Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/28/technology/facial-recognition-shoplifters-britain.html
74 comments
> top 327 shoplifters in NYC last year were arrested more than 6000 times
so, what they mean is (get it? "the mean is" :) 6000 / 327 = 18+ arrests each
not arguing against the argument being made, but refocusing it with a "broken windows theory" style argument, if so much mayhem can be caused by such a small number of people, I think when the shoplifting problem is allowed to go unchecked, friends of the shoplifters join in for a very small increase in the number of people, but a big increase in the mayhem.
so, what they mean is (get it? "the mean is" :) 6000 / 327 = 18+ arrests each
not arguing against the argument being made, but refocusing it with a "broken windows theory" style argument, if so much mayhem can be caused by such a small number of people, I think when the shoplifting problem is allowed to go unchecked, friends of the shoplifters join in for a very small increase in the number of people, but a big increase in the mayhem.
Maybe, and I do think that society and culture are sort of inescapable potential confounders, but the concentrated character of antisociality is well documented in a number of places.
For instance here's a study from Swedish prisons https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/. 75% of violent offenders are "one and done" but the remaining 25% are responsible for 63.2% of convictions.
If you do the math that means that 75% of violent offenders will never reoffend, and 25% will reoffend an average of 4 times. And that's an average. The top 10% reoffend an average of 10 or more times.
For instance here's a study from Swedish prisons https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/. 75% of violent offenders are "one and done" but the remaining 25% are responsible for 63.2% of convictions.
If you do the math that means that 75% of violent offenders will never reoffend, and 25% will reoffend an average of 4 times. And that's an average. The top 10% reoffend an average of 10 or more times.
This is conflicting, on one hand it's certainty within the right of a store to bar people who shoplift, it's really an imperative to do so. The petty crime issue the retailers here are trying to counter is a real one.
But this application it feels like falling down an increasingly slippery slope.
Sure, today, it's just "send an alert and the store can do what it wants" but how long until that transforms into a de facto ban from the premise? Scan the person on the way in and flash their picture and name up on a TV and tell them they are trespassed from the store and if they don't leave within 60 seconds the police will be called. You can even automate that!
Sure, today, it's just "share with nearby stores" but how long until the database starts to be centralized and extends across whole states, countries or even worldwide? An argument could be made that people who are farther away from home are more likely to commit petty crimes since they have less worry about repetitional damage or harming their own community, so, obviously we need to share this data nationwide or even globally!
This facewatch company is going to have an imperative to add people to it's database and obviously sell subscriptions to access their data centrally, they aren't going to have any imperative to fairly adjudicate removals or false positives.
I can easily see a system like this ending up like credit rating bureaus with a few large companies aggregating data into a score which stores can use to deny entry.
Even if you ignore data errors of any kind and ignore false positives entirely, the concept of a relatively minor indiscretion resulting in a permanent, global, ban from any store using this technology is positively dystopian. It deeply reminds me of two of the better episodes of Black Mirror, White Christmas (the end -- you know what part I mean) and Nosedive.
The fact is though, there is a legitimate need for some kind of change to solve the retail theft problem and I don't think this type of technology is going away.
I'm generally not to argue in favor of regulation, but, this seems like this technology is going to require regulation around disputes as well some kind of regulated civil penalty list (shoplift less than $100 of merchandise on your fist offence and you're banned for at most 1 month). The real problem is that we (the US) have done a terribly poor job with regular credit scores and I can not imagine us doing a better job with this.
But this application it feels like falling down an increasingly slippery slope.
Sure, today, it's just "send an alert and the store can do what it wants" but how long until that transforms into a de facto ban from the premise? Scan the person on the way in and flash their picture and name up on a TV and tell them they are trespassed from the store and if they don't leave within 60 seconds the police will be called. You can even automate that!
Sure, today, it's just "share with nearby stores" but how long until the database starts to be centralized and extends across whole states, countries or even worldwide? An argument could be made that people who are farther away from home are more likely to commit petty crimes since they have less worry about repetitional damage or harming their own community, so, obviously we need to share this data nationwide or even globally!
This facewatch company is going to have an imperative to add people to it's database and obviously sell subscriptions to access their data centrally, they aren't going to have any imperative to fairly adjudicate removals or false positives.
I can easily see a system like this ending up like credit rating bureaus with a few large companies aggregating data into a score which stores can use to deny entry.
Even if you ignore data errors of any kind and ignore false positives entirely, the concept of a relatively minor indiscretion resulting in a permanent, global, ban from any store using this technology is positively dystopian. It deeply reminds me of two of the better episodes of Black Mirror, White Christmas (the end -- you know what part I mean) and Nosedive.
The fact is though, there is a legitimate need for some kind of change to solve the retail theft problem and I don't think this type of technology is going away.
I'm generally not to argue in favor of regulation, but, this seems like this technology is going to require regulation around disputes as well some kind of regulated civil penalty list (shoplift less than $100 of merchandise on your fist offence and you're banned for at most 1 month). The real problem is that we (the US) have done a terribly poor job with regular credit scores and I can not imagine us doing a better job with this.
> I can easily see a system like this ending up like credit rating bureaus with a few large companies aggregating data into a score which stores can use to deny entry.
I'm sure the big three credit bureaux are developing precisely this product.
The stores need not even ban you: they could adjust their prices on a per customer basis to cover their expected risk.
Come to think of it, the insurance companies could get in on the action. The shop gets shoplifting coverage in its insurance package. It prices the tin of soup at $1. You pay $1 because you have a good "theft rating". I pay $1.20 because I have a moderate miscreant rating. The little lcd on the shelf will show $1.20 as the price when I look at it, $1 when you look. The shop keeps $1 from you, $1.05 from me and forwards the other $0.15 to the insurance shoplifting risk pool. Shoplifting claims are paid out of the pool.
And by the way I am a hardcore non-lawbreaker (actually this is true) but it doesn't matter to the shops or insurance companies if I am mis-rated. Everybody wins! Except me.
I'm sure the big three credit bureaux are developing precisely this product.
The stores need not even ban you: they could adjust their prices on a per customer basis to cover their expected risk.
Come to think of it, the insurance companies could get in on the action. The shop gets shoplifting coverage in its insurance package. It prices the tin of soup at $1. You pay $1 because you have a good "theft rating". I pay $1.20 because I have a moderate miscreant rating. The little lcd on the shelf will show $1.20 as the price when I look at it, $1 when you look. The shop keeps $1 from you, $1.05 from me and forwards the other $0.15 to the insurance shoplifting risk pool. Shoplifting claims are paid out of the pool.
And by the way I am a hardcore non-lawbreaker (actually this is true) but it doesn't matter to the shops or insurance companies if I am mis-rated. Everybody wins! Except me.
You might be interested in a book from long ago called No Place to Hide by O'Harrow. In 2004 he discussed Target, Home Depot, and shopping malls using mobile phone identification to collect and classify customers. This is just the next logical step. I would be very surprised if major retailers are not already using facial recognition software.
> I would be very surprised if major retailers are not already using facial recognition software.
Big retail chains are already doing this.
I believe I read on HN a few years ago that Facebook had a product for retail shops that did this. Couldn't find anything on the web though.
Big retail chains are already doing this.
I believe I read on HN a few years ago that Facebook had a product for retail shops that did this. Couldn't find anything on the web though.
> I'm sure the big three credit bureaux are developing precisely this product.
Probably. Again I'm super libertarian but the 3 credit bureaus in the US need a corporate death penalty.
> they could adjust their prices on a per customer basis to cover their expected risk
I'm not sure that works because the risk here is someone just refusing to pay the displayed price at all, regardless of what it is.
If anything, stores would use this kind of technology to do stratified pricing depending on what they think you can afford and are willing to pay. More affluent people would be charged more for the exact same box of crackers.
Probably. Again I'm super libertarian but the 3 credit bureaus in the US need a corporate death penalty.
> they could adjust their prices on a per customer basis to cover their expected risk
I'm not sure that works because the risk here is someone just refusing to pay the displayed price at all, regardless of what it is.
If anything, stores would use this kind of technology to do stratified pricing depending on what they think you can afford and are willing to pay. More affluent people would be charged more for the exact same box of crackers.
> More affluent people would be charged more for the exact same box of crackers.
Or less, because they buy more stuff, and luring them into your store, especially for repeat visits, is worth it.
This is how it works today, just not to this level of granularity. Poor people can't buy the value size because they don't have the cash flow. Costco customers save a lot of money -- but they have big enough houses to store the large sizes.
It's really expensive to be poor.
Or less, because they buy more stuff, and luring them into your store, especially for repeat visits, is worth it.
This is how it works today, just not to this level of granularity. Poor people can't buy the value size because they don't have the cash flow. Costco customers save a lot of money -- but they have big enough houses to store the large sizes.
It's really expensive to be poor.
Imagine people uploading deepfakes of people they don't like shoplifting. Apparently any of the participating shops can deposit video into the system...
It doesn't even need to be a deepfake. They're just uploading face pictures.
> But this application it feels like falling down an increasingly slippery slope.
The slippery slope could go farther than a ban from the premise for retail theft. People are being barred from banking in England based on political speech. Don't grocery stores have the right to choose who they do business with? What if they don't want transphobes, Brexiteers, or people of Russian descent shopping there?
The slippery slope could go farther than a ban from the premise for retail theft. People are being barred from banking in England based on political speech. Don't grocery stores have the right to choose who they do business with? What if they don't want transphobes, Brexiteers, or people of Russian descent shopping there?
The US had the concept of protected classes. As a business, I can refuse to serve fans of the wrong sports team or anyone wearing a blue shirt. I cannot refuse to serve people based on membership in a protected class (race, sexual orientation, etc).
I think that works ok. There is a strong profit motive to serve as many people as possible, and there are consequences for getting reputation as “who knows if they’ll serve you”
So, which I would find it distasteful if a store refused to serve Brexiters, I believe the market would sort that out. I’d only be interested in regulation if the problem actually appears.
I think that works ok. There is a strong profit motive to serve as many people as possible, and there are consequences for getting reputation as “who knows if they’ll serve you”
So, which I would find it distasteful if a store refused to serve Brexiters, I believe the market would sort that out. I’d only be interested in regulation if the problem actually appears.
> I believe the market would sort that out.
"The market" will consolidate grocery stores until only 3-4 nationwide chains remain, whose policies and prices will be suspiciously similar. Almost every market is moving in that direction, and some have already arrived.
"The market" will consolidate grocery stores until only 3-4 nationwide chains remain, whose policies and prices will be suspiciously similar. Almost every market is moving in that direction, and some have already arrived.
Some ways to make the system better:
- Allow the accused to repay the sale price of whatever they're accused of shoplifting (or possibly even a discount) to remove the charge. There's no harm done, and nobody's banned from every store because nobody's truly banned from any store
- If someone can't afford repayment, provide work or community service as an alternative. I know this is unfair to poor people effectively forcing them to work, but the alternative is JAIL or just letting people steal; and also, people shouldn't be stealing in the first place. Still, EBT, SNAP and other bare minimums should absolutely never be gated (and doing so will lead to violence), and the work/service needs to be capped at something reasonable otherwise people just won't do it
- Absolutely provide a way to appeal false positives. People should have an opportunity to present their own evidence, have a human review the camera footage, and check dates / times (because if you can prove you were somewhere else that will rule it out quickly). Most of all, the appellate court should be part of the government, not the company; it may still be biased towards companies but less so.
- If someone loses their appeal, maybe allow them to make the evidence or entire case public (with others' info redacted), so they can post it to social media? That will help people convicted on iffy evidence, because evidence banning someone from every store needs to be solid; and making the info public will mitigate truly guilty people posting misleading information
I do think there's no good solution. I also think this isn't something we can just ignore, and we can't just ban every method stores use to prevent shoplifting, because otherwise they'll just close or start taking drastic actions. I think that whatever the solution is, it should be biased towards the consumer; but try and reduce this bias as much as possible, because too much bias and the stores just close or take drastic actions.
- Allow the accused to repay the sale price of whatever they're accused of shoplifting (or possibly even a discount) to remove the charge. There's no harm done, and nobody's banned from every store because nobody's truly banned from any store
- If someone can't afford repayment, provide work or community service as an alternative. I know this is unfair to poor people effectively forcing them to work, but the alternative is JAIL or just letting people steal; and also, people shouldn't be stealing in the first place. Still, EBT, SNAP and other bare minimums should absolutely never be gated (and doing so will lead to violence), and the work/service needs to be capped at something reasonable otherwise people just won't do it
- Absolutely provide a way to appeal false positives. People should have an opportunity to present their own evidence, have a human review the camera footage, and check dates / times (because if you can prove you were somewhere else that will rule it out quickly). Most of all, the appellate court should be part of the government, not the company; it may still be biased towards companies but less so.
- If someone loses their appeal, maybe allow them to make the evidence or entire case public (with others' info redacted), so they can post it to social media? That will help people convicted on iffy evidence, because evidence banning someone from every store needs to be solid; and making the info public will mitigate truly guilty people posting misleading information
I do think there's no good solution. I also think this isn't something we can just ignore, and we can't just ban every method stores use to prevent shoplifting, because otherwise they'll just close or start taking drastic actions. I think that whatever the solution is, it should be biased towards the consumer; but try and reduce this bias as much as possible, because too much bias and the stores just close or take drastic actions.
> Allow the accused to repay the sale price of whatever they're accused of shoplifting
At 10x the cost. You need to make the penalty greater than the value from the crime.
Yes, to everything else you said.
At 10x the cost. You need to make the penalty greater than the value from the crime.
Yes, to everything else you said.
Here's an option - apply the constitutional privilege to trial by jury and let Law Enforcement have a monopoly on enforcing laws.
>tell them they are trespassed from the store and if they don't leave within 60 seconds the police will be called
in MV on a plaza on Rengstorff and Middlefield a security unit parked in the parking lot does just about that
>flash their picture and name up on a TV
that part or anything like it is missing though. It just makes very loud untargetted announcement over the whole plaza. Who it is addressed to out of all the people on the plaza is impossible to say - at least i couldn't see any obvious target on those several occassions that i heard it .
in MV on a plaza on Rengstorff and Middlefield a security unit parked in the parking lot does just about that
>flash their picture and name up on a TV
that part or anything like it is missing though. It just makes very loud untargetted announcement over the whole plaza. Who it is addressed to out of all the people on the plaza is impossible to say - at least i couldn't see any obvious target on those several occassions that i heard it .
[deleted]
I think that stores would be far more willing to remove facial recognition if there was a guarantee, a social contract, that shoplifter = police on the scene immediately = arrest = minimum 30 days imprisonment regardless of object size, without bail, sentence time increases by 30 days for each repeat offense within the last three years. Problem solved; we can focus on community programs to reduce the desire to shoplift afterwards.
The facial recognition stuff is the digital equivalent of vigilante justice. The best way to stop vigilante justice of any kind is to have Police do their jobs.
The facial recognition stuff is the digital equivalent of vigilante justice. The best way to stop vigilante justice of any kind is to have Police do their jobs.
At the Walmart self checkout, scanning items and putting them in the bags. I noticed that one item scanned, got the normal beep that it scanned correctly, put it in the bag,the bagging area weight check passed, but there was a message in small text where the item description appears, that said "System busy". Next item scanned ok, etc but the previous item didn't appear on the item list. I had to take it out of the bag to scan a second time. If I hadn't noticed "System busy" and the item missing from the list, it wouldn't have appeared on my receipt, and I could have been charged with shoplifting.
Walmart has specifically complained about people shoplifting at the self checkout, but I notice this "scan correctly" followed by "System Busy" message quite frequently.
Oh, and I did an item lookup for produce that had to be weighed, found and selected the item, put it on the scale and it came up as 3 cents. Apparently I was supposed to put it on the scale first, then click the picture. I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED TRAINING AS A CASHIER. I would hate to be put on a "shoplifter" ban list due to bad UI on their software.
Walmart has specifically complained about people shoplifting at the self checkout, but I notice this "scan correctly" followed by "System Busy" message quite frequently.
Oh, and I did an item lookup for produce that had to be weighed, found and selected the item, put it on the scale and it came up as 3 cents. Apparently I was supposed to put it on the scale first, then click the picture. I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED TRAINING AS A CASHIER. I would hate to be put on a "shoplifter" ban list due to bad UI on their software.
30 days on a first offense is excessive I think, but, you have the right idea.
First offense == warning (with police response, handcuffs, etc).
Second offense == 24 hours in jail.
You need to not wreck someone's life for a first offense because if you put a relatively poor but otherwise law abiding person in jail for 30 days after the first offense you're going to destroy their life to the point where the only path for them in the future is crime. Scare them enough to the point where they realize "I don't want this life" but put them in a position where they can avoid it.
First offense == warning (with police response, handcuffs, etc).
Second offense == 24 hours in jail.
You need to not wreck someone's life for a first offense because if you put a relatively poor but otherwise law abiding person in jail for 30 days after the first offense you're going to destroy their life to the point where the only path for them in the future is crime. Scare them enough to the point where they realize "I don't want this life" but put them in a position where they can avoid it.
I agree, you are right. I would do that, with maybe 30 days and multiplying for the third offense onward because there has to be a point where the consequences get severe (third strike). But that's just my opinion - my point is more that there has to be something, significant, consistently enforced and stores wouldn't feel the need to do things like this.
This won't work because lots of people accidentally forget to scan things, and any arrest for that is ridiculous. Also, single parents or desperate people stealing bare essentials should not be put in jail.
Actual police response and penalties for theft which is clearly unwarranted (e.g. theft of makeup, electronics, and other non-essentials), especially organized theft, would be great. I don't think stores are losing money on people taking individual loaves of bread and formula, and those can and should just be ignored. But everything else I don't see anyone defending.
Actual police response and penalties for theft which is clearly unwarranted (e.g. theft of makeup, electronics, and other non-essentials), especially organized theft, would be great. I don't think stores are losing money on people taking individual loaves of bread and formula, and those can and should just be ignored. But everything else I don't see anyone defending.
Ah yes, let's put even more people in prison. Prisons that are already filled to the brim. I'm sure that's going to help.
Prison is never an ideal plan; it's the least-bad option.
A. What are you going to do? Let them shoplift whenever they like?
B. Assuming that's not an option, what's your second plan? Give them free counseling and rehabilitation at very high cost (a 30-day drug rehab costs $14,000 - $27,000; and what kind of rehab prevents shoplifting?), even though the recidivism rate for property crimes (like shoplifting) is 78.3%? Let them out on the street after wagging your finger, "please don't do that," only for them to do it again next week?
C. Assuming that's not an option... what option is there left but imprisonment of lengthier and lengthier sentences until the crime rate falls to reasonable levels?
Also, remember that shoplifting is not free. Stores raise prices to cover shoplifting losses, making shoplifting a theft against the community as a whole and not just the store. Stores also close when shoplifting gets too extreme, robbing the whole community of the store's services.
My position is strong law enforcement with stiff penalties; with strong external community programs to help people avoid feeling the need to shoplift, simultaneously. Not one or the other at the expense of the other.
A. What are you going to do? Let them shoplift whenever they like?
B. Assuming that's not an option, what's your second plan? Give them free counseling and rehabilitation at very high cost (a 30-day drug rehab costs $14,000 - $27,000; and what kind of rehab prevents shoplifting?), even though the recidivism rate for property crimes (like shoplifting) is 78.3%? Let them out on the street after wagging your finger, "please don't do that," only for them to do it again next week?
C. Assuming that's not an option... what option is there left but imprisonment of lengthier and lengthier sentences until the crime rate falls to reasonable levels?
