Sports direct

[puntingking]

External Link/Members Only 

50 mps have signed a letter against the LFR cameras. 

Sports direct are not the police, just stick to selling stock and employ better security. 

Maybe I should start a thread "clown of the week". 

Sports direct would win that for this week 

[RandomGuy99]

I agree with the cameras. If someone is known to be a problem then don't let them in the shop. 

[standardpostage]

"Big Brother" is watching you     "1984" .
Camera's everywhere. Speed camera's, at junctions, shops, banks,  doorbells, homes, businesses, bus stations, airports, police stations etc, etc, etc.
There's no escaping. It's scary.

[DastardlyDick]

Sorry, I just don't see the issue - if a place has a problem with criminals etc.,they should be allowed to use things like this facial recognition stuff.

[Ghost89]

Facial recognition is becoming more common place. My view of it is that if you don’t do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. If you are an habitual criminal then don’t go in.

[RedKettle]

External Link/Members Only 

50 mps have signed a letter against the LFR cameras. 

Sports direct are not the police, just stick to selling stock and employ better security. 

Maybe I should start a thread "clown of the week". 

Sports direct would win that for this week 

Retailers spend a fortune on security in various forms but theft keeps getting worse.  So many things work against the retailer - like basically having to tell your staff to let the fuckers leave the shop with arms full of stock because of liability risk if they tackle them.

It all adds to the cost of goods that we have to pay.  So if this tech works then with appropriate controls I am happy for it to be used.

[Blackpool Rock]

I don't have a problem with cameras trying to stop theft and violence in shops / town centres etc, what I do have a problem with is cameras issuing fines for parking or if someone's wheel strays into a bus lane etc, that IMO is an abuse of the system

[daviemac]

If you don't like it don't go in his shops to buy his shit, have some sympathy for his zero hours contract workers.

On the point of the cameras, if they stop the thieves then why not, shoplifters cost us all money.

[myothernameis]

Agree on the use of facial recognition cameras, and the only ones who object, are the ones who likely will be known to the police, for shoplifting.

Even my work place has facial recognition cameras, along with automated digital verification for alcohol sales.   So if your buying alcohol, you wont need a shop worker to approve the sale, as this will be done by facial recognition, which will determine if your old enough, to buy alcohol

If the facial recognition thinks you look under 25, you would have two options, one use your digital id card, or get a shop worker to approve the alcohol

[puntingking]

If you don't like it don't go in his shops to buy his shit, have some sympathy for his zero hours contract workers.

On the point of the cameras, if they stop the thieves then why not, shoplifters cost us all money.

anything like this can be abused by private companies such as sports direct. The private sector should not be allowed to invade people's privacy. If all stores do this (which I think it will come to) then people won't have free will to shop around and only use shops that don't use this Face recognition cameras so we cant even say "don't shop there if you don't like it" because eventually more stores will follow.

There is other things you can do such as banning thieves from shops once caught (which alot of stores do anyway), the police could make thieves cough up compensation from thieving which could be unlimited amount of fine and the store could get this or even better the police gets this to go towards funding police to do their work. 

again, Just my ideas and they may be more but they should not use this technology on all their customers because good customers like me will feel our privacy have been invaded.

[puntingking]

Agree on the use of facial recognition cameras, and the only ones who object, are the ones who likely will be known to the police, for shoplifting.

Even my work place has facial recognition cameras, along with automated digital verification for alcohol sales.   So if your buying alcohol, you wont need a shop worker to approve the sale, as this will be done by facial recognition, which will determine if your old enough, to buy alcohol

If the facial recognition thinks you look under 25, you would have two options, one use your digital id card, or get a shop worker to approve the alcohol

I object and never have I stolen something in my life 

[puntingking]

Facial recognition is becoming more common place. My view of it is that if you don’t do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. If you are an habitual criminal then don’t go in.

remember when we had privacy. Those were the days   

[puntingking]

"Big Brother" is watching you     "1984" .
Camera's everywhere. Speed camera's, at junctions, shops, banks,  doorbells, homes, businesses, bus stations, airports, police stations etc, etc, etc.
There's no escaping. It's scary.

