×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mannequins That Watch Shoppers

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the feel-my-stare dept.

AI 97

SternisheFan writes with news of a creepy mannequin that watches you as you shop. From the article: "Benetton Group SpA is among fashion brands deploying mannequins equipped with technology used to identify criminals at airports to watch over shoppers in their stores. Retailers are introducing the EyeSee ... The 4,000-euro ($5,072) device has spurred shops to adjust window displays, store layouts and promotions to keep consumers walking in the door and spending. The EyeSee looks ordinary enough on the outside ... Inside, it's no dummy. A camera embedded in one eye feeds data into facial-recognition software like that used by police. It logs the age, gender, and race of passers-by. Demand for the device shows how retailers are turning to technology to help personalize their offers as growth slows in the $245 billion luxury goods industry. Bain & Co. predicts the luxury market will expand 5 percent in 2012, less than half last year's rate. 'It's a changing landscape but we're always going to be sensitive about respecting the customer's boundaries,' said spokesman Colin Johnson. ... Since the EyeSee doesn't store any images, retailers can use it as long as they have a closed-circuit television license."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

97 comments

I saw this Doctor Who already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42056575)

They're Autons.

Re:I saw this Doctor Who already (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42057685)

Plan B: Use Weeping Angels as department store mannequins. The problem is the damn things won't stay still long enough.

Re:I saw this Doctor Who already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42058393)

They will if you Just keep looking at them!!! Geez!

Can someone explain this point? (1)

pla (258480) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056587)

Since the EyeSee doesn't store any images, retailers can use it as long as they have a closed-circuit television license."

Can someone European (or British, I expect?) explain this point? I know about the Beeb's "TV license", but thought that applied only if you use a TV to watch OTA content. For closed circuit, what the hell do you pay for?

Re:Can someone explain this point? (2)

Zibodiz (2160038) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056803)

I would assume this isn't a license for the screen, but rather a license for the privilege of recording. I'm sure the logic was something like 'Without a mandatory license, there would be no way to prosecute people who record others through a bedroom window without their knowledge.'

Re:Can someone explain this point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42057215)

That's the ticket! Get a license from the government to record others through a bedroom window.

Re:Can someone explain this point? (1)

fbobraga (1612783) | about a year and a half ago | (#42065061)

Get a license from the government to record others through a bedroom window.

I want one of these!

Re:Can someone explain this point? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42057239)

More likely it's just revenue. It's already one of the most surveilled places on earth.

Better Yet: (wasRe:Can someone explain this point? (2)

happy_place (632005) | about a year and a half ago | (#42057637)

They should create a mannequin that morphs into the person it's observing, maybe it could just steal the face of the person since body sizes are so drastically different, but then you could "see yourself" in the clothes that the mannequin is modeling. That'd be cool, and super creepy. Just the sort of future we here at Slashdot prefer! :)

Re:Better Yet: (wasRe:Can someone explain this poi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42057761)

They should create a mannequin that morphs into the person it's observing, maybe it could just steal the face of the person since body sizes are so drastically different ...

... and come alive, unaware of their true nature, only to disappointingly discover otherwise when it's time to quit. [Twilight Zone Reference]

Re:Better Yet: (wasRe:Can someone explain this poi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42058669)

We don't need them to be that human just to model clothes.

Re:Better Yet: (wasRe:Can someone explain this poi (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about a year and a half ago | (#42061097)

I'm picturing a very bored T-1000. Perhaps one of the underachievers that never quite mastered human extermination.

Re:Better Yet: (wasRe:Can someone explain this poi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42058839)

so the petite model suddenly becomes plus sized, rips through the clothing, and is now naked. A naked rendition of me. Are you trying to kill people?

Re:Better Yet: (wasRe:Can someone explain this poi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42061765)

That does it, never again will I stop in front of a Victoria's Secret store and look at the sexy stuff in the window.

Re:Can someone explain this point? (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42062389)

Since the EyeSee doesn't store any images, retailers can use it as long as they have a closed-circuit television license."

