Slashdot Mirror
Borders to Use CCTV Face Recognition
albanach writes: "This story at the Sunday Herald newspaper says Borders Bookshop is to become the world's first retailer to use face recognition software linked to their in-store CCTV cameras to automagically identify known shoplifters."
If people care so much about being "watched" by these stupid cameras all over the place, how about wearing a hat? Or sunglasses? That way, these systems can not recognise you. It's so easy, yet nobody else seems to be mentioning it.
I give up. I'm just going to walk down to the police station and let them implant a chip under my scalp.
I saw a woman the other day who had a bar code tattoo on her arm. I thought it was funny (wry comment on the commodification of all life. ha ha). Now I'm not so sure.
According to the article...
The American-based retailer has 11 outlets in the UK, including stores in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Only UK stores are participating in the SmartFace pilot.
So I guess it's time for us Americans to tell our local Borders that we don't want this "technology" in our stores.
qslack.com
If it will contain only those who have been convicted of shoplifting, then surely this is wrong; our system of justice is based on the concept that once someone has paid the penalty for their crime, they have reformed and should no longer be punished further. If it will contain those accused of shoplifting, but not prosecuted, then Borders will be acting as judge and jury without any proper process.
Who is to vet this database? Will the database be shared with other retail establishments who want to implement a similar system?
I find the whole idea deeply, deeply troubling.
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
anyone here read slashdot? It's a pretty cool site, ya'll should check it out.
I'm going to setup a store online to purchase dark sunglasses, hats, and trenchcoats - with technology like this face recognition, I'll make a MINT!
quis custodiet ipsos custodes - Juvenal
If people walking into the store have acne and are wearing glasses, they'll be ushered by special "support personel" to special air tight rooms where all the sci-fi and computer books are kept so that they won't annoy the yuppie patrons with their poor grooming and odor.
----------
I am an expert in electricity. My father held the chair of applied electricity at the state prision.
Nixon entered via west entrance
(last message repeated 27 times)
Yeah, I know its stupid, but thats why its a joke.
-paul
Don't shop there, and tell all your friends why, too.
Here I was beginning to finally be comfortable at a bookseller; it didn't have the awkward half-haughtiness and half-stupidity of B&N, and it was worlds better in selection and atmosphere than most mall shops. Yet now they've gone and implemented Big Brother facial recognition, and it's all downhill from there...
It's not that I have any fear of being identified as a known shoplifter, but this is just the type of stuff forecasted in a slew of dystopian novels, which scares me. I was truly hoping that we'd see the last of this type of technolgy at the superbowl, with the amount of public protest that developed in response. Sadly that does not seem to be the case. In the name of sales and inventory protection, what's a little civil rights violation?
Oh well, at least when I shop naked at Amaazon they can't see me and identify me as a known shoplifter ... not that shoplifters pose much of a threat to the on-line businesses, at least in the traditional sense. I can see it now though, "In order to shop at this web site, you must have a webcam, so we can verify that you're not a known perpetrator of credit card fraud." Of course, when you point it at a picture of your latest pr0n, it's sure to generate some interesting results. Pretty soon their recommendations will be changing erratically based on your appearance in their web-cam analysis software.
I digress...
I know everyone is all upset about this one, but whats the big deal? The cameras are already there. The store has a right to know whats going on inside their store, watching for shoplifters etc.
Then have they said what they plan to do with this information? If they're going to kick you out of the store because you match the profile, then this is unreasonable, and we should be making noise about it.
However, if this is just a tool for the security guards watching the cameras to be able to focus on person A, who is more likely to be a shoplifter, then what is the problem with it?
Also, this isn't a public work, like the Tampa police departments deploying in public area. Borders is a private institution, and if they want to take steps to ensure that their property is properly accounted for, then I salute them.
Captain_Frisk
P.S. While I expect to be modded down for this, I refuse to post anonymously. What these guys are doing is not wrong, and I'm going to hide to protect my precious karma points.
then just don't shop there! It's pretty damn simple if you ask me. You could write a letter, hold a meeting, contact your local civil liberties group, but really nothing will hurt the business more then if you just don't shop there, and tell your friends not to either. Besides, if you're so concerned about your face getting on camera, then just shop from your bedroom on amazon.com or something. I dont understand why any company would do this to their customers.
1) Load gun
2) Aim at foot
3) Pull trigger
I posted to
When I saw that title, I thought I'd be reading about how the US Border Patrol would be using face-recognition on the Rio Grande or something.
As much as I support the proposed anti-video surveillance law as it applies to surveilence on public property, I can't find fault with the Borders arrangement. If they feel it will reduce instances of shoplifting, more power to them, although I'd like to see if they can get any shoplifter they catch, to pose for a picture (unless they have been arrested and charged). If borders expects to hold shoplifters they catch, expressly for the purpose of taking their photo for addition to their system, that will prove legally problematic for them.
The public has a right to be angered by public surveilence as was done at the Super Bowl but if you don't like being surveiled on provate property, don't enter that private property. It's as simple as that.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
'It is very difficult to distinguish one face from another with the human eye,' she said. 'If the system infringes on anyone's human rights then Borders wouldn't be using it.'
Bullshit, and bullshit. I'm not going to even comment on the first sentence. The second is ridiculous. Anyone who actually thinks a large corporation truly cares about human rights gets their views on corporate America solely from TV ads. The statement might be true, if it were instead "If the system got us enough bad publicity that it threatened our bottom line then Borders wouldn't be using it."
Which of course means that the only way to stop them from using it is to not shop at Borders, and to let them know why.
Sigh. Look -- I understand this is how capitalism is supposed to work, but I get a little sick of having to perform an endless series of boycotts in a desperate game of wack-a-corp just to try to get shit upon less frequently.
The enemies of Democracy are
lets say i shoplift and they take my picture and ad it to their database, isn't this illegal? i didn't give them the rights to use my image. I sincerely doubt u can give away these rights by walking into a border, and no one is going to sign a contract when they walk in. Can anyone experienced in law answer this?
Photos.
I'll just shop with a paper bag on my head.
I was watchign cops and they bust a kid for hiding a comic book under his bag with the intent to steal. The cop explained there are 2 types of shoplifting one is actually stealing it, the other is setting it up which is also illegal
ANONS SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS OTHER POSTERS
People tend to portray the United States Government as Big Brother. However, the half-assed socialism of the UK has led far more insidious breaches of personal privacy than in the United States. Th UK boasts the highest density of surveilance cameras (someone post the URL that said that it was pon /. or k5 recently) in the civilized world. Despite the fact/stereotype that most Americans are fat, gun totining rednecks, these same people have managed to hold onto their sense to liberty.
-zr
The erosion of individual rights progresses in small, almost imperceptible steps. Rather like placing a lobster in a pot of cold water while large coorportations and govornments slowly turn up the heat
We get comfortable, get complacent, fall asleep.... and then become mere objects for someone else to devour as they see fit.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.
--Lord Alexander Tyler on the fall of the Athenian republic
Do you recognize our place in this sequence? Are we somehow immune from the lessons of history? Somehow I doubt it.
Anonymous cuz I'm lazy
RAND.org, a public policy group, has a number of interesting papers on the legal, ethical and sociological implications ob Biometrics and specifically Facial Recognition as used at the Super Bowl this year.
-CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Everybody, boycott Borders!
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
Something along the lines of 50% of shoplifters are employees. Btw, who the hell shoplifts at borders? I guess they've never heard of a library.
The other day I dreamt I killed a guy, and then everybody in the restaurants and stores recognized me and tried to catch me to get the reward. Believe me, that scares murderers!
This is a disturbing trend, at it's best... downright scary, at it's worst.
I will not be patronizing Borders, and I will urge my friends to do the same. Also, I will be writing a letter to them stating that they have just lost my business, and that I would only reconsider going back if they were to remove this technology from their stores. Follow the money, and vote with your pocketbooks!
I like being able to walk into a bookstore, buy a 2600 magazine with cash, and read it without having to worry that the FBI is building some file on me. I want to read without being labeled as a supporter of the ideas in the book I'm reading.
I will probably not go back to Borders. There are other bookstores.
I've never stolen anything, and until now have been a loyal Borders customer. However, suppose the equipment makes a mistake? (Has any Slashdot reader ever known software to be less than perfect?) Suppose the equipment thinks I resemble someone else? The Border's management may think they've caught someone; they will find it difficult to recognize that the equipment has failed.
Sure the liklihood is small. But I stay away from dangerous areas of my city for the same reason. I don't want even a small chance of a hassle.
It's easy to just switch bookstores.
Bush's education improvements were
...becomes impossible
You know, about a year ago, I was in Boarders and
tried to order a book (on computer security)
without revealing my identitiy. As it happened,
the book was out of stock, so I tried to order
it. The clerk wanted all sorts of personal info.
that I didn't think was appropriate and ended
up spooking me... I eventually found the book at
another book store for a lower price (paid cash)
and I was happy.
As it happens, this particular boarders also has
a sign on the outside window that states that
taking in store photographs is forbidden.
