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."
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
Just wait until you are kicked out of a retail store, cause the computer says you are a shoplifter. My solution is a simple one. I won't be shopping at Borders anymore.
Yes, the technology scares me. However, FWIW I -initially- don't see much of a problem with it. The problems will arise within a few years when every company begins using the technology.
Here's the way I see it: Companies often have a hard time catching shoplifters, because, 1) they acn't (legally) restrain a person before they've left the store. (I can put a book into my pocket and still go to the checkoput and pay for it; it's not shoplifting until you've left the store.) and 2) Once you leave the building, store security can not restarin you. They can only ask you to stay. (Howver, a shoplifter is allowed to legally walk away, as only police officers are allowed to restrain them.), and 3) the store can't prosecute them unless the have evidence (video cameras will work, but the employees' words can be easily beaten in court.)
Now supposing someone steals a book from the store, gets caught, but leaves anyway, the store can't really do anything, except to ban the person from entering the store (which they can legally do to anybody, as long as it's not due to racial or sexual discrimination.
The video camera can identify known shoplifters (for that store) and security can then ask them to leave the store. Whether the database can legally be shared with other stores or not I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that that issue will eventually go to court.
Ever been investigated by a major law enforcement group like the FBI? I have. I was completely innocent. A competitor thought that they could "level" the playing field by using some powerful friends to get the FBI on our backs.... They said we hacked their server, and since their powerful friends said so, the FBI went ape shit. They had NO EVIDENCE mind you... NONE - save for the fact that our IP addresses (static w/ reverse DNS saying exactly what company it was) turned up on their web server logs as ACCESSING the site like every one else in the world who went there.
Being the network engineer and the only one with the technical knowledlge to do it, they investigated me.
They treated me as if I was guilty until proven innocent. You think they only use those intimidation tactics in movies? HA! So yes, everyone has something to hide... not just the criminals.
(Disclaimer: For those who have read my other posts, yes, I advocate the use of carnivore and other invasive means of tracking criminals. I also advocate the opening of such tactics to public scrutiny because when used properly and under court supervision, law enforcement agencies do their jobs and do them well. I recently saw a statistic (grain of salt time) that said the FBI catches 94% of the fugitives it goes after.)
quis custodiet ipsos custodes - Juvenal
" 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."
/.
This is perhaps the most naive statement I have ever read on
for the last 19 years I,
1- can not vote to improve my rights
2- can not be employed by any company that does work for the govrenment, Or any company that does a deicent background check, even though I can do the work (embedded systems)
but I still have to pay taxes even though I am not properly represented in government.
This has forced me into seeking employment in riskier startup technology companys, which seem pay better anyway, but I will tell you that the job market looks very grim for me now that the venture capitol has dried up.
You are naive to think that all these records that everybody keeps on you magically disapear, or somehow don't matter. This is the information age, and its in human nature to discriminate. Its called natural selection.
"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.
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 ?
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.
The whole worry here is not so much this specific act, but the slippery slope. Right now, perhaps Borders is kicking known Borders shoplifters from their stores. Next it might be any shoplifters. Then it might be anyone convicted of any crime. Then it could be anyone who is currently receiving unemployment or otherwise on the dole. Then it could be anyone with a poor credit history or any other characteristic Borders deems as untrustworthy. And let's assume other stores start implementing this practice. What will happen? You'll wind up with tiers of stores...certain stores will only cater to the rich -- in the sense that the non-rich won't even be allowed in. Other stores will cater to the "honest" middle class. And finally there'll be "sub-stores" which charge tremendously marked-up prices and have guards and cameras and all sorts of onerous procedures, but the poor and "untrustworthy" will find that these types of stores are the only ones where they will be permitted to enter.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
" There are advantages with a private database. There are laws that require the database owner to correct the error. If not, the database owner is guilty of libel/slander (depending on which would apply, most likly libel). incorrectly identifying someone in a database is closest to a newspaper publishing an inaccurate story about you."
Worse, actaully... Courts tend to let newspapers skate because of the 1st Amendment. However, that protection would NOT protect a corp who mis-id'd you with a face scanner.
Courts tend to protect the press, because of the public interest in a free press. However, there is no precedent for protecting a corp in the same type of incidence.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
In Michigan at least, you can't make a citizen's arrest unless a felony was committed (in the case of shoplifting, stealing $1k or more of goods). Practically, this means that security guards can't detain you unless they know offhand the price of what you stole, because if they are wrong about the value of what you took, they go to jail (kidnapping I believe). Practically, it means nobody can stop a shoplifter.
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra