Headlines across New Zealand are ablaze with news of facial recognition technology’s swift deployment in the country’s grocery sector. This controversial use of advanced tech in commercial spaces has stimulated impassioned debate and stoked concerns about personal privacy and systemic bias.
Tania Kura, the Deputy Police Commissioner, sparked an appeal for open dialogue this week about the advancements’ implications for privacy and potential bias. Speaking to contemporary societal challenges, she indicated a need for broader, public discourse.
She was quoted as saying:
“I can see the benefits and the efficiency that can come and the reassurance it can provide some parts but how do we balance that with individual rights and freedoms…It’s an interesting dilemma for us and I think New Zealand probably needs to have that open discussion as well because not everybody sees it the same.”
Her call for debate followed an announcement last week by New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner, Michael Webster. He revealed his role in supervising a novel facial recognition trial, piloted by the grocery cooperative Foodstuffs North Island. Under the guise of reducing crime, the firm aims to incorporate facial recognition technology in 25 branches of New World and Pak’nSave over the next six months.
Casual shoppers will find themselves under surveillance. This was driven home when the popular chain, Woolworths, included obscure clauses in its policy for its newly introduced loyalty card, Everyday Rewards.
The clauses permit the supermarket giant to procure video and audio material to identify customers, in addition to license plate capture. Woolworths has justified these measures as necessary for the purposes of security.
There is video surveillance, and then there is that extra intrusive step of facial recognition. They can have video without FR. They can submit video evidence to the police who can then use FR, if needed. They probably want to argue that they can block known shoplifters as they enter. But of course what they really want is to track who enters the shop, which products they look at, how long they gaze at promo ads, etc. Being able to preemptively strike without a crime, just a bad reputation, does not justify the intrusion to everyone else.
Food is essential. It’s not like some shitty smartphone shop or Amazon b&m store that people can boycott.