Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Technology

Tesco To Use Face Detection Technology For In-Store Advertising 212

Posted by samzenpus
from the scan-me dept.
TinTops writes "Tesco has sparked privacy concerns following its decision to install technology that scans shoppers' faces in order to display video advertising on screens at its petrol stations. The UK's privacy watchdog the ICO is looking into the technology. This is the first national rollout of the system, known as OptimEyes, which claims to recognize facial characteristics that determine a customer's gender and age in order to show more relevant video adverts on screens as they queue at the till. Simon Sugar, chief executive of Amscreen, the firm which sells the technology, has admitted it has connotations of science fiction, but is looking to increase its reach further. 'Yes, it's like something out of Minority Report, but this could change the face of British retail and our plans are to expand the screens into as many supermarkets as possible,' he said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tesco To Use Face Detection Technology For In-Store Advertising

Comments Filter:
  • Frost (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hognoxious (631665) on Monday November 04, 2013 @02:07PM (#45327823) Homepage Journal

    With a face like mine, I don't expect to see adverts for condoms.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Products that move to conveniently block the camera, smudged lenses, etc.

    • by erikkemperman (252014) on Monday November 04, 2013 @02:18PM (#45327945)

      I foresee a wave of creative "vandalism". Products that move to conveniently block the camera, smudged lenses, etc.

      And understandably so if you ask me. Similar stories have been popping up lately. Does none of these companies get that this probably isn't the best of times to introduce these privacy sensitive "improvements"?

      • by MitchDev (2526834)

        Yep, getting real tired of these, I hope they get vandalized to Hell and back.

        Then I hope the execs that actually approve this stuff and have in installed are next....

      • That's the opinion of a customer, which is a kind of peasant that shows up in your stores from time to time, distinct from the other kind of peasant, the "employee". Neither one has any rights compared to the owner, and you should know better.

        • You're wanting to invoke some archaic notions of peasants and aristocrats, I see what you did there, but really it's even worse. Actually, the proposition is to make the consumer a product. Which is not exactly a new concept (TV ads, GOOG, FB et al) but somehow doesn't really seem to bother a lot of people.

          and you should know better.

          Whoa, where did that come from?

        • Cute, but missing the point that Tesco actually do make their money from their customers, and the UK supermarket industry is highly competitive. They could easily lose far more if even a small fraction of their customer base is upset enough to shop elsewhere next time than everything they'll make from creepyads. We all shop for groceries and many people have multiple supermarket chains within easy reach these days as well as various on-line options, so it's not exactly a great burden for those people to avo

  • by LifesABeach (234436) on Monday November 04, 2013 @02:18PM (#45327947)
    Someone showing up looking like Queen Mother? At a Hot Topic? Let me go mircowave some pop corn first.
    • by mjwx (966435)

      Someone showing up looking like Queen Mother? At a Hot Topic? Let me go mircowave some pop corn first.

      They'd immediately start advertising FUBU and Tommy Hilfiger because that's the kind of crap someone who acts like a twat buys.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 04, 2013 @02:19PM (#45327951)

    A few months ago, an acquaintance of mine mentioned something online about something stupid he did at the premises of a large store chain in the 90s. A few days ago, he got served with a notice of trespass and a legal note that if he set foot on $STORE's property in any state, that he would be arrested on site. There is no statute of limitations on bans with private property.

    Here in the US, said facial technology would be probably used for arresting people the second they entered in the store, making notes about what people bought, and if they didn't buy enough, to have LP give them the bum's rush out. Or, just selling who comes in the store, so if someone buys cigs, that info gets sold to their health insurance company.

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      In the UK some shops sue their customers if they suspect them of shoplifting. No trial, either pay up, face harassment for the "debt", or go to court and pay to defend yourself. They prefer it to reporting the crime to the police since they don't have to offer conclusive proof, and the police really don't give a fuck about people stealing from Tesco anyway.

      Presumably once facial recognition is widely available the major chains will get together and blacklist people completely from most high streets (which o

      • by mjwx (966435)

        In the UK some shops sue their customers if they suspect them of shoplifting. No trial, either pay up, face harassment for the "debt", or go to court and pay to defend yourself. They prefer it to reporting the crime to the police since they don't have to offer conclusive proof, and the police really don't give a fuck about people stealing from Tesco anyway.