Can someone European (or British, I expect?) explain this point? I know about the Beeb's "TV license", but thought that applied only if you use a TV to watch OTA content. For closed circuit, what the hell do you pay for?

What is funny about this (have no idea about the license shit) is that you can put a recorder on the device at that point. So sure, maybe you are missing the digital to digital connection (it would be digital to analog back to digital for those who can't follow), but the ability to record it is still there.

Re:Can someone explain this point? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year and a half ago | (#42065015)

Sure. And you can just install a hidden camera. So what?

The point is not to make it technically impossible to record. They just didn't put record capabilities because it's illegal to record anyway, so it'd be useless.

The race? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42056625)

I thought that theories about human races have been debunked as unscientific myths a long, long time ago?

Re:The race? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42056673)

source?

Re:The race? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42058869)

source?

nascar

Re:The race? (2)

lxs (131946) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056749)

No no no! They race humans for sport. I've seen it.

Re:The race? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42059817)

We must end this cruel and inhumane abuse of innocent humans for the entertainment of... oh wait...

Re:The race? (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42056911)

I'm sure it can detect more than just race. For example, if you are fat then maybe there will be a big ad for McDonalds just ahead. And if you look starved then maybe there will be a big ad for McDonalds just ahead. And if you have kids with you then maybe there will be a big ad for McDonalds just ahead. And if you are wearing a vegan or vegitarian t-shirt then maybe the security guards will be waiting ahead to escort you to either McDonalds or the street.

Don't be all scientifiky! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42057159)

Of course they've been debunked. It's like the Bohr model of the atom. We know it isn't right, but it helps simplify the conversation.

In this case though I think they are in for a rough road when applying it to marketing. Where I live there are people of Mexican origin, people with African ancestors, people with European ancestors and plenty of those that combine two or more. The odd thing is you can be the same rich mocha color as a nearly-pure Mexican as you can being half African, and yet the two seem to prefer very different clothing, and after two weeks Hawaii I can be this color, for a little while before I revert back to my Casper-look-a-like hue, but my tastes in clothes don't change.

As for the water-muddying idea of trying to augment your skin tone evaluation with facial features, that's going to be difficult too. You don't get to choose a reference skull angle for everyone to hold their head at, or (without annoying the crap out of your customers) get nearly enough light on their faces.

But the important thing here is that shop keepers are buying expensive gear under the illusion that the statistics that it's supplying about their customers are valid. And that will sell the Eye See product. Bain & Company will get richer.

Humans are much much better at guessing people's heritage at a glance. And they can do this in poor lighting due to the hundreds of visual cues and correlations the computer can't track. A human with a clip board visiting your shop 1 day per quarter could give you a significantly more accurate list, including useful checkboxes as "richly dressed" and "poorly dressed" which computers entirely suck at but girlfriends seem to excel at.

Re:The race? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year and a half ago | (#42059507)

Only if that were so. Lots of Government forms I see has "RACE" on it.

And what do mixed heritage people use for "race"? The one with the most melatonin?

maybe they should improve the products (0)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056647)

i have clothes from Wal Mart that have outlasted some of the snobby store shit i've bought for 10 times the price

most of this luxury crap is crappy quality wrapped up in a snobby store experience

i used to buy $350 Mephisto shoes until they started to fall apart on me after 6 months. I can buy $150 shoes that last longer

Re:maybe they should improve the products (2)

InvisibleClergy (1430277) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056697)

Compromise: $30 shoes which last 6 months.

Re:maybe they should improve the products (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year and a half ago | (#42058281)

The best value by far in shoes is Dr Martens. Especially if you drag your feet. You see, they have a guarantee on the sole of the shoe. If it wares out before the rest of the shoe, you can take yours into any retailer and trade them in for a new pare for free. I bought my first pair of Dr Martens over 15 years ago and haven't bought another pair since. I trade them in about every 1.5 to 2 years.

