Face Recognition Slot Machines

Facial-recognition software to keep problem gamblers away (stuff)

The new technology, created by a Hamilton company, is inspired by airport customs SmartGate technology.

On the surface they seem like ordinary pokie machines, but inside, a hidden camera takes a photo of the player and identifies whether they are a problem gambler. “The machine will take maybe one or two seconds to check their face and life goes on as normal,” says Paul Andrew of company Gaming Inc. “However, for someone who is in the database, the system will recognise them and instantly disable the machine.” The $15 million system works from photos, which at present are provided by problem gamblers themselves as a way to curb their gaming addiction.

Last year Australia wrapped itself around the axle on this issue (see also this). It's nice to see their neighbors across the Tasman Sea going in a different direction.

I hope the implementation goes well.

Face-Rec helps gambling addicts, reduces fraud

Clubs to keep fighting proposed pokies reforms, despite concessions

The Australian

As independent MP Andrew Wilkie confidently declared he had the numbers to push gambling reforms through parliament, Clubs Australia said the blueprint for change handed down by a parliamentary committee today was a “dog's breakfast”.

Clubs Australia executive director Anthony Ball said the pre-commitment scheme, allowing players to set a limit on how much they are willing to lose, would cost clubs billions and force taxpayers to pay massive compensation to venues.

“This is a mandatory pre-commitment scheme which is a licence to punt,” he said.

“There is not a scintilla of evidence that this will help problem gamblers. This is just a system designed to inconvenience recreational gamblers.”

We've followed this closely.

It's nice to see the Clubs Australia folks finally starting to stand on their hind legs. Problem gamblers and privacy-loving Australians everywhere need them right now.

Problem gamblers deserve the tools they need. The proposed rules are worse than the status quo.

For an explanation of why and much more on the subject please consider the posts at the link.

Australian gaming industry may be catching on

The stakes are raised over gambling limits (The Age - Australia)

One argument from the biggest poker machine beneficiaries, clubs and pubs, was whether the proposed system threatens the worst of all worlds - an expensive system that would scare off recreational gamblers while providing little help to problem gamblers.

It looks like the gaming industry is gearing up to defend itself (and customers) against reckless policies. Better late than never, I guess.

See also:
Biometrics shut out of Australian problem gambler program
Most Unfair biometrics article in a long time
More on Australian Politics and Gambling

Even more on the subject (keep scrolling).

More on Australian Politics and Gambling

Wilkie ready to play his ace (The Australian)

Precommitment involves gamblers compulsorily signing up to a system which will, at a nominated limit, shut off their ability to play the pokies. It would involve the use of smart card technology, although not with fingerprint or biometric ID, that would either turn off the machine, or enable the player to keep playing without paying.

To be effective, the card would have to work at every machine in every club. The clubs hate the idea, say it will cost thousands of jobs and slash revenue, and are gearing up for a massive fight.

It's becoming clear that this is all about politics and money and has little to do with helping problem gamblers and the privacy of Australians.

The most cost-effective way to help problem gamblers while respecting the privacy of non-problem gamblers would be the institution of an opt-in system for problem gamblers only. Such a system would provide little or no opportunity for identity theft.

It is our contention that backing up such a system with biometric identity management techniques would reduce fraud within the opt-in system to its lowest possible level at the least cost. Facial recognition would seem to be the preferred modality because for reasons both technical and cultural, it works well with non-habituated users in public areas.

Earlier Posts on this subject:
Biometrics shut out of Australian problem gambler program
Most Unfair biometrics article in a long time

Further information on security application categories and biometric deployments

Most Unfair biometrics article in a long time

In this blog's early days, it seemed that few in the press understood biometric identity management technologies and some were willing to repeat any assertion made by those opposed to their adoption without the faintest hint of skepticism or critical judgment.

Thankfully, we have witnessed an incredible growth in the number of thoughtful, sincere and honest approaches to how this new technology fits into a world that values individual privacy, protects property and innocent human life and brings increased efficiency to the creation of wealth.

We have also seen how many journalists have publicized the role biometric identity management systems can play in extending these benefits to the world's less developed countries by fighting corruption, protecting the vote and enabling programs benefiting many of the world's poorest inhabitants.

This progress in the coverage of biometric technologies is to be celebrated because it furthers reasoned discussion and understanding and because it provides a contrast to the increasingly rare efforts of those whose work serves only to polarize, confuse and misinform.

One such article deserves a thorough examination:
The background is that Australia is contemplating a system requiring all gamblers to enroll in a smart card-based identification system. The stated objective is that this will allow the government to address the problem of gambling addiction.

Fingerprint scans ruled out of pokies reform plan (The Age, Australia)
We used this article as part of the informational basis for this post but its assertions deserve further comment.

BIOMETRIC identification, such as fingerprint scans, will not be used in the mandatory pre-commitment scheme for poker machines, quashing fears that punters' privacy would be breached.

This statement is false. A database of extremely sensitive information on everyone who uses a smart card will be kept regardless of whether or not biometrics are included. Quashed? Really? A system that respected the privacy of Australians would not collect private information on everyone whether they have a gambling problem or not. Collecting the data creates the risk. Collecting the data on everyone to protect the few, creates risks for everyone to reduce risk for a few. Biometrics have nothing to do with it.

