Photo: Canva
The recent introduction of facial recognition technology at four Fairway Market locations in New York City as well as two ShopRite locations in Connecticut shows retailers remain intrigued about the potential of the technology as an anti-theft tool despite privacy concerns.
The attention comes as NRF’s 2022 National Retail Security Survey found organized retail crime incidents rose 26.5% in 2021. In New York City, the NYPD found that of its 22,000 shoplifting arrests last year, 30% were repeat offenders.
At the ShopRite and Fairway Market locations adding the technology, in-store signage alerts shoppers that their biometric identifier information is being collected for security purposes. The images help store personnel search for matches of individuals wanted for infractions across a shared database with other retailers.
In a statement attained by WFSB, a television station in Hartford, Connecticut, ShopRite said retailers have long used video surveillance, and advances in this technology can help identify repeat offenders. ShopRite stated, “We want our associates and customers to know that we are using this technology responsibly in an effort to ensure the safety of our working and shopping environment.”
ShopRite insisted the video footage collected is regularly erased, not sold, and only shared with law enforcement when crimes happen.
Fairway said in a statement, “Retail theft and shoplifting has a high rate of repeat offense and drives up grocery costs for all customers.”
A recent New York Times article notes that in the United Kingdom, where facial recognition surveillance is more prevalent, guidelines have been put in place to ensure stores post adequate signage, only share information about serious and violent offenders, and only send alerts about repeat offenders.
Privacy concerns are often countered by the notion that many consumers regularly use facial technology to unlock their mobile phones and for other purposes, and they’re already being extensively recorded in public. Christopher Herrmann, an associate professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, told Fox 5 New York, “There are plenty of cameras now. Whenever you go to the ATM, there’s a camera. The only difference now is that they’re starting to put those recordings together.”
BrainTrust
Mark Ryski
Founder, CEO & Author, HeadCount Corporation
Nikki Baird
VP of Strategy, Aptos
Jeff Sward
Founding Partner, Merchandising Metrics
Discussion Questions
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: Is the use of facial recognition technology to deter shoplifting becoming more acceptable for shoppers? What other steps may stores have to take to mitigate privacy concerns?
Poll
Loading …
This is a worthy idea to help resolve retail crime. However, there is no point in using facial recognition to identify shoplifters unless there are adequate provisions in place to deny those people entry to stores and to ensure that they are properly prosecuted and punished for their crimes. At the moment most retailers have policies that prevent staff engaging with criminals. And a lot of authorities are fairly ambivalent about retail crime. So, what is the point of identifying people? If facial recognition is combined with AI, another concern is accuracy. Misidentifying people and accusing or restricting them will have lawyers rubbing their hands together with glee!
Good point about collecting the data and not proactively acting on it. Since many retail store policies for employees are to not confront thieves, then the data isn’t useful in preventing thieves in action. In a workshop at Grocery Tech last month, some grocers mentioned that they were using this type of video identification of repeat thief offenders to try to catch them in the act by following them in the store. So, I guess some companies are acting on the information.
Thanks Dave. Very interesting use case.
Shoplifting has become the new pandemic for retailers, and using facial recognition to aid in security and enforcement is reasonable. I am opposed to using facial recognition and the collection of other biometric data for marketing purposes without expressed consent. However, using facial recognition for loss prevention is completely acceptable as long as it’s only used for this intended purpose. And while facial recognition may aid in loss prevention efforts, it won’t solve the underlying societal issues that are the root cause of the theft behavior.
I am usually a strong civil libertarian, but in this case, let’s recognize “the horse left the barn” a long time ago. In August 2021, GAO reported its survey results on facial recognition technology (FRT) activities, which found that 18 of 24 agencies reported using FRT for one or more purposes. In 2016 (yes, way back then), law enforcement had over 50% of the population on facial recognition. Imagine Los Angeles has over 35,000 public cameras.
Of course, it makes no sense that people would object to one more location having cameras. By the time they get to the supermarket, they may have already been identified when they stopped for a red light. Today, FRT is more ubiquitous than fingerprints.
