Who Wins With the FRT Backlash?
- By Lachlan Colquhoun
- August 22, 2022
Australians lose an estimated AUD25 billion each year on gambling, one of the highest per capita percentages in the world. By some estimates, 8% of the Australian population, or around 1.4 million people, are at risk of experiencing gambling-related problems.
Various measures have been tried, and others have been suggested over many years to limit the damage from problem gambling. Still, when it comes to using facial recognition technology (FRT), it seems the remedy is almost as controversial as the cause.
Retailers and hospitality venues around Australia are currently in the roll-out phase for FRT. It has already been implemented in 15 venues in South Australia and two in the Australian Capital Territory.
The FRT will use a radical approach using a system developed by New Zealand-based COMS Systems. First, people will register themselves with a database. The staff members are then alerted when the system recognizes that the gamblers have entered a gaming area.
ClubsACT, the organization suggesting the trial, says it was not about filming people unknowingly and stresses that the system is voluntary. Only people who want help with their gambling would opt in and seek to be recognized, it adds.
Even so, the proposal has ignited the ongoing controversy about using FRT in Australia. Gambling reform advocates are asking if the gambling industry can be trusted with the technology and are concerned that the data could be used for other purposes, specifically personalized marketing.
“Information is power; are they going to hand (the data) to third parties?” asked Carol Burnett, the chief of the Alliance for Gambling Reform.
More than simple FRT
A recent industry event, the Australasian Gaming Expo in Sydney, included displays from multiple companies offering FRT, from smaller security companies to some of the biggest names in the industry. Products ranged from complete hardware sets with specialized cameras to more technology lite solutions that can be paired with existing CCTV.
Some of the vendors promise more than simply facial recognition. Vix Vizion, for example, claims its technology “collects and manages valuable business data,” including information on the number of people in a monitored space, their age, gender, and even — it is claimed — their emotions.
“Facial recognition gives us a chance to identify when a banned person enters a store so we can support our team”
Like many technologies, there are many use cases for FRT; some are socially good, while others are more ambivalent. Under the Australian Privacy Act, collecting biometric data such as facial scans is legal when a user consents and when necessary for the entity’s function or activities.
Last year, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner ruled that convenience store group 7-Eleven interfered with customer privacy by collecting biometric information that was “not reasonably necessary” for its functions and for which no adequate notice had been sought.
Major retailers Bunnings and Kmart recently announced they would stop using FRT after media reports prompted a storm of protest and complaints to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.
The retailers' only concession to consumer consent was modest in-store signage, which complied with privacy policies, even though the signs would have remained unseen to many consumers.
Consumer advocacy group CHOICE ran a survey earlier this year around retailers’ collection of customer faceprints. It found that 76% did not know the practice was taking place, while 78% were concerned about the security issues. The stated fear is that the retailers could use the faceprint data to create personal profiles of individuals, which could be used for direct marketing purposes.
Promoting safety
The retailers have defended themselves, saying FRT promotes safety for staff and limits theft.
“When we have customers berate our team, pull weapons, spit, or throw punches – we ban them from our stores. But a ban isn’t effective if it’s hard to enforce,” a Bunnings spokesman told local media. Facial recognition gives us a chance to identify when a banned person enters a store so we can support our team to handle the situation before it escalates.”
The rationale is similar at Sydney’s Royal Randwick Racecourse, where operators implemented technology from Oosto. Passive cameras were turned into smart cameras when fitted with Oosto’s video analytics software.
This enabled the racecourse to recognize potential security threats and “delivered vast efficiencies in operations by ensuring that evicted and banned patrons were immediately refused entry, while security teams were able to better track persons of interest.”
In need of a social license
Other applications of FRT are less controversial and are much more likely to meet with community approval. PetsForHomes is an online classified portal matching discarded pets with new owners.
The marketplace has implemented the ‘know your customer’ certification to instantly verify the identity of people who transact, using several technologies, including FRT.
The aim is to reduce the risk of buyers being preyed upon by fraudulent or unscrupulous breeders. It follows a string of scams where people have paid for pets which have not been delivered.
Despite this positive use case, the balance of consumer sentiment is mainly anti-FRT, and this is a global trend. For example, Facebook shut down its system in 2021 and deleted faceprints of more than one billion people over privacy concerns. European regulators have stopped police from scanning faces after false identifications.
The villain in many complaints is U.S. company Clearview AI, which provides systems to law enforcement and the military.
Last year, the Australian Human Rights Commission called for a moratorium on FRT until it can be further regulated. But while the regulators wait, the industry is moving at speed with more FRT implementations.
Meanwhile, much is made in the Australian media about China’s use of FRT in its social credit system, which many criticize as an instrument of social control.
Local use cases are not lowering the temperature on much of the negative consumer sentiment on the technology, even though it has many positive applications which can keep users safe and promote innovative business models.
Some balance is needed to give FRT the social license it needs to gain acceptance. If the industry and regulators fail to deliver this, FRT will continue to be seen as an instrument of surveillance and oppression almost exclusively. Society will miss out on FRT's benefits if it focuses too narrowly on its downside.
Lachlan Colquhoun is the Australia and New Zealand correspondent for CDOTrends and the NextGenConnectivity editor. He remains fascinated with how businesses reinvent themselves through digital technology to solve existing issues and change their entire business models. You can reach him at [email protected].
Image credit: iStockphoto/Khosrork