FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Shoplifting and facial recognition
Shoplifting and facial recognition
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP 29 weeks ago
|
Britain's biggest police force is using facial recognition technology to tackle London's worst shoplifters by matching CCTV stills to mugshots.
The Metropolitan Police said 149 suspects were identified within days after asking the capital's 12 leading retailers last month for images of their 30 most prolific unidentified offenders. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
And yet the proposal to allow the police to search the DVlA and passport office databases for matches when there is no match on the police national computer has been met with a chorus of dissent from the usual suspects.
At the moment the only people they can search for are those who have already been arrested for something.
If it was extended to all databases including those above and border control then the number of crimes solved would increase. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 29 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"And yet the proposal to allow the police to search the DVlA and passport office databases for matches when there is no match on the police national computer has been met with a chorus of dissent from the usual suspects.
At the moment the only people they can search for are those who have already been arrested for something.
If it was extended to all databases including those above and border control then the number of crimes solved would increase."
If we are to stop crime and criminals we are going to have to accept that our own movements will be recorded one way or another.
Databases with video footage, perhaps GPS data etc linked to our movements which can be used for security as well as marketing and a host of other reasons are what people fear as being too much like Big Brother but, how else do we curb this spree of criminality? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Britain's biggest police force is using facial recognition technology to tackle London's worst shoplifters by matching CCTV stills to mugshots.
The Metropolitan Police said 149 suspects were identified within days after asking the capital's 12 leading retailers last month for images of their 30 most prolific unidentified offenders."
Don't see it any diferant to a security gard in a big store having photos above the screens of the undesirables. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 28 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"It's not right that there should be so much intrusion of privacy, by those who don't have safe methodologies, for the benefit of corporations. "
Perhaps but if it comes down to stopping crime (petty theft such as shoplifting, people being mugged or even more serious crimes such as house breaking and manslaughter) vs. risk of privacy due to more and more of our information being available electronically then, I am willing to take the latter. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's not right that there should be so much intrusion of privacy, by those who don't have safe methodologies, for the benefit of corporations. "
There is CCTV everywhere.
If you are in a public area, although I am not necessarily in agreement with it, I understand your point.
If you enter a premises, there will be a notice stating that CCTV is in operation. You then have the choice whether to enter or turn away to maintain your privacy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I cant believe it has taken this long to be used, its been about for years. It is so good it is a little more than facial recognition, it can even detect agaisnt a part of an exposed face. How it is an intrusion privacy as some suggest is beyond me when its used in a public space. If private premises wish to use it for protection then surely thats a good idea.
Most drive around in cars with number plates and don't complain that identifies with an individual, the difference is? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Perhaps but if it comes down to stopping crime (petty theft such as shoplifting, people being mugged or even more serious crimes such as house breaking and manslaughter) vs. risk of privacy due to more and more of our information being available electronically then, I am willing to take the latter."
How about if it comes down to solving crime v the risk of being arrested and tried for a crime you didn't commit because you look a bit like the bloke that did it and the facial recognition isn't very good but the manufacturer insists in court that it's foolproof? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Perhaps but if it comes down to stopping crime (petty theft such as shoplifting, people being mugged or even more serious crimes such as house breaking and manslaughter) vs. risk of privacy due to more and more of our information being available electronically then, I am willing to take the latter.
How about if it comes down to solving crime v the risk of being arrested and tried for a crime you didn't commit because you look a bit like the bloke that did it and the facial recognition isn't very good but the manufacturer insists in court that it's foolproof?"
"A bit like".....pmsl |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 28 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"Perhaps but if it comes down to stopping crime (petty theft such as shoplifting, people being mugged or even more serious crimes such as house breaking and manslaughter) vs. risk of privacy due to more and more of our information being available electronically then, I am willing to take the latter.
How about if it comes down to solving crime v the risk of being arrested and tried for a crime you didn't commit because you look a bit like the bloke that did it and the facial recognition isn't very good but the manufacturer insists in court that it's foolproof?"
Surely you could argue the case for everything using the same premise of "what if"
I prefer to have a solution in place which stops crime happening in the first place rather than trying to say that unless it is 100% foolproof, we should no use it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Perhaps but if it comes down to stopping crime (petty theft such as shoplifting, people being mugged or even more serious crimes such as house breaking and manslaughter) vs. risk of privacy due to more and more of our information being available electronically then, I am willing to take the latter."
"How about if it comes down to solving crime v the risk of being arrested and tried for a crime you didn't commit because you look a bit like the bloke that did it and the facial recognition isn't very good but the manufacturer insists in court that it's foolproof?"
"Surely you could argue the case for everything using the same premise of "what if""
You could. But at least with things like fingerprinting and DNA we have years of experience with them, and it's clear that mistakes are very uncommon. I've seen no evidence that facial recognition is accurate. It might be, but there's no evidence available to prove it.
