Tesco to Pioneer Facial Recognition-Powered Advertising

[Zaune]

The Guardian

Tesco is set to install hi-tech screens that scan customers' faces in petrol stations so that advertisements can be tailored to suit them, it has been reported.

The retailer will introduce the OptimEyes screen, developed by Lord Sugar's Amscreen, to all 450 of its UK petrol stations, in a five-year deal, according to The Grocer.

The screen, positioned at the till, scans the eyes of customers to determine age and gender, and then runs tailored advertisements.

The technology also adjusts adverts depending on the time and date, as well as monitoring customer purchases, The Grocer said.

The screens are predicted to reach a weekly audience of more than five million adults.

Simon Sugar, CEO of Amscreen, told the industry magazine: "Yes it's like something out of Minority Report, but this could change the face of British retail and our plans are to expand the screens into as many supermarkets as possible."

Privacy campaigners say the system puts forward a "huge consent issue".

Nick Pickles of Big Brother Watch said: "Scanning customers as they walk through the store without customers ever giving permission for them to be scanned in that way … there's a huge consent issue there."

Pickles said facial recognition technology is getting more advanced all the time, adding that you could be queuing to pay for groceries and a CCTV camera could be "literally scanning who you are".

He said companies and stores using this system must tell their customers.

"If people were told that every time they walked into a supermarket, or a doctor's surgery or a law firm, that the CCTV camera in the corner is trying to find out who they are, I think that will have a huge impact on what buildings people go into," he said.

Pickles said the only way the systems can be ethically deployed is if consumers opt in to have their image stored and their behaviour tracked, rather than there being no choice in the matter.

Oh, fuck no.

[Lagmonster]

I'm willing to bet that the younger generations won't have a problem with it. Kids that have been exposed their whole lives on YouTube, Facebook, widespread security camera networks, etc. may not give much of a shit about privacy the way previous generations did. I see people inviting the world into their homes and lives in a way that I wouldn't have imagined as a youth.

[Simon_Jester]

Although it's not everyone who does it; it's just that for obvious reasons you notice the people who do it.

The really obnoxious problem with this is the inability to opt out.

Also, sooner or later someone in a witness protection program or something is going to sue because these idiot robots are trying to out their identity.

Those are the only thoughts I have at the moment.

[Lagmonster]

Although it's not everyone who does it; it's just that for obvious reasons you notice the people who do it.

Yes, but as a society, you get used to the idea, even if you yourself don't do it. I'm used to being on camera at the mall; it doesn't bother me that someone could recognize my face on a camera recording any more than I'm worried that they would do so in person. The truly paranoid will remain in cabins in the woods, as always.

Also, sooner or later someone in a witness protection program or something is going to sue because these idiot robots are trying to out their identity.

The technology just determines age and gender; it doesn't actually call out, "Bob Jones is in the house! Buy a goddamned iPad or I'll tell everyone what porn sites you have bookmarked!". Although the article does take the scary route by interviewing a paranoiac who points out that technology could do things you don't like if you wanted it to, which isn't revelatory.

[Broomstick]

Oh, great, it's all gender and age based - I'll be getting ads for stuff for kids I don't have, and women's magazines I don't read, and makeup and crap I don't use, and NOT getting the ads for the airplane magazines I would like to read, or tools, or any other of the tomboy stuff I'm actually likely to buy.

Hey, wait - this is in the UK. I'll stop worrying about it (for now. Until it comes here).

[Mr Bean]

Hey, wait - this is in the UK. I'll stop worrying about it (for now. Until it comes here).

We still don't have a true national ID, this would not fly here for long. Heck certain parts of the US already deal with the fact that cameras are regularly vandalized, these things would not far any better.

[Zaune]

We still don't have a true national ID, this would not fly here for long. Heck certain parts of the US already deal with the fact that cameras are regularly vandalized, these things would not far any better.

We don't either, at least not in theory. And unfortunately it sounds like they're all going to be inside the stores, which will limit my ability to take a sledgehammer to one without getting carted off by the police.

[Mr Bean]

We don't either, at least not in theory. And unfortunately it sounds like they're all going to be inside the stores, which will limit my ability to take a sledgehammer to one without getting carted off by the police.

If it has a visual sense and it's within seven feet of the ground it will be vandalized. Unless you want loud alarms to go off when someone smears shit over the sensors (Sometimes literally) your going to have to accept the fact people will damage it...
Or go elsewhere, there would be a competitive advantage in America in not installing these and touting that fact.