Also, remember that shoplifting is not free. Stores raise prices to cover shoplifting losses, making shoplifting a theft against the community as a whole and not just the store. Stores also close when shoplifting gets too extreme, robbing the whole community of the store's services.
My position is strong law enforcement with stiff penalties; with strong external community programs to help people avoid feeling the need to shoplift, simultaneously. Not one or the other at the expense of the other.
Every year there's billions of dollars a year in wage theft. The economic cost of just minimum wage violations is about the same as the economic cost of shoplifting, and that's only one type of wage theft.
Surely as an advocate of strong law enforcement, you want wage theft to be criminalized (it's often a civil law, not criminal), with equally stiff penalties, yes? That would be kinda neat - your boss steals $50 of your pay and the police are right there to toss that thief in jail for a month. You boss wouldn't dare illegally split your tips with other staff then!
As an observation, stopping wage theft against people earning minimum wage might even mean they can afford to buy things instead of stealing them.
> A. What are you going to do? Let them shoplift whenever they like?
The world is not all-or-nothing.
For one, the store can hire its own guards instead of using a tax-subsidized police force.
For another, you know that stores plan for and can afford some shrinkage, right? Many stores added self-checkout and mobile checkout despite knowing that shoplifting rates for them are higher than having a cashier.
Should we follow your proposal and use more police to enforce protection against shoplifting, surely many store owners will gladly fire more cashiers.
> Stores also close when shoplifting gets too extreme
Which is rare. "Stores say shoplifting is a national crisis. The numbers don’t back it up" https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/18/business/retail-shoplifti... which also points out that Walgreens backtracked on its claims that it closed five San Francisco stores in 2021 due to organized shoplifting.
It also gives some reasons for why a company might make false claims in the first place.
> with strong external community programs to help people avoid feeling the need to shoplift,
Which programs were you thinking of? If it involves significantly higher taxes on the wealth, including a global wealth tax, resulting in a livable social safety net, then that will likely help reduce shoplifting by a lot.
But some people regard that as too high of a cost.
I don't want to be at the point where we have to decide if Jean Valjean should deserve five years of prison for stealing bread for his starving sister and her family.
Surely as an advocate of strong law enforcement, you want wage theft to be criminalized (it's often a civil law, not criminal), with equally stiff penalties, yes? That would be kinda neat - your boss steals $50 of your pay and the police are right there to toss that thief in jail for a month. You boss wouldn't dare illegally split your tips with other staff then!
As an observation, stopping wage theft against people earning minimum wage might even mean they can afford to buy things instead of stealing them.
> A. What are you going to do? Let them shoplift whenever they like?
The world is not all-or-nothing.
For one, the store can hire its own guards instead of using a tax-subsidized police force.
For another, you know that stores plan for and can afford some shrinkage, right? Many stores added self-checkout and mobile checkout despite knowing that shoplifting rates for them are higher than having a cashier.
Should we follow your proposal and use more police to enforce protection against shoplifting, surely many store owners will gladly fire more cashiers.
> Stores also close when shoplifting gets too extreme
Which is rare. "Stores say shoplifting is a national crisis. The numbers don’t back it up" https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/18/business/retail-shoplifti... which also points out that Walgreens backtracked on its claims that it closed five San Francisco stores in 2021 due to organized shoplifting.
It also gives some reasons for why a company might make false claims in the first place.
> with strong external community programs to help people avoid feeling the need to shoplift,
Which programs were you thinking of? If it involves significantly higher taxes on the wealth, including a global wealth tax, resulting in a livable social safety net, then that will likely help reduce shoplifting by a lot.
But some people regard that as too high of a cost.
I don't want to be at the point where we have to decide if Jean Valjean should deserve five years of prison for stealing bread for his starving sister and her family.
>He had just chased after three shoplifters who had taken off with several packages of laundry soap.
>Mr. Mackenzie adds one or two new faces every week, he said, mainly people who steal diapers, groceries, pet supplies and other low-cost goods.
I feel like this especially highlights how dystopian this is. This isn't a tool being used to prevent organized theft rings[1], this is ratting out people who can't afford diapers.
I agree fully with the need for regulation here. The solution here isn't "allow grocery stores to ban desperate poor people from being able to use grocery stores", it's to fix the problems leading to the desperation.
(And maybe the path to that involves giving these still-wildly-profitable retail stores incentive to turn their considerable lobbying sway in that direction)
[1] I personally encountered a few organized theft rings while working retail. They overwhelmingly steal small, high-value/margin things like makeup, perfume, and skin care. Not bulky, low value things list here.
>Mr. Mackenzie adds one or two new faces every week, he said, mainly people who steal diapers, groceries, pet supplies and other low-cost goods.
I feel like this especially highlights how dystopian this is. This isn't a tool being used to prevent organized theft rings[1], this is ratting out people who can't afford diapers.
I agree fully with the need for regulation here. The solution here isn't "allow grocery stores to ban desperate poor people from being able to use grocery stores", it's to fix the problems leading to the desperation.
(And maybe the path to that involves giving these still-wildly-profitable retail stores incentive to turn their considerable lobbying sway in that direction)
[1] I personally encountered a few organized theft rings while working retail. They overwhelmingly steal small, high-value/margin things like makeup, perfume, and skin care. Not bulky, low value things list here.
> it's to fix the problems leading to the desperation.
That is beyond the scope of store owners. They are not the one collecting taxes and deciding on resource allocation in society.
That is beyond the scope of store owners. They are not the one collecting taxes and deciding on resource allocation in society.
Right, which is why I wrote this in response to the comment that specifically talked about how regulation was required to prevent them from solving it exclusively within their scope, in the most dystopian way possible, and motivate these companies to direct the lobbying they're already doing to fix the problem.
Agreed. “Instead of this local solution fully within a person’s control, ‘we’ should solve a giant macroeconomic and cultural issue” is never that persuasive.
This isn't conflicting, it's just shit. This has no place in a free society, and I have zero time for any arguments to the contrary. Technology has all the promise in the world to improve and enrich our lives, but instead it's turning our world into a digital panopticon where we're constantly tracked and targeted. I'll bet you any money that this tech is going to be used for advertising as well, if it isn't already.
Yeah, society is not really free until it gives free grocery supplies to every one.
There’s a difference between saying “theft is ok” and “this is an unethical means of preventing theft”
I can't tell if you mean that, but there is actually a strong argument for it, even while to some people it sounds like a hilarious joke.
Since we have machines and mass production an knowledge of biology and soil and weather etc, the resources it takes to provide at least staple food are now very little per person compared to history.
I would LOVE it if part of my taxes were used for free food for all.
Instead, we're all paying an extra 2.5 to 3% tax on every single transaction in our lives to the credit card companies. Now that's a hilarous joke.
Since we have machines and mass production an knowledge of biology and soil and weather etc, the resources it takes to provide at least staple food are now very little per person compared to history.
I would LOVE it if part of my taxes were used for free food for all.
Instead, we're all paying an extra 2.5 to 3% tax on every single transaction in our lives to the credit card companies. Now that's a hilarous joke.
Society is going to have a hard learned lesson on how badly false positives with punishment systems destroys community trust. It doesn't take but a few unjustly punished folks exacting revenge on the systems that hurt them to quickly polarize and disrupt communities.
I have my doubt. Store security still has the leeway to decide what action to take. I suspect they will treat a false positive different when it is a guy in suit and tie vs. someone you would suspect of shoplifting based on a sloppier appearance. If facial recognition just aids the abuse of the poor it won't result in any backlash whatsoever.
> Store security still has the leeway to decide what action to take
> But while the technology had correctly identified the woman, it did not leave much room for human discretion. Neither Facewatch nor the store where the incident occurred contacted her to let her know that she was on the watchlist and to ask what had happened.
How long do you think your statement will stand?
> But while the technology had correctly identified the woman, it did not leave much room for human discretion. Neither Facewatch nor the store where the incident occurred contacted her to let her know that she was on the watchlist and to ask what had happened.
How long do you think your statement will stand?
[deleted]
Mixed feelings here. First, the false positive issue. Second, the network effect, being locked out of buying anything to eat if you shoplift. Third, the potential to track my movement to local stores that use the service, even if I am a non-criminal.
On the other side, shoplifting is becoming lawless and stores are at their wits' end. What are they supposed to do to combat shoplifting? The law certainly isn't deterring shoplifting.
On the other side, shoplifting is becoming lawless and stores are at their wits' end. What are they supposed to do to combat shoplifting? The law certainly isn't deterring shoplifting.
Is shoplifting actually increasing? Data trumps anecdotes.
Combatting it is easy, you need to pay someone to stand at the door and check receipts. But stores don't want to spend money on labor and instead just want to whine and claim there is nothing that can be done, we need to hire more police, etc. to make it someone else's problem.
Combatting it is easy, you need to pay someone to stand at the door and check receipts. But stores don't want to spend money on labor and instead just want to whine and claim there is nothing that can be done, we need to hire more police, etc. to make it someone else's problem.
> Data trumps anecdotes
That's just it. The way politicians solved it is by making theft under a certain dollar amount a lesser offense so nobody bothers reporting it anymore.
Apparently one way of reducing crime is by making certain types of theft not illegal.
> pay someone to stand at the door and check receipts ... And if the person refuses to have their receipt checked? Is the store going to risk liability of their employee or being sued by the customer if they're injured? Very real risks and not worth letting a person just walk out. My local grocery stores have receipt checkers and I still see people walk out with full carts. Security will stand in front of them but the thieves just walk around them because even security isn't allowed to touch shoplifters
Apparently one way of reducing crime is by making certain types of theft not illegal.
> pay someone to stand at the door and check receipts ... And if the person refuses to have their receipt checked? Is the store going to risk liability of their employee or being sued by the customer if they're injured? Very real risks and not worth letting a person just walk out. My local grocery stores have receipt checkers and I still see people walk out with full carts. Security will stand in front of them but the thieves just walk around them because even security isn't allowed to touch shoplifters
> Combatting it is easy, you need to pay someone to stand at the door and check receipts.
