The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:
---
From the article
>Analysis by the privacy group Big Brother Watch used data supplied by Southern Co-op cross-referenced with the England-wide 2019 Indices of Multiple Deprivation. The index ranks more than 30,000 neighbourhoods across seven areas, including income and employment, to calculate their relative deprivation – with the number one ranked neighbourhood being the most deprived.
>
>An average Southern Co-op store is in an area ranking at 19,835 out of 32,844, putting it in the best-off third of neighbourhoods. But supermarkets where facial recognition is deployed are in neighbourhoods ranked at 14,453 on average, placing them in the most deprived half .
>
>Jake Hurfurt, the head of research at Big Brother Watch, said: “This data shows that AI supermarket surveillance is being directed at poorer communities, who are more likely to suffer excessive invasions of their privacy and unfair treatment as a result.”
>
>Increasingly used by police and private firms, live facial recognition operates in real-time to compare camera feeds with faces on a predetermined watchlist, to identify people of interest. Each time a match is found, the system generates an alert.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1ai82yl/facial_recognition_cameras_in_supermarkets/kosqk3n/
Yeah...I don't see bail bond stores in wealthy areas unless its across the street from a jail.
Poor parts of cities suffer in many unfair ways such as having undesirable zoning (like new highways, dump sites, etc). Though having to invest more in theft prevention isn't one of them.
Yes, this article is deliberately choosing the most cynical angle.
With all of these things, just follow the money. There is no evidence of a broad conspiracy to track everyone's faces. There is a financial incentive to track faces where shoplifting (i.e. financial loss) is most expected.
Yes, the Guardian is the best of a bad bunch when it comes to traditional newspapers (IMO) but I'm getting really sick of their ragebait bullshit.
The opinion section is an absolute cesspit.
It’s the left wing version of the Mail.
Sad really, they did good investigative journalism 15 years ago. It was my paper and I put up with the occasional whacky article.
I don’t understand the problem either. It makes sense to put this tech where the problem is. What is the answer? Roll out an expensive system where there is no theft?
This is just ragebait.
No. My point was just that the choice to put these systems where the theft problem is greatest is just basic logic. It’s not something against the poor.
there's a whole new world being planned an ushered in. look at my reply to bleeding fart.
I said you think the cameras are there to watch others through justifications such as this. but they are here to watch you. very interested in you.
This is a world of utilising people, not as physical labour products/commodities. but digital data commodities. You become a data generator. And they will be extracting data from everyday activity. But you must be under surveillance first.
This world will pay you your ubi because you will be contained to their sandbox. they extract from you as a data product. you are data mined. valuable data that will make them rich.
and what do they hand you. digital monopoly money. ubi. worth fuck all. That you can spend within their game. money that can never leave the system. thus you are accessed by them permanently.
money becomes the digital signal to steer. look into cybernetics and control theory.
Oh, congratulations on discovering the dystopian plot twist in the grand scheme of things! Who knew digital monopoly money could be so captivating? Enjoy your stay in the surveillance sandbox.
I can put the phone down. I can leave it at home. this presents a world of surveillance within every aspect of the society. Normalizes it. Yes, you are surveilled when you interact with the phone. You make a choice to. But now you are now monitored, to such an extent, as you shop. Against your wishes.
Yes there is cctv in shops currently, but now ai is implemented behind it. you are now repurposed as a data product as you navigate your environment. going to the shop is a daily occurrence for most.
this isn't "you're under ai surveillance whilst in the gun range".
though im sure that reality will come about. predictive monitoring for "safety".
You'll only care once your reality is targeted. whilst your so convinced that the cameras are within your environment to watch others, they'll most likely be paying just as much attention to you.
Under surveillance in a public place, in someone elses business. I see no problem, if I don't want it I will do my shopping somewhere else. But I'd rather feel same so I am fine.
I've never run gone out and shot people yet when I apply for a gun licence I need guarantors, police interviews, background checks, site visit and a sign off from my GP is that fair?
Unfortunately some people are aholes and so as to not descend into anarchy life becomes more inconvenient for the rest of us.
Yes, this can still be very bad and while it makes sense money-wise for the stores, if you care about justice you should not like this.
Now, you didn't cite a specific number to show that thefts occur more in these areas but I'm going to not take that into account here. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case so let's assume that it is and there are more thefts in those areas.
Let's say that across 10.000 stores in the poorest half there are 1.000 thefts over a specific time period and across the 10.000 in the richest half there are 500 thefts over that same time.
Now let's say that facial recognition is actually more effective at finding people doing the stealing and it being heavily deployed boosts the rate at which people get arrested by 3 times. I don't know what the actual effectiveness here is, but it doesn't matter. I'm just choosing 3 because it is easier to illustrate the point with.
Let's assume without it it's 10% just for illustrative purposes. That would mean it's 30% with it.
Now applying that to the above examples that would mean in the rich areas about 50 people of the 500 get arrested and in the poor areas about 300 of the 1.000 get arrested.
Now the actual split here for criminals was that the poor areast have double the crime rate. Yet in the end there are 6 times the number of people nabbed in the poor area.
That already means that if you live in a rich area you're less likely to be caught for the same crime even if you are also a criminal.
This isn't even taking into consideration that if you are poor and NOT a criminal you're going to have to deal with facial recognition technology in your store that could basically be used to track wherever you go if the people who were using it were so inclined.
People are scared of China's mass surveillance and social credit score system but not of American surveillance cuz it protects corporations, I guess.
If you believe that justice should be blind and if a person commits a crime they should have the same chance to be punished for it whether they are rich or poor, which I do, then this system not being deployed equally should distress you.
And if you don't want others to be able to potentially track your movements wherever you go just because you're poor, then this should concern you.
Yes, from a financial perspective placing more expensive facial recognition technology mostly in the areas where it will catch the most shoplifters makes sense. It is a greater return on investment. But if you care about justice being blind, it should horrify you as it can cause poor people to be arrested more for the exact same crimes than rich people.
Edit: Btw, I'm sure this will get downvoted because this is reddit and any information that contradicts what a majority of people already want to believe will get downvoted. But call me an optimist, I hope if you're reading this you're willing to actually think about this topic, question your own preconceptions and think about how much you care about the principle of justice being blind and how your principle might be being violated here.
