Is Bunnings' (Facial Recognition Tech) Processing Speed Claim Plausible?

LTricon on 24/11/2024 - 19:59
Last edited 24/11/2024 - 22:13 by 1 other user

Recently in the news in relation to a facial recognition trial where the company was "using a facial recognition tool in its stores across NSW and VIC"

In the paywalled article:

Bunnings managing director Michael Schneider said stores that participated in the trial had at least 10 per cent fewer violent incidents.

“We believe that customer privacy was not at risk. The electronic data of the vast majority of people was processed and deleted in 0.00417 seconds – less than the blink of an eye,” he said. “We never used data for marketing purposes or to track customer behaviour.”

Could someone please detail the mathematics behind the claim?

Computing

Related Stores

Bunnings Warehouse
Bunnings Warehouse
Marketplace

Comments

  • AndyC1 on 24/11/2024 - 20:04
    -6

    So you are posting about refund processing or payment processing? 0.00417 is very quick to process a refund or payment.

    If you are posting about facial recognition then the post needs re-writing to indicate that.

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 24/11/2024 - 22:03
      +1

      That makes sense. Cheers.

    • AndyC1 on 25/11/2024 - 20:01

      OP has fixed the post to make sense now.

  • apsilon on 24/11/2024 - 20:13
    +1

    I think the claim is complete BS. If they're deleting the data in a fraction of a second how are they comparing repeat offenders faces? They'd literally have nothing to compare it to because it was deleted. Being able to find these offenders only makes sense if the data is retained so they have it to compare to.

    • MS Paint on 24/11/2024 - 20:32
      +7

      I listened to an interview with the CEO and my understanding was they store the data of known offenders in their stores. As customers enter they are compared to known offenders in the database.

      Some of the violent scenarios that have unfolded in the stores are very scary. Some staff wear bodycams due
      to multiple incidents in stores.

      There's some real fruit loops out there.

      • apsilon on 24/11/2024 - 20:39
        -1

        How can they though when the data gets deleted in a fraction of a second as claimed? It'd be deleted before they ever offended.

        • geekcohen on 25/11/2024 - 05:48
          +4

          I think you are confused. Those who have offended are stored in the database and are there permanently.

          This is only the facial recognition element that is deleted. You are still recorded like every other security system walking into the store, doing your shopping and walking out again, etc.; there is just no facial recognition element attached to the storage of that footage.

          • apsilon on 25/11/2024 - 06:24
            -3

            @geekcohen: I'm not confused, it can't be both deleted and stored permanently. If they're storing footage then they're storing data that can be used for facial recognition, exactly what they say they're not doing. What they're doing is a play on words to placate privacy advocates. They're not storing the actual facial recognition data but they're storing data that facial recognition can be built from at any time. The end result is the same.

            They say they haven't used the system since the trial but again this is false. They're no longer doing it live is what they actually mean, they're still collecting and processing facial recognition data.

            • freefall101 on 25/11/2024 - 09:19
              +1

              @apsilon:

              The electronic data of the vast majority of people was processed and deleted in 0.00417 seconds.

              Keep it for the small number of offenders, remove it for everyone else

              They say they haven't used the system since the trial but again this is false. They're no longer doing it live is what they actually mean, they're still collecting and processing facial recognition data.

              That seems a pretty big claim, got anything to back it up?

              • apsilon on 25/11/2024 - 09:31
                -2

                @freefall101: OK, let's say they do only keep it for the offenders. So when is the data deleted? Someone walks into Bunnings and they're scanned and the data deleted in 0.00417 seconds. How has anyone had time to offend so how do they know who to keep? It's deleted later? When? Hourly? Daily? Monthly? Annually? The wording is aimed to give the impression it's immediate, that's why the 0.00417 seconds was stated. The reality is footage is kept for a significant amount of time and that facial recognition data built on demand. They may only keep the biometric data of offenders but they can rebuild that data for anyone for a significant amount of time.

                What have I got to back it up? Decades of working IT for some of the largest corps in the world and seeing first hand the difference between what happens and what PR spin is released to the public. EDIT and a Bunnings associate that has now posted that it is the case that it's built later upon demand.