So, what do e do? Apparently nothing. Law enforcement doesn’t rank retail crime as a high priority. That alone is an invitation for continued offenses,
Facial recognition is here to stay, and I think more shoppers are going to be OK with using it for security-related purposes than for the creepy “Greet me by name as I walk into the store even though I don’t know you.” That said, even in law enforcement, facial recognition is very problematic, and retailers should take heed: just because it works 80% of the time, doesn’t mean that you should trust a match 100% of the time. And there needs to be due process for anyone – allowing for mistakes to be corrected if facial recognition incorrectly ID’s someone as a perennial shoplifter when they’re not – because that WILL happen.
Yes, it most certainly should. With the chaos retailers and their shoppers are being subjected to, what choice does the industry have? Something has to be done, and fast.
We really need to double down or even triple down on theft by any means necessary before this is beyond the tipping point. Facial recognition, RFID, and the addition of ubiquitous camera technology and AI are the tools we can use to help law enforcement win this war. RFID can ensure we don’t process a return for a stolen product, alarm when product is taken but not paid for, as well as increase throughput at POS. Facial recognition can identify the thief to share with other retailers, while the cameras and AI will provide the retailer with valuable info on thieves, especially known offenders.
That being said, shoppers don’t want to be tracked and recognized as they shop. (There is a backlash against many very recognizable US brands that have been using facial recognition in stores for years.) But this is really about personal identification. It’s still possible—and actually easy—to use small cameras or “sensors” that only capture age range and attention to specific SKUs on the shelf. This is used to optimize planograms and merchandising decisions, for example. In Europe, where facial recognition is mostly limited to law enforcement uses, this type of approach still meets privacy standards.
Biometric solutions are becoming mainstream amid the tension between personal privacy and public safety.
Our iPhones unlock with facial recognition. Airports scan our faces and capture images of each traveller. Stores’ self-checkouts use video cameras.
As thefts rise, expect facial recognition adoption to rise in retail.
To mitigate privacy concerns, retailers can clearly state if they use facial recognition and how they use the data.
I’ve always thought security cameras made sense as a reasonable measure in deterring criminals, at least those lazy enough to not wear a mask. Then I thought they were a little Orwellian. Facial recognition delivers us to that reality. But…at this point, what choice is there? So from both a deterrence and ability to prosecute point of view, facial recognition can help. If we prosecute.
Jeff, your last sentence is the most important one.
It’s less a question if is it acceptable as it is is it unacceptable? If it’s not unacceptable then let’s not worry what customers think.
If I were a retailer I wouldn’t be so quick to jump on the facial recognition bandwagon. Numerous studies have demonstrated disturbing racial bias in many facial recognition systems. And, even if you disagree with all of them, the perception among many consumers of color is that these systems promote racial stereotyping at best and can lead to misidentification and therefore incarceration at worst. So, the use of these systems may or may not be more acceptable for white shoppers, but they simply aren’t so popular in other consumer cohorts. And, as we know – or ought to know – for consumers perception is reality.
Facial recognition isn’t as much about catching people stealing as it is about preventing people from stealing. A few well-placed cameras and a sign that lets customers know will help thwart crime. It’s like the sign in the yard that says the house has a burger alarm. The burglars just move to the next house. I also like that it doesn’t interfere with the experience. It’s just in the background. I remember a music retailer that would require all customers to show their receipts and what’s in their bags. Sometimes a line would form just to exit the store. Not a great experience, which is why they eventually stopped doing it.
The acceptance of facial recognition technology in deterring shoplifting seems to be growing. Shoppers are gradually embracing the convenience and potential security it offers. Facial recognition technology enhances shoplifting deterrence by providing APPR with 80% accurate identification, reducing theft incidents, and improving overall store safety.
Beyond shoplifting deterrence, cameras are utilized in various contexts including Security Systems: Cameras monitor homes, businesses, and public areas to prevent burglary. Another example is CCTV Surveillance: Used in public spaces, airports, and transportation hubs to monitor activities and enhance security.
Stores can address privacy concerns by implementing clear signage about surveillance, anonymizing and securing stored data, limiting access to authorized personnel only, regularly auditing data usage, and adhering to relevant data protection regulations to ensure customer trust and privacy protection.
Given facial recognition is used routinely in many places, including many airports, it makes perfect sense for retailers and other businesses to use it to identify and prevent thieves.
As others have pointed out, it’s really only useful in connection with a long list of ‘must haves’ (a data base of offenders, prosecuting people who are apprehended and meaningful punishments) without these – ALL of them – it’s unlikely to be effective.
