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 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.
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.
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.
After all only criminals have something to hide!!
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.
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
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up, because I wasn?t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up, because I wasn?t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
'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
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.
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
Because the issue isn't whether the watchees are doing anything wrong. I'ts whether the watchers are doing anything wrong.
Enhanced surveillance technology is almost never accompanied by enhanced accoutablility for the operators of that technology. (Be it governments, corporations or spies.) These systems are being deployed with no concern for the fact that they upset balances of interest that have been carefully formed over centuries.
Those who claim that these are not new powers are wrong. The data correlation provided by networked and shared computer databases is a fundamentally new capabality. Comparing this new capability to a cop watching for known criminals on the street is like comparing a nuclear weapon to a hand grenade. At some point in the future, having your face in one of these databases will be like having an emblem sewed on your sleeve in Nazi Germany.
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!
Well, first, even if a person knows my face, they can't share that visual memory with every other security guard in every other store, or sell it to other stores.
Second, if some clerk or guard follows me around in a store, I get pissed. And I never shop there again. Being automatically chased around the store by a computer doesn't make me feel any better.
The enemies of Democracy are
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 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
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
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.
Fool! How dare you cross the all-powerful Slashdot HiveMind(tm)?!?
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
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
Ever notice that most places you walk into have a small sticker or sign somewhere that says something like "Closed-circuit cameras on premises"? I'm not sure the sign is even 100% required, but most places that are concerned about shoplifting will use the sign to deter shoplifters. Anyway, that's your notice that cameras are in use at the location. Legally, you have been notified, and your entrance is considered implied consent to being watched/recorded. I would imagine that there are some restrictions on the use of any recordings (not selling the tape to a television studio without consent, etc), but I would think security purposes would be allowed.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
That's nice, but the only message that will send Borders is that their tech book sales are off by 1% for some reason. If you really want to send a message, get a bunch of people together to picket your local Borders. This makes the general public aware and affects their business directly. It also may make it socially unacceptable to put such technology in place in the first place.
Now the hard part is coming up with those catchy slogans....
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.
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.
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?
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?"
So, what you're saying is that they should stop arresting shoplifters because they might arrest you one day?
Je ne parle pas francais.
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.
Personally I don't see a difference with cameras or hiring an army of security guards.
Neither do I, and that's the problem. Is lots of cameras really any less of a police state than lots of police?
Being treated like a criminal is being treated like a criminal, regardless of the specifics.
No, I'm not saying that Borders can't do what they want in their own stores. But unless the government recently passed a new ammendment (guess which country I'm from), I'm still allowed to bitch and moan about their business practices and refuse to shop there.
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
It's a private establishement, not a public place. You have no god-given right to even be in there; they have the right to refuse anyone.
This is not the government watching for crime; this is a store saying, we caugh you shoplifting here before, so we don't want you back.
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.
The Niemoller quote is not really apropos, you're essentially putting some sort of parallel between shoplifters and Communists, Jews, Catholics, and Protestants. Slippery slope you're on there.
AC's cheerfully ignored
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 ?
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?
think about how hypocritical it is to mod down a message and yet be oh so passionate about freedom of speech
Er, which is it? Are we supposed to use rational thought, or are we supposed to squeal "censorship" when somebody applies an unfavorable editorial judgment?
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
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 ?
No it isn't.
This is a store buying a database from a company that peddles accusations. If the system grows in popularity and most stores implement this, the database company gains quasi-governmental powers but without the checks and balances built into governments.
Inclusion in the database (rightly or wrongly) becomes a form of extra-legal punishment, imposed regardless of any due process punishments already applied by the real government to the offender (or mistaken non-offender).
Like I said originally, it's not each individual store that's the problem. It's the network effect when all stores share accusations in real time via a secret database.
Far from it.
I advocate law enforcement being able to do their jobs responsibly. Responsibly means that any methods they use to catch criminals should be open to public scrutiny for two reasons: a) the public should be aware of what can and will be used against them and b) to allow weaknesses to be discovered so that the right man goes to jail and the wrong one does not.
That's what this system is about, remember? Making sure that the people who don't break the law don't get thrown in jail, and making sure those who do DO get thrown in jail.
when the jack-booted thugs of government come to take your sorry ass away at 4am, i won't miss you.
It is because of the checks and balances designed into the justice system that the jack-booted thugs WON'T come in and take my sorry ass away at 4am. We have things such as due process. Granted, that is violated at times, and when it is, I am all for finding out WHY it was violated and punishing those who violate it. Those checks and balances were what our founding fathers envisioned. The politicians today have warped that some, but we can not abandon the principals upon which this country was founded.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes - Juvenal
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.
My solution's even simpler; I just won't shoplift at Border's.
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.
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
Merchants do have the right to protect themselves from thieves. We all pay the higher prices from losses.
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.
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.
How will you feel if security drags you into a backroom and starts questioning you about the book they know you stole two months ago? Luckily the software is perfect so that won't happen.
I'll refuse to come, then insist they call the police if they want to detain me. Then I'll sue them.
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
"How will you feel if security drags you into a backroom and starts questioning you about the book they know you stole two months ago? Luckily the software is perfect so that won't happen.
I'll refuse to come, then insist they call the police if they want to detain me. Then I'll sue them."
EXACTLY what I'd do. A "rent a cop" has no right to detain you or question you, insist that the police be involved. That is the best way to both CYA and to maximize Borders liability when you sue them.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
"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."
Nothing at all wrong with it... UNLESS they make a mistake. And you know they will. CCD cameras take fuzzy pictures which increases that chance. They must be very confident that their system is 100% foolproof in the face of teh catastrophic liability this exposes them to...
If a private corp fingers you as a criminal and tries to detain you, and cause you embarassment in public, SUE THE FUCK OUT OF THEM!
A government has certain immunities from lawsuits, a private corp does not.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
"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
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
" 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
"My solution's even simpler; I just won't shoplift at Border's."
What if some fuzzy CCD camera image ID's you as a shoplifter? What then? I bet you'd be suing, just as I'd do.
I'm as against stealing as you are. But what I am more against is a corp trying to play police. It's legal, but they better NOT make a mistake, as they have no exemption to civil lawsuits.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
...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
"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
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.
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
> but now people ignore those lessons
They aren't taught them.
My parents and grandparents were involved in WWII. So were my teachers. But, that was a previous generation, and I am part of a previous generation.
The current crop has been raised and "educated" in an entirely different manner. They aren't taught the meaning behind the development of the USA the same way we were.
There's a whole generation of folks that just don't know, just don't care, and can't be bothered with understanding. And they're making more babies than the postwar baby boomers did, and THOSE kids have even bleaker prospects of being educated.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Well, too bad that the other guy that sorta looks like you in certain lighting conditions didnt. Hope you'll enjoy your discussion with security.
Like they say in the article, 'It is very difficult to distinguish one face from another with the human eye,'. Well, no shit sherlock. But here, we haf this maaagik compuuuuter prooogram, that has noooo such proooooblems. Yah, right. Sounds like the pr0n blocker based on image recognition that could be replaced with a blocker that randomly blocks half of all pictures and still is just as accurate. Except in this case it will randomly recognize one shoplifter in every 100 customers. Or?
IMO, is sounds like just another bullshit product company selling wannabe smart 'blahblah recognition software' to gullible companies. It's hard for people to tell faces apart, especially if you dont have pictures taken the same day, and it would be a freaking nightmare to get a program even close to any form of accuracy. Except, of course, you can always use marketing to trick people to buy the product anyway.
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