Pre-Crime in the UK: Businesses Crowdsource a Watch List (arstechnica.com)

Press2ToContinue writes: In the film Minority Report, people are rounded up by the Precrime police agency before they actually commit the crime. In the movie, this pre-crime information is provided by 'pre-cognition' savants floating in a goopy nutrient bath who can apparently see the future. Replace those gibbering pre-cog mutants with Facewatch. It's a system that lets retailers, publicans, and restaurateurs share private video footage with the police and each other. It is integrated with real-time face recognition systems, such as NEC's NeoFace. Where previously a member of staff had to keep an eye out for people, on the crowdsourced Facewatch watch list, now the system can automatically tell you if someone on the watch list has just entered the premises. A member of staff can then keep an eye on that person, or ask them politely (or not) to leave.

Comments

Better then LA pre_crime where then get you for

[Joe_Dragon]

Better then LA pre_crime where then get you for per Prostitution just for driving down a road.

Re:Better then LA pre_crime where then get you for

[Sowelu]

Links?

Re:Better then LA pre_crime where then get you for

[Anonymous Coward]

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/12/01/231254/los-angeles-flirts-with-pre-crime

Re:Better then LA pre_crime where then get you for

[Sir_Eptishous]

Better then LA pre_crime where then get you for per Prostitution just for driving down a road.

What?

Re:Better then LA pre_crime where then get you for

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, it was not just me.

Re:Better then LA pre_crime where then get you for

[Anonymous Coward]

Read more slashdot. Parent poster was referring to an article a while back. Too lazy to look it up though.

Re:Better then LA pre_crime where then get you for

[Anonymous Coward]

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/12/01/231254/los-angeles-flirts-with-pre-crime

That's Not Pre-Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a system that lets retailers, publicans, and restaurateurs share private video footage with the police and each other.

That's not pre-crime. That's sharing video footage of actual behavior.

Casinos has done this forever, and I'd imagine so do large chain grocery, department, and big box stores.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[spire3661]

Its creepy as hell and needs to be made illegal yesterday.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashderp seems to be full of people who don't want to he held responsible for their poor behavior. It's not really surprising that the dumbing-down of Slashdot led to this.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

There are laws forcing credit agencies to respond to complaints and mistakes. Where is that here?

They have every right to do this. They do not have a right to distort or lie.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[ShanghaiBill]

Its creepy as hell and needs to be made illegal yesterday.

In principle, how is it any different from sharing photos on Facebook? I don't see how they can make this illegal without also banning many popular and commonly accepted activities.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[ScentCone]

Its creepy as hell and needs to be made illegal yesterday.

Why? How is that any different than a retailer seeing someone that's a known pickpocket or shoplifter passing his window and headed into a colleague's store, and calling that colleague on the phone to say, "Hey, Bob, that guy, Sticky-Fingered Lou, is just walking into your store - heads up!"

Specifically, why is that creepy? It's creeps that these people have to deal with every day, and this is an approach to dealing with it. I can tell you've never been involved in retail trade with walk-in public customers.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[barc0001]

True. However, the problem can come from a retailer deciding that you were too much of a pain in the ass when you were doing a return, or you wanted to use a coupon that they didn't want to honor or maybe you got a little loud when they promised to hold something for you and you got down there to find out it was sold anyway. So to get back at you, they put you on "the list" and now your life is a raging sea when you try to go shopping for anything around town.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[WOOFYGOOFY]

In principle it's different because its intent is different. My family album is not the moral equivalent to a DIY Most Wanted List generated by whatever goon wants to generate it then shared as fact with other goons. If the intent of tendering the video is to imply the people on the video have committed some crime or are likely to or have some other moral flaw, then that goes by another name of slander.

IF the intent of the video is to pass around the time and location of babes, then that goes by the name of stalking.

If the intent of the video is to target people you don't like in some way, then that goes by a lot of busy sounding names and into a lot of areas of law which may presently see an uptick in their activity levels- negligent infliction of emotional distress, defamation, tort of false light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  tortious interference with economic gain, intentional interference with contractual relations- if it interferes now or any time in the future with their employability....

Shall I go on about how they're different?

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[WOOFYGOOFY]

See my reply above scentcone. It's very different and the reason the guy in your scenario gets away with it is because no one can prove he did it. It's the same with employee blacklisting. There are laws to protect people, but employers sneak around those laws- at their own peril.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you're not willigly sharing pictures of yourself, instead some pictures are being shared without your consent.

A private business can employ CCTVs on its premises, but it should not be able to share the videos with anyone else (but the police) without consent from the people in those videos. Doing so is a major privacy violation.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

That might happen. Then again, it might be that the other shops consider one retailer's reports to be stupid or vindictive and to stop listening to reports from that retailer.

It might be used to to make someone's life suck more than it already does. It might be used to decrease loss from theft. It might only be used to share pics of hotties.

The Facewatch website is full of positive testimonials from shop owners and police forces alike; it does seem to work as intended.

Retailers like the system.

Facewatch lets you share "subjects of interest" with other Facewatch users even if they haven't been convicted. If you look at the shop owner in a funny way, or ask for the service charge to be removed from your bill, you might find yourself added to the "subject of interest" list.

The system might be misused, but let's go ahead pre-accuse, pre-judge, and pre-convict retailers of pre-committing pre-crime. Because (I don't know) Pre-Cyber.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[bws111]

If trivial crap like that gets you on the list then the list is worthless and won't be used. On the other hand, if you have a long history of 'returns' or using bad coupons that probably is something that other businesses are interested in.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Its creepy because what if your ex works in loss prevention at a store and for grins (s)he puts you on the list as a thief? Then you can no longer shop at stores, and you've done nothing wrong.

If you are worried if police misuse something, then this should worry you even more because there is not even a veneer of innocent until proven guilty.

Or it could be a false identification, perhaps your face looks similar to the computer to a known thief.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Sowelu]

In the USA (though not in several other countries), it's not slander if it's true.

Slashdot is usually opposed to censoring true stories about criminals like the EU's "right to be forgotten".

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[WOOFYGOOFY]

in the case of crime, it's not true until the jury says it is.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[WOOFYGOOFY]

if it implies something negative, then it falls within the sphere of 'negative light'

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not if it will be misused its how bad the abuse is. My guess it rampant.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Its creepy because what if your ex works in loss prevention at a store and for grins (s)he puts you on the list as a thief?

That would be a grave misuse of the resource and should result in the firing of the abusive employee.

Then you can no longer shop at stores, and you've done nothing wrong.

Hopefully the store fixes the abusive report after firing the abusive employee. If not, there is always Amazon. They're on the Internet, and so they don't know you're a dog.

If you are worried if police misuse something, then this should worry you even more because there is not even a veneer of innocent until proven guilty.

The state is held to a higher standard than a business. The state (US for me) can not imprison without a conviction. A business just needs to decide on a balance of risks. Risk of loss over risk of offending a customer. Risk of bad press vs risk of property destruction, etc. Businesses, in my opinion, are generally smarter about this stuff than governments. And businesses are often very good at tact.

Or it could be a false identification, perhaps your face looks similar to the computer to a known thief.

Or you could accidentally be wearing gang colors, or accidentally pocketing a banana that has an outline exactly like a handgun, or accidentally any million of other horrible, terrible, improbable things. Lighten up.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Pre-judging a pre-judger is still pre-judging you pre-judging pre-judger. You should be pre-judged.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[barc0001]

Because it can be used to "punish" people without any recourse. Like I said in another message, suppose the retailer takes a dislike to you for whatever petty reason and they add you to this system. Now you're going to be harassed and chased out of stores and what can you do about it?

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Xest]

That's just fear mongering nonsense, that wouldn't even be remotely legal.

There are very few exceptions by which businesses can gather data on an individual without their permission, and crime prevention is one of them.

So all this can legally be used for is crime prevention, if it's used for being selective about customers then they've crossed the line into illegality and will be liable for massive fines (far more than it would've cost to just serve you).