        Presumably once facial recognition is widely available the major chains will get together and blacklist people completely from most high streets (which only contain chain stores).

        And hello deformation law suits as soon as one of these cameras mistakenly identifies Middle Class James Average as common crook Jack Chav.

        This is why high street retailers or even tesco wont use them to bar customers. The scarier prospect is that they'll tie your face to your purchases so you'll be bombarded with ads as soon as you enter the store. Getting people to buy store brands (or preferred brands where the store makes maximum profit) is worth more to chain retailers than theft. A hell of a lot mo

  • I wonder what ads I'll see when I wear my Richard Nixon Halloween mask? (Does any even sell reel-to-reel tape anymore?)

  • by jklovanc (1603149) on Monday November 04, 2013 @02:25PM (#45328023)

    that the CCTV camera in the corner is trying to find out who they are

    That is a sensationalistic quote. There is a huge gap between being identified as "Joe Klovance" and "middle aged white male". All they are trying to do is classify the face not identify it. This is not facial recognition attached to a database of faces. This is no different than a clerk waling up to people in different demographics and pointing out different sales that may interest them. That it is done by computer rather than a person is irrelevant.

    • Re:sensationalism (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gstoddart (321705) on Monday November 04, 2013 @02:29PM (#45328057) Homepage

      This is not facial recognition attached to a database of faces.

      Not yet.

      And in an age of big data and massive government surveillance, I have little faith it won't be before long.

      You either need to pass laws concerning it now, or in 5 years (or less) what you say isn't happening will be common place and it will be too late.

      • by 0123456 (636235)

        You either need to pass laws concerning it now, or in 5 years (or less) what you say isn't happening will be common place and it will be too late.

        If you intended to pass laws, you needed to pass them ten years ago. It's too late now.

        The future is PK Dick style 'scramble suits', and other technological means of blocking surveillance.

      • by jklovanc (1603149)

        This is a "slippery slope argument" and therefore invalid. Just because something nefarious could happen in the future does not mean it will and does not mean it will not be stopped before it happens. Do you really think that within hours of facial recognition being turned on or even proposed that it would not be posted on Slashdot? Even if it passed that hurdle it can be turned off at any time. It is never too late to turn something off.

        • Re:sensationalism (Score:4, Informative)

          by 0123456 (636235) on Monday November 04, 2013 @02:58PM (#45328407)

          This is a "slippery slope argument" and therefore invalid.

          Oh look, it's the 'slippery slope is a logical fallacy so it could never ever possibly even thinkg of actually happening' brigade, right on cue.

          Hint, dude: the time to stop sliding down a slippery slope is before you first slip, not when you're racing toward the bottom.

          • by jklovanc (1603149)

            The problem with slippery slope arguments is that they assume a possibility is an inevitability and that is just not true. Some company might even try to make it happen but there are enough checks and balances, such as the Information Commissioner's Office and Big Brother Watch, that will stop it from happening. I don't see a problem with showing different ads to different people as long as they are not identified as a specific person. Maybe you should turn down your paranoia and look at reality.

          • by fatphil (181876)
            > Hint, dude:

            Ah, the /argumentum ad dudam/ fallacy. Therefore you're wrong!
        • by idontgno (624372)

          It is never too late to turn something off.

          And yet, even if turning it off is waaaay overdue, does it ever happen? Let's ask the PATRIOT Act.

          • by jklovanc (1603149)

            bad analogy as the Patriot Act is a law not a store policy.

            • by idontgno (624372)

              The panopticon is the same, regardless of whether it's operated by the State or some random corporation.

              You're shilling pretty hard for this. You need to disclose your interests in the topic.

              • by jklovanc (1603149)

                The only interest I have is to have real reporting and not tabloid editorializing masquerading as reporting. I do not work for any retail or advertising firm. I am an unemployed programmer who has some time on my hands this morning.

        • by Jawnn (445279)

          This is a "slippery slope argument" and therefore invalid. Just because something nefarious could happen in the future does not mean it will and does not mean it will not be stopped before it happens

          Your argument proposes that nothing nefarious has yet happened and is, therefore, invalid. To argue that it "might" not happen, in the face of recent events, is a fools errand.

          • by jklovanc (1603149)

            How about it has not happened yet but might and therefore lets watch it so when it starts happening we stop it. If and when they start matching faces to name we stop it. Until then I don't see a problem.

