Beta
×

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!

Tesco To Use Face Detection Technology For In-Store Advertising

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the scan-me dept.

Privacy 212

TinTops writes "Tesco has sparked privacy concerns following its decision to install technology that scans shoppers' faces in order to display video advertising on screens at its petrol stations. The UK's privacy watchdog the ICO is looking into the technology. This is the first national rollout of the system, known as OptimEyes, which claims to recognize facial characteristics that determine a customer's gender and age in order to show more relevant video adverts on screens as they queue at the till. Simon Sugar, chief executive of Amscreen, the firm which sells the technology, has admitted it has connotations of science fiction, but is looking to increase its reach further. 'Yes, it's like something out of Minority Report, but this could change the face of British retail and our plans are to expand the screens into as many supermarkets as possible,' he said."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Frost (4, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#45327823)

With a face like mine, I don't expect to see adverts for condoms.

Re:Frost (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | about a year ago | (#45328007)

Lets see here. I enter a store to buy a pair of pants; innocent enough. And all I hear, and see, are ads for Dog Collars?

Re:Frost (2)

bmo (77928) | about a year ago | (#45328539)

That's because the store had bondage gear and the pants you were buying were leather.

--
BMO

Re:Frost (3, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#45328199)

So... if I want to know what sort of stuff Jeremy Clarkson buys I can just print his face on some paper and wear it at a gas station.

Yep, that sounds like they've sorted out all the privacy issues.

Re:Frost (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#45329395)

Being bombarded with adverts for baby oil is even more embarrassing.

phillip K dick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45327861)

Hello Chief John Anderton!

Re:phillip K dick (5, Funny)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#45328113)

So....everyone just needs to start getting out of the car to pump their gas at these stations with a mask on!!

:)

Everyone wear the same mask, maybe the Guy Fawkes (sp?) mask, and that way really fsck with the ad database by having the same ad shown to everyone at all times...that should really skew the stats.

Re:phillip K dick (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#45328255)

I'm thinking more of a pair of glasses with built-in video projectors. It can project a Guy Fawkes mask onto your face as you walk around town.

You may laugh but it'll probably sound like a good idea a couple of decades from now. I should probably patent it.

Re:phillip K dick (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328283)

Better yet, wear the face of the CEO of the company that provides these ads.

Re:phillip K dick (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329247)

So....everyone just needs to start getting out of the car to pump their gas at these stations with a mask on!!

:)

Everyone wear the same mask, maybe the Guy Fawkes (sp?) mask, and that way really fsck with the ad database by having the same ad shown to everyone at all times...that should really skew the stats.

Does the target ad cam run Microsoft Windows?

Clippy: I see you're trying to fill your car up with gas, would you like some gunpowder?

I foresee a wave of creative "vandalism" (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45327883)

Products that move to conveniently block the camera, smudged lenses, etc.

Re:I foresee a wave of creative "vandalism" (3, Interesting)

erikkemperman (252014) | about a year ago | (#45327945)

I foresee a wave of creative "vandalism". Products that move to conveniently block the camera, smudged lenses, etc.

And understandably so if you ask me. Similar stories have been popping up lately. Does none of these companies get that this probably isn't the best of times to introduce these privacy sensitive "improvements"?

Re:I foresee a wave of creative "vandalism" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328277)

I also foresee everyone coming into the store in a Guy Fawkes mask. Or, maybe it backfires even more. Who needs to go inside a gas (petrol) station anyway? Mostly nobody - they do so only for convenience (grab a soda, a snack, etc.). Maybe nobody goes inside because of the "evil camera".

Just because they have the technology to recognize gender, age, etc. from faces does NOT mean we need to allow them to do so. Now, where's my mask?

Ski-mask, now also for shopping! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45327887)

Time to wear a skimask when waiting in the checkout line! They will surely enjoy that!

Re:Ski-mask, now also for shopping! (3, Informative)

davebarnes (158106) | about a year ago | (#45327953)

Get out your Richard Nixon mask. It is the one most preferred by bank robbers.

Re:Ski-mask, now also for shopping! (2)

idontgno (624372) | about a year ago | (#45328375)

Tesco is a British chain and brand.

In keeping with history and culture, I recommend Guy Fawkes masks [wikipedia.org] instead.

A useful benefit is that you'll find out what types of advertising recommendations Anonymous members usually get.

Re:Ski-mask, now also for shopping! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329307)

that mean it'll be ads for Tesco Value products

Re:Ski-mask, now also for shopping! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329257)

if I 'own' the image rights to my face does that mean I have legal grounds for for tesco's abusing my rights to sell stuff using my face?

