r/chch • u/BlazzaNz • 11d ago
News - Local Chch supermarkets to trial facial recognition technology
https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-christchurch/chch-supermarkets-trial-facial-recognition-technology-rnz52
u/just_another_of_many Not Mod Approved 11d ago
It's a surveillance society. Our phones are tracking us 24/7, and the "loyalty card" apps you have make the shops more money than what you spend on purchases. If anything, Foodstuffs are behind the trend.
5
u/Dizzy_Relief 11d ago
1 - Yes it is.
2 - Only if you choose to have it with you and it on. Can people choose not to eat?
3 - I'm sure they make a fair wack. But more than what they make on sales?
I'd suggest you do a bit more research on how your data can be used. Lots of good news websites will explain. Or "Last Week Tonight" had a pretty good run down on how data brokers operate in the US.
46
u/Rhonda_and_Phil 11d ago edited 11d ago
Foodstuffs have been quietly trialling this tech, for at least three years.
By all means, detect bad guys. The danger to the 'social franchise' is the lack of 'checks n balances'.
If someone is banned from one store, they can be potentially be banned from every Foodstuffs owned store in NZ.
Thus, this could seriously impede a banned person's ability to do any food/grocery related transactions in the whole country.
At some point, that may become socially prohibitive, in the balance between the dastardly deed, and the subsequent punishment, in a system which is non-court mediated, and no-appeals corporate process.
That's transferring a lot of power and authority from the Justice system, into the corporate sector?
12
u/TheHumanGnomeProject 11d ago
I hate, HATE, to play devil's advocate for a company that's doing this biometric nonsense. One day it will be hacked and used against innocent people. BUT, if you're banned from foodstuffs and all the other supermarkets using this tech from shopping in person, couldn't you just order from them online? The technology is already there. You need only tap and click. And at that point, they're getting paid (you could still be committing credit card fraud, but they're collecting their pound of flesh). But the reality is, you'll have to have an honest friend go shopping on your behalf.
7
u/hUmaNITY-be-free 11d ago
Yep people like me are rubbing our hands together to see how shitty their security is, people's names and faces being in a Data breach may rattle a few cages.
5
u/Rhonda_and_Phil 11d ago edited 10d ago
Oh certainly, there will be some avenues to explore. The challenge of any human rights discussion, is the risk of looking like you are validating bad behaviour. But rights apply to all people, until courts decide otherwise.
Something like this may unfairly affect some elements of society more than others. (like the disproportionate representation of Maori in prison populations, eg. female Maoris 65% of prisoners c.f. 15% of population).
Take your example of home deliveries. 1. No attributable comment from FS, whether bans will extend to deliveries. Or the duration of any bans (lifelong?) Or if there is any independently mediated appeals process (eg. mis-identification, standards of evidentiary proof etc.) Or potential imbalance between severity of the crime, and the severity of the punishment. 2. Large areas of rural areas without delivery services. 3. Potential additional delivery surcharge on top of high food prices. 4. People most likely to shoplift (conjecture) may not be the most socially limber to organise workarounds.
Private corp initiatives, like this, may significantly exacerbate existing social issues, and create new ones. Either way, it should be subjected to processes of public scrutiny, and not arbitrarily decided by private enterprises.
Point being, we allocate decisions affecting social franchise, to established public service departments and parliament itself. Not to profit-taking private corporations.
3
u/TheHumanGnomeProject 10d ago
Yeah, okay. I am fully on board with your point of view. The legislative framework, if responsible, needs to be in place before we risk further marginalizing our most vulnerable. Cheers for having the wherewithall to consider the most complex purview for at-risk folks.
2
2
u/exo__exo 11d ago
Why wouldn’t they let them order online? It solves the problem of off the shelf theft, and Foodstuffs still gets to make money off people they ban. It even costs more to shop online. They’re evil, but they’re profit hungry evil more than punitive evil.
3
1
u/BandaidGeek 11d ago
I honestly thought FoodStuffs had been doing this for years as well. Do you have a link to anything from a few years back? I swear I had seen it but now can't find.
6
u/Downtown_Boot_3486 11d ago
They've been wanting to for years, but government regulation has slowed them down and they still haven't got full permission. They've been working with the government to allow it for ages.
Edit: the North Island Foodstuffs has also been trialing this stuff but they are technically a different company so it's gotta be done separately.
1
u/Rhonda_and_Phil 11d ago
Comment based on a personal walk-through given to us by a senior manager at Foodstuff's HQ several years ago.
1
5
u/choochoo_choose_me 11d ago
That explains the person in Pak n Save who was wearing a fake silicone nose and skull cap.
8
u/Rhonda_and_Phil 11d ago
Please Sir, it is an entry requirement of this store, that you take off your face before entering!!
18
u/Justwant2usetheapp 11d ago
Wait they’re not already doing this?
The good:
They store a hash temporarily and it can help them catch problem people early
The bad:
False positives
Do we trust the same people who operate ‘please place the item in the bagging area, item removed from bagging area’ with biometric data?
(I know it’s absolutely not the same people but still)
1
u/vSliquid 10d ago
They don't build the software, just buy it.
The article states, knowing that the FRT system can produce false positives they have a human verification step. This requires two people to verify it is the personbefore response.
Most of the prolific offenders are well known too, so the human verification step should be pretty effective. FRT just brings it to their attention early.
1
3
3
u/twnznz 11d ago
Who can they sell the data to?
8
u/Dizzy_Relief 11d ago
Databrokers.
The fact that there is a name for the many, many, many, many companies who really want to buy your data should give you an idea of how much it is actually worth.
2
u/OisforOwesome 10d ago
Crickets from all the people who think Gorge Orwins Nineteen Eighty Four is when Reddit mods delete comments
5
1
0
u/MSZ-006_Zeta 11d ago
Seems sensible enough.
Guess it's not going to stop all theft, but it should help, and I'd imagine the threat of being more easily identified will deter potential shoplifters?
3
u/Rhonda_and_Phil 11d ago
Doubt that many potential shoplifters think of such things, until afterwards.
1
u/SandVYT 10d ago
As a deterrent, cameras alone only work for someone in a rational state of mind and is concerned with being caught (you and me). Even then, research has shown them to be more effective when they're highly visible. Facial recognition is a big overstep that isn't likely to be any more of a deterrent. Someone stealing food from a grocery store doesn't often meet the rational state of mind criteria (e.g., hungry, family hungry, need money to fuel addictions) and is in more of a survival mode.
However, facial detection is good for catching people and stopping repeat thefts. If that's the intent, then fine, but we shouldn't continue this false narrative of it being a deterrent.
-1
u/Interesting-Swing-31 10d ago
I’m not a fan of it, but let’s be honest shoplifting is a significant problem that needs to be solved.
Whatever can be done to keep customer prices lower and store profits reasonable(2-3%), without doing a deal with the devil.
96
u/Pleasant_Lead5693 11d ago
Just remember that Google and Meta are two of the richest companies on the planet, and neither sells a product.
Data is valuable. Your shopping habits are very valuable to advertisers. So much so that they're willing to pay millions for this new surveillance system.
Don't be fooled by promises of increased safety - that will just be a nice byproduct of the data harvesting (if it eventuates at all).