Latest news with #Pak'nSave
Otago Daily Times
7 days ago
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Large retailers support facial recognition technology in stores
By Phil Pennington of RNZ The heads of a dozen of the largest retailers and telcos in the country have come out in strong support of using facial recognition technology in their stores. This follows the Privacy Commissioner giving a "cautious tick" to a trial in New World and Pak'nSave supermarkets. "The undersigned major New Zealand retailers strongly support the use of fair and accurate technology to protect our workers and customers," said a statement at industry group Retail NZ's website. Without saying when they might start using it, they stated they would work now to develop "best practice". "We recognise that technology must be used in a fair and accurate way." The letter was signed by the heads of Briscoes and Rebel Sport, Bunnings and Mitre 10, Michael Hill Jewellers, Farmers and The Warehouse, the two Foodstuffs supermarket groups in the two islands as well as rival Woolworths, and telcos One NZ and Spark. Concern lingers over privacy of shoppers Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster had said his report was "not a green light for more general use of FRT" (facial recognition technology). "However, we recognise the importance of the issue for many businesses." The trial let other businesses ask themselves the right questions about whether to use FRT and in what ways to protect privacy, Webster said. There were significant caveats. "While the percentage of misidentifications may be small, rolling FRT out at scale would mean that large numbers of people would be misidentified." Foodstuffs North Island's own research suggested 900 shoppers a year could be misidentified in its stores alone. The commissioner suggested raising the algorithm accuracy from 90 percent to 92.5 percent, among other measures. A Māori Reference Panel set up at the end of 2024 told the commissioner it opposed FRT's use in supermarkets. This was "given the vital role of supermarkets in providing access to food, the current supermarket duopoly which means there are limited alternative options for people who are barred from entry, and the concern that the whole population of Aotearoa will be subjected to surveillance in supermarkets in order to reduce instances of harmful behaviour by a small minority of customers". How does it work? Retail NZ's Carolyn Young said for someone to be on the watchlist, they had to have offended and/or been abusive and/or aggressive in store and trespassed. If someone was trespassed from a retail environment, they currently are not able to return to that store for two years. "What we know in retail is that recidivous offending is very high - between 35-50 percent (depending on the sector) of offending is done by recidivous offending. "So we know that even though someone has been trespassed, they continue to come back into store," Young said. "FRT will enable stores to identify these individuals as they enter store to ensure that the store is safe for staff and customers. "FRT does not enable customers to be monitored. It takes an image of people as they enter the store and if they are not on the watchlist, then they are deleted immediately. "FRT does not provide ongoing monitoring throughout the store, just one photo/image as someone enters." The big-store signatories said they acknowledged the commissioner's oversight, and Foodstuffs for leading the way with its trial. "The use of FRT in the right settings with the right controls will provide positive benefits and outcomes for customers, retailers and workers, while not impeding on the privacy of New Zealanders. "The vast majority of customers will be able to go about their business as usual and will in fact be safer in those stores where FRT is used," the Retail NZ statement said. Webster also stressed it would be "highly desirable" to do training of the FRT algorithms on New Zealanders' faces, by consent, to cut down the risk of bias and inaccuracy. Very limited such testing by the Department of Internal Affairs last year found the imported tech it is currently using was accurate. What happens overseas? Many multiple FRT systems are on offer that return different rates of accuracy in independent tests by the US-based benchmarking agency. In Australia, Bunnings had been in a legal fight with a watchdog that asserted its facial recognition there impinged on people's privacy. Reports of the tech being used at supermarkets in an isolated way in New Zealand date back to at least 2018. Researchers foresaw the tech spread in 2021. "Private sector use of FRT-enabled surveillance is likely to increase, particularly in the retail sector, especially as these services come 'baked-in' to vendor offerings," their landmark report for police said. That contributed to police deciding not to use FRT on live camera feeds, a constraint they say they have stuck with till now. In Britain, the tech's spread, for example in airports and shopping centres, prompted the government's biometrics ethics group in 2021 to recommend oversight by an independent ethics group including of collaborative FRT use between retail and police. Young said Britain was a long way ahead of New Zealand in terms of the implementation of FRT and had used CCTV actively in the community for many years. Here, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) would carry out the role of oversight, she said. "It may be in the future that there is a need for another regulatory body to do this work, but while we are in our infancy of implementation and the OPC has been very clear about how it is to be rolled out, we believe that the parameters for implementation are very clear." The Privacy Commissioner's report does not contain a similar recommendation. It mentioned Foodstuffs auditing how it compiled watchlists of people for the camera-software to look out for, but not that this should be independent. The signed Retail NZ statement did not mention independent overview. Australia's privacy regulator signalled in March it would be proactive in regulating biometric information. Biometrics include face, fingerprint and iris - unique identifiers of who a person is. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner - it had taken on Bunnings, which was appealing - put this in a wider frame: "Our research told us that more than a quarter of Australians feel that facial recognition technology is one of the biggest privacy risks faced today, and only three percent of Australians think it's fair and reasonable for retailers to require their biometric information when accessing their services". "Thinking about what the law permits, but also what the community would expect" was critical.