Re:Ski-mask, now also for shopping! (3, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year ago | (#45328065)

Something comes to mind about Tesco not allowing hoodies, even if you bought it there [shropshirestar.com] . I'm pretty sure ski masks would be out of the question.

Re:Ski-mask, now also for shopping! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329289)

So what do they do about the Muslim Veil? Good luck booting them out of the store without the police coming down hard on said store for anti discrimination laws.

Escalation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45327893)

Oh this won't escalate quickly into something evil.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (2)

LifesABeach (234436) | about a year ago | (#45327947)

Someone showing up looking like Queen Mother? At a Hot Topic? Let me go mircowave some pop corn first.

Here in the states, it would be used for bans... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45327951)

A few months ago, an acquaintance of mine mentioned something online about something stupid he did at the premises of a large store chain in the 90s. A few days ago, he got served with a notice of trespass and a legal note that if he set foot on $STORE's property in any state, that he would be arrested on site. There is no statute of limitations on bans with private property.

Here in the US, said facial technology would be probably used for arresting people the second they entered in the store, making notes about what people bought, and if they didn't buy enough, to have LP give them the bum's rush out. Or, just selling who comes in the store, so if someone buys cigs, that info gets sold to their health insurance company.

A new use for an old mask (2)

TheloniousToady (3343045) | about a year ago | (#45327967)

I wonder what ads I'll see when I wear my Richard Nixon Halloween mask? (Does any even sell reel-to-reel tape anymore?)

'Yes, it's like something out of Minority Report' (1)

cloud.pt (3412475) | about a year ago | (#45328003)

To me, that's something out of COD: Black Ops 2. Right before I see some stoners get shot to the sound of Skrillex.

sensationalism (2)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#45328023)

that the CCTV camera in the corner is trying to find out who they are

That is a sensationalistic quote. There is a huge gap between being identified as "Joe Klovance" and "middle aged white male". All they are trying to do is classify the face not identify it. This is not facial recognition attached to a database of faces. This is no different than a clerk waling up to people in different demographics and pointing out different sales that may interest them. That it is done by computer rather than a person is irrelevant.

Re:sensationalism (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#45328057)

This is not facial recognition attached to a database of faces.

Not yet.

And in an age of big data and massive government surveillance, I have little faith it won't be before long.

You either need to pass laws concerning it now, or in 5 years (or less) what you say isn't happening will be common place and it will be too late.

Re:sensationalism (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#45328081)

You either need to pass laws concerning it now, or in 5 years (or less) what you say isn't happening will be common place and it will be too late.

If you intended to pass laws, you needed to pass them ten years ago. It's too late now.

The future is PK Dick style 'scramble suits', and other technological means of blocking surveillance.

Re:sensationalism (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#45328297)

This is a "slippery slope argument" and therefore invalid. Just because something nefarious could happen in the future does not mean it will and does not mean it will not be stopped before it happens. Do you really think that within hours of facial recognition being turned on or even proposed that it would not be posted on Slashdot? Even if it passed that hurdle it can be turned off at any time. It is never too late to turn something off.

Re:sensationalism (3, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#45328407)

This is a "slippery slope argument" and therefore invalid.

Oh look, it's the 'slippery slope is a logical fallacy so it could never ever possibly even thinkg of actually happening' brigade, right on cue.

Hint, dude: the time to stop sliding down a slippery slope is before you first slip, not when you're racing toward the bottom.

Re:sensationalism (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#45328591)

The problem with slippery slope arguments is that they assume a possibility is an inevitability and that is just not true. Some company might even try to make it happen but there are enough checks and balances, such as the Information Commissioner's Office and Big Brother Watch, that will stop it from happening. I don't see a problem with showing different ads to different people as long as they are not identified as a specific person. Maybe you should turn down your paranoia and look at reality.

Re:sensationalism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329347)

The problem with slippery slope arguments is that they assume a possibility is an inevitability ...

No, the slippery slope argument assumes that it is a good idea to avoid the possibility by taking action now, rather than waiting for it to materialize. It isn't that the possibility is inevitable, it is that it has a dangerous likelihood.

Re:sensationalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328635)

AKA an "argument from fallacy."

Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.

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

Re:sensationalism (1)

fatphil (181876) | about a year ago | (#45328871)

> Hint, dude:

Ah, the /argumentum ad dudam/ fallacy. Therefore you're wrong!

