Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition • Hacker News Board

Re: Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition

#21

Post by gumby » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 6:26 PM UTC

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #9

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 fac…

> 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.

Re: Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition

#22

Post by yieldcrv » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 6:27 PM UTC

currency wrote: post #16

yieldcrv wrote: post #4

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 wa…

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.

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.

Re: Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition

#23

Post by gjsman-1000 » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 6:28 PM UTC

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #20

josephcsible wrote: post #15

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.

[flagged]

We haven't, and I think it is fairly safe to say that rehabilitation and counciling programs to stop shoplifting would be far more expensive and ineffective than imprisonment; so we shouldn't hold out for a perfect solution over an imperfect one.

Also, people don't shoplift just once for fun. A "relatively small loss" is quite large by the tenth time it happens because nobody got punished.

EDIT: For "posting too fast," I would like to address the below comment. For the "it would be cheaper," you should look at how much rehab and counseling costs. For drugs, a 30-day rehab can hit as much as $27K, even if shoplifting rehab (if there was such a thing) would be cheaper. But even if it was cheaper, property crime has a recidivism rate of 78%.

But secondly, you try to rationalize the cost of the stolen item to the cost of imprisonment. This doesn't quite make sense, because A. It values the losses of time, security, customer inconvenience, etc. to the store at $0; B. The store is paying taxes for... what, when they have no guarantee of safety; and C. Apparently the value of justice being served is $0 as well (it's only worth imprisonment if there's lots of money involved - but then, of course, why imprison anyone for their third DUI that didn't involve property damage?).

Re: Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition

#24

Post by AdamJacobMuller » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 6:28 PM UTC

Kon-Peki wrote: post #14

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #9

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 fac…

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.

Re: Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition

#25

Post by fuzzy2 » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 6:30 PM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #11

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #9

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 fac…

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 shopli…

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.

Re: Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition

#26

Post by moolcool » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 6:31 PM UTC

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #9

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 fac…

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.

Re: Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition

#27

Post by gjsman-1000 » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 6:32 PM UTC

fuzzy2 wrote: post #25

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 shopli…

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.

Re: Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition

#28

Post by AdamJacobMuller » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 6:32 PM UTC

gumby wrote: post #21

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #9

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 fac…

> 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 i…

> 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.

Re: Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition

#29

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 6:32 PM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #23

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

We haven't, and I think it is fairly safe to say that rehabilitation and counciling programs to stop shoplifting would be far more expensive and ineffective than imprisonment; so we shouldn't hold out for a perfect solution over an imperfect one. Also, people don't shoplift just once for fun. A "relatively small loss" is quite large by the tenth time it happens because nobody got punished. EDIT: For "posting too fast…

> I think it is fairly safe to say that rehabilitation and counciling programs to stop shoplifting would be far more expensive and ineffective than imprisonment;

I don't see how. The cost of housing a prisoner in the US varies wildly by state, but the average is $40k/yr.

> A "relatively small loss" is quite large by the tenth time it happens because nobody got punished

Again, those 10 events probably amount to an order of magnitude less than the $40k it would cost to house the prisoner.

I'd much rather prison be reserved for violent offenders who are judged unsafe to keep anywhere else.

Re: Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition

#30

Post by geodel » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 6:33 PM UTC

qbasic_forever wrote: post #10

chomp wrote: post #5

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 deterri…

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.

> 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.