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."

Comments

What worries me most about this..

[phaze3000]

Is where exactly are they going to get the database of 'known shopfilters'? And who is to be listed as a 'known shoplifter'?

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.

A way around this...

[MentlFlos]

Lets all purchase Nixon masks and go running into borders with them on... Immagine what the logs would look like..

Nixon entered via west entrance
(last message repeated 27 times)

Yeah, I know its stupid, but thats why its a joke.

-paul

Re:why do we care?

[brunes69]

Its that kind of attitude that will be the end of all your freedom.

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

Re:why do we care?

[Waffle Iron]

Or, even better, how about not stealing? Really, why is anyone so worried about being watched if they aren't doing anything wrong?

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.

Why this differs from what Tampa is doing

[tbo]

I'm going to take my turn as the token Slashdot libertarian today, and defend Borders while criticizing the Tampa municipal government for doing the same 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:

With Borders, if you don't like it, you can shop elsewhere. With Tampa, you have to move and never visit the entire city.

The Borders system is funded by money voluntarily given to them by customers (i.e. from profits). The Tampa system is funded by money they forcibly take from citizens through taxation.

Borders stores are private property. Tampa streets are public property.

Borders can legally ask you to leave the store for any reason they want. Tampa can't do the same. (This highlights differences in what legal protections you have on private vs. public property).

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.