John MacDonald: Privacy Commissioner says facial recognition's okay, but...

I am really torn. Because when it comes to facial recognition technology, I’ve always been of the view that if you’re not doing anything wrong, there’s nothing to worry about.  

But, at the risk of sounding like I’m going a bit “civil liberties” on it, I’m starting to change my tune a bit.    

Which I’ll admit is a bit weird considering the Privacy Commissioner has announced that he’s all good with the facial recognition trial that Foodstuffs supermarkets have been doing in the North Island.  

But what’s making me feel uneasy is the potential for this tick of approval from the Privacy Commissioner to be seen as a licence for anyone and everyone to use facial recognition however they want.  

Because there’s an outfit in Christchurch —which isn’t a supermarket— using facial recognition technology right now. Which shows why the Privacy Commissioner is also saying that, as well as the Foodstuffs trial being all good, we need to tread carefully with how this technology is used.  

He’s not saying it outright, but I think we’re on a slippery slope if we don’t make sure there are better legal safeguards in place to make sure businesses and organisations —and individuals too possibly— don’t start using facial recognition however and wherever they want.  

So that we don’t look up in two years’ time and realise that we’ve got a runaway train on our hands. 

Which is why I don’t think Michael Webster giving his tick of approval for what Foodstuffs North Island has been doing —saying that it complies with the Privacy Act— is the be-all and end-all.  

I know you would think that it might reassure me that I’ve been on the right track thinking that only people breaking the law need to be worried about facial recognition technology.   

But I’m not so sure.   

Because it’s not just supermarkets in the North Island giving facial recognition a go. The Richmond Club, in Christchurch, is also using it. 

I’ve seen a photo of a poster on the wall at the Richmond Club telling users of its pokie machines that it’s trialling facial recognition software to help it keep an eye on problem gamblers.  

The sign says: “The Richmond Club is currently trialling facial recognition software - however, this is only in the gaming room.” 

The poster says: “Such footage is used in conjunction with our CCTV surveillance cameras and other publicly-available sources of imagery to assist in identifying individuals for a variety of reasons.”  

And it goes on to say that it’s all about identifying problem gamblers and that all footage is destroyed when someone who has been playing the machines leaves the room.  

The person who sent me this photo said they spoke to half of the people in the gaming room at the time and none of them were aware that facial recognition was being used, despite the sign on the wall. And they didn’t like the sound of it.  

Which I can understand.   

Because using pokie machines isn’t illegal. Even though I can’t stand pokie machines, they’re not illegal. Just like having a gambling problem isn’t illegal.  

Stealing stuff from a supermarket is illegal, but going and playing the pokies on a Saturday afternoon isn’t.   

Yes, the Richmond Club is legally obliged to look out for problem gamblers, but does it need facial recognition to do that? There’s no doubt it’s probably very useful, but I reckon the club could easily look out for people without facial recognition.   

And I would, generally, say that using facial recognition to track people doing anything that isn’t illegal, is not what it should be used for.  

I heard the Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster saying this morning that people are, generally, happy for it to be used to try and stop crime. But at the same ti

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Morning's Podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk ZB.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
Do you know I am feeling really torn this morning?
What am I feeling torn about this morning? I'll tell
you because when it comes to facial recognition technology, I've
always been in the view that if you're not doing
anything wrong, you know, if you're not one of the
bad guys, there's nothing to worry about. But at the
risk of sounding like I'm going a bit Civil Liberties

(00:34):
on it, I'm starting to change my tune a bit,
which I'll admit is a bit weird considering the Privacy
Commissioner has announced this morning of the head that he's
all good with the facial recognition trial that food stuff
supermarkets have been doing up north. But what's making me

(00:55):
feel uneasy and torn is the potential for this tick
of approval from the Privacy Commissioner to be seen as
a license for anyone and everyone use facial recognition however
they want. Because as I've found out this morning, there's
an outfit in christ Church which isn't a supermarket using