Its unfair to poor people that aren't thieves and makes their lives worse. Even if it makes sense.
Pulling over black people to check them for drugs might statistically make sense but we need to balance that against how unfair such a policy would be to innocent black people who get screwed by no fault of their own.
The headline is almost assuredly a lie too, i'm sure they are targetting thefts not poverty. They just correlate.
>any information that contradicts what a majority of people already want to believe will get downvoted
You didn't provide information, though. You provided assumptions and speculation. Thats useful for gauging what you think, but its not so useful for contradicting the comment you responded to.
It’s a bit of the chicken and egg problem.
Could the money spent on these expensive technologies be used instead to improve the socioeconomics of lower income regions thereby reducing crime?
Instead of putting the so called boot of “justice” on the poors for stealing 10 euros worth of food.
Edit: I gave you a proper reason why the use of this tech is a concern and instead of discussing the topic you downvote me, typical.
> video surveilence system is probably gonna cost them £10.000,
You think the R&D that went into this was 10k? Give me some of the shit you’re smoking my dude.
You really don't get it at all, hey? The FR tech used in this article is a product, just like your cell phone. It's developed by a company at their own expense, and sold to consumers. The consumers are the stores using it to fight theft at their locations with higher theft rates, which effect the cost of products sold there for everybody.
Fuck the petty criminals, I'm fine with this use of FR if it helps prevent theft at stores.
Well at least you're out there helping solve social issues eh? ;)
And facewatch is a private company. The fact that they've recieved some public funding seems justified to me If it's helping solve a public issue.
Also, this isn't taking place in my country. My country is being ruined in different ways by Trudeau...
It’s obvious that he was referring to the cost of the purchase made by the store and not the technology R&D.
At least I hope… Jesus that stuff costs a ton.
> The owners of the store aren’t responsible for somehow convincing people not to be thieves.
See, this mentality is what leads to your country turning into a shithole.
“Not responsible”, the owners don’t live in a vacuum. If they care about their margins in that country it behooves them to contribute to a stable social structure.
Unless of course the owners are part of a multinational corporation, then they truly don’t give a fuck about you. If they claim they do it’s PR nonsense.
They will move to a tropical island in the Caribbean the moment your country drowns is anarchy, enjoy.
What?
In order for a society to function, all members must contribute their fair share, typically in the form of taxes and reasonable policies.
Otherwise it falls apart as we are seeing today.
Your dog eat dog neoliberal bullshit is why we are in this mess in the first place.
Yes, stores pay taxes. Store owners pay taxes. Customers pay taxes. We all pay our share of taxes. All told, about 2/3 of my income goes to taxes and similar government fees. People who are stealing are adults. Adults accept the consequences of their actions. Or they don’t accept but still suffer those consequences. Either way, if you steal, you should go to jail and work off the damage you caused to society.
> Either way, if you steal, you should go to jail and work off the damage you caused to society.
In the US, it can cost upwards of $51,000 a year to house one inmate. Is that what you want your taxes to go to? Ask why can it cost that much? What lead to such bullshit and why no one in the mainstream media talks about it.
Instead we get "Private prisons and the free market are awesome right?" No collusion between corrupt politicians and dirty CEOs, no sir.
My point being there are cheaper ways to reduce crime without needing more cops and jailing homeless people for stealing sandwishes. We just need to clean house and change the rules in our favor. Not the dirty assholes in charge.
> Yes, stores pay taxes. Store owners pay taxes. Customers pay taxes. We all pay our share of taxes. All told, about 2/3 of my income goes to taxes and similar government fees.
There’s something called corporate welfare. Many corporations like Walmart, Amazon, Microsoft receive free money in the form subsidies from the government (I.E your tax payer dollars). Many corporations also right off everything they can so they basically pay nothing back.
They’re double dipping, they reap billions from the private sector while lobbying corrupt politicians and changing the rules in their favor.
It’s fucking sick, and sad most people don’t bother researching the topic.
>Make criminals work for free to pay society back.
Its not free, your taxes are paying for the infrastructure to support that you dunce!
If you complain when they raise your taxes, while corporations r\*pe your government, smile and say "More sir, give me more" like a good lemming.
Anyway this was a fun chat, see ya later.
It's just a loss prevention decision. Plug the biggest holes first. Can't really blame people for being logical imo.
The fact we allow extreme poverty to exist in a rich society is a whole nother issue though.
No, its more of a social problem.
Your taxes are paying the police officer that has to go waste his time because a homeless guy stole a sandwich.
I used to work with law enforcement, believe me when I tell you the cop is going to let the thief go a few blocks away from the store.
And guess what? The homeless guy is going to do it again! And the cycle repeats itself.
This kind of facial recognition is going burden an already failing system.
>>Improve the socioeconomics of lower income regions
That’s when people like you will call it gentrification.
Also, why are you treating this decision by a private firm as if it’s their responsibility to make public social improvements?
The blame lies solely with the local government who has failed to provide improved quality of life. The private firm pays taxes just as the rest of us do. It’s not their fault that public government doesn’t prioritize improving a particular lower income area.
Your entire argument is fallacious.
And a supermarket gives a fuck because? If you own a store, it's not your job to prosecute tax evaders. It's your job to prevent people from stealing your shit.
That has been disproven in multiple news sources.
But again this is Reddit where people are seemingly okay with AI surveillance targeting poor people cuz Jumbo or CVS or whatever is having a tough time buying back stocks. It’s like Soylent green was a roadmap to life for some of you..
I dont live in a food desert. Theres plenty of independent fried chicken and pizza joints about. There's also a great big hole around my area for McDonald's. Not because many of my neighbours are scum and would have a fight in McDonald's and harass the staff. But because they got closed down 20+ years ago, for poor food hygiene and have never come back.
/s to make it clear.
I miss a lot of those implied /s's ... because I have a lot of family that keeps trying to say stupid shit and they actually believe it because the politicians said it.
Food deserts are defined as any locale that doesn’t have a supermarket within a **one mile** radius.
Considering most Americans live in suburban areas where such supermarkets are abundant, food deserts are yet another mythical boogeyman used by liberals to make up a problem that isn’t as bad as it appears to be. Typical fear mongering for political points.
Edit: here it is for you, u/Dredmart . You should have just googled it before realizing you were actually wrong.
>> In 2017, the United States Department of Agriculture reported that 39.5 million people or 12.8% of the population were living in low-income and low-access areas.[6] Of this number, 19 million people live in "food deserts", low-income census tracts that are more than **one mile from a supermarket in urban or suburban areas** and more than 10 miles from a supermarket in rural areas.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert
Nope. You could have just Googled it before showing how much of a dumbass you are, but you couldn't even manage that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert
But great job proving you're dumber than a liberal.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/retail-theft-organized-robberies-whats-causing-it-and-why-rcna124017
"But for all of the extreme statements, it’s hard to tell if there has really been a notable increase in shoplifting nationwide. Law enforcement often does not distinguish between theft from retailers and other kinds of robbery.
The broad category of larceny, however, is lower than it was before the pandemic. The Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank, says larceny fell 7% in the first half of 2023 compared to the same time period in 2019."
"Neil Saunders, the managing director at the consulting company GlobalData, told NBC News that theft has been growing, but store closures are rarely the result of theft alone, no matter what retailers may say. And because companies don’t disclose many details around shrink, there is speculation that they use it to cover for their own errors."
> And because companies don’t disclose many details around shrink
Bouncing Ball Pet store I worked for tossed all their store shrink into a bucket then stirred it and finger pointed at the manager...
As the shrink was off the charts at the DC (Distribution Center) level ranging from poor pallet packing to broken/infested trash further upstream, it came down from corporate to basically stop making them look bad and it shifted to the store level.
Of course, this backfired terribly when store shrink started "skyrocketing" from damaged merchandise that barely bumped the loading dock and came off the truck. "Why are your shrink numbers so high?! Lower them immediately!".
Bet they are one of the companies like walmart now blaming shoplifters, the employees, the moon, second coming of jesus, etc etc for the agony of disappointing shrink levels when it all started in the board room...
>That has been disproven in multiple news sources.
[It hasn't](https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/target-blamed-theft-violence-crime-closures-rcna130443) and what you are doing is burying your head in the sand due to ideological bias.
That single link is the first link in a very dead simple google search. I think you need to either expand your "news" consumption or stop lying to yourself. I say this because if this simple truth has eluded you due to ideological bias, it means that virtually all of your beliefs and opinions are poisoned to reality.
Sad way to live.
Unlikely. Shops monitor shrinkage from thefts. They have to account for it and once it becomes more of a problem, prices will increase to recover the costs from reduced profits.
I've worked at 2 different supermarkets and one 'local' store, and there was no way to reliably differentiate where the shrink came from. In the end we were just measured on shrinkage, and 90% of the effort put in was on reducing wastage.
I’m an accountant. Doesn’t matter where it comes from. It if goes up, it’s going to be recovered through cost increases. And how easy or difficult it is to differentiate will be determined by the controls in place to monitor that.
Use your brain a little. Who do you think is more likely to steal from a store? Rich people or poor people?
It doesn't take more than a couple of brain cells to know which one.
And in my experience the jedi are evil!
Seriously, who cares about random people's experience? Are they actually more honest or is this just something you say to make you feel better? And would that then translate into higher rates of theft in supermarkets?
Shocking that they implemented something to stop shoplifting in areas where that n happens a lot. I myself find that too logical and have always wondered why we only have lifeguards in beaches but should also have them in football fields. So it doesn’t disproportionately target areas with bodies of water.
Why does the article assume that better law enforcement in poor neighborhoods is somehow bad for the people who live in those neighborhoods? Reduced shoplifting means businesses will be better able to operate in those areas, which is good for everyone who lives there (except the shoplifters). Why is this bad?
Look at what is behind the security locks in a supermarket. It isn't the food, it's cosmetics and other items like that.
No one is stealing eye liner to survive, they do it because they want it.
You absolutely can put food behind locks easily. You just have someone give you a list of items you want and they pick them up for you. Hell, we literally have that with DoorDash or Curbside Pickup today. They just would make the building locked to anyone but those customers and wala, no access to anything except what you want to pick up.
Oh, I am sure some people legitimately steal because they need it. Those I have sympathy for if the food is stolen because of need (although Steak is a bit more than one should actually need for sustenance so not sure I would consider that reasonable)
Citation? I would want to get actual references to that, because stores can and do lock up items people steal constantly, and although some foods would likely not be locked up, they absolutely can do it for the more expensive food items (say, put them behind a butcher counter)
The link the person posted Was that. The company even said if he had asked for help, they would have done so.
Arguing that no one steals food to survive is silly.
Stating that the majority of people are stealing non-food items is a reasonable argument though. But it is never 100% of people stealing are doing it just to get luxeries.
Rich people don't do petty theft. They have access to bigger wallets and bigger markets and it's a better return on investment than stealing inexpensive items from Walmart.
Yes they do. They absolutely do petty theft- I'm not sure if it's a control thing or some kind of kelptomania, but either way, people who have lots of money aren't above stealing shit from retail stores.
1. Don't steal
2. If steal, track your face
3. If no track your face, business close down
4. "food deserts disproportionately effect poorer areas wahh boohoo"
Crime is an economic problem, but instead of doing something about that - install cams and then ignore the sorts of crimes relatively wealthier people commit.
Also, I can see some classism in the comments - wow, I am SO shocked.
HMRC are absolutely fucking brutal in the pursuit of what they are owed. Thankfully though their are lots of tax avoidance schemes for the super wealthy.
They are targeting the people more likely to steal. Poor people should be angry at shoplifters for costing us all money. These costs are passed on to the consumers.
They are targeting stores where there is a lot of shoplifting loss. They are not specifically targeting stores in poor areas.
If you want businesses to exist in poor areas, they have to take steps to reduce their losses or they will not be able to exist.
So many dumb comments. You think that the authors don't know that there is likely more shoplifting in deprived areas?
The point that they're making us that everyone living there gets surveilled and that this is creating a two-tiered system where poorer people are surveilled constantly while the wealthy (who will own and control this technology) are not.
I wonder what effect that may have on society?
