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

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 have taken over the UK, centered on Hikvision, flanked by Dahua, Huawei and...
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...
Facial Surveillance Used On US Politicians, Technical Challenges Remain on Jun 12, 2018
Many fear that facial surveillance will be used against people by governments, such as the vast facial surveillance apparatus being built in China...
Amazon's "Dangerous New Face Recognition Technology" Says ACLU on May 23, 2018
The ACLU has caused a stir, with a new report Amazon Teams Up With Law Enforcement to Deploy Dangerous New Face Recognition Technology,...
Digifort VMS Profile on Apr 25, 2018
Digifort, a Brazilian company, has a strong presense in their home country. In a crowded and mature Enterprise VMS market, will they be able to...
Favorite Biometrics 2018 on Apr 23, 2018
Biometrics are on the rise, or at least integrator opposition to them is declining, according to new IPVM integrator statistics.   Almost half of...
Dahua and Hikvision Win Over $1 Billion In Government-Backed Projects In Xinjiang on Apr 23, 2018
Dahua and Hikvision have won well over $1 billion worth of government-backed surveillance projects in China’s restive Xinjiang province since 2016,...
GDPR For Video Surveillance Guide on Apr 12, 2018
The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) comes into force on May 25, but there is much confusion and no clear guidelines on...
Destructive Video Analytics Hype Returns on Mar 27, 2018
It is not just Hikvision's false advertising campaign. With marketing money being pumped into deep learning, we are returning to the bad old...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Installation Hardware for Video Surveillance - Indoor Fasteners on Jun 22, 2018
As part of our Installation for Video Surveillance series, in this note, we cover drywall anchors. A key part of installing security hardware is...
Hikvision ColorVu Integrated Visible Light Cameras Examined on Jun 22, 2018
When it comes to low light, infrared light has become the defacto standard in surveillance. But IR is limited to monochrome images, making colors...
Last Chance - Save $50 - July 2018 IP Networking Course on Jun 21, 2018
Today, Thursday the 21st is the last chance to save $50 on registration. Register now and save. This is the only networking course designed...
'Secure Channel' OSDP Access Control Examined on Jun 21, 2018
Despite claiming to be better than Wiegand, OSDP's initial releases did not address the lack of encryption between reader and controller, leaving...
Most Wanted Improvements In Manufacturer Technical Support (Statistics) on Jun 21, 2018
5 key areas of improvement and 1 clear wanted support feature were voiced by 140+ integrator responses to: What improvement in manufacturer...
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 have taken over the UK, centered on Hikvision, flanked by Dahua, Huawei and...
Mobotix Releases 'Move' Into 21st Century on Jun 20, 2018
For years, Mobotix stood resolutely against, well, every other manufacturer, selling it as a virtue: MOBOTIX equipment is designed with no...
Cybersecurity Startup VDOO Disclosing 10 Manufacturer Vulnerabilities Starting With Axis And Foscam on Jun 20, 2018
Cybersecurity startup VDOO has uncovered significant vulnerabilities in Axis cameras along with many others not yet disclosed. In this report, we...
Axis Guardian - Cloud VMS And Alarm Monitoring - Released on Jun 19, 2018
Axis has struggled to deliver a cloud-based managed service video platform. Video service providers have utilized AVHS for over a decade, and have...

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