Slashdot Mirror
Borders Nixes Face Recognition
jeffy124 writes "Due to recent criticisms surrounding their implementation of face-recognition technology to watch known shoplifters, Borders Bookstores is suspending the approach. This doesn't mean it's gone for good, it may return in the future. They want to resolve the issues brought up by privacy and human-rights activists."
Because the borders down the street from me has a nice collection of O'Reilly books, not to mention a bazillion other computer books, and I would have hated to have to boycott them.. Best computer bookstore ever. (In my area at least)
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
I wouldn't want a picture of me picking my nose while reading Wired to get out on the net. What would I tell my parents?
They've had face-recognition systems at the B&N down the street for some time. His name is Arnold and he wears a uniform.
There are lots of unpleasant things that businesses could do that they don't do because people won't put up with them. It's important that this dynamic be put to work in the privacy area. If people won't put up with this, it won't happen.
Eternal vigilance, and all that.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
Hmmm... Guess someone's comment yesterday about objections on /. just reducing tech book sales by a couple percentage points was a bit understated. ;-)
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
I swear, one day I'll just have to make my own company so I can make a point of not doing evil things like this.
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/fiction writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure we'll all miss him - even if you didn't read his books you've probably enjoyed one of his movies. Truly an American icon.
But Barnes & Noble employees can't do anything about shoplifters, except ask a customer "if they need help." Most stores don't have loss-prevention officials working at them either, and only managers can actually say something along the lines of an accusation to customers.
So, provided Borders is the same as B&N, how exactly would a recognition system help them out? No one is there to watch it! Would it alert managers, or would they have to hire more loss prevention? Or does Borders work entirely different?
Translate "they want to resolve the issues brought up by privacy and human-rights activists" to 'they will wait until the furor dies down, then slide it in quietly when the activist's attention is devoted elsewhere.'
Or am I cynical? Most of the times there is an outcry against a new measure, the underlying economical motivation by the corporation does not change. Instead, they realize the PR costs have increased.
Faced with either rejecting the idea totally due to PR issues, or just waiting until the PR climate chances and they can proceed, it makes sense to just wait, then implement the perfectly good and economically sound idea once the controversy is passed.
Very rarely do such ideas go away just because of complaints, unless it's for a service-focused part of the business. And catching thieves isn't service-focused.
A.
I just heard some sad news on slashdot - Anonymous Coward's penis was found dead in his boyfriend's ass this morning. I'm sure we'll all miss him - even if you didn't suck his dick, you've probably enjoyed it up your ass. Truly an american faggot.
The real reason I think the crime has decreased due to the use of this is other countries is because it causes a great deal of intimidation. Kind of like a death penalty: If you kill someone and get caught, you know you'll most likely die. Or the hidden police cruisers: You don't know if the car next to you while you're speeding is occupied by an officer or not, so you don't speed as much.
I'm sure that this does help pinpoint shop-lifters for monitoring by the store, but I think alot of it is intimidation.
Another example of "Trial balloon management".
... and on & on.
The formula:
- We'll announce that we're doing something, but only introduce it on a low cost basis into a small target market.
- We'll watch the reaction.
- If it's bad, we'll denounce ourselves and retract our low cost trial balloon.
- If it works, we'll exploit the hell out of it.
This formula has been applied with both results to:
- SmartTags
- Windows Activation
- Borders Face Recognition
- Skylarov
- Implementation as a "Trade Secret" (ms & kerberos)
Other examples?
25th post!
Now all you need is the "store greeter" loudly announcing this every few minutes as people enter the store.
*I* for one would like to see Lee Ving or Exene Cervenka hired as the friendly helpful greeter at my local Boarders, but I think that might scare a few people away...
______
Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.
What does this have to do with privacy? Borders is a corporation, and its property is private property. If they want to implement something like this, it's fine to complain to them on various grounds, such as that the technology can't be trusted (as though a person could), but to attack them on privacy grounds is absurd. If someone said you couldn't enter their house without being photographed or under video surveillance or whatever, would you attack them on privacy grounds, or would you just leave and tell them they were being silly? It is not your right to shop at Borders.
--- "TANSTAAFL" --Robert Heinlein (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)
what bigwig at borders actually thought this was a good idea and that the public wouldn't be pissed?
how stupid can people be..
There are always these huge detectors along the entrances, anyway. Most bookstores tag their books, and if you limit the kind of packages that people can take in, you should be able to control theft pretty well.
Besides, even with facial recognition, how are you going to define and detect "suspicious" behavior? Software might be smart enough to track both visible and obscured objects, but it could also make mistakes. Juggling books might also confuse the software.
Tagging the books might be better, and it doesn't raise all the questions about privacy and stuff. Of course, you need to make sure that the tags aren't removed...
May I just say, one private bookstore maintaining their own database of shoplifters shutting down is no doubt a victory for the privacy cause; it is a small victory. What if say, Borders got togeather and shared the system and database with, say, B&N. And they, in turn, shared with say another chain, say Walmart.
Well, it quickly becomes apparant where I'm going with this, you would have a very large database with lots of camaras that would be able to identify someone very quickly almost anywhere. Now, lets say some of these camaras are mouted by checkouts, they can place a face, to a name, and address, and credit card, and from there they have a full profile on you.
Applications: Hmm, who in my store right now is know for not paying off thier bills, who here talks a long time and doesn't buy anything? I won't help them. Who here is a real sucker for a sale and will buy whatever I tell him to? What does this guy want/ need / like / already have? Well, I won't serve person A and I'll give the slick Willy approch to person B.
Now let's say an institution already had lots of cameras set up to do this very thing, and they were already in the intial phases of it. That would be a very down right terrifing thought. Well, don't look now but it is, the British Government and many many other institutions.
What additional technology does my fear take to impliment? None.
Do you trust the governments of the world not to share this information or use it properly for your good? Neither do I.
There is only one solution, the cameras and system must be disabled. Each and every single last one of them. Write anyone who will listen, do your part, get them down before Jim and Borders that you've never walked into before says "Hello, Mr. Nobody, Good to see you today, may I show you the new copy of Wired and the new Playboy that you buy every month?"
its not about punishing them for being successful, its about preventing them from being sucessful simply because they are able to skew the game in their favor in new arena's (OS and browser are different arenas). Its about allowing "little half-assed newcomers" to have a fair shot at succeeding.
nice to know that every once in a while a company actually listens to the consumer.
-
Trusting Borders to resolve and reconcile issues brought up by activists is like trusting them what got Microsoft's money, the government, to prosecute Microsoft.
.NET, and continue on their merry way because the Punishment bullet of the government, anti-trust prosecution, has already been shot, at least for the nonce!
A little comparison here.
Microsoft gets called a monopoly, gets threatened with breakup, probably WON'T get broken up since this got transferred to a new judge. They come out with XP and
Borders takes down its technology, "resolves" issues by doing something stupid like appointing a committee or a hearing board or something like that, or some kind of diversity officer.
Or there may be some other corporate solution that is cooked up by a lawyer in order to meet the constitutional requirements while conferring the bottom-line benefits, such as lower insurance premiums for the stores, that these cameras were designed to provide.
Goat sex free since 2001
Seems to me that such outcries without significant punishment or legal censure against future attempts are just signals to companies to keep this stuff in the back room.
It isn't too farfetched an idea- pretty much all of any large company's head staff would agree with such a plan, if it made their cost ratings better. A system such as this could be implemented without the knowledge of the store's staff (loss prevention in most large stores works as a hermetically sealed subsection of the store, so that all employees can be monitored freely) and if it made a difference, well, that would be one more reason for it to stay, and stay hidden.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
one of the interesting clashes brewing between the EU and the USA is the ongoing "ratcheting up" of intrusive and obtrusive "ubquitious surveillance" in the UK...
/. as i recall) to a Salon dot com article on email surveillance of Americans in the UK ....
i ti sh_carnivore/
the British people, after decades of things going "BOOM!" in the middle of London and other cities, have choosen to turn over many of their privacy rights (which are far fewer to start with in the UK than the USA, NO Bill of Rights in Limey Land)
here's a link (from last august, was also covered on
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/08/23/br
the recent tussle in Florida (WHY is it ***ALWAYS*** Florida????) over the use of face/rec is just the start of the argument over what s/f maven Bruce Sterling calls "perpetual surveillance", where any time we are in public, we are "on camera"..
those who support it argue that "personal crimes" mugging, robbery, rape, etc will be drastically reduced and more criminals will be caught and imprisoned and that living in a "fish bowl" is a small price to pay for the additional safety...the Brits seems to have bought this argument hook, line and sinker
if some organization(s) don't emerge to make sure that our "analog" privacy protections are transferred by law and statute to the digital world, which, so far, by and large they have not....our digital lives will become simple currency for the governments and corporations to trade in (Terry Gilliam, Prophet)
the corporations and their proxies, RIAA, MPAA, BSA, et al have their plans for our data, and so far, the US and European governments have either gone along with the corporations or just stood on the sidelines
The Bill of Rights needs to be attached to our digital identities, realms, behaviours ASAP, now's the time to support the EFF, or don't be surprised iff keyboard sniffers are built into OSs in the next decade...
We're all in it together...
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
... and again, the nice young lady at the register recognized the faces of me and my coworker
Oh, I'll go back
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
SCORE! +1 for privacy! i hope they don't go though with this EVER why? it won't stop people who are good from doing it.
If i was you, you'd be me and we wouldn't be having this conversation
this is posted too often, get a new gimmick
Microsoft is abusive. Actually, they are more abusive than anyone I've read on Slashdot has said.
The U.S. Justice Department court case pending against Microsoft found that Microsoft was extremely abusive. This document is on the web in the Court's Findings of Fact. What surprised me about the 207 pages of descriptions of abuses was that it didn't mention the abuses that I thought were most important. The U.S. Justice Department mostly focused on Microsoft's mistreatment of large companies. But Microsoft's mistreatment of small users is more destructive, in my opinion. (You can see more information about the antitrust cases against Microsoft at United States v. Microsoft, Antitrust Case Filings.)
And now these clowns are going to implement some facial recog? Fuck-n-a, half the people rolling into the store will get tagged as shoplifters if their track-record is any indication.
Does anyone else see waltmarker's two examples as potential benefits for your standard consumer (you and I).
I pay my bills on time, and I don't tie up service reps with stupid questions. Cool, they'll know not to make me wait 30 minutes while they're occupied with a nitwit or someone who doesn't pay their bills.
Additionally, their system recognizes me, and they know I absolutely can't stand sales people talkigng to me. Cool, they let me browse in peace until I have a question for them.
Do I trust the government not to share this information? Doesn't really matter for me, I have nothing to hide, and I don't plan on shoplifting or using bad credit cards anytime in the future... So this issue is sort of irrelevant from my perspective....
is is because machines are watching us instead of a security person? are we scared of the machines?
i'm being serious here. we now have face recognition software that works and thats great, and just get used to it.
While I'm sure we here on
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
How do you keep it hidden when you have to kick out the first customer that your system THINKS is a criminal?
How do you keep it hidden when the first innocent person with enough time, money and guts SUES you?
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
But what if say, there was a mix up, and something made it's way on to your credit report (That shouldn't be there) as it often does. Every sales person you talk to could remind you to pay bill X thor the rest of your life.
Now let's say this truely does become a large scale comercial cooperative network. Call me Mr Burgler, ok I'm thinking what rich guys aren't home right now and far away from their home. Bingo, this whole family is 2 hours awy from thier home! I can go on a little shopping trip of my own! Talk about casing a place, this would make it dreamy. You really think you would be able to hide from anyone? Jury Duty, Balif, go pick up juror X from location Y. Warents, hits, anyone, anytime for ANY REASON could find you.
But I pay my bills on time, I don't have anything to hide. I'll sacrifice a little privacy for a little service. Why not? Thought so.
I thought it said ... Nixon Faces Resignation
Time for bed it seems.
Kind of like a death penalty: If you kill someone and get caught, you know you'll most likely die.
Unfortunately that's not true, at least in the US.
The smart money says the criminals look for more private ways to make money.
Maybe they could go into politics, for instance.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Soon they'll be able to track anybody anytime and it won't take a court order to make it happen.
I agree, we must smash the cameras.
what the hell is wrong with face recognition software? What's the difference between that and having some guy watch a security monitor for known offenders? Do people think when the software recognizes a face, it's going to send the person off to jail with no human intervention? Of course not...it's just going to notify a security person to keep an eye on the individual. If they don't take anything, no big deal. If they aren't who the computer thought they were, no big deal.
Same with red light cameras. What's the difference between using them and having someone stationed at the intersection to watch for offenders? I've been caught by one myself...I'm now more careful about pushing the yellow lights. By the way, the photo led to a civil fine, not criminal, and there was no possiblity of it affecting my driving record. A fair tradeoff, I think.
Rule of thumb: if you are in a public place, people will be able to see you, whether they do it with their eyes, through a camera, or assisted by software. Enough with the paranoia already.
Evil is the money of root.
eh, good point on the home burgler thing, except maybe I'd have my own at home video system :)
Your credit report analog, though, is by far the best reason I've seen yet on this forum as to why we should be concerned about these systems. Then again, I think credit rating report systems are a good thing, and believe me, I've seen plenty of my friends get screwed over by these things. But in the end, the problem really isn't that the credit report exists, it's that there's no good system for removing an incorrect entry.
I think what these video recognition systems really need, is a legal incentive to insure that the cost of a false positive is very high. That way, it would be the burden of the seller to ensure that their databases/reports are correct, unlike the way it currently is with credit reports.
No bill of rights, other than that laid down by the European Union and enforced in the European Court of Human Rights. Duh. As it happens the UK [seperate from the EU] grants far more privacy rights than the USA, which has the fewest privacy laws in the known world.
What's interesting about this situation is that nothing in either the American or European bills of rights prevents this sort of thing from happening.
So attaching it to your keychain isn't going to help.
> It turns out if you slip a razor blade between the sticky side and the laptop it'll hold down the button and not go off while you pry the laptop out.
> Next time you buy a CD try this out: Grow your fingernails a bit long, not too long but maybe a millimeter longer then usual. Slip your fingernails under the tag use at least two maybe 3 fingers and drag them across the CD. It'll pop right off, there might be a little adhesive left. It might take you a try or two but eventually you'll have those tags off faster then they can run them over that little pad.
Sounds to me like you're distributing information about circumvention devices.
Moving on to related topics...
When I was a kid I heard on the radio that a couple of guys shoplifted a canoe from a sporting goods store, but got busted when they came back to get paddles and stuff.
Of course, I suspect that most news stories of this type are made up, but at least this one was funny.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Camera+radar speeding ticket generators have been around for decades, but never found wide-scale deployment in the USA. I've spent some time wondering why, and I conclude that the reasons are -
- probably vandalism of the devices;
- ineffectuality, because once people know about the devices they will slow down within their field of vision, and drive faster elsewhere to make up for it;
- most importantly of all, if traffic violations resulted in a near certainty of getting a ticket, people would stop violating the traffic laws and ticket-based civic revenues would plummet.
Also, I think the police by and large enjoy the cat-n-mouse games with violaters, and would be very disappointed to have it replaced by an automated system.Side note, especially relevant to my last bullet above: back in the 80's a lot of US cities got multi-million dollar federal grants of "get tough on crime" money, and at least one of them spent the money by putting 200 more cruisers out on speed trap duty.
City governments tend to have odd notions about what their obligations to their citizens are.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
have a .sig as annoying as Signal 11's 1984 quote. please have a nice warm glass of shut the hell up.
I like how the text "recent criticisms" is linked to a previous slashdot article on this matter - as if anything anyone here had to say had something to do with this.
.0001% of their customer base have to say.
Borders couldn't give less of a shit about what some obese zit faced geeks who represent a solid
and increasing data storage and processing capacity should concern everyone.
You go to the Circle K and buy a couple packs of cigarettes. There's footage of your car and your face. Just analog data, no problem, right? Some are starting to scan your driver's license to validate your age when you buy beer.
While driving home, you pass through 2 red light cameras and a photo speed trap. More data.
You also remember to swing by the local Meijer's (Michigan Supermarket) and pick up those tampons for your girlfriend (you're a sensitive guy, or just have a wierd hangup.) More movies. You pay with your debit card. More data.
If the local police dep't picks up one of those sweet daddy new IBM z-series servers with enough capacity to store and process all the data passing from our daily meanderings into digital form, we should be very concerned.
They would now know you drink on Monday, smoke too much and your girlfriend is on the rag. Cross-checking the police dep't's databanks they might find a couple domestic violence incidents that coincide with certain lunar phases and this Monday happens to be at the beginning of one. You might have a new guardian angel hanging around for the next 5 days.
Borders did the right thing. But, they could undo it in 3 months. I'd be amazed if there weren't at least 5 other major outlets that were implementing this technology with less media attention.
We should be canvasing the hell out of our legislators to make illegal any mass accumulation of visual data that can single us out by digital processing equipment, now before we're no longer in a position to do so.
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
Borders is making a good PR move by rescinding the CCTV face recognition technology, but the knee jerk reaction I observe in this and the previous thread really bother me. Corporations are supposed to enjoy many of the same rights as private citizens. They can own private property, own inventory, obtain credit, take out loans, etc. In essence the corporation is a private citizen, responsible for its own actions, but able to enjoy many of the same freedoms that the public do.
Now suppose a business implements a system along these lines. Another flurry of knee jerk complaints are sent, only this time to congressmen, senators, and the like. The complaints plead for new legislation to ban these devices. We would end up with laws which actually deny us our freedoms, rather than protect our privacy. I can envision such a law making call screening illegal. After all, you would be recording the person's voice for later analysis to determine if they are worthy of a call back. I can see telemarketing firms using just such a law to force us to answer the phone and speak with them.
Even without legislation backing it up, what happens when my neighbor gets upset because I install a CCTV camera in my shed because I suspect he is stealing my tools? Should I feel obligated to not install the system because I might record someone else's face?
Corporations definitely need to be sensitive to their customers feelings, but I fear the day when our freedoms become restricted behind the banner flag of privacy.
I thoguht the face recognition was a good idea. If nothing else it could have meant lower cost of operation for them and perhaps lower costs to us consumers.
I hate how overreactionary Slashdot is on things like this. It's simply not a problem at all.
If Borders would have implemented this syste, I would never go there again. This is getting rediculous.
No offense guys, but Borders is a corporation. They can do whatever they want with their store, just like I can do whatever I want in my home (as long as its legal).
....
Are you guys against the store having security tapes as well? Someone could watch your every move, and know which isles you favor, and figure out what books you like, and when you check out, they could take your name down, contact your ISP, and have them put some smart tags on HTML sent to you, advertising more books. Then they could sell the database and
Come on guys. If you're not in the database of known shoplifters, this isn't an invasion of privacy at all. If you did shoplift, then that was just pretty stupid.
I swear, one of these days I'm going to come here and find everyone whining about the government not making it illegal to look at someone on the street.
When you leave the privacy of your home, you enter the public world, where all the other functions have access to your methods and data. Calm down. Its always been this way, and it always will. If you don't like it, then stay home.
Captain_Frisk
Mod me down for opposing the hive mind.
Employee theft accounts for the vast majority of property stolen. When I last read stats on it it was something around 90% (in the early '90s). Menards (a hardware chain based out of Minneapolis IIRC) a few years back went to the trouble of personally searching every employee as they left work. Don' t know if they still do that.
Anyway, there's plenty of ways to steal stuff. A prime method is to read some old Loompanics (http://www.loompanics.com) books. While dated, they offer the tricks of the trade. Of course, they are supposed to be used for *stopping* these things. Knowledge being a two edged sort and all that.
Also most tags (at least used to) be nullified by running a electro magnetic charge over them. That's the thing they use when they pass the merchandise over it.
Of course, I don't shoplift (having had money in the past to buy what I wanted), but running a small bookstore back in 91-93 you needed to know how this was done.
Borders said they were using this to find known shoplifters. They do this by taking pictures of every person that walks in the store and comparing their face metrics with a database. There is no way to know how long people pictures stay in the database or that they are not becoming part of the database as they link this information with other customer information(borders preferred customer cards? or Amazon database information.) They could then create a profile of your purchases, visit frequency, credit history and coordinate this with any other information they can get from other "partner" companies like doubleclick.
Borders does not have to serve everyone, especially freedom/privacy loving freaks like me. Before they could bar me from entry I wrote them a nice little email and let them know that they could kiss my business goodbye if they implemented this system.
If borders does not have a right to collect and record this information without informing people who enter their store. A retailer must accept cash in return for goods and services without requiring additional information. Its legal tender. They have to take it. There are laws against recording, archiving and coordinating credit card information. Traditionally consumers have been afforded a certain level of privacy when making purchases. Because it is technologically feasible to track individual shoppers does not mean that it is ethical or even legal.
We have the best government that money can buy.
i don't normally respond to vague AC postings, BUT, as your was so egregiously wrong, here we go (in brief and note, privacy rights in the EU are not separate but largely contained in the Human Rights Convention), hopefully, you'll respond with your own specific quotes and links...
8 /8 0042--a.htm#1
..........whenever made or given, so far as, in the *****opinion***** of the court or tribunal, it is relevant to the proceedings in which that question has arisen."
& L= E&M=$t/1-1-1-1/EMB1.asp
link to Human Rights Act of 1998
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts199
you particularly want to check out Sections 1, 2 and 3 language such as (asterisks are mine);
"1(4) The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments to this Act ******as he considers appropriate***** to reflect the effect, in relation to the United Kingdom, of a protocol."
"as he considers appropriate, eh???"
". 2. - (1) A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take into account any-
ah, yes, "..in the opinion of the court or tribunal..."
and my own personal favorite;
". 3. - (1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights."
***love that phrase*** "So far as it is possible to do...*****
and let's not forget the Court of Human Rights own language;
" In accordance with Article 53 of the Convention, the Contracting States ******undertake to abide by the decisions of the Court******. To date States which have been ordered to make payments under Article 50 have consistently done so. The Court now (since October 1991) prescribes, in the operative provisions of the judgment, a period of three months from the date of the decision within which the applicant must be paid and (since January 1996) provides for interest in the event of failure to comply with this time-limit. "
for the non-legally inclined amongst us, all the language in the Convention is non-binding on the EU states, more properly it's as binding as the member states allow/want/let it be...some countries, the Benelux for example, take civil/privacy very, very seriously, some countries, like the UK, who we are speaking of here, are trashing individual rights for collective security
if you've ever carried a bag into a British train station or london hotel lobby, esp when the Provo's are on a tear, you know what i'm talking about.....
let's try this again, both the EU and the UK do NOT have SUPERSEDING and BINDING civil rights ***guarantees*** built into their legal systems, equivalent to those contained in the Bill of Rights addendum to the US Constitution, the Europeans do have many noble statements of intent and/or purpose, none of which have the force of a constitutional guarantee
check it out on the Council of Europe's own main portal;
http://www.coe.int/portal.asp?strScreenType=100
and last, but certainly not least, google the following; Britain's/British Official Secrets Act
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
I was hoping to paint my face blue like The Lone Gunmen did to see if that would foil their system.