Anyone who doesn't pay cash for their books, in
my opinion, is taking a large risk and making
assumptions about the future that may not be
completely correct. I can see now, that I'm
going to have to pay a courier to pick my books
up for me as well (or just stop shopping at
boarders).
By all means install such a system at your own front door to identify employees of corporations that spy on you and/or support the DMCA, so they can be relentlessly kept out of your home, your business, your life. Personal ostracization can be very effective, on a wide-spread scale.
Plus, it works well for predators of other kinds, such as convicted rapists and murderers and pedophiles, of which record may be kept on private networks.
A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
I lived in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for six years. I loved my city, and one of the things I took the most pride in was Borders. There was no other bookstore like it in the country.
It was very hard to get a job in Borders. You had to take a test of book-knowledge, and there was some prestige in getting a job there. The result was the most wonderful staff you could imagine.
"Hi, I've read all the Douglas Adams books and liked them, but lately I've been getting into kind of noir stuff... can you recommend a book for me?" "Sure. Have you ever heard of Robert Sheckley's Alternative Detective series?" (made up example)
The staff, the selection, the prices... Border's was a treasure. Then they became a chain. I remember once seeing some tourists standing outside the Borders, and a woman said, "Oh look, honey, they have a Borders here, too." But even after they became a chain, I still liked shopping there, because they were by far the best chain bookstore around.
And then there was the thing with the Union. And now this face-recognition stuff. I suppose even your favorite college bookstore has to grow up someday and become part of the establishment.
God is real unless declared integer
I've been involved in helping stores cut back loss, and let me tell you that 70% of the theft that has occured after I've installed cameras has been by employees, and a lot of the time in those cases, management.
I still don't see the problem with this. I'm for any business enacting any policy they please within the confines of their store.
If you don't want to be watched, don't go there, and make it a habit to write letters about it to advertisers and distributors.
I don't mind it a bit, since I haven't done anything wrong. If they want to watch me closer because they think I'm a thief, good for them.
If the thieves stop going to those stores because they bet profiles, maybe prices will drop.
If you want privacy, go get some acreage of land in the mountains and stay out of civilization. I don't see ANY privacy loss if you're as much at fault for entering THEIR private property.
Its cameras on the street that worry me, but we get videotaped by ATMs and banks and at the McDonald's and the convenient store, whats so wrong with filtering those images so security can do a better job?
I knew this day was coming. That's why for the last year, whenever I go out I wear a werewolf mask and furry claw gloves.
"...Last year British retailers spent £626 million on crime prevention, and theft from stores reached a staggering £746m, equating to a cost of £85 for each household in the country..."
... looks like the "average" Brit is pinching approx £12.60 per year in books... Anyone still wonder why Borders is pissed??? Anyone think this will just magically go away???
Let's see U.K. population ( 1999-UN numbers ) approx 59m
I wonder if the reason that books are so expensive is all the shoplifting? Nahhh:
The Coffee prices make up for any of that!
I dunno... Maybe Ann Arbor is losing its soul.
I mean... In Ann Arbor, Land of a Thousand Coffee Shops, we now have Starbucks. Several of them. I mean, there were chains of coffee shops before, but also dozens of tiny ones. But this is Starbucks. And they appear to be doing well. It saddens me.
At least I can still go to the Fleetwood for good eats.
The enemies of Democracy are
"Those who would trade their essential liberty for a perceived temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security"
-- Ben Franklin
So what happens when this system finds a face? Will security follow this person around and watch them extra closely? What happens if it picks out someone incorrectly? I don't understand how this would be a benefit to their security.
this just in, a place i will never shop at again has made me an honest customer have a harder time stealing from them. Oh well, you may have had a customer in me at some point, but not anymore.
________________________________________________
is this going to use that new sound that automagically makes the person look at the thing?
First of all, Borders is legally within their rights to do this. The store is private property, and they're perfectly within their rights to do this. Hell, I think it would even be legal for them to say something to say, "no customers of skin color X allowed", although the public relations disaster would destroy them instantly (note: they couldn't do the same for employees).*
OTOH, different laws and standards apply to what governments can do. City streets are public property, not private. It's highly inappropriate for the government to forcibly take your money (taxation), then use it to institute machine surveillance of you and other innocent citizens.
I used to work at a grocery store, and, if we ever caught a shoplifter, we would make them sign something acknowledging their crime, and make them promise never to enter one of our stores again. If they did, we'd prosecute. Enforcement was left to in-store detectives, and I can tell you they weren't 100% accurate. Even if the occasional false alarm happens with the Borders system, it only has to be better than a detective to be worth-while and a benefit to everybody.
The appropriate response to a "positive" ID by this face recognition system is closer surveillance by humans. If a human confirms that the person in question is a previous shoplifter, then they should be asked to leave. If, on the other hand, Guido and his rent-a-cop friends immediately start beating you with the Webster Unabridged New English Dictionary because their system beeped, then you can sue them. If it offends you on principle, shop elsewhere.
Here's a quick summary of why this is different than the Tampa situation:
Somebody in an earlier message said something to the effect that it's not right to further persecute shoplifters who have already been prosecuted and done their time. Of that person, I ask, if somebody stole from you, did a few weeks in jail, then was released, would you feel obligated to let him back in your house? Why should it be any different for Borders?
*Generally, private organizations are allowed to discriminate with their membership on racial, religious, or sexual lines. Obviously, the Catholic Church down the street isn't legally obliged to allow Church of Satan members to join, even if denying them constitutes religious discrimination. Gyms are allowed to restrict their customer base to women-only. If they can do that, then bookstores can restrict customers to people who aren't in their database of shady characters. When you start employing people for money, then different laws apply.
Look at this CNN article: she was killed in a plane crash.
I'll probably get modded down for replying to you, but I think it's crazy that you posted that and she really is dead.
Maybe it's the fact that they will always be gathering evidence against some future crime that I haven't committed. Maybe it's the fact that the video doesn't lie. Maybe it's the fact that it's now people against computers and not people against people. Maybe it's the fact that our lives will become too systematic. I don't really know, but a system where it is impossible to do anything without being recorded will sure make life boring. You can't goof around in a store with your friends anymore. You can't do anything that others don't think is right anymore. We will all be drones. That's why I don't like stuff like this.
Today is the closing of a parenthesis opened before this sig, before this story, before this existence that is me (as if
Would it be cool to compare the faces of all the chics you know with every porn image in your collection? Or every porn image on the 'net?
And you discover your Mom is a Mature Panyhose Slut on the side.
We should wear our halloween mask all day this coming halloween, and visit popular retail stores (Borders, for example) or cities using facial recognition software. Mayhaps we can get The Alien loaded into national crime databases for jaywalking.
I'm only half kidding about this.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Boycotting Borders may not be such a great idea. The problem is there are no major alternative bookstores to choose from. The other big players in this industry are just as bad as Borders. Barnes and Noble and Amazon, for instance, have some questionable policies and practices. If I boycott them as well, I'll be limiting my choices severely. Bookstop, Walden Books, B.Daltons, etc are all owned by one of the 3 above. There really are few options if you boycott every bookstore that has a policy that you don't agree with.
Most importantly, what do they plan to do once the system decides there's a match? Let's say the system is approximately as good at face recognition as a human (not sure this is the case but for the sake of argument assume it is). Imagine that there are hundreds of security officers looking at all the security cameras in the store all the time. Remember, in a retail store you're already under constant surveillance and you're being recorded as well. The difference is, your presence is being used as a chance to compare your face to a bunch of head shots of "known shoplifters". The technology is not the issue, unless it results in lots of false positive matches. The issue is what happens when they think you're a known shoplifter. Do store security guards try to detain you? Eject you? Restrain you? Search your person? Demand to see your identification?
In the US, a shoplifter has to be seen in the act of concealing something. You can't just see someone with a book go around a corner and come back without it. If you don't catch them in the act of concealing it then you can't bust them.
Does Border's think they can harass people who they suspect of prior shoplifting? Do their security guards? I think that's the interesting question, because videotaped surveillance cameras and "wanted" posters are hardly anything new, even if made more efficient thru technology.
So what's to prevent the system from taking shots of pictures in books? Hold up a Jerry Garcia biography to the camera? How about Marilyn Monroe?
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
I'll just continue to do what I always do - walk in with dark glasses and a hat.
When my brother was 16 or so he used to shoplift with his friends all the time. They would hit the NY department stores. He got a pretty good wardrobe that way until he got arrested. He got to keep the clothes he stole in prior trips and the cost got passed on to the rest of us. Maybe with the cameras in place he would have been caught earlier.
Personally I don't see a difference with cameras or hiring an army of security guards. Cameras are more efficient. Would there really be any difference if Macy's hired an army of security guards and made them study pictures of known shoplifters? Casinos have been doing the same thing with professional gamblers and known cheaters for years and no one is complaining.
Did you click on the Borders Bookstore link? It goes to Amazon, bub. so you can support them, or, support them! I suppose there's always barnes and nobles, but are they really any better? They just didn't think of this first.
Why not try building a relationship with a *local* bookstore that'll bend over backward to order or find books for you, and doesn't infringe on your rights? You might be surprised that the concept of customer support can involve friendly bookophiles who treat you respectfully. Might even help out your local economy by putting money back into it directly...
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
1984 - Big Border is watching.
Hey, you think your house is cool?
NTUTLAOREETDOLOREMAGNAALIQUAMERATVOLUT PTTUTWISIENIMADMINIMVENIAMQUISNOSTRUDEXERC
ITATIONULLAMCORPERSUSCIPITLOBORTISNISL UFALIQUIPEXLOREMIPSUMDOLORSITAMETCONSECTET
UERADIPISCINGELITSE DIAMNONUMMYNIBHEUI SKODTINCIDUNTUTLAOREE DOLOREMAGNAALIQUAMER
ATVOLUTPATUTWISIEN DMINIMVENIAMQUISN OPTRUDEXERCITATIONUL CORPERSUSCIPITLOBOR
TISNISLUTALIQUIPE MMODOCONSEQUATDU IJAUTEMVELEUMIRIURE INHENDRERITINVULPU
TATEVELITESSEMOLE I ONSEQUATVELILLUM DPLOREEUFEUGIATNULL I LISISATVEROEROSETA
CCUMSANETIUSTOODI ISSIMQUIBLANDITP RUESENTLUPTATUMZZRI NITAUGUEDUISDOLORE
TEFEUGAITNULLAFACI LOREMIPSUMDOLORSI FGAMETCONSECTETUERAD CINGELITSEDDIAMNONX
UMMYNIBHEUISMODTINC DUNTUTLAOREETDOLOR EEAGNAALIQUAMERATVOLU PATUTWISIENIMADMINIM
LOREMIPSUMDOLORSITAMETCONSECTETUERADIP ISCINGELITSEDDIAMNONUMMYNIBHEUISMODTINCIDU
NTUTLAOREETDOLOREMAGNAALIQUAMERATVOLUT PATUTWISIENIMADMINIMVENIAMQUISNOSTRUDEXERC
ITATIONULLAMCORPERSUSCIPITLOBORTISNISL UIALIQUIPEXLOREMIPSUMDOLORSITAMETCONSECTET
UERADIPISCINGELITSEDDIAMNONUMMYNIBHEUI SPODTINCIDUNTUTLAOREETDOLOREMAGNAALIQUAMER
ATVOLUTPATUTW ENIMADMINIMVENIAMQUISN OWTRUDEXERCITATIONULLAMCOR SUSCIPITLOBOR
TTUTLAOREETD OREMAGNAALTUTLAOREENITAU GUETDOLOREMAGNAALTUTLAOREETD OREMAGNAALFU
TATEVELITES EMOLESTIECONSEQUATVELILLUM DGLOREEUFEUGIATNULLAFACILISIS TVEROEROSETA
CCUMSANET S ODIGNISSIMQUIBLANDITP RRESENTLUPTATUMZZRILDELE G DUISDOLORE
TEFEUGA ULLAF ILOREMIPSUMDOLORS OIAMETCONSECTETUERAD NGELI DDIAMNON
UMMYNIBHEUISMODTI TUTWISIENIMADMINIM
LOREMIPSUMDOLORSITAMETCONSE F UCKYOU AMNONUMMYNIBHEUISMODTINCIDU
NTUTLAOREETDOLOREMAGNAALIQUAMERA NIMADMINIMVENIAMQUISNOSTRUDEXERC
ITATIONULLAMCORPERSUSCIPITLOBORTISNISL URALIQUIPEXLOREMIPSUMDOLORSITAMETCONSECTET
UERADIPISCINGELITSEDDIAMNONUMMYNIBHEUI SEODTINCIDUNTUTLAOREETDOLOREMAGNAALIQUAMER
ATVOLUTPATUTWISIENIMADMINIMVENIAMQUISN OTTRUDEXERCITATIONULLAMCORPERSUSCIPITLOBOR
I think the whole conviction/prosecution thing is a non-issue. We're not talking about police searching someone's house, or taking away voting rights.
We're talking about a private business that believes that it has enough of a shoplifting problem to justify the potential bad PR of using this system.
I have no problem whatsoever if they want to ask anyone who remotely resembles a shoplifter to leave. I'd probably stop going there before that happened to me, though, just because when I want a book I don't want to feel like I have to somehow merit purchasing it.
Heck, if they want to say "nobody under 40 years old is allowed in here," that's fine with me too. If you don't like how someone runs their business, shop elsewhere (and this is certainly practical in the book market, unlike certain other markets... like word processors).
This is a classic case where the market will decide what degree of difficulty / embarassment / prying consumers will tolerate. If they drive off 1% of their customers but cut shoplifting by 30%, it makes sense for them to do so. More power to 'em.
I am definitely troubled by this technology, and I see some complex moral and ethical issues it presents. But I can't see any way of telling a private business that they can't screen their customers that won't just complicate the quadmire.
It should be noted that "rights" are much less intrinsic when on someone else's private property. Now, I think there should perhaps be notifications required of just what kinds of invasion of privacy are going on someplace so people can make an educated decision about whether to enter the property, but even in the absence of such notices, I have a hard time getting upset about this.
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
Begin Sarcasm - This is another violation of our privacy and should not be tolerated. - End Sarcasm
Seriously, I'm sick and tired of stories like this. This is supposed to be "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." but its turning into "Slashdot, where you can be paranoid about anything related to a camera/government/big company/etc".
If this stuff keeps up I'm outta here. I thought this is supposed to be a place for professionals and serious hobbiests to use rational thought to discuss topics in technology but it seems its becoming a breeding ground for paranoid anti-capitalist anarchists.
And I'm sorry if I'm mistaken and the submitter is simply interested in the technology behind this surveilance technique, but I feel that my post applies retroactively to numerous other story submissions in the past.
Next people will reply to this saying "well that kind of attitude will make our freedom disappear" but I don't know if you people noticed but security cameras have been around for years, they are nothing new, they've been used to help solve numerous crimes, and I still have my freedom.
And before you moderate this down, think about how hypocritical it is to mod down a message and yet be oh so passionate about freedom of speech. Are people only free to say things as long as its what you agree with?
Before you complain about cameras in Borders....
How is this different from the shopkeeper in your hometown that knows who the "hooligans" are and keeps an extra close eye on them when they are in his store?
Snail-mail letters are much more effective than e-mail. Write to Gregory Josefowicz, the CEO of the Borders Group, at 100 Phoenix Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108. Here's the letter I'm sending:
I write to indicate my extreme distaste for a recent development in Borders's UK operations which I fear may rear its head on this continent as well. I refer to the use of SmartFace (or FaceIt), the face-recognition technology, in Borders retail outlets to locate known shoplifters, as reported in the British Sunday Herald newspaper on August 26. I find the use of this technology by both government and commercial agencies highly disturbing; its use is fraught with peril, and is simply too open to abuses.
If Borders proceeds to use this technology in its US retail outlets, I will no longer shop at Borders retail outlets and Borders.com, and will also inform my friends and acquaintances of the fact that they will be under this unusually obtrusive form of surveillance when they shop at Borders stores.
How long do you think it will be before the only way not to cause thousands of blips in various companies' databases every time you go outside will be to live in a shack in Montana? And you will have no recourse, in the name of private property.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
"If I can see it, I can rip it!"
"Information wants to be free."
"Laws can't stop technology."
"The Internet destroys existing business models, get used to it."
All these memes work for corps as well as they work for individual persons. In fact, C2C (corp-to-corp) sharing of information is a hell of a lot more pervasive than P2P information. Think about all the information that goes into your credit report.
The RIAA hasn't figured out how to stop people from copying their bits. I don't think that retail customers are going to figure out a way to stop these stores from engaging in machine surveillance.
Well, I guess that's one more place to add to the ever-growing places where I won't shop. Pretty soon I'm going to have to become a hermit and start hunting and foraging for food. There won't be any place else left for me to go. :(
FP
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
I called a local borders to complain, and they gave me a customer care line at 1(800)566-6616 give em a call, and let them know why theyve lost your business.
I really think people are overreacting here. It has always been the case that you've been scanalyzed when walking into any large store; the only news is that they're using a computer instead of a bored security guard to do it.
But if it really bothers you, walk into the store with a camera and start photographing all the staff. When security finally asks you what the hell you're doing, just tell them "well, since your store cameras are photographing me I may as well photograph all of you".
Please view in a fixed-width font such as Courier.
TTTTTTTTT i l
T t l
T t l
T eee ssss tttt i ccc l eee
T e e s s t i c c l e e
T e e s t i c l e e
T e e s t i c l e e
T eeeeeee ssss t i c l eeeeeee
T e s t i c l e
T e e s t i c l e e
T e e s s t i c c l e e
T eee ssss ttt i ccc l eee
Is this database going to exclude female shoplifters?
We need to organize a protest an boycott of Borders book store now! This can not be allowed to happen in any stores in the US.
This stuff is really scary!