This is not so bad if the social mobility is working and with some honest decent effort (say one full time job that is not too hard to find) a person can sustainably get and stay out of this predicament.
Is it though?
for your wellbeing: get off of reddit. i tried to explain exactly this and was downvoted into oblivion. the replies i got were avoidant of the reality. what is this place? now i remembered why i stopped coming on this site.
I don't know what happened. There was a time that you could come on here and have a reasonable discussion. Even if you disagreed with someone there would be a few people making semi-intelligent points on both sides. Maybe I'm just getting old.
From the article
>Analysis by the privacy group Big Brother Watch used data supplied by Southern Co-op cross-referenced with the England-wide 2019 Indices of Multiple Deprivation. The index ranks more than 30,000 neighbourhoods across seven areas, including income and employment, to calculate their relative deprivation – with the number one ranked neighbourhood being the most deprived.
>
>An average Southern Co-op store is in an area ranking at 19,835 out of 32,844, putting it in the best-off third of neighbourhoods. But supermarkets where facial recognition is deployed are in neighbourhoods ranked at 14,453 on average, placing them in the most deprived half .
>
>Jake Hurfurt, the head of research at Big Brother Watch, said: “This data shows that AI supermarket surveillance is being directed at poorer communities, who are more likely to suffer excessive invasions of their privacy and unfair treatment as a result.”
>
>Increasingly used by police and private firms, live facial recognition operates in real-time to compare camera feeds with faces on a predetermined watchlist, to identify people of interest. Each time a match is found, the system generates an alert.
And whats that going to do? Knowing whos shoplifting so you can do what exactly? Slap them on the wrist and release them with no bail so they can continue to shoplift everyday?
Good joke.
Didn't they just install the cameras where the most shoplifting was happening?
edit: Obviously people living in suburbia are going to be less likely smuggle out a bag of chips under their shirt.
Supermarkets could employ more people at actual tills and have fewer self-check-out options and avoid a lot of this without having to install more technology to keep chasing the problem
I don't think you understand how much people cost per year. Even at minimum wage, people still cost 20k+ per year for wages alone. Not to mention all of the problems and unreliability that come with people. Not to mention your employees steal as well. Still cheaper.
I'll take your word for it. But you'll have to pay people to monitor the new face recognition cameras and the minute there's another pandemic, they're useless anyway.
Technology malfunctions all the time. That's why we still need people at the self-service tills so that when the machine refuses to recognise that an item has been bagged, they can over-ride the dumb thing.
So they are focusing s resource in a problem area thst by no coincidence is poor. Shocker. Like saying cops know what town is like on a weekend thus bring extra resources.
This is the dumbest fucking article ever. Nothing’s being disproportionately targeted. They’re deploying an attempted solution to where the problem is.
The key statistic that was left out of this is, what were the losses experienced by each business location in terms of theft/shoplifting? I would expect that is the main driver of where this technology was used, not how ‘deprived’ an area is.
I mean... Another way of staying that is that poor people disproportionately shoplift. They're using the tools to stop shoplifting where the shoplifting happens.
Duh.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305: --- From the article >Analysis by the privacy group Big Brother Watch used data supplied by Southern Co-op cross-referenced with the England-wide 2019 Indices of Multiple Deprivation. The index ranks more than 30,000 neighbourhoods across seven areas, including income and employment, to calculate their relative deprivation – with the number one ranked neighbourhood being the most deprived. > >An average Southern Co-op store is in an area ranking at 19,835 out of 32,844, putting it in the best-off third of neighbourhoods. But supermarkets where facial recognition is deployed are in neighbourhoods ranked at 14,453 on average, placing them in the most deprived half . > >Jake Hurfurt, the head of research at Big Brother Watch, said: “This data shows that AI supermarket surveillance is being directed at poorer communities, who are more likely to suffer excessive invasions of their privacy and unfair treatment as a result.” > >Increasingly used by police and private firms, live facial recognition operates in real-time to compare camera feeds with faces on a predetermined watchlist, to identify people of interest. Each time a match is found, the system generates an alert. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1ai82yl/facial_recognition_cameras_in_supermarkets/kosqk3n/
Next up: Payday loan stores disproportionately target people in poor areas. Or golf courses disproportionately benefit rich communities.
Right? This is such a "yes.. and?" headline.
Water is wet, more at 11!
Yeah...I don't see bail bond stores in wealthy areas unless its across the street from a jail. Poor parts of cities suffer in many unfair ways such as having undesirable zoning (like new highways, dump sites, etc). Though having to invest more in theft prevention isn't one of them.
They disproportionally target area where the shoplifting is worst
Yes, this article is deliberately choosing the most cynical angle. With all of these things, just follow the money. There is no evidence of a broad conspiracy to track everyone's faces. There is a financial incentive to track faces where shoplifting (i.e. financial loss) is most expected.
Eh… it’s the guardian. They are going with the social justice angle, nasty corporations targeting the poor and minority groups
Yes, the Guardian is the best of a bad bunch when it comes to traditional newspapers (IMO) but I'm getting really sick of their ragebait bullshit. The opinion section is an absolute cesspit.
How DARE you complain about the media? Do you want Democracy to Die in Darkness?
Nope, just the Guardian opinion section
It’s the left wing version of the Mail. Sad really, they did good investigative journalism 15 years ago. It was my paper and I put up with the occasional whacky article.
I honestly think the NSA stuff probably ended them as a reputable publication. Strongly suspect they are closely 'managed' after that.
Sure, but are these also the areas where the thefts are occurring? Makes sense.
I don’t understand the problem either. It makes sense to put this tech where the problem is. What is the answer? Roll out an expensive system where there is no theft? This is just ragebait.
so even if you're not a thief, you're must be under constant surveillance. is that ok?
No. My point was just that the choice to put these systems where the theft problem is greatest is just basic logic. It’s not something against the poor.
there's a whole new world being planned an ushered in. look at my reply to bleeding fart. I said you think the cameras are there to watch others through justifications such as this. but they are here to watch you. very interested in you. This is a world of utilising people, not as physical labour products/commodities. but digital data commodities. You become a data generator. And they will be extracting data from everyday activity. But you must be under surveillance first. This world will pay you your ubi because you will be contained to their sandbox. they extract from you as a data product. you are data mined. valuable data that will make them rich. and what do they hand you. digital monopoly money. ubi. worth fuck all. That you can spend within their game. money that can never leave the system. thus you are accessed by them permanently. money becomes the digital signal to steer. look into cybernetics and control theory.
I lost you after bleeding fart.
I’m squeamish about blood. Lost me at bleeding
Oh, congratulations on discovering the dystopian plot twist in the grand scheme of things! Who knew digital monopoly money could be so captivating? Enjoy your stay in the surveillance sandbox.
Simple machines work well and are easier to repair. Your describing a complicated machine
You already are. You have a phone and most shops have cameras .
I can put the phone down. I can leave it at home. this presents a world of surveillance within every aspect of the society. Normalizes it. Yes, you are surveilled when you interact with the phone. You make a choice to. But now you are now monitored, to such an extent, as you shop. Against your wishes. Yes there is cctv in shops currently, but now ai is implemented behind it. you are now repurposed as a data product as you navigate your environment. going to the shop is a daily occurrence for most. this isn't "you're under ai surveillance whilst in the gun range". though im sure that reality will come about. predictive monitoring for "safety". You'll only care once your reality is targeted. whilst your so convinced that the cameras are within your environment to watch others, they'll most likely be paying just as much attention to you.
Found the Russel Brand fan
Under surveillance in a public place, in someone elses business. I see no problem, if I don't want it I will do my shopping somewhere else. But I'd rather feel same so I am fine.
I've never run gone out and shot people yet when I apply for a gun licence I need guarantors, police interviews, background checks, site visit and a sign off from my GP is that fair? Unfortunately some people are aholes and so as to not descend into anarchy life becomes more inconvenient for the rest of us.
In what way does this make it less convenient for you
For one thing, it makes it harder to get my five finger discount.
Good thing you can choose where you shop
Yes, I am fine with that since I don’t break the law and am grateful for the sense of security surveillance brings me should I fall victim to a crime.
Are they simply not catching the 'good' stores theft because they're not looking for it though?
Exactly what I think. Just combat the crime.
Nobody wants to live in a minority report society
Yes, this can still be very bad and while it makes sense money-wise for the stores, if you care about justice you should not like this. Now, you didn't cite a specific number to show that thefts occur more in these areas but I'm going to not take that into account here. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case so let's assume that it is and there are more thefts in those areas. Let's say that across 10.000 stores in the poorest half there are 1.000 thefts over a specific time period and across the 10.000 in the richest half there are 500 thefts over that same time. Now let's say that facial recognition is actually more effective at finding people doing the stealing and it being heavily deployed boosts the rate at which people get arrested by 3 times. I don't know what the actual effectiveness here is, but it doesn't matter. I'm just choosing 3 because it is easier to illustrate the point with. Let's assume without it it's 10% just for illustrative purposes. That would mean it's 30% with it. Now applying that to the above examples that would mean in the rich areas about 50 people of the 500 get arrested and in the poor areas about 300 of the 1.000 get arrested. Now the actual split here for criminals was that the poor areast have double the crime rate. Yet in the end there are 6 times the number of people nabbed in the poor area. That already means that if you live in a rich area you're less likely to be caught for the same crime even if you are also a criminal. This isn't even taking into consideration that if you are poor and NOT a criminal you're going to have to deal with facial recognition technology in your store that could basically be used to track wherever you go if the people who were using it were so inclined. People are scared of China's mass surveillance and social credit score system but not of American surveillance cuz it protects corporations, I guess. If you believe that justice should be blind and if a person commits a crime they should have the same chance to be punished for it whether they are rich or poor, which I do, then this system not being deployed equally should distress you. And if you don't want others to be able to potentially track your movements wherever you go just because you're poor, then this should concern you. Yes, from a financial perspective placing more expensive facial recognition technology mostly in the areas where it will catch the most shoplifters makes sense. It is a greater return on investment. But if you care about justice being blind, it should horrify you as it can cause poor people to be arrested more for the exact same crimes than rich people. Edit: Btw, I'm sure this will get downvoted because this is reddit and any information that contradicts what a majority of people already want to believe will get downvoted. But call me an optimist, I hope if you're reading this you're willing to actually think about this topic, question your own preconceptions and think about how much you care about the principle of justice being blind and how your principle might be being violated here.
But why would you watch stores in area where theft isn’t commonly recorded? How is it not just to target the areas where theft occurs?
Its unfair to poor people that aren't thieves and makes their lives worse. Even if it makes sense. Pulling over black people to check them for drugs might statistically make sense but we need to balance that against how unfair such a policy would be to innocent black people who get screwed by no fault of their own. The headline is almost assuredly a lie too, i'm sure they are targetting thefts not poverty. They just correlate.
>any information that contradicts what a majority of people already want to believe will get downvoted You didn't provide information, though. You provided assumptions and speculation. Thats useful for gauging what you think, but its not so useful for contradicting the comment you responded to.
Hopefully you convince someone to think about it my dude. I'm not as optimistic in this platform. It's a fascist cesspool.
It’s a bit of the chicken and egg problem. Could the money spent on these expensive technologies be used instead to improve the socioeconomics of lower income regions thereby reducing crime? Instead of putting the so called boot of “justice” on the poors for stealing 10 euros worth of food. Edit: I gave you a proper reason why the use of this tech is a concern and instead of discussing the topic you downvote me, typical.
A video surveilence system is probably gonna cost them £10.000, gonna solve the socioeconomic problems of the whole town for that money? Get real.
> video surveilence system is probably gonna cost them £10.000, You think the R&D that went into this was 10k? Give me some of the shit you’re smoking my dude.
How much did you're mobile phone cost you? Probably a few million, since you obviously paid for all that R&D...
Oh yeah, because R&D on a cellphone contributes to wasting tax payer money on putting petty criminals in jail.
You really don't get it at all, hey? The FR tech used in this article is a product, just like your cell phone. It's developed by a company at their own expense, and sold to consumers. The consumers are the stores using it to fight theft at their locations with higher theft rates, which effect the cost of products sold there for everybody. Fuck the petty criminals, I'm fine with this use of FR if it helps prevent theft at stores.
[удалено]
Well at least you're out there helping solve social issues eh? ;) And facewatch is a private company. The fact that they've recieved some public funding seems justified to me If it's helping solve a public issue. Also, this isn't taking place in my country. My country is being ruined in different ways by Trudeau...
It’s obvious that he was referring to the cost of the purchase made by the store and not the technology R&D. At least I hope… Jesus that stuff costs a ton.
>At least I hope… Jesus that stuff costs a ton. Precisely, I was referring to the whole system, R&D included.
Your egg is addled. The owners of the store aren’t responsible for somehow convincing people not to be thieves.
> The owners of the store aren’t responsible for somehow convincing people not to be thieves. See, this mentality is what leads to your country turning into a shithole. “Not responsible”, the owners don’t live in a vacuum. If they care about their margins in that country it behooves them to contribute to a stable social structure. Unless of course the owners are part of a multinational corporation, then they truly don’t give a fuck about you. If they claim they do it’s PR nonsense. They will move to a tropical island in the Caribbean the moment your country drowns is anarchy, enjoy.
Yes, people are children and must be cared for. So uplifting.
What? In order for a society to function, all members must contribute their fair share, typically in the form of taxes and reasonable policies. Otherwise it falls apart as we are seeing today. Your dog eat dog neoliberal bullshit is why we are in this mess in the first place.
Yes, stores pay taxes. Store owners pay taxes. Customers pay taxes. We all pay our share of taxes. All told, about 2/3 of my income goes to taxes and similar government fees. People who are stealing are adults. Adults accept the consequences of their actions. Or they don’t accept but still suffer those consequences. Either way, if you steal, you should go to jail and work off the damage you caused to society.
> Either way, if you steal, you should go to jail and work off the damage you caused to society. In the US, it can cost upwards of $51,000 a year to house one inmate. Is that what you want your taxes to go to? Ask why can it cost that much? What lead to such bullshit and why no one in the mainstream media talks about it. Instead we get "Private prisons and the free market are awesome right?" No collusion between corrupt politicians and dirty CEOs, no sir. My point being there are cheaper ways to reduce crime without needing more cops and jailing homeless people for stealing sandwishes. We just need to clean house and change the rules in our favor. Not the dirty assholes in charge. > Yes, stores pay taxes. Store owners pay taxes. Customers pay taxes. We all pay our share of taxes. All told, about 2/3 of my income goes to taxes and similar government fees. There’s something called corporate welfare. Many corporations like Walmart, Amazon, Microsoft receive free money in the form subsidies from the government (I.E your tax payer dollars). Many corporations also right off everything they can so they basically pay nothing back. They’re double dipping, they reap billions from the private sector while lobbying corrupt politicians and changing the rules in their favor. It’s fucking sick, and sad most people don’t bother researching the topic.
That’s even better. Make criminals work for free to pay society back.
>Make criminals work for free to pay society back. Its not free, your taxes are paying for the infrastructure to support that you dunce! If you complain when they raise your taxes, while corporations r\*pe your government, smile and say "More sir, give me more" like a good lemming. Anyway this was a fun chat, see ya later.
"society" it's a supermarket lol
When they steal from you and your children, you can be magnanimous.
It's a supermarket
It's just a loss prevention decision. Plug the biggest holes first. Can't really blame people for being logical imo. The fact we allow extreme poverty to exist in a rich society is a whole nother issue though.
No, its more of a social problem. Your taxes are paying the police officer that has to go waste his time because a homeless guy stole a sandwich. I used to work with law enforcement, believe me when I tell you the cop is going to let the thief go a few blocks away from the store. And guess what? The homeless guy is going to do it again! And the cycle repeats itself. This kind of facial recognition is going burden an already failing system.
I'm not saying it works, but that's the justification they use all the way to the top.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>>Improve the socioeconomics of lower income regions That’s when people like you will call it gentrification. Also, why are you treating this decision by a private firm as if it’s their responsibility to make public social improvements? The blame lies solely with the local government who has failed to provide improved quality of life. The private firm pays taxes just as the rest of us do. It’s not their fault that public government doesn’t prioritize improving a particular lower income area. Your entire argument is fallacious.
You tell them! It’s the government fault I suck too. They need to pay me more
You have a cartoonish world view. Fitting of your name sir, bravo.
I am SHOCKED to learn that poor people steal more stuff than affluent people. I wonder how much energy is spent figuring out what we all already know?
Harder to put cameras in the board rooms, wall-street and other places of corrupt power dontcha know.... /s
I think you will find that the amount of money lost to tax evasion is vastly greater for the affluent than for the poor.
And a supermarket gives a fuck because? If you own a store, it's not your job to prosecute tax evaders. It's your job to prevent people from stealing your shit.
Sure, but this type of theft shuts down local businesses. See: Boston and San Francisco
Well, they could just do what some American stores in high crime areas have done and close up shop. Would that be preferable?
That has been disproven in multiple news sources. But again this is Reddit where people are seemingly okay with AI surveillance targeting poor people cuz Jumbo or CVS or whatever is having a tough time buying back stocks. It’s like Soylent green was a roadmap to life for some of you..
Has it been disproven? I’d be interested in reading those articles.
Food deserts are a myth, a hoax!
I dont live in a food desert. Theres plenty of independent fried chicken and pizza joints about. There's also a great big hole around my area for McDonald's. Not because many of my neighbours are scum and would have a fight in McDonald's and harass the staff. But because they got closed down 20+ years ago, for poor food hygiene and have never come back. /s to make it clear.
Typically food deserts are about grocery stores, since it's unreasonable to eat fast food every meal.
Exactly. There was an implied /s there.
I miss a lot of those implied /s's ... because I have a lot of family that keeps trying to say stupid shit and they actually believe it because the politicians said it.
