Minority Report Is Here
Rite Aid is the latest drug store to be sued for improper use of facial recognition software. So, it's time we ask ourselves what the end game is here.
I don’t read the news much these days because, well, what can you actually trust? Plus, it’s not worth the stress that comes with it, especially as we head into election season.
However, once or twice a month, I’m tasked with brainstorming ideas for my clients’ blogs. And tech-specific news sources are a great place to get inspiration.
As I was scouring my Feedly account today, I discovered this CNN article:
Rite Aid had been using facial recognition software from 2012 to 2020 in a limited number of locations. The goal was to identify shoppers “deemed likely to engage in shoplifting or other criminal behavior”. If they were detected by the surveillance system, Rite Aid employees could then kick them out or prevent them from entering altogether.
So why did the FTC go after Rite Aid? As you might imagine, the AI-powered software didn’t work as it was supposed to.
According to the article:
“Rite Aid has agreed to a five-year ban from using facial recognition technology after the Federal Trade Commission found that the chain falsely accused customers of crimes and unfairly targeted people of color.”
There are a number of worrisome things about this story.
First, is that no one probably knows this is happening.
I for one didn’t know they were using facial recognition. I knew they had cameras to monitor for theft and other illicit activities. I worked at CVS and Eckerd’s (back when that chain still existed) for years and knew about those monitoring systems.
I guess I should’ve realized AI would take those over too.
Sadly, unlike the web which is supposed to disclose when it’s tracking us via cookies, brick-and-mortar stores are apparently under no such obligation. I’ve seen plenty of notices on stating that a location is under surveillance. But there’s clearly no mention of facial recognition software nor do they ask for our consent to be identified and monitored in such a fashion.
Second, if these systems are in place, why is retail theft so rampant?
What is the real purpose of this technology if it’s not meant to deter thieves from running in, stealing a goods worth up to $900 (or whatever the prosecutable limit is), and then walking out without a care in the world?
It’s clearly not being used to identify and arrest these individuals. When was the last time you heard about a group of smash-and-grab thugs getting arrested after the fact thanks to facial recognition software? Or even traditional video monitoring systems?
Lastly, this most definitely moves us into Minority Report territory.
Philip K. Dick was a brilliant sci-fi author who knew what sort of terrifying future awaited us. And yet we didn’t listen.
So if our drug stores (Walgreens was also sued for using facial recognition software) are using this technology, who else is? Walgreens and Target, for sure. What about Home Depot? Publix? Sephora? Bank of America? McDonald’s? Nordstrom?
Aside from small businesses (many of which probably won’t last much longer thanks to the recession and widespread AI takeover), are there any institutions that won’t adopt AI-powered facial recognition software?
And once this grid of surveillance systems is in place, where does that leave us?
Final Thoughts
It’s clear that the end goal isn’t to stop crime. Just look at what Whole Foods is doing with its biometric scanners.
They want this technology everywhere so that they can monitor our every move.
So they can keep track of what we buy, what we do, who we see, where we go, how far we travel.
So they can catch us violating their illegal lockdown orders, mask mandates, restrictive measures, and so on.
So they can start accusing us of crimes we were likely to commit based on our profile and activities. Or because we share the same demographics as someone caught on a pixelated video who may or may not have put their hands in their pockets while shopping.
But they’re going to do as they always do — put a shiny coat of paint on it so that the masses accept it. They’ll claim it’s to stop theft. To keep people safe. To deliver personalized experiences. To automate and speed things up. To remove those pesky humans so they never have to interact with anyone again.
They have been building this digital cage around us for a very long time. And it’s only going to get worse from here on out.
You might argue that the FTC has our backs. But my guess is they wouldn’t have gone after Rite Aid if they hadn’t used the technology to target minority groups. But who knows. Maybe I’m wrong about that. Either way, it’s not like the FTC is saying that there’s anything wrong with surveilling the public. The issue is that Rite Aid’s technology didn’t work correctly.
There really is no one coming to save us.
Normally, I’d say the solution to this issue is to just stop buying from companies who use and weaponize this kind of technology. But it feels like we’re running out of places to turn to.
Take drug stores, for instance. What sorts of free alternatives are there — in the real world or online? And how feasible is it to get everything you’d buy from a Walgreens at a single one of these outlets?
The noose is tightening, folks. What we do from here on out, I don’t know. I guess find as many ways to pull yourself out of the systems they’ve created is a good place to start. And coming up with ways to live more simply so you don’t have to be reliant on these establishments and systems will help. Though that’s easier said than done.
For some reason I have not been getting notices of you substack.
My only opinion on the whole facial recognition debate is to note the response of the rightwing. Prior to COVID, there were numerous articles about the dangers of facial recognition software and the threat of losing our anonymity. When COVOD struck and masks became manditory I felt like a threat had been resolved. I was blindsided by how rapidly the right wing transitioned from "They're constantly monitoring us" to "They're forcing us to wear masks!"