logo
Privacy commissioner inquiry finds supermarket facial recognition tech's use is justified

Privacy commissioner inquiry finds supermarket facial recognition tech's use is justified

NZ Herald2 days ago

'These issues become particularly critical when people need to access essential services such as supermarkets. FRT [facial recognition technology] will only be acceptable if the use is necessary and the privacy risks are successfully managed,' Webster said.
The Foodstuffs trial ended last September and ran in 25 supermarkets.
The commissioner found the live technology model used in the trial was compliant with the Privacy Act.
About 226 million faces were scanned during the trial, including multiple scans of the same person, and 99.999% of those were deleted within one minute.
The trial raised 1742 alerts, 1208 were confirmed matches to store watchlists – databases made from images of people of interest to a store.
In December 2024, a woman took her case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal after she was wrongly kicked out of a Rotorua supermarket, claiming the technology was discriminatory.
There were nine instances of someone being approached by staff, but misidentified as the wrong person during the trial. In two cases, the shopper was asked to leave.
All nine instances were attributable to human error, and were outweighed by the benefits of using facial recognition, justifying its use.
The inquiry found while the level of intrusion to customers' privacy was high because every visitor's face was collected, the safeguards used in the trial reduced the intrusion to an acceptable level.
Webster said there was still work needed to improve the safety and efficiency of facial recognition software for New Zealand, as it had been developed overseas and not trained on a local population.
He said the commission could not be completely confident the technology had addressed issues on technical bias, and that it had the potential to negatively impact Māori and Pacific people.
'This means the technology must only be used with the right processes in place, including human checks that an alert is accurate before acting on it.
'I also expect that Foodstuffs North Island will put in place monitoring and review to allow it to evaluate the impact of skin tone on identification accuracy and store response, and to provide confidence to the regulator and customers that key privacy safeguards remain in place,' Webster said.
The safeguards included immediately deleting images that did not match with a store's watchlist, setting up the system to only identify those whose behaviour was seriously harmful, like violent offending, not allowing staff to add images of people under 18 or those thought to be vulnerable to the watchlist and not sharing watchlist information between stores.
Match alerts were verified by two trained staff members to make sure a human decision was part of the process, the inquiry report said, and access to the facial recognition system and its information was restricted to authorised staff.
Images collected were not permitted to be used for training data purposes, the report said.
Foodstuffs responds
General counsel for Foodstuffs North Island Julian Benefield said the goal behind the FRT trial was to understand whether it could reduce harm while respecting people's privacy, saying it had succeeded in doing so.
'Retail crime remains a serious and complex problem across New Zealand,' he said.
'Our people continue to be assaulted, threatened and verbally abused, and we're committed to doing all we can to create safer retail environments.'
Benefield said privacy was at the heart of the trial.
He said an independent evaluator found the trial prevented more than 100 cases of serious harm, including assaults.
'We have worked closely with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and listened to their feedback.
'We welcome the OPC's feedback on areas for improvement and will carefully consider their recommendations, including the need to monitor accuracy, before we make any decisions about future permanent use.'
Retail NZ chief executive Carolyn Young said the trial showed the technology had made a measurable impact in reducing harm and improving safety in stores.
She said retailers across the country had been watching the trial with interest and a number were investigating FRT for their own operations in the near future.
'Retailers are crying out for proactive solutions that prevent crime and enhance the safety of their staff and customers. Our members continue to face high rates of violence and crime, putting both their employees and the public at risk, as well as threatening the financial sustainability of retail businesses.'
- RNZ

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The science sector sounds the alarm
The science sector sounds the alarm