This is only ever going to be a problem for you if you got caught shoplifting on CCTV, or as my partner who manages a number of retail stores found the other day, for junkies that decide to shoot up in your changing room spraying quite possible HIV infested blood all over the fucking place before running out into the store and stripping naked then running away before the cops turn up.

Having actually now had a look at the Facewatch site, it's also pretty fucking explicit that it's about crime prevention and this new real-time functionality is intended to allow incidents of shoplifting to be shared in real time. So next time roma gypsy gangs come across from the continent on the ferry to rape just about every shop in a particular city / shopping centre in the space of a few hours before heading back home again on the ferry with a boat load of stolen shit they can actually be caught in the act. Up until now because they typically hit a different city or shopping centre every time they're not known and so it's typically been dependent on catching them at port whilst they wait for their get away ferry.

The UK has pretty strong data protection laws. It'd be hard to abuse this without getting severely fucked by the ICO. In fact, frankly, you can't even really use CCTV for crime prevention unless you can justify that there is actually a crime problem. If your store has never been a victim of shoplifting, you'd be hard pressed to prove your case for CCTV to the ICO.

You can read all about it for yourself here:

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-o...

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[jafiwam]

Because you're not willigly sharing pictures of yourself, instead some pictures are being shared without your consent.

A private business can employ CCTVs on its premises, but it should not be able to share the videos with anyone else (but the police) without consent from the people in those videos. Doing so is a major privacy violation.

So? They can put up a sign. "Premises under video surveillance."

You don't own the rights to the images by any means at all. The photographer does.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[barc0001]

> If trivial crap like that gets you on the list then the list is worthless and won't be used.

Toddlers are on the No Fly List...

If 95% of the list is useful, it will be used. The problem is oversight. We've all seen the stories in the news where someone's receipt at a restaurant is printed and has "Asshole" or similar coded somewhere that the server didn't expect the end customer to see, I guarantee that unless there is a very stringent submission protocol for this crowdsourced watchlist for stores with some form of actual evidence tied to each person's file, vetted by a central authority of some sort, there will be the odd person on there who is the target of anger or a vendetta.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it is fortunate that you can ask for a trial by judge.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[ShanghaiBill]

instead some pictures are being shared without your consent.

It is a good thing that never happens on Facebook.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Its creepy as hell and needs to be made illegal yesterday.

In principle, how is it any different from sharing photos on Facebook?

I second your call to make it illegal to share photos on Facebook.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[kwbauer]

Uh no, the two shop owners would "get away with it" because it is not illegal (at least in the US). Here in the US we call this behavior, giving your neighbor and possibly competitor a heads up that he may be about to be robbed, being a good neighbor. Now, the shop owner being called can't simply kick Lou out unless he has actually caught Lou shoplifting a time or two and properly notified Lou that Lou is no longer welcome on the premises but he is certainly free to more vigorously watch Lou in an attempt to catch him. My wife just went through this with a particular "customer" (not sure someone who steals more than he buys is properly referred to as a customer). They caught him shoplifting a few times by assigning her to do nothing but watch him when he was in the store. The second time was after he was apprehended and arrested but before the corporate office (large regional chain with hundreds or thousands of stores) got around to sending a registered letter giving him notification of his unfavorable status. After the second apprehension, they just followed him around at arms length as if they were his best friend and would remind him as he bought his $1 coffee that he also had $5 dollars worth of candy in his pocket. The first time he denied it until they suggested that an officer could drop by to help him check the pocket. He then suddenly remembered. Retail theft is a huge problem in the US and probably elsewhere as well. I see nothing wrong with shops freely sharing information on who is causing the loss and who isn't. The stakes are so high for a shop to make a false accusation that the police are generally not involved without clear video evidence so these fears that shop owners are going to use this system to unfairly target innocent people are just irrational.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[kwbauer]

Well, after you approach the accusing shop for proof and they can't give it to you because they have no video evidence and the only employee who "saw" it happen is your ex, the shop will probably have a chat with your ex about the rules and if it happens a second time they will either pay you and your lawyer a large sum of money or fire your ex or both. Both times they will promptly remove you from the list and inform anyone sharing the list of the mistake or pay you and your lawyer a lot of money. It really is not difficult to find a lawyer willing to take this on contingency as long as you don't have a record of convictions for this.

This notion that all shop owners and corporations exist simply to screw you over is really an irrational thought pattern and anybody having this issue should probably seek professional psychiatric treatment.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[kwbauer]

Where are the laws against making false accusations? Where are the laws against not allowing members of the public into your public accomodation without actual proof that they have harmed you and are likely to harm you and that you have previously given them legal notice that they are not welcome on your premises because of those prior actions? just look for them. They exist in every US jurisdiction. just because you are too lazy to find them does not mean they don't exist. Just because you claim they don't exist does not mean they don't exist.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[kwbauer]

It will be misused to an extent much less than shops are currently abused by shoplifters and people not paying for services and food. And we know that is rampant.

What recourse does a shop owner have against a shoplifter? First they have to prove the shoplifting happened (video evidence, admission or a perp dumb enough to hang around with unpaid merchandise in his pockets until an officer drops by in the next hour or so). then they have to get the prosecutors to care about prosecuting a single digit dollar crime.

What recourse does an innocent person have against a shop that falsely accused them? A lawyer working on contingency asking the shop for the incontrovertible proof of the innocent persons guilt and then a large payout?

Did you notice who is spending the money, who is providing the proof and who is doing the paying? The truly innocent aren't paying in this system. The shops aren't abusing anything in this system. Please seek psychiatric help so you can rejoin reality.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Netherlands it is illegal to have a black list like this.
Organisations like churches for example used to keep black lists of people they don't like.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully the store fixes the abusive report after firing the abusive employee.

Doesn't help if whatever the ex puts down as the reason for blacklisting gets store owners to call the cops on you as soon as you're recognized. They can do this for no reason, and they don't have to give a reason other than "trespassing."

I've had this happen to me personally when I scared the beejezus out of some guy who thought I was a cisgendered woman 10 years younger than I actually am. A property owner does not need a reason to call the police and ask they escort somebody off the owner's property.

If not, there is always Amazon.

That there is.

It sort of makes brick-and-mortar retailers' complaints that Amazon is such unfair competition sound like bullshit to me. When Amazon is the only one who wants my money, then Amazon is who will get my money.

I am fine with a world like that. If Amazon jacks up prices for me individually (which they've been caught doing variations of with their prices), the free market will provide another vendor who can undercut Amazon and will question the blacklist or otherwise ignore it in order to get my money.

Obamacare and gay marriage have both shown that the minute you start telling owners that they are required to do something they don't want to do, libertarians like me get roped in and accused of having some kind of big-government turn-your-kids-gay agenda. My only agenda would be things like repealing the 16th amendment. 10 years ago I would not have possibly been able to imagine that being LGBT would be a reason for a business owner or medical provider to not want my money. Religious objection was something limited to military conscription.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[BarbaraHudson]

"So next time roma gypsy gangs come across from the continent on the ferry to rape just about every shop in a particular city / shopping centre in the space of a few hours before heading back home again on the ferry with a boat load of stolen shit"

Not too racist?

In the US employee theft accounts for 43% of lost revenue. That’s about $18 billion, or $2.3 billion more than the cost of five-finger discounts taken by customers .

The rest is things like spoilage, broken merchandise, returns the supplier won't respect, etc.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

As stated above, this is nothing new. I got a tour of an ops center for major MN based retailer (three guesses). They were testing a shiny new system that did license plate recognition on the parking lot cameras. If they caught someone shoplifting on film, they'd follow them (via camera) out to the parking lot and get their license number. From that point on, any time they pull into the parking lot of any of their stores in the country, BEEP BEEP BEEP the security staff gets a warning and tracks them. I heard a while later that they had started doing behavioral monitoring, looking for anyone who visited more than X stores in a day. Apparently groups that did shoplifting combined with return fraud would often steal several of the same item, and go return it at a bunch of stores the same day with a bad receipt. So if they saw a car at a bunch of stores the same day, they would go through the return logs of the stores looking for matching returns.