You cant even wear a hood to not let those cameras film you -

External Link/Members Only

[puntingking]

Sorry, I just don't see the issue - if a place has a problem with criminals etc.,they should be allowed to use things like this facial recognition stuff.

my local chemist as a policy in which everytime a person steals something. they take a picture of their face using their cctv cameras and put the picture outside their shop. Name and shame works rather than seeing everyone as a potential criminal.

[badsin]

remember when we had privacy. Those were the days   

This.
Plus: most stores have had CCTV for year's, which would be used to watch watch and record the public. Invariably after the fact, CCTV would be reviewed to assist in a prosecution.
However with facial recognition, are you guilty of a crime, before you've done anything wrong? Will you be banned from a store even if you haven't stolen anything?
There was good guidance under PACE (police and crimal evidence) as to how to make a citizen arrest.such as  SCONE, (selection, concealment, observation, non-payment, exit), which if followed would have shop lifters banned from all stores within a chain. 
I totally get the cost of theft etc. However I feel it's a step to far, for store's, private security firms, and the police.
I
I'm not a fan of AI creeping into all our lives.

[southcoastpunter]

 but they should not use this technology on all their customers because good customers like me will feel our privacy have been invaded.

oh dear. Poor you. well buy online then.  Or maybe stop punting and spend the money employing someone who doesn't mind "their privacy being invaded" to go shop for you.

 Name and shame works rather than seeing everyone as a potential criminal.

err, if they steal they are a criminal (well have comitted a criminal act)

[Jonestown]

It’s not Sports Direct, and it’s not face recognition cameras, but supermarkets are now introducing exit barriers where you have to scan your till receipt in order to be allowed to exit the shop.

External Link/Members Only

[southcoastpunter]

Invariably after the fact, CCTV would be reviewed to assist in a prosecution.

and what is wrong with that? if someone has comitted an offence then IMO that is perfectly ok to help get a convistion.

However with facial recognition, are you guilty of a crime, before you've done anything wrong? Will you be banned from a store even if you haven't stolen anything?

again, if someone has a recent history of stealing, why shouldn't a shop have the right and ability to identify them and stop them coming into their store to maybe steal again.

[kuck]

To people thinking this is benign or even a good thing:

If they don't already do, shops might start sharing their databases as some casinos already do.

Let's say someone gets into an altercation with staff for some reason, and ends up on a blacklist. Suddenly they can't go to *any* shop any more.

With the government, at least there are known checks and balances and a judicial system. With private companies it is a banana republic. This needs to be well regulated.

With apologies to Franklin:
Shops that sacrifice customers' fundamental rights for a slight increase in profit, deserve neither the trust of their customers nor their profit. 

[daviemac]

anything like this can be abused by private companies such as sports direct. The private sector should not be allowed to invade people's privacy. If all stores do this (which I think it will come to) then people won't have free will to shop around and only use shops that don't use this Face recognition cameras so we cant even say "don't shop there if you don't like it" because eventually more stores will follow.

There is other things you can do such as banning thieves from shops once caught (which alot of stores do anyway), the police could make thieves cough up compensation from thieving which could be unlimited amount of fine and the store could get this or even better the police gets this to go towards funding police to do their work. 

again, Just my ideas and they may be more but they should not use this technology on all their customers because good customers like me will feel our privacy have been invaded.

You might call it abuse of privacy, I couldn't give a shit, I have nothing to hide, I don't go shoplifting.

To say they should ban thieves from the shop is all well and good but who is going to recognise them if they come back in, are you suggesting all staff memorise the faces of people banned???

If I was ever tempted to walk into sports direct (never going to happen) I wouldn't even know they had FRCs because it doesn't affect me.

As it is I'm tracked by my mobile phone and my car, I'm watched over on CCTV in shops and in the street, so what if shops use modern technology to save money on security, you should be condemning the lowlife thieves, if it wasn't for them none of this would be needed.

Edit

Can someone explain the difference between having a security guard on the shop door, him recognising someone who is banned for shoplifting and not letting him in and him being recognised by a camera and not allowed in. either way the thief has been denied access.

BTW load of pubs in the NE are members of the pubwatch scheme and share info about people banned.

[kuck]

Can someone explain the difference between having a security guard on the shop door, him recognising someone who is banned for shoplifting and not letting him in and him being recognised by a camera and not allowed in. either way the thief has been denied access.

It is a matter of scale.
A private company can blacklist you forever. This private company can share data all across the world to all its subscribers. And before you know it, you can't get in through US immigration because 2 years ago someone picked a fight with you at a sports direct for buying the last pair of running shoes.