Otago Daily Times
7 days ago
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Facial recognition technology supported by big name retailers
By Phil Pennington of RNZ The heads of a dozen of the largest retailers and telcos in the country have come out in strong support of using facial recognition technology in their stores. This follows the Privacy Commissioner giving a "cautious tick" to a trial in New World and Pak'nSave supermarkets. "The undersigned major New Zealand retailers strongly support the use of fair and accurate technology to protect our workers and customers," said a statement at industry group Retail NZ's website. Without saying when they might start using it, they stated they would work now to develop "best practice". "We recognise that technology must be used in a fair and accurate way." The letter was signed by the heads of Briscoes and Rebel Sport, Bunnings and Mitre 10, Michael Hill Jewellers, Farmers and The Warehouse, the two Foodstuffs supermarket groups in the two islands as well as rival Woolworths, and telcos One NZ and Spark. Concern lingers over privacy of shoppers Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster had said his report was "not a green light for more general use of FRT" (facial recognition technology). "However, we recognise the importance of the issue for many businesses." The trial let other businesses ask themselves the right questions about whether to use FRT and in what ways to protect privacy, Webster said. There were significant caveats. "While the percentage of misidentifications may be small, rolling FRT out at scale would mean that large numbers of people would be misidentified." Foodstuffs North Island's own research suggested 900 shoppers a year could be misidentified in its stores alone. The commissioner suggested raising the algorithm accuracy from 90 percent to 92.5 percent, among other measures. A Māori Reference Panel set up at the end of 2024 told the commissioner it opposed FRT's use in supermarkets. This was "given the vital role of supermarkets in providing access to food, the current supermarket duopoly which means there are limited alternative options for people who are barred from entry, and the concern that the whole population of Aotearoa will be subjected to surveillance in supermarkets in order to reduce instances of harmful behaviour by a small minority of customers". How does it work? Retail NZ's Carolyn Young said for someone to be on the watchlist, they had to have offended and/or been abusive and/or aggressive in store and trespassed. If someone was trespassed from a retail environment, they currently are not able to return to that store for two years. "What we know in retail is that recidivous offending is very high - between 35-50 percent (depending on the sector) of offending is done by recidivous offending. "So we know that even though someone has been trespassed, they continue to come back into store," Young said. "FRT will enable stores to identify these individuals as they enter store to ensure that the store is safe for staff and customers. "FRT does not enable customers to be monitored. It takes an image of people as they enter the store and if they are not on the watchlist, then they are deleted immediately. "FRT does not provide ongoing monitoring throughout the store, just one photo/image as someone enters." The big-store signatories said they acknowledged the commissioner's oversight, and Foodstuffs for leading the way with its trial. "The use of FRT in the right settings with the right controls will provide positive benefits and outcomes for customers, retailers and workers, while not impeding on the privacy of New Zealanders. "The vast majority of customers will be able to go about their business as usual and will in fact be safer in those stores where FRT is used," the Retail NZ statement said. Webster also stressed it would be "highly desirable" to do training of the FRT algorithms on New Zealanders' faces, by consent, to cut down the risk of bias and inaccuracy. Very limited such testing by the Department of Internal Affairs last year found the imported tech it is currently using was accurate. What happens overseas? Many multiple FRT systems are on offer that return different rates of accuracy in independent tests by the US-based benchmarking agency. In Australia, Bunnings had been in a legal fight with a watchdog that asserted its facial recognition there impinged on people's privacy. Reports of the tech being used at supermarkets in an isolated way in New Zealand date back to at least 2018. Researchers foresaw the tech spread in 2021. "Private sector use of FRT-enabled surveillance is likely to increase, particularly in the retail sector, especially as these services come 'baked-in' to vendor offerings," their landmark report for police said. That contributed to police deciding not to use FRT on live camera feeds, a constraint they say they have stuck with till now. In Britain, the tech's spread, for example in airports and shopping centres, prompted the government's biometrics ethics group in 2021 to recommend oversight by an independent ethics group including of collaborative FRT use between retail and police. Young said Britain was a long way ahead of New Zealand in terms of the implementation of FRT and had used CCTV actively in the community for many years. Here, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) would carry out the role of oversight, she said. "It may be in the future that there is a need for another regulatory body to do this work, but while we are in our infancy of implementation and the OPC has been very clear about how it is to be rolled out, we believe that the parameters for implementation are very clear." The Privacy Commissioner's report does not contain a similar recommendation. It mentioned Foodstuffs auditing how it compiled watchlists of people for the camera-software to look out for, but not that this should be independent. The signed Retail NZ statement did not mention independent overview. Australia's privacy regulator signalled in March it would be proactive in regulating biometric information. Biometrics include face, fingerprint and iris - unique identifiers of who a person is. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner - it had taken on Bunnings, which was appealing - put this in a wider frame: "Our research told us that more than a quarter of Australians feel that facial recognition technology is one of the biggest privacy risks faced today, and only three percent of Australians think it's fair and reasonable for retailers to require their biometric information when accessing their services". "Thinking about what the law permits, but also what the community would expect" was critical.
NZ Herald
09-06-2025
- Business
- NZ Herald
Lotto winner claims $500k prize a year after losing ticket, ASB bank enlisted to track down punter
Lotto has turned detective and enlisted the help of a bank to give $500,000 to a woman who lost her winning ticket. The $500,000 First Division prize was purchased at Pak'nSave Mt Albert last June. Time was running out for the prize to be claimed, as customers have 12 months
The Spinoff
05-06-2025
- Business
- The Spinoff
The cost of being: A dentist getting ready to go on maternity leave
As part of our series exploring how New Zealanders live and our relationship with money, a dentist explains where their money goes. Want to be part of The Cost of Being? Fill out the questionnaire here. Gender: Female. Age: 31. Ethnicity: New Zealand. Role: Dentist, about to go on maternity leave. Salary/income/assets: 2023-24 $146,000; 2024-25 projected $98,000. My living location is: Urban. Rent/mortgage per week: Mortgage $1272/fortnight, so $636/week – shared between my husband and I. Student loan or other debt payments per week: Student loan has $35,819 remaining (down from a high of $98,500). Approximately $13000 repayment per year, so $250 a week. Typical weekly food costs Groceries: $90-100 per week at Pak'nSave, shared with husband. Eating out: We tend to go out for dinner once per fortnight – $100 for that, but we try and use First Table where possible. Takeaways: $20 pizza or fish and chips, usually once per month. Workday lunches: Never, always bring in leftovers from home. Cafe coffees/snacks: One solo cafe trip per week while at work ($6.70, decaf) and one cafe trip with husband on the weekend ($20 – two drinks and a scone/muffin). Other food costs: $15/month on seeds/plants from garden centres. Savings: $200 per fortnight into an account for extra mortgage repayments, $100 for emergency fund, anything extra into joint account with husband, $10 per week into new savings account for unborn daughter. I worry about money: Sometimes. Three words to describe my financial situation: Lucky, focused, nervous. My biggest edible indulgence would be: Tajin, a Mexican chilli-lime salt from import stores. In a typical week my alcohol expenditure would be: Currently, none. When not pregnant perhaps $10/week. In a typical week my transport expenditure would be: $30 for petrol to and from work – I drive a fuel efficient Suzuki. I estimate in the past year the ballpark amount I spent on my personal clothing (including sleepwear and underwear) was: $1,500. My most expensive clothing in the past year was: A pink and white chequered dress from KILT, $159. My last pair of shoes cost: $80 Adidas Advantage shoes on sale – had to size up due to my feet getting bigger in pregnancy! My grooming/beauty expenditure in a year is about: Haircuts, 3-4 per year at $75 each. Makeup, approximately 4-6 mascaras at $20 each, and one Hawaiian tropic sunscreen each month (including winter) at $16 each. Total cost perhaps $800/year. My exercise expenditure in a year is about: Two pairs of sneakers and one pair of leggings and a sports top per year – $350. My last Friday night cost: $20 – brought food over to my sister's for a potluck. Most regrettable purchase in the last 12 months was: The aforementioned KILT dress. I didn't realise it was see-through! Most indulgent purchase (that I don't regret) in the last 12 months was: A banana mirror from Simon Lewis Wards on sale for $1000. I had eyed it up for nearly a year and had a dedicated savings account for it. It makes me smile every time I see it in my house. One area where I'm a bit of a tightwad is: Movies. I love going, but seeing the ticket cost (without food or drinks) top $20 recently means I rarely do it any more. Five words to describe my financial personality would be: Conscientious, occasionally indulgent, spreadsheets, lucky. I grew up in a house where money was: Available but used on 'big' things rather than small (e.g. buying home brands at the supermarket). Had some great holidays which I will always remember with my family growing up; and my parents stressed the importance of paying off the mortgage as soon as possible. The last time my Eftpos card was declined was: 2018, when I was a student at the supermarket. In five years, in financial terms, I see myself: Working part-time, secure, ideally half of the mortgage paid off and with a 3-6 month emergency fund. Describe your financial low: Starting my first job six years ago – not much money in the bank, monthly pay not due for another three weeks, and bond due for the rental house. Was a very tight three weeks with a lot of toast eaten in the staff room. I would love to have more money for: Travel!
