
When No One Is Just a Face in the Crowd - wikiburner
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/technology/when-no-one-is-just-a-face-in-the-crowd.html
======
chimeracoder
You don't even need facial recognition to track customers in brick-and-mortar
stores without their consent. The company Nomi does exactly this by tracking
MAC addresses of mobile devices[0].

This is an opt- _out_ product, and the only way to opt out is to register your
MAC address with them: [http://nomi.com/privacy/](http://nomi.com/privacy/)

[0] [http://nomi.com/](http://nomi.com/)

~~~
somewhatjustin
It says on their site that they "Never collect any personally identifiable
information without a consumer’s explicit opt in", so what kind of info could
they collect with Wifi/Beacon?

~~~
chimeracoder
First, my original comment was simply meant to point out the feasibility of
the practice. The fact that Nomi says they choose not to collect "personally
identifiable information" doesn't mean that someone else couldn't (using the
same technique) if they wanted to.

But frankly, I don't really trust the term "personally identifiable
information" unless it is qualified, because it can mean very different things
to different people in different contexts[0]. For example, for one service (I
believe the DNS servers) Google claims to "anonymize" IP addresses, but it
turns out that they only obscure the last two or three digits, which isn't
enough to conceal the identity of the individual.

For another example, you wouldn't _believe_ some of the things that are
considered protected health information when dealing with patients (ie, for
HIPAA/HITECH compliance)[1].

Even if I trust a company's intentions (which I don't unless given a strong
reason otherwise), trusting (a) their ability to understand what information
is and isn't sensitive; and (b) guard that information both require a bit more
than a vaguely worded assertion on their website.

If you collect information about where a person (or "device") has been over
time, that in itself can be an incredibly identifying piece of information -
all you need is one other datapoint to "lift the veil", and suddenly you know
a lot of sensitive information about a particular individual.

[0] IANAL. "PII" is a legal term, and whether or not certain pieces of
information qualify as PII can (and has) been litigated, so the line is
ambiguous enough that a simple promise not to collect PII does little to
assuage my privacy concerns.

[1] Likewise, you wouldn't believe some of the things that _aren 't_
(necessarily) considered PHI.

~~~
pliny
>Google claims to "anonymize" IP addresses, but it turns out that they only
obscure the last two or three digits, which isn't enough to conceal the
identity of the individual.

Is there any reason why they wouldn't just hash the IP?

They only need to see it once to extract useful information from the IP
itself.

~~~
zellyn
Hashing IPs turns one uniquely identifying number into a different uniquely
identifying number.

------
ams6110
Based on what I've seen of the quality of video captured by most in-store
surveillance systems, they are going to have to be upgraded quite a bit.

Every time the local newspaper publishes an image from a bank or convenience
story robbery, the quality is so poor you wonder why they bother at all. About
the best you can do is say "white man, about 6' tall, wearing something red."

~~~
e12e
While this is true, AFAIK pretty much all _new_ (and replacement) systems will
be ridiculously better than the old legacy systems. Storage is cheaper,
sensors are better (pixels, sensitivity), optics are better and cheaper...
You'd have to make a pretty big effort to be able to find a new sub-720p video
systems these days.

------
jhonovich
Even with top of line, new equipment, accuracy problems are quite significant
for this application. This is sadly little more than a commercial for these
companies.

You need a lot of pixels. Even if you have full HD 1080p, that still means FoV
20 foot wide or less, which is quite narrow for real world, outdoor
applications.

You need good angles. Even if you can cover a wide area, if the person is at
the edge of the shot or looking the other away or looking down (very common),
accuracy plummets.

You need good lighting. Even with WDR/HDR capabilities, glare is an issue with
sunlight. And forget about in low light, night time conditions, the noise from
gain control is a major, major issue.

You are dealing with huge numbers of people. With tens or hundreds of
thousands of people passing, a lot will simply look alike. It's hard for a
person or a computer to make such a call, especially with bad angles, glare,
etc.

------
greenyoda
_“Just load existing photos of your known shoplifters, members of organized
retail crime syndicates, persons of interest and your best customers into
FaceFirst,” a marketing pitch on the company’s site explains. “Instantly, when
a person in your FaceFirst database steps into one of your stores, you are
sent an email, text or SMS alert that includes their picture and all
biographical information of the known individual so you can take immediate and
appropriate action.”_

I can imagine that shoplifter identification systems will have the same kinds
of problems as no-fly lists. Let's say you look exactly like someone who is on
the no-shop list (shoplifter database) and every time you walk into any store,
you're ejected by security guards. The company that runs this database has no
accountability to the public, so there's no way to get yourself removed from
the list.

~~~
chc
IIRC the shop managers I know just have a policy of watching suspected
shoplifters very carefully rather than booting them on sight. They only get
approached when they actually make the attempt. Under such a policy, it seems
all right.

~~~
sliverstorm
Yeah, it's pretty rare that someone is outright banned from a store. I've only
ever personally heard of it in the context of a private grocer and a many-
times-repeat offender.

------
coldcode
In the end we will all wind up as tracked and identified records in a vast
database. Hi, I'm #149586723432.

~~~
somewhatjustin
Imagine if they could get a hold of that kind of data in an investigation.
They'd know where you were, what you did, who you were with, etc.

~~~
e12e
Indeed. I was rather shocked to hear a friend had be subpoenaed for a DNA swab
based on phone tracking data, along with a handful of other men, in connection
with a rape case that happened early in the morning (so few phones in the
area). The idea was two-fold a) _rule out_ suspects, and b) (presumably) get
in touch with potential witnesses. While everyone wants the guilty party to
get caught, I'm unsure what options one would have about refusing such a swab.
In theory that swab wouldn't be held on file (but who can know if there is a
secret backup of such data -- we don't have adequate oversight in Norway
either).

~~~
sliverstorm
I'm not aware of any legal precedent under which you can refuse to cooperate
with an ongoing police investigation, except where such investigation would
violate your basic rights (e.g. Bill of Rights in the USA)

In the USA you'd probably have to contend it is either unreasonable search
and/or seizure, which would be a difficult case to make.

Edit: Looks like the SCOTUS ruled on DNA testing & the Fourth Amendment just
last year.

