8 ms·

Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition

56 points by ddlatham 3y ago

AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
https://archive.is/pYB3G https://archive.is/pYB3G
toolz 3y ago
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.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- juujian 3y ago
  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.
  - xethos 3y ago
    > 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?
yieldcrv 3y ago
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
- aurizon 3y ago
  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'...
- currency 3y ago
  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.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    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.
    - notaustinpowers 3y ago
      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.
      - yieldcrv 3y ago
chomp 3y ago
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.
- qbasic_forever 3y ago
  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.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    It's gone berserk since the pandemic. CVS claims they have had a 300% increase. https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2022/why-has-shoplifting-been-out-of-control-since-the-pandemic-began/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2022/why-has-shopl... https://www.axios.com/2022/02/11/shoplifting-retail-crisis-online-resale https://www.axios.com/2022/02/11/shoplifting-retail-crisis-o...
    - qbasic_forever 3y ago
      And other data points say the opposite: https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/18/business/retail-shoplifting-shrink-walgreens/index.html 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.
freitzkriesler2 3y ago
Can someone link to a non paywall version? Edit https://archive.is/pYB3G 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?
aurizon 3y ago
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
- qbasic_forever 3y ago
  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.
  - kbelder 3y ago
    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.
  - aurizon 3y ago
    far more chasing in the UK, far fewer guns
AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
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.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  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.
josephcsible 3y ago
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.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    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?).
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 3y ago
      > 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.
AbrahamParangi 3y ago
Something that I think many people really underestimate is how much crime is done by how few people. It’s incredibly concentrated. We may have this image of a normal person perhaps down on their luck and tempted by circumstances and while this is true of most criminals, it is not true of the perpetrators of most crimes. For example, according to this article in the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/15/nyregion/shoplifting-arrests-nyc.html 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.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  > 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.
  - AbrahamParangi 3y ago
    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/ 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.
Simulacra 3y ago
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.
smk16 3y ago
Read here. https://forumx.azurewebsites.net/f/the-new-york-times/20/barred-from-grocery-stores-by-facial-recognition https://forumx.azurewebsites.net/f/the-new-york-times/20/bar... No account needed.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

56 points by ddlatham 3y ago

https://archive.is/pYB3G https://archive.is/pYB3G

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.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
juujian 3y ago
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.
- xethos 3y ago
  > 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?

yieldcrv 3y ago

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

aurizon 3y ago
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'...
currency 3y ago
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.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  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.
  - notaustinpowers 3y ago
    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.
    - yieldcrv 3y ago

chomp 3y ago

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.

qbasic_forever 3y ago
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.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  It's gone berserk since the pandemic. CVS claims they have had a 300% increase. https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2022/why-has-shoplifting-been-out-of-control-since-the-pandemic-began/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2022/why-has-shopl... https://www.axios.com/2022/02/11/shoplifting-retail-crisis-online-resale https://www.axios.com/2022/02/11/shoplifting-retail-crisis-o...
  - qbasic_forever 3y ago
    And other data points say the opposite: https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/18/business/retail-shoplifting-shrink-walgreens/index.html 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.

freitzkriesler2 3y ago

Can someone link to a non paywall version? Edit https://archive.is/pYB3G 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?

aurizon 3y ago

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

qbasic_forever 3y ago
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.
- kbelder 3y ago
  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.
- aurizon 3y ago
  far more chasing in the UK, far fewer guns

AdamJacobMuller 3y ago

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.

gjsman-1000 3y ago
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.

josephcsible 3y ago

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.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 3y ago
[flagged]
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  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?).
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 3y ago
    > 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.

AbrahamParangi 3y ago

Something that I think many people really underestimate is how much crime is done by how few people. It’s incredibly concentrated. We may have this image of a normal person perhaps down on their luck and tempted by circumstances and while this is true of most criminals, it is not true of the perpetrators of most crimes. For example, according to this article in the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/15/nyregion/shoplifting-arrests-nyc.html 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.

fsckboy 3y ago
> 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.
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  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/ 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.

Simulacra 3y ago

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.

smk16 3y ago

Read here. https://forumx.azurewebsites.net/f/the-new-york-times/20/barred-from-grocery-stores-by-facial-recognition https://forumx.azurewebsites.net/f/the-new-york-times/20/bar... No account needed.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]