Newsroom

timean hour ago

  • Newsroom

The science sector sounds the alarm

New Zealand's science sector, once hailed for its agility and ingenuity during the pandemic and natural disasters, is now grappling with what researchers say is a crisis of confidence, fuelled by shrinking budgets, unstable funding pathways, and policy decisions that increasingly favour commercial returns over long-term public good. Last month, a total of $212 million was cut from the science sector in this Budget, which reprioritises existing research funding towards commercially focused science and innovation. A sizeable portion goes to Invest NZ and a new gene tech regulator. The Government says it backs the sector and is prioritising industry partnerships, private-sector investment, and 'innovation outcomes with measurable economic impact.' While officials insist the move reflects 'fiscal discipline and real-world alignment,' many in the sector say it amounts to a dismantling of the research base. Newsroom political journalist Fox Meyer tells The Detail 'the scale of the cuts is not great for the sector, but it's also more about the lack of investment'. 'It's one thing to have cuts and reprioritisation, but people have been calling for more of just anything for some time now. Now, there is a lot of frustration. 'Science funding has been stagnant or declining for years now, and a decision to reprioritise stuff is not necessarily going to put money in the Government's pocket like they think.' With a focus on the bottom line, is this the Government pulling off a Sir John Key 'show me the money' moment, with a scientific bent? 'That actually goes both ways,' says Meyer. 'Scientists are looking at the Government saying, 'Show me the money if you want me to produce more money', and the Government is looking back at the scientists and saying, 'Well, you show me the money, what are you bringing in, how are you lifting your weight?'. 'That is going to be a hard one to reconcile unless the Government is willing to pony up and make the investment.' He worries the fall-out will include a 'brain drain' with our country's brightest and best scientists and researchers opting to take up positions overseas. 'My connections in the science world – plenty of them – have moved. 'The chief science adviser for the Department of Conservation has moved to Australia … that's an expert in a cutting-edge field that we have lost to a company in Australia. 'And it's not the only example of this sort of thing. We invest so much in training up these scientists, and they are very skilled scientists, and then to not give them what they are asking for and what they need, I feel it falls short of our own investment.' In fairness, it is not all doom and gloom. 'So, the positives, there is a new funding pool for Māori-related science, that's a good thing. There's the sector-wide report that has come out, which has given us a good look at the sector. We know more now, that's a good thing. And the chief science adviser has been appointed, and the panel around him has been appointed, that's a good thing there.' Meyer says the sector is crucial to all parts of New Zealand. 'The science sector is about answering questions. If you have questions, science is a method, and it is used to answer a lot of those questions … the more money that we put into this sector, the more questions we can answer. And the more questions we can answer, the more answers we can sell. 'If the Government is worried about economic growth, and they want to champion this sector, then you've got to put your money where your mouth is. 'I am going to be curious to see how they can steer the ship of science, when maybe what they are most suited for is selling the fruits of science.' Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here. You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.

Growth and the environment
Growth and the environment

Otago Daily Times

time2 hours ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Growth and the environment

As if we needed reminding. The government reinforced its emphasis on growth by releasing three discussion documents, which cover 12 national policy statements and national environmental standards. The aim is to have 16 new or updated statements and standards in place by the end of this year, well ahead of legislation to replace the Resource Management Act. They would underpin both the RMA and its replacement. The consultation covers infrastructure and development, the primary sector and freshwater. It opened at the end of last week and runs until July 27. The scope is vast, leaving much to digest and react to. RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop described the changes as both complex and technical, but also essential. The government claims its balanced approach represents the biggest change in national policy statement direction. The present regime was a "direct contributor to infrastructure deficits, driving up costs and slowing down projects". The measures would help "unclog the arteries of the economy". However, others see these changes as an assault on the environment and a win for the wish lists of lobbyists, such as farmers and miners. Freshwater will be a fierce battleground, and the government is consulting on options. After feedback, specific proposals will be released for further submissions. The government plans to "rebalance" Te Mana o te Wai, while Act New Zealand would like it scrapped altogether. Te Mana o te Wai placed the health of waterways as the priority, followed by drinking water, with economics and social matters secondary. New objectives propose that councils should "safeguard the life-supporting capacity of freshwater and the health of people and communities, while enabling communities to provide for their social, cultural and economic well-being, including productive economic opportunities". In other words, neither priority is ranked above the other. Councils would also be required "to consider the pace and cost of change, and who bears the cost". The government, occasionally correctly, claims that practical realities were sometimes ignored when previous standards were applied. Yet, strong action is vital to reverse the degradation of wetlands, lakes, rivers and aquifers. There are also loosened provisions for vegetable growers and water storage. The definition of wetlands is "clarified". It is claimed that the costs were disproportionate to the benefits, with fencing requirements for non-intensive grazing a notable example. In some cases, dilution is the solution. Consenting for quarrying and mining and clean energy projects would be streamlined, described as "cutting red tape and not corners". Commercial forestry changes may lead to slash mobilisation plan assessments, although questions have been raised about their enforcement. Granny flats of up to 70sq m would be allowed without consent in specific zones, and rules for housing on Māori land would be made more consistent and accessible. Consultation on housing direction as a whole is expected soon. Of course, the government claims environmental protections are important and will be retained. Rightly, there is scepticism. The devil lurks within a hell of a lot of detail across the standards. They will each need to be carefully and fairly scrutinised, although the results will inevitably fall short of satisfying competing views and interests. It has become clear that the narrow majority of Otago Regional councillors were quixotic when they fought on for their land and water plan. The government was always going to change the rules, and they should have accepted that sooner. National regional council representatives this week expressed frustration at policy swings. They are on the front line of RMA (and any replacements). They seek greater certainty and bipartisan agreement, as substantial changes bring upheaval and expense. The RMA itself was a bipartisan measure, once a pioneering piece of legislation internationally. However, it became more complex and criticised from all quarters. National promptly discarded Labour's 2023 RMA replacement. Lasting and consistent laws and standards built on practical environmental protection would necessitate major compromises. Yet, such a consensus is increasingly unlikely as National and Labour move further apart.

Nauru, Metals Company Revise Deep Sea Mining Agreement
Nauru, Metals Company Revise Deep Sea Mining Agreement

Scoop

time11 hours ago

  • Scoop

Nauru, Metals Company Revise Deep Sea Mining Agreement

The updated 'sponsorship agreement' was announced in a press release from The Metals Company. Nauru has revised its commercial agreement with Canadian mining group The Metals Company for deep sea mining in international waters. The updated 'sponsorship agreement' was announced in a press release from The Metals Company. It comes at a time of increasing uncertainty in the deep sea mining industry with both the US and International Seabed Authority (ISA) respectively stating each offers a licencing pathway to mine the seabed in international waters. Nauru president David Adeang said in the press release that The Metals Company has been a 'trusted and respectful' partner to Nauru. 'We have worked to establish a responsible pathway for deep sea mineral development, one that can serve for a model for other developing states.' The area of international waters currently under the spotlight is the Clarion Clipperton Zone – a vast area of the Pacific Ocean that sits between Hawai'i, Kiribati and Mexico, and spans 4.5 million square kilometres. The zone is of high commercial interest because it has an abundance of polymetallic nodules that contain valuable metals like cobalt, nickel, manganese and copper, which are used to make products such as smartphones and electric batteries. The minerals are also used in weapons manufacturing. Nauru has special rights in the Clarion Clipperton Zone through the ISA, which under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has jurisdiction over it. Since 2011, Nauru has partnered with The Metals Company to explore its area of the zone for minerals through that framework. At the same time, the ISA – which counts all Pacific nations among its 169-strong membership – has been developing a commercial mining code. The process, which began in 2014 and is ongoing, has been criticised by The Metals Company as effectively blocking it and Nauru's commercial mining interests. The company has also praised the US deepsea mining licencing pathway, which was effectively reactivated through an executive order President Donald Trump issued in April. That legislation, the Deep Sea Hard Mineral Resources Act, states the US can grant mining permits in international waters. At face value, it offers an alternative licencing route to commercial seabed activity in the high seas to the ISA. However, any cross-over between jurisdictions and authorities remains untested. In the press release from The Metals Company, its chief executive Gerard Barron made direct reference to Trump's order, titled 'Unleashing America's Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources'. He said he was heartened by its call 'for a joint assessment of a seabed benefit-sharing mechanism' and was certain that 'big ocean states' like Nauru would continue to play a leading role in the deep sea mining industry. The company confirmed two weeks ago it would not be applying for a commercial mining license through the ISA in June. Instead, it has said it would apply exclusively apply through US regulations. No mention of that decision was made in the press release. 'We remain unshakeable in our commitment to developing this project responsibly, transparently, and in a way that delivers real benefits to Nauruans,' Barron said. ISA secretary general Leticia Carvalho has previously said the US had no authority to offer permits in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. 'Circumventing the regulatory authority of the ISA not only breaches international law, but also erodes trust,' Carvalho said. In addition to Nauru, Tonga, Kiribati and the Cook Islands have special rights in the Clarion Clipperton Zone through the ISA.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store