Latest news with #FoodstuffsNorthIsland
Newsroom
3 hours ago
- Business
- Newsroom
Facial recognition tech not a green light for surveillance
Analysis: The Privacy Commissioner's much-anticipated report into Foodstuffs North Island's trial of facial recognition technology (deemed an 'inherently invasive' tool) offers plenty to chew over. Although the inquiry found the trial legal and generally compliant with the Privacy Act, important questions remain, and the report recommends that the technology stay under active review. People who may have been paranoid about facial recognition technology being used to monitor their every move in supermarkets – what's purchased and so forth – can rest easy. The commissioner found the technology was only used for the very narrow purpose of deterring serious incidents of violence and high-value retail theft by matching customers against a store's 'watchlist' (the image database of people of interest). It was not used for any other purpose, including minor retail crime prevention. The report cautioned against any future 'mission creep' in this regard. Furthermore, although everyone entering a store with such technology had their face scanned, images that did not trigger a match against the store's watchlist were deleted almost instantaneously. Meanwhile, watchlist data was deleted after two years in the case of perpetrators (and three months for their accomplices). The number of people put on watchlists peaked at 1800 during the trial and was down to 1504 at the end. Crucially, watchlist data was specific to each store, meaning there was no master list shared within the Foodstuffs' network. This meant anyone who had been added to one store's watchlist could still shop elsewhere, including at a store without facial recognition technology. Just as importantly, the criteria for being added to a watchlist were strict: either a conviction or a trespass notice was required. There was also de-linkage from other incident reporting systems, and watchlists were compiled manually. A two-camera/two-staff fail-safe system was adopted for positive matches, and the commissioner's report found no bias in how watchlists were compiled as well as used. Children and young people were excluded from watchlists. Meanwhile, Foodstuffs also maintained record keeping for judging the effectiveness of the facial recognition trial. A 16 percent decrease in serious incidents and an estimated 21 percent decrease in shoplifting in the participating stores was recorded. In addition, 115 serious incidents were avoided (including 65 people deterred from entering and 50 others through staff intervention). However, some scepticism was expressed because of qualitative limitations in the overall data set (especially data from non-participating stores which operated as the control group). The report documented at least two instances of misidentification, resulting in harm. Partly as a result, the accuracy rate required for positive matches was increased from 90 percent to 92.5 percent, although this still needed to be implemented. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner's Māori Reference Panel had opposed facial recognition technology in principle but gave advice enabling further safeguards to be adopted. Finally, the report cautions that its findings are 'not a green light for more general use of facial recognition technology'. This is a salutary reminder that decisions to employ it should not be taken lightly. Few small and medium-sized businesses will have the resources of Foodstuffs. The trial succeeded because of its investment in human time and effort. Technology, ultimately, is no substitute for this.
Otago Daily Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Watchdog wants more rules for big supermarket players
Change is on the cards for the supermarket sector, as the Commerce Commission looks at ways to improve competition. It has released a draft report into the review of the Grocery Supply Code and a preliminary view into its wholesale market inquiry. The commission identified two commercial behaviours which it said reinforced the power of the major supermarkets - Foodstuffs and Woolworths - and the country's biggest grocery suppliers. Grocery Commissioner Pierre van Heerden said a key problem was the power imbalance between major retailers and small suppliers, meaning those suppliers were reluctant to push back and insist on better prices. He said small suppliers feared damaging relationships or losing access to shelves. "This leads to smaller suppliers taking on costs and risks that are best managed by the retailer." The commission has also taken issue with promotional payments in wholesale markets, where small retailers cannot compete for deals against big players. "The prices the major supermarkets pay suppliers are subsidised by around $5 billion in rebates, discounts, and promotional payments," van Heerden said. "Competing retailers can't negotiate similar levels of support due to their weaker buying power." The commission recommended four changes to the Grocery Supply Code, including adding a requirement that if a retailer bought groceries at a discount for a sale period, and then sold the product at a higher price after the sale period, they had to pay the difference to the supplier. It would also prohibit retaliation against suppliers exercising their rights under the code. In the wholesale market inquiry, the commission recommended two changes, including major supermarkets expanding their wholesale product range and putting in systems to pass promotional funding through to their wholesale customers, so that other retailers could access cheaper prices. It also recommended suppliers reduce their reliance on promotional funding, or allocate the funding to more retailers. The commission has sought submissions on the draft Grocery Supply Code and would consider those before a final report due by the end of September. It said changes proposed for the wholesale market would be voluntary for now, but if there was no "meaningful progress" in a year, it would decide whether it needed to change regulations. It said a final report on its wholesale supply inquiry would likely be completed in 2026. Supermarkets respond In a statement, Foodstuffs North Island said it would review the commission's draft report and recommendations, though it maintained its support for the status quo. "We support the existing intent of the code and the dispute resolution process," a Foodstuffs North Island spokesperson said. "We are open to working with the commission on ideas to lift awareness and understanding of the code, particularly among smaller suppliers who may need additional support." Foodstuffs said regularly surveyed its more than 2000 suppliers "to ensure we are working as partners, listening, and constantly improving". "Any supplier who has an issue should raise it through the appropriate channel - either with us directly or through the Commerce Commission." Woolworths New Zealand interim managing director Pieter de Wet said the company had positive relationships with its 1400 local and international suppliers. "We support the Grocery Supply Code because we feel that consistent rules hold everyone to the same high standard and help businesses of all sizes to grow and succeed," de Wet said in a statement. "We're working closely with suppliers and wholesale customers to further improve and develop our wholesale business." Woolworths New Zealand would work constructively with the commission through the submission process.
NZ Herald
7 days ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
Privacy commissioner inquiry finds supermarket facial recognition tech's use is justified
'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
Scoop
03-06-2025
- Scoop
Supermarket Trial Of FRT: Inquiry Results Announced
Press Release – Office of the Privacy Commissioner 'FRT systems have potential safety benefits, but they do raise significant privacy concerns, including the unnecessary or unfair collection of peoples information, misidentification, technical bias which can reinforce existing inequities and human … Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster has found that the live facial recognition technology model trialled by Foodstuffs North Island is compliant with the Privacy Act. However, his Inquiry report released today, shows that any business considering or using FRT needs to make sure it sets things up right to stay within the law. 'While the use of FRT during the trial was effective at reducing harmful behaviour (especially reducing serious violent incidents) it has also shown that there are many things that need to be taken into account. 'FRT systems have potential safety benefits, but they do raise significant privacy concerns, including the unnecessary or unfair collection of people's information, misidentification, technical bias which can reinforce existing inequities and human bias, or the ability to be used for surveillance'. 'These issues become particularly critical when people need to access essential services such as supermarkets. FRT will only be acceptable if the use is necessary and the privacy risks are successfully managed'. The purpose of the Privacy Commissioner's Inquiry into Foodstuffs North Island's trial use of live FRT was to understand its privacy impacts, its compliance with the Privacy Act, and to evaluate if it was an effective tool in reducing serious retail crime compared with other less privacy intrusive options. The Inquiry found while the level of privacy intrusion was high because every visitor's face is collected, the privacy safeguards used in the trial reduced it to an acceptable level. 'Foodstuffs North Island designed the privacy safeguards used in the trial with feedback from my Office. This has provided some useful lessons for other businesses which may be considering using FRT.' The main privacy safeguards in place during the trial were: – Images that did not result in a positive match were deleted immediately, as recommended by OPC – this meant there was very little privacy impact on most people who entered the trial stores – The system was set up to only identify people who had engaged in seriously harmful behaviour, particularly violent offending – Staff were not permitted to add images of children or young people under 18, or people thought to be vulnerable, to the watchlist – There was no sharing of watchlist information between stores – During the trial, the operational threshold that triggered an FRT alert was raised from 90% to 92.5% likelihood of the images matching, reducing the chances that people would be misidentified while managing down the 'computer says yes' risk – Match alerts were verified by two trained staff, ensuring that human decision making was a key part of the process – Access to the FRT system and information was restricted to trained authorised staff only – Images collected were not permitted to be used for training data purposes – Systems were reviewed and improved during the trial where misidentifications or errors occurred. 'There is still some work to do to increase the safety and effectiveness of FRT software use in the New Zealand context, as FRT technology has been developed overseas and has not been trained on the New Zealand population. 'As a result, we can't be completely confident it has fully addressed technical bias issues, including the potential negative impact on 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.' 'Some improvements will also need to be made by FSNI before the use of FRT is made permanent or expanded to more stores. These focus on ensuring the documented processes and system settings are updated to match what happens in practice, including ongoing review of the use of FRT to make sure its use is justified as an effective tool for reducing serious harm offending. '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. 'The trial findings will help other businesses to ask the right questions about whether FRT is necessary and appropriate for them and to understand what they would need to do to set FRT up and run it in a privacy protective way.' The report sets out my expectations for the use of FRT across nine key areas, says the Privacy Commissioner. The FRT trial started on 8 February and ended on 7 September 2024 and ran in 25 supermarkets. During the trial, 225,972,004 faces were scanned (includes multiple scans of the same person), with 99.999% of these deleted within one minute, and there were 1742 alerts of which 1208 were confirmed matches. OPC is currently developing a Biometric Processing Privacy Code, which applies to biometric information, including a photo of someone's face used in a Facial Recognition System. The new Code is expected to be published in mid-2025. The Biometrics Code is designed to provide guardrails for the safe use of biometrics generally, including FRT, in New Zealand.
Scoop
03-06-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Report Confirms Facial Recognition Can Be Used Responsibly To Reduce Retail Crime
Retailers across New Zealand will welcome today's findings from the Privacy Commissioner, which confirm that Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) can be used in a way that complies with the Privacy Act, paving the way for responsible use to help tackle rising retail crime, Retail NZ says. Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster has released his review of the FRT trial conducted by Foodstuffs North Island. His report finds that the trial was compliant with the Privacy Act and the technology can be used with appropriate guardrails to protect individuals' privacy. Facial recognition technology is a powerful tool with the potential to help keep retail staff safe at work and to reduce crime, Retail NZ Chief Executive Carolyn Young says. 'We applaud the huge amount of time and effort that Foodstuffs North Island has put into this trial, to achieve strong outcomes that lead the way for the wider retail sector,' Ms Young says. 'We also acknowledge the work of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and their public inquiry that ran alongside the FRT trial.' The results of Foodstuffs North Island's FRT trial clearly showed that the technology had made a measurable impact in reducing harm and improving safety in stores. '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. 'We know that retailers across Aotearoa New Zealand have been watching the trial with great interest and a number are investigating FRT for their own operations in the near future.' FRT is not going to be the solution for all businesses or all crime. Retailers may decide that it is not suitable for particular stores or locations, but it is a tool that retailers want to have available to consider alongside other crime prevention tools such as security guards, fog cannons, staff training, body cameras and other technology solutions, Ms Young says. Retail crime is a significant issue in New Zealand, impacting more than 99% of retailers and costing well over $2.6 billion a year. Retail NZ has formed a working group comprising a number of large retailers which is developing agreed approaches to crime prevention measures, including FRT. 'We will be taking time to review the details of the Privacy Commissioner's report to understand how we can best support Retail NZ members with guidelines on how to use FRT responsibly,' Ms Young says. Ms Young is a member of the Ministerial Advisory Group on retail crime which is also developing solutions to tackle retail crime.