This was in 2002.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[gnasher719]

Its creepy as hell and needs to be made illegal yesterday.

Anything that keeps shoplifters away, including professionals who steal on order, keeps prices down for everyone. Maybe you can explain what your problem is.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[gnasher719]

True. However, the problem can come from a retailer deciding that you were too much of a pain in the ass when you were doing a return, or you wanted to use a coupon that they didn't want to honor or maybe you got a little loud when they promised to hold something for you and you got down there to find out it was sold anyway. So to get back at you, they put you on "the list" and now your life is a raging sea when you try to go shopping for anything around town.

Any shop is private property. Any shop can refuse to do business with you, and ban you from their premises. If or when they do that, trying to enter the store is trespassing. No need to put you "on the list".

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[barc0001]

> Any shop can refuse to do business with you, and ban you from their premises.... No need to put you "on the list".

That's not the problem, the problem is the list covers LOTS of shops. Suppose you go to an auto shop who has done substandard work and the owner doesn't want to do the work over or refund you. So you sue, and in retaliation he adds you to this list as a problem customer. Suddenly you're barred from half the shops in town.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

I can and some people cleary do own their 'own image' rights . You may own the photo but you still owe me the license fee for the use of my image in it.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[david_thornley]

It may depend on whether you've got the money for a serious lawsuit, or a lawyer who will take it on contingency. If not, the accusing shop really has no incentive to help you, and whether they do will depend on the company.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[david_thornley]

I'm not sure about the second, but the first is good old-fashioned libel. Unfortunately, it may be hard to identify the company that actually libeled you.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

No, toddlers are not on the No Fly List. There are toddlers that have the same name as people on the List, and because airlines can use a name-only match, toddlers can be misidentified.

In this case, the retailers have VIDEO. Pictures, not just names. It is still not impossible to misidentify someone, but it is far more difficult - and far easier to correct errors because you can see why you are on a list to begin with.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[AmiMoJo]

It also seems likely to fall foul of data protection laws. In order to store and share such data they must compost l comply with the rules, which include things like allowing subject access and correction.

A good way to fight back might be for large numbers of people to do periodic data requests. Then the company will have to sort and supply large amounts of CCTV footage in exchange for minimal compensation. Their process won't be 100% accurate so you are bound to get other people's data from time to time.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[khallow]

So? They can put up a sign. "Premises under video surveillance."

And why would that count as permission to use said video for any purpose? It's just not true.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[sherwoodtaxi]

Is it some kind of joke you guy are telling. In This footage, just recording everything for Pre-crime seen and this is it. Facewatch has been updated so that it can be integrated with real-time face recognition systems, such as NEC's NeoFace. But this it is not enough nowadays. For the Cab : https://plus.google.com/102249...

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Xest]

I was using an example of a real actual problem, saying the UK has a roma gypsy gang theft problem right now is no different to saying the middle east has an Islamic terrorism problem.

It doesn't in any way imply that I believe that all, or even close the majority of muslims are terrorists, which is actually racist, it's merely a statement of fact - you're surely not going to deny the middle east has an Islamic terrorism problem right now? No, I didn't think so, so why pretend someone is racist for also stating a fact that the UK has a roma gypsy gang theft problem right now when it's a simple statement of fact? It's exactly the sort of current crime problem the UK is facing that this sort of system is designed to hit - gangs that hit lots of shops in an area in a single day of which the roma are currently the biggest perpetrators.

Any presumption of racism - that I was somehow implying that all roma are thieves or whatever you assumed is an idea entirely of your own making, and demonstrates bigotry on your behalf for assuming that mention of theft by roma is somehow a suggestion that all roma are thieves.

The fact is Romania is one of the poorest, but also the newest entrants into the EU, and as a result of that it has created new problems of which this is an example. We've previously (and in some areas still do) have problems with Somali and Nigerian gangs and to point out those things as fact is not racist, unless you also say all Somalis and Nigerians are criminals, which isn't remotely what I think, nor is it what I said.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[BarbaraHudson]

Fact is that the majority of store thefts are inside jobs. Compared to that the roma are a minor nuisance. As for the middle east having an Islamic terrorism problem, what it has in reality is a "regime change didn't work so well the last few times we tried it, and now we have to clean up the mess we made, so let's do the whole regime change thing again because it's the thing we have the most experience with.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Ol Olsoc]

It's a system that lets retailers, publicans, and restaurateurs share private video footage with the police and each other.

So far so good, it's just like a television show where they take crimes caught on video. Do th crime, do the time - and entertain us as well. Especially if its funny.

That's not pre-crime. That's sharing video footage of actual behavior.

But wait - there's more now. This new system addition uses facial recognition. So a person who may have done something somewhere, sometime can now be identified as soon as they enter the store.

So they can be kicked out. That's the pre-crime part. If a teenager is caught pilfering a pack of gum, we now have entered the age of permanent criminal status, as they can be kicked outy of any store using this system, forever and ever, world without end, Amen.

Kind of like a scarlet lettter you don't have to pin on your lapel. And I for one, don't care for the approaching One Strike and You're Out sort of society this brings. I don't think that part of creating a permanent criminal underclass will be the Nirvana it's proponents visualize it will be either. If you can't buy groceries because you lifted a pack of gum when you were 14 years old, just imagine how you will get your food.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Xest]

You seem to be taking some random stat from the US and applying it globally, which is complete bollocks. In some stores employee theft is completely and utterly solved, they have zero theft by employees such that external theft, particularly by crime gangs are their biggest problem. You can't arbitrarily take one metric from one country (which may well include data on stealing office post-its and so forth) and suggest therefore that another problem in another country, with different metrics, and different levels of crime should somehow be ignored. That's before you consider that some types of theft require different solutions anyway this system wont handle employee theft well anyway because their faces and identities are already known, so it's pretty irrelevant to the discussion. For the purposes of discussing this system you can pretty much discount that entire class of theft regardless.

Rather than admit that you don't have the slightest clue about crime trends in the UK, you've gone off on a pointless tangent with completely irrelevant and meaningless data. The fact is, gang sweeps by that community are currently a high impact crime in the UK that has become increasingly prominent in recent years, and it's exactly the sort of crime this system will work well to prevent.

"As for the middle east having an Islamic terrorism problem, what it has in reality is a "regime change didn't work so well the last few times we tried it, and now we have to clean up the mess we made, so let's do the whole regime change thing again because it's the thing we have the most experience with."

You can argue what you want about the causes of the problems in the middle east, there are many views, and I've probably heard them all by now, but it's all irrelevant to the discussion at hand regardless because the underlying causes don't change the fact that the statement is true and certainly not racist.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[tehcyder]

Its creepy as hell and needs to be made illegal yesterday.

Anything that keeps shoplifters away, including professionals who steal on order, keeps prices down for everyone. Maybe you can explain what your problem is.

It's probably something to do with the evils of socialism and the right to bear arms. Most stories on slashdot are nowadays.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[tehcyder]

True. However, the problem can come from a retailer deciding that you were too much of a pain in the ass when you were doing a return, or you wanted to use a coupon that they didn't want to honor or maybe you got a little loud when they promised to hold something for you and you got down there to find out it was sold anyway. So to get back at you, they put you on "the list" and now your life is a raging sea when you try to go shopping for anything around town.

Yes, because most retailers' main purpose is to turn people away rather than selling them stuff.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[tehcyder]

The fact is, gang sweeps by that community are currently a high impact crime in the UK that has become increasingly prominent in recent years

Yes, but without providing some actual figures to back this up, you just sound like another Daily Mail bigot.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Xest]

Right, except to be a bigot, I'd have to be again implying that the whole culture or similar is guilty of this, yet only you and the GP are making that association.

The fact that the two of you believe that any suggestion of theft by a certain community implies the whole community is involved in fact shows a disgusting amount of bigotry on your behalves.

For me to be prejudiced in this respect, you would need to show that there are no roma gypsy gangs engaging in widespread theft such that I've made an invalid association. The problem is, we know that isn't true:

http://www.northamptonchron.co...

