• Zombie@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Both Facewatch and Sainsbury’s point to the software’s “99.98% accuracy” – but Rajah suspects the margin of error is higher and has questions about the dataset behind this claim, and if it is representative of a range of body types and skin colours.

    99.98% looks good to a layman, but that number is meaningless in reality.

    Is that 0.02% error false positives or false negatives, or both?

    Also, 0.02% means 2 in every 10,000. I don’t think it takes long for 10,000 people to go through the doors of Sainsburys every day, considering the UK population is about 65 million and they’re a nationwide company. Once this is rolled out nationwide they’re going to have constant false flags.

    Scumbag oppressive tactics by a scumbag company.

    • halcyoncmdr@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Yeah, 0.02% of 65 Million is 1.3 Million possible errors.

      And that’s just based on the raw population, that accuracy rating could be based on raw number of scans instead. A quick search shows Sainsbury’s serves 16 million customers a week. That’s 320,000 errors every week if the error rate is just raw scans as opposed to unique scans.

        • Zombie@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Indeed, it’s still a ridiculous amount of errors though.

          65,000,000 x (0.02%) = 13,000 possible errors

          16,000,000 x (0.02%) = 3,200 errors every week

          3,200 potentially pissed off and put off customers each week, how long is that sustainable?

    • mjr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      14 hours ago

      And the dataset is prbably racist, although in the reported case, it sounds like good old unreliable cross-race recognition by humans, with the evil eye pinging because it spotted someone and the store staff then telling the wrong person to naff off. It seems like a process or training failure if they don’t ask the evil eye to confirm they’ve got the person it flagged before upsetting them.

  • scrchngwsl@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    13 hours ago

    He was redirected to Sainsbury’s, which apologised and offered him a £75 shopping voucher.

    Get absolutely fucked Sainsbury’s, what a joke. “We’re sorry we called you a criminal and chucked you out of our shop, here’s some fake toy money you can only spend at the same place we humiliated you in.”

  • Cherry@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Did they start with the dulux software as a starting point? 99.98% Shade match = clearly guilty. 57.4% shade match enable the Jaffa cakes offer.

    Good on this guy standing up to this. It’s racism, whilst it might seem subtle it’s still systematic.

    • IanTwenty@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Thing is Sainsbury have learnt nothing from this and reasserted theair faith in facial recognition, blaming human error in store for grabbing wrong person. I feel we’ll see more of this in future.

  • JadenSmith@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    13 hours ago

    The only supermarket chain I was accused of shoplifting at, was a Sainsbury’s. I think the only thing I ever shoplifted, in my life, was one or two chewing gums that were sold for 1-2p each, as a kid over 30 years ago.

    This was before the facial recognition thing was implemented, however not that long ago (late 2010s). I lectured the security guard right then and there, informing him of just how peeved I was at such blatant excuses for prejudice.
    To be fair I believe he did apologise, and I was rather visibly offended, however I cannot imagine most people would be able to bring themselves to a defense in such situations. As if these things only exist to bully those who are expected to not stand up.