Re:sensationalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328427)

It is never too late to turn something off.

Skynet?

Re:sensationalism (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#45328477)

is fiction.

Re:sensationalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328909)

For now. That we know of, at least.

Re:sensationalism (2)

idontgno (624372) | about a year ago | (#45328457)

It is never too late to turn something off.

And yet, even if turning it off is waaaay overdue, does it ever happen? Let's ask the PATRIOT Act.

Re:sensationalism (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#45328491)

bad analogy as the Patriot Act is a law not a store policy.

Re:sensationalism (1)

idontgno (624372) | about a year ago | (#45328555)

The panopticon is the same, regardless of whether it's operated by the State or some random corporation.

You're shilling pretty hard for this. You need to disclose your interests in the topic.

Re:sensationalism (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#45328693)

The only interest I have is to have real reporting and not tabloid editorializing masquerading as reporting. I do not work for any retail or advertising firm. I am an unemployed programmer who has some time on my hands this morning.

Re:sensationalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328495)

You can't just discount an argument because it's a logical fallacy! Next you'll want to discount arguments because they have spelling mistakes!

Re:sensationalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328733)

Even if it passed that hurdle it can be turned off at any time. It is never too late to turn something off.

Did you say that about Echelon back before Snowden?

Re:sensationalism (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about a year ago | (#45328747)

This is a "slippery slope argument" and therefore invalid. Just because something nefarious could happen in the future does not mean it will and does not mean it will not be stopped before it happens

Your argument proposes that nothing nefarious has yet happened and is, therefore, invalid. To argue that it "might" not happen, in the face of recent events, is a fools errand.

Re:sensationalism (1)

RadioElectric (1060098) | about a year ago | (#45329349)

This is not facial recognition attached to a database of faces.

Not yet.

...

And "not soon" either. The performance of face recognition systems with large databases is pretty terrible. I recommend checking out Peter Kovesi's talk on why "Video Surveillance is Useless" for identification.

http://www.peterkovesi.com/projects/index.html [peterkovesi.com]

Re:sensationalism (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#45328061)

That is a sensationalistic quote. There is a huge gap between being identified as "Joe Klovance" and "middle aged white male". All they are trying to do is classify the face not identify it.

Yeah, because I'm sure they're totally not considering tracking individual faces when the technology is available.

Why, I'm sure the very idea has never even thought about the vaguest possibility of crossing their mind.

I think I'm going to start wearing a Burqa when I'm visiting England. I'll fit in better, and won't need to worry about being tracked everywhere.

Re:sensationalism (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#45328339)

Yeah it probably crossed their mind right before "but people will not accept that so we won't do it".

Re:sensationalism (1)

Arker (91948) | about a year ago | (#45328475)

"Yeah it probably crossed their mind right before "but people will not accept that so we won't TELL THEM WE WILL do it".

FTFY. HAND.

Re:sensationalism (0)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#45328629)

Followed by "but we will be caught by the Information Commissioner's Office and fined a crap load of money for not disclosing how we use the video so lets not do it".

Re:sensationalism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328971)

Buddy, you must be drinking at least two full cups of Naïveté brand coffee for breakfast every morning...

Re:sensationalism (1)

brunes69 (86786) | about a year ago | (#45328175)

"This is not facial recognition attached to a database of faces. This is no different than a clerk waling up to people in different demographics and pointing out different sales that may interest them. That it is done by computer rather than a person is irrelevant."

It's actually quite different, because if it was a clerk doing it, then it would be Racial Profiling or Sex Profiling. Apparently if a computer does it instead, that makes it OK.

Re:sensationalism (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#45328403)

In retail demographic profiling is done all the time. How many times to you see a clerk walk up to a 16 year old girl and point out neckties or walk up to a 80 year old man and point out capri pants? Profiling is not necessarily used for discrimination.

Re:sensationalism (3, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | about a year ago | (#45328517)

How many times to you see a clerk walk up to a 16 year old girl and point out neckties or walk up to a 80 year old man and point out capri pants?

Since you're asking for anecdotes, I'll answer with one. "Never." As in "never, does a clerk walk up and presume they know what I need." Instead, in my country*, they walk up and ask if I need help. And they accept when I tell them I don't. And stop bothering me.

Which doesn't seem to be a viable option any more, thanks to Minority Report Jr.

*In my case, the United States of America. We have many things badly screwed up, but "sales associates" still know their place.

Re:sensationalism (1)

fatphil (181876) | about a year ago | (#45328919)

> That it is done by computer rather than a person is irrelevant.

Oh, noes, the corporate bastards are now using our anti-patent arguments against us!

Re:sensationalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328231)

that the CCTV camera in the corner is trying to find out who they are

That is a sensationalistic quote. There is a huge gap between being identified as "Joe Klovance" and "middle aged white male".

*sigh* Look, how many times do I need to explain this to people? This. Is. SLASHDOT. Okay? Anything more specific than an identifier of "bipedal carbon-based meat byproduct" is waaaaay the hell too creepy and personal for us, and most of us would also object to the "carbon" part.

Re:sensationalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328749)

We can be one firmware update away from that though. AFAIK, US casinos already have facial recognition technology, mainly so if one casino removes someone from their property, ever casino in the US will not let them on their premises.

Re:sensationalism (2)

fatphil (181876) | about a year ago | (#45328845)

The problem is that it's so easy to slippery slope this in many different directions. You don't need to identify the people before it starts getting uncomfortable or creepy. Sure, face gives you a good stab at gender and age. Clothing style would tell you more - predominantly black, and you could offer them a cheap knife and tell them to kill themselves. Denim with patches on, you offer them some glue or solvents and tell them that the fucking 80s is over.

Me, I think I'm gonna reserve the right to wear a face-mask when I enter the shop. They'll of course reserve the right not to serve me, and escort me from the premises. Then I'll exercise my right to go back to the open-air market that I traditionally shop at, rather the corporate bottom-line-is-everything cess-pit that is apparently the modern supermarket, and promise to not make the same mistake again.

Re:sensationalism (1)

JohnFen (1641097) | about a year ago | (#45329097)

This is no different than a clerk waling up to people in different demographics and pointing out different sales that may interest them. That it is done by computer rather than a person is irrelevant.

I think it's highly relevant for a bunch of reasons, but skipping past that: I refuse to shop anywhere that is as intrusive as that. I don't want anyone walking up to me and pointing out different sales that "may interest me", whether it's by a computer or not.

Re:sensationalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45329375)

facial recognition attached to a database of faces

It will be very quickly. Retailers already do it. The cameras track what you see and do but aren't good enough or are at the wrong angle to identify who you are. Luckily they don't need to. Once you swipe your card to pay, they have your id and link the tracking results to your profile. Retailers use it to track what you looked at and what you buy. They use the data to determine better product layouts and displays to make you buy more of something or to try brands that give the store more profit. They also send better targeted ads. You're grouped with people having similar profiles. The things they like to do that you haven't been doing is what gets targeted to you. This is all data mining. Statistically and practically it works thus stores will only do more and more of it.

These types of systems are used to create the facial recognition databases. People only pose for their national/driver id cards and you need more than one picture of a subject to improve recognition rates. These cameras provide many angle shots at various resolutions and lighting conditions. The most useful photos are automatically stored with the rest of your profile data and their relevance slowly degrades over time as newer photos are taken. If you think this all takes up too much space think again.

This isn't sensationalism, it's things that happen right now.

Change the face of British Retail... (1)

rizole (666389) | about a year ago | (#45328025)

Targeted advertising? But not on a computer? Revolutionary...maybe they can patent it.

Google Glass (2)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about a year ago | (#45328035)

Great. Now how long until I can get an "ad-blocker" that, with Google Glass, automatically detects and filters out this obtrusive advertising. Because right now I'm using an older analog method (closing my eyes) and I keep bumping into things.

My local grocer has TVs next to each till that shows nothing but adverts. I used to turn them off by pushing the power button on the front. Then they wised up and replaced them with new models that didn't have power buttons. I'm guessing I wasn't the only one who did that ;-)

Re:Google Glass (1)

tqk (413719) | about a year ago | (#45328893)

My local grocer has TVs next to each till that shows nothing but adverts. I used to turn them off by pushing the power button on the front. Then they wised up and replaced them with new models that didn't have power buttons.

Try a can of spray paint next time. It's more permanent, and may lead to somebody getting a job cleaning them.

Oh, and if you see a marketroid, kill it. That's real permanence.

Old Mo had it right.... (5, Funny)

SteveAstro (209000) | about a year ago | (#45328079)

And they wonder why people wear Burquas.
Mohammed, at the cutting edge of the consumer fight back

Testing the public. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328085)

Am I racist if I wear an Obama mask?

Would the displays show drones?

Cacklings of a Supervillain (5, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#45328095)

Simon Sugar, chief executive of Amscreen, the firm which sells the technology, has admitted it has connotations of science fiction, but is looking to increase its reach further. 'Yes, it's like something out of Minority Report, but this could change the face of British retail and our plans are to expand the screens into as many supermarkets as possible,' he said."