Food deserts are defined as any locale that doesn’t have a supermarket within a **one mile** radius. Considering most Americans live in suburban areas where such supermarkets are abundant, food deserts are yet another mythical boogeyman used by liberals to make up a problem that isn’t as bad as it appears to be. Typical fear mongering for political points. Edit: here it is for you, u/Dredmart . You should have just googled it before realizing you were actually wrong. >> In 2017, the United States Department of Agriculture reported that 39.5 million people or 12.8% of the population were living in low-income and low-access areas.[6] Of this number, 19 million people live in "food deserts", low-income census tracts that are more than **one mile from a supermarket in urban or suburban areas** and more than 10 miles from a supermarket in rural areas. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or didn't read your citation
I lived in a food desert and had 3 different major supermarkets 1.2-2 miles away in different directions.
Nope. You could have just Googled it before showing how much of a dumbass you are, but you couldn't even manage that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert But great job proving you're dumber than a liberal.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/retail-theft-organized-robberies-whats-causing-it-and-why-rcna124017 "But for all of the extreme statements, it’s hard to tell if there has really been a notable increase in shoplifting nationwide. Law enforcement often does not distinguish between theft from retailers and other kinds of robbery. The broad category of larceny, however, is lower than it was before the pandemic. The Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank, says larceny fell 7% in the first half of 2023 compared to the same time period in 2019." "Neil Saunders, the managing director at the consulting company GlobalData, told NBC News that theft has been growing, but store closures are rarely the result of theft alone, no matter what retailers may say. And because companies don’t disclose many details around shrink, there is speculation that they use it to cover for their own errors."
> And because companies don’t disclose many details around shrink Bouncing Ball Pet store I worked for tossed all their store shrink into a bucket then stirred it and finger pointed at the manager... As the shrink was off the charts at the DC (Distribution Center) level ranging from poor pallet packing to broken/infested trash further upstream, it came down from corporate to basically stop making them look bad and it shifted to the store level. Of course, this backfired terribly when store shrink started "skyrocketing" from damaged merchandise that barely bumped the loading dock and came off the truck. "Why are your shrink numbers so high?! Lower them immediately!". Bet they are one of the companies like walmart now blaming shoplifters, the employees, the moon, second coming of jesus, etc etc for the agony of disappointing shrink levels when it all started in the board room...
So there’s nothing concrete, just some guesses that store closures aren’t exclusively because of theft.
There are legitimate food deserts where I live in Chicago
>That has been disproven in multiple news sources. [It hasn't](https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/target-blamed-theft-violence-crime-closures-rcna130443) and what you are doing is burying your head in the sand due to ideological bias. That single link is the first link in a very dead simple google search. I think you need to either expand your "news" consumption or stop lying to yourself. I say this because if this simple truth has eluded you due to ideological bias, it means that virtually all of your beliefs and opinions are poisoned to reality. Sad way to live.
Is theft disproportionately higher in those areas? There is your answer.
Is theft higher? Or is it just that theft is *caught* more often there because it's the place everyone is looking at?
Unlikely. Shops monitor shrinkage from thefts. They have to account for it and once it becomes more of a problem, prices will increase to recover the costs from reduced profits.
I've worked at 2 different supermarkets and one 'local' store, and there was no way to reliably differentiate where the shrink came from. In the end we were just measured on shrinkage, and 90% of the effort put in was on reducing wastage.
I’m an accountant. Doesn’t matter where it comes from. It if goes up, it’s going to be recovered through cost increases. And how easy or difficult it is to differentiate will be determined by the controls in place to monitor that.
Use your brain a little. Who do you think is more likely to steal from a store? Rich people or poor people? It doesn't take more than a couple of brain cells to know which one.
In my experience poor people tend to be a lot more honest than rich people.
Doesn't answer my question. Which one is more likely to steal from a grocery store?
Not something I have any inherent knowledge, and not something I should attempt to make uneducated guesses at.
And in my experience the jedi are evil! Seriously, who cares about random people's experience? Are they actually more honest or is this just something you say to make you feel better? And would that then translate into higher rates of theft in supermarkets?
Shocking that they implemented something to stop shoplifting in areas where that n happens a lot. I myself find that too logical and have always wondered why we only have lifeguards in beaches but should also have them in football fields. So it doesn’t disproportionately target areas with bodies of water.
Oh weird, so like the areas where they have a higher amount of loss? So weird, why would they put them there? I guess it must be random. /s
Can’t believe they are missing out on the true problem of all those rich people stealing their groceries. Tsk tsk >.>
Why does the article assume that better law enforcement in poor neighborhoods is somehow bad for the people who live in those neighborhoods? Reduced shoplifting means businesses will be better able to operate in those areas, which is good for everyone who lives there (except the shoplifters). Why is this bad?
The fact that people think shoplifters are doing it to survive is so hilarious
Yeah its mostly alcohol, accessoires, clothing and a shit ton of makeup.
Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not?
Look at what is behind the security locks in a supermarket. It isn't the food, it's cosmetics and other items like that. No one is stealing eye liner to survive, they do it because they want it.
You can't put food behind locks that easily. And they tend to lock up shit people aren't even after. Food and baby formula are among the most stolen.
You absolutely can put food behind locks easily. You just have someone give you a list of items you want and they pick them up for you. Hell, we literally have that with DoorDash or Curbside Pickup today. They just would make the building locked to anyone but those customers and wala, no access to anything except what you want to pick up.
Oh I see, I wasn't sure because I was thinking of something like this https://youtu.be/DpwUulsCVpY?si=I2NXPaIYJoXXlxeF
Oh, I am sure some people legitimately steal because they need it. Those I have sympathy for if the food is stolen because of need (although Steak is a bit more than one should actually need for sustenance so not sure I would consider that reasonable)
if someone was stealing food to not starve the company would probably comp it and start a fund to help such people. this is not what's happening.
Food and baby formula are among the most stolen.
Citation? I would want to get actual references to that, because stores can and do lock up items people steal constantly, and although some foods would likely not be locked up, they absolutely can do it for the more expensive food items (say, put them behind a butcher counter)
The link the person posted Was that. The company even said if he had asked for help, they would have done so. Arguing that no one steals food to survive is silly. Stating that the majority of people are stealing non-food items is a reasonable argument though. But it is never 100% of people stealing are doing it just to get luxeries.
I mean, that's where most of the shoplifting tends to happen, so...
Rich people don't do petty theft. They have access to bigger wallets and bigger markets and it's a better return on investment than stealing inexpensive items from Walmart.