NZ Herald
04-06-2025
- Business
- NZ Herald
Facial recognition in supermarkets - inside the privacy inquiry and when it's coming to a shop near you
To back up that recommendation, the OPC opened its own formal inquiry on April 4 2024 to cover the trial, which ran from February 8 2024 until September 7 2024. Foodstuffs-owned Pak'nSave and Woolworths-owned Countdown. Photo / NZME The OPC said: 'It is hard to overstate the privacy implications of a technology that, if widely deployed in supermarkets, would capture images and process the faces of millions of New Zealanders going about their daily lives.' That's a valid observation. Over the six-month trial period it scanned 225,972,004, clearly including repeat shoppers. Foodstuffs NI has around 4 million customers a week. A failure rate of one in a million would still be 200 people a year who have wound up on the wrong end of live facial recognition. What's the problem it is trying to solve? Foodstuffs NI and other retailers have spoken of the increase in retail crime in recent years, particularly with harm to staff and customers. Foodstuffs NI says it faced 5124 retail crime incidents in the first three months of 2024. Nationally, the estimated loss through retail crime is said to be $2.8b. It's not just the shoplifting, though. Aggression and violence towards staff was also a major motivator. As the OPC said, there was an overlap between the two with intervention over shoplifting incidents often leading to aggressive or violent behaviour. Live facial recognition offers a number of benefits, advocates say. Deterrence is the first - those who know live facial recognition is operating are said to be less likely to offend if they know they will be detected and potentially banned from shopping there. And for those already on a watchlist, they know their images have been captured and face a high risk of being identified if they enter the store. Foodstuffs trialed live facial recognition across 25 stores in the North Island. Photo / File If that doesn't put someone off, live facial recognition refines the human element by speeding up detection. Rather than monitoring of CCTV cameras by store security workers operating off memory, it provides a match with such speed that - Foodstuff NI says - it gives staff an average of four minutes of extra time to decide how to respond. That could include making a plan to deal with someone known to be problematic which could include calling police for backup. How does facial recognition work? When someone entered one of the Foodstuffs NI supermarkets in the trial, a camera would capture their face from which a computer would create a mathematical model of the person. That would be done by measurements of the shape and position of facial features like your eyes, mouth or nose. The mathematical model is called a 'biometric template' and is compared against images of the person that had been previously captured. The result will be a 'comparison score' expressed as a percentage that measures the likelihood the image of the person captured entering the supermarket is the same person who images is held, for example, in the store's watchlist of people previously identified as a risk by store security. In the case of Foodstuffs NI, the percentage score initially used was 90%. OPC considered that was too low and responsible for matching the wrong images. It has recommended Foodstuffs NI increase the percentage to 92.5%. No further issues emerged after that change. What happens when it doesn't work? This is a developing technology that comes with flaws although those are decreasing as time passes. OPC's view was that the type of system is a critical choice for those seeking out facial recognition technology with wide variation in quality between products on the marketplace. Issues which have emerged across platforms are higher error rates matching women and similar issues matching people with darker skin, largely because lighter shades are used to capture the biometric markers. 