As time goes on I think we'll see more of these surveylance systems in place. In time no one will care about the privacy implications. If you stop to think about it, unless you pay for everything with cash big brother knows what you're doing and where you have been.
And how many of us really buy our O'Reilly books at a store? Who has that much free time.
'Same speed C but faster'
"Kind of like a death penalty: If you kill someone and get caught, you know you'll most likely die. "
Um, no. Hasn't the notion of the death penalty as a deterrent been pretty well rejected by now? Witness Texas: most executions per murder conviction, and yet the homicide rate is still as abnormally high as ever.
I think that's completely unethical. My bills don't ALWAYS get payed on time, and my money is just as good as yours. What makes you better than me, the fact that your credit card has more buying power? WHat if I'm paying in cash and their ISN'T a bill?
- Sometimes you're the pidgeon, sometimes you're the statue.
people steal books??
==
apostrophes...right...
how can anyone entering borders be sure the face recognition program is not being used ? just because borders says they aren't using face recognition in their cctv system doesn't mean they aren't using face recognition. there is no way to prove that they have stopped using face recognition system in their cctv system.
I lived in the U.S. for 4 months. In my first week, while riding the Metro out of D.C. I saw a guy who looked exactly like me. About the same age, same built, same face, same hair, only dressed with horrible taste. It was scary! People in the train were staring at us both. The guy was 100% absorbed in his reading, didn't even notice.
After I got home and considering how newsmedia in the U.S. are quick to show faces, I began to wonder, what if this guy is some maniac or drug pusher? We lived in the same neighbohood! I must say, at least once a week this thought came back. Paranoid? Maybe, but this Borders episode is a dangerous precedent. I've seen this patetrn before: you set up a system and tell people it is somehow error prone. The system gets it right about 6 or 7 times in a row and whoever is in charge begins to trust the system and believe its alarms are forensic evidence.
May I just say, one private bookstore maintaining their own database of shoplifters shutting down is no doubt a victory for the privacy cause; it is a small victory. What if say, Borders got togeather and shared the system and database with, say, B&N. And they, in turn, shared with say another chain, say Walmart.
That's exactly what they are doing. And you are right to be afraid of this. Despite what the Libertarian nay-sayers are saying, this is not a corp compiling a database. This is a corp working in conjuncture with local law enforcement, using their database. I think allusions to corporate police state are appropriate here. Americans may have laws to prevent double jeopardy, but apparently the Scarlett Letter punishment slipped through the cracks.
The article in the previous
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
plenty of books. no video cameras.
I sent an email to borders discussing how much i was opposed to them installing this faceit software and here is the response i had received.
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.
"They want to resolve the issues brought up by privacy and human-rights activists."
:)
Oh, like that's ever going to happen.
Seriously, what approach will they take to solve these issues, do you think?
we have to fight this. the educated tech workers have to fight this fascism. for once, i'm with the liberals. call up ur local aclu, please. PLEASE! you don't understand. most american morons don't give a fuck about freedom. they only care about their tax-rebate(and i'm a tax-rebating loving libertarian). Please, Libertarians, join up with our arch-enemies(liberals) and fight for freedom!
Our great country has survived 225 years without the use of face recognition. We didn't need it then, and we don't need it now. This is just another example of the corporate mongers testing the boundries of privacy to pad their own private wallets.
"how is this a privacy issue?"
Step 1. you're shopping at "WeBGeekz", their face/rec s/w says that you're the notorious, world-class shoplifter, LightFingers Larue.
Step 2. Their $6/hr, 1-day-of-theft-prevention training, security person follows you and finds "reasonable suspicion" in your actions (putting your hands in your pockets at the wrong time will legally suffice), he notifies 5-0
Step 3. 5-0 comes out and also concludes that your description matches that of the aforementioned desperado...based on that and the security guards statement about your activities in the store, 5-0 now restrains you for questioning
Step 4. 5-0 decides that the ID presented does not positively disqualify you from also being Mr. Larue, and decide to take you to the station for further questioning and indentification.
Step 5. You are now booked on "Suspicion of....", you pick, there are a million choices, esp in misdemeanors (can u figure out why misdemeanor????)
Step 6. The booking process gives 5-0 mandatory access to your fingerprints, they take them, run them on NCIC (or whatever it is called this decade) and discover!!!!!!!!! You really are Bob C. Podflicker!!!!!!!!!!, Outstanding Community Member, Friend to All, Enemy to None, Scoutmaster, and Respected Deacon of the First Church of Digital Grepping
Step 7. The police kinda/sorta apologize and release you, if they really feel bad they might actually give you a ride back to your car, usu not.
you are now the Lucky Winner of;
a. state and local police file
b. your fingerprints are now a part of the FBI's national fingerprint database
c. your neighbor, Bill, who has always hated you since the time you accidentally backed over his favorite gerbil, Krusty, in your driveway, has now TOLD EVERYBODY IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD that you were arrested for shoplifting
d. the manager of WeBGeekz has now placed you in the chain's "known offenders" file
e. the Regional Scout Council asks you step down, because you're a "poor example to the youths"
f. the guy you interviewed with last week for the job with the company car and the 20% pay raise, hears you were in some kind of trouble and doesn't want to take a chance...GOODBYE, new job!
for anyone tempted to say, "But you can sue!"
theoretically, SURE you can, but as long as the security guard and the police and the s/w mfg can show "due diligence" in a court of law (which is about one step harder than proving respiration), and particularly if you were booked on a misdemeanor and released prior to arraignment, your chance of collecting in a court of law are roughly equal to the chances of a finding an honest, hardworking politician or ethical journalist...sure they exist, but don't bet the farm that you're going to run into one
REMEMBER ONE THING: if you do go to court, ask for the "OJ Jury", they're your best bet
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
It is very difficult to stop a race of thieves. Still, it is a sound idea because negroes would be easily identified.
Lets plant something on him.
Yeah, that will do the trick, then we don't get fired.
Ok, lets do it just like last week. Get the porn magazine...
He will plead, so it doesn't make the papers.
Many cops are said to carry a "put down", this is a small untraceable/stollen hand gun to add to the scene of mistake shootings.
You are so brave with talk of killing jews but you wont face this one ? i say you are still a liar and a wimp and you dont have the balls to face me.
you know the rules, name the date and time and place and you get a free go at killing this jew.
IM NOT LEAVING YOU ALONE UNTIL YOU ARE GONE FROM HERE OR FACE ME - YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE MY FAT FRIEND
This system is just another means of protection, just like a camera or a security guard. No one complains when there is a security guard standing by the door. Just because they might recognize your face when the alarm goes off doesn't change the fact that you probably got something in your bag that is unpaid for.
-Burned at the stakes once again!
Like Marks & Spencer (at least here in the UK)
Bring back the cameras NOW!
that's why we should kill'em all. hahahahahaha!!!
Borders is normally big enough that face recignition won't help much. But my local record store needs this. Or to put it better, they need a system that will recignise me, and have the robotic shelves get rid of that garbage that passes for music nowadays and put in some real bluegrass.
Now I know that 99% of the population or more can't stand blueGrass, but I like it. It wouldn't be hard to impliment this system either, though the investment in $$$ is a bit high yet.
In a bookstore I want this to connect to my comptuer when I pick up a book, and my comptuer then sends a message (I don't want them to know what is on my bookshelf from a trip to Barns and Nobel) "You already own that book, but it is a worn copy." At which point I get the choice: a) buy it to replace the copy I've worn out, or B) find the copy in my bookshelf. this is a problem with some authors who have written many good books over their lifetime, which is a lot longer then mine (so far)
Yes there are privacy issues, but it can serve me too, and I'd like the benifits of it.
Automobiles, airplanes, public mail, the Internet, broadband, artificial hearts, organ transplants, Big Macs, lowfat milk, organic food, vaccinations, ultrasounds, microwaves, cable TV, PVRs, linux.
I guess we ought to figure out a way to halt the facial recognition part of our brains, too. That violates privacy!
Human Rights Activists Extremists can go jump off a bridge.
Lately TLC (The Learning Channel) has been playing a miniseries called "The Human Face" hosted by John Cleese (yippee!). I was watching it last night through the face recognition part, in which they showed people who couldn't recognize faces or associate emotions with them. During this section, Cleese also demonstrated the face recognition software that police are using..
John put on a wig and put on a different facial expression after the software recognized him and captured his image.. It recognized him with the wig & new expression, so they had him dressed up as a woman (eugh! - John Cleese is not a sexy woman) with a new wig and breasts, a dress, etc. The software still recognized 'im. Finally he wore large, very dark sunglasses and a cap very low over his eyes. This was the only time it failed to recognize him but he looked obviously suspicious enough that any person would think "mebbe we'd better watch this guy".
For more info on the show check out TLC's Human Face site.
If this is Heaven I'm bailin out! I cant tolerate this ol tin-tub, so fulla trash and rats...
They would use that constant imaging system to monitor peoples activities while they are looking at books, then they could announce whitty little comments when customers come into the store;
"Going straight to the Erotic Art Section again, Mr. Billingsworth? Don't worry, your secret is safe with us. Buy something this time or we tell your wife."
"Surely you will pick a book THIS time, eh Chadsworth? All that browsing with no buying has got to be hell on the eyes, old boy! Pip pip!"
"This just in, The Beanie Baby magazine isn't in yet Mrs Butterworth!"
heh.
-- Dan
Like it or not, every time you go shopping you are helping to reimburse the cost of all shoplifted goods.
What antitheft methods and technologies _would_ meet with your approval? (Remembering they need to cost less than the losses.)
Last weekend, I was chatting with some people at the local Renn Faire and they mentioned someone who no longer works there. It seems that he was mistakenly identified as a convicted sex offender and a woman who overheard this then went around to all the booths in the area informing people of his (imagined) crimes. He didn't bother coming back because his reputation was trashed and repairing it would have been rather difficult, particularly in the current political climate.
Now think about how most people view computers. Computers know everything and are nigh infallible in the common view. If a computer fingered you for something you didn't do, how much more difficult would it be to repair the damage done to you?
Despite the sweltering August heat, a man in a long trenchcoat enters the Borders bookstore early in the afternoon, scurrying to avoid the stares of passersby that wonder at his strange garb, hat and sunglasses that he keeps on while indoors.
Quickly making his way to the computer section, an observant clerk notices the strange man grabbing books off of the O'Reilly shelf and stuffing them into a valise concealed under his trenchcoat.
"Pardon me, sir, but would like me to ring you up for those books that you have?"
The man freezes like a deer in the headlights.
"I confess! I took those O'Reilly books! Oh, the shame! What will my family think?"
"What will my coworkers think? I am ruined!"
Police lead the man away, but not before removing his sunglasses and hat and exposing his face to the Borders Shoplifter Recognition Program. A large rubbery head showing the smiling smirking visage of Bill Gates faces the camera defiantly
"I just wanted to learn how to program in Visual Basic!"
Here's the e-mail I (and I imagine about 100,000 other people) got from their Customer Care Supervisor, Laura Meurer. Interesting to note that the e-mail address this came from was "REMEDY01@borders.com", indicating to me that they changed their story to remedy the PR problem... anyways, without further ado, here's the e-mail:
8/27/01
Dear James McCracken,
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 am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
I was hoping to be able to walk into Borders and immediately be recognised, be given a list of recommendations based on my previous purchases, another list of recommendations based on my wish list, my wish list, a list of recommendations based on the books I'd just glanced at walking in, three lists of books by people who liked a book I'd read recently...
Now I guess they'll have to give me a damned cookie when I come in, so they can identify me with that. What happens if I eat it?
Racists should be sent back to where they came from
...why this is a bad thing.
If you still don't understand, and you really want to know why, I implore upon you to read Database Nation, for the truth, fallacies, meanings, and danger that surround the whole information/data analysis, collection, and distribution systems in use.
This camera system doesn't match a face to another face - instead it matches data to other data. If the data can be changed, or used - it can be altered to "finger" anyone - and how do you prove which is the truth and which is the forgery? People are trusting now that "the computer is always right" - ever looked at your credit report? Pray that your name isn't "John Smith" or similar! Been denied credit lately?
Read the book - it goes over all this and a lot more. FR tech and credit reporting is only the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately. It is only going to get worse, unless you really understand what can be done with this information, and then act to protect that information.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Borders switched to suing a company called TeleCheck. They scanned my check and it was denied for mysterious reasons. I know I have good credit and called their automated system which confirmend I had "No negative information on file." Still, their system determined I fit some profile and denied my check. The worst part was the manager's refusal to call my bank and verify my check, because the system doesn't allow manual override. Great, not only do machines make the decisions now, but the people act like robots.
Another reason is that in most states, the driver is responsible for paying a ticket, not the owner of the vehicle. Taking a picture of the licence plate only gets you the name of the owner, who can just say they she wasn't driving the car when the picture was taken.
I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!
I know someone who sells computer systems to a public school system (i won't say which one). Recently, he was asked to come up with a proposal for an electronic attendance/security system which could be used quickly as the students walked through the door of the high school. one of the things he has thought about using was facial recognition.
now, there is no doubt in my mind that the way he wants to use it is fine; he's not hiding the camera or anything, there will be a station and the student will walk up to the station, be id'd and move on. my problem w/ it was the potential for abuse, say if the fbi comes in and demands access to the facial recognition records for a student that they are looking for. what I told him was that there was a fundamental difference with this type of identification... unlike an id card, or even a fingerprint, the system can be used to id the student by anyone w/ access to it without the student's consent, whereas w/ a card the student would have to volunteer the card etc.
i would be really interested in the slashdot community's response to a system like this. do you think a system like this is acceptable? if not, why? is it the "hiddeness" of the current security facial recognition that bothers you, or is it something more elemental?