Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rite Aid banned from using face recognition software after false ID shoplifters

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 91 posts

Re: Rite Aid banned from using face recognition software after false ID shoplifters

#11

Post by brookst »

crazygringo wrote: post #9
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #8

If the best face recognition software has an error rate of 0.08% [1] and Rite Aid serves 1.6M customers a day [2] what moron thought that was a good idea? [1] https://github.com/usnistgov/frvt/blob/nist-pages/reports/1N... [2] https://careers.riteaid.com/pages/company-info

I'm not defending Rite-Aid at all, but that's not the problem here. It's pretty easy for the system to show the source photo to an employee, and then they themselves can judge if they feel confident the shopper is actually the same person. Facial recognition software should always be implemented under the assumption that it makes plenty of false positives, and human review is always necessary. (What you're talking ab…

Wouldn’t it depend on how many accurate positives there were? If it’s one false positive against nine real positives, great. If it’s one false positive a day for a month before a real match occurs, nobody will pay any attention at all.

Re: Rite Aid banned from using face recognition software after false ID shoplifters

#12

Post by helsinkiandrew »

crazygringo wrote: post #9
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #8

If the best face recognition software has an error rate of 0.08% [1] and Rite Aid serves 1.6M customers a day [2] what moron thought that was a good idea? [1] https://github.com/usnistgov/frvt/blob/nist-pages/reports/1N... [2] https://careers.riteaid.com/pages/company-info

I'm not defending Rite-Aid at all, but that's not the problem here. It's pretty easy for the system to show the source photo to an employee, and then they themselves can judge if they feel confident the shopper is actually the same person. Facial recognition software should always be implemented under the assumption that it makes plenty of false positives, and human review is always necessary. (What you're talking ab…

> .. then they themselves can judge if they feel confident the shopper is actually the same person

Yes - but the "approach and identify" of false positives/innocent people was the actual embarrassment and harassment that the system got banned for, it was the human review (asking for ID etc) that was the issue.

Re: Rite Aid banned from using face recognition software after false ID shoplifters

#13

Post by crazygringo »

brookst wrote: post #11
crazygringo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not defending Rite-Aid at all, but that's not the problem here. It's pretty easy for the system to show the source photo to an employee, and then they themselves can judge if they feel confident the shopper is actually the same person. Facial recognition software should always be implemented under the assumption that it makes plenty of false positives, and human review is always necessary. (What you're talking ab…

Wouldn’t it depend on how many accurate positives there were? If it’s one false positive against nine real positives, great. If it’s one false positive a day for a month before a real match occurs, nobody will pay any attention at all.

Drugstores like Rite-Aid often encounter multiple shoplifters a day.

Assuming most of them are repeat, then there are going to be more true positives than false positives.

(Again, not defending Rite-Aid here, just pointing out that the statistics aren't the issue.)

Re: Rite Aid banned from using face recognition software after false ID shoplifters

#14

Post by bolasanibk »

brookst wrote: post #10
jrochkind1 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any law requiring disclosure of facial recognition? Should there be? I don't know if there is, but don't think so? I think there probably should be -- but also, it'll be just another fine-print fades-into-landscape thing. All the signs about video monitoring don't really matter much, we just assume there's video monitoring everywhere and don't even notice the signs anymore. I assume facial recognition will s…

Yeah any warning system will just turn into California’s prop ~~86~~ 65, which led every building in the state to add signage reading “this building may or may not contain cancer-causing chemicals.” Which is completely useless.

Did you mean prop 65? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_...

Re: Rite Aid banned from using face recognition software after false ID shoplifters

#15

Post by twisteriffic »

crazygringo wrote: post #9
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #8

If the best face recognition software has an error rate of 0.08% [1] and Rite Aid serves 1.6M customers a day [2] what moron thought that was a good idea? [1] https://github.com/usnistgov/frvt/blob/nist-pages/reports/1N... [2] https://careers.riteaid.com/pages/company-info

I'm not defending Rite-Aid at all, but that's not the problem here. It's pretty easy for the system to show the source photo to an employee, and then they themselves can judge if they feel confident the shopper is actually the same person. Facial recognition software should always be implemented under the assumption that it makes plenty of false positives, and human review is always necessary. (What you're talking ab…

Just a reminder that the "1 per store per day" is an innocent human being who probably would have been put through hell on earth by what you considered an acceptable rate of error.

Re: Rite Aid banned from using face recognition software after false ID shoplifters

#16

Post by crazygringo »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #12
crazygringo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not defending Rite-Aid at all, but that's not the problem here. It's pretty easy for the system to show the source photo to an employee, and then they themselves can judge if they feel confident the shopper is actually the same person. Facial recognition software should always be implemented under the assumption that it makes plenty of false positives, and human review is always necessary. (What you're talking ab…

> .. then they themselves can judge if they feel confident the shopper is actually the same person Yes - but the "approach and identify" of false positives/innocent people was the actual embarrassment and harassment that the system got banned for, it was the human review (asking for ID etc) that was the issue.

But it seems like they went straight to approaching and asking for ID.

What about the step where it shows a human photos from original footage and current footage and they get to say, nope I'm not confident?

Again, not defending Rite-Aid here, just pointing out that facial recognition needs a human verification layer before taking any action at all. The fact they weren't doing that is just one part of why their actions were wrong.

Re: Rite Aid banned from using face recognition software after false ID shoplifters

#17

Post by jerf »

crazygringo wrote: post #9
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #8

If the best face recognition software has an error rate of 0.08% [1] and Rite Aid serves 1.6M customers a day [2] what moron thought that was a good idea? [1] https://github.com/usnistgov/frvt/blob/nist-pages/reports/1N... [2] https://careers.riteaid.com/pages/company-info

I'm not defending Rite-Aid at all, but that's not the problem here. It's pretty easy for the system to show the source photo to an employee, and then they themselves can judge if they feel confident the shopper is actually the same person. Facial recognition software should always be implemented under the assumption that it makes plenty of false positives, and human review is always necessary. (What you're talking ab…

"It's pretty easy for the system to show the source photo to an employee, and then they themselves can judge if they feel confident the shopper is actually the same person."

I would contest that. Determining if someone is the same person as a low-quality photo is not necessarily something a human can do, and that's especially true if the human in question A: basically doesn't care and is likely to screw it up every way it is possible to screw it up and B: is influenced by whether or not they're willing to directly confront someone who is nominally a criminal while they're being paid the de facto local minimum wage.

This plan is all sorts of infeasible and frankly stupid, and the purely human concerns are sufficient for that determination even before we add the tech in.

Re: Rite Aid banned from using face recognition software after false ID shoplifters

#18

Post by eastof »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #8

If the best face recognition software has an error rate of 0.08% [1] and Rite Aid serves 1.6M customers a day [2] what moron thought that was a good idea? [1] https://github.com/usnistgov/frvt/blob/nist-pages/reports/1N... [2] https://careers.riteaid.com/pages/company-info

Does this mean I can log into 8/10,000 iphones?

Re: Rite Aid banned from using face recognition software after false ID shoplifters

#19

Post by itslennysfault »

I wonder who provides them this tech. A friend of mine quit a company because they were developing a VERY similar technology a few years back. He "lovingly" called it RPaaS (Racial Profiling as a Service). He went WAAAY above his pay grade to protest against the creation of the product and it ultimately ended in him sending a letter of resignation.

Re: Rite Aid banned from using face recognition software after false ID shoplifters

#20

Post by crazygringo »

twisteriffic wrote: post #15
crazygringo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not defending Rite-Aid at all, but that's not the problem here. It's pretty easy for the system to show the source photo to an employee, and then they themselves can judge if they feel confident the shopper is actually the same person. Facial recognition software should always be implemented under the assumption that it makes plenty of false positives, and human review is always necessary. (What you're talking ab…

Just a reminder that the "1 per store per day" is an innocent human being who probably would have been put through hell on earth by what you considered an acceptable rate of error.

You're missing the parts where I said twice that I wasn't defending the practice.
Post reply on HN