'Those error rates are likely to be higher if the system has not been trained for a particular population,' says OPC. Users across the world have attempted to iron out these discrepancies by training systems on the specific population on which it is being used. And the OPC says there is 'no specific training data set for the New Zealand population'. Dr Karaitiana Taiuru spoke of concerns Māori would be used as guinea pigs for facial recognition companies. Photo / RNZ OPC said 'it is unclear that these improvements have affected error rates for Māori and Pacific peoples'. It also notes greater negative effects for 'populations that are already more subject to disadvantage, surveillance, profiling, or being labelled as 'persons of interest''. This concern of errors was borne out with the misidentification of a woman in Rotorua who was wrongly accused of being a shoplifter. It is unclear that these improvements have affected error rates for Māori and Pacific peoples Office of the Privacy Commissioner Māori flagged a specific concern. A Māori interest group set up by the OPC, which is about to publish a position paper on biometrics, spoke against live facial recognition in supermarkets. Issues that arose included Māori already being subjected to over-monitoring and that a disproportionate focus on individuals will lead to active bias against a group. Also, there are real tikanga Māori concerns about the taking and storage of biometric information. The body parts captured are often considered tapu, including tā moko, mataora or moko kauae. Is it a silver bullet solution to retail crime? No, a human element is critical. The OPC emphasised the need for humans to be involved despite the ability of the technology to scan hundreds of millions of people each year. 'The technology is only part of the picture.' Live facial recognition needed to be used alongside a security strategy - 'that is, whether and how staff respond if the system triggers an alert', says the OPC. And 'how' is a key question as the OPC points to the intent behind the technology to reduce harmful events - and that depends on how the human element responds. The OPC also offered a reminder: 'It is also still primarily the role of the police as a well trained and equipped organisation with specific statutory powers, to reduce and respond to harmful incidents in stores.' It offers other cautions. The live facial recognition will identify only those on the store's watchlist, and that the previous alleged behaviour of those on the watchlist may not adequately predict current or future behaviour. It warns that each separate store needs to make a decision on the worth it will get from such a system - they all need to decide whether this technology is 'right for their communities'. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner raised repeatedly in the facial recognition report that police are the responsible agency to deal with theft and other crimes. Also, the trial was limited to those who showed 'serious harmful behaviour'. Those who committed 'low-level shoplifting' were one example of those the OPC says should not be on the watchlist. But did it work? The OPC says yes, 'a live facial recognition system was an effective way to reduce serious repeat offending during the trial period' although warned the use of live facial recognition and increased contact with customers could create new opportunities for violence. Foodstuffs NI lead lawyer Julian Benefield pointed to a review of the trial which found 100 serious harm incidents had been prevented (half because trespassed people did not enter the store) and a 16% reduction in harm as a result. There was also a 54% increase in trespass being detected. That's not where it ends because the OPC did have concerns at the lack of data produced by the trial. It was told the number of captured images (including repeats) was 225,972,004 but it didn't know how many 'unique faces' had been scanned. It tried to square that number through checkout transactions but the end result was not enough to understand the extent of the privacy impact. The scanned images and data related alerts, interventions and mismatches were not broken down by skin tone which made it hard to evaluate any bias towards people of colour. The OPC also raised issue with the way the trial stores self-selected and the quality of the 'control' information from stores not using the technology. Those in the trial provided good data while the control stores 'became disengaged' which led to 'inconsistencies in reporting and comparatively very low incident counts'. 'This affected the overall data quality. In short, it was clear to us that the data need to be treated with a degree of caution.' Its own inquiry, along with Foodstuffs NI's independent review - hired at the urging of the OPC - got the OPC to a place where it was 'confident in our conclusions' that the technology was effective at reducing harmful behaviour, had privacy safeguards to protect people and that Foodstuffs NI was complying with the Privacy Act. What is expected of those using live facial recognition? The vibe of the OPC report was one of an expectation that any store using this technology will invest in a framework that will avoid, or at least minimise, the downsides of 'overcollection, scope creep, surveillance, misidentification and bias'. The framework the OPC recommends has humans at its centre. Every step of the way, humans are making key decisions and carrying out ongoing reviews. In the trial, the live facial recognition system was disconnected from Foodstuffs NI's usual reporting tool - presumably the Auror crime reporting network. Each live facial recognition system was specific to its location, rather than available across other stores. All access was logged automatically and subject to regular review. It also came with strong record keeping to keep track of how the system was working. Foodstuffs