Wow, that's going to be an excellent .sig some day! Thanks a lot! :-)
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
http://www.funshop.com/billgates.html
....looks like i won't be, er "shopping", at borders anymore
Now I can't shop at Borders without wearing a Groucho Eyeglass disguise ;)
Seriously, this did make me think about it, what if you go in there wearing sunglasses, fake eyeglasses (non-prescription), or if you wear a big red Santa Outfit including beard?
Thinking about that makes me one to try it to show how ludicrous the concept is.
-- Dan
I'm very disappointed in Borders. This makes me wonder about their commitment to the privacy of their customer data, too.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
Maybe if they didn't charge fifteen dollars for a paperback people would be more likely to pay the asking price.
are you a dirtyfreak? I am.
The problem with this is that the software needs a source of poeple who shoplift. You could a) Digitize public record information. You could take all those arrested or convicted, etc. Generally speaking a merchant will ask a known shoplifter to leave. I had a friend of mine asks to leave a Barnes and Noble as he was walking up to the check out counter. Sure, they were merchant was right on, as a teen he'd ripped them off. He was asain. However, my other friend who was white and had been ripping them off on a weekly basis walked around the store without a word.
So, basically we are creating a system where the crimes of a youth could haunt those into adulthood. This isn't exactly a good thing for thge merchant. People grow up, and when they do they tent to buy things. Although I think in the long run the merchant loses out, the merchant is free to act however they please in this country. Just as I am free to not buy from them, or someone else is free to sue them for discrimination.
My biggest fear to using public records for face reconition is that you create a system where those who can afford good representation often won't be convicted when they should. Even with a Public Defender a white person is far more likely to be offered a special program that will not place the shoplifting conviction in the public record.
B) Would be to digitize ID from those caught shoplifting on tape. This has the same problem as normal CCTV. You have so much information you have to decide who you are going to concentrate on. There have been a number of shows on racial profiling in retail security over the years. Almost all have demonstrated that minorities are targeted. So when security adds faces to the database are they getting 80% of the minorities caught on tape shoplifting while at the same time getting only 30% of other groups.
While most companies have policies that are designed to avoid profiling and discrimination the fact is you cannot anticipte the how every employee is going to act.
The best idea is not to have a system that tracks peoples faces, but instead tracks the books and detects when people take them.
What's really odd about this is that Borders, like most retail outlets, really does little to combat shoplifting other than post signs like "we prosecute shoplifting" and placing token (and often fake) security cameras. I've known several people in retail marketing and they had rules stating that they could not stop someone shoplifting. They could try and guilt them into retreat ("My what a bulging purse you have") or something, but were not allowed to actually accuse the person. The retailers are too scared of lawsuits to do this. At stores like Best Buy with higher value items, they have security systems where official guards will monitor cameras and then get conclusive evidence, but at clothes outlets and places like Borders, there's no such security. There are tons of folks who go around casually stealing items, walk out, and then go across town to return the items to a different store for cash or credit. It's amazing how many upper middle class people do this. I guess it's some way to break the monotany of suburban life.
I sell CCTV / Axis digital cameras and supporting software to enable people to record events to a PC. This is allows the user to get to the "action" and supply information and pics to security or police.
Knowing how well these systems work as digital video records, using to match faces scares the shit out of me. Unless the user spends the bucks on top quality cameras the images are shit poor. There is sooooooo much room for errors and miss use. Suppose your image is matched to another ( these aren't finger prints but approximations)out you go you shoplifting bastard or worse the store wants to tie the cash registers into the system and match faces with PURCHASES. No more buying those naughty mags or anarchist books with anonymity.
Anyone notice you can not email borders ?
The problem isnt that Borders is doing it. Sure some people may not like being watched, that's their problem. They can stay inside and order online.
The problem is what this will lead to. Sure it'll start out alright, a perfectly legal practice, just like normal security cameras but with less work required for the people who monitor them. (actually, the same ammount of work is required, but now it becomes easier for people to shoplift because some idiots think now they dont have as much to do)
No, the problem arises after a Borders denies several members of the same family entrance, and then a Borders employee, acting on the word of the system, attacks or attempts to restrain someone whose innocence is not actually known (whether or not they are guilty is beside the point)
At first this may be acted on just as it is: It's illegal. But eventually it will lead to a court decision saying that the store was justified, and THAT'S when trouble starts.
Other stores start citing that case and make it a policy to restrain anyone the system recognizes, the system is developed to be better at distinguishing different people, but it quickly reaches a point where it can be too easily fooled, and they go back to a re-packaged version of the old system at the demand of the store owners.
Anyone may be personally justified to do something, but that doesnt make it LEGAL. and when something is Legal, that doesnt mean it should be.
This country is sick, and we've seen time and time again that Public Ignorance allows the government to change its rules however the fuck it wants to, and then just lie to the next generation. Or maybe you havent seen time and again. Heard any good lies lately?
who spent the day in jail because his face looked "similar" to a suspect. It was all a mistake, but we "know" computers DON'T make mistakes, so he spent 7 hours in a detention cell.
I think there is only on answer, Barnes and Nobels here I come. VOTE with your $$$$
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Since I am not a known shoplifter, I decided I would try out the new security arrangements at Borders. I brought a large sack with me, and started taking all the books I wanted, mostly from the computer section. No security came to stop me ... I suppose the computers trusted my face as grabbed expensive books. None of the human staff took a look at me as I staggered out the door with about $5000 in books. I just love this new computer security!!!
Well here's an interesting thought. Having done some work in biometric identification, there are a couple of questions I'd like to see Borders answers before snappng my photo. First, who owns the data of my image ? Second, having never committed a crime more than perhaps checking out a book there before buying it from Amazon.com, are they entitled under the law to scan and process my image without my permission ?
As for the pre-online buy purchase, those of us in the D.C. area can now save a trip Borders altogether with our local ReadMeDoc.com. THough anyone, anywhere can still enjoy their steep discounts. I know, because I'm good for at least 1 book a month from them. And the only facial scan I get is the smiling young lady at the cash register who makes everyone feel welcome.
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
Maybe it's forgivable, since she does have some geek signifigance. She had a major role in the upcoming Matrix movies. Production will probably be further delayed.
...but what I would really like to know is if there is a lawyer type in the Washington DC area willing to represent me in a civil action against them when they misidentify me? It's bad enough when their radio tag system misbehaves, but at least then I can just wander back to the cashier and straighten it out. To be chased down and accosted by a couple of the Print Police in their Bookmobile is going to result in two injured security types and a lawsuit that will hopefully allow me to retire early.
The only facial recognition I get is from the nice lady at the cash register who seems to remember everyone, and gives them all an kind greeting and warm smile
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
I agree with you. Slashdot has become a dumping ground for everyone to voice their anti-government and anti-establishment (including social, religious, commercial and cultural) rhetoric. I thought the Alex Chiu interview was the icing on the cake, but it just keeps getting worse and worse.
Is this story on Borders relevant? I guess it is, but the paranoia flavor of it is what irks me the most.
and in evey store so that anyone that if any teenage is silly enough to shoplift, they can be perminantly banned from shopping. Just imagine how the prison populations will come down when a shopplifter is not allowed to feed or cloth himself. And as an added bonus you get a class of people to repress that is not bassed on ratial / gender / or religious belifes. So we can all rest assured that the system is not biased. Because after all everybody get represented the same in regards to the law, money has no real value when defending yourself against the govt. Because we all have equal rights after all.
Who owns the data ? What privacy rights are guaranteed ? Border's create a list of known Linux-book-buyers and then sell the list to O'Reilly ?
I think I like a suggestion I saw further down by a user who uses a local store that offers %30 discounts at the bricks-n-morter location, and online. Provided such locations can survive (Readmedoc.com has an advantage because their locations are located near nerd think-tanks such as NIST).
I'm a law abiding citizen. I have a hard enough time with the legality of red-light cameras, now this ?!
million's of pictures in it... Grow UP !!!!! Borders could not implement this kind of system without SUPPORT. Nor could the government FIND A BETTER WAY TO BEGIN COLLECTING everyone's picture for a national biometrics DB. It starts in ID'ng CRIMINALS, because they have no rights, then moves on to the children, for "THEIR safety" of course, by then they just wait and soon everyone is ID'd.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Is anybody aware that for the last 30 years?:
- The Post Office displays the photos of wanted fugitives and missing children
- Supermarkets have photos of bad check writers
- Casinos keep track of cheaters via surveillance cameras and databases
Who cares? None of these things violate your rights. Neither do the public cameras in Tampa. The keyword is "public". When you go out into public anybody can take your picture, videotape, etc. That's the difference between public and private property. When it's your property you can say no. If it's Border's property they can say yes.
Why is it so important that instead of some guy making $6.25 an hour sitting behind the TV at the other end of the camera there's going to be a computer? Our rights remain the same. If a public or private institution screws up, they have the same liabilities as before the technology.
The paraphrased quotes from our founding fathers regarding sacrificing our rights are being poorly used. Franklin, Jefferson, et al had a clear understanding of the difference between public and private property. Some of the so-called libertarians on this list are starting to sound like socialists in their invention of new "rights." Instead of the right to "free healthcare" their claiming the right to go into a public place and not be watched. I missed that part when I read Locke, Rand, and Jefferson.