Re:maybe they should improve the products (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42062413)

The best value by far in shoes is Dr Martens. Especially if you drag your feet. You see, they have a guarantee on the sole of the shoe. If it wares out before the rest of the shoe, you can take yours into any retailer and trade them in for a new pare for free. I bought my first pair of Dr Martens over 15 years ago and haven't bought another pair since. I trade them in about every 1.5 to 2 years.

Maybe in england, but here in the USA Dr. Martens don't last. I will crack the sole of the shoe in less then a year. Of course, this was back in the 80's & early 90's.

Another thing I found about Dr. Martens if it's freezing out, once the bottom of the shoe freezes you lose all traction. Like you strapped ice to your shoes.

Don't get me wrong, i loved the Dr. Martens, but they were NOT made to last.

Re:maybe they should improve the products (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42058719)

I've got USD10 work shoes if they last 6 months I'd be spending less than the more expensive stuff.

I bought a pair of hush puppy work shoes and they fell apart within a year. Cost way more than USD10 and weren't much more comfortable.

I don't mind paying more for quality, however paying more for crap stings more than paying less for crap ;).

Re:maybe they should improve the products (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42056899)

I bought a pair of nike "running shoes" from I don't know where when I was in 7th grade (thereabouts maybe earlier), I'm now at uni and still weari those same shoes.
The only other pair I've worn is a pair of converse which fell apart some after some 4 months.

Re:maybe they should improve the products (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42057029)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_law_of_diminishing_returns

There's a price point well below the maximum price point for any given product where you're getting the best value for your currency of choice. After that, there's this thing called diminishing returns; you get *LESS* value for your currency of choice! At the very top-end, you're running in to what I call the "PT Barnum effect", i.e.: "There's a sucker born every minute."

You can't simply spend the most possible on product 'x' and expect quality 'y'. You have to invest your time to research the best possible quality for your target price point. Even that has diminishing returns; you don't want to spend too much time researching as time is money as well. You have to prioritize what you want and how much work you're willing to do to get it.

It's like I'm writing the source code for common-fucking-sense.

Re:maybe they should improve the products (1)

mcneely.mike (927221) | about a year and a half ago | (#42057785)

It's like I'm writing the source code for common-fucking-sense.

Yeah, but I have a patent on that... my lawyers will be contacting you.
Steve Jobs... via Bill Gates (I'd go through Steve Ballmer, but he's an even bigger Dick!)

Re:maybe they should improve the products (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42057095)

i have clothes from Wal Mart that have outlasted some of the snobby store shit i've bought for 10 times the price

most of this luxury crap is crappy quality wrapped up in a snobby store experience

i used to buy $350 Mephisto shoes until they started to fall apart on me after 6 months. I can buy $150 shoes that last longer

There's "luxury" brands that get sold to the bourgois, that's you, that are of mediocre quality, not much better than the cheap stuff, but sometimes slightly better. Usually you get a better warranty and customer service from the company. Gucci and stuff of that calibre fall into this category. You never see "real" wealthy people using this shit. It's typically easy to spot because the label is huge.

Then there's "luxury" brands that get sold to poor people. These are almost always shoddy quality, they're expensive. They are primarily a label, which will be highly visible somehow (like red label on the fly of the blue jeans). These will fall apart just as quickly as cheap shit.

Finally there's actual quality goods. These will last for a long ass time, the company will typically provide superior customer service, etc. The label will be hard to spot, if it exists at all. In clothing look for hand sewn button holes, real pockets (not false), etc. Shoes won't have a mark that you can see during normal use. If you know what hand sticthing looks like, look for that.

The price for the last category is typically justified even for the bourgeois as the goods really will last a lot longer. The trick is knowing which goods fall into that category, these companies tend to not advertise much, the advertisers are the shit brands and the brands like Gucci.

I can already see the anecdotes of Nike running shoes lasting forever below here, lol, yeah sure. Not if you use them for running they won't at least not in a condition that won't screw up your feet or knees. I suspect some people are happy to wear worn out shit, hell, I've done it myself.

Just remember, when you see a wealthy person wearing clothes that "look like yours", they aren't like yours, those t-shirts are tailored to fit them, that's why they look so good. Those jeans are as well. None of that stuff is "off the rack". There's whole books on simply how to select a quality men's suit, and frankly, with all there is to know, yep, it's a bit justified.