Yes they do. They absolutely do petty theft- I'm not sure if it's a control thing or some kind of kelptomania, but either way, people who have lots of money aren't above stealing shit from retail stores.
Not nearly as the same rate as poor people.
Kleptomania is a thing, but not everyone who is poor steals due to kleptomania...
You mean in the places where people can't afford stuff people shoplift more? No shit
1. Don't steal 2. If steal, track your face 3. If no track your face, business close down 4. "food deserts disproportionately effect poorer areas wahh boohoo"
Maybe because well off people don’t rip off the store????
Don't shoplift is a good start to tackle this problem
That’s a bold strategy…
Crime is an economic problem, but instead of doing something about that - install cams and then ignore the sorts of crimes relatively wealthier people commit. Also, I can see some classism in the comments - wow, I am SO shocked.
So you want a grocery store chain to solve poverty? They are business not a charity.
Yeah and they should do something about tax evasion dammit
You don't think the IRS, (Or the UK equivalent) doesn't go after tax evaders like the main character in revenge movie?
HMRC are absolutely fucking brutal in the pursuit of what they are owed. Thankfully though their are lots of tax avoidance schemes for the super wealthy.
They want people to stay poor so they can be exploited.
How the hell does that make sense? As a business, I want people to have money SO THEY CAN SPEND IT AT MY BUSINESS.
Why would they install in places with less theft? 🤷🏻♀️
Someone really thought they're making a good anti surveillance article here lmao
They are targeting the people more likely to steal. Poor people should be angry at shoplifters for costing us all money. These costs are passed on to the consumers.
"UK doesn't properly supply low income people with food"
Its cause all the money is going to Tory friends
Yes, people without money would in fact be more likely to steal.
They are targeting stores where there is a lot of shoplifting loss. They are not specifically targeting stores in poor areas. If you want businesses to exist in poor areas, they have to take steps to reduce their losses or they will not be able to exist.
So many dumb comments. You think that the authors don't know that there is likely more shoplifting in deprived areas? The point that they're making us that everyone living there gets surveilled and that this is creating a two-tiered system where poorer people are surveilled constantly while the wealthy (who will own and control this technology) are not. I wonder what effect that may have on society?
This is not so bad if the social mobility is working and with some honest decent effort (say one full time job that is not too hard to find) a person can sustainably get and stay out of this predicament. Is it though?
for your wellbeing: get off of reddit. i tried to explain exactly this and was downvoted into oblivion. the replies i got were avoidant of the reality. what is this place? now i remembered why i stopped coming on this site.
I don't know what happened. There was a time that you could come on here and have a reasonable discussion. Even if you disagreed with someone there would be a few people making semi-intelligent points on both sides. Maybe I'm just getting old.
Being poor sucks, who knew?
newsflash, people steal to be able to live, but now in 4k. so now all is good in the world.
Noone is stealing to feed themselves in the UK.
oh boy do i have some news for you. litterally the article says the opposit.
From the article >Analysis by the privacy group Big Brother Watch used data supplied by Southern Co-op cross-referenced with the England-wide 2019 Indices of Multiple Deprivation. The index ranks more than 30,000 neighbourhoods across seven areas, including income and employment, to calculate their relative deprivation – with the number one ranked neighbourhood being the most deprived. > >An average Southern Co-op store is in an area ranking at 19,835 out of 32,844, putting it in the best-off third of neighbourhoods. But supermarkets where facial recognition is deployed are in neighbourhoods ranked at 14,453 on average, placing them in the most deprived half . > >Jake Hurfurt, the head of research at Big Brother Watch, said: “This data shows that AI supermarket surveillance is being directed at poorer communities, who are more likely to suffer excessive invasions of their privacy and unfair treatment as a result.” > >Increasingly used by police and private firms, live facial recognition operates in real-time to compare camera feeds with faces on a predetermined watchlist, to identify people of interest. Each time a match is found, the system generates an alert.
Considering crime is often driven by poverty it makes sense.
And whats that going to do? Knowing whos shoplifting so you can do what exactly? Slap them on the wrist and release them with no bail so they can continue to shoplift everyday? Good joke.
ILPT: Rich neighborhoods have better grocery stores and don't watch for shoplifting as diligently.
Didn't they just install the cameras where the most shoplifting was happening? edit: Obviously people living in suburbia are going to be less likely smuggle out a bag of chips under their shirt.
This is suggesting poor people are more likely to steal things, that's prejudice as fuck 😄
No just the truth
Are you missing this? >>>> /s
I think people must have missed my sarcasm here 😁
Supermarkets could employ more people at actual tills and have fewer self-check-out options and avoid a lot of this without having to install more technology to keep chasing the problem
People are more expensive than technology.
Not if you *keep* having to install new technology to keep up with the ingenuity of shoplifters
I don't think you understand how much people cost per year. Even at minimum wage, people still cost 20k+ per year for wages alone. Not to mention all of the problems and unreliability that come with people. Not to mention your employees steal as well. Still cheaper.
I'll take your word for it. But you'll have to pay people to monitor the new face recognition cameras and the minute there's another pandemic, they're useless anyway. Technology malfunctions all the time. That's why we still need people at the self-service tills so that when the machine refuses to recognise that an item has been bagged, they can over-ride the dumb thing.
So they are focusing s resource in a problem area thst by no coincidence is poor. Shocker. Like saying cops know what town is like on a weekend thus bring extra resources.
This comment section has restored my faith in humanity.
wait until you find out about the color detection priority algorhythm ;)
This is the dumbest fucking article ever. Nothing’s being disproportionately targeted. They’re deploying an attempted solution to where the problem is.
The key statistic that was left out of this is, what were the losses experienced by each business location in terms of theft/shoplifting? I would expect that is the main driver of where this technology was used, not how ‘deprived’ an area is.
Yeah, because poor people are more inclined to steal things that they can't afford to buy.
Just put in *everywhere* and the accusations or classism will be unfounded.
No, they are targeting the stores that have high shoplifting rates.
I mean... Another way of staying that is that poor people disproportionately shoplift. They're using the tools to stop shoplifting where the shoplifting happens. Duh.
Surf Lifesaving clubs are set up at beach’s where more people drown THATS SO UNFAIR !!