Silly anonymous coward, girls don't shoplife.
Thats what guys are for.
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
Gee. Put one camera at the door and another at the register, then use the pictures of the people actually buying stuff and link it to their purchasing history?
If you've shop lifted in the past, thats your problem. If you were wrongfully convicted of shoplifting, how can you not forget about that giant canoe that you stuck in your pocket?
It's their right to kick you out of the store.
Deal with it.
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
I have a face recognition system.. it alerts me when Alyson Hannigan comes into the room...
This has been prevalent in Las Vegas for a LONG time.
All the casinos have echnology like this and share their data.
From the article:
"As a private company Borders cannot be prosecuted if it breaches human rights legislation. If it were to breach a citizen's human rights then the British government would have to answer the case in Strasbourg for not protecting human rights sufficiently under UK law."
That strikes me as a problem with UK law. Why for god's sake would the entity violating your rights not be held responsible?
Or are prosecutability and responsibility two different things?
Some of you guys are whining excessively. Get over it. Major casinos/hotels in Vegas have been doing this for YEARS.
We lost our privacy and whatnot long ago. Deal with it. Life goes on.
-----
It's one thing for Borders to watch their own stores... if they license the software and maintain their own database, fine. But if a single company is selling access to a central database to multiple clients, we're on dangerous ground. One could reduce this to a weak metaphor involving neighboorhood watches or some such, but the fact remains that we're talking about something entirely new.
This is a snowball, rolling downhill. We're talking about a network effect that's capable of galvanizing a class system that's already largely in effect in the United States. Consider the social costs of commercial ostracization. Imagine an entire class of people who are barred permanently from all major stores.
Think that's a stretch? Have you noticed how hard it is for fugitives to evade detection by police agencies? Consider yourself in the same situation, always watched, an outcast... despite having (A) not committed a crime, or (B) having committed a petty crime sometime in the past, for whatever reason. Would someone who doesn't have such troubles want to spend much time with you, the branded criminal? And remember, this is not a system under public control.
I don't believe the intentions of those deploying this system are sinister-- they just want to protect what's theirs. I don't believe the technology itself can or should be stopped-- as I said before, I'm okay with Borders watching its own doors. It's the network effect, the sharing/selling/distribution of this information, that is dangerous and that we need to prevent.
The local Fry's here almost always has a cop there picking up some thief. I asked one of them once if Fry's could legally detain me. "Not without risking a civil suit" was the response. I continue to walk right past them, and when questioned, tell them 1) "Fsckoff. I now own this property. Do not obstruct my egress." 2) "If you are placing me under a citizens' arrest, I insist on knowing your name."
I think the 'egress' bit confuses them. Haven't ever had one of their drones challenge me after that invocation, though.
Of course, IANAL.
And if they'd spend some more ducats to man even half of the cash registers they have, perhaps I wouldn't mind waiting inline a second time.
Exactly. Businesses will get the point in a hurry if they install surveilence and and facial recognition systems one month, and the next month, they discover that their sales are down 50%
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
What is going to stop them from using this same technology to track the buying and browsing habits of their legitimate customers? Where is this database stored? Will any organizations have access to this information? I think it is about time people call their representatives in congress so that there are laws on the books to protect the privacy of the average citizen.
Casinos do this (scan the crowd for known cheats) banks and supermarkets do this (photos of people passing bad checks) and the federal government does this (posts pictures of suspected criminals in post offices). Oh? Seems we lost our lease on our "right to privacy" decades ago, eh? If inappropriate action is taken as a result of a human or software made match, you have legal recourses, but that's about it.
If you walk into borders, you're pretty much consenting to video monitoring, and they can do pretty much whatever they want with that data.
Where things become dangerous is if they match up their data with other data. So as long as nobody's building state or federal level databases of photos of people, such as criminals, motor vehicle operators, gun owners, landowners, registered voters, people under IRS investigation, and public school children there's not much danger. Especially if none of those databases also contain fingerprints, SSN, address, employer information, and medical records. Oh, wait...
Speaking of gun owners, Americans, remember that the 2nd amendment safeguards all the others, and the difference between a citizen and a subject is arms ownership. I recommend you get your photo in the gun owner database as soon as possible and jump through whatever hoops your state makes you, the reason those hoops are there is because those who want the option to take away your freedom know that they can't if you're in a position to offer resistance. Disarming a populace is the first step towards subjugating it. Don't think the process of law or the Constitution will help you, think about Ruby Ridge and Waco. See if you can find who said "Here I stand with my bayonet, there you stand with your law. We'll see which prevails." Think about how "IRS agents" are armed by the federal government with ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY. The IRS is armed (well armed, they ordered about $1,200,000.00 worth of pistols and shotguns just in 1998! for their CUSTOMER SERVICE AGENTS!) under the unconstitutional USC provisions chapters 61 to 80 creating and arming the BATF. The IRS is not even a government agency under USC Title 5 section 10 1, Government Organizations and Employees, but they got you and me outgunned and take our money without our permission...isn't that robbery? Think about how well-armed those living under dictatorships generally are. Think about how well-armed victims of genocide were. Think about how well-armed you need to be.
America may not be a dictatorship (yet) but all the machinery is in place to make it one. You owe yourself a last resort, at least the option to take up arms against oppression. If the executive branch of the federal decides to basically suspend the constitution with the support of the judicial, take over the media, garnish all your wages and take away all your privacy in the wake of a supposed "terrorist attack" in the interest of "national security" don't come crying to me, I told you so. When the masked men in black knock down your door and drag you to prison or the execution camps for your thoughtcrime you'll have a difficult time resisting even if you had the foresight to get a "sporting purposes" rifle or shotgun, let alone a single-edged less than 12 inch bread knife that the law allows you. Not to mention, not arming yourself for defense with the best tools available to you is cowardly, stupid, and selfish. When a masked federal sniper kills your wife because they suspect you're a drug dealer, I really hope your central station alarm system helps. I hope your local police assert that they have jurisdiction and not the federal government (I'm sorry, had to take a break and laugh). I hope you feel good that YOU listened to the statists, socialists and pacifists who don't give a damn about your life and liberty when they said "guns are bad. guns kill kids, guns kill people, etc." Especially listen to the ones who are themselves surrounded by armed individuals in public who say you shouldn't be, the ones who back up their power with arms, the ones who can equip themselves with firepower that you can't legally, because they have the money to (fun fact: corporations are not prohibited from owning "assault weapons." As a matter of fact, corporations can buy "machine guns" and "destructive devices" by paying an unconstitutional excise and receiving an unconstitutional license. So, your bank potentially has you outgunned. Your employer potentially has you outgunned. Oh, and the company reposessing your car after your banker and employer decide to illegally give your money to the federal government just based on an IRS agent request potentially has you outgunned). I can't believe the sheeple who look at a few tragic cases and then listen to those politically motivated to say "only trust people with power and money to own guns, you poor powerless people just kill kids." Like at Waco? The government that does their best to cover up the identity of the Ruby Ridge sniper so that he doesn't have to face punishment for at the very least civil wrongful death? The federal government that illegally extricates elian gonzalez with federal agents armed with automatic weapons, just because the president at the time says to do so? If that photo of elian being taken away at gunpoint didn't convince you we are a hairsbreadth away from a police state, nothing will.
So if you value liberty and freedom at all, if you think the Constitution means anything, arm yourself while you can as best you can. The 2nd amendment has been gutted, the 4th has been damaged beyond belief, the 8th is being attacked, the 9th is all but ignored, the 10th has been under systematic attack since the war between the states, and was basically repealed shortly before world war 2, and the 1st amendment is in grave danger, especially the last two provisions.
AC's cheerfully ignored
I haven't bought from Amazon since they changed their privacy policy and looks like I won't be buying from Borders either.
There was an interesting report (heavy $$$ for a printed copy, no online link, sorry) on the security aspects of Fry's stores I read a while back. The owners take to heart the statistics that 70% of "stock shrinkage" comes from employee theft, the remaining 30% from a wide variety of external criminal forces, from spur-of-the-moment shoplifters to organized armed gangs. In a high value environment of consumer electronics, nearly 40% of stock is lost to theft. Fry's has cut that number down to less than 8%, due to heavy-handed physical security procedures.
:-) Its all there, most the customer never sees, but keeps the employees slightly more honest and the customers slightly affronted but not enough to lose revenue.
The paper was a justification for having well documented security procedures (the paper authors would like to sell clients very expensive consulting) and thorough physical security. The paper detailed Fry's internal auditing team, the daily (and sometimes bi-hourly) stock inspection, the separation of duties, the use of cages for extremely high value small components with two-person "concept team" pass-through to checkout(did you ever notice that no disk or simm reaches the counter until after your credit card has been approved or the cash is in the drawer?), and the final security guys with their pink X's on the customer receipts. The cash counting rooms were set up by Las Vegas security experts who take the movement of large value receipts very seriously.
All of those procedures are designed to make criminals think twice about targeting Fry's. Just by raising the bar slightly, at a slightly increased cost, they have lowered their losses from 40% of all stock to just 8%, and if you multiply that by their annual turnover, the savings is huge.
