In a joint statement released on Wednesday, the heads of companies including Briscoe Group, Bunnings, Farmers Trading Company, Foodstuffs, Michael Hill, Mitre 10, One NZ, Spark, The Warehouse Group and Woolworths New Zealand said they support the “fair and accurate” use of the technology to deter retail crime and improve safety.
Retail NZ said the technology had already been trialled by Foodstuffs North Island, with oversight from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. A survey of 1000 New Zealanders found 89 percent supported the use of FRT if it reduces harm by even 10 percent.
“Our teams face high rates of verbal and physical abuse from repeat offenders who pose a risk to our employees, customers and other visitors to our stores,” the retailers said.
“A significant proportion of retail crime is committed by repeat offenders. It is these recidivist offenders that we are able to target with FRT.”
They said the technology allows for rapid identification of individuals of interest, enabling security staff to manage threats in real time and intervene if needed.
Retail NZ said the use of FRT is intended solely for safety and is subject to the Privacy Act.
“Technology must be used in a fair and accurate way. Guardrails are needed to support customers’ privacy, and to guard against potential bias and discrimination,” Retail NZ Chief Executive Carolyn Young said.
Retail NZ said it will continue working with its members to develop best practice to ensure the technology is used responsibly.
Broadcaster Chris Lynch is an award winning journalist who also produces Christchurch news and video content for domestic and international companies. This article was originally published by Chris Lynch Media and is published here with kind permission.
Retail NZ said the technology had already been trialled by Foodstuffs North Island, with oversight from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. A survey of 1000 New Zealanders found 89 percent supported the use of FRT if it reduces harm by even 10 percent.
“Our teams face high rates of verbal and physical abuse from repeat offenders who pose a risk to our employees, customers and other visitors to our stores,” the retailers said.
“A significant proportion of retail crime is committed by repeat offenders. It is these recidivist offenders that we are able to target with FRT.”
They said the technology allows for rapid identification of individuals of interest, enabling security staff to manage threats in real time and intervene if needed.
Retail NZ said the use of FRT is intended solely for safety and is subject to the Privacy Act.
“Technology must be used in a fair and accurate way. Guardrails are needed to support customers’ privacy, and to guard against potential bias and discrimination,” Retail NZ Chief Executive Carolyn Young said.
Retail NZ said it will continue working with its members to develop best practice to ensure the technology is used responsibly.
Broadcaster Chris Lynch is an award winning journalist who also produces Christchurch news and video content for domestic and international companies. This article was originally published by Chris Lynch Media and is published here with kind permission.
8 comments:
Major New Zealand retailers (not our friends) are “corporations” and corporations work with other corporations like the government (not our friends) to achieve desired outcomes as dictated by the corporate agenda. The corporate agenda is forcing us all towards total technocratic AI driven control. What’s good for corporations (corporatism) is not good for freedom loving individuals.
What is the point of facial recognition if the cops won't lift a finger about retail crime?
It's a waste of money to install a system if the criminal recidivists will just smile and raise a middle finger to the camera.
There will be no reduction in crime or increased safety when the laws that are in place are not enforced.
Facial recognition is an essential part of the plan to give EVERYONE a digital identity. It use in retail stores will "normalize" to the sheep-like public. The next step is a cashless economy where EVERY monetary transaction can be traced and tracked to your digital identity. Your "carbon footprint" will also be tracked. If the government decides that you are exceeding your allotted carbon quota, your digital currency use will be curtailed. Welcome to the updated version of 1984.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFHHOBiUrkg
The local Woolworths doesn’t have FRT. I’ve seen someone jump the inward turnstiles with a bag of stolen food in broad daylight as has a friend - and the offenders were different people on different days. The staff told me it happens everyday. I shop there because they don’t have cameras. I’m not a crim. I don’t want to be surveilled. It’s an invasion of privacy. However I no longer feel particularly safe in this supermarket and it’s become noticeably more expensive, as of course they have to cover the cost of daily theft/s. The nearby New World is not only cheaper, but better managed, better stocked and because of its cameras is not frequented by crims. I’m not happy about it, but I’m seriously considering caving on my privacy principles and shopping under surveillance. With the police totally uninterested and security guards as useless as tits on a bull, the cameras are going to win and before long all stores will have them anyway. Surveillance capitalism is here and isn’t going away any time soon. I’m afraid my or anyone else’s deep dislike and distrust of it ain’t going to make a jot of difference.
In all shoplifting instances a major loser apart from the retailer is us the taxpayer because IRD is the final recipient of 15% of the sale and that is the fund that pays Health, Justice and Education that just walked out the door.
Sorry - but this just seems like someone wants to buy 'toys' and charge customers more, after already charging them more to offset the loss from shoplifting :(
What is the facial recognition supposed to achieve? I assume most regular employees already know the regular culprits. Even if the camera identifies the target, what is the employee going to do? They can't kick them out. They can't stop them from stealing again. Even if they call the cops, no one is going to do anything that ensures that paying customer don't subsidise this nonsense.
We don't need more 'stuff' - just enforce the law (if you can).
i think we lose something way more important than 'money'... we are losing any semblance of a developed country with a functioning society :(
I say bring it on. Combined with instore CCTV to record the crimes committed, there is a good chance the crimes will be caught . Privacy is an ideal, but sometimes we all have to make some sacrifices. If you don't like it, live off the grid. Your choice
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.