Which won't help because they can't actually do anything, they have no right to actually see your receipt. They can't require it, they can't use it as probable cause, and they can't detain you.
Worst they can do is ban you from the premises.
Store's like Costco and Sam's Club can require it because it's part of your membership agreement.
Which won't help because they can't actually do anything, they have no right to actually see your receipt. They can't require it, they can't use it as probable cause, and they can't detain you.
Worst they can do is ban you from the premises.
Store's like Costco and Sam's Club can require it because it's part of your membership agreement.
Yes but it's still a deterrent for the vast majority of casual shoplifters. And if shoplifting is really such a horrible cost for these stores, why don't they go private and require shoppers to agree to a membership to shop inside (which includes an agreement to have your receipt checked)? There is no law that says stores have to be open to the general public.
It's gone berserk since the pandemic. CVS claims they have had a 300% increase.
https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2022/why-has-shopl...
https://www.axios.com/2022/02/11/shoplifting-retail-crisis-o...
https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2022/why-has-shopl...
https://www.axios.com/2022/02/11/shoplifting-retail-crisis-o...
And other data points say the opposite: https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/18/business/retail-shoplifting-s...
"In a major shift, Walgreens, which said it saw a spike in shrink during the pandemic and cited organized retail crime in its decision to close five San Francisco stores in 2021, is backtracking.
“Maybe we cried too much last year” about shrink numbers, Walgreens finance chief James Kehoe said on an earnings call earlier this month.
During its latest quarter, the company’s shrink rate fell to around 2.5% from 3.5% of total sales last year."
I don't see a clear picture of increasing shoplifting. I do see a clear incentive for stores to claim there is an increase in shoplifting though.
"In a major shift, Walgreens, which said it saw a spike in shrink during the pandemic and cited organized retail crime in its decision to close five San Francisco stores in 2021, is backtracking.
“Maybe we cried too much last year” about shrink numbers, Walgreens finance chief James Kehoe said on an earnings call earlier this month.
During its latest quarter, the company’s shrink rate fell to around 2.5% from 3.5% of total sales last year."
I don't see a clear picture of increasing shoplifting. I do see a clear incentive for stores to claim there is an increase in shoplifting though.
I don't think they were crying too much, it felt like >50% of the time I was at Walgreens on Mission St in SF that I witnessed someone very blatantly shoplifting. And pretty often, I'd see a spread of someone selling standard drugstore wares on the sidewalk outside. I'd have been beyond frustrated if I managed that store.
I also wonder if the stores reduced staffing.
All stores have had less staff ever since self checkout was invented, and seems to have gotten even worse lately.
Let's have a big store and no staff, treat the staff you do have like shit, and then complain about shoplifting.
All stores have had less staff ever since self checkout was invented, and seems to have gotten even worse lately.
Let's have a big store and no staff, treat the staff you do have like shit, and then complain about shoplifting.
Exactly what I've seen too. It's wild seeing one employee trying to watch a dozen self checkout kiosks during an after work rush of grocery shopping.
> money on labor and instead just want to whine and claim there is nothing that can be done,
Huh, stores are doing what they can by installing facial recognition system. The whining I am seeing are in the comments here.
Huh, stores are doing what they can by installing facial recognition system. The whining I am seeing are in the comments here.
If a shop catches a thief with a box he took outside the store after they chase him down, they offer him a choice, we will either prosecute you and get you jailed/fined - or you can promise never to come here again and to be sure, we will take your photo and use our scanner to detect you, and will tell all the local shops as well.
Offered that choice, few would take the police route - this may be their tenth arrest = pick the scanner and walk away
No one is chasing shoplifters, at least in America. Store employees have been shot and killed attempting to reclaim stolen goods. Or even worse, employees have tackled and injured shoplifters who have then turned around and successfully sued the stores for huge personal injury claims. It is store policy everywhere that employees are not allowed to pursue suspected shoplifters and folks have been fired for doing exactly that.
It's not quite that absolute, but you're right that's the most common policy.
But it depends on location and company. Last year I saw a shoplifter get walked/dragged to the back office by two guys, each holding an arm.
It was pretty elegantly done. As the shoplifter walked out of the store, a guy stepped up on each side, each slid a hand right under the arm, nestled in the armpit, and stood very close, with all three side-by-side. They then smoothly walked him around a 180 degree turn and took him into the store while one employee was saying "We need you to come with us...". The poor guy was in the store before he knew what was going on. They had obviously done this before.
But it depends on location and company. Last year I saw a shoplifter get walked/dragged to the back office by two guys, each holding an arm.
It was pretty elegantly done. As the shoplifter walked out of the store, a guy stepped up on each side, each slid a hand right under the arm, nestled in the armpit, and stood very close, with all three side-by-side. They then smoothly walked him around a 180 degree turn and took him into the store while one employee was saying "We need you to come with us...". The poor guy was in the store before he knew what was going on. They had obviously done this before.
far more chasing in the UK, far fewer guns
I wish we could get rid of this system by getting rid of the demand for it. Stores wouldn't need things like this if career shoplifters got sent to prison.
The article mentions many of these shoplifters are stealing things like nappies. Sending them to prison might mean the state has to take care of the kids.
Isn't it really common for people to steal diapers to resell rather than because they have kids who need them?
[deleted]
This is needed, urgently, but I worry about its long term implications. From the article, I think this sums up the general opinion: "economic hardship made him sympathetic, but that the number of thefts had gotten so out of hand that facial recognition was needed."
When politicians refuse to act, or worse reduce safety and penalties, communities lose out and stores close.
When politicians refuse to act, or worse reduce safety and penalties, communities lose out and stores close.
Read here.
https://forumx.azurewebsites.net/f/the-new-york-times/20/bar...
No account needed.
No account needed.
Can someone link to a non paywall version? Edit https://archive.is/pYB3G
Funny, I've been to Gordon's in central London and am familiar with the team who made the security system there. Curious that it morphed into a facial recognition software tool.
Couldn't someone just put on a mask a la COVID and have a field day to defeat facial recognition?
Funny, I've been to Gordon's in central London and am familiar with the team who made the security system there. Curious that it morphed into a facial recognition software tool.
Couldn't someone just put on a mask a la COVID and have a field day to defeat facial recognition?
hmm
on one hand: shoplifters aren’t shoplifting all the time
on the other hand: there are many alternative ways for people to get food now, and I’m fine if a prior infraction raises their costs - such as needing to go to a farmers market, or needing to use a grocery delivery app so a surrogate purchases for them
I would be against this if it meant no way to get groceries
there does need to be an appeals process or way to be removed from the list
on one hand: shoplifters aren’t shoplifting all the time
on the other hand: there are many alternative ways for people to get food now, and I’m fine if a prior infraction raises their costs - such as needing to go to a farmers market, or needing to use a grocery delivery app so a surrogate purchases for them
I would be against this if it meant no way to get groceries
there does need to be an appeals process or way to be removed from the list
How are people being added to the database? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? How is abuse prevented in this system? There absolutely should be an open review and appeal process.
After that: If you're homeless, you can't get groceries delivered. In a food desert you might not have alternatives.
I personally believe shoplifting is not as bad as is being portrayed recently and this a solution in search of a problem.
After that: If you're homeless, you can't get groceries delivered. In a food desert you might not have alternatives.
I personally believe shoplifting is not as bad as is being portrayed recently and this a solution in search of a problem.
Homeless people can get groceries delivered, you dont need a home just a waypoint, or deliver to a nearby address and wait for the delivery driver.
I do it all the time.
And yes, my comment specifically factored in food deserts, everything about a higher cost of going to places with food factored in everything you thought of and was written specifically for your rebuttals.
I do it all the time.
And yes, my comment specifically factored in food deserts, everything about a higher cost of going to places with food factored in everything you thought of and was written specifically for your rebuttals.
Ah yes, just have the homeless pay a $9.99 delivery fee, plus tip, plus an app service charge, plus inflated pricing in the app. Rather than just walking into the store and buying it themselves. So now that $0.99 packet of ramen now costs, at a minimum, $10.99.
yep, I was pretty clear about that being a tolerable outcome of being barred from grocery stores from prior behavior
as long as there is that alternative as opposed to no alternative
(and as long as the accusations was accurate)
as long as there is that alternative as opposed to no alternative
(and as long as the accusations was accurate)
Then you and I have different views on what's considered tolerable in the wealthiest nation in the history of the Earth. I have no sympathy towards multi-billion dollar companies crying and implementing these ethically dubious systems over a human being stealing food for survival.
sure, I only compare it to an improvement over incarceration or getting fingers chopped off.
I’m in favor of private sector solutions in the absence of policing.
solutions that are even more tolerable when there are additional options, as I mentioned above. if there was a real denial of service I would find that as egregious as you do.
I’m in favor of private sector solutions in the absence of policing.
solutions that are even more tolerable when there are additional options, as I mentioned above. if there was a real denial of service I would find that as egregious as you do.
If they want to use an appeal process, they must enter the legal process and be judged, at which point an appeal is launched.
If caught by store security, they have you with the box, they have on video taking the box and walking out of the store = strong irrefutable evidence - with no receipt and that video evidence goose = cooked = fine/jail/record. SO you agree to plea and swear to never come here again and to allow they to take a number of head shots at of a number of poses so machine video can spot you. UK judges have agreed this is OK, and I think it is. Crooks and lawyers hate it because it messes with the 'take'...
For example, according to this article in the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/15/nyregion/shoplifting-arre...) the top 327 shoplifters in NYC last year were arrested more than 6000 times.
The same is true of violent crimes. Most people who commit a violent crime are not actually that likely to do it again. Those who do are extremely likely to do it a third time.
Arguably, enforcement should be substantially more lenient for most people and substantially more aggressive for very few.