When the government does it, unless you're Chinese, there is a process of appeal and checks and balances.

[badsin]

and what is wrong with that? if someone has comitted an offence then IMO that is perfectly ok to help get a convistion.

again, if someone has a recent history of stealing, why shouldn't a shop have the right and ability to identify them and stop them coming into their store to maybe steal again.

Nothing wrong with using evidence after a fact of theft, that wasn't my point, probably poorly made by myself. It's evidence, which is fine.

A recent history of shoplifting, probably means they are banned from that store. If they are banned, then that becomes theft, and carries heavy sentencing, possibly imprisonment. Therefore a store does have the right to refuse admittance.

Having made many citizens arrests, been involved in numerous physical alterations during those arrests, given numerous police statements, and attended court. I still believe this could be used used poorly hy badly trained individuals, or organisations.

I've been at the shitty end of the stick, and still think this is a bad thing

[daviemac]

It is a matter of scale.
A private company can blacklist you forever. This private company can share data all across the world to all its subscribers. And before you know it, you can't get in through US immigration because 2 years ago someone picked a fight with you at a sports direct for buying the last pair of running shoes.

When the government does it, unless you're Chinese, there is a process of appeal and checks and balances.

Don't break the law and you won't have a problem. If you have been fighting in sports direct and have a criminal record then you will be denied access to the USA, if you have no criminal convictions then they will allow you in.

I can't understand people who are defending lowlife scum who cost us all money.   

Don't forget there is no law saying a shop has to serve you. They can refuse you entry if they want.

[RedKettle]

To people thinking this is benign or even a good thing:

If they don't already do, shops might start sharing their databases as some casinos already do.

Let's say someone gets into an altercation with staff for some reason, and ends up on a blacklist. Suddenly they can't go to *any* shop any more.

With the government, at least there are known checks and balances and a judicial system. With private companies it is a banana republic. This needs to be well regulated.

With apologies to Franklin:
Shops that sacrifice customers' fundamental rights for a slight increase in profit, deserve neither the trust of their customers nor their profit. 

Talking about slight increase in profit shows you have no idea of the scale of the problem, and that is after spending millions to try and counter theft. It is becoming a factor in higher prices and retailers going out of business.

You talk about not being allowed in shops, you might find no shops left!

[Watts.E.Dunn]

Went to vote earlier I bet me bottom dollar that we'll have ID cards here by the back door as soon as:((...

[daviemac]

In 2022 there were 295,917 reported cases of shoplifting in England and Wales and if the TV programs about it are anything to go by low value thefts don't get reported, it isn't worth the police time.

[kuck]

Don't break the law and you won't have a problem. If you have been fighting in sports direct and have a criminal record then you will be denied access to the USA, if you have no criminal convictions then they will allow you in.

I can't understand people who are defending lowlife scum who cost us all money.   

Don't forget there is no law saying a shop has to serve you. They can refuse you entry if they want.

1. Not defending lowlife scum, obviously.

2. Having a criminal record requires a well known, documented, and democratic process, with checks and balances, and a process of appeal

3. You could have no criminal record, just a record in a dark database that a private company sells access to.

I think your optimism might spring from underestimating the scale and reach of modern technology.

You'll probably counter point #3 with GDPR, and you'd be right, that does go some distance. And I'm really making the case for strong regulation.

...you have no idea of the scale of the problem...

I might have taken some licence there should have stuck with the original line from Franklin (which you'll probably also disagree with  ).

[daviemac]

1. Not defending lowlife scum, obviously.

2. Having a criminal record requires a well known, documented, and democratic process, with checks and balances, and a process of appeal

3. You could have no criminal record, just a record in a dark database that a private company sells access to.

I think your optimism might spring from underestimating the scale and reach of modern technology.

You'll probably counter point #3 with GDPR, and you'd be right, that does go some distance. And I'm really making the case for strong regulation.

I think you are grossly overestimating what this technology will be used for if you think some UK security company is going to forward details of someone refused entry to sports direct to the US immigration department.   

I'll leave you to fight for the rights of the lowlife scum and I'll just carry on as normal and if a shop wants to record my face to make sure I'm not a dodgy shoplifter then that's alright by me.   

[kuck]

I'll leave you to fight for the rights of the lowlife scum and I'll just carry on as normal and if a shop wants to record my face to make sure I'm not a dodgy shoplifter then that's alright by me.   

What part of what I said makes you think I'm defending lowlife scum?

[mr.bluesky]

When you walk about in any town centre or shopping mall there are security cameras filming you so what Sports Direct are doing is nothing sinister. The images captured by these cameras are usually poor quality any way when ever you see them on programs like crime watch. Like it has already been said if your not commiting any crime then you've got nothing to worry about .

[daviemac]

What part of what I said makes you think I'm defending lowlife scum?

It is a matter of scale.
A private company can blacklist you forever. This private company can share data all across the world to all its subscribers. And before you know it, you can't get in through US immigration because 2 years ago someone picked a fight with you at a sports direct for buying the last pair of running shoes.

When the government does it, unless you're Chinese, there is a process of appeal and checks and balances.

Not if you've done nothing wrong.

Condemning the technology is defending those it is designed to catch out.

However we will never agree so I'll leave it here.

[kuck]

Not if you've done nothing wrong.

Condemning the technology is defending those it is designed to catch out.

However we will never agree so I'll leave it here.

Directly from the article:

87% of "matches" in Metropolitan Police trials misidentified innocent people

I don't think pointing out flaws and the capacity for misuse of the technology is defending "those it is designed to catch out."

[puntingking]

Don't break the law and you won't have a problem. If you have been fighting in sports direct and have a criminal record then you will be denied access to the USA, if you have no criminal convictions then they will allow you in.

I can't understand people who are defending lowlife scum who cost us all money.   

Don't forget there is no law saying a shop has to serve you. They can refuse you entry if they want.

I don't think those that are against the use of this technology are defending the "lowlife scum" but are actually defending innocent people that just don't want the FRC. 
I thought we were innocent until proven guilty in this country. Sports direct will be treating every customer as a potential criminal. That don't sit well with me

[Blackpool Rock]

Directly from the article:
I don't think pointing out flaws and the capacity for misuse of the technology is defending "those it is designed to catch out."

OK so from the article -

It says research into face-recognition technology suggests;
87% of "matches" in Metropolitan Police trials misidentified innocent people

I'm 100% sure that this statement is actually misleading, it give the impression that on average if any given system was to scan 100 faces of people walking down the street or into a shop then it would indicate 87 of them were a criminal / thief or on some sort of database of known offenders. 
If any system got it wrong 87% of the time then nobody whatsoever would be looking to use it as it's far too inaccurate, imagine Sports Direct or any other shop turned away 87% of customers 

More likely that a system scanned 1000's of faces in a day and got 1 match wrong so is then put in the 87% but ignoring the 99.99% of correct matches as that doesn't make a good story
I'm all for continuing to improve and refine the technology but i'm sure the accuracy is probably sufficient to be used as it is, oh and i'm also willing to bet the technology as it is will be far more accurate than a human trying to recognise people 

[RandomGuy99]

Given all the CCTV cameras that there are ariund city centres, I wonder if the police could put a list of possible punters together based on men visiting massage parlours and well known venues used by SPs?

Then they could do facial recognition on us.

[Blackpool Rock]

Given all the CCTV cameras that there are ariund city centres, I wonder if the police could put a list of possible punters together based on men visiting massage parlours and well known venues used by SPs?

Then they could do facial recognition on us.

Any reason why they would want to do that seeing as punting isn't illegal 

[hairdownthere]

I don't see an issue at all, I live my life within the law.  I don't and have never stolen, I'm not and have never been violent or threatening.

The level of theft from retail is horrendous, the level of abuse retail workers receive is horrendous, if these cameras cut that down by any amount then its a win for the staff, the company, and at the end of the day, us.  Theft costs us all.

We are tracked 24 hours a day in one form or another, from our phone's location, every time we use our payment cards, every time we drive about etc etc.  If you aren't doing anything wrong, then why should these camera's bother you?

[Nickp]

The old adage, ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide’

It may seem like petty theft but it all adds up and we end up paying through the margins.

[RandomGuy99]

Any reason why they would want to do that seeing as punting isn't illegal 

Well... I imagine the police know what goes on at certain establishments, so they may compile such a list out of interest.

[Blackpool Rock]

Well... I imagine the police know what goes on at certain establishments, so they may compile such a list out of interest.

