Japanese Stores Facial Recognition Sharing

Author: Carlton Purvis, Published on Apr 21, 2014

A controversy is brewing in Japan after a newspaper was tipped off about a practice stores use to combat shoplifting. A network of stores uses facial recognition technology to tag customers as shoplifters and relay that information other stores. In this post we examine the practice and compare it to similar U.S. efforts.

* *********** ** ******* ** ***** ***** * ********* *** tipped *** ***** * ******** ****** *** ** ****** ***********. A ******* ** ****** **** ****** *********** ********** ** *** customers ** *********** *** ***** **** *********** ***** ******. ** this **** ** ******* *** ******** *** ******* ** ** similar *.*. *******.

[***************]

**********

***** ******** ************ ******* ************ ****** ** *** ***** ************ **** **** ********* ****** recognition ******* ** ******* ****** ** *********** ** ********* ***** for **********. ***** ****** *** ******** **** * ******** *** all ****** ** *** ******* *** **** **** ****** *********** systems. *** ****** ***** ***** ******** ****** **** * ********** or ******* ******** ***** **** *** *****.

*** ******* ******* ***** **** **** ***** ** * *****, but **** **** *** ***** ****** ** ******** ** *** database. **** *** *** ******** ****** ** “*******” ** ****** in *** *******.

Japan ******* ********

*** ***** **** *** ******** ********* **** **** ***** *** Personal *********** ********** ********* ******** ** ******** *** ********** ******** *********** ***** ** not ** ** ********** ***** *******. ******* *** ****** ***** ****** *** ** a ********* ** **** ***.

* ****** *** ********* ***** ** **** *** ******** ** concerning ******* ** ***** ***** ******** ** *** ******* ******** or ** ********** **** ******** ****** **** **** ***** **** to *** ** ******* ** *********** ***** ** *** ******** there ** ** *** *** **** ** ******.

***** *** **** ********* ****** **** ********. **** **** *** story ****, ***** ******** *** ***** ***** **** ************ ******* and ******** ** ***** ****** ***** **** ************ ******* -- not ************ ****** ****** ***** ******** ** ****-** ****** **** driver's ******** ** ******** ****** *** *******.

Sharing ********** ****** ** *** *.*.

** ********, *** ******** ** ******* ****** ***** ****** ****** is ****** ** *** ****** ******. **’* *** ** *** form ** ****** *********** **********, *** ***** ** ** *********** sharing ****** *** *** ***** ********* ***** **** *** ***** video, ****** *** ************ ** *********** **** *** ******* ** help ****** ********* ****** *****.

* **** *************** ******** **** ** **** *** **** ****** in *** *.*. *** * *****: ****** ************ ********* ** images ** *********** ** ***** ********* ** *** ****.

******* ********** ** **** ** *** *.*., **** ******* **** caught *********** ****** ****** **** **** * ***** ** **** when ****'** ****** *** *** **** ** * *******-**** **** database ** ***** **** ** ******** ******. ** *** **** of *** ******** *******, ****** ***'* **** ***** ****** *** being *********.

Hard ** **** **** ****** *** ***** *** **********

** *** **** ********* ** **** *** ***** ****** *** *** technology. *** ***** **** *** *** **** ******* ***** *** technology ** **** *** ** *** ****** ***** ** ** IPVM ********* ******* ************ (**** *** *** *****) ** *****. None ** **** **** **** **** ***** **** ******** ** declined ** ******. *** *** ***** **** *** ****** ***** 50 ********* ********* *** ***** *** **********.

******** **** ********** ***** ** **** ** *** ************ ****** in *** *****, ** *** ***** ** ** ********* ******* to ***** ***** ****** *** ** *********** *** ****** ** shoplifters?

Comments (5)

Suppose that magically (1) only shoplifters and no others were identified as risks and included in the database, and (2) erroneous matches never occurred. If this were the case, then it seems not unreasonable that high risk individuals should be closely monitored to mitigate losses.

On the other hand, suppose that (1) innocents are often erroneously or even maliciously identified as shoplifters and included in the database, and/or (2) erroneous database matches often mis-identify unrelated shoppers as risks. If this were the case, then the approach seems unreasonable and also counter-productive in terms of allocation of scarce retailer resources.

If the truth lies somewhere in between, at a minimum, the inability of databased suspects to understand or address systemic errors seems problematic. What indignities is an innocent likely to be subjected to, beyond closer scrutiny while shopping? Will these databases make it difficult for wrongly accused to get a job or a clearance because security investigations and pre-employment screenings use information from these databases? At a minimum, isn't it likely that job seekers at those retail facilities will walk through a monitored area and that management will be notified if they are flagged as a high shoplifting risk?

Also, I might be more sanguine if we didn't have the example of the do not fly list. I expect that in many cases it performed as intended, but the press indicated that some innocents were inconvenienced while growing pains were addressed, though I haven't heard of any issues in a while now. By its very nature, it seems the affected parties learned about and consequently had at least some form of recourse, although (for example) losing non-refundable tickets and non-refundable accommodation down-payments and then, three months later, having one's name removed from the list does not seem at all equitable. In the case of this retail shoplifters list, one could be even more powerfully negatively affected yet have no idea of the source of negative information. For example, an innocent person wrongly flagged as a suspect might never be called back after every employment interview, yet never understand the problem that needed to be addressed. Even if the source were discovered and even if the list were eventually corrected, would the reputation ever be rehabilitated? Would the losses suffered during the erroneous blacklisting ever be compensated? But more vigorous loss recovery options could increase resistance to ever acknowledging and correcting an error in the first place.

For a somewhat related issue, you might take a look at Spiceworks' recent discussions on issues associated with the way IP blacklisting is currently managed.

P.S. This was a fun article with interesting implications. Keep up the great work, IPVM!

I blieve that if a shopper is prepared to enter someones premises with the intention of helping him/herself to thier property, he forfeits the right to maintain the privacy of his personal identityl, period.

It doesn't say that the suspected thieves are subjected to any sort of mistreatment, right? It just alerts LP that a suspicious person is in your store and they should keep a close eye on them. If that's the case, no harm, no foul.

Now, if these suspected individuals are harrased or intercepted at the door, then you might have something to gripe about.

Most Privacy laws require the holder of personal information to advise the person that the holder has the information and how it is being used. But, if a facial image has been provided to the police as evidence of a crime, it would be inappropriate. and possibly unlawful, to advise the person in the photo that the holder or the police have the evidence.

Prviacy laws allow Personal information to be collected so long as there is a 'necessity' for the information. It is appropriate for a person or a company to protect themselves from crime by circulating the photo to staff, as well as warn other potential victims, otehr shops, of the threat. Best to use the term 'alleged' before the description of the criminal activity.

"Most Privacy laws require the holder of personal information to advise the person that the holder has the information and how it is being used."

This depends on the country. In the US, there's really no law regulating / stoping use of such information. In Europe and Commonwealth countries, the opposite tends to be true.

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Related Reports on Facial Recognition

Video Analytics Integration Guide on Aug 16, 2018
Video analytics is hot again (at least conceptually) but integrating video analytics with VMSes can be challenging. This is especially significant...
RealNetworks Free School Facial Recognition on Aug 03, 2018
The company that created RealPlayer is moving beyond media delivery and into the security space with a new facial recognition platform they have...
99.9997% Accurate Amazon Facial Rekognition Falsely Matches 28 on Jul 27, 2018
A new facial recognition controversy has arisen, with the ACLU cleverly using Amazon's Rekognition service to falsely match 28 Congresspeople to...
AI Startup Anyvision Raises $28 Million Led By Bosch on Jul 20, 2018
Anyvision is the most ambitious heavy-spending video surveillance startup in many years. And, now, the startup has raised $28 million led by...
FST Fails on Jul 17, 2018
FST was one of the hottest startups of the decade, selected as the best new product at ISC West 2011 and backed with tens of millions in...
Hikvision Wins Chinese Government Forced Facial Recognition Project Across 967 Mosques on Jul 16, 2018
Hikvision has won a Chinese government tender which requires that facial recognition cameras be set up at the entrance of every single mosque...
Belgium Bans Private Facial Surveillance on Jul 06, 2018
Belgium has effectively banned the use of facial recognition and other biometrics-based video analytics in surveillance cameras for private,...
GDPR / ICO Complaint Filed Against IFSEC Show Facial Recognition on Jun 20, 2018
IPVM has filed a complaint against IFSEC’s parent company UBM based on our concern that the conference violates core GDPR principles on...
IFSEC 2018 Final Show Report on Jun 20, 2018
IPVM attended the IFSEC show for the first time this year. The Chinese took over the show, centered on Hikvision, flanked by Dahua, Huawei and a...
China Public Video Surveillance Guide: From Skynet to Sharp Eyes on Jun 14, 2018
China is expanding its video surveillance network to achieve “100%” nationwide coverage by 2020, including facial recognition capabilities and a...

Most Recent Industry Reports

2Gig Gun Lock / Motion Detector Tested on Aug 17, 2018
Safer guns for families and an opportunity for security dealers to sell more services? That is the aim of Nortek's 2GIG 'Gun Motion Detector'...
Video Analytics Integration Guide on Aug 16, 2018
Video analytics is hot again (at least conceptually) but integrating video analytics with VMSes can be challenging. This is especially significant...
Hikvision IP Camera Critical Vulnerability 2018 Disclosed on Aug 16, 2018
The same day that the US government passed a prohibition on Hikvision cameras, Hikvision disclosed a critical vulnerability for its IP...
ISS VMS / Video Analytics Company Profile on Aug 16, 2018
Who is ISS? In the past few months, they had one of the craziest ISC West promo items in years. Then, they hired industry veteran and ex-Dahua...
Chinese OEM Avycon Gets ADI Push on Aug 15, 2018
Who is Avycon? An American company? A Korean company? A couple of guys relabelling Chinese products? The latter is the best explanation. While...
Backboxes for Video Surveillance Tutorial on Aug 15, 2018
Backboxes are a necessity in surveillance, whether for managing cable whips, recessing cameras, adding wireless radios. But it can be confusing to...
Genetec Stratocast / Comcast 'Motion Insights' Examined on Aug 15, 2018
Comcast recently announced "SmartOffice Motion Insights", an extension to their Genetec OEMed cloud video service (covered by IPVM here). This...
SimpliSafe Violating California, Florida, and Texas Licensing Laws on Aug 14, 2018
IPVM has verified that DIY security system provider SimpliSafe, founded in 2006 and acquired in June of 2018 at a billion dollar valuation, is...
Ban of Dahua and Hikvision Is Now US Gov Law on Aug 13, 2018
The US President has signed the 2019 NDAA into law, banning the use of Dahua and Hikvision (and their OEMs) for the US government, for US...
Cut Milestone Licensing Costs 80% By Using Hikvision and Dahua NVRs (Tested) on Aug 13, 2018
Enterprise VMS licensing can be quite expensive, with $200 or more per channel common, meaning a 100 camera system can cost $20,000 in VMS...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact