Share This Article:
In lecturing on Constitutional law over the decades, I have persistently challenged students to remember that their rights are inherent. No one gave us our rights and thus no can casually take them away. We have a tendency to allow infringement of our rights when we feel threatened or scared. We are sometimes, in such circumstances, willing to trade some of our freedom for security or the perception of it. Some contend that this is the explanation for our acceptance of the intrusive nature of the Patriot Act rushed through Congress in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11.
I have periodically written about surveillance and the cameras that surround us all. In Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020), I noted that some contend over one billion cameras are curently keeping track of us, our movements, and actions. They are mounted on poles, imbedded in doorbells, and more. Police departments are replete with body cameras. See Evolving Issues of Body Cameras (July 2018). Each of those two posts include recognition of the potential for facial recognition and artificial intelligence to impact our privacy and our lives.
The British Broadcasting Company(BBC) recently published Convenience store spy cameras face legal challenge. It describes how a chain of 200 convenience stores in England has deployed "facial recognition technology to cut crime," and is being challenged for it. In the affected stores, there is reportedly signage to alert customers that they are being scanned.
The system is called Facewatch, a "biometric surveillance." This "captures the faces of people who enter the shops, and the images are analysed and converted into biometric data." Thus, at 35 of its locations, each customer is photographed, analyzed, and categorized. The system is looking specifically for "people the (company) says have stolen from its shops, or been violent."
The purpose of such a system is readily apparent. Violence is a workplace issue. Violence, Arising, and Course (August 2021); Violence in the Workplace (August 2021). There have also been various instances reported of shoplifting proliferating in various locations. California has been noted often in the news. Some perceive the propensity there to be related to changes in the law. Others decry such conclusions. Visit You Tube and search for shoplifting and you may find videos of interest.
In England, there is an interest group, Big Brother Watch (an obvious reference to 1984, which has been noted also in posts cited above). This group is angered that the convenience stores have deployed these recognition cameras in various locations. It refers to such scanning as "Orwellian in the extreme." The group asserts that the system is "deeply unethical" and contends that its use may have a "chilling" impact. How it could chill the store's business is obvious, but how the impact would be allegedly more systemic is not clear.
The store chain responds that it is protecting its stores, personnel, and customers. It contends that an alert from the system may lead to various responses. If the system-identified person has been "previously banned," the staff would ask that person to leave. Those who are in the database, but have not been previously banned, are "approached by staff with an offer of 'how can I help?' to make it clear their presence had been detected."
Big Brother Watch says that the manner in which facial recognition is deployed in this instance is "not proportionate to the need to prevent crime," and therefore violates British privacy laws. It asserts that such systems should be limited to crime prevention and "serious criminals." It also argues that this store's engagement of the software system merely "displaces crime." By protecting its stores, they argue, this chain merely "keep(s) 'undesirables' out of their stores and move(s) them elsewhere." Perhaps that is all your security company yard sign does at home?
This is interesting from the standpoint of surveillance generally. But in the realm of workplace safety, the impact could be worthy of consideration. Notably, there is some evidence that security signs at a home, even fake ones, can have a deterrent effect on criminals. Forbes reports that alarm systems are a deterrent, but that fakes may be easy for criminals to spot. There is even some discussion of fake cameras. Some stores mount monitors so you can see yourself, an apparent attempt to reinforce the warning that they wish their cameras to deliver.
There are also some doubts about the efficacy of doorbell cameras. WBRC compared some data and studies. It essentially concludes that the potential and actual presence of such cameras does result in decreased crime, but asserts that data is difficult to reconcile and that data-sets may be too small to allow broad conclusions. Those cameras may be difficult to spot, more so than a yard sign. Perhaps future studies will bring more academic analysis. Despite the impact of studies, many people are likely to make their own decision about such devices.
Regardless of potential doubts, the news periodically reports on arrests that involve such doorbell cameras:
Florida man arrested on attempted murder charge after point-blank shooting caught on video (Coincidentally at a convenience store).
And, more recently, Action News Jax reported on a woman whose neighbor has mounted a camera on his home, which is directed into the woman's back yard. She is upset with what she perceives as surveillance and invasion of privacy. See Assume Everyone is Watching (September 2015) regarding privacy. There is more discussion of privacy elsewhere.
There is a definite conflict between privacy and security. Do customers want to be photographed and scanned as in England? Do customers want a violence-free shopping experience? Is a better alternative for companies to close stores as Starbucks, Rite Aid, and others have elected? Is the better response to limit store hours as occurred recently with some convenience stores in California? For homeowners, what is their alternative to the increasingly ubiquitous security camera(s)?
That American convenience store limiting its hours noted that its "focus is on franchisee, associate, and customer safety." The closure certainly restricts access and controls traffic. But, it decreases the very convenience that we might seek in such a retailer. In the end, it would seem most of us are entering shops to answer some need or desire, and we likely value a safe and clean environment for our shopping. Is there a balance between privacy and safety? Are we comfortable with being photographed and databased? If we are not, what should be the alternative?
In Britain, the Big Brother Watch solution is asking government to limit the retailer's use of such systems. But, with the warning signs posted, customers have a current choice without the government's intervention. If you do not want to be photographed and catalogued, do not enter the store. If enough customers find the camera paradigm intrusive and instead shop elsewhere, economics will lead the store chain to perhaps remove the cameras or perhaps to simply close those locations. But, those will be economic choices on the side of both consumer and retailer.
Closure of stores and the absence of convenience and sustenance are also challenges. Will neighborhoods be enhanced by the absence of ready retail convenience? The answer is likely no, and many of us will not want to live where there are no amenities or retailers. Thus, property demand may decrease there, as will property values. There are difficult questions presented of privacy and security in this debate. For the employer, however, those concerns also include employee security and safety. If not cameras, what? Security guards? Shortened hours? Other constraints?
It will be interesting to see how Britain resolves the Big Bother Watch complaint in this instance. However, it will be more interesting to see if camera and AI deployment similarly becomes a larger issue closer to home. There is already some suggestion American retailers perceive challenges. How will they react, what will be the impact on employment, economies, and neighborhoods? Will homeowner's ability to mount cameras be impacted? Will yard warning signs one day be required? Time will tell.
By Judge David Langham
Courtesy of Florida Workers' Comp
Read Also
- Aug 12, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
- Aug 06, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
About The Author
About The Author
-
Judge David Langham
David Langham is the Deputy Chief Judge of Compensation Claims for the Florida Office of Judges of Compensation Claims at the Division of Administrative Hearings. He has been involved in workers’ compensation for over 25 years as an attorney, an adjudicator, and administrator. He has delivered hundreds of professional lectures, published numerous articles on workers’ compensation in a variety of publications, and is a frequent blogger on Florida Workers’ Compensation Adjudication. David is a founding director of the National Association of Workers’ Compensation Judiciary and the Professional Mediation Institute, and is involved in the Southern Association of Workers’ Compensation Administrators (SAWCA) and the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions (IAIABC). He is a vocal advocate of leveraging technology and modernizing the dispute resolution processes of workers’ compensation.
More by This Author
- Jun 05, 2023
- Judge David Langham
- May 20, 2023
- Judge David Langham
Read More
- Aug 12, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
- Aug 06, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
- Aug 05, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
- Aug 02, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
- Jul 01, 2024
- Frank Ferreri