Biometric Face Recognition At Your Local Mall 120
dippityfisch writes "The Sydney Morning Herald reports that face recognition is being considered at Westfield's Sydney mall to catch offenders. The identification system matches images captured by surveillance cameras to an existing database of faces. Police said they could not comment on the center's intentions, but would welcome any move to improve security and technology in the area."
Solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
One possible solution that I can think of, if you want to keep your privacy, is to wear a mask. Security should not have a problem with that, right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
etc.
Re:Solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe sullen teenagers with hoodies are on to something...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe sullen teenagers with hoodies are on to something...
They were onto it years ago: Mall bans shoppers' hooded tops [bbc.co.uk].
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
that'll work until they have a camera on the other side
Enemy of the State. Things have changed so much that they could make it now and be more realistic without satellites tracking individual people, just link stoplight cameras, speed cameras, store surveillance cameras and Predators [wikipedia.org]. Hell throw in a few camera phones for good measure. Surveillance has come a very long way in just 11 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Wear a jacket with a hood
I've heard some malls are telling people to remove their hoods or GTFO.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
In many jurisdictions (such as mine), wearing a mask in public (except in inclement weather, or as required by a medical condition) is a criminal act in itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Swine flu will be with us for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A mask would be asking for way more trouble than it would be worth, as it'd be taken as practically a declaration of intent to cause trouble.
Re: (Score:1)
Shop somewhere else?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What the fuck? (Score:2)
Post 9/11 America Dreams All This Stuff Up (Score:2)
...but it seems like it's the Brits and Aussies who actually end up taking it seriously.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What the fuck? (Score:4, Interesting)
As someone once said: one pole isn't really all that different from the other if you're stranded there.
Extreme libertarians and extreme communists have a lot in common: they have ideology, will sacrifice anything for their ideology, consider it the perfect solution to every problem, refuse to listen to any indication that there might be a problem with it, etc etc. The end result of either ideology getting control is an economic and humanitarian disaster. The same is true of every ideology: taking a good idea too far turns it into a parody of itself. That's why people who want economic and personal freedom end up building a private police state. The state with the smallest possible government is known as a jungle, and only the biggest gorillas have freedom there, the rest having only the freedom to obey or die.
I wonder how many "libertarians don't support corporations" replies will I get? They all miss the point, of course: the shield of limited liability is not needed if you're too big for anyone to hold you liable. That's why you can't sue the government: who would enforce the judgement?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many "libertarians don't support corporations" replies will I get? They all miss the point, of course: the shield of limited liability is not needed if you're too big for anyone to hold you liable. That's why you can't sue the government: who would enforce the judgement?
You should expect more "If you don't like it you can go to another mall".
Which classically ignores that loss of privacy for "the consumer" is an externalized cost to the "mall market" and therefore will be implemented by all malls in order to compete. Mall A sets up cameras and Mall B doesn't. Mall A directly improves its profit margin because it reduces shoplifting and more/better stores want to open in Mall A. Mall B loses business because it doesn't have the better stores/variety.
Re: (Score:1)
This is the opposite of a police state, this is a free state that lets the corporations do whatever they want.
Except if the goals of these police corporations are virtually indistinguishable from the wishes of the state that lets them thrive. The resulting intimate meshing of corporations and government is then called fascism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It all comes down to what you do with it (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, yes. I should have been thinking of the children all along. This erosion loss of my own right to privacy is all good, because of the benefits to the children.
No matter that most kids are abused at their home or in the home of another family member or close family friend. Let's put security cams up in the mall. That'll solve it.
But seriously now, I'm not sure about the implications of these things: would a mall count as public or private? Generally, you wouldn't be allowed to take photos in a mall because it's private property, and they're obviously allowed to take photos of you, because they own the joint. However, what would Joe Public be able to do if he was flagged as a criminal through a false positive?
I'd be pretty pissed if some fool tasered me while I was grocery shopping on a Saturday morning 'cos the camera erroneously ID'd me as the local pedobear or whatever...
