Mall of duty: Black Ops. No, you're not a customer, you're just an ad audience metric

Join us on a jaunt to an Australian shopping centre, where Windows 7 rules the roost and the digital signage, it seems, might be watching your every move. Submitted by a Register reader, the sign looks very much to us like it might be running Windows 7 (certainly by the look of the filled recycle bin lurking behind consoles of …

[Cuddles]

The future is madness

One of the issues my grandfather had when he was well into his mental decline was a firm belief that the people in the TV were watching him. It's a little concerning that when the same thing eventually happens to me, no-one will actually notice since the things that used to indicate a serious detachment from reality are now just a common part of everyday life. I just need to make sure I have enough cats that the imaginary ones don't stand out, and I'll be completely prepared for my gentle descent into insanity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The future is madness

the things that used to indicate a serious detachment from reality are now just a common part of everyday life.

Indeed. It is sad to note that now a belief that no-one is watching you indicates a serious detachment from reality.

[chivo243]

Re: The future is madness

I can still walk down a hallway or street and people just don't see me, and nearly walk into me.

[Pascal Monett]

"discern both gender and age range"

I call shenanigans.

Facial recognition is fraught with failure ; there is largely enough proof of that for me to utterly disbelieve that a computer program can reliably tell if a face belongs to a man or a woman, and even less what age range the face is in.

But hey, it's marketing so who cares ?

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: "discern both gender and age range"

"utterly disbelieve that a computer program can reliably tell if a face belongs to a man or a woman,"

That's dead easy! The ones it can't recognise are either women or coloured :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't recall being asked if I submit to that kind of tracking the last time I went to a shopping centre. CCTV etc, yes, for prevention of crime (notices in the car parks), but not facial recognition for foot fall metrics (no signs, so no informed consent etc)

[ForthIsNotDead]

It's completely anonymous so I guess the argument is they don't need your consent. You're in a public space so there's no expectation of privacy etc.

I take your point though. It's a small step to correlate your presence in front of that screen with your phone GPS via Facebook or whatever, and work out it's *you* standing in front of the screen. This doesn't have to be in real-time. It could be hours after the fact - perfectly fine for serving you custom adverts.

"Hey! We noticed you looking at Ann Summers! Here's our offers on dildo's and butt plugs!"

The thing is creepy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shopping centres aren't public though

Most shopping centres aren't public spaces though. Westfield in London used to have tiny signs at the entrance doors pointing out it was private property and banning you from taking pictures. I expect that chasing down teenagers taking selfies was safer for the security guards than dealing with the gangs having turf wars.

So I think the arguments run that if you are in a public space, you have no expectation of privacy. If you are on private land, the landowner is allowed to record you.

[The Axe]

Re: Shopping centres aren't public though

Private land that is open to the public falls under various laws, including section 74(1) of the Anti-social Behaviour Order Act 2014. It defines it as a public place, and by the lack of laws, anything that you can do on public land, you can do on private land that is accessible to the public. Private land owners can make up rules for entry on to their land, but they still have to meet legal obligations and follow the law. So they can't ban people for race, disability, etc. They have to make the place safe under H&S laws. And banning certain activities that you can do in a similar place on public land leaves them open to being sued for equality and human rights laws. The banning of taking pictures is about commercial photography which is for the promotion of a brand, product, or service and which requires huge teams of staff and keeping the public away. Taking selfies is not commercial, so can't be banned, but security are usually too stupid to know the difference.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Shopping centres aren't public though

"The banning of taking pictures is about commercial photography...which requires huge teams of staff and keeping the public away" Canary Wharf is famous among photographers for its security guards who threaten you if you try to take pictures on their private land. Several other places in London were too, where there wasn't a clear differentiation between public pavement, and where their land started.

Most photographers who like to take pictures in cities have a story or two.

[John Brown (no body)]

"It's completely anonymous "

Is it though? Maybe they are also scanning WiFi and Bluetooth too. Many people leave both switched all the time. Especially nowadays when man y are using covid apps with BT scanning. It might not know who "you" is but signs from the same supplier or running the same metrics software might well be aware the same person is back, or at another place.

[Gene Cash]

Stores track your phone's Wi-Fi as well, which is even more invasive.

[JDPower]

Well that is fairly easily worked around.

[The Axe]

It's not the facial recognition that you are thinking of. It doesn't identify you. It works out if you are a human first, then tries to work out age and sex based on the face. It doesn't have to be accurate, its just to get a sense of the types of people who see the advert. And having worked with Quividi products, I can say for definite it doesn't store the image captured anywhere.

[Roger Kynaston]

An unrelated thought

Reading this. I noticed that Win7 got its final EOL on 14/01 just when the current interesting times were starting. Is there any link? Paranoid minds wish to know.

[Frozit]

Systems that are installed and not monitored

When signs blow up, they are of course visible.

But all of these BORKage articles seem to be the low hanging fruit. Like, as IT professionals, are these systems high priority? Or pretty much the lowest priority.

If they fail, the business effect is minimal. To perform maintenance on them can be a pain, they might not even have a remote access connection. So of course they die, eventually.

A system that is not rebooted regularly will eventually experience an outage at an undesired time.

[Missing Semicolon]

Clock time

I wonder if the PC clock setting has anything to do with the time-limited nature of the VidiReports software?