        • Re:sensationalism (Score:4, Interesting)

          by gstoddart (321705) on Monday November 04, 2013 @04:30PM (#45329609) Homepage

          This is a "slippery slope argument" and therefore invalid.

          Then you're an idiot, or fooling yourself.

          Just because something nefarious could happen in the future does not mean it will and does not mean it will not be stopped before it happens.

          And based on the nefarious stuff which happens now, and the distinct lack of stopping it, I conclude that the same bullshit will happen with different technology. It will just be more widespread and pervasive.

          I'm not suggesting they're going to be any different than they are now, I'm saying they're already acting like douchebags and I expect them to continue. I call that a safe bet.

          Do you really think that within hours of facial recognition being turned on or even proposed that it would not be posted on Slashdot?

          And WTF would posting it on Slashdot do? There's all sorts of stuff that might outrage us here on Slashdot which the rest of the populace will say "well, as long as they're doing it to protect against terrorists it must be OK".

          It is never too late to turn something off.

          Bullshit. Because the companies have the ability to pay lobbyists to ensure it doesn't get turned off.

          When your politicians are paid actors on behalf of corporations, and you already have evidence that corporations act like unprincipled assholes, you don't assume that this time they'll suddenly play nice.

          • by jklovanc (1603149)

            And WTF would posting it on Slashdot do?

            Exactly what it is doing now; getting the tech community aroused so they will contact people who can either do something about it or publicize it further.

            Bullshit. Because the companies have the ability to pay lobbyists to ensure it doesn't get turned off.

            By that logic they have lobbyists to to ensure it gets turned on now so why are we even talking.

      • by mythosaz (572040)

        Every major casino is already recognizing their banned patrons and their whales automatically and has been for 5+ years.

        https://www.google.com/search?q=casino+facial+recognition+systems [google.com]

      • This is not facial recognition attached to a database of faces.

        Not yet.

        ...

        And "not soon" either. The performance of face recognition systems with large databases is pretty terrible. I recommend checking out Peter Kovesi's talk on why "Video Surveillance is Useless" for identification.

        http://www.peterkovesi.com/projects/index.html [peterkovesi.com]

    • by 0123456 (636235)

      That is a sensationalistic quote. There is a huge gap between being identified as "Joe Klovance" and "middle aged white male". All they are trying to do is classify the face not identify it.

      Yeah, because I'm sure they're totally not considering tracking individual faces when the technology is available.

      Why, I'm sure the very idea has never even thought about the vaguest possibility of crossing their mind.

      I think I'm going to start wearing a Burqa when I'm visiting England. I'll fit in better, and won't need to worry about being tracked everywhere.

      • by jklovanc (1603149)

        Yeah it probably crossed their mind right before "but people will not accept that so we won't do it".

        • by Arker (91948)

          "Yeah it probably crossed their mind right before "but people will not accept that so we won't TELL THEM WE WILL do it".

          FTFY. HAND.

      • by mythosaz (572040)

        Yeah, because I'm sure they're totally not considering tracking individual faces when the technology is available.

        What do you mean when?

        Casinos already track 86'd players and whales.

        https://www.google.com/search?q=casino+facial+recognition+systems [google.com]

    • by brunes69 (86786)

      "This is not facial recognition attached to a database of faces. This is no different than a clerk waling up to people in different demographics and pointing out different sales that may interest them. That it is done by computer rather than a person is irrelevant."

      It's actually quite different, because if it was a clerk doing it, then it would be Racial Profiling or Sex Profiling. Apparently if a computer does it instead, that makes it OK.

      • by jklovanc (1603149)

        In retail demographic profiling is done all the time. How many times to you see a clerk walk up to a 16 year old girl and point out neckties or walk up to a 80 year old man and point out capri pants? Profiling is not necessarily used for discrimination.

        • Re:sensationalism (Score:4, Insightful)

          by idontgno (624372) on Monday November 04, 2013 @03:06PM (#45328517) Journal

          How many times to you see a clerk walk up to a 16 year old girl and point out neckties or walk up to a 80 year old man and point out capri pants?

          Since you're asking for anecdotes, I'll answer with one. "Never." As in "never, does a clerk walk up and presume they know what I need." Instead, in my country*, they walk up and ask if I need help. And they accept when I tell them I don't. And stop bothering me.

          Which doesn't seem to be a viable option any more, thanks to Minority Report Jr.

          *In my case, the United States of America. We have many things badly screwed up, but "sales associates" still know their place.

      • by fatphil (181876)
        > That it is done by computer rather than a person is irrelevant.

        Oh, noes, the corporate bastards are now using our anti-patent arguments against us!
      • by MitchDev (2526834)

        Not to mention all the people they'd need to employ in this high unemployment market place to do it manually...

    • by fatphil (181876)
      The problem is that it's so easy to slippery slope this in many different directions. You don't need to identify the people before it starts getting uncomfortable or creepy. Sure, face gives you a good stab at gender and age. Clothing style would tell you more - predominantly black, and you could offer them a cheap knife and tell them to kill themselves. Denim with patches on, you offer them some glue or solvents and tell them that the fucking 80s is over.

      Me, I think I'm gonna reserve the right to wear a fa
      • Denim with patches on, you offer them some glue or solvents and tell them that the fucking 80s is over.

        In a generally decent rant about profiling, it's a shame you succumbed to some profiling of your own.

        • by fatphil (181876)
          Would you like me to upload a photo of my denim jacket, complete with patches, that I bought in the 80s, which I still have and wear?

          And quite how you can effectively parody X without doing some X, I'm not exactly sure...
    • by JohnFen (1641097)

      This is no different than a clerk waling up to people in different demographics and pointing out different sales that may interest them. That it is done by computer rather than a person is irrelevant.

      I think it's highly relevant for a bunch of reasons, but skipping past that: I refuse to shop anywhere that is as intrusive as that. I don't want anyone walking up to me and pointing out different sales that "may interest me", whether it's by a computer or not.

      • by jklovanc (1603149)

        Excellent as it allows those who like that kind of customer service to have it as it does not impose your choice on all people..

    • There is a huge gap between being identified as "Joe Klovance" and "middle aged white male"... yes ... right up until they tie in the date/time on the video with the swiping of your loyalty and/or credit card at the till. And glasses, masks... won't be much help there.

      Besides which, isn't it a bit presumptious, not to say patronising, to think that all people of a given age/gender/ethnicity will like a specific set of products? If we were that predictable why bother with adverts in the first place? --

      • by jklovanc (1603149)

        There is a huge gap between being identified as "Joe Klovance" and "middle aged white male"... yes ... right up until they tie in the date/time on the video with the swiping of your loyalty and/or credit card at the till. And glasses, masks... won't be much help there.

        If they wre doing this then there would be a problem but they are not. The moment they proposed doing this they would be stopped with the same kind or process that is going on now.

        Besides which, isn't it a bit presumptious, ...

        That is called advertising. Different ads are created for different demographic and it is an advantage to display those ad to the correct demographic. Are they always exact? No, but they are effective enough. For example, are there middle aged men who like Justin Bieber? Yes, but there are more middle aged men who would prefer to

    • by s.petry (762400)

      That is a sensationalistic quote. There is a huge gap between being identified as "Joe Klovance" and "middle aged white male".

      Bullshit! Facial recognition is facial recognition. It's not looking for oval shapes, it's searching for faces. Making a claim like "We don't plan to look to see if it's really Joe" or "we only want to estimate Joe's demographic" does not change what "FACIAL RECOGNITION" is or does.

      This is no different than a clerk waling up to people in different demographics and pointing out different sales that may interest them. That it is done by computer rather than a person is irrelevant.

      More bullshit! The clerk can only see and refer to a single customer at a time, and will deal with so many people that they can't remember them all beyond the duration of a few days. The computer has indefinite memory and ca

  • Targeted advertising? But not on a computer? Revolutionary...maybe they can patent it.
  • by Somebody Is Using My (985418) on Monday November 04, 2013 @02:26PM (#45328035) Homepage

    Great. Now how long until I can get an "ad-blocker" that, with Google Glass, automatically detects and filters out this obtrusive advertising. Because right now I'm using an older analog method (closing my eyes) and I keep bumping into things.

    My local grocer has TVs next to each till that shows nothing but adverts. I used to turn them off by pushing the power button on the front. Then they wised up and replaced them with new models that didn't have power buttons. I'm guessing I wasn't the only one who did that ;-)

    • by tqk (413719)

      My local grocer has TVs next to each till that shows nothing but adverts. I used to turn them off by pushing the power button on the front. Then they wised up and replaced them with new models that didn't have power buttons.