That is the worst-failed attempt at reassurance I've ever read 8-(

Re:Cacklings of a Supervillain (2)

game kid (805301) | about a year ago | (#45328611)

It's reassurance of the Fuck You, I'm Rich, Now Bend Further Over kind.

Kudos to whoever tagged the story "balaclava"..."change the face of British retail" indeed.

Two things that they seem to have missed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328097)

There is a requirement for the person to take any notice of advertising, and secondly if I'm at the checkout I'm not going back for something that makes me go "ooh, shiny".

just generic (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#45328099)

It's just a generic analysis, not recognizing you per se. Which is worse?

"You could use some glasses cleaner or a hair brush."

"Sale on Depends!"

"You look stupid. Aisle six has books."

Re:just generic (1)

Arker (91948) | about a year ago | (#45329251)

They are all absolutely awful. If I need depends|hair brush|glass cleaner etc. I will go look for it. A human being doing this would be intrusive and pushy, a machine doing it is 10 times worse.

Pretty soon it'll be: (1)

bytethese (1372715) | about a year ago | (#45328103)

"Hello Mr. Yakamoto and welcome back to the GAP!"

Neigh (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | about a year ago | (#45328119)

Just don't put your horse mask on and hang around the meat section.

Shell gas stations, usa, ca. 2008 (4, Informative)

TigerPlish (174064) | about a year ago | (#45328137)

A Shell station I used to go to at another job had brand new pumps installed in 2008. These "new" and "improved" pumps would start playing ads the second you took the nozzle off the cradle and started pumping.

Result? I haven't been to that station in 7 years. To hell with intrusive adverts to a captive audience.

Boycott the store, people. Don't buy there. There is no greater "fuck you" to a merchant than an empty till and a competitor's store full of what used to be your own customers.

Re:Shell gas stations, usa, ca. 2008 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328307)

That's what I do too. They first time a station tried showing me a video ad while I was pumping gas, they had to process a 50 cent credit card transaction because that's how much I pumped before the ad started.

Re:Shell gas stations, usa, ca. 2008 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328533)

I must have gone to the same place -- I went back ONCE because it was -20 degrees and I needed gas for a 50 mile ride and didn't have much left. It was the last gas station on the route to the highway.

I have not been back. I would plan around it -- I would get gas before even getting near the area, as that station pissed me off so much that I went out of my way to avoid it and pay more to simply not participate in that revenue model.

Re:Shell gas stations, usa, ca. 2008 (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#45328603)

I too avoid these stations...and I also now wear headphones more. I've also considered abandoning my polite hat-doffing when inside stores and doing my shopping with my fedora pulled low over the tops of my sunglasses.

Re:Shell gas stations, usa, ca. 2008 (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about a year ago | (#45329323)

Tracking systems* already ignore everyone wearing a fedora.

*and women

Re:Shell gas stations, usa, ca. 2008 (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#45329007)

I only hope enough of us refuse to do business with such locations. Otherwise, our alternates become the next stations with those pumps.

Re:Shell gas stations, usa, ca. 2008 (1)

milbournosphere (1273186) | about a year ago | (#45329119)

The ones local to me are playing ads all the time now. These pumps you refer are also slower, both to pump gas and to swipe your card and enter the needed data. I don't go to Shell stations anymore because of them.

More ads...gah! (1)

swm (171547) | about a year ago | (#45328171)

...in order to show more relevant video adverts on screens as they queue at the till

I avoid retailers who put video ads in my face while I'm queued.

What?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328209)

video adverts
on screens
as they queue at the till

That's horrible! I'm surprised they haven't chased all their customers away already.

Should be something about seasons (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#45328365)

Those I can live with, but I draw the line at haikus.

Foil it with a T-shirt? (1)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | about a year ago | (#45328227)

Suppose I get a T-shirt with a life-size face printed on it. And one on the back, too, so it'll think it's got my attention when I'm facing away. Or maybe there's a new reason to wear Muslim headscarves here. Another possibility is bizarre face makeup or tattoos will be the next in thing for the 20-somethings. Extra eyes, confusing shapes, etc.

Re:Foil it with a T-shirt? (2)

fatphil (181876) | about a year ago | (#45329035)

Input = 4 eyes. Whirr, whirr, crunch, crunch: "Greenday CDs now only 8 dollars".