                • freefall101 on 25/11/2024 - 10:03

                  @apsilon: Bunnings keeps a tonne of security footage, which would be retained when there is any kind of criminal issue. It's easy to scan someone into their facial recognition system after that.

                  And if you've worked for decades in IT at large companies, you've come across people making bold claims without a scrap of evidence to back it up. To back it up you need evidence, not gut feels and "trust me bro, it's how it works". My experience of decades in finance and IT working for someone of the largest corps in the world is that I don't trust anything without evidence.

                  • apsilon on 25/11/2024 - 10:26

                    @freefall101: You're somehow saying the same thing yet disagreeing with me. Do you agree they can create facial recognition data at any time they want and hence their claims are in reality BS or not? I suppose the Bunning assoc below saying the same thing is also some how wrong?

                    • freefall101 on 25/11/2024 - 12:50

                      @apsilon: Literally anyone with video footage of anyone can create facial recognition data at any time they want. Funny thing about facial recognition data, you can generate it anytime you can see a face.

                      That's entirely different to actually doing it. They used to do it, that's how they got the images of criminals in the store, then they compared incoming faces to those. Now they've stopped doing that.

                    • Chandler on 25/11/2024 - 13:31

                      @apsilon: I think freefall101's point here is that facial recognition data is not being kept for all customers, only for offenders.

                      Assuming freefall101's comment is correct, Bunnings retains CCTV footage for X period (which is typical for any business). If a customer commits an offence, that CCTV footage is sent for facial recognition processing and storage, which then allows them to be recognised upon entry of the store in future. All customers (including offenders) have their facial details sent for processing upon entry. It is this data that Bunnings have advised is processed and deleted in less than a second.

                      There's two parts to facial recognition: imagery (video, stills, etc) and mapping (creating a map of your face, like Apple's FaceID). The former is less accurate and can be slower to get a match. The latter is more intrusive in terms of privacy, as it would (?) be classed as biometric data. It's unclear here what sort of data Bunnings is referring to, but I would presume they are not considering their CCTV data; not that they should, in my opinion. CCTV data is (and should) only be retained on premise, and access to that data is restricted. The systems should generally be air-gapped, with a intranet accessible interface that can access the CCTV data locally (i.e. you have a second system that can access the air-gapped data, rather than having the data accessible directly from off-premise).

      • Buttocks on 24/11/2024 - 22:03
        +2

        Yes I agree fruit loops and desperate low lifes…any violence physically or verbally is bad. If abuse is so bad then Bunnings is not fulfilling their duty of care towards staff and customers by not employing trained security guards at each store. It is not staff responsability to be quasi security protecting customers and Bunnings property from theft or violence. They have young girls and boys checking dockets as you walk out…one punch and they could be damaged for life or dead. Sorry people for getting on my soap box, this story has disturbed me ever since it hit the news.

    • AssociatedNitrollparty @ Bunnings Warehouse on 25/11/2024 - 07:53
      +1

      sir, the "data" may be getting deleted, but the recording is still there, when we have a known theft, we go back to the recording and save the data of the known suspect, and goes into the data base… its not that hard to get your head around it

      • apsilon on 25/11/2024 - 09:35
        +1

        That's exactly my point. The biometric data can be built later so it's never really deleted for anyone until all recordings of that person are deleted which is not in the claimed time frame. It's at best semantics and at worst deliberately misleading. A more accurate statement is "we don't retain biometric data but we can build such data on demand".

  • meowsers on 24/11/2024 - 20:39

    You just have to wear these https://www.reflectacles.com/#home

    • CascadeHush on 24/11/2024 - 20:47

      I’m not sure how serious you are so I’m going to pretend you are. I usually wear a cap and sunglasses anyway. Would these offer any more “protection”.

      • skid on 24/11/2024 - 21:01

        The linked glasses "blind" IR cameras. IR cameras are used to see in the dark. The glasses shine IR light back towards the camera which would have a similar effect as shining a bright torch in your eyes. Doubt Bunnings would be using IR cameras as the cameras do not need to see in the dark.