You may not care, fine, but there is a difference in real, high quality goods.

Re:maybe they should improve the products (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42057303)

Apple
Alienware
Falcon Northwest

Re:maybe they should improve the products (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42058739)

You mean the retarded bourgeois brands of computers ?

Re:maybe they should improve the products (1)

Xeranar (2029624) | about a year and a half ago | (#42070651)

In terms of laptop chassis they are a better buy over the dell/hp/asus round up but they use the same commodity parts. Apple is notorious for using the cheapest boards they can get. Alineware & Falcon just charge a great deal for options since you've already paid for the better chassis and each upgrade is a bit of free profit.

Re:maybe they should improve the products (1)

jxander (2605655) | about a year and a half ago | (#42058253)

Or to simplify (perhaps oversimplify) : there is an inverse relationship between advertising and quality.

I mean advertising in all forms : television and radio commercials, logo emblazonment, product placement, celebrity endorsement, etc.

And it's true on more than just clothes. Food, beer, sporting and outdoorsy equipment, computer operating systems, just about anything. Even in markets that are completely and utterly flooded with advertisements (cars come to mind most prominently) I've found, anecdotally, that the companies with smaller ad campaigns and less pomp and circumstance tend to provide better quality.

Really, it just comes down to what the consumer wants. Do you want a product that announces to the world "I spent $500 on this purse, $200 on these ripped jeans" with instantly recognizable logos all over them? Or do you want to spend a quarter of that for a highly functional product with no logos, from a brand you haven't heard of? I'd wager most readers here are in the latter category, though there's clearly a big enough market to keep the former in business.

Re:maybe they should improve the products (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42061271)

Both this and the preceding one are nonsense. There's no reliable correlation between the visible branding and quality.

Carhart clothing is about as tough as clothing gets (with a few exceptions). They put a big, visible logo patch on the outside of everything.

Lucky jeans often have no visible advertising on them (unless you open the fly), but they're much better than average jeans.

And when you see Gucci and such put the label EVERYWHERE on their product, it's because there's virtually no IP protection in clothing (indeed most of their designs are taken from others) but you can't print their trademark all over your product.

Re:maybe they should improve the products (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42058599)

I believe you meant "bourgeois".

Re:maybe they should improve the products (1)

networkBoy (774728) | about a year and a half ago | (#42060055)

I'll plug good shoes instead of crap:
Ecco
Worth every penny. The one time I had a pair that I actually finally wore through the sole, they sent me a new pair.

They are branded on the boots, but it's embossed in the leather, and small.
-nb

Re:maybe they should improve the products (1)

pwizard2 (920421) | about a year and a half ago | (#42057511)

Most of the Faded Glory stuff you get at Walmart is pure shit that won't last 6 months but their jeans are good. I have several pairs of FG jeans which cost me $8-10 that are still wearable (though a bit faded) 3-4 years after I bought them even after being washed several times a week during the winter months. More expensive jeans had holes in them after a year or less. My $20 Walmart shoes have lasted 7 months, about as long as shoes that cost >= $60.

Re:maybe they should improve the products (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | about a year and a half ago | (#42057881)

I miss my old Toughskin jeans. I did indeed grow out of them before they wore out.

Re:maybe they should improve the products (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year and a half ago | (#42059599)

My shoes ... Size 13 Costco Court Classics, are 1 1/2 years old, worn just about every day, and are just now needed replacement. Cost $15. Hard to justify spending more on other shoes.

Re:maybe they should improve the products (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42057885)

So you've discovered that "you get what you pay for" is a lie? Good for you, I don't know why anyone ever believed that horse shit. I don't understand what (except ignorance or stupidity) would have someone buy a can of name brand corn when it's exactly the same corn as generic, except at half the price. I can't understand why anyone would buy Alieve when it's three times as costly as generic naproxin when naproxin is all Alieve is.

I paid seventy five cents for my Nike tea shirt at a garage sale. People are stupid and wasteful.

