I was refused entry in a local B&M store today

m0bov

Okell said:

But why blue?

Why not.  

Jumblebumble

Okell said:

Alderbank said:

mikb said:

Surfaced again on BBC News site today ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdr510p7kymo

That's interesting.

The BBC headline 'Facial recognition error sees woman accused of theft' is sloppy journalism and completely wrong (unfortunately that happens far too often on BBC website)...

Too true.  Facewatch ought to make a formal complaint to the BBC

Any complaint formal or otherwise is likely to end up in the nearest dustbin
The BBC might very well  rightly argue that their headline was talking about the whole process involving false positive  detecting shoplifters using Facewatch which was clearly a faulty process  rather than that Facewatches product which I agree was not faulty
Would your logic apply to a headline about a speed camera that turned out to not being operated correctly?
Speed Camera erroneous speed reading  led to wrongful conviction.
At least the headline will hopefully focus the minds of some the unapologetic  idiots involved

nero33

*UPDATE*

I was very downbeat about this whole scenario especially after I got refused entry into my local Home Bargains as well so I did nothing and contacted nobody about it and just stopped visiting the above retailers.

But recently I contacted Facewatch and they asked me for certain things which I submitted including a photo of myself.

They've replied, with a still image they have on their system.  And it is my image.

The reason stated is 'put goods in a bag and then left the store with the unpaid goods'.

I assure you that this did not happen. 

I have not been told if there is video evidence or merely a staff member suspicion or what he or she think they may have seen.

Unless they saw someone shoplift and mistakenly thought it was me??  I really don't know 

What would you advise my next step should be? Ask what evidence they have that I did this?  Request any video/evidence they have etc?

Surely if I had walked out of the store with something not paid for,  someone would have followed me out and stopped/questioned me?

Thanks

MeteredOut

MeteredOut said:

 How do people get registered onto FaceWatch? I assume individuals at each store can do that?

OP said they went into that B&M previously with a relative, but left without buying anything and went to another shop. Could someone at B&M have erroneously flagged them as suspicious, so the issue here is not a look-a-like but an erroneous flagging?

This is exactly what I suggested had happened when this thread started a few months back.

If you want to take things forward, pushing for evidence would be the next step.

It's wrong to assume someone from the store would follow a shoplifter out of the store - they have very limited powers on what they can do, and are also very wary about putting their staff in any danger.

nero33

That's a fair point about not wanting to follow someone out of the store.

So I should request the actual evidence they have stored i.e video of the alleged shoplifting?

Do they have to send it to me or do I have to formally complete some application etc? Thanks 

user1977

It would be a subject access request as explained upthread. But there may well be no such video evidence to see.

nero33

user1977 said:

It would be a subject access request as explained upthread. But there may well be no such video evidence to see.

I did request an SAR but was sent the image of myself on the system and one line explanation.  They still don't have my name/address or any personal details.

So what does an SAR actually mean? Provide all video/photographic/written evidence held on me?

If as you say they don't have any video evidence but relied on the say-so of a staff member then I can challenge that?

A_Geordie

nero33 said:

So what does an SAR actually mean? Provide all video/photographic/written evidence held on me?

The duty is on them to carry out a reasonable search of any personal data they hold about you. Given the nature of their operations, I am not surprised that you have only been given an image and a description of the allegation that has caused you to be listed on their system. However, for a belts and braces approach, you may want to consider going back to them and confirming that they have carried out a reasonable search and this is the only personal data that they hold/process about you. 

nero33 said:

If as you say they don't have any video evidence but relied on the say-so of a staff member then I can challenge that?

Yes you can challenge it. You can exercise your right to erasure under the UK GDPR as well as the right to restrict the processing of your data pending the outcome of your complaint. They are two separate and independent rights so you should make sure to reference them. The basis of your claim will be the accuracy of the description they hold on the system i.e. theft. The onus is on FaceWatch to prove that the information is accurate and if it is not, then it should be deleted. I would expect them to have evidence proving that you had actually committed theft but from what's been provided so far, I don't think they can. 

They would have to look to B&M for that evidence but even they may not hold any CCTV that verifies the supposed theft. Could be the word of a manager or a security guard but for the pruposes of the UK GDPR, that doesn't prove you have committed theft since it is hearsay at best and therefore the image and description ought to be removed. Even if it is removed, it doesn't prevent B&M from banning you from their stores.

If you are facing resistance you can escalate your complaint to the ICO or alternatively, sue FaceWatch for breach of data protection by processing false and inaccurate information, along wiht some compensation. At this stage, they may choose to just remove the image and offending description from their database but they could also defend any claim. 

For more info on these rights, see below. 

Right to Erasure: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/individual-rights/individual-rights/right-to-erasure/

Right to restrict: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/individual-rights/individual-rights/right-to-restrict-processing/

Accuracy principle: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/data-protection-principles/a-guide-to-the-data-protection-principles/accuracy/#accuracy_principle

Okell

What are you going to challenge?

So long as a store is not discriminating against you because of a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, they don't have to allow you onto their premises.  They can legally require you to leave or prevent you from entering.

You have no legal right to shop in a particular store.

I think if I were you I would try to make contact with a manager from your local store and ask to meet with them to explain your situation face to face.

Out of curiosity - and I'm not suggesting you do this as it might end badly for you - have you tried entering wearing a covid facemask?  I still see some shoppers using them.

Of course you might still be refused entry if you refuse to allow their facial recognition system to "see" your face.  I recall a long running thread (or multiple threads from pre-covid) where some idiot moped rider complained that he kept on getting chucked out of my local Sainsburys because he refused to remove his motorcycle helmet while instore.

Also  Anti-facial recognition mask - Wikipedia

user1977

A_Geordie said:

nero33 said:

So what does an SAR actually mean? Provide all video/photographic/written evidence held on me?

nero33 said:

If as you say they don't have any video evidence but relied on the say-so of a staff member then I can challenge that?

They would have to look to B&M for that evidence but even they may not hold any CCTV that verifies the supposed theft. Could be the word of a manager or a security guard but for the purposes of the UK GDPR, that doesn't prove you have committed theft since it is hearsay at best.

It wouldn't be hearsay if it was based on the direct evidence of a member of staff who saw the incident.