Re: (Score:1)
As far as being erroneously flagged as a criminal... well I hope they call
Re:It all comes down to what you do with it (Score:4, Insightful)
If you ignore the possible invasion of privacy which is kind of moot in such a public place
I find fault with that logic. You wear clothes in public, don't you? That's privacy in a public place, it clearly exists. Being automatically identified by a computer, WOULD eventually be used to track you between destinations and WOULD eventually be used for things which are not at all security related (such as in minority report, vending machines calling to you personally.) You can and will lose your privacy in public and in private if this shit continues.
If you were being facetious, you need to be a little less subtle, or else it's just borderline trolling.
Re:It all comes down to what you do with it (Score:5, Funny)
You wear clothes in public, don't you?
Yes, but only because last time I tried not to, they put my face in their database.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but only because last time I tried not to, they put my face in their database.
Only your face?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you seriously suggesting it's a good idea that anyone who has ever shoplifted should never be let near a shopping centre ever again in their life? In your think of the children rant did it ever occur to you that giving people who are in a position to abuse their authority tools to track and observe a childs every move is a terrible idea? Do you want your child to be living in a panopticon?
Re:It all comes down to what you do with it (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a difference between "someone might see me" and "someone is watching my every move". The latter is stalking, and we have laws against stalkers. And I don't think "officer, I stalked him just in case he happened to be a criminal" would fly in court.
I don't. I can understand why such people might be banned from working as kindergarden teachers or other positions requiring trust, but banning them from shops because there might be children in the same building is just ridiculous. The whole "sex offender" thing is nowadays simply used as an excuse to bully a socially accepted target; I find the practice every bit as disgusting as rape.
Not that being a "sex offender" has anything to do with rape, or even with sex; you can get on the list for urinating in public.
Think of the chiiildren!
Ironically enough, without the whole "sex offender" hysteria lost children would probably be escorted to security personnel, who would then find the parents. Instead everyone will steer clear of them for fear of being accused of being a "predator", the accusation being sufficient to get them inserted into the sex offender registry and apparently banned from malls forever, as well as being subjected to any arbitrary punishment someone who "thinks of the children" can come up with.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if sex offenders are limited from being in malls with kid play areas, but if they are, that would be one good application I would stand for.
Considering how easy it is to get on the sex offender list without being any sort of danger to children (or anyone else), I'm not so sure that would be a good thing.
Welcome.... (Score:2)
.... to the Panopticon. Where everything you do, can and will be tracked.
It's private property people ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about Australia, but malls in the US are private property. They can and will issue a no trespass order against anybody who causes them problems (shoplifters mostly).
If you don't want to be entered into their surveillance system don't shop at their mall.
It's their property they can do what they want with it. It's no different from me running facial recognition against people who walk up my stairs. (which i dont do btw..)
Re:It's private property people ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's their property they can do what they want with it. It's no different from me running facial recognition against people who walk up my stairs. (which i dont do btw..)
No, they can't. People's rights must be respected even in private property, that's why local bars can't install cameras on girls bathrooms. You can install facial recognition, but people can still walk on the street with glasses and a hat.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, they can't. People's rights must be respected even in private property, that's why local bars can't install cameras on girls bathrooms. You can install facial recognition, but people can still walk on the street with glasses and a hat.
The only reason local bars cannot install cameras in the girls bathroom is the expectation of privacy. When you go to the mall you have no expectation of privacy outside of the bathroom.
The mall is perfectly within their rights to require people not wear disguises in the mall as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, wearing glasses and a hat (more than enough for breaking most facial recognition software) should not be considered a disguise, many people use them (together or separately) as part of their "look". Don't know in the US, but in my country there are anti-discrimination laws that protect the right of people to enter a establishment regardless the clothes they wear / c
Re:It's private property people ... (Score:4, Insightful)
When you go to the mall you have no expectation of privacy outside of the bathroom.
Or maybe in changing rooms or phone booths or ...
How about they have a guard follow you around watching your every move at close range, listening in on your every conversation, making notes of everything you touch, everything you buy and so on. That's ok too? How about random searches of your bags? After all, you might have stolen something and you're on their private property.
The whole "no expectation of privacy in public" is nonsense. Just because you are in a public space shouldn't mean it's ok to protocol your every move, word and thought and store it in some database.
