It's obnoxious and rude. You wouldn't be OK with anyone shoving a camera point-blank in your face while doing business with them. That's exactly what these businesses are subjecting their in-person retail customers to.
Doing that without consent is still obnoxious, but a far cry from embedding a camera in the PoS terminal that captures everybody as they check-out. 7-11 might also do that, but it wasn't reported here.
The issue is that regardless of whether the users gave consent, their actions still ran afoul of Australian law.
https://onezero.medium.com/you-can-fool-a-popular-facial-rec...
Haven't read anything about identifying the person wearing the mask.
With most systems, if you want to maximize the error rate then you should wear a solid black mask that covers the entirety of your lower face.
They're trying to do sentiment analysis and maybe some sort of classification on age/gender
*Yes, I'm sure if you Google for an anecdote of a system that did identify users you'll find one, but it really gains nothing in the space. They already have your card data and rewards programs, usually what they care about it sentiment and demographics at a specific spot in the store
7-11 takes your money for yucky hot dogs and apparently also your face long enough to satellite it to Azure. That’s weird.
Makes me glad I never - ever - use self-checkout.
I'm not interested in helping replace human jobs with robots just so a bean counter in a boardroom somewhere can buy a second boat.
Occasionally, the self-checkout "team member" will come over to me while I'm standing in line and offer to help me use the self-checkout. I tell her, "I'd rather not help {$company} replace your job with a robot."
I expect a lot of times they think I'm a kook. But every once in a while they pause and I can see the realization washing over their faces. Then I feel like I've accomplished a small thing that day.
I do not know for absolute certain, and couldn't divulge it if I did, but I am about 99% sure that the cameras mounted in the all in one systems are part of the standard equipment included with that model of computer NOT part of store surveillance coverage which is more than adequately served by existing cameras. That is to say that it would be a waste of resources to watch the other cameras watch you.
The key is that they include user facing sliding camera covers designed for users to secure their privacy. This wouldn't be true if they were intended to watch you.
The reason you are being watched is that people steal and people steal MORE when dealing with a machine because they feel less guilty about doing it perceptibly to a machine rather than cheating in front of an actual cashier.
The Atlantic did a piece on it where it was found that around 1 in 5 people stole from SCO and about 4% of merchandise that went through SCO wasn't paid for.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/stealin...
Starbucks card readers too. Pointed right up at your face. I emailed the local store manager about it, who said he'd get back to me but never did.
Edit: just got an update. Here's what he said:
>So sorry for never responding! We are not using the cameras on the POS card readers. You will see when it asks you to swipe the card that it has an eye crossed out to signify that it is not actively using the camera to look at the customer.
Here's your act of civil disobedience for the day: Try to remember to bring a tiny strip of Scotch tape with you the next time you're at Starbucks. If you do remember, and if nobody's looking, put the tape over the lens. Hopefully the piece of tape is small enough to be inconspicuous, and fuzzy enough from being in your pocket that it ruins the camera's view.
Even after Covid is over, I'd feel comfortable continuing with the mask!
http://www.ltsecurityinc.com/citysurveillance
The only difference is that in one case, you are conscious on being filmed. In another case you know you are being filmed, but you prefer not to think about it...
The cameras in your face are only effective for capturing your face/person in detail, and they are presumably being applied to every customer wholesale, automatically during checkout, and probably associated with your purchase and payment information.
You're arguing as if this isn't any different than the status quo, when it obviously is.
Now we not only have the areal cameras that were presumably only zoomed-in on suspicious behaving customers for loss prevention, we also have every single in-person purchase being captured zoomed-in, regardless of behavior, with a camera lens right in your face.
It's as if retail has decided to actively encourage everyone with any shred of self-respect to stop shopping retail and buy everything from Amazon. If you treat me like a presumed criminal I'm going to take my business elsewhere. What's next, metal detectors and armed guards at the doors?
I don't intend to defend the use of facial recognition in these applications, just saying that cameras for face capture date back to the early days of continuous video surveillance in the '80s, and although I haven't seen it myself I assume there were some users that installed hold-up cameras at eye level in the '60s - certainly the importance of getting a clear view of the face was discussed in articles about hold up cameras, but in that time it was less common for people to wear hats indoors (and bank security would typically require people to remove them).
It not being new is not reason enough for it to continue.
It already existing does not mean we should never revisit this decision.
The technology on the other side of the feed is new and it has changed tremendously.
That is changing. Newer self checkout terminals correlate video from both cameras with purchase history, primarily as a short-term local aid to staff when figuring out discrepancies. But this can obviously be extended to a long-term retention business intelligence application. The time is now to put pressure against this kind of data collection. But saying "there should be no cameras pointed at the face" will not apply that pressure. It will be dismissed because the use of cameras for face capture is a universally accepted anti-crime practice, and arguing against it as a way to object to mass surveillance ignores the differences between short term retention of data for post incident use and mass collection.