[Simon_Jester]

Although it's not everyone who does it; it's just that for obvious reasons you notice the people who do it.

Yes, but as a society, you get used to the idea, even if you yourself don't do it. I'm used to being on camera at the mall; it doesn't bother me that someone could recognize my face on a camera recording any more than I'm worried that they would do so in person. The truly paranoid will remain in cabins in the woods, as always.

Eh. It's not the fear of recognition; it's the fear of having a "permanent record" of widely available information* that power blocs use to track you based on the most intimate available knowledge of your life.

I think the reason nobody complained about security cameras at the mall is that they really aren't functionally different from security guards. But the closest analogue to modern targeted marketing would be if the service in question had people who followed you around taking notes on your likes and dislikes, and other people who whenever they saw you walk into a store rushed up to you and said "excuse me, you appear to be a male between the ages of 30 and 45, would you like to hear about our exciting new magazine?"

And not just to have this happen occasionally, but to have it be an inescapable consequence of going to certain classes of store or doing certain things. I don't know about you, but I think that could get rather irritating and disturbing to anyone, not just people over fifty with irrational privacy fetishes.

One of the key virtues of tolerable advertising is that we CAN ignore it if we have to. Either it's something we can turn off (the TV) or it's something passive we can ignore (like a poster). Actively noisy and distracting advertising that can't be turned off without leaving the area, and which is explicitly telling everyone in the area what the machine thinks you want to buy, is going to get irritating fast.

Kids might not mind it, you say- but kids like having pop-up blockers on their browsers as much as anyone.
_________________

*Available 'to the right people,' that is.

Also, sooner or later someone in a witness protection program or something is going to sue because these idiot robots are trying to out their identity.

The technology just determines age and gender; it doesn't actually call out, "Bob Jones is in the house! Buy a goddamned iPad or I'll tell everyone what porn sites you have bookmarked!".

Exactly how long do you think it will be before the capability and willingness to do that exists?

All that's missing is the will to do it (already there, or the marketers wouldn't be doing this in the first place), the face-recognition database (I can think of several ways to get your hands on that, if you're determined and large-scale enough), and the equipment to rapidly scan and index it (give Moore's Law a few more years).

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

The screen, positioned at the till, scans the eyes of customers to determine age and gender

What exactly is going on here? Is it just going like amount of wrinklage + brow size and stuff like that or is it something more?

Either way it seems like a way to ruin people's days when they can tell from the ads they're getting that their age or gender was misidentified, especially if they're trans.

[bilateralrope]

Tracking people via their smartphones wifi sounds much simpler to implement than facial recognition.

[Broomstick]

The screen, positioned at the till, scans the eyes of customers to determine age and gender

What exactly is going on here? Is it just going like amount of wrinklage + brow size and stuff like that or is it something more?

Either way it seems like a way to ruin people's days when they can tell from the ads they're getting that their age or gender was misidentified, especially if they're trans.

There are physical markers for gender, among other things, they're what forensic people use to identify the sex of skeletons. One classic one is the angle of the jaw bone just in front of the ear. Men tend more towards a right angle, women have a more obtuse angle. The only hitch is that there is a definite overlap range. Large women, and women with higher levels of some hormones (it just has to be on the upper end of normal for women) will have a more "masculine" angle, smaller men and those with lower androgenic hormones (again, it just has to be on the lower end of normal) will have a more "feminine" angle. It also varies with ethnicity (Asians of both genders have more obtuse jaw angles than Caucasian men, as an example).

So, even if a person isn't trans there's still a certain number of people who are going to be misidentified, or who are likely to be misidentified.

Age can be both wrinkling and the inevitable sagging of jowls and other parts of the face over time. Of course, all sorts of environmental factors play into that, like how much sun you've been exposed to, drinking, smoking, genetics...

[PREDATOR490]

I do not like where this will inevitably go as the 'opt-in' clause will get brushed over and eventually it will be taken for granted that only people with something to hide will want to 'opt-out'

I see the improvement of facial recognition as being more of a problem for when the next evolution of 'tailored adverts' involves them storing profiles of individual people and what they buy.
Oh you bought x on y - here is a bunch of tailored adverts falling within that category.
Those who use the internet may not be fussed but I think there is going to be amusement when the people are getting spammed for "get fit in 2 weeks" or "Buy viagra" or "Adult dating / scam site" as they walk through a store.