Families Minister Jenny Macklin and independent MP Andrew Wilkie yesterday ruled out using biometric data, favouring a smartcard to limit the amount gamblers could spend on pokies in a session.

How? Who will set the limit? Wouldn't allowing problem gamblers to set their own limit mean that there are no problem gamblers?

The gambling and hospitality industry had warned that a biometric identification was dangerous and could lead to identity theft.

Forcing every customer to provide enough information to issue the card will expose far more people to the risk of identity theft than managing an opt-in biometric system for problem gamblers only.

The biometric information stored in a database is essentially useless for stealing an identity. Did your credit card application have a blank for your fingerprint, photo? No? Even if it did, someone who steals a biometric template cannot recreate an image of the body part used to create it. Did it have blanks for the type of information that will be required in order to issue the smart card; information such as name, address, date of birth, etc.? Yes?

Besides, who would steal the identities of opted-in problem gamblers? Only the stupidest identity thieves of all time. But a database of all gamblers could be an extremely valuable thing to hack.

In asserting that the nameless "gambling and hospitality industry" has deemed biometric identification dangerous, when effective is the better adjective, the article's author runs the risk of insinuating that business owners are sowing fear in the public in order to continue to profit from the illnesses of others. Is this what he intends?

Mr Wilkie's support for the government hinges on the mandatory pre-commitment scheme being implemented in 2014, which will need the support of the crossbenchers. ''This is a test of leadership for Julia Gillard but I think she is up to the task,'' Mr Wilkie said. ''I'm happy to rule out fingerprinting, retinal scans, any other sort of biometric system that might be out there and I agree with [Ms Macklin], Australians are very comfortable with cards.''

Alas, the real point of the article: Politics. Are Australians so comfortable with cards that they will hand over enough private information not only to track all of their gambling habits, but to build detailed accounts of much of their private lives as well as creating a new avenue for identity theft? Should they be?

The pokies reforms include a $250 ATM withdrawal limit at pokies venues, but yesterday Ms Macklin and Mr Wilkie said that there would be exemptions for small country towns whose only ATM is at the pub.

$250 per day = $91,250 per year without leaving the premises. You can always leave, get more cash and come back.

A meeting of the Select Council on Gambling, established by the Council of Australian Governments, will meet today.

Journalist writes lazy, one-sided article where:
An emerging technology is slandered;
Politicians grandstand;
Gambling businesses avoid a political fight;
Australian citizens have their privacy reduced;
Problem gamblers get no help.

Did I miss anything?

Biometrics shut out of Australian problem gambler program

Fingerprint scans ruled out of pokies reform plan (The Age)

BIOMETRIC identification, such as fingerprint scans, will not be used in the mandatory pre-commitment scheme for poker machines, quashing fears that punters' privacy would be breached.

Julia Gillard rules out fingerprinting under plans to win over Wilike (The Australian)

THE use of fingerprints and other biometric information has been ruled out under a promised poker machine pre-commitment scheme agreed by Julia Gillard to win the support of Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie.

Those implementating new gambling regulations in Australia have disqualified biometrics as a reasonable identity management tool.

The mistakes and misapprehensions are manifold.

Smart cards won't work. Could this be why the gambling and hospitality industry is supposedly for them? They won't work because without a biometric check it will be a simple matter to get as many smart cards as one wishes.

The $250 loss limit implied by the ATM limit will help only the most affluent problem gamblers. What percentage of people with gambling problems can be saved by capping their losses at $250 per day? That's up to $90,000 per year. Allowing/forcing gamblers to set their own limits will only benefit non-problem gamblers because, by definition, problem gamblers are incapable of setting limits for themselves.

The discussion of the proposed system and biometrics is too narrow. A system designed to protect problem gamblers does not require the credentialing of every customer. The only biometric modality ever considered was fingerprint. Facial recognition was never considered even though the cultural discomfort and privacy concerns are much lower.

Many politicians don't care about privacy or problem gambling. They care about news articles. The most serious threat biometrics pose to privacy lies in the security of the database in which the biometric templates are held. But if the database is insecure, the biometric information is the least of a user's privacy worries.

What gives away more privacy?

A string of binary gibberish that requires a special computer program to get to something that is still not a picture of a fingerprint, face, iris, etc.

OR

The complete narrative of your gambling habits including:
Name
Address
Dates of card usage
Time of card usage
Locations of card usage
Cumulative gambling statistics
Etc.?

You'll know that the government is serious about the problem of gambling addiction when it adopts biometric identity management techniques to address it.

Latest on Australia and problem gambler measures

Problem gamblers may have to face up to it (Sydney Morning Herald)

PUNTERS wishing to play the pokies at the pub could have their eyes, face or finger scanned under a bold plan proposed by a social welfare group to help problem gamblers.

The Tasmanian chief executive of Relationships Australia, Mat Rowell, said a biometric identification check would provide the greatest level of security and make it harder for problem gamblers to dodge limits.

Other posts on this topic:
A discussion of effectiveness
A discussion of modality (face v. finger)

Australian Pub biometrics, Part II. Why not Face-Rec?

No ad