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

Thus, the only bigotry here is being performed by you and the GP.

I'm a firm believer in the EU in large part because I'm not bigoted, because personally I feel no greater emotional attachment to the guy down the street I've never met than I do to someone part way across the world I've never met, where we're born is merely a matter of randomness and circumstance and I'm lucky to have been born, brought up, and to live somewhere that is relatively incredibly stable, safe, and wealthy. Even the particular criminal groups I mentioned I somewhat get, they ultimately just want the standard of living we have, and whilst I believe theft is a lazy route to get there, I can understand full well what drives them.

But that does not mean that we should pretend that such groups with specific identities do not exist, to do so ignores reality, and makes a complete and utter mockery of any argument based upon it. Folks like you crying "racism!" every time someone raises a legitimate and valid point are the reason actually fascist groups like UKIP are on the rise, because it's kickback by those more easily swayed by their arguments being fed up of being told they're racist just because they said something that's neither racist, nor false - you are the problem, the associations you make and then project onto others are the problem. Would you have even batted an eyelid if I instead chose "South London chav gangs?" as an example? "What about overprivileged rich white kids who want a taste of the wild side"? I doubt for a second you would, though it would make no practical difference and such groups are currently slightly less relevant in this context.

So like all over zealous SJWs, you seem to have gone so far left that you've come all the way round again to the far right, by in yourself making hypocritically bigoted associations, and by helping drive others into the arms of the far right. You're no better than idiots like Corbyn whose solution to an overly aggressive right wing responsible for many of the worlds current geopolitical ills, is to start hugging and defending real actual terrorists. Or whose solution to sexist pigs who molest women on trains is to segregate women into women only carriages, rather than, you know, deal with the actual problem - the sexual predators themselves by dealing with them as the criminals they are using the CCTV that's already prevalent on the trains in question.

Quit with the idiot think and start being a bit more realistic and rational before throwing around terms you don't understand and yet are guilty of yourself please. I doubt you will though, because apparently you like to accuse others of being Daily Mail readers whilst apparently being one of those Ban the Burqa types:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[BarbaraHudson]

Too bad you didn't do any research before spouting off. Employee theft bottomed out in 2013/14, but it's rising again.

Employee theft in England and Wales

Also, thefts by employees are only reported 30% of the time scroll down to section 6.2.

Or here

Employee theft, while only accounting for 0.7% of crimes overall, was the third largest type of crime by value. While it was the only one of the key offences that dropped in terms of volume and value from the previous year, it remained at its second highest level for nine years.

In other words, the average haul of an employee stealing is much higher than other types of incidents. Makes sense when an employee can arrange to have a skid or a whole truckload of goods disappear.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Xest]

You realise I already explained why employee theft, and especially overall employee theft across all sectors is completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion right?

It's like you've decided to say I'm wrong by having your own completely different conversation that has nothing to do with the conversation we were having previously.

What the fuck has someone stealing an office stapler in a non-retail environment have to do with the fact that you don't understand what racism is?

Please stick to the discussion because I'm not interested in your tangential conversation that has nothing to do with anything as on that I completely agree with you - I absolutely think employee theft is probably the largest cause of stock loss across companies, but that's not the discussion here.

The discussion here is whether an automated data sharing facial recognition system can help stop crime, and the answer is yes, to which I provided an example of the sort of current crime it can stop - that of widespread single day hits by roma gangs traveling a distance to carry them out precisely because it's a rapid response system involving automated sharing, whilst most existing systems take days, by which time it's too late. If this topic had come up 5 years ago I'd have picked a different example of crime at the time, my choice of roma gangs was for no other reason than because it's topical, it's relevant to the sort of problems retail in the UK is currently facing that this system is designed to solve. In 5 years time it'll be another type of crime that will likely have nothing to do with roma gangs.

I'm sorry you can't follow a discussion, but that's really not my fault.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[BarbaraHudson]

You sem to be under the mistaken impression that facial recognition couldn't be used to identify employees who are fired because they are thieves, and share that information with other businesses in the area. So no, employee theft (including by outside people involved in delivery and pick-up in the loading docks) is certainly relevant. :-)

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[BarbaraHudson]

BTW, while it is legal to use video surveillance, it's not legal to distribute the photo along with criminal accusations to others except the police. They may be protected from defamation lawsuits, the merchant isn't. Every mistake using this system is going to be VERY costly.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[RH434]

Unless you're in traffic court. There you're guilty before even walking in the door.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[barc0001]

You seem to think everyone on the planet that owns a shop is a rational actor, and that everyone a shopowner hires only has their best interests at heart. The amount of employees who get fired for skimming the till or causing inventory shrink alone would put lie to that.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[RockDoctor]

In principle, how is it any different from sharing photos on Facebook?

Wrong comparison. Facebook is, to all intents and purposes, public. This is explicitly a private undertaking and general members of the public will not be allowed to access the data without signing the appropriate contracts undertaking what uses the information will be put to. So, if Raja's Corner Shop signs up for it, and Mr Raja's employee Mr Humphries uses it to ogle Miss Brahms' tits, then Raja may lose access, and pay a fine, while Humphries gets arrested for computer mis-use and sexual thought-crime.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[RockDoctor]

Although the linked reports and the original source website don't mention it explicitly, all of these reports are about the use of private CCTV and therefore can only be about events recorded on private property. Private citizens and organisations (e.g. businesses) are not permitted to take CCTV recordings of public areas (with a very limited exception for the immediate - a few metres - area of your own property ; the world outside the windows of your vehicle is allowable in as far as it affects the vehicle's safety, so dash-cams are permitted, but parking your van outside the gates of the prison to video everyone going to and fro wouldn't be evidentially acceptable).

Therefore, before you come into the (literal) focus of these systems, you have already chosen to go onto private property, and to subject yourself to the whims of the owner of that property. That is why car parks etc all have definite signs posted stating the terms and conditions of your use of that land. It wasn't that long ago, for example, that the owner of a piece of land could impose a £300/day parking charge on the land, and tow the affected vehicle away pending settlement, and that was perfectly legal. (It was never legal in some parts of the country though. Scotland for a start.)

Quite what the legality of sharing the pictures between members of the group is, I'm not so clear on. Probably it's perfectly legal, as long as the appropriate signs are in place on all the private property covered, and the people and organisations involved have a contract covering purposes, use restrictions ("no ogling"), and a data disposal and dispute resolution policy. Other than that, I don't see that there is anything that people can complain about.

Of course, if you don't like this, then you are free to watch out for the signs (typically on or near doorways, and scattered liberally around parking areas) which have comments like "this area is covered by CCTV and images may be stored and retained for crime prevention and other purposes" (the exact wording varies); typically the same signs carry wording denying the landowner's responsibility for any of your goods and chattels (purses, wallets, cars) under any circumstance. And if you see such a sign, refuse to use the business associated with it, and tell the manager why. It's called "market forces" ; try to bankrupt them. I doubt that most of them will cry over losing your business.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[Xest]

But that doesn't need facial recognition, it's already well covered by vetting through things like references and criminal records checks.

You can't just steal in this country, and then go down the road and get hired straight into another job, it's typically quite different to the hire at will culture in many US states. That's why I say employee theft isn't an issue for a lot of retail companies nowadays - the checks they do on staff can be pretty rigorous (and some use more positive methods, like actual decent pay) such that there is little incentive to steal and the people they hire are typically not pre-disposed to theft in the first place.

The companies that suffer the biggest loss from employee theft nowadays are typically larger chains who do everything on the cheap (including hiring people), they've effectively decided that it's a cost of doing business, and that suffering stock loss through not spending on checks/security is cheaper than paying decent wages etc. to discourage it. This typically includes things like Supermarkets, the big electronics chains like Currys/PC World, and so on. There's recently been a big case in the UK where a company Sports Direct wanted it both ways - they want to pay minimum wage AND wanted to do rigorous security checks, the problem is, they wanted those rigorous security checks done on staff time, such that staff were being forced to hang around to be searched for upto 30 minutes after they'd stopped being paid. This has been outed quite rightly as an illegal practice, because if the staff HAVE to be there then it's work, in which case they should be paid, and as they weren't, that pushed their defacto salary below the legal minimum wage.