So while we’re likely to see increased use – and complaints about it – whether it’s truly effective is unclear.
Facial recognition makes sense for retailers to combat theft, but…..shoppers won’t like it.
Maybe don’t tell them?
John,
I think the retailer should make it very clear. Perhaps knowing that facial recognition will discourage that shoplifter.
There is a lot of work in the industry (LPRC – Loss Prevention Retail Council) that have brought many of us together to understand the “pre-bang”, “bang”, “post-bang” moments of ORC. Not to mention, how we aid retailers to manage the “5 zones of control”. We are in the era of “being better together” for our mutual customers. I think you will see more retailers open up on the projects underway very soon.
This topic feels as though it’s one that needs further investigation and testing.
Clearly, organized retail theft is a significant and growing concern across our industry. Simply locking things up…or worse yet, closing stores…is not a solution that addresses the root cause. Leveraging technology is a path worth investigating, although privacy concerns are certain to enter the conversation.
Bottom line…let’s keep trying new ideas and learning from the results!
My local liquor store posts pictures of shoplifters and posts them on the front door. I’m OK with it.
Technology creates opportunities and risks, especially regarding personal privacy. We’ve become accustomed to walking in many supermarkets with a CCTV screen reminding us we’re on camera. Using facial recognition technology ups the ante on privacy and potential misuse without a compelling deterrence proposition.
Instead of one-off solutions, retailers and their industry groups must rethink the loss prevention space and strategy. They have to immediately address the design, layout, and physical security of stores and even distribution centers and delivery vehicles. Technology can offer some deterrence and inventory tracking, but it will not stop well-organized and determined efforts.
Crisis planning and preparation for these new categories of “disasters” is necessary to protect retailers’ brand and safety reputation, minimize inventory losses, and avoid loss of human lives.
Considering the increased rates of organized retail crime, preventive measures such as facial recognition capabilities are one of the levers that could be leveraged. Unfortunately, despite the recent news reports and viral social media posts, retail crime is not widely considered a serious enough offense for law enforcement to provide more of a presence in areas that recent thefts have impacted. The last thing we want to do is to put the accountability on store associates, as it leaves them in situations where they could be injured and their livelihoods impacted.
Between all of the capabilities available to mitigate organized retail crime and the level of theft, including cameras, scanners, potentially facial recognition, and security guards, the most significant challenge retailers are facing is the loss of a sense of safety, comfort, and community that consumers seek when they go shopping. Suppose facial recognition and AI solution capabilities are going to be leveraged. In that case, retailers will have to be very transparent on their data retention policies and clear documentation on the safeguards around privacy and potentially the challenges around being misidentified.
This is an interesting area and one that could be hugely controversial. There could be concerns about ‘big brother’ or ‘Minority Report’ type scenarios.
For many years I have wondered if when you tag the face of someone on a social media platform if that was being stored for potential use at some stage in a monetised form. I have wondered whether to be concerned that when I store my photos online and name a member of my family it then groups all the photos of them together.
The technology clearly exists to be able to identify individuals from in real time from video feeds – however discussion about its use or not is something that perhaps does not get talked about as much as you might expect.
What has surprised me is how little this gets talked about in the media – it could well be a very divisive area. Perhaps there should be laws about what is and what is not acceptable use of such technology. Irrespective, it seems morally appropriate to ensure that if it is used in a physical environment – such as a retail store – very clear signage is used to ensure everyone entering that space knows and understands.
Basically, all these efforts, like the use of “Facial Recognition” technology, are the result of the current economic situation that has been looming for the past couple of years. Since curbing “retail theft” is a major issue, it is only natural that retailers will make full use of what technology has to offer.
Implementing facial recognition technology in stores will certainly be a significant step forward for retailers, along with the use of RFID tags to trace illicitly taken items. With these efforts, miscreants can be arrested, which will discourage others from committing retail crimes.
Personally, I do have concerns about the usage of this technology, mostly for the sake of privacy and the freedom of shopping as a normal customer. However, while I may not fully agree with such arrangements, I understand that they are necessary at this time. Miscreants need to be apprehended by law; otherwise, people will believe that it is easy to commit a crime and not get caught. This will inevitably result in a further surge in retail thefts.