"I prefer to have a solution in place which stops crime happening in the first place rather than trying to say that unless it is 100% foolproof, we should no use it."
How will facial recognition stop crime happening? If people still commit crime today, with CCTV so wide-spread, what makes you think that facial recognition will have any effect? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 28 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"Perhaps but if it comes down to stopping crime (petty theft such as shoplifting, people being mugged or even more serious crimes such as house breaking and manslaughter) vs. risk of privacy due to more and more of our information being available electronically then, I am willing to take the latter.
How about if it comes down to solving crime v the risk of being arrested and tried for a crime you didn't commit because you look a bit like the bloke that did it and the facial recognition isn't very good but the manufacturer insists in court that it's foolproof?
Surely you could argue the case for everything using the same premise of "what if"
You could. But at least with things like fingerprinting and DNA we have years of experience with them, and it's clear that mistakes are very uncommon. I've seen no evidence that facial recognition is accurate. It might be, but there's no evidence available to prove it.
I prefer to have a solution in place which stops crime happening in the first place rather than trying to say that unless it is 100% foolproof, we should no use it.
How will facial recognition stop crime happening? If people still commit crime today, with CCTV so wide-spread, what makes you think that facial recognition will have any effect?"
Surely facial recognition is just the start of the process. If further proof is required then DNA etc. would doubtless be used.
It would reduce crime if people thought that they were more likely to get caught.
The converse appears to be true with shoplifting at the moment and it is on the increase because people know that they can get away with it.
The whole purpose of any solution is to stop crime - I am all for that!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How will facial recognition stop crime happening? If people still commit crime today, with CCTV so wide-spread, what makes you think that facial recognition will have any effect?"
"Surely facial recognition is just the start of the process. If further proof is required then DNA etc. would doubtless be used."
In the case of shoplifting, there is no other evidence. There are no fingerprints or DNA samples that can be definitively tied to the thief. Getting a picture of their face is all that can be done in the way of gathering evidence.
"It would reduce crime if people thought that they were more likely to get caught."
But they aren't. They are more likely to be questioned by a police officer but, since facial recognition evidence isn't allowed in court, they aren't more likely to be charged.
However, if the facial recognition software isn't very good, a lot of innocent people might find themselves being questioned by the police. A process which won't reduce crime, and will be highly disturbing to the wrongly identified people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple 27 weeks ago
Derby |
"It's not right that there should be so much intrusion of privacy, by those who don't have safe methodologies, for the benefit of corporations. "
It's not just to benefit corporations though. Shoplifting increases prices.
For example, Tesco make a 2.7% net profit. So for every £100 of goods taken by shoplifters, that costs them £97.29. To make that back they have to sell £3,600 extra JUST to break even....or put their prices up to cover their loss.
Put another way, every £100 taken by shoplifters costs the honest customers £3,600.
So using technology to reduce shoplifting doesn't just benefit corporations, it also benefits consumers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Shrinkage" is a measure of stock lost between warehouse and till. It mostly consists of accidental breakages, and perishables going out of date. Some sites include theft in their shrinkage figures, some don't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 27 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"How will facial recognition stop crime happening? If people still commit crime today, with CCTV so wide-spread, what makes you think that facial recognition will have any effect?
Surely facial recognition is just the start of the process. If further proof is required then DNA etc. would doubtless be used.
In the case of shoplifting, there is no other evidence. There are no fingerprints or DNA samples that can be definitively tied to the thief. Getting a picture of their face is all that can be done in the way of gathering evidence.
It would reduce crime if people thought that they were more likely to get caught.
But they aren't. They are more likely to be questioned by a police officer but, since facial recognition evidence isn't allowed in court, they aren't more likely to be charged.
However, if the facial recognition software isn't very good, a lot of innocent people might find themselves being questioned by the police. A process which won't reduce crime, and will be highly disturbing to the wrongly identified people."
Should we actually do something to stop crime or simply make up excuses to allow it to continue? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's not right that there should be so much intrusion of privacy, by those who don't have safe methodologies, for the benefit of corporations.
It's not just to benefit corporations though. Shoplifting increases prices.
For example, Tesco make a 2.7% net profit. So for every £100 of goods taken by shoplifters, that costs them £97.29. To make that back they have to sell £3,600 extra JUST to break even....or put their prices up to cover their loss.
Put another way, every £100 taken by shoplifters costs the honest customers £3,600.
So using technology to reduce shoplifting doesn't just benefit corporations, it also benefits consumers."
You're basing that cost on net overall profit, which won't be what the cost of the taken items are. Tesco, for example,also don't use this cost primarily to determine their prices to us.