The guys on the door don't actually stop any theft by checking bags and receipts, their job is to put fear into stupid thieves before a crime takes place. It is very effective, even if the X'ers don't find one theft in an entire week.
I was in a Fry's last month, the whole purpose was to check out if all their security was just like in the consulting paper (I didn't need to buy any gadgets, since I had just come from SE Asia
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
The story mentions Borders using a union-busting firm. Maybe this is really to recognize known union organizers.
People like you let totalitarian regimes like Nazism occur because you are so blind.
Yes, Borders can technically do 'anything' they want on their private property - so long as it's within reason, and constrained by the laws of the land. I may have a private house, but I can't go murdering people that come in (well, unless they're trying to kill me, but I digress...).
What bothers me about this whole system is that I'm a PROGRAMMER! I know how code is written, how projects are 'managed', and how bugs get introduced into things (especially when the blood/caffeine ratio is skewed toward the blood).
I don't shoplift, but I'm to rely on a system that captures a picture with an electronic device, feeds it across a network to another electronic device, to be analyzed by a program written by people on caffeine, and is compared to a database running on whatever el cheapo hardware could be purchased at Best Buy?
The camera lens could be blurred out because of an electronic failure, someone cleaned something, some rodent ran through the ceiling and whacked the camera, someone sprayed WD-40 on the lens, or the power failed during a "calibration period" and the whole thing's outa whack and the $7.00/hr guard just doesn't give a shit...
The Ceiling-dwelling rodent could have hosed the network cable, chewed on it while the data was going across, or some non-union 'electrician' could have installed the network cable out of spec and now random bits are being introduced which aren't picked up by the software written by caffeine-deprived programmers at 3am, and now the 'picture' of me, looks like Shoplifter A....
The analyzing software could have a flaw - sure the Army has tested it, blah blah blah... I want to run 10 billion different pictures through it, and have it match 10 in the database, and have that 10 be 100% matches. None of this 99% bullshit - that 1% where it screws up is going to adversely affect a lot of people's lives - maybe mine.
Do I really want to have some $7.00/hr security guard ask me to leave a store because the 'system matched me'? Do I really want the hassle of telling him to stick the camera up his ass because he's wrong? Do I really want to get arrested because I refuse to leave and just want to find a book on PHP? Do I want to have to call a friend, get bonded out, call a lawyer, pay a lawyer, go to court, and DEFEND MYSELF all because some assinine system written by someone without enough caffeine says that I'm a shoplifter?
I don't know about you - but I've got a lot better ways to spend my time - so I'm not going to shop at anyplace that uses this crappy technology.
The only problem is that as less people want their right to privacy violated in the name of some company's corporate profits - less people go into the store, the shoplifters don't come in, and of course 'crime goes down' - so these systems increase in use. Simultaneously, since they are 'private' systems, these companies see fit to sell the data to anyone - including some schmuck at the government - and they start building dossiers of where you go, when you go there, blah blah... So they know where you are, and when you're not there, you're presumed to be doing something wrong. Or some criminal breaks into the DB and uses it to determine the best time to kidnap you, kill you, or rob your house... No thanks...
Anyone who thinks I'm nuts - look into the EzPass systems for tollways and what that data's been subverted for, shopper 'loyalty' cards and their insanely detailed databases...
The only thing is to absolutely, positively prohibit this crap from being used anywhere at any time, ever. None of this "oh you can use it, but have to discard the photos that don't match..." - uh huh (see caffiene-deprived sys admin...). None of this "oh we'll flush the DB of people who haven't committed a crime in time X" (see caffiene deprived sys admin) - what about the backups? Oh we'll only use it for this, and won't transfer it (until we change our privacy policy vis a vis Amazon.com)...
Nope - the best thing is to just not let them have it in the first place. Don't you ever trust these mutherfuckers - they are absolutely NOT to be trusted.
What I do support is using something like Hitachi's 0.4mm x 0.4mm tracking tag in EVERYTHING they sell so when it attempts to leave the door, the thief is caught. Doesn't affect me - it gets deactivated when I PAY. Only affects the crooks... Put it in the back door too - watch what the employees and managers are stealing...
If you're in a public place, information about everything you do is public property, right? Or alternatively if you're on private property then the property owner can elect to make it public.
As long as the price is affordable, what's to stop some company from setting up several thousand cameras around the place tracking people's movements? There's no privacy in a public place - it's completely public information.
Then what's to stop such a company from on-selling specific information about any given person?
You have a right to privacy, not to obscurity. To date, obscurity is the only thing that's been protecting people in public places. When there's thousands or millions of people, tracking one person is hard.
Obviously you're not doing anything wrong, so there's no reason to worry about it. Never mind the fact that losing the obscurity that everyone's had before technology took it away could completely destroy your life. Consider all the things that might go wrong if your employer, your spouse, your children/parents, or your stalker decide to purchace information about where you've been and what you've been doing in public places.
This is why I get tired and sick to death of people who keep stating that you're safe and there's no point in worrying as long as you're not doing anything wrong. Losing privacy isn't the problem because in 9 times out of 10 the privacy people had hasn't been lost. The obscurity that nobody had an official right to but everyone took for granted has been lost.
It doesn't even take a corrupt judicial system to argue against it.
This may be totally wrong but it's just an idea: is it legally possible to copyright your own image? If so, if you wander into a Borders store, and take a picture of you without your consent, surely you'd be able to do them for breaking the law? Yes/no?
If they can use cameras and software to identify the faces of known shoplifters, why can't they use cameras and software to actualy catch shoplifters in the act.
Or would they even need to go that far. They could just say that their system could do it. Most punk kids wouldn't shoplift from a store if there was a big sign that said:
Our sophisicated dohickies are watching you!
We will catch you!
buback
I mean hey, a guy's gotta scratch. I don't want some perv zooming on on my crotch.
Oh and btw, I know someone who used to be a security guy for Best Buy... And he used to zoom in on women's breasts all the time and stuff. And those zoom lenses can get in REALLY close. Full screen cleavage!
You know what Best Buy's security policy is?
Anyone who's in a group of three or more are likely shoplifters. They'll watch groups of three like hawks following them all around the store, zooming in on their pockets whenever they reach into them to see if they're putting a CD in there or something.
So don't hang out in the music section in groups of three in Best Buy if you don't want them to film you up close and personal. And don't wear baggy pants either.
I have one better: One night, a bunch of buddies and myself (all Marines, mind you) went out to have a good time. So, to make a short story long (no pun intended, --honestly), after we all had our share of Jim Beam, Jack Daniels, And Jose Cuervo, we decided that it would be a great idea to go get tatooed. I, being the extremely shit-faced computer freak taht I am, decided that I wanted a bar code on my schlong. I gave Bubba (our friendly tatoo artist/Biker/prison rapist) a can of spam, and told him to make my dick look like that (pointing at the UPC). He gingerly obliged, and now I have a barcode on my penis. This is the story I got from my 'mates, so I can't be totally sure on it, afterall, I don't remember anything of that night. The dat afterwards
I've bought a lot of Linux books there too. I spend $200 a month on books, if not more, but I'll not feed a company that uses such evil technology.
The average computer (which runs Doze) can't run for a week without crashing, what makes anyone think that they can accurately identify people from fuzzy photos?
I'm thinking that there is going to be a HUGE market in the near future for hats/headgear that mask your face from cameras.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
I don't think this software can identify the same person 30 years later from their teen picture. Though at this rate, that technology isn't too far off either.
At many stores when they catch you shoplifting, they haul your ass into the backroom and take your picture. Usually they just show the picture to employees and tell them that the shoplifter isn't wanted here anymore, or to keep an eye on them if they ever come back. Now they'll just enter the picture into the database. The knowlege of the shoplifter will not be subject to employee turnover/memory and it won't be limited to a single store.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with this. Store should do whatever is necissary to track shoplifters. They don't have a god-given right to shoplift, and turning away people with a past history of shoplifting can lower prices, so be it.
I hate reading these articles because they report meaningless statistics. This article reported that...
Visionics claims its match rate can be more than 99%.
This is a vacuous statement unless you report the false negatives also. I can return 100% of the criminals by returning every one of the pictures as a positive match. Or I can have a very low false positive rate by only returning the most likely match.
Either the reporter is trying to reduce the information he received from Visionics or Visionics is trying to pump up the hype by reporting meaningless statistics.
This doesn't really bother me that much, except that this would be interesting for the discussion here. If, to get 99% hit rate (whatever that means), they have to return a vast majority of the pictures, then they are essentially archiving a vast majority of the people's pictures.
In my experience, face recognition is horrible. If the visionics system is not hundreds of times better than current acedemic systems, it is only a filtering system which would be useless if you had a large set of criminals. So, rather than worrying about the face recognition system, we should concentrate on whether we want the capability to store images of everyone who enters the store.
On that question, I believe that it is the store's right to do whatever it wants. If you don't like it, don't go there. Go to the more expensive store where your rights are respected. People argued strongly against the current surviellance systems that exist in EVERY quickymart in the US, but that industry decided they didn't really care. And that's their right! And some people still don't go in stores with any cameras. And that their right!
EndersGame
Speak with your feet and the world will be a better place.
"I was in a Fry's last month, the whole purpose was to check out if all their security was just like in the consulting paper (I didn't need to buy any gadgets, since I had just come from SE Asia :-) Its all there, most the customer never sees, but keeps the employees slightly more honest and the customers slightly affronted but not enough to lose revenue."
This reminds me of my battle with my local wal-mart over their incompetently run shoplifter scanners...
Something like 5 times in a ROW, the fucking scanner went off when I tried to leave after buying a movie... The last time, I blew up on them, demanded the manager (who was VERY unapologetic). After he copped his `tude with me I demanded my cash back, which they did, after some reluctance. I've never been back there again.
Would THAT get me on the scanner as a "suspected shoplifter"? Because a wal-mart minumum wage slave wage slave can't desensitize their fucking VHS tapes?
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
This seems to be tailor-made for Border's competition to use as ad-fodder: "We trust our customers! 30% off George Orwell this week!"
My major problem with this is that most corporations have a spotty history at best with data accuracy, and no real incentive to correct bad information. Even if Border's keeps its shoplifter database internal, and resists the impulse to make money off of it (dubious), they have no reason to ever pull an entry out of it. If an individual is unjustly accused, or accidently entered into the system they may never get out. Even companies which are theoretically legally obligated to correct erroneous data have miserable track records Try getting a bogus bad credit item off of your credit report.
Even more frightening is that for those of us in the States there is almost no limit on what a company can do with data it has gathered. Security firms doing employee background checks would absolutely love this, and unlike credit data, the hiring company has no obligation to tell you why they failed you on the check. Imagine being turned down for a job at age 37 for pocketing a CD at age 17. Sound far-fetched? Just remember the "personality" profiles that some HR departments love so dearly.
What really worries me is that the best proceses in the world screw up ocassionally. Let's say for the moment that they have 99.99% accuracy in identifying accurately those who are shoplifters. That means that for every 10,000 people who visit Borders, one will be falsely harassed as a suspected shoplifter.
Beyond the issue of mistakes, it's disturbing to consider the possible future of this technology. Their databases will be filled with people they thought were shopilifting, or people accused of shopilifting later found innocent, and people who were convicted but have since reformed. One of the biggest hurdles to overcome as a convicted criminal is getting beyong the image of being a convicted criminal, and being locked out of stores isn't going to help that.
Think for a moment how many stores you visit that use video cameras. Now just imagine if all of them had facial recognition technology. I mean why wouldn't they use it? It reduces shrink problems, and overall costs will drop exponentially making the technology viable for even the smallest stores. Hook these up to a police database, and think of what happens...
You, a convicted criminal are now out of prison ready to straighten up and fly right. You go to the local liquor store, a camera identifies and tags you as a criminal. The manager asks you to leave. So you go to the grocery store and get the same treatment. How can you really get on with your life if nobody will let you be a part of society again?
I dunno, I begin to think that maybe you accept a certain amount of entropy in the system. That you, as a business plan for a certain portion of your stock getting stolen and a certain portion of money going to pay for security, etc. Maybe there's a certain point of diminshing returns where the cost for our society is not worth the economic efficiencies of it.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Just thinks. Face(cookies) based pricing schemes like amazaon used to do.. Different prices for different people all stored with a cookie.. but now stored with your face.
That's because there is nothing WRONG with a "womens only "gym. Just as there would be nothing wrong with one that is "mens only".
:)
;)
Actually, men's clubs, gymns and male only schools (i.e. The Citidel Private Academy - college in South Carolina i believe) ARE illegal. Women sued for access on the grouds seperate was not equal, and won. This was in 1996 I think, not 1886.
The only minority it is legal to discriminate against is the single, white, male. Hell, some fat slob who couldn't even fit into a seat at McD's sued and won a couple hundred grand. Yes, the irony is apparent.
Think about it. You can have your own black pride, jewish pride, or gay pride parade and every news organization will tell the tale if they try to stop you. If the Klan wants to march, woo hoo, there's some REAL fireworks
Me, I hate stupidity. Not all blacks are good at basketball. Not all Jews are cheap. Not all gays are flamboyant (except on NBC
Absent any other information, I'm gonna pick the tall black guy for my team, the Jew to, hell I don't know, use Quicken or GNU cash, and the flamboyantly gay guy to organize the party.
Stupidity is making the same choices the second time around, when your guy can't make a single free throw, misses every dunk attempt and is a bad aim chucker, the Jew invests it all in Beanie Babies of dotcom anything, and the flamboyant guy books the party at Kathy's Katharis Konvention.
The first example is prejuidice, which is a good, rational thing. Sticking ot prejudice - a generality - is stupid when you have specifics that contradict it.
Anyway, cameras bad, people good. Technology failable, accountability good. No accountability is very, very, very bad. Before you say people who do nothing wrong have nothing to fear, imagine you looked like Joel Rifkin, Jeffrey Dalmer, Ted Kazynski, Tim McViegh, Puff Daddy, Oslama Bin Ladden, OJ Simpson, or Michael Jackson and they were loose, with a shoot on sight warrant.
Now imagine they got a hiarcut, new shave and maybe a pair of glasses/contacts.
Did you know what they looked like before? How about after? Big change, hunh? Now imagine its dark, and the cops nervous after hearing about the horrible things these people did on the news when they said one of them might be in the area.
Did they look like you?
Someone from the store will have to return to the program each time a shoplifter is caught and flag that particular persons pattern, no? It seems this will be very labor intesinve and it seems that something just isn't adding up here.. I wouldn't be surprised if borders is opening their cctv network up to the nsa/cia, etc!
I'm not sure whether I really care much about this security thing, but it doesn't really matter since I've been boycotting Borders for 5 years for union busting. This also includes Waldenbooks and Planet Records, and I'd have extended it to Webvan too, although their appeal was lost on me anyhow. This was all touched on in Michael Moore's "The Big One." so I'm a bit suprised noone's mentioned it.
It's pretty much the same story with B&N and Amazon, Powell's and of course Wal-Mart.
Now if you don't like or believe in unions, or it's just too much trouble to shop in independent bookstores, that's up to you. You shouldn't let Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, much less me, tell you what to do. I know a little about labor history and I have to follow my conscience.
Actually I have mixed feelings about unions, generally their political agendas don't mesh well with my own (see Seattle '99, Wedding Party of the Left and the Right), but I think that the organizing of workers to protect their rights and interests is a vital component of a free market. Not that I'm one of these "any sufficiently free market is indistinguishable from magic" types that you see here so often, I just believe in maximum Liberty. (And yes, if you're wondering, this would include Borders' right to install face recognition systems, as well as my right to stay the hell out of there, and to encourage others to do so as well.) Market forces will kill Borders on this, but only if a lot of education is done.
There's a ton of information on this on the web, one representative link below:
http://parsons.iww.org/~borders/
Fucking asshole moderators. She really is dead.
...then I strongly encourage you to read the book Database Nation.
Just don't buy it at Borders...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
You're so clueless I feel bad just spending the effort to post this reply.
"I did not see this question answered in the article and I find this a serious omission."
I agree, it is definitely a serious admission. However, I think that, whatever the policy is, there will be store managers and employees who don't follow the policy.
What happens when these cameras are everywhere? Will they be used for other purposes? Will they be used by the employees to alert themselves when the boss is present? Will they be used to track political opponents? There were many questions not considered in the article.
Bush's education improvements were
Here in Atlanta when the Olympics came to town, the gov put cameras up around the perimeter highway that surrounds the city. It was done so the could find any stranded motorists, accidents, etc. Then, the cameras started moving outward into the suburbs. First at intersections and exits along other highways. In the town I live in (20 miles from Atlanta), we have these cameras at some of the major intersections of streets. The interesting thing is that they are not all pointed at the intersections anymore. They are pointed at the parking lots of malls, stores, etc.
The point is this. This is how things get started. Cameras are put up here. You get used to them. The outcry settles down. Then they are put up there. A little less outcry and people get used to them. Before you know it, they are everywhere.
I don't believe there is someone somewhere planning to take all of our freedoms away for the our of being tyrannical (in the US anyway). They probably believe that they are doing this for the common good. However, the end result is the same.
Could I use this technology to scout for hot babes? Can it recognise a super model? Besides face recognition, could it also identify a sweet piece of ass that I might be interested in talking to? What about boob-scanning capability? We need to use this technology wisely is all I'm saying.
I think that in America, we've all become too accustomed to the idea that anyone should be able to wipe the slate clean, or start over in a new life just by moving somewhere or disappearing for a while. It replaces the old notion of an honor system, where a person really was judged by his/her deeds/words, and you stood behind your actions or speech.
Maybe if people aren't able to escape anymore and faces can be linked to the person, people will be more deliberate about what they do and how they behave. I think this might be a positive development, don't you think? Aren't you more interested in a society where people aren't just anonymous?
What do you think (about this point, rather than the whole privacy issue that of course follows)?