(01:17):
facial recognition technology right now, which I'll come back to.
I'll get to. But it shows why The Privacy Commissioner
is also saying this morning that as well as the
food staff's trial being all good, we do need to
tread carefully in terms of how this technology is used.
Now he's not saying it outright, but I think we're

(01:38):
on a slippery slope if we don't make sure there
are better legal safeguards in place to make sure businesses
and organizations and individuals too, possibly why not individuals. We
need to make sure that we are on a better
legal platform to make sure that people don't start using

(02:00):
facial recognition however and wherever they want, so that we
don't look up and say two years time and go, oh,
jeepis and realize we've got a runaway train on our hands.
Which is why I don't think Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster,
giving his tick of approval for what food Stuff's North

(02:21):
Island has been doing, saying that it complies with the
Privacy Act. I don't think that's to be all and
end all. It doesn't stop here. I know you would
think that it might reassure me that I've been on
the right track thinking that only people breaking the law
need to be worried about facial recognition technology. But like
I say, now, I'm not so sure because it's not

(02:43):
just supermarkets in the North Island doing this. And this
is where this local example comes into it. I found
out this morning that the Richmond Club in christ Church
is using facial recognition. I've seen a photo of a
poster on the wall at the Richmond Club telling users
of its poking machines that it's trialing facial recognition software

(03:04):
to help it keep an eye on problem gamblers. And
the sign says quite the Richmond Club is currently trialing
facial recognition software. However, this is only in the gaming room.
The poster says, such footage is used in conjunction with
our CCTV surveillance cameras and other publicly available sources of
imagery to assist in identifying individuals for a variety of reasons.

(03:27):
End of it goes on to say that it's all
about identifying problem gamblers and that all footage is destroyed
when someone who's been playing the machines leaves the room
backside covered. Now, the person who sent me this photo
said they spoke to half of the people in the
gaming room at the time, and you know what, none
of them said they were aware that facial recognition was

(03:48):
being used despite the sign on the wall, and they
didn't like the sound of it, which I can understand
because pokey machines. Using pokey machines isn't illegal, even though
I can't stand them. I told you that the other week.
Even though I can't stand them, they're not illegal, just
like having a gambling problem isn't illegal. Stealing stuff from

(04:11):
a supermarket that is illegal, but going and playing the
pokes on a Saturday afternoon at the Richmond Club not illegal. Yes,
the Richmond Club is legally obliged to look out for
problem gamblers, but doesn't need facial recognition to do that,
so no doubt it's probably very useful, But I reckon
the club could easily look out for people without facial

(04:32):
recognition technology, and I would generally say that using this
technology to track people doing anything that isn't illegal is
not what it should be used for. I heard the
Privacy Commissioner, Michael Webster saying this morning that people are
generally happy for it to be used if it means
stopping crime and keeping them safe, but at the same

(04:53):
time people are concerned about it being misused. He told
Mike this morning. This survey, as Office Dead, found that
two thirds of people are happy to see increased use
of facial recognition if it reduces theft and enhances safety.
I also found that forty nine percent of people are
concerned or very concerned about it being misused. I look
at these survey findings which also said that sixty four

(05:16):
percent of people are concerned about not being told about
or agreeing to the use of facial recognition technology. So
the Richmond Club and christ Church is ticking the box
on that front with the poster on the wall telling
them that it's trialing facial recognition in the gaming room.
But for me, this is what it comes down to.
I think we are in real danger of this technology

(05:37):
being used in ways that most of us would consider
to be over the top. Like I say, this is
a bit of a change in tune for me, and
I'm feeling pretty torn about it because why wouldn't you
want to do everything you can to catch people breaking
the law or to keep people safe.

Speaker 1 (05:51):
But I'm torn for more from Canterbory Mornings with John McDonald.
Listen live to news talks It'd be christ Church from
nine am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio,