Hawkesbury shoppers could eventually have their faces scanned while buying groceries as Australia’s two largest supermarket chains test facial-recognition technology in selected stores.
Coles and Woolworths confirmed in August that they had tested facial-recognition technology as they explore ways to address retail crime.
Coles says its test was a small, controlled proof-of-concept that did not use customer or staff data and was not an in-store trial.
Woolworths’ testing was conducted at its New Zealand support office. Neither company has announced an Australian in-store rollout.
Neither company has announced a national rollout or indicated that its Hawkesbury stores are participating in the trials.
The technology measures a person’s facial features and converts them into a unique digital code. That code can then be compared with images held in a database to determine whether there is a possible match.
Retailers say the trials are intended to address crime, threats and violence in stores. A union survey of approximately 3,000 retail workers found about one-third did not feel safe at work.
However, privacy and surveillance experts warn that technology introduced for one purpose can gradually be used for others—a process known as “scope creep” or “function creep”.
University of Technology Sydney responsible-technology policy specialist Lauren Perry told the ABC that facial information was fundamentally different from an ordinary password.
“You’ve only got one face. You can change your password if it gets hacked … but you can’t change your face,” she said.
The concern is not limited to whether a supermarket recognises a suspected violent offender.
Facial data could potentially be combined with loyalty-card information, payment records and data showing how customers move through a store. Experts fear this could allow retailers to build increasingly detailed profiles of individual consumers and their shopping habits.
The growing use of digital price labels has added to concerns that customer data could eventually be used to tailor prices, promotions or the shopping experience to particular people, locations or times of day.
Coles has rejected suggestions that facial recognition would be used to monitor ordinary customers or for marketing and pricing. The company says no decision has been made about broader use of the technology.
Risk of mistaken identification
Experts have also warned that facial-recognition systems do not perform equally accurately for every person.
Surveillance researcher Professor Mark Andrejevic, from Monash University, told the ABC that the technology had historically produced less reliable results for people with darker skin, women and older people.
Incorrect matches overseas have reportedly resulted in shoppers being wrongly identified and banned from stores.
This raises questions about what appeal process would be available to a Hawkesbury resident who was incorrectly matched with someone on a retailer’s watchlist.
It is also unclear how long facial information would be retained, who could access it, how databases would be secured and whether information could be shared with other businesses or authorities.
No dedicated Australian law
Australia does not have legislation specifically dedicated to facial-recognition technology.
Its use is instead governed principally by the federal Privacy Act and the Australian Privacy Principles.
Facial templates used for automated biometric identification are generally treated as sensitive information. According to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, organisations will usually need consent to collect sensitive information unless a lawful exception applies.
Exceptions may include circumstances involving a serious threat to safety or suspected unlawful activity, but organisations must still establish that their use of the technology is necessary, proportionate and consistent with privacy law.
The privacy regulator recommends that organisations conduct detailed assessments before introducing facial recognition, clearly explain how the system operates and consider whether less intrusive alternatives are available.
Experts say simply placing a sign near a supermarket entrance may not resolve the question of whether shoppers have genuinely consented—particularly when a community has limited alternatives for buying essential groceries.
The trials place two important interests in direct tension: the right of supermarket employees and customers to be protected from violence, and the right of every shopper to retain control over sensitive biometric information.
For Hawkesbury residents, the immediate question is whether this technology will be introduced locally and whether shoppers will be properly informed before their faces become part of a supermarket security system.
This report is based on reporting by Daniela Pizzirani and Dannielle Maguire for ABC News, with additional information from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.