...You just made my point, thank you.
As a former Borderite, I can voiuch for the fact that their Asset Protection people have been assuming your guilt from the day they were spun off from K-Mart with Waldenbooks. This whole thing is part of the 'Waldenization' process.
In fact, several years ago, they began installing camera bubbles (Most of which are fake, btw), without first looking into rearranging floor layouts, etc. to help prevent theft. They are more concerned with catching theifs rather than dissuading them. No employees were brought into the process, either. It was 'control shrink our way or no way."
The Borders shrink people are a bunch of cocks, IMHO.
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
That assumption is tossed out the window completely with sex offender registration (which doesn't even take into account different offenses, or the fact that it's a really easy thing to be falsely convicted of). And not allowing convicted felons to vote. And denying employment based on criminal records.
Which of course, begs the question, if three quarters of their theft is internal why are they monitoring customers instead of their employees?
On top of that, in most of the Borders I've been in, most employees do not respond to the beeping security gate at the entrance. Half the time they wave the patron through! Perhaps if they stationed a security employee at the door to check those instances (ala Best Buy) maybe that level of security would actually be effective.
I still don't see the problem with this. I'm for any business enacting any policy they please within the confines of their store.
What if they could perform random searches of your person? Your car? (Hey, it's in their lot!) Unlikely? Of course. But what if this became widespread and unavoidable? (as a lot of the video monitoring we find commonplace today was 30 years ago) When does it become too intrusive?
If you don't want to be watched, don't go there, and make it a habit to write letters about it to advertisers and distributors.
I always preferred Borders to Barnes & Noble, but I'm switching now (with a handwritten letter to both to let them know why!).
I don't mind it a bit, since I haven't done anything wrong. If they want to watch me closer because they think I'm a thief, good for them.
Would you mind if a security guard followed you around the store? Would you mind being randomly searched by a Borders supervisor in the middle of your browsing? Would you allow the police to search your car without a reason? What about your house without a warrant? You've done nothing wrong, so you shouldn't mind, right? I'm sorry but I will never understand this type of mentality. Just because you've done nothing wrong does NOT justify their intrusion. The burden of proof lies with them to prove your guilt, not with you, your innocence. If people's commitment to privacy only revolves around how inconvient a search is, then we have already lost.
If the thieves stop going to those stores because they bet profiles, maybe prices will drop.
And I bet I can walk on water and turn water to wine. Customer discounts winning over higher profits would only be a miracle.
If you want privacy, go get some acreage of land in the mountains and stay out of civilization. I don't see ANY privacy loss if you're as much at fault for entering THEIR private property.
See my comment above for my take on your mentality. Would it be okay for them to record and broadcast your conversations while in their store? Would it be okay for them to record you in the bathroom and broadcast that? Would it be okay for a hotel manager to watch your wife shower because you are renting his rooms? Just because you in on private property does not mean you do not have a reasonable expectation to privacy.
Its cameras on the street that worry me, but we get videotaped by ATMs and banks and at the McDonald's and the convenient store, whats so wrong with filtering those images so security can do a better job?
I am absolutely baffled why recording on public streets would bother you and recording at Borders does not. When did it become common thought that the (imagined) right to corporate profit trumps individual human rights? Corporations and businesses are legal fictions that exist at the leisure of the public, not the other way around. We seem to be forgetting this, at our own peril.
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
hey im really furry sadvkjasdhf asdlj hsdalkfj hsdfkljs kjhklj
okay, the actual computer face recognition software has only been in use for a couple of years, in football (soccer for the Americans) stadiums to spot known hooligans, but the police can more or less follow you from one side of central London to the other on cameras.
Because of the IRA and their bombs, like.
This applies to many other town centres, too.
Big Brother is here, and he's called Tony Blair!!
You forgot illiterate.
And to let known shoppers not to go there....
Get your Unix fortune now!
Hmm. Is there actually anything in law that says you own the rights to your own image anyway? I know, everyone assumes these days that if something is ours, we do or should have "rights" over it. But is that just common fantasy, or does it actually exist as part of a legal system?
Playing devil's advocate here, what if you don't own the rights to your own image? What if, to be part of a society, the rights of the society supercede your own. That happens right! If you break the law and threaten the society you live in, you loose your individual right to freedom; sometimes even your life. So there is precedent here of sorts.
And then there is always the argument that if you object, what are you trying to hide? Innocent people don't need to be afraid, do they?
Just some thoughts,
Macka
That's terrible, but thousand of other people whom I don't know die every day.
You're thinking of sponsorships in prisons... not corporate run prisons. In corporate owned and operated prisons inmates are lucky to get $0.50/hr for work that would usually be in the $9-15/hr range. The thought behind it is that it gets inmates used to working for a living... doing the 8 hours a day thing like all good bricks do... while also giving them skills they can use once they get out. I am unaware of any studies that can confirm or deny this theory...
but it seems like a fairly logical way to go about things.
It is an abuse of the system to some degree, as the corporate run prisons are already making money off each body they hold for the governmnet... and then they make those bodies produce goods for retail. But I don't feel particularly inclined to cry for rapists and other felons, do you? Unfortunatly these jobs are being given to inmates at $0.50/hr instead of paying people who don't get 3 free meals a day.
It's my understanding that every citizen has the right to detain another until an officer of the peace arrives. Or, and this is more likely to vary by local (where local == non-federal) law, to transport the detainee to such an officer.
'Twould be a sucky state indeed which prohibited its residents from policing themselves. Although that does pretty much sum up California. :-)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
> The computer got everything right in that case,
> it was just the stupid woman who screwed up.
And an innocent man still spent a day in jail because he was being watched. The fact that there was a human error does not excuse the fact that he was scoped without his knowledge or consent, nor that he was held because of the results.
Virg
On the outside this doesn't sound like much of a threat. Chances are that you are not a shoplifter. But you only have to be "healthily paranoid" to come up with some abuses this technology could hold.
The biggest threat I can think of is that they can use this face recognition technology to catalog you and sell/give this information to others. This is a huge threat when it comes to books because books == knowledge, speech, and ideas. These things are dangerous in the eyes of many (DMCA anyone?).
Imagine you decided to buy a copy of 2600, Ad Busters, and a book on Windows 2000 Network Administration (I bought these three items from Borders last week). You pay with cash because you don't want to get put on any "lists". You noticed the sign on the door "This business uses Video Security" but you figure if you pay cash, who cares. Besides, you are not doing anything wrong. Unknown to you, Borders records your face and attaches the list of items you bought.
A week later, some big name company gets their system hacked. They didn't patch a known security bug on their Windows2000 machine, one listed in 2600 that month. The hacker planted some "anti-corporate" information on their webpage (a Ad Buster tactic).
The FBI tracks the IP used to hack the computer to a public library computer in your home town. Near that library is a stoplight camera which happened to take your picture that week (along with 40 other people) when you accidentally ran a red light.
The FBI ask all the local Borders bookstores to provide them with a list of faces of clients that bought 2600 magazine, Ad Busters, and anything "technical". Your face floats to the top of this list. They cross index this with the stoplight camera database for the entire town and out pops your name and address. Knock, Knock!
Sound paranoid? Hardly. Just a year ago somebody in my town was arrested as a child molester because they checked out an art book from the local library that contained, among other things, pictures of nude children. The police seized the records from the library after a child was abused in the neighborhood and arrested the last person who checked out this book. The person in question was found not guilty but not before spending a few months in prison as a "known" child molester.
Scared yet?
I wrote an email saying that I'd not be shopping there anymore.. this is the text of what I got back.
Thank you very much for your expression of concern regarding the Glasgow
Herald article ('Big Borders bookshop is watching you," Sunday 26 August).
In common with most large retailers, we use security cameras throughout our
stores as part of a range of security and loss prevention tools. We have
overt cameras installed in public areas throughout the store, as well as
behind the tills etc., for the protection of staff and customers. We do not
use cameras in any private space.
Borders (UK) Ltd. was approached by Dectel, the British distributors of
SmartFace, to pilot its security system that is designed to identify known
shoplifters. The device scans visitors entering a store and measures the
distances between 80 facial features to create a unique digital "face map."
The digital image is then converted to a mathematical formula and searches
the database for a match. Visionics, the USA manufacturer of this system
reports that images that are not matched on the database are discarded.
Borders was offered a trial of this system in our two London store locations
on Charing Cross Road and Oxford Street. We will not participate in a trial
of the technology and have made no commitment to implement this security
system.
Borders strongly values the human rights and privacy of our staff and our
customers. At Borders, we feel we have an obligation to provide a safe
environment for our customers and staff. Just as important is our obligation
to respond fully and honestly to customers' concerns. We promise to continue
to do so, while offering the best range and service available anywhere.
Thank you for contacting us.
I wish there was a choice that said "Factually Wrong -1" when I mod.
Or is it innocent until proven guilty? Who knows...
paul
Ok... so say the computer proved excellent at recognising people, so the security guys just went on computer logs and didnt actually record videotape. it would be very easy to fool a computer with a mask, whereas a human could tell the difference most of the time. how hard would it be to frame someone like that?