Just wait for social media sites to team up with this technology and now all the adverts rip information straight from your social media profiles.

It might be funny to watch this trying to work in stores that service high volumes of customers. The scanners are going to buzz you on the way in and actively track every screen your next to and play adverts as you go by ?
Or you end up having to fill the entire store with lots of scanners and screens EVERYWHERE which track anyone who is nearby to spam them with adverts ?

On the upside, I think internet shopping is going to become a lot more appealing if the alternative is to walk through a store and be actively harassed by the store.

[bilateralrope]

I do not like where this will inevitably go as the 'opt-in' clause will get brushed over and eventually it will be taken for granted that only people with something to hide will want to 'opt-out'

Is facial recognition advanced enough for opting in/out to be an option ?

I see the improvement of facial recognition as being more of a problem for when the next evolution of 'tailored adverts' involves them storing profiles of individual people and what they buy.

Given that the only things I use cash for are topping up my bus card and giving money to friends, that's been possible for years.

Oh you bought x on y - here is a bunch of tailored adverts falling within that category.
Those who use the internet may not be fussed but I think there is going to be amusement when the people are getting spammed for "get fit in 2 weeks" or "Buy viagra" or "Adult dating / scam site" as they walk through a store.

I'd expect many stores to not want some kinds of advertising for reasons of liability* and preserving their reputation. Think how the 'think of the children' crowd will react the first time a Viagra advertisement shows up.

*If there is false advertising within a store, how liable is the store owner for it ?

[Zixinus]

Here's a question: say that I do something to my face to deliberately obstruct the cameras ability to recognize my face (say, wear a tube-scarf over my face as I tend to do in the winter while cycling) but not something out-right sinister (most my features are still identifiable to human). Or even outright interfere with the camera by wearing a hat with IR diodes flashing, so the camera can't see my face. If you ask me, I say that I'm wearing it until the store's screens/speakers and such are vomiting personalized ads at me.

Am I breaking the law? Because you can make a somewhat legitimate argument that I am deliberately sabotaging camera-evidence in preparation of committing a crime. A little like how it (or as I heard) it is illegal to have hoods up in public spaces in UK.

But say we (as consumers who do not want a marketing intern's idea of what I like or want) make obvious and clear steps to make the above argument ridicolous to make. Say, we wear transparent masks that confuse computers but not people, or wear comically-large novelty-hats with Christmas diodes going off along the IR ones (the lawyer can dismiss the above argument with a joke then). Or face-blocker like horses, so the cameras can't get a good look at you.

Are we interfering with the normal operation of the store? The store is, after all, private property of the store-owners. You can make the argument that you know that store does targeted advertising and you know that before walking in there, therefore you know that you'll have targeted advertising vomited at you as soon as you enter it. Nobody forces you to go to that specific store, you can do your shopping elsewhere!
If we are not interfering with the security the store, are we interfering with the normal operation of the store? Because I'm pessimistic enough to think that this will be considered "normal" on some level.

And if we are to take the offensive, can we make the argument that the store does not need to do this because we already spend all our money at them? That if they personalize the ads, they'll be making personalized manipulations at us, in a way that needlessly violates our privacy?

Oh, great, it's all gender and age based - I'll be getting ads for stuff for kids I don't have, and women's magazines I don't read, and makeup and crap I don't use, and NOT getting the ads for the airplane magazines I would like to read, or tools, or any other of the tomboy stuff I'm actually likely to buy.

The first case is person-specific, but it might be more statistically based as well: say, the store monitors how many women are present in the store and their age, and thus change now-regular mass-advertising devices (like the supermarket radio/music) accordingly. So if this doesn't memorize individuals, you might end up getting a bunch of viagra/incontinence adverts if you are shopping when the retirees are in.

Also, I'm willing to bet that as this thing gets more refined, it will go beyond those: it will become race-based and even class-based (judging your clothes, identifying your cellphone, analysing your purchase history) as well. If the system becomes automated enough (ie, they are trying to make the case " it wasn't a human programmer that was racist, but the computer itself thinking that most black people would be interested in discount pre-fried chicken based on store-specific statistics!), calling on this shit might become more legally challenging/complicated.

And I doubt that it will just leave at your worst culturally-ingrained prejudices. Computers might start looking at other features of people: how fat they are ("diet pepsi is on discount!"), how much hair they have ("New instant hairspray!"), do they have a beard (" *BEEP* shaving foam for REAL MEN!"), etc.

Of course, they'll won't go for those at first (they'll probably go for those at last, when competition has put pressures on local store/district managers to think that its their job to tell "put in the racist code!"). What the stores will do is make "shopping profiles" that it will try to apply to people. They are already doing that after all, have been for decades, only now it will be more flexible than ever, with live-statistics and automated monitoring and automated adjustments with pre-programmable ads.

"You buy rye bread and fresh bio milk? You must be a "Green, food-production conscious" shopper, here are "Green, food-production concious" items on discount for you!"

Nick Pickles of Big Brother Watch said: "Scanning customers as they walk through the store without customers ever giving permission for them to be scanned in that way … there's a huge consent issue there."

And I already see how companies will get around this press issue:
a, they'll won't target specific people that somehow pay not to be targeted (at first, until it becomes normal practice assumed by everyone). Or reward people that consent to be targeted, with discounts and coupons and gifts and the usual supermarket shit.
b, you can ask to modify the targeting to your taste. You say, "I'd rather have a bunch of mechanics and geek adverts aimed at me than adverts for baby products!"

There are also legal loopholes: the supermarket may not save a specific person's data, just note features (gender, age, height, whether they are using a cart or basket, etc) and use those broadly-statistically (ie, "10% more 'women in their 50s' shopped at 'between 1 and 4 PM' than last month, let's target ads for them!"). Some might try to hide behind various programmer/statistics buzzwords or invent a new logical fallacy of [insert latin here for "machine's fault"] ("It happens faster than we can supervise it, therefore you cannot ask us to stop it offering pre-fried chicken to black people!"). There are probably more, but I find the topic too depressing to think about it more.

[bilateralrope]

Here's a question: say that I do something to my face to deliberately obstruct the cameras ability to recognize my face (say, wear a tube-scarf over my face as I tend to do in the winter while cycling) but not something out-right sinister (most my features are still identifiable to human). Or even outright interfere with the camera by wearing a hat with IR diodes flashing, so the camera can't see my face. If you ask me, I say that I'm wearing it until the store's screens/speakers and such are vomiting personalized ads at me.

You'll just get lumped in with all the other people who are hiding their face.

That or the store will give up the facial recognition tech and move onto tracking you via your smartphones wifi. Which can identify and track individuals more reliably than facial recognition can.

Also, I'm willing to bet that as this thing gets more refined, it will go beyond those: it will become race-based and even class-based (judging your clothes, identifying your cellphone, analysing your purchase history) as well. If the system becomes automated enough (ie, they are trying to make the case " it wasn't a human programmer that was racist, but the computer itself thinking that most black people would be interested in discount pre-fried chicken based on store-specific statistics!), calling on this shit might become more legally challenging/complicated.

That depends. Is the code specifically looking at skin color ?
Then you'd have a good case that the racist programming was added by a human. If you can prove it and find someone willing to complain about a system designed to advertise products they want to buy.

If the code deciding which identifying features to use on its own ?
This seems questionable.

Does the system keeps track of each individuals purchasing history and advertise whatever would appeal to most people that are in the store right now ?
I can't see how this could be challenged, as it's not targeting any specific ethnicity.

(ie, "10% more 'women in their 50s' shopped at 'between 1 and 4 PM' than last month, let's target ads for them!")

Doesn't this already happen with TV advertising ?
The only difference is how reliable the data is showing which demographics can be reached at what times.

[GuppyShark]

I don't think there's any precedent for this level of customer oriented marketing

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill ... ather-did/

By the way, I noticed that I recently looked at pizza ovens on a local retailer's website and not long after, Facebook was throwing up ads for the exact models I'd been looking at...

[salm]

Have you tried a plugin called Ghostery?

[Broomstick]

Oh you bought x on y - here is a bunch of tailored adverts falling within that category.

That already happens on the internet. Heck it happens just with things you search for on the internet. To some extent it's helpful or amusing – my spouse and I are continually mildly amused by what the other has been searching for that comes up when we use the same browser – but there is also potential for creepiness.

Just wait for social media sites to team up with this technology and now all the adverts rip information straight from your social media profiles.

That's assuming you have a presence on social media. I don't have such an account, and have no intention of acquiring one.

*If there is false advertising within a store, how liable is the store owner for it ?

That's going to vary by country and jurisdiction. I also suspect that the origin of the advert will be important in at least some cases. If the product vendor is responsible for setting up the display and advert that's different than a hand-lettered sign produced by a store employee.

Here's a question: say that I do something to my face to deliberately obstruct the cameras ability to recognize my face (say, wear a tube-scarf over my face as I tend to do in the winter while cycling) but not something out-right sinister (most my features are still identifiable to human). Or even outright interfere with the camera by wearing a hat with IR diodes flashing, so the camera can't see my face. If you ask me, I say that I'm wearing it until the store's screens/speakers and such are vomiting personalized ads at me.

Am I breaking the law? Because you can make a somewhat legitimate argument that I am deliberately sabotaging camera-evidence in preparation of committing a crime. A little like how it (or as I heard) it is illegal to have hoods up in public spaces in UK.

Here in the US there are certain places where you are not permitted obstruct the view of your face. Banks, for example – all of them these days have signs as you enter that hats, hoodies with the hood up, sunglasses, masks, scarves, etc. must not be worn inside. This gets to be really annoying in the depths of winter around here when nearly everyone is wearing hats and scarves. What you do is stand in the foyer/lobby and remove hats, take off or push sunglasses up onto your head, pull down your scarf or hood, etc. so the bank security has a clear view of you. Failure to do so will make you an instant object of attention and you will be asked to comply or leave.

Given that stores are private enterprises in the US, and they are allowed to have security, I could see them making the “need to identify people for security reasons” argument, then using facial recognition not only for security but for advertising.

Again, this is going to vary from place, country to country.

Oh, great, it's all gender and age based - I'll be getting ads for stuff for kids I don't have, and women's magazines I don't read, and makeup and crap I don't use, and NOT getting the ads for the airplane magazines I would like to read, or tools, or any other of the tomboy stuff I'm actually likely to buy.

The first case is person-specific, but it might be more statistically based as well: say, the store monitors how many women are present in the store and their age, and thus change now-regular mass-advertising devices (like the supermarket radio/music) accordingly. So if this doesn't memorize individuals, you might end up getting a bunch of viagra/incontinence adverts if you are shopping when the retirees are in.

We sort of get that now. I don't think aiming at broad demographics bothers me, but for some reason as it gets more refined it starts to bother me. I'm not entirely sure why.

In some ways highly specific tailoring is less offensive provided it's not a surprise.

Let me give an example or two: when Amazon first got started I really hated their algorithm for giving suggestions. I bought one book by Octavia E. Butler (after purchasing a half dozen other books) and suddenly I was inundated by advertising African-American centric books and goods. I actually found it offensive, because with one purchase I was assumed to be black and “ghettoized”, losing out on all the more general suggestions I had had prior. Rumor has it Ms. Butler was also pretty offended, because she was well aware that a LOT of her audience were buying her books because they were speculative fiction, not because the author was black.

I will say they have vastly improved that algorithm and now seem capable of taking multiple factors into account – if a purchase mostly SF books/movies and happen to purchase one by a black author I continue to get a lot of general SF suggestions, a couple more from the black category than I might otherwise have had, and those tend to be black-originated SF. It also doesn't forget I have more than one interest, so I'll still get suggestions for non-fiction of the sort I prefer.

So, I guess, the adverts need to either be using very broad demographic categories, or pretty refined/personalized narrow categories to be non-offensive to me. There's a middle ground where bad assumptions get made.

So, to take it bad to stores and consumer goods – seeing ads for geriatric concerns when I'm in a store that has a largely geriatric demographic isn't going to bother me. If I shop in a small store in an area were 80-90% of the locals are of one ethnic group I'm not going to be offended if the advertising and merchandise in there are oriented towards that group (I might even be there because of that focus even if I'm not a member of the group, maybe I'm shopping for a gift or find something of that culture interesting/intriguing).

For the more specific side – I walk into a store and it recognizes me as a woman who purchases tools, long underwear, and aviation magazines. Oh, she's a woman, but she's a handywoman/pilot, let's offer her white silk scarves, more aviation/technical magazines, wool socks, and small size Carhart and Redwing attire. Also, hand cream and nail polish and fancy scrunchies/ponytail rubberbands. Hey, no problem. It's like walking into a small old-time store where the owner/employees recognize you and say “hey, take a look at this” because they know you and your preferences. Or the local produce stand knows you're a bit adventurous and offers you a sample of a new variety of something.

