- cross-posted to:
- shoplifting@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- shoplifting@slrpnk.net
Rite Aid is banned for five years from using artificial intelligence (AI) facial recognition to try to curb shoplifting, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said Tuesday. In a press release, the age…
You must log in or register to comment.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Rite Aid is banned for five years from using artificial intelligence (AI) facial recognition to try to curb shoplifting, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said Tuesday.
In a press release, the agency said that the drugstore company is being banned from using the technology “for surveillance purposes” for the length of five years to settle charges by the FTC.
The FTC charges “that the retailer failed to implement reasonable procedures and prevent harm to consumers in its use of facial recognition technology in hundreds of stores.”
“Rite Aid’s reckless use of facial surveillance systems left its customers facing humiliation and other harms, and its order violations put consumers’ sensitive information at risk,” Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement in the release.
The release noted a complaint filed in federal court Tuesday in which the FTC said the drugstore “failed to take reasonable measures to prevent harm to consumers from its use of facial recognition technology.
Back in March, the Department of Justice announced that it was suing Rite Aid, accusing it of filling hundreds of thousands of prescriptions “for controlled substances with obvious red flags” in the midst of the opioid epidemic.
The original article contains 310 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 35%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Good
Sadly, every rite aid I’ve been to in Los Angeles has a huge shoplifting problem. Not sure what the solution is but so far they hire multiple security guards and have many products behind locked counters.
The solution would be things like UBI and single payer healthcare so people can afford to live.
Not something that particular store can do.
Statistically not true. And even the retail industry lobbyists has started backtracking on the claims.
The only city that has seen an increase in shoplifting in the last ~4-5 years, as I have seen in actual data analysis, is NYC. Everywhere else has seen an overall trend downward.
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2023/11/shoplifting-retail-data-moral-panic/676185/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/business/shoplifting-retail-crime-stores/index.html
https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/us-retail-lobbyists-retract-key-claim-organized-retail-crime-2023-12-06/These narratives are all about trying to make you sympathetic to stores, creating justifications to close poorly-performing locations without suffering PR consequences, and to get the public to invest in security for retail stores so that the stores can save some bottom-line cost. And just regular ol’ conservative love of the penal system.
In the raw numbers, shrink in general is not a major issue for retail and shoplifting only makes up a relatively small percent of shrink. It’s just a great story to point to and makes great viral videos.
I don’t really care if stores invest in security tbh.
Rite aid still exists?
Probably in the same towns as Piggly Wiggly.
This is one of those things where I don’t really agree with the law on.
Shoplifters come back again and again and many try to screw with checkout people with coupon scams or simply know where in the store to go to hide the things they want to steal.
Verkada (a company that supplies cameras and the software to use them) has this kind of functionality built-in. All it does is let you setup alerts for people who are persons of interest. It’s not perfect but anyone paying attention can tell that the person on camera being alerted is the same as the POI or not. It doesn’t eliminate the human interactions needed to actually prevent shoplifting, but it does let you know who to focus on when they come in.
Normal store employees don’t get access to things like camera systems. Security / loss prevention employees are typically the ones with access and who would see a notification and then watch for someone to put things in a purse or pocket and try to walk out of the store.
So all they’re saying is “do not scrutinize this known thief unless you yourself remember them” which is pretty absurd. If someone doesn’t steal there isn’t a problem, and if there is the footage will back up the innocence (or guilt!) I don’t even know how this became a case.
I think the problem is that the tech used here doesn’t work. This isn’t some high end A.I. company spending a fortune on advanced facial recognition. It’s just a shitty camera in a drug store that probably doesn’t get cleaned and falsely dings every other dark-skinned face.
I’d believe some facial recognition software works effectively. TSA’s Global Entry kiosks and things like that where it’s a controlled environment with good lighting and the vendor/customer are willing to spend money. I do not believe fucking Rite Aid is going with a high end product to catch whoever keeps stealing Starburst.
I don’t know that I’d point to the security theater of TSA as an example of “doing it right”. But agreed, they have a better shot than Rite Aid.
I think the bigger problem is shoplifting is not a symptom of poor security, but rather poor society.
Seems like the y’re taking issue not with the technology, but Rite-Aid’s implementation of it, particularly that they didn’t do any of the required dilligence to prove that the tech wouldn’t be harmful, or violate privacy, or would even be accurate.
Ehh, fuck Verkada in the neck with a rusty screwdriver. Their cold-calling and borderline-harassing sales tactics earned them a permaban in my org’s email filtering and phone system.
