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 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
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
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.
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?
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.
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