Re:maybe they should improve the products (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42057967)

Right up there with "hard work equals success". I know plenty of people who work their ass off who are treading water financially.

Re:maybe they should improve the products (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42058049)

Or the people who think a $25 bottle of wine is automatically better than a $5-8 bottle even though the quality is relative (I've had great $5 wine and I've had pure swill that cost more... even the 4L jugs of Carlo Rossi are surprisingly drinkable) There is one exception though.... you usually do get what you pay for with beer.

Re:maybe they should improve the products (1)

drkim (1559875) | about a year and a half ago | (#42059147)

Or the people who think a $25 bottle of wine is automatically better than a $5-8 bottle...

or even a $2 bottle! True in the case of Charles Shaw Wines ("2 buck Chuck") which has garnered many awards:
Pinot Grigio, California -- Gold Medal/Best of Class
Merlot, California -- Silver Medal
Pinot Grigio, California -- Gold Medal
White Zinfandel, California -- Silver Medal
Shiraz, California -- Double Gold Medal/Best of Class ...and many other medals in the results of three wine competitions.

http://www.wineindustryinsight.com/yourturn.php?id=381 [wineindustryinsight.com]

Re:maybe they should improve the products (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42059609)

Same AC as above. The Oak Leaf Chardonnay (Walmart's answer to 2 buck chuck) is surprisingly good as well. The only gripe I have about Rossi and the other low-end producers is how they call their stuff Chablis when it's really not. Chablis refers to a specific style+region of origin so there's no way in hell you're going to get a real Chablis for $13/jug at Walmart.

Re:maybe they should improve the products (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year and a half ago | (#42059637)

Two Buck Chuck was good years ago. I can't stand it now that other wineries are doing basically the same thing. However, you are right, you can find some really good wines in the $5 - $10 range. You can find crappy wines in the $20-50 range. I have yet to find a Shiraz that I like, at any price, and I've just stopped trying.

Re:maybe they should improve the products (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about a year and a half ago | (#42058343)

Sometimes, sure. I normally burn through shoes. As in, have tears in a pair in a year given daily use, and sometimes even holes in the sole. I also normally buy shoes that cost no more than $50 or so. This year, I decided to try something different and bought a pair of Doc Martens for $100. I've hit a year and so far they've held up better than any other shoe I've given the same amount of punishment to. Verdict is still out on whether or not they will survive at least two years, which will determine whether it was a financially sound decision, but these also have the added bonus of being more comfortable.

Granted, this is anecdotal and doesn't necessarily imply that a $200 pair of shoes would be twice as good as these are, but there is sometimes a difference in quality between the immediately cheapest option and something somewhat more expensive. Having that been said, I enjoy my off-brand veggies and canned goods, and most of my clothes come from the bargin bin at Target, and a lot of my dress clothes come from Goodwill.

Orwellian nature of private surveillance... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42056719)

... is pretty frightening when you get down to it. The government doesn't have to do a thing it will all happen to "stop the bad guys" under the guise of legitimate reasons.

Re:Orwellian nature of private surveillance... (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year and a half ago | (#42059669)

Surveillance is a result of moral decay. When businesses lose tons of inventory to "slippage", there is a problem. But nobody wants to talk about that.

security camera license? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056741)

since when? agree to be filmed? which magical kingdom is this where store owners need such permissions?

it'll just tell you what kind of people visit your store. this is of limited use to very few stores on earth where the store owner or any employee doesn't bother to visually see what kind of people are coming to the store. the article mentions personalization many times but the product mentions many times it only stores information that's not identifiable to a person.

the real statistic that the store owner cares is quite simply what products are selling - and they have that. it's not like their profiling is going to tell what product will sell 6 months from now, they'll just know what size people come in and oogle at their novelty mannequin. and if they're going to really start personalizing offers.. fuck no, I hate haggling - especially robot haggling.

also - 4000 bucks for a webcam? that's luxury product right there.