But that is different than advertising like I've seen in grocery stores here where they track your purchases then the adverts are not geared to YOU, it's geared to the advertisers. Buy fresh carrots and broccoli? You don't get vegetable specials, you get ads/coupons for processed, frozen, sauce-drenched pre-prepared carrots and broccoli. Uh, wait, that's not at all what I want. I stopped shopping at a grocery chain because they were doing exactly that.

Also, I'm willing to bet that as this thing gets more refined, it will go beyond those: it will become race-based and even class-based (judging your clothes, identifying your cellphone, analysing your purchase history) as well. If the system becomes automated enough (ie, they are trying to make the case " it wasn't a human programmer that was racist, but the computer itself thinking that most black people would be interested in discount pre-fried chicken based on store-specific statistics!), calling on this shit might become more legally challenging/complicated.

For some things, “race-based” may not be a problem. Hair care products, for example, are advertised in clearly race-based manner in the US, but that's largely because there really are differences between “black”, “white”, and “Asian” hair. Likewise, cosmetic companies have not only expanded their range of shades, but will market certain of them for “women of color” or whatever. Well, yeah, foundation for a dark-skinned woman and for a light-skinned woman are going to be completely different in appearance. I think they'll get a pass on that, maybe even approval.

When it comes to fried chicken and watermelon, though, it can get dicey. If such were offered due to personal shopping history I think it would pass the test. If a black person really does like fried chicken and watermelon and purchases it frequently then yeah, it's a stereotype but it's also what the person wants. If the store advertises fried chicken and watermelon JUST based on skin color, though, it's not so acceptable.

Here in the US you can advertise “Soul Food”, “traditional southern cooking”, or “Kwanzaa favorites” and it's OK, but you can't say “We've got black people holiday food here!” without pissing a lot of people off. It comes down to focus. Advertising ethnic food as a particular category or origin is see as offering it to everyone. Saying "black people food" tends to imply (in American English/culture) that it is food ONLY for black people, others not allowed, or implying that that is the only food black people eat or should be eating. One is inclusive, one is restrictive. It's a cultural minefield. I'm assuming everyone has some version of that problem although I would also expect it could be about class, religion, and other things besides race.

So... maybe it's about advertising that is inclusive rather than exclusive or restrictive.

[Lagmonster]

Eh. It's not the fear of recognition; it's the fear of having a "permanent record" of widely available information* that power blocs use to track you based on the most intimate available knowledge of your life.

When you say 'power blocs', I hear 'the marketing department'. And how intimate do you think your gender and age is? I could pay a guy to sit behind the security camera and write down the age and gender of everyone who comes in, plus what items they pick up, and I'll bet you that already happens because it's valuable information and trivially easy to procure using minimum-wage labour. Many consumers even welcome such specific advertising in close relationship with vendors; in your favourite bistro, they call it, "How 'bout this new dish instead of your usual, Simon?".

I don't yet see how such basic technology gives anyone any more intimate details about you than you are already volunteering as a consumer, because the very nature of public shopping centres is that you expose your living habits to everyone else.

But the closest analogue to modern targeted marketing would be if the service in question had people who followed you around taking notes on your likes and dislikes, and other people who whenever they saw you walk into a store rushed up to you and said "excuse me, you appear to be a male between the ages of 30 and 45, would you like to hear about our exciting new magazine?"

This already happens. Have you never BEEN to a public marketplace or mall before? People hawk wares from kiosks and booths all the TIME based on the salesperson's best guess of your preferences. If anything, it's easier to ignore a video screen that's suggesting you might want to try a rejuvenating skin cream than than it is to avoid an actual human woman.

Also, sooner or later someone in a witness protection program or something is going to sue because these idiot robots are trying to out their identity.

The technology just determines age and gender; it doesn't actually call out, "Bob Jones is in the house! Buy a goddamned iPad or I'll tell everyone what porn sites you have bookmarked!".

Exactly how long do you think it will be before the capability and willingness to do that exists?[/quote]
I'm not willing to play to scare tactics, you see. I'm perfectly aware that the time may come when mankind could build a T-1000-style marketingbot that infiltrates your home disguised as your wife and then morphs into the Shamwow guy, but that's not what we as a society are being asked to accommodate. When we get to where you're worried about, we'll talk about that technology.

[Simon_Jester]

When you say 'power blocs', I hear 'the marketing department'. And how intimate do you think your gender and age is? I could pay a guy to sit behind the security camera and write down the age and gender of everyone who comes in, plus what items they pick up, and I'll bet you that already happens because it's valuable information and trivially easy to procure using minimum-wage labour.

Let me put it this way.

I am already aware that marketing departments (and government agencies) by definition seek to learn about me and influence my behavior in ways that suit them. What bothers/concerns me is that computer technology has made it so much easier to learn a great deal about me. I can fondly hope I'll be hard to influence, but on some level I resent the increasing amount of detail and intrusiveness which goes into that marketing as time goes on.

There are three ways for advertisement to work:
1) It can be 'carpet bombing' of everyone who walks/drives/views in a certain area.
2) It can be personal, in the sense of me going to some person who I have a known business relationship with, who tries to sell me something.
3) It can be 'automatically personal,' in the sense of a machine that tries to determine my personal wants and game me into buying their product.

Even though (2) and (3) theoretically do the same thing, I resent (3) more, because of how trivial it makes it for marketers to come up with personally tailored sales pitches that I will have to actively resist (if they work on me) or grit my teeth and ignore as distractions (if they don't).

I don't yet see how such basic technology gives anyone any more intimate details about you than you are already volunteering as a consumer, because the very nature of public shopping centres is that you expose your living habits to everyone else.

Part of my concern is simply that this technology is going to get a lot better in the next 10-20 years. I am grumbling about predictable future annoyance, not the annoyance of the present.

This already happens. Have you never BEEN to a public marketplace or mall before? People hawk wares from kiosks and booths all the TIME based on the salesperson's best guess of your preferences. If anything, it's easier to ignore a video screen that's suggesting you might want to try a rejuvenating skin cream than than it is to avoid an actual human woman.

Oddly, I don't get that a lot.

I'm not willing to play to scare tactics, you see. I'm perfectly aware that the time may come when mankind could build a T-1000-style marketingbot that infiltrates your home disguised as your wife and then morphs into the Shamwow guy, but that's not what we as a society are being asked to accommodate. When we get to where you're worried about, we'll talk about that technology.

I'd be a little more comfortable if we could come to a "yes, this is bad" agreement about a predictable future event now, rather than waiting for it to happen and having this happen:

http://xkcd.com/743/

Because when the time comes that this technology becomes annoying for 80% of people, we may be stuck dealing with it if the world's marketing agencies were allowed to quietly lobby for 10-20 years in advance to get laws put into place that will permit it.

[Singular Intellect]

I'm willing to bet that the younger generations won't have a problem with it. Kids that have been exposed their whole lives on YouTube, Facebook, widespread security camera networks, etc. may not give much of a shit about privacy the way previous generations did. I see people inviting the world into their homes and lives in a way that I wouldn't have imagined as a youth.

Exactly. I personally actually think it'll be great and have no objections to it whatsoever.

[Siege]

I personally actually think it'll be great and have no objections to it whatsoever.

That's nice and if you opt into it I wish you all the happiness and excitement in the world with it. I meanwhile would like a way to opt out, thank you very much. Maybe that means I'll be the angry old man on the end of the street nobody visits on Halloween and that's fine by me. I just want a way to keep the world outside my home, where it belongs, and my face out of memory banks where it doesn't.

[Simon_Jester]

Siege, you and I can get houses next to each other and start a grumpy old man bloc.

I think one thing said younger generation is insensitive to is the power of this kind of 'tailored intrusiveness' campaign to be used for ill. So far the worst that's happened to them is (usually) that they've bought some unnecessary stuff that was advertised to them directly. But it's very predictable that more uses of it will be found; we're already seeing the start of it with "guy gets fired over stupid crap he said on Facebook" incidents.

My real problem is that we're jumping out into this new world without a parachute. We don't have the legal infrastructure and social customs to stop the trend if it gets out of control- to restrain a private company, or hell, a public agency, that intrudes on your privacy or exploits personal knowledge of you "too far."

[Starglider]

Yessss, even more marketing/advertising spend being funneled into machine learning and vision research, keep it coming sales guys.