      Try a can of spray paint next time. It's more permanent, and may lead to somebody getting a job cleaning them.

      Oh, and if you see a marketroid, kill it. That's real permanence.

  • by SteveAstro (209000) on Monday November 04, 2013 @02:31PM (#45328079)

    And they wonder why people wear Burquas.
    Mohammed, at the cutting edge of the consumer fight back

  • by GameboyRMH (1153867) <gameboyrmh@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Monday November 04, 2013 @02:32PM (#45328095) Journal

    Simon Sugar, chief executive of Amscreen, the firm which sells the technology, has admitted it has connotations of science fiction, but is looking to increase its reach further. 'Yes, it's like something out of Minority Report, but this could change the face of British retail and our plans are to expand the screens into as many supermarkets as possible,' he said."

    That is the worst-failed attempt at reassurance I've ever read 8-(

  • "Hello Mr. Yakamoto and welcome back to the GAP!"
  • Just don't put your horse mask on and hang around the meat section.
  • by TigerPlish (174064) on Monday November 04, 2013 @02:34PM (#45328137)

    A Shell station I used to go to at another job had brand new pumps installed in 2008. These "new" and "improved" pumps would start playing ads the second you took the nozzle off the cradle and started pumping.

    Result? I haven't been to that station in 7 years. To hell with intrusive adverts to a captive audience.

    Boycott the store, people. Don't buy there. There is no greater "fuck you" to a merchant than an empty till and a competitor's store full of what used to be your own customers.

    • The ones local to me are playing ads all the time now. These pumps you refer are also slower, both to pump gas and to swipe your card and enter the needed data. I don't go to Shell stations anymore because of them.
    • by Hentes (2461350)

      That was my first thought. It's weird that the posters here filled pages with countermeasures like masks, projectors and damaging the system while ignoring the obvious solution. The day my local Tesco starts this shit will be my last day shopping there.

    • by mjwx (966435)

      A Shell station I used to go to at another job had brand new pumps installed in 2008. These "new" and "improved" pumps would start playing ads the second you took the nozzle off the cradle and started pumping.

      Result? I haven't been to that station in 7 years. To hell with intrusive adverts to a captive audience.

      Erm, if you haven't been there in 7 years, how do you know they installed new pumps in 2008.

      OK, mathematical errors aside, the sad part is that for the average person, they accept ads as a part of daily life and simply put up with them. They're happy to be subjected to the ads for a mere one or two pence of the litre. Worse yet, the majority of these people believe they can filter out advertisements and aren't affected by it. This is utter bollocks and what advertising execs rely on to get people, the mi

    • Absolutely. I remember those. I would gladly pay a few cents more not to put up with that carp.

      (Fortunately, I didn't have to ... Shell prices were not by any means the lowest in town.)

  • ...in order to show more relevant video adverts on screens as they queue at the till

    I avoid retailers who put video ads in my face while I'm queued.

  • Suppose I get a T-shirt with a life-size face printed on it. And one on the back, too, so it'll think it's got my attention when I'm facing away. Or maybe there's a new reason to wear Muslim headscarves here. Another possibility is bizarre face makeup or tattoos will be the next in thing for the 20-somethings. Extra eyes, confusing shapes, etc.
  • I won't. Hopefully more and more people will learn what they're doing and choose to shop elsewhere as well.

  • ads for guns and ammunition?

  • As long as you tape over your web cam lens when you order online.

  • Ask your customers how they feel about losing my business because of your creepy and intrusive technology. Unless there's an easy to activate STFU button, I will take my business elsewhere.
  • in order to show more relevant video adverts

    There's your mistake right there. They think that there is such a thing as a relevant advert.

    Hint: If it were relevant, I would've looked for it on Google already.

  • by Animats (122034) on Monday November 04, 2013 @03:48PM (#45329045) Homepage

    As one of the better retail consultants points out to retailers, you have a customer there all ready to give you their money and you're making them wait. That's a terrible mistake for a retailer. It means some people will go elsewhere next time. Some will even abandon their cart and walk out. Most retailers fail to get this.

    One that does is The Gap. Notice that at a Gap store, there is no checkout clutter. There are no checkout-area displays. No impulse-buy items. There's a lot of empty counter space at checkout, and usually more than one check-out clerk. This encourages customers to bring multiple items to checkout, and discourages walk-outs because there's a line. Gap is very profitable despite a rather dull product line in a mature industry.

    (This is also true on-line, which is why Amazon's "one click" checkout was so valuable an idea.)

  • Made the mistake of going into a Bed Bath & Beyond recently. They have LCD screens with speakers playing ads set up everywhere. And I do mean everywhere. There's dozens in an aisle. Stand in the middle of an aisle, and you're assaulted on all sides by loud, tinny, high pitched ads. You cannot go anywhere in the store without being in range of at lest five of them.

    While I (almost) understand selling premium aisle space to one or two companies to plug an adbox-- this was beyond ridiculous. A pure example of company greed mixed with advertiser childish need to be heard.

    So while my wife hunted for the items we needed (not either of our choice, wedding gifts), I amused myself by walking up and down the aisles, unplugging the things. They were all just these cheapass LCD screens you would buy from Walmart. Cheap shit consumer crap, lowest possible cost (with horrifically shitty sound, further driving up the annoyance factor). Shows just how much the advertisers care about quality. Anyways, they're all powered by standard AC adapters plugged in to the side by those little round plugs. So walk around, take a quick look, and yank. One down. I think I got about dozen of them, and the aisles were so much quieter.

    Try it out next time you're stuck in this situation. It's great fun. And really, what's the minimum wage stockperson going to do even if they see you? Do you think they get any of that sweet money the store gets from sucking the advertiser's cock? They're probably just as annoyed at being exposed to this noise NON STOP for their entire shift. And even if they aren't-- the store ain't paying them nearly enough to care.

    • And really, what's the minimum wage stockperson going to do even if they see you? Do you think they get any of that sweet money the store gets from sucking the advertiser's cock? They're probably just as annoyed at being exposed to this noise NON STOP for their entire shift. And even if they aren't-- the store ain't paying them nearly enough to care.

      You'd think so, but people who work for shitty organisations tend to "kick down". The company enforces idiotic policies on their boss, their boss mindlessly enforces the letter-of-the-law of the idiotic policies on staff, and staff mindlessly enforce them on you. You and lowest-level workers should find yourself naturally conspiring to undermine idiotic policies, but in the real world it rarely happens.

      [Aside: Local department store has these in every isle. Mostly "produce demonstrations", ie, infomercials.

  • by LoRdTAW (99712) on Monday November 04, 2013 @04:23PM (#45329497)

    In New Jersey and Oregon you are not allowed to pump your own gas [defenderof...eclass.com].

    I hope to never see this tech this side of the pond. A Sunoco station opened up near my home years back a block from a Hess. The pumps have one of those annoying video screens that plays adverts. To make it worse, the Sunoco architect thought it was a good idea to put three pumps in a row with no space between aisles to get between cars parked at the outer pumps. So you are stuck in the middle waiting if you finish filling or the middle pump is empty. Moronic setup.The Hess gets my money as their pumps have no screens and the layout is four rows of two pumps so there is never an in between pump.

  • From what I've read elsewhere, these will be placed inside the shop.
    All Tesco petrol pumps have "Pay at Pump" where a card reader is built into the pump, so there's never a need to go into the shop.

    Besides, Asda is usually a little cheaper in my area.
  • If everyone brings a roll of tape, and tapes over all the cameras, no ads might be shown, and the system will become unprofitable very quickly. Hopefully the cams need to be close by...

  • Except to ID "you" a face scan is not needed.

    More interesting is an attire scan.

    Zoom in on that watch.. if $15 Cassio classify
    as a pennypincher. If prewashed blue jeans +$ if
    old and faded two year old jeans -$...

    Scan for passive inventory tags..

    But faces... no

  • by Gravis Zero (934156) on Monday November 04, 2013 @07:18PM (#45331247)

    I have a friend who worked with facial recognition stuff and at a college where they tested the tech, he kept getting the same face showing up at multiple places hundreds of times. Upon further investigation, he found out that t-shirts with Bob Marley's face on it were popular there.

    If you want to be anonymous, wear a t-shirt with a popular person's face on it and a hat or hood. The software will pick the easy target instead of trying repeatedly to grab your face.

  • by sociocapitalist (2471722) on Tuesday November 05, 2013 @08:19AM (#45334821)

    I know this is a complicated solution but....don't shop at Tesco?

Prototype designs always work. -- Don Vonada

Working...