Re:security camera license? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42056871)

http://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Pages/licensing-who-cctv.aspx

Re:security camera license? (1)

na1led (1030470) | about a year and a half ago | (#42057119)

Must be a new "Use Tax" law. Leave it to the greedy politicians to find new ways to tax us.

Combine these with yesterday's Boxing Robots (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056751)

And you have a complete store security system. The mannequin spots the shoplifters, and the Boxer whacks them.

Shopper of Interest (4, Funny)

omnichad (1198475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056789)

They'll send Jim Caviezel to follow you around if you decide not to buy anything.

That Boundary Layer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42056817)

Just awesome. Because it strips the imaging of the wanted data in real-time and doesn't store an "image", it's respecting the law.

This is actually really good. We need a better public awareness about Image in the way we've been using it. What matters isn't a photographic-image, it's an Image more like a celebrity has an Image. JPG is just as much a besides-the-point miss-association with the Thing as Kodachrome.

Awareness, and thus legislation, really needs to catch up with that, and this tech might really help resolve it.

Can things get any more creepy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42056957)

I know, why don't they have helicopter drones follow shoppers to make sure no area is left uncovered.

Re:Can things get any more creepy? (1)

game kid (805301) | about a year and a half ago | (#42057069)

Don't worry, they'll dress it up in a cute exterior with an old light bulb, and call it the Flying Bluelight [hometextilestoday.com] .

He'll say such things as "It looks like you're fondling the coffee table. While I call security, I've found you some special sales on matching sofas and ottomans, today only!"

Nothing new (3, Insightful)

plover (150551) | about a year and a half ago | (#42057031)

Retailers have used cameras hidden in mannequin eyes for over 20 years. And they have been using facial recognition on CCTV feeds since the technology became available to them. This just puts the two products together inside one package.

Oh no (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42057045)

Now shops will make mannequins even more creepy.

Re:Oh no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42059655)

Some of my earliest childhood nightmares featured mannequins.

These were so bad they still send shivers down my spine.

Not possible (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42057091)

I'm a human and I can't accurately judge age, gender, and race very well a significantly portion of the time. There's no way a robot could do better at such a subjective, human-specialized task.

Re:Not possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42057235)

Can you tell the difference between someone who's 20/40/60? A man/woman? Most likely yes. While this is not precise information, it might still be useful to them for whatever creepy stuff they want to do.

Re:Not possible (2)

I Mean, What (2778851) | about a year and a half ago | (#42057631)

Humans are shitty at guessing race. My brother is half Hawaiian, but living in Arizona not a single person could guess his race correctly. Growing up in Hawaii, a Filipino friend of mine related his experience living in Wisconsin: everyone thought he was black and called him the N-word constantly. Humans are the ones programming these racial profiling algorithms, and thus will always be shit poor at it.

Re:Not possible (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about a year and a half ago | (#42058365)

That doesn't show that humans are neccarily shitty as guessing race, only that backwater hillbillies are.

Re:Not possible (1)

EuclideanSilence (1968630) | about a year and a half ago | (#42064479)

I frequently program computers to accomplish tasks that I cannot do myself. That's kind of the point of their existence.

Re:Not possible (1)

I Mean, What (2778851) | about a year ago | (#42095157)

Way to miss the point completely. Any rules you program to profile race are going to come flawed with your prejudices and ignorance. Your statement seems to imply you write perfect code, which tells me you probably don't write much code at all.

Re:Not possible (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42059059)

I'm a human and I can't tell whether a swatch of color is burgundy or maroon. There's no way a robot could do better at such a subjective, human specialized task.

Ok, sure the computer couldn't get it right all the time, but it could probably do an OK job, and not get bored with it's menial life and just start writing down answers instead of giving it a best guess.

Re:Not possible (1)

EuclideanSilence (1968630) | about a year and a half ago | (#42064513)

I'm a human and I can't tell whether a swatch of color is burgundy or maroon. There's no way a robot could do better at such a subjective, human specialized task.

if color == #9E0508 output burgundy
if color == #691F01 output maroon

Pretty sure computers have you beat.

Re:Not possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42065805)

I'm a human male and I can't tell whether a swatch of color is burgundy or maroon.