        • GordonD on 24/11/2024 - 21:14

          You could get these for speed and red light cameras. They put a ring of IR LEDs around your number plate, blinding the camera so it can't get a good image of it. And its not obvious because a human can't see the IR light. The other trick was to put an IR opaque but visible light transparent sheet over the number plate so it just came out in the image as a black rectangle.

          The predecessors to these, when it was radar detecting you, was when you detected the radar beam you fired back a signal that blocked the radar gun from getting a reading. So radar guns had the feature added of detecting that, and since there was a cop behind the radar gun he'd just stop you and book you for that, with a higher penalty than the speeding booking would have cost you.

          Of course everything of that sort is highly illegal because it impedes revenue generation.

        • trongy on 25/11/2024 - 19:35

          Many regular camera sensors don't fully filter out IR. Point an IR remote control at your phone camera and see what's visible. Every phone camera I've had in the last decade has been sensitive to IR to see a remote control light up even though it's not visible to the naked eye.

          However, if this is a real world problem for security cameras, I expect they would already have some sort of hardware or software IR filtering built in.

          • skid on 25/11/2024 - 21:22

            @trongy: You're right - I doubt Bunnings would be using cameras that could be disabled by those glasses.

    • geekcohen on 25/11/2024 - 05:44
      -1

      and then pair it with a tin foil hat?

  • GordonD on 24/11/2024 - 21:02
    +1

    Yes, Bunnings claim is plausible. They just didn't explain it well, and the media didn't ask the obvious question of where the images being compared to come from.

    It has security video around and throughout the store. And it has a facial recognition system at the front door. The images of previous violent and criminal offenders are captured from the security video of the incidents the people are involved in. Those images are fed into the facial recognition system. As each customer comes in the door their face is compared to the stored images. If there is no match that customer's image is immediately deleted.

    And Bunnings is going to keep doing it, and extend it out to all its stores, by the simple method of putting a sign up at the entrance saying they are doing it. They only broke the law by not having that sign in relation to the facial recognition system. They aren't required to have one for the normal security video that's collected by lots of places for lots of reason. Only if they do the facial recognition software on it, and convert it into biometric data.

    • Tricon on 24/11/2024 - 22:02

      Thanks, I'm genuinely interested in understanding the mathematics and how a reliable assessment occurs in 4.17ms.

      • rumblytangara on 25/11/2024 - 00:00

        “We believe that customer privacy was not at risk. The electronic data of the vast majority of people was processed and deleted in 0.00417 seconds – less than the blink of an eye,”

        Sounds like misleading BS.

        Recording the image, processing it through the local network, sending it to whatever cloud processing platform they are using, running whatever processing they are using… will take more than 4 milliseconds. Try pinging 1.1.1.1- that will have a nearby local responder, it'll probably be around 3-4ms just for that if you're in a metro area, and includes no processing.

        Sounds like they have taken some idealised subslice of whatever their process is to come up with a very fancy-sounding 'technukul' number to try to impress people. It's utterly meaningless as a figure.

        They're a virtual monopoly. Fundraising sausages and debates about the placement of onions on said sausages aside, monopolies tend not to be nice trustworthy market players.

        • mantra on 25/11/2024 - 03:16

          why would they use a cloud provider? having a system that runs 24/7 or during opening hours would be much cheaper to run locally

          google coral is surprising for what it can do is very cheap with such little compute power, just need highly optimised models check out some benchmarks 400fps inference, i'd imagine bunnings using something higher end

          0.00417 seconds makes sense and could be a positive sign device isn't internet connected; we can test that theory if anyone wants to cause a stir and see if other stores systems pick it up (i do not condone this)

          wonder if anyone audits companies with security cameras any camera stream could be fed into a facial recognition system without our knowledge which is quite the concern but with how fast technology is advancing, we just have to resign ourselves to our fate or start living off the grid

          • geekcohen on 25/11/2024 - 05:44
            +2

            @mantra:

            why would they use a cloud provider? having a system that runs 24/7 or during opening hours would be much cheaper to run locally

            Because the maintenance of running individual systems/units at each and every store would be a bloody nightmare! Plus then the setup cost of each store to have servers and all the hardware maintenance. It would be cheaper and more cost-effective to run it on a Cloud Solution. Bunnings / Westfarmers have a deal with AWS

          • rumblytangara on 25/11/2024 - 08:52
            +1

            @mantra:

            why would they use a cloud provider? having a system that runs 24/7 or during opening hours would be much cheaper to run locally

            The bulk of their staff seem to be teenagers that don't even know anything about the hardware that the store is selling to customers. There is no way that Bunnings is going to have load of onsite tech gear that will require onsite specialist knowledge to maintain and repair.