I'd wager the largest theft type for businesses in the UK in this day and age is probably people who get paid expenses fiddling them.

Re:That's Not Pre-Crime

[BarbaraHudson]

Certainly the accountants are both in the best position to do it and the best position to cover it up. Plus they have the dirt on those "business expenses" claims.

Put a stop to it, now.

[kheldan]

This sort of thing is a cancer on civilization and needs to be stamped out, firmly and completely.

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, I'm for it. I'm also for wearing things to obscure your face.

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[smooth wombat]

So is stealing someone else's goods but I don't hear you whining about that.

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

I've seen your face, and I have to agree.

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[ScentCone]

This sort of thing is a cancer on civilization and needs to be stamped out, firmly and completely.

I think you're confusing people who regularly steal things from retailers with the people who want to stop them. Give it some more thought.

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[GrumpySteen]

Just like how the USA's no-fly list only contains the names of people who are too dangerous to allow on board airplanes, right? It's not like there could be a clerical error that takes years and multiple trials to get fixed due to nobody being willing to admit that they checked the wrong box on a form, after all.

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[kheldan]

We're already very close to living in a world where everyone is identified and tracked in realtime 24/7/365; you would hurry that process along? Do you enjoy having no privacy whatsoever? Or are you one of 'those' people who has been indoctrinated into believing that 'privacy' is something that only criminals and other wrong-doers seek?

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[ScentCone]

So now you're confusing a government-run list that bars people from traveling with an advisory between two retailers who want to know when a business-damaging person walks into their business?

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[GrumpySteen]

A list that subjects people to heightened security and/or denial services to people that you can wind up on without any explanation, notification or evidence.
vs
A list that subjects people to heightened security and/or denial services to people that you can wind up on without any explanation, notification or evidence.

Gee. How could I ever confuse those two totally different things?

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[ScentCone]

And again, I'll ask: how is this any different than one retailer calling another on the phone to tell another retailer that a known shoplifter is walking into his store? Be specific.

And comparing this to a no-fly list? That's not "extra scrutiny," that's the government denying freedom of movement without due process.

A coffee shop owner doesn't owe a disruptive jackass or a regular thief any sort of due process. She can simply say, "You're not welcome in my store." You don't have a constitutional right to occupy a seat in someone's coffee shop, nor a constitutional right to know the the shop owner's thinking when asked to leave.

I can tell you've never worked retail.

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[kwbauer]

How can you possibly steal someone else's goods when we all own everything equally?

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[kwbauer]

Well sort of. i actually agree with you on the principle but not on the actual current legal situation in the US. Because of the Civil Rights Act and subsequent modifications, a shop does have to jump through some hoops before refusing service without a risk of a lawsuit that they will probably lose. But once those hopps have been successfully negotiated because of actual wrongdoing then, yes, shops have options.

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you will be the first one on the shop lifting list accidentally, so you won't be able to get food anymore, not even online because they online stores also check the list. They know who you are because not only did they take a look at your face, they also linked it to all the credit card in your wallet as you passed a scanner, as well as the identity of any blutooth device you own.

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[ScentCone]

Because of the Civil Rights Act and subsequent modifications, a shop does have to jump through some hoops before refusing service without a risk of a lawsuit that they will probably lose.

They only have to jump through hoops if the person they're turning away is in a protected class. In which case all they have to do is keep a record of previously telling that person why they're not welcome in the store. Throwing someone out because they're an evangelical: not allowed. Throwing an evangelical out of your store because they're proselytizing your customers? Perfectly OK. Likewise with skin color, sexual orientation, etc.

When someone who's a known disruptive jerk or petty thief has been told to stay out of the stores in a shopping mall, it's perfectly reasonable to use technology to spot them as they head back in anyway. Some retailer's newly hired staff shouldn't have to memorize mug shots in order to head that sort of thing off.

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[ScentCone]

I hope you will be the first one on the shop lifting list accidentally, so you won't be able to get food anymore, not even online because they online stores also check the list. They know who you are because not only did they take a look at your face, they also linked it to all the credit card in your wallet as you passed a scanner, as well as the identity of any blutooth device you own.

Where will you go to buy new tinfoil for your hat making, now that the owners of the local tinfoil retailers have bugged your dog's water dish in order to better follow you with their black retail drones at night?

What's that? That sounds crazy? Oh.

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[Hognoxious]

So you don't think it's possible for an innocent person to be put on the list (or any list) either through accident, incompetence or malice?

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[ScentCone]

So you don't think it's possible for an innocent person to be put on the list (or any list) either through accident, incompetence or malice?

Of course it's possible. Just like it's possible that a person who runs a bakery could mistakenly think that somebody is the person who's been stealing their cookies, and tell the guy in the store next door to keep an eye on that person because he's now being seen walking into that other shop. Are you saying that because people don't always have 100% perfect knowledge of what other people are doing, they shouldn't be allowed to share information with each other? If you were in a store, as a customer, and thought you saw someone steal something, but couldn't be absolutely sure, would you just hold your tongue, or would you mention it to the shop keeper that you believe has just had part of their income stolen?

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[gnasher719]

So you don't think it's possible for an innocent person to be put on the list (or any list) either through accident, incompetence or malice?

Sure, possible. However, if an "innocent person" (in other words, just any regular customer) ends up on that list, it costs the shops money. So it's in their own best interest to not put anyone on the list you doesn't belong there.

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[kheldan]

Listen, you: The problem here is such a 'service' sets a dangerous precedent. When it becomes so ubiquitos that government and police say, 'Everyone is using it, so we're going to use it everywhere', suddenly you're living in an even worse surveillance society than you're living in right now -- and if you live in the UK, it's already pretty damned bad from what I hear. Add to this technology: License plate tracking technology, telephone and internet tracking, financial transaction tracking, and (if policitians have their way) 'backdoors' into any sort of encryption (which would naturally include the garden-variety SSL encryption used everywhere on the Internet), then the only thing that's missing is cameras inside your house (oh, whoops, forgot: your 'smart TV' has a microphone and camera now!) and something you wear on your body all day long (oh, whoops, forgot again: Fitbit!) and you're living in the equivalent of House Arrest, like an animal in a cage. Not my or anyone else's fault if you can't see past the end of your own nose so far as how technologies can be abused by police and government to make you a virtual prisoner. Of course then there's people who think trading away their 'freedom' and 'privacy' for 'safety' is a good deal, and that 'privacy' is only for people who have something to hide; of course those people are idiots. Hope you're not one of those.

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the government starts doing anything, they are subject to the rules and regulations that control government information gathering, sharing, and use. Private citizens, like these businesses, are NOT THE GOVERNMENT. None of them can arrest you, or confiscate your belongings, or assess fines against you. The government is restricted because it has actual power. The only power a business has is to refuse to do business with you.

Your fears of the government have nothing to do with the actions of private citizens. Your entire rant isn't about this article, isn't about this subject, even. Please calm down, and come back when you can recognize the difference between a people warning each other about thieves and a multi-million strong group of men with guns threatening to kill or imprison you.

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[kheldan]

Oh for fucks' sake YOU calm down and learn the difference between conjecture and the 'paranoid ramblings' you're accusing me of, you Anonymous Coward jackhole.

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[Hognoxious]

Are you saying that because people don't always have 100% perfect knowledge of what other people are doing, they shouldn't be allowed to share information with each other?

You know it doesn't work like that. The list doesn't display probabilities.

Of course people should be allowed to spread imperfect information. And they should be fully answerable for it if it unfairly damages someone's reputation.

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[tehcyder]

Nah, I'm for it. I'm also for wearing things to obscure your face.

I would ban this in my shop. I do not have to serve people who walk in with Swastika tattoos on their face either.

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[tehcyder]

There is a fundamental difference between the State monitoring you and imposing legal sanctions including imprisonment, and a private business trying to reduce the amount of stock that goes walkabout.

Re:Put a stop to it, now.

[tehcyder]

So you don't think it's possible for an innocent person to be put on the list (or any list) either through accident, incompetence or malice?

It is self evident that you need some sort of oversight on this, and the ability for people to challenge mistakes. But it's not like the shopkeepers can arrest you and chuck you in prison with no evidence.

It's just like if you get barred from a pub. If the landlord mistakenly thought you started a fight and threw you out, you can always go and reason with him later. If he won't see sense, you find a different pub to go to, and eventually so will everyone else if he carries on being an arsehole.

a nation on CCTV

[Anonymous Coward]

last time (2005) I was in the UK, I was so incensed by the prevalence of cctv that I've decided never to return. And my citizenship includes Her Majesty as the, well, my queen. A nation of sneaky snooping dilettante sleuths. who'd betray their mother for a slot on big brother.

Re:a nation on CCTV

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to say that at least we don't shoot black people just for, well, being black.

But just the other day we did.

Re: a nation on CCTV

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, should we wait for them to become, like, blacker?

Re:a nation on CCTV

[tehcyder]

I was going to say that at least we don't shoot black people just for, well, being black.

But just the other day we did.

Shooting an armed professional criminal is not the same thing as shooting a random teenager on his way home from school..

The police here in the UK are not perfect, but they are a thousand times better than in the US in terms of numbers of mistaken shootings of minority groups.

Old time US version

[Kohath]

Retailers post pictures on their wall saying "Do no accept checks from this person". It's just a reputation system committed to paper. It's not really a problem, but it's also not something the government (police) should be involved in because government blacklists violate due process rights.

Re:Old time US version

[ShanghaiBill]

Retailers post pictures on their wall saying "Do not accept checks from this person".

Are there any retailers that still accept checks?

Re:Old time US version

[barc0001]

It's a problem because of two things: One, it is a distributed system subscribed to by a large number of retailers. And more importantly, Two: If a store had my picture up for writing a bad cheque and was wrong about it, I could sue them for libel and have it removed. From this system it appears there isn't that level of accountability. Some register jockey might get their shorts in a knot over some interaction with you and "get you back" by putting you in the system and you will have a very difficult time fixing that, all the while you're barred from retail shops everywhere. What are you going to say "I didn't shoplift!" Sure, buddy that's what they all say...

Re:Old time US version

[Anonymous Coward]

It's automated, and uses face recognition. The data is distributed to every single corp/govt agency subscribed. One false-positive (which it is prone to do) will have you in a world of shit, being denied service or being marched off properties, or even arrested.

"Not really a problem" Fuck me, that's the most cluess thing I've read in months, if you actually believe this national system, that will hold eveyone's mugshots isn't going to be a absolute nightmare for anyone incorrectly flagged. To tell you how bad it it, the very first reporter was false-flagged in the demo, which the CEO of the company shrugged off and admitted there might be teething problems. Here's hoping people with your "not really a problem" type attitude are the first to fall foul.

Re:Old time US version

[omnichad]

Plenty do (electronically converted to ACH, anyway). Generally bigger businesses who can easily afford the equipment, but it's not that expensive to get instant verification of funds.

Re:Old time US version

[kwbauer]

Do you honestly think this system isn't full of audit trails about which shop posted what and that shops are going to give every employee rights to enter "problem people" into the system? Have you ever been employed by an actual business? The real world works completely different than what you seem to be imagining here.

Re:Old time US version

[phorm]

I'm not sure which "due process" this would impinge though. So long as the cops aren't arresting people without evidence, it should be OK.
If a robbery occurs, and police question retailers to hear that "we didn't get video of the actual robbery but we have these shots of a guy who's been hanging around at X hours acting suspiciously", then cops are going to keep a watch out for that person (for questioning).

This seems similar except that the stores are sharing the data on suspicious persons pre-emptively. Of course this assumes good behaviour on the cops and that they're just going to question him and let him go if it's nothing... but unfortunately that's a reality even currently.

Now maybe said person is just hanging out waiting for his girlfriend to get off of work, or whatever, but that same situation applies if he was tagged as suspicious after the robbery.

Re:Old time US version

[david_thornley]

I'm not sure there's required due process for excluding an individual from a store, but if it's done because of a false report I've got an excellent case for libel against the reporter.

Re:Old time US version

[guruevi]

Retailers have 'fixed' that by getting laws that a bounced check can have an 'electronic debit' so it automatically debits your account + $30+ fee regardless of your funds. In court you can even get up to 4x the value of the check.

The bank 'eats' the overage and then bills the customer another $30+ fee per day your account is in overdraft.

Re:Old time US version

[mjwx]

Retailers post pictures on their wall saying "Do no accept checks from this person". It's just a reputation system committed to paper. It's not really a problem, but it's also not something the government (police) should be involved in because government blacklists violate due process rights.

Your society still accepts personal cheques?

What is it like in 1950's land?

However the real issue here is the speed at which data can be shared and the lack of checks and balances. One false accusation and your reputation is ruined across town, not just in the store where your jilted ex works.

However the Libertardian businessgeniuses have assured me because this is being run by PRIVATE INDUSTRY (yay, hooray) it's perfectly safe and will never be abused.

Re:Old time US version

[tehcyder]

The police aren't going to arrest you unless there is evidence you have actually committed a crime.

Whatever the issues with this system, it's nothing to do with giving Teh Evil Government more powers to lock you up.

Seems Fine To Me

[Assoluto]

If somebody has a history of shoplifting, keeping an eye on that person when they're in your store seems perfectly sensible to me.

I also have to wonder why half the article was about Minority Report when there are few similarities between pre-crime and this system. In Minority Report arrests were based on information from the future, while this system is based on past information. In Minority Report people were arrested and charged for crimes they had yet to commit, while this system simply gives stores better information on which customers they need to keep an eye on. The differences are so pronounced I fail to see why Minority Report even needed to be mentioned.

Re:Seems Fine To Me

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the other early comments. Minority Report was mentioned purely to get the ignorant reflexive reaction from the same demographic that modded you troll for not agreeing with them.

This is about preventing a crime in the first place by subtly (or not) making it clear to habitual shoplifters that they're being watched. Yet to some Slashdolts, interfering with a crime is somehow an intolerable crime and worthy of death.

Re:Seems Fine To Me

[Anonymous Coward]

You know we've been able to share information about habitual shoplifters for literal centuries, right? Retailers, since the dawn of time, have shared information with each other about who's likely to steal what.

The problem with a system like this is it's not backed up by any real veracity - Back in the day you knew to watch Ol' Thieving Bob because three other shop-keeps had told you about his escapades (and maybe you ignored one of them at first because you knew he'd always had it out for Bob to begin with), now the only thing telling you to watch him is database entry number #2514152.

Was Bob put on the database because he lifted £3,000 worth of electrical goods in an afternoon? Or is he on it because he pissed off the wrong ASDA employee? Keep in mind that Facewatch doesn't demand an actual criminal conviction.

Personally, I don't want to be stalked by security or barred from every major retailer in the county just because, for instance, my girlfriend's ex has a chip on his shoulder and a position as security guard.

Systems like this might not be as evil as some people suggest, but they most definitely shift the balance of power far too heavily away from the consumer.

Re:Seems Fine To Me

[bws111]

Businesses want customers, and they want to spend the minimum amount they must on things like security. If this system is flagging too many people that shouldn't be on it that drives away customers, and makes them spend more on security to watch the people on the list.

Re:Seems Fine To Me

[Megol]

You don't seem to understand this at all. How about if it is you that is harassed because of an error or because someone didn't like you pointing out something when shopping?

Re:Seems Fine To Me

[penguinoid]

In Minority Report people were arrested* for crimes that they wouldn't necessarily commit (the precogs weren't perfect), there was no defense from the accusation, and if you got falsely accused you were screwed. This is the same in all respects except instead of being arrested you might get denied an important service (I'm fine with the "keep on eye on" option).