FTFY.

In soviet Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42057203)

Mannequin looks at YOU! Eh? Maybe? Sorry...

manequins that watch people leave (1)

epine (68316) | about a year and a half ago | (#42057671)

Until it has ass recognition, it will remain blind to Freemasons everywhere.

Question (2)

crispylinetta (1639533) | about a year and a half ago | (#42058143)

Why are they placing this in mannequins' eyes? They just figured that mannequins approximate people and people see with their eyes, so voila? There are many face-level places to stash a camera that wouldn't "spur shops to adjust window displays and store layouts" and cause owners to rearrange the store to place a dummy somewhere that doesn't make sense. Forget the mannequin and put the camera in the wall! Place it in the rear of a window display! Stick it in a mannequin's eye if you want to! Then wire the data to the security room and analyze and log it there.

Or, just stop being invasive and don't do it at all. I would love to find a way to determine actual ROI on this type of investment. I would guess (and hope) that the results would be dismal.

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42058375)

I'm guessing that putting it in a mannequin's eye does loads to help out the facial recognition software, since people will feel more inclined to look into the eyes of a mannequin rather than an uninteresting speck on the wall. Humans, at least in the US, are used to looking other people in the eyes as they go about their shenanigans, even if the eyes are fake.

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42064183)

Why are they placing this in mannequins' eyes?

Because shoppers don't want be caught staring at a mannequin's nipples. Plus it would be weird if they started 'following' a customer around the shop.

Rich have all the money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42058893)

as growth slows in the $245 billion luxury goods industry.
 
The rich have all the money already. They aren't "luxurious" to the filthy rich. Until money is in the hands of the average Joe again, a lot of industries can expect things to slow down.

Waste of effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42059857)

Unless the mannequins can accurately distinguish Timelords from ordinary humans by purely visual means, in time to hide themselves in the back room and pretend to be ordinary mannequins.

Well that explains why .... (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | about a year and a half ago | (#42060013)

I always feel like somebody's watching me [youtube.com] .

I'm just an average man with an average life
I work from nine to five, hey, hell, I pay the price
All I want is to be left alone in my average home
But why do I always feel like I'm in the twilight zone


I always feel like somebody's watching me
And I have no privacy
I always feel like somebody's watching me
Tell me is it just a dream
When I come home at night
I bolt the door real tight

Re:Well that explains why .... (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42062443)

I always feel like somebody's watching me [youtube.com] .

I'm just an average man with an average life

I work from nine to five, hey, hell, I pay the price

All I want is to be left alone in my average home

But why do I always feel like I'm in the twilight zone

I always feel like somebody's watching me

And I have no privacy

I always feel like somebody's watching me

Tell me is it just a dream

When I come home at night

I bolt the door real tight

then avoid the TV with a built in camera...

Respecting boundaries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42061625)

'It's a changing landscape but we're always going to be sensitive about respecting the customer's boundaries,' said spokesman Colin Johnson. ...

It really sounds like it.. and that's good! Now, I'm really looking forward to seeing all those mannequins just welcoming my dollars in their stores. Oh baby!! N O T !!

Well, this is good news.. (1)

MakersDirector (2767101) | about a year and a half ago | (#42061811)

Well, this is good news for the mannequins, job security and they can get paid a bit more per hour now!

Profiling (1)

jrumney (197329) | about a year and a half ago | (#42062989)

A camera embedded in one eye feeds data into facial-recognition software like that used by police. It logs the age, gender, and race of passers-by.

Does it set off the shoplifting alarm automatically when it sees three or more young black males enter the store together? It's bad enough that the police use this sort of profiling to harrass certain groups, but rolling it out to the private security firms that monitor store CCTV is really distasteful.

Minority report (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42064171)

... logs the age, gender, and race of passers-by.

What? Nobody remembers 'Minority report' where the shop cameras recognize the main character as he walks by.
Once the hardware is in place, it's easy to upgrade the software. Thankfully, recognizing a 3D face with a 2D camera rarely works.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...