has been told use of live facial recognition technology requires constant monitoring. Particularly, the OPC says Foodstuffs NI needs to actively monitor the use of live facial recognition but also the environment it is used in. While initial results from the trial show success in reducing serious crime, 'there is no evidence about whether it will continue to be effective or justified in the longer term'. It also includes making sure the language associated with those on the watchlist is specific to reflect the 'serious' alleged offending that led to their inclusion. If triggered by a trespass order, they were urged to drill down into what led to the trespass as not all would qualify for inclusion in a facial recognition watchlist. Once you're on a watchlist, how do you get off? The OPC was strict on how a watchlist operated - as was Foodstuffs NI in its trial. The OPC found the watchlists to be 'of reasonable quality and carefully controlled'. There was a separate watchlist for each store, apparently so as not to shut an alleged offender out of all places locally that might sell food. The watchlist could only be added to by staff with specific training. As noted earlier, inclusion on the list was for serious matters - not 'low-level' shoplifting. The OPC defined serious as 'physical and verbal assault, violent and threatening behaviour and higher value theft'. To be added to the watchlist, it required two staff members to confirm that the required level had been met. When it came to keeping people's information stored, those who didn't register an alert were instantly deleted. Those who did would be kept for a maximum two years with three months for accomplices. The watchlist also had those who were not allowed to be added such as children or young people under 18, the elderly and those with 'known mental health conditions'. Will police use the same technology? Police have so far ruled out the use of live facial recognition. In a recent assessment - August 2024 - it said 'the overall risks currently outweigh the potential benefits in the policing context'. It offered the view that it couldn't proceed until there was better knowledge around the ethical, legal, privacy and security elements of its use. That's not to say police officers don't use facial recognition it because they do - but not as a live tool. Rather, it uses it to match images of unknown offenders on a range of databases to see if a match can be made. With the publication of the largely positive OPC inquiry, Minister of Police Mark Mitchel and Police Commissioner Richard Chambers were enthusiastic. The statements made by each were effusive about its use by retailers rather than reflecting on any police use. Mitchell talked up crime reduction figures touted by Foodstuffs NI while Chambers enthused about technology as 'one of the biggest opportunities we have as a country … when it comes to fighting crime'. Chambers comments focused on retailers and how best they might use facial recognition for 'deterring, detecting and resolving crime'. The OPC's reminders of the primacy of police in this space and the police's enthusiasm for retailers to adopt the technology is an interesting contrast. Will we see more of this across other stores? Almost certainly. Live facial recognition technology is highly likely to be commonplace across New Zealand retail spaces. That's definitely the aim of Sunny Kaushal, spokesman for the Ministerial Advisory Group for the Victims of Retail Crime. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, centre, with Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee and Ministerial Advisory Group chair Sunny Kaushal. Photo / Ben Dickens The advisory group is working up a report for Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith on the subject although Kaushal has made it clear where its thinking is at. 'Retail crime is a $2.8 billion dollar problem and is paid for by every retailer and customer in New Zealand. Retailers need access to every tool that can help them to keep themselves and their businesses safe - including facial recognition technology." 'Privacy is important, but we need rules that recognise the right of every New Zealander to be safe from violent crime at work.' Goldsmith was effusive about the Foodstuffs NI trial following the release of the OPC report, calling it great news for those subject to retail crime. 'I expect our Ministerial Advisory Group will continue to look at this technology as an option to be used more widely and engage with the sector on it. What comes next? The OPC is preparing to publish its guidance on biometric systems. That will include facial recognition but also consider other means by which people are identified and tracked, from eye scanning through to computer analysis and tracking of the way people walk. And Goldsmith is expecting to receive a report from the retail advisory group. As indicated above, the sector is bullish over a wider rollout of the technology. David Fisher is based in Northland and has worked as a journalist for more than 30 years, winning multiple journalism awards including being twice named Reporter of the Year and being selected as one of a small number of Wolfson Press Fellows to Wolfson College, Cambridge. He joined the Herald in 2004. Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
