they had several different names.. Waremart, WinCo Foods, and Cub Foods.. You could inadvertently stumble on a trespassing charge without realizing what you had done.. With technology like this it makes this even more likely. The store already uses cameras to follow customers and watch for shoplifting.
Reading this reminds me of a project that one of my professors here at the University of Virginia is workig on. It's called Project Erica (http://www.ericainc.com) and deals with Eye-gaze Response Interface Computer Aid. It's pretty incredible that this technology can be used for good. :-)
He brought in a setup that they use for disabled people and showed how you can type with your eye. Essentially they use the same system where they shine a little infrared light on your eye and then it makes a glint and the computer then watches the glint of your eye move. It's pretty cool. He even had a game that you could play using your eye for your cross hair and the keyboard for everything else.
In addition they were starting to use this technology the same way that IBM is, watching where customers eyes look on web pages to see what attracts the customers attention that most. The thing that I don't mind about this is that it will actually customize that web site for you a bit more hopefully, though it is a privacy issue that I doubt that I would ever want to be involved with.
One thing that is nice to know is that your eyes have to be somewhat stationary. If your body suddenly moves the camera won't know what to track or may begin tracking your cheek muscles by accident. This might be the point of the second infrared beam that they say that they use as it would be able to keep the acquistion of where your eye is.
One great thing to know is that this technology is worthless outside as the infrared will not be able to make your eye glint like it's supposed to and the camera won't have any idea of where you are
I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.
Think about how difficult that system was to make. Camera's and infrared sensors positioned at angles so they grab a person's face and eyes then splicing it all together into something useful. The technology, or at least the code, behind it must be impressive. The algorithms at use will probably show up in other things pretty soon, it's just that profiling super-market shoppers is the most profitable at the moment.
Sure right now it's being used to surreptitiously spy on people, but, think what you could do with it.
Systems like this could allow a computer terminal to figure out who is using it, and who else is in the room. No more passwords, no silly biometric scans, sit down at a computer and it knows who you are. Have your computer automatically minimize that quake game when your boss/mom walks into the room.
This system could probably also be expanded to figure out things about people, if their happy/sad, athletic/fat, pretty/ugly, and react accordingly. Understanding human emotions and reacting to them is one of the starting points for believable AI capable of passing the Turing test.
Sure, its being sued for something insidious right now, but think about the technical marvels behind it. Beats the heck out of a stupid 8,000-computer search engine cluster.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.