            It's all going to be all cloud connected- it's all about cost control. At the very least, centralised systems at a datacentre- the bare minimum onsite. If they were serious about physical safety for their staff they'd have proper security guards in very visible places, not some teenager on guard at the exit.

      • GordonD on 25/11/2024 - 07:57

        From biometric data you can recognise a face easily in 4.17 milliseconds, because you aren't looking at the face with an AI system, you are just looking at a list of numbers that describe the relative dimensions of various features on their face. Using a face description that has been reduced to biometric data doesn't require a fancy cloud system. It can be done on site. I don't know whether it is. I also don't know whether the manager who referred to it being done that quickly should be taken as talking the absolute literal technical truth. He's probably just quoting the marketing spiel of whoever sold his company the product.

      • AndyC1 on 25/11/2024 - 20:02

        WAN links are not that fast.

  • iridiumstem on 25/11/2024 - 07:01
    +2

    This might sound absolutely stupid but I have a theory. The CEO just says the "electronic data" was "processed and deleted", which might not mean the entire facial recognition process. The CEO also does preface the comment by unless "matched against a specific database of people known to, or banned from stores for abusive, violent behaviour or criminal conduct". If they have some form of a screening process that the customers' face data went through before more time consuming processes takes place, and if that screening process took that short of a time, I think that makes more sense.

    It is still really really fast though (had to look up how fast people do facial recognition, and it was in 300~400ms ish region from a research paper).

    • rodericb on 25/11/2024 - 12:35
      +2

      The managing director probably had very little idea on how it works (and probably still doesn't). He has asked down the chain of command how the hell this thing works as he has the media and now a bunch of other stakeholders breathing down his neck. Answer comes back up, all those along the comms path have tweaked the message as they saw fit and the final product of that doesn't quite make sense.

      The usual corporate SNAFU.

  • netjock on 25/11/2024 - 09:23
    -2

    Problem with Bunnings is they have a customer base that has all sorts of stuff that can be used as crude weapons in their car. I've seen a bunch of tradies accuse staff of racism and then go around the store like a herd hunting the person down.

    • rumblytangara on 26/11/2024 - 09:36

      Which is why facial recognition is useless compared to onsite big, burly security guards as a deterrent. Why place the onus of physical security on a weedy, untrained teenager or 20 year old earning minimum wage? On, I know- because it's cheaper.

      • netjock on 26/11/2024 - 10:17

        Security is only useful against those who respect the law or on the border of breaking the law.

        Doesn't stop those who are adamant about it.

        • rumblytangara on 26/11/2024 - 11:34

          Security via weedy, unassertive teenagers + a remote backend IT system is useless against those who are adamant about it.

          What's useful against macho (profanity) who want to gang up on some young kid? On, I know- the impending threat of physical force from big hulking security guards who have been properly trained.

          Which would you be more immediately deterred by?

          • netjock on 26/11/2024 - 11:38

            @rumblytangara: This conversation is just a waste of time. Maybe you should get a job as head of site security at Bunnings.

            • rumblytangara on 26/11/2024 - 11:39

              @netjock: So what do you think is the fix for aggressive behaviour at Bunnings?

              (Agreed on the waste of time though)

              • netjock on 26/11/2024 - 11:40

                @rumblytangara: Which part of this conversation is waste of time.

                Go and pick an argument at your local pub. Seems like pubs are great places for ideas.

                • rumblytangara on 26/11/2024 - 11:40

                  @netjock: Then why are you part of this conversation? Are you in a pub now? It's a bit early.

                  • netjock on 26/11/2024 - 11:44

                    @rumblytangara: Look up. You replied to me then proceeded to be obtuse about it.

                    Where am I am is not of your concern and the best part is you try to weave it into part of the argument to make you sound right. Get a life.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join