* Incidentally, anyone else wonder why in Minority Report people got arrested for predicted crimes of passion instead of being gently reminded not to do something they'll regret the rest of their life then allowed to remain a productive member of society?

Re:Seems Fine To Me

[craighansen]

* Yes, but, often the pre-crime police weren't able to get to the scene of the crime quickly enough for that to be the issue. If only the Apple Watch could vibrate when you were about to commit a crime to gently remind you....

Re:Seems Fine To Me

[kwbauer]

Megol, you don't seem to understand that people have all manner of tools available to go after a shop that erroneously accuses them of bad behavior and all manner of tools available to go after a shop that refuses them service without that shop first following a bunch of legalities that start with said person having committed a bad act against that particular shop (or another shop owned by the same owner). At least in the States. If you don't have the same legal protections available in Europe then, well at least you won't get shot by a shop owner defending himself and you will have free healthcare if you do.

Here in the States an artist can be sued for not contributing art to celebrate a wedding that they don't think should be happening. How easy do you think it is for a shop to be sued for not serving a customer simply because Joe across town or across the state or 5 states over says that someone resembling you acted like a jackass once?

Re:Seems Fine To Me

[david_thornley]

Except that does nothing for the occasional person blacklisted. If Target decides to blacklist me, they lose something over a thousand dollars of revenue (not profit) a year. That's not going to put a dent in their bottom line. It still leaves me out in the cold.

Re:Seems Fine To Me

[david_thornley]

If the guy's already murdered someone in a fit of passion, then, sure, arrest him. If I remember the movie correctly, they were arresting people who hadn't committed crimes rather than just making sure the crime does not take place.

Re:Seems Fine To Me

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet to some Slashdolts, interfering with a crime is somehow an intolerable crime and worthy of death.

Cheetos want to be Free!

Re:Seems Fine To Me

[tehcyder]

Personally, I don't want to be stalked by security or barred from every major retailer in the county just because, for instance, my girlfriend's ex has a chip on his shoulder and a position as security guard.

Yes, because obviously every employee of every shop will be allowed unlimited access to the sytem with no checks on their actions at all.

Perhaps they could extend it

[edittard]

Where previously a member of staff had to keep an eye out for people, on the crowdsourced Facewatch watch list

Perhaps they could extend it to check for commas, that don't need to be there.
       

In the movie??

[Anonymous Coward]

In the movie, there's the precogs. In the new series that just premiered just this past fall, they also discussed Hawk Eye, a system that is similar to "The Machine" in Person of Interest. I see this crowd-sourced watch list being closer to either of these systems than the precogs component...

Re:You will be modded down

[Anonymous Coward]

Not your best work, but keep it up.

Rule of law

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

    Facewatch lets you easily report shoplifters to the police, and to share the faces of generally
    unpleasant clients/drunks/etc with other Facewatch users. The BBC reports that
    Facewatch is currently used at around 10,000 premises.

    The Facewatch website is full of positive testimonials from shop
    owners and police forces alike; it does seem to work as intended.

On whose side are you? Do you want rule of law---then you have to give
the police the means to efficiently do their jobs.

You don't trust the police? Go talk to your mayor and ask him to replace
the chief. He doesn't agree? Well, then convince your co-voters that
the chief should be replaced. You can even use facewatch to collect
evidence against him if you suspect him to be criminal.

Wake up you hypocrite hippies who believe in the Good in everyone. Yes it exists, but
unfortunately statistically in less than 100% of the population.
They also show that the guy who steals your wallet is also significantly
more likely to commit more serious crimes.

You'll all more than happily browse through the FW data next time your
car gets stolen or even just scratched. And if your 6yr old daughter gets
kidnapped and raped you'll howl to get access!

Re:Rule of law

[Anonymous Coward]

On whose side are you? Do you want rule of law---then you have to give the police the means to efficiently do their jobs.

This is a common argument, but actually you only have to give the police a means to do their jobs.

Re:Rule of law

[kwbauer]

And if you are conscientious member of society, you will help them out from time to time by being truthful and honest and cooperative if you have witnessed a crime. You know, Golden Rule and being a good neighbor and all.

Pre-crime list

[Wowsers]

Considering there were hundreds of expenses fraudsters in UK's Houses of Parliament, maybe the politicians should be added to this pre-crime "watch list".

Where do we draw the line?

[craighansen]

In my view, it crosses the line when it infringes on your activity. If Facewatch gives you a warning that this person might deserve some scrutiny in case they shoplift, and store owners watch your behavior, but allow you to shop and act normally, that's behind the line. It crosses over the line when the reaction to a warning is to refuse to let you in the door, or escort you out upon entering, particularly when there is no recourse to correct the information.

Even now, businesses could use this kind of information to determine whether or not to offer you a bargain, a deal, a coupon relative to the marked price. For businesses like Safeway (US), that routinely offers price breaks on items that they know you buy or want you to start buying, incorporating Facewatch into the mix could lead toward price discrimination that would be very objectionable.

Re:Where do we draw the line?

[The-Ixian]

It seems like this kind of thing happens all the time.

For example, you get into several car accidents because you were drunk and behind the wheel. After a few strikes, you are not allowed to drive any more for a while. When you can drive again, all off your information is shared to all the insurance companies who are all going to give you high rates because of your past activity. The only reason they will give you insurance at all is because there is a state mandate that they have to, otherwise, they may choose not to serve you at all (turn you away at the door).

Another example, you fail to pay your CC debt and it goes into collection. Other, unrelated creditors may decide to turn you away, not because you ever did anything to them but because you failed to pay someone else....

To the point, I don't think it is wrong to share information about people who shoplift or otherwise break the law.

Clearly, there is a slippery slope here though. What if, instead of breaking the law, you are profiled because of your race or political beliefs in one store... now you are flagged in other stores... does a full dossier come along with the flag? There could be good an bad things about that too...

Also, further down the line, as technology progresses, facial and body recognition may become so accurate that they can flag potential shoplifters just by their stance and behavior coupled with what they are wearing. All people in burka's for example might be unfairly flagged due to their "shoplifter" clothing style and the fact the system cannot see their limbs and face.

Re:Where do we draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

In my view, it crosses the line when it infringes on your activity.

The whole point of this system is to infringe on the activities of people who the merchant has a reason to suspect is likely to commit a crime against them. It doesn't discriminate against any group of people though, only individuals.

Re:Where do we draw the line?

[kwbauer]

Why is offering you a discount objectionable? Are you simply unable to refuse a purchase if it is discounted?

Re:Where do we draw the line?

[david_thornley]

The important questions are what level of evidence Facewatch requires, and what retailers do with the data. If it requires a conviction for shoplifting to get on the list, that's cool. If retailers just keep an eye on you, and let you go about your honest business, I have no problem with that.

A friend of mine was working security at a store. He picked someone out and shadowed them. The shadowee accused my friend of picking him out because of his skin color. My friend said, "No, it's because it's summer and you're walking around with a big heavy coat on." He didn't interfere with the guy's legal activities, just kept a careful eye on him.

Re:Where do we draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

We reserve the right to refuse you service FOR ANY REASON. That includes if our Facewatch tells us you might be a creepy person. Even if it's just because of race/etc. Because the first time it gets exposed that it was because of race... the lawsuits... hahaha.

Re:Where do we draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

Offer everyone in the store a discount (which really isn't, you just marked things up higher). Don't offer the people who you think will steal things from you discounts. Actually though, I think they should do that. And they probably already do, you just don't know it.

Rubbish

[s.petry]

I'll give you the first part, they can put up signs all day long making such claims. That does not in any way give them legal right to do as they wish with your images.

You are either confusing, attempting to conflate, private property to be the same as public property. It is not the same thing by any legal standard.

If I can walk my dog into the grocery store and have it shit on the ground I'll surely allow the grocery store to be treated as public property. They won't, and it is not.

If a person was not given proper notice that they are being filmed on private property then the owner of the property can not use the film for any purpose except for self viewing and filing reports with law enforcement. Otherwise, people would be perfectly within their rights to install cameras in their toilets and invite the neighbors over. (It has happened and people have been sued and criminally prosecuted).

Re:Rubbish

[lgw]

You have no reasonable expectation of privacy while robbing a store. The danger with this list/sharing is that it could be abused, and restricting it to people actually convicted would be wise IMO. OTOH if your face is on tape pointing a gun at a cashier, there's no part of that you should expect to end well.

Re:Rubbish

[s.petry]

Not to be a dick, but what part of "filing reports with law enforcement." was difficult to grasp exactly? (Happy to improve my English, but you could be a dick cherry picking content to troll with). In the cases you mentioned, the private person can't legally release the videos because it's evidence. (possible != legal) Police agencies can release evidence to the public after criminal proceedings are completed (sometimes prior) because evidence _is_ public property.

As with GP you are conflating private and public property. I gave the example, and I'd be willing to bet that US and UK law on this is the same.

Re:This site's setup that way... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't make anyone stand behind their words or ratings

Translation- APK is butthurt because when people post as AC (just like he does himself) he doesn't have any easy way to stalk and harass them online.
Go take your meds, dickhead.

Philip K. Dick anyone?

[berchca]

I know this is a bit nit-picky, but it feels very un-Slashdot-like to not attribute an idea to its origins, which in the case of 'precrime' would be the Philip K. Dick story on which the aforementioned movie is based.

Re:Philip K. Dick anyone?

[BarbaraHudson]

I know this is a bit nit-picky, but it feels very un-Slashdot-like to not attribute an idea to its origins, which in the case of 'precrime' would be the Philip K. Dick story on which the aforementioned movie is based.

Eventually everything worth watching will be based on a Phillp K Dick story,

Re:Philip K. Dick anyone?

[david_thornley]

I'm really, really hoping that there will never be a time when everything significant in life is based on a Philip K. Dick story. That man wrote some depressing stuff.

Re:Philip K. Dick anyone?

[BarbaraHudson]

I'm really, really hoping that there will never be a time when everything significant in life is based on a Philip K. Dick story. That man wrote some depressing stuff.

A lot of life IS depressing. The dystopian future as depicted in Blade Runner still makes for a great background for telling a love story.

Re:Philip K. Dick anyone?

[tehcyder]

I know this is a bit nit-picky, but it feels very un-Slashdot-like to not attribute an idea to its origins, which in the case of 'precrime' would be the Philip K. Dick story on which the aforementioned movie is based.

Eventually everything worth watching will be based on a Phillp K Dick story,

As well as everything not worth watching.

He is one of the most erratic writers who ever lived.

Let's start a Pre-Corruption database

[denis-The-menace]

Let's start a Pre-Corruption database.

How long would that last?

Nice job,

[globaljustin]

Airstrip One.

Re:You will be modded down

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay! Free milk!

Lawsuits?

[eth1]

Doesn't the UK have some pretty nasty defamation-type laws? I would think a single mistake that results in such a suit (win or lose) would cost a retailer decades worth of "shrinkage."

Re:Lawsuits?

[tehcyder]

Doesn't the UK have some pretty nasty defamation-type laws? I would think a single mistake that results in such a suit (win or lose) would cost a retailer decades worth of "shrinkage."

The UK is supposed to be a good place for rich people to sue each other, but unlike in the US ordinary people don't get very high damages here, as you don't get ridiculously inflated amounts for psychological trauma or whatever.

Re:"Imitation" = sincerest form of flattery! apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Alex, you post AC because you are a bully, you are a coward, and you because you've been banned from every board you've ever posted to that didn't allow anonymous posting.

Others post AC when confronting you because you've a 15+ year history of stalking and harassment of anyone who voices any kind of disagreement with you whatsoever. You've been called out on it over and over again. It's all over the Net, dude, and you can't get rid of it.

It's real shame you got abused as a kid and punished for trying to defend yourself. But does doing the same thing to others really make you any happier or your life any better?

Sounds like PubWatch

[Larry Lightbulb]

PubWatch has been running in UK pubs since the 1990's, it's a voluntary organisation where landlords share photographs of troublemakers between themselves and with police. They probably include video by now.

More Movie-UK Reality crossover

[CanEHdian]

Remember the corporate police force out of Robocop? In the UK they have a corporate police force, being the City of London Corporation's private police force. And they kick in doors all over the country, together with other corporate representatives (and sometimes a token member of the local police force, to add legimitacy and not to step too much on their toes).

Re:More Movie-UK Reality crossover

[tehcyder]

Remember the corporate police force out of Robocop? In the UK they have a corporate police force, being the City of London Corporation's private police force. And they kick in doors all over the country, together with other corporate representatives (and sometimes a token member of the local police force, to add legimitacy and not to step too much on their toes).

My understanding is that the City of London police are just another police force, like the Metropolitan Police. They are not some private security firm.

Feel free to prove otherwise.

Re:"Imitation" = sincerest form of flattery! apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Pity I forgot my /. password a decade+ ago. This deserves serious karma points.

Says the unidentifiable anonymous "hero"

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject - R O T F L M A O: Too bad I'm beyond your control eh? Can't handle that I see - too bad for you, fool!

* :)

(Such "big talk" & no substance, especially from someone who's hiding from me as to their identity...)

APK

P.S.=> Face facts: You're a little truly cowardly punk and a slimy weasel, nothing more as well as a "ne'er-do-well" that can't compete with me on ANY front (& you know it)... apk

/.'s setup that way... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

The abuse of moderation in rampant unjustifiable downmods here proves that. They made it so they can't be identified.

That leads to this abuse of moderation due to NO ACCOUNTABILITY & NOT HAVING TO VALIDLY BACKUP YOUR REASONS FOR IT!

It can be added in easily (since I spoke to those coding soylentnews & their coders told me it would literally take only minutes to add it noting who applied up or down mods)...

This also lends itself to sockpuppetry & self-upmodding using fake accounts to "farm karma" to upmod one's post themselves - tracking who does it would help police & stop that too.

HOWEVER

They don't want that citing it would cause flamewars which they have here anyway!

* What a load of bullshit & attempting to pull a 'snowjob' on us like we're stupid or something... clue: Most here, are not!

APK

P.S.=> They don't make anyone stand behind their words or ratings and that will lead to more crap than keeping people accountable in who they downmod (which speaks of the character of those who designed slashdot alone in and of itself)... apk

"Imitation" = sincerest form of flattery! apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject little "paper rose" imitation that YOU are of myself: NO, you don't post as I do - I identify myself in posts, you don't cowardly little weasel that you are!

Butthurt here? Hell no, lol: FAR FROM IT... you're projecting YOU are though, lol!

I just repost getting you to BLOW ALL YOUR "DOWNMOD" POINTS (well, you idiots do sockpuppets galore to upmod yourselves too), lol!

NO LIMITS HERE IN HOW OFTEN I CAN POST UNLIKE MOST AC'S IS HOW/WHY!

* :)

(Thanks for PROJECTING you're 'butthurt' that your single effete useless puny 'weapon' in the unjustifiable downmod is ineffective vs. "yours truly"... lol!)

APK

P.S.=> You unidentifiable ac weasel trolls, you must have IQ's 10 below plantlife... seriously: You're VERY EASY to outwit, outsmart, outthink & just plain OUT!

... apk

Re:"Imitation" = sincerest form of flattery! apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Others post ac here against apk since he tosses defeating them back in their faces. I've seen it. Think you're deceiving us with your lies? No.

Minority Report (1956) book

[Anonymous Coward]

Minority Report (Short story 1956) by Philip K. Dick
Minority Report (movie 2002)
Minority Report (TV show 2015, canceled)
Considering that the Arstechnica failed to mention the short story...oh well, I consider the fact that our current society is forgetful of history, and of writing, that that is a crime. Also more evidence of the continuing decline of the quality of journalism and reporting--lack of facts, etc.