Everything you use to confuse it could be used as input it could use to profile you. Your best defence is to be as nondescript as possible.

Your best offence is to take your money elsewhere.

Argos (in the UK) are doing something similar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328259)

In the new Argos 'stores of the future', they are going to use cameras with face recognition technology to keep customers from going to/in places they shouldn't (they feed the employee's faces to the machine to distinguish between employee and customer). It will announce to the person that they are in the wrong area and ask them to go back to the shop floor.

I don't really see the reason for this, I've never noticed a customer go somewhere considered out of bounds for a customer which makes me think its more for tracking employees.

Personally, I believe most of their vision of the future is stupid and I'm hoping it blows up in their faces.

Don't shop there. (1)

scottbomb (1290580) | about a year ago | (#45328317)

I won't. Hopefully more and more people will learn what they're doing and choose to shop elsewhere as well.

If I a wearing a ski mask will it display (1)

mark_reh (2015546) | about a year ago | (#45328399)

ads for guns and ammunition?

e-Commerce won't have face surveillance (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | about a year ago | (#45328401)

As long as you tape over your web cam lens when you order online.

hurr-hurr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328507)

"Yes, it's like something out of Minority Report, but this could change the face of British retail...

I see what you did there.

Yo, Tesco! (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about a year ago | (#45328563)

Ask your customers how they feel about losing my business because of your creepy and intrusive technology. Unless there's an easy to activate STFU button, I will take my business elsewhere.

A little mild disobedience. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328673)

Locate electrical plug for screen + speakers. Unplug. Keep shopping.

Re:A little mild disobedience. (1)

c-A-d (77980) | about a year ago | (#45328831)

I wonder how long before new flash mobs start up with mobs raiding stores and cutting cables.

Tested on darker skin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45328751)

Remember when M$ or HP or something came out with Windows logins via facial recognition... and it didn't work on black people?

I wonder if they tested with anyone besides pale skins in the advert department.

New hair style trend (1)

c-A-d (77980) | about a year ago | (#45328773)

Long hair that covers the face....

wrong assumptions (1)

Tom (822) | about a year ago | (#45328849)

in order to show more relevant video adverts

There's your mistake right there. They think that there is such a thing as a relevant advert.

Hint: If it were relevant, I would've looked for it on Google already.

"Queue at the till" - the real problem (2)

Animats (122034) | about a year ago | (#45329045)

As one of the better retail consultants points out to retailers, you have a customer there all ready to give you their money and you're making them wait. That's a terrible mistake for a retailer. It means some people will go elsewhere next time. Some will even abandon their cart and walk out. Most retailers fail to get this.

One that does is The Gap. Notice that at a Gap store, there is no checkout clutter. There are no checkout-area displays. No impulse-buy items. There's a lot of empty counter space at checkout, and usually more than one check-out clerk. This encourages customers to bring multiple items to checkout, and discourages walk-outs because there's a line. Gap is very profitable despite a rather dull product line in a mature industry.

(This is also true on-line, which is why Amazon's "one click" checkout was so valuable an idea.)

Unplug, and let the minimum wage attempt to care (2)

halcyon1234 (834388) | about a year ago | (#45329287)

Made the mistake of going into a Bed Bath & Beyond recently. They have LCD screens with speakers playing ads set up everywhere. And I do mean everywhere. There's dozens in an aisle. Stand in the middle of an aisle, and you're assaulted on all sides by loud, tinny, high pitched ads. You cannot go anywhere in the store without being in range of at lest five of them.

While I (almost) understand selling premium aisle space to one or two companies to plug an adbox-- this was beyond ridiculous. A pure example of company greed mixed with advertiser childish need to be heard.

So while my wife hunted for the items we needed (not either of our choice, wedding gifts), I amused myself by walking up and down the aisles, unplugging the things. They were all just these cheapass LCD screens you would buy from Walmart. Cheap shit consumer crap, lowest possible cost (with horrifically shitty sound, further driving up the annoyance factor). Shows just how much the advertisers care about quality. Anyways, they're all powered by standard AC adapters plugged in to the side by those little round plugs. So walk around, take a quick look, and yank. One down. I think I got about dozen of them, and the aisles were so much quieter.

Try it out next time you're stuck in this situation. It's great fun. And really, what's the minimum wage stockperson going to do even if they see you? Do you think they get any of that sweet money the store gets from sucking the advertiser's cock? They're probably just as annoyed at being exposed to this noise NON STOP for their entire shift. And even if they aren't-- the store ain't paying them nearly enough to care.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?