They do know what goes on in many places but turn a blind eye as it keeps girls off the streets etc

So these same coppers and forces compiling lists of suspected punters not doing anything illegal are the same coppers and forces who half the time don't have enough resource to turn up if someone gets burgled but instead just give a crime number over the phone 

[daviemac]

I don't think those that are against the use of this technology are defending the "lowlife scum" but are actually defending innocent people that just don't want the FRC. 
I thought we were innocent until proven guilty in this country. Sports direct will be treating every customer as a potential criminal. That don't sit well with me

FRC is designed to stop known shoplifters gaining access to the shop, stop the use of FRC and you make it easier for thieves to carry on thieving, make it easier for thieves to steal you are helping them in that.

If you don't want to be tracked and recorded by ANPR in your car, by CCTV wherever you are and location tracked by your mobile phone then stop in the house, don't go out and use a landline.

If you want to help the shoplifters, who cost us all money, then kick up a fuss about the use of technology that you wouldn't even know was there to prevent it.

If need be the police can access my phone records and determine exactly where I have been at any given time, they can look through CCTV in shops and in the street, they can check ANPR cameras to determine where my car has been. But most importantly most major retailers have their own CCTV that is monitored by their security staff so whenever I am in the shop I am being watched and treated as a potential shoplifter. Do I care about any of that? do I fuck, I'm not doing anything wrong but if it helps prevent those who are then great, it doesn't affect me.

Oh I almost forgot there is the issue of information about the person who was not allowed into a shop being passed to security services all over the world. 

I wonder if that happens every time someone is caught on CCTV being refused entry to a club? That must be some database they use.   

[sir wanksalot]

I sometimes wonder if we are seeing the disintegration of society.

This then security guards at McDonalds and even guards at my local job centre!

[southcoastpunter]

I don't think those that are against the use of this technology are defending the "lowlife scum"

may not be defending them but certainly helping to make life a lot easier for them to go about stealing!

Maybe they should try owning and running a few shops - then they would understand the issues of the theives continuingly getting away with it because of "lack of evidence" or it being too late by the time the police turn up (if they do). Cameras are a significant weapon in fighting crime and providing evidence to get a prosecution. They can also help prevent crime by keep known offenders out in the first place.

[radioman33]

I don’t have a problem with it,also this week Sainsbury’s are making people scan their til receipt to get though the barrier to leave the self service area.
This is not good as I don’t press for a receipt and what if it runs out of paper.

[RedKettle]

I don’t have a problem with it,also this week Sainsbury’s are making people scan their til receipt to get though the barrier to leave the self service area.
This is not good as I don’t press for a receipt and what if it runs out of paper.

You will be stuck there for years or until you die because of lack of food and water.  Or maybe a member of staff will press a button and let you out…………

[Nickp]

That tubby chef who’s worth millions was busted stealing wine from the self check out. I think he blamed it on stress, anxiety or some other bollocks.

No you count, you thought you could get away with it and got busted!!

[puntingking]

I don’t have a problem with it,also this week Sainsbury’s are making people scan their til receipt to get though the barrier to leave the self service area.
This is not good as I don’t press for a receipt and what if it runs out of paper.

A thief will find their way around this by buying something cheap like chewing gums and taking extra stock in their bags and that way the receipt will only show what they bought and not the stolen goods. 

[daviemac]

I was in Asda the other day and noticed they have CCTV on all the self checkout tills, there's a screen in front of you showing your face and recording the transactions, that's it I'm never leaving the house again in case they make a mistake and send my picture to the CIA.   

[RedKettle]

A thief will find their way around this by buying something cheap like chewing gums and taking extra stock in their bags and that way the receipt will only show what they bought and not the stolen goods.

No system is perfect, all a retailer can do is try and make it harder.  I suspect this one is there to prevent a spontaneous decision to do a runner rather than the hard core shoplifter.  More people now are getting to the tills and realising they cannot afford what they need.

[myothernameis]

I don’t have a problem with it,also this week Sainsbury’s are making people scan their til receipt to get though the barrier to leave the self service area.
This is not good as I don’t press for a receipt and what if it runs out of paper.

This has been common in some supermarkets in Europe for the last 10 years, and no one complains.  Guess when it comes to complaining, this is a UK thing, and we will complain abut most things new