Mannequin Spies Collect Data On Shoppers, page 1

Mannequin Spies Collect Data On Shoppers, page

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

Topic started on 22-11-2012 @ 04:08 PM by silent thunder

Above: the The EYE SEE survalience mannequin from Almax S.p.A. (Italy)

Store mannequins are meant to catch your eye. Soon, you may catch theirs.

Fashion brands are deploying mannequins equipped with the same technology used to identify airport terrorists to watch over shoppers in their stores. Retailers are introducing the EyeSee, sold by Italian mannequin maker Almax SpA, to glean data on customers much as online merchants are able to do....

The EyeSee looks ordinary enough on the outside, with its slender polystyrene frame, blank face and improbable pose. Inside, it's no dummy. A camera embedded in one eye feeds data into facial-recognition software much like that used by law enforcement authorities. It logs the age, gender and race of passers-by...

While some stores deploy similar technology to watch shoppers from overhead security cameras, the EyeSee provides better data because it stands at eye level and invites customer attention, Almax contends.

Source: Post Gazette

More survalience, less likely to be noticed. Hidden cameras are everywhere; no longer is it so easy to tell when you are being watched by looking for the boxy, black cameras of yesterday. And there seems to be very little outrage over this, although I am sure many of you, like me, might find the trend disconcerting. Boosters of this new tech say it doesn't identify people personally, just looks for general information like age and gender, but where do you draw the line? People seem perfectly content to stand by while the very concept of privacy erodes like a sandcastle at high tide.

Plus, mannequins are creepy things anyway. I always thought they were looking at me. Now I know they are.

edit on 11/22/2012 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 22-11-2012 @ 04:28 PM by jude11

Hope these things aren't too far from the sporting section...baseball bats, hockey sticks, boxing gloves.

"STOP LOOKING AT ME"...BAM!

Homer Moment?

Peace

reply posted on 22-11-2012 @ 04:35 PM by beezzer

Initially, I was angry when I read this.

Then I had a drink.

They have cameras all over the place in every store-shop-shoppe-mall anyhow! They're usually the little black balls that are up in the ceiling.

Now they have mannequins with cameras.

The next-gen perhaps, but no greater threat of personal privacy than all the other cameras that we take for granted.

Just my humble opinion.

reply posted on 22-11-2012 @ 05:02 PM by silent thunder

reply to post by beezzer

There is a difference between survalience when you know you are being watched versus survalience without your knowledge. In most cases the store camera is clearly visable, or there is a sign to alert you to knowing that you are under survalience.

Moreover, these mannequins are not anti-theft devices in stores. They are pointed out at the street, analyzing passers-by, without their consent or knowledge. This is being done primarily for market research purposes, not for security. There is no "opt-out button" or way for passers-byt to know they are being watched.

reply posted on 22-11-2012 @ 05:07 PM by beezzer

Originally posted by silent thunder
reply to post by beezzer

There is a difference between survalience when you know you are being watched versus survalience without your knowledge. In most cases the store camera is clearly visable, or there is a sign to alert you to knowing that you are under survalience.

Moreover, these mannequins are not anti-theft devices in stores. They are pointed out at the street, analyzing passers-by, without their consent or knowledge. This is being done primarily for market research purposes, not for security. There is no "opt-out button" or way for passers-byt to know they are being watched.

Then I'll offer my apologies and return to being pissed off.

reply posted on 22-11-2012 @ 05:46 PM by BrokenCircles

reply to post by silent thunder

Nowadays, size doesn't matter quite as much as it did in the past.

au-102/au-103

Ya know, the crazy part about this is that I am sure for some people, these↑↓ just aren't quite good enough. Close, but not quite there yet..... Still working on that next one, which will be a bit smaller, and have a slightly larger memory.

www.geeky-gadgets.com...

edit on 11/22/12 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-11-2012 @ 10:21 AM by silent thunder

reply to post by BrokenCircles

I just hope that if stores or other public places use these kinds of tiny devices, they will let us know with signs. I suppose this is too much to ask for in our brave new world of zero privacy...

reply posted on 23-11-2012 @ 02:47 PM by BrokenCircles

Originally posted by silent thunder

I just hope that if stores or other public places use these kinds of tiny devices, they will let us know with signs. I suppose this is too much to ask for in our brave new world of zero privacy...

To be honest, I don't really pay much attention to surveillance cameras anymore.

I hadn't actually thought about this before, but I think it would be a good strategy, and I assume that some businesses/stores already do this....

Leave the old signs in place.
(which is most likely near the entrance)

Also, leave the old cameras in place, even if you no longer use them.

Which I have noticed before at various stores, where you could tell that there was nothing inside of these↓.

Not all of them anyways. The stores have many of the domes, but maybe only 1/3rd of them actually have a camera inside.

Anyways, some places probably have the signs that show an image of the older bigger cameras, and have just a couple of them still in place near the front of the store. Then have many of the tiny cameras all over the place in the back, so that there are absolutely no blind-spots whatsoever.

If you see none, you may assume that they are just hidden.
But if you see a couple, you may think those are the only one's they have.

reply posted on 23-11-2012 @ 02:51 PM by Hefficide

Now there just gonna spend billions and all it's going to end up accomplishing is some published paper about how men don't make eye contact with female mannequins any more than they do real women...

Great... Now I have a new phobia. Mannequins that know I'm staring at their stuff....

~Heff

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 01:46 AM by BrokenCircles

reply to post by Hefficide

Originally posted by Hefficide

.....men don't make eye contact with female mannequins..........

That's why I always sneak up on 'em from behind....

Leaving your sunglasses on is also somewhat helpful.

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 03:00 AM by Kandinsky

reply to post by silent thunder

Yeah it's getting to be standard procedure these days isn't it? Half of ATS is panicking about the 'Surveillance State' when the reality is that commercial security and maximising profit margins represent a far greater ~~threat~~ challenge to privacy.

If the Govt wants to know about someone, the best people to ask are banks, ISPs and the local supermarket.

edit on 24-11-2012 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 24-11-2012 @ 04:14 AM by swan001

Originally posted by beezzer
Initially, I was angry when I read this.

Then I had a drink.

They have cameras all over the place in every store-shop-shoppe-mall anyhow! They're usually the little black balls that are up in the ceiling.

Now they have mannequins with cameras.

The next-gen perhaps, but no greater threat of personal privacy than all the other cameras that we take for granted.

Just my humble opinion.

lol I agree. It's not like we're gonna take these mannequin home; no invasion of privacy here, as it is a public surveillance. London has that since ages.

Pages: ^^TOP^^