Just wait till thought/feeling reading gets perfected. Hey it's a public place so we can record all your brainwaves. Yes yes of course, such technology will never come. Good for us.
Re: (Score:1)
How about they have a guard follow you around watching your every move at close range, listening in on your every conversation, making notes of everything you touch, everything you buy and so on. That's ok too? How about random searches of your bags? After all, you might have stolen something and you're on their private property.
That's absolutely fine. I had something similar to that happen to me in a supermarket (a security guy following me around for no reason other than the color of my shoelaces.)
No problem at all. I just walked out. I'm not obliged to be there.
Re: (Score:2)
No matter if its private property or not, there needs to be some limit on what security guards can and cannot do. A limit in the sense of where I cannot swing my fist near someone's face.
A private property can have its own rules and limits set, but assaulting people is still illegal, no matter if done in private, public or wherever. A guard following your every move could very well be assault and stalking depending on how threatening and/or sexual this behavior would be.
I am all for free and self-regulating
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait till thought/feeling reading gets perfected
That's when BotnetZombie's Tinfoil Productions will finally become profittable.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you don't mean it like that but that cracked my up hehehe. Last time I was in a mall I saw mickey mouse walking around hehehe.
Re: (Score:2)
Hum... If people didn't have any expectation of privacy in the mall, why are they suddenly complaining that their privacy is being violated?
-d.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only reason local bars cannot install cameras in the girls bathroom is the expectation of privacy. When you go to the mall you have no expectation of privacy outside of the bathroom.
Says who? Remember, you said "It's their property they can do what they want with it." You never qualified that with expectations of privacy.
The point is that there's no black and white issue here. Anyone can assert that you either do or don't have an "expectation of privacy" in a particular location - you're just making it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you go to the mall you have no expectation of privacy outside of the bathroom.
You are clearly wrong about this. The fact that you even said it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are fully aware that the person you responded to DOES have an expectation of privacy in the mall.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
but people can still walk on the street with glasses and a hat.
actually, you can't. seriously! that could be considered 'going out in disguise'. pretty sure that's illegal. in our 'new constitution' (the one we really use; not the 200+ yr old paper version) its illegal to hide your identity in public. (go check, I'm not kidding).
not sure how the halloween thing is allowed, but if you check the laws, its often illegal to cover up your identity in certain (many?) public situations. boggle! but its true
Re:It's private property people ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't want to be entered into their surveillance system don't shop at their mall.
And when every business participates in a facial ID program to help stop theft, the excuse will be "it's private property and everyone else does it." When cities start putting facial ID systems in public places the excuses will be "It's to help catch bad people, and anyway it already happens every place you go into, so we might as well connect it all and know where you are at all times."
Maybe that won't happen, but why the hell are we letting them risk it? This is to catch "thieves?" Give me a break. That's a stupid reason to start this crap.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And when every business participates in a facial ID program to help stop theft, the excuse will be "it's private property and everyone else does it." When cities start putting facial ID systems in public places the excuses will be "It's to help catch bad people, and anyway it already happens every place you go into, so we might as well connect it all and know where you are at all times."
Maybe that won't happen, but why the hell are we letting them risk it? This is to catch "thieves?" Give me a break. That's a stupid reason to start this crap.
Great, start your own store and cater to those who dont want to be filmed while shopping. Either you'll get rich or you'll get robbed blind, either way you'll have figured out how most people feel.
Re: (Score:2)
First off, I'm busy with biological research, loftier goals, I won't be starting my own store. Second, plenty... no wait... the vast majority of stores out there don't use this and manage to not be robbed out of business. Third, one or even several stores won't change much. If these systems get convenient and cheap enough for stores to implement, and they think they can prevent enough loss to pay for the system, it's going to be in their interests to all implement systems like this. They don't care abou
Re: (Score:2)
If it is in your interest not to be under surveillance while shopping then you will shop at a store which does not put you under surveillance, that store will do better and it's competitors will fail.