In any event, the technology is too intrusive and inaccurate, plus it is discriminatory, against marginalised sections of the population, including ethnic and LGBT minorities. It should stop. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 27 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"In any event, the technology is too intrusive and inaccurate, plus it is discriminatory, against marginalised sections of the population, including ethnic and LGBT minorities"
Can you explain how it can be discriminatory as I do not understand how that could be the case?
Thank you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Another issue from this, is the harm that resource intensive systems impose on the rest of us. The volume of water used to cool server farms is incredibly high. There are people having to drink bottled water, where local sources are depleted, potentially unable to shower - fine for the few who might want 'dirty' meets 
There have been millions of pounds of public money extracted for the likes of fraud, connected to government policies, often to associates. I'd prefer police resources focussing on the likes of this massive theft, rather than some poor individuals stealing Calpol, etc.
AI and facial recognition systems have a lot to be proven, before greater implementation, at widespread major costs and harm |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""In any event, the technology is too intrusive and inaccurate, plus it is discriminatory, against marginalised sections of the population, including ethnic and LGBT minorities"
Can you explain how it can be discriminatory as I do not understand how that could be the case?
Thank you "
Training data will typically reproduce and magnify human prejudice, just as an example. They also have error rates that disproportionately disadvantage many minorities |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 27 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"Another issue from this, is the harm that resource intensive systems impose on the rest of us. The volume of water used to cool server farms is incredibly high. There are people having to drink bottled water, where local sources are depleted, potentially unable to shower - fine for the few who might want 'dirty' meets
There have been millions of pounds of public money extracted for the likes of fraud, connected to government policies, often to associates. I'd prefer police resources focussing on the likes of this massive theft, rather than some poor individuals stealing Calpol, etc.
AI and facial recognition systems have a lot to be proven, before greater implementation, at widespread major costs and harm"
Oh dear...
Obviously technology and progress goes against the grain.
Why bother even trying to stop crime when people put up barriers against every step of the way! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Another issue from this, is the harm that resource intensive systems impose on the rest of us. The volume of water used to cool server farms is incredibly high. There are people having to drink bottled water, where local sources are depleted, potentially unable to shower - fine for the few who might want 'dirty' meets
There have been millions of pounds of public money extracted for the likes of fraud, connected to government policies, often to associates. I'd prefer police resources focussing on the likes of this massive theft, rather than some poor individuals stealing Calpol, etc.
AI and facial recognition systems have a lot to be proven, before greater implementation, at widespread major costs and harm
Oh dear...
Obviously technology and progress goes against the grain.
Why bother even trying to stop crime when people put up barriers against every step of the way!"
I think it's going to be about use of appropriate resources, especially commensurate with the levels of harm and who pays the price. Preventing issues is preferable. And certainly we must avoid catastrophic environmental disasters, affecting the world, including people |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should we actually do something to stop crime or simply make up excuses to allow it to continue?"
As I explained above, facial recognition won't stop crime. It can't be used in court, so it won't increase the number of prosecutions, so it won't act as a deterrent. All it will achieve is to give criminals something to boast about when they beat it, and innocent people something to moan about when they get caught up in an error. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The volume of water used to cool server farms is incredibly high. There are people having to drink bottled water, where local sources are depleted, potentially unable to shower"
Not in this country there aren't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And yet the proposal to allow the police to search the DVlA and passport office databases for matches when there is no match on the police national computer has been met with a chorus of dissent from the usual suspects.
At the moment the only people they can search for are those who have already been arrested for something.
If it was extended to all databases including those above and border control then the number of crimes solved would increase."
Well people without criminal records, thus not on the police database should be left alone and not treated with suspicion as if they were criminals.
When the shoplifters get caught just once, then all their details will be there for the police to use.
Surveillance of the innocent is a step to Orwellian for my liking.
We are watched and tracked more than enough already.
If the police actually turned up to reported shoplifting cases, then the suspects wouldn’t have it so cushy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The volume of water used to cool server farms is incredibly high. There are people having to drink bottled water, where local sources are depleted, potentially unable to shower
Not in this country there aren't."
The damage and harm is the same though and avoidable issues. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And yet the proposal to allow the police to search the DVlA and passport office databases for matches when there is no match on the police national computer has been met with a chorus of dissent from the usual suspects.
At the moment the only people they can search for are those who have already been arrested for something.
If it was extended to all databases including those above and border control then the number of crimes solved would increase.
Well people without criminal records, thus not on the police database should be left alone and not treated with suspicion as if they were criminals.
When the shoplifters get caught just once, then all their details will be there for the police to use.
Surveillance of the innocent is a step to Orwellian for my liking.
We are watched and tracked more than enough already.
If the police actually turned up to reported shoplifting cases, then the suspects wouldn’t have it so cushy."
We're all treated with suspicion, by their methodology. And identified as guilty, in error  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
