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

Post by Thorrez » Wed, Dec 20, 2023, 3:15 PM UTC

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.

Post by JohnFen » Wed, Dec 20, 2023, 3:29 PM UTC

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…

Post by bannedbybros » Wed, Dec 20, 2023, 3:33 PM UTC

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.

Post by crazygringo » Wed, Dec 20, 2023, 3:42 PM UTC

jrochkind1 wrote: post #22

jerf wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 w…

You are correct. In fact there is research that humans are not particularly good at matching people to photos... this 2014 study showed a 15% error rate (with photos from identification documents , high-quality standardized photos, not low-quality random angle ones!), and the real kicker is passport officers (who do this as part of their job all day and presumably care about doing it well) surprisingly performed no b…

Post by AstralStorm » Wed, Dec 20, 2023, 3:43 PM UTC

Thorrez wrote: post #21

brookst wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One difference is that it's hard to know if you have the chemicals in your building, or be able to eliminate them. Knowing that you have facial recognition and eliminating it is much easier.