But lets be real, 99% of the population could not care less that someone is watching them shop and as such the stores really don't care that you don't like it.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Disingenuous. A lot of people do care, and would be annoyed if they were aware of what was happening. But they won't be, and even if they are aware of it, they won't care enough to exert a competitive pressure against the stores using it. Especially if it gets widespread quickly. That doesn't mean it's right to do this, though. A law banning this sort of surveillance would probably have some decent popular support, but it'll never happen because people don't care enough to make it an issue, and the shitty v
Re: (Score:2)
But lets be real, 99% of the population could not care less that someone is watching them shop and as such the stores really don't care that you don't like it.
You brought up the same argument before, so I'm again going to respond with "I don't give a flying crap how most people feel. This is idiotic no matter how many idiots are okay with it."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll start my own store, but what good does that do me if all the malls are owned by private companies? My customers will be subject to their rules whether I want them to or not, because they have to walk through the mall to reach my store.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAAL (I am not an Australian Lawyer) but I believe shopping centres and other retail premises are designated as public places. Because of this people can not be excluded for arbitrary reasons. If this was not the case it would be possible to throw people out for any reason at all (possibly in contravention of anti-discrimination laws) and say it was because we thought they looked like a criminal.
I think the best Westfield can do in this case is follow the suspects around either physically or on CCTV and w
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about Australia, but in the US malls are only public places until they file a no trespass order with the local police. Then the mall becomes off limits to that individual. I'm also fairly certain that they can throw out anybody they want, as long as they do not single out protected groups.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also fairly certain that they can throw out anybody they want, as long as they do not single out protected groups.
Yep. Check out this 5 minute clip. Hope it works outside of the us copyright zone...
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/254666/november-03-2009/nailed--em---mormon-church-trespassing [colbertnation.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
With this attitude, anyone wanting to keep their privacy and basic rights is pretty much stuck at home -- with a tin foil hat.
Re: (Score:1)
In which case, there's a problem if vast swathes of open land are actually privately owned, with no way of public access.
If a shop owner doesn't want me in his shop, fine. But if the land owner who grants access to all the shops decides to refuse me permission onto the land - even though the shops might want my custom - that's a problem. It's no better than a troll stopping people walking across his bridge - even if it is his bridge, it's a problem if all your bridges are owned by trolls.
There are various w
Re: (Score:1)
Still, it seems like a law requiring prominent notification of active computerized surveillance would be a good thing (I see a massive difference between identifying and logging each shopper, just keeping tapes, or having human eyeballs doing the work (a typical human won't be nearly as tireless as the computer)).
The language of the law might be a little prickly given that advanced compression does content analysis, but it should be the problem of the party choosing to do the surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. Hey you guy who moderated me a troll. Yes you.
You did not get my comment *at all*. And your moderation just meant, that you think it is OK to assrape someone with a chainsaw. DUDE!! WTF?
I’d say, that is an EPIC FAIL! :D
Media bias? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. I'm not familiar with "Sydney morning herald" so I'm not sure what I was expecting, but they certainly didn't meet it.
Half: "Police say this is great!"
Maybe a third: "Besides, it's already being used and you didn't even know it, so it can't be bad!"
And then: "Some academic loon has his panties in a twist over this"
Quickly followed by: "Another professor... of various more important things... says it should be used more though."
Australia often makes me feel better about the US. Right now, they're making me realize that as bad as Fox news is, it could get somewhat worse.
Re:Media bias? (Score:4, Informative)
The SMH is owned by the Fairfax group, funny you should mention Fox News because Howden [zoominfo.com] is actually employed by News Corp, not Fairfax.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know what planet you're from, but this seems to me a fairly unremarkable canvassing of opinions on the topic without editorial comment. The format of the article goes:
Introduction
Police opinion
Westfield uses some words and says nothing
Australian Privacy Foundation opinion
Contextualisation
Professor Maciej Henneberg's opinion
Just because you don't agree with the opinions doesn't make the article biased, it makes those people wrong in your view (and in mine). But you can't deny that their opinions are
Re: (Score:2)
Murdoch is Australian-born.
"Existing database of faces"...? (Score:2)
Are we talkin' paparazzi photos here, then? I'm sure the celebs Down Under will really appreciate being outed in public like that when they're just tryin' to blend in!
