It would be hard to find a more stark illustration of the cost of living
crisis than the fact that one in 10 young people say they have shoplifted
to cope with rising costs. In one London borough, Calpol is the most
shoplifted item. Elsewhere, parents say they are having to steal formula
milk to feed their babies.

These are startling statistics. But rather than offering families the
support they need, the government is instead increasing the use of
invasive facial recognition technology to track shoplifters. This feels
like an attempt to criminalise poverty.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/12/shoplifting-facial-recognition-shops-police-surveillance-powers

Last month, Project Pegasus was launched. Ten of the country’s biggest
retailers are planning to tackle the rise in shoplifting by handing over
their CCTV images to the police, to be run through police databases using
facial recognition technology.

The plans have been fronted by the policing minister, Chris Philp, who
also has his sights on setting up a national shoplifting database which
can be used by police and retailers nationwide. Such a database could
include the passport photos of 45 million adults in the country.

This kind of facial recognition technology, which allows police forces to
identify and track anyone they choose, regardless of suspicion, is already
happening. Philp acknowledged a few weeks ago that all 45 police forces
are currently using it.

Types of this technology include “live facial recognition”, such as
placing a camera on top of a police van that scans everybody who walks
past in real time, and then running the images through a database of our
“faceprints” – including images taken from social media accounts. It could
be “operator-initiated”, which is when a police officer can scan anybody’s
face using their phone and again run it through a database of our
sensitive biometric data. Or it could be “retrospective”, where the
technology can be used against pre-existing images, such as CCTV footage
of literally anybody who entered a shop.

Place this in the context of plummeting trust in UK policing and the
picture gets ever more bleak. Not only is such technology ripe for misuse,
history tells us surveillance tech will always be used to monitor and
harass minority groups, and particularly people of colour. When the
Metropolitan Police first trialled this tech, public deployments often
took place in socially deprived areas and at events attended primarily by
people of colour – such as the Notting Hill carnival. Since then we’ve
seen it used at certain music concerts, but not others.

Yet despite the weight of evidence against its use, the policing minister
said earlier this month that CCTV from shops and burglaries should be
checked against passport and immigration databases using facial
recognition. Using our passport photos – something we’ve submitted for the
purposes of travelling – to track us when we go to the shops to buy a pint
of milk is an extreme invasion of our privacy.

If these plans go ahead, it’s hard to overstate how much of an expansion
this will be of government and police spy powers. They should worry anyone
who wants to live in a society where everyone is treated with dignity and
respect rather than suspicion, and can live freely without being watched
by the state.

It might be tempting for the government to try to police its way out of
the cost-of-living crisis, but in reality, facial recognition technology
will do nothing to tackle the root causes of the problem. The challenges
that shoplifting creates are best addressed by understanding the impact
rising costs and poverty are having on people across the country, who are
are struggling to pay their bills and feed their children. Basic foods
like bread, butter and cheese have risen in price by more than a third in
the past year, alongside skyrocketing energy, housing and fuel costs.

In recent months, we have seen commitments by John Lewis to continue to
not use facial recognition in their stores. Nor are Liberty the only ones
calling for a ban. Last week, dozens of cross-party MPs and peers joined
calls led by Big Brother Watch for an immediate stop to the use of live
facial recognition surveillance by police and private companies.

We have seen time and again that when we give up our rights we rarely get
them back. Regardless of how the government and police attempt to justify
facial recognition, history shows that once a surveillance structure is in
place for any reason, its use will expand well beyond its original
justification. The surveillance powers that were created under the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) were touted as targeting and
preventing terrorism. In practice, they were used by some local
authorities to carry out surveillance on people for illegally dumping
waste in recycling centres.

Far from keeping us safe, spy tech used on the general public undermines
the rights and freedoms that protect us from state control and
discrimination. The safest thing for everyone is to ban facial recognition
technology.

### - ban it?? lol they's only just started perfecting it! :)))

the demonisation of junkies and alcoholics being previously used/blamed
for most shoplifting, that is until the cost of living crisis started
kicking-in whereby just ordinary common folks have now started doing it
too for quite ordinary items, like babies milk powder, diapers & washing
powder! a veritable explosion of such shoplifting serious straining police
forces to the point that all the prisons are full to overflowing??

cue the solution of the future then huh: do ANY shit whatsoever, any
where, and eventually you'll be pulled in via this new tech watching
everyone aided by AI, just as though they've all already got a criminal
record they can be traced/tracked by!

the future? a lovely place then of totally law abiding people, where
everyone is afraid to even spit lest there'll be an automatic
fine/punishment delivered directly to them (shades of 'demolition man'? -
he cusses in public; loud buzzer: "john spartan, you have just been fined
10 credits for a violation of the common courtesy code" or whatever)

"slave camps under the flags of freedom" was/is right!

ban it? riiiiight :)))