A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
This shit needs to be heavily regulated, with massive fines for anyone who inconveniences a customer due to a false positive or a staff error such as what happened in this case.
If you read the story, you'll see that it was face recognition by humans that was at fault, not automated face recognition. It would be like if the store had a picture posted in the staff room that said "Do not let this person shop here," and the staff had thought this shopper was the guy in error.
"Idiot Store Staff Mistake Someone For Someone Else" doesn't get the same clicks.
That's a bit of a stretch to say the system was not at fault. The system pops up an alert and says he this brown guy should not be in your store and shows a picture of a brown guy, staff go out and find a different brown guy and kick him out of the store. It's still the system which is the issue, it scanned faces, sent and alert, but wasn't able to accurately communicate to the staff which specific person they should be worried about. The staff aren't facial recognition experts, the shitty system led to this issue occuring.
Instructions unclear... the government has now created regulations to further entrench the technology and make sure that the companies providing it have no responsibility or accountability to anyone whatsoever.
Honestly don't care too much about random super markets. This shit gets really fun when governments use it (like eg ICE is doing right now in the US).
I care about random supermarkets. People need to eat and obtain basic necessities even if some random database with no oversight says they might be dangerous in some way that we don’t get to know about.
When you'll notice it, it will be too late.
Random super markets can license access to their data. I could easily imagine a company like Palantir or Flock leveraging systems like these in their government contracting. Whether or not these things are privately owned by creepy corporations or under the direct control of a government agency feels like a distinction without a difference, either way the infrastructure of totalitarianism is being constructed around us with these technologies.
He said supermarket staff were unable to explain why he was being told to leave, and would only direct him to a QR code leading to the website of the firm Facewatch, which the retailer has hired to run facial recognition in some of its stores. He said when he contacted Facewatch, he was told to send in a picture of himself and a photograph of his passport before the firm confirmed it had no record of him on its database. “One of the reasons I was angry was because I shouldn’t have to prove I am innocent,” Rajah said. “I shouldn’t have to prove I’m wrongly identified as a criminal.” He described the incident as feeling “quite like Minority Report, Orwellian”. He said while doing his normal shop, he was approached by three members of the store’s staff, one of whom appeared to affirm that he was the person pictured on a device they had. It is understood the Facewatch system flagged someone else who had entered the store, and staff mistook Rajah for him. Rajah was concerned some form of permanent record implying he had been involved in criminality might have been created on Facewatch’s system. Eventually, the firm told him he was not on its database and referred him back to Sainsbury’s.
I remember reading something last year about how some not most facial recognition software has racist biases because the models are primarily trained on Caucasian people. Based on just the name, I'm going to assume Rajeh is not white, and may be a victim of that bias. Granted, it shouldn't be used at all, so it's splitting hairs more than anything.
IIRC they found that even with balanced training data facial recognition models just do worse on darker-skinned people. Something about cameras picking up less contrast on the skin, meaning there are fewer easily-identifiable facial features it can pick up from an image.
I think the main point is being missed, what does it matter even if did have a criminal past? We're meant to have a rehabilitation focused justice system, which doesn't work if you exclude ex-offenders from the spaces they need to be in to live. If it didn't detect him actively committing a crime, then it shouldn't have been an issue.
What the fuck kind of business does a grocery store have to store people's biometric data? Fuck that.
"sorry, you can't buy food because of surveillance capitalism's inherent violence"
Time to boycott.
Fuck Sainsburys
I have a senior data protection role in a public sector organisation. I actively do everything I can to prevent AI and biometrics being used except in the most innocuous of cases (eg letting people use chatgpt to help write stuff).