Re: (Score:2)
Photos taken when people are busted shoplifting probably.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But what if it's Lindsay Lohan doing the shoplifting?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you serious? She is a public figure, at least under US law she is legally allowed to be basically stalked by people with cameras.
Re:"Existing database of faces"...? (Score:4, Funny)
No, I wasn't being serious, but thanks for asking!
How worthwhile is this, actually? (Score:4, Informative)
Greetings and salutations...
Here is an interesting study that indicates that the chances of a false positive are fairly great, especially in a chaotic setting:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/DB396/DB396.pdf
One might wave this off as inconsequential, until one gets a security escort in the mall because their face happens to resemble that of a pedophile or thief.
Automating enforcement is a tricky thing, and, should be approached with great caution. We should not hop on the train simply because it is new, and shiny, and a sales person has taken us out for a multiple martini lunch!
Of course, this is a USA-centric view, where at least we have the historical documents that are SUPPOSED to protect the citizens against abuse of one's civil rights by the authorities... You folks out in the rest of the world...well....learn from the fact that over the past eight years or so, that, in spite of the Constitution, America has taken many large and troubling steps towards a Kafa-esque police state.
Pleasant dreams.
Dave Mundt
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is automated survailence. We are working on a robo mall cop but as you say, it's a tricky thing. The prototype blew away our board of directors and then threw itself down the stairwell. Of course the upside to that minor glitch is we now have more money to spend on the robots.
Video Surveillance is Useless (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm sure there's some law some where you inadvertently broke that they can fine or arrest you for.
Only criminals shop at places without facial recognition.
Marketing Ploy (Score:2)
*any* move? Yeah, exactly. (Score:2)
...but would welcome any move to improve security and technology in the area.
Then let’s just kill all life in the area and fill it with self-replicating evolving robots! That is a 100% sure shot to improve security and technology.
You said *any* move!
Don’t lie and act as if that was not exactly the direction you were thinking of.
Know your rights. Stand up for yourself. (Score:1, Insightful)
In the UK at least nobody can arrest or detain you unless they have reasonable grounds to do so. The fact that their system sounds an alarm is unlikely to be sufficient grounds if that alarm often gives false positives (goes off when no offence has been committed). If they do detain you and you have not committed a crime you can sue and will probably win the case.
From time to time a security guard asks if they can look in my bag because an alarm has gone off at the exit. If they ask politely and make it cle
Theft vs Privacy (Score:2)
Face Recognition = damn near useless (Score:1)
"The identification system matches images..." (Score:2)
"The identification system matches images captured by surveillance cameras to an existing database of faces." ... and the whole thing is meant to fail.
The system will create a huge amount of false positives which in turn will make a lot of innocent customers annoyed and cause them to never come back. On the other hand it is quite likely that it will not catch any of the people in the database. Which will be an epic fail!
Re: (Score:2)
There is a large shopping mall in Birmingham, UK that uses face recognition. It also uses RFID and collects details of who these people are when they make a transaction using a credit or debit card. System copes with over 1 million in footfall each week.
I bet you still can't take photos (Score:2)
And I bet the mall owners state "privacy" as the reason and can't see the irony. Classy.
Real World Applications (Score:2)
I think this was attempted by two governments already, Soviet Union, and Third Reich. Google Search of these two governments brings up nothing current in this millenium. Google Maps shows no location of these sovereign states. Grandpa says he knows about 'em, but doesn't want to talk about it; then he starts to get angr
I think this is a good idea, but it doesn't matter (Score:2)
Businesses are going to use this. If I had a retail business, I sure would in a heartbeat.
If I caught a shoplifter in my store, and I had video surveillance of this person that included his face, I would enter his face into my facial-recognition system so that every time that "customer" came into my store in the future, I could give him an excellent, personal customer service experience by attending him closely every time he visited my store.
Likewise, if I had video surveillance of my best customers' faces
I saw this movie... (Score:2)
Isn't this the one where Tom Cruise gets his eyes replaced with new ones to avoid being detected with retinal scans?
Re: (Score:2)
Well its in the metro area [google.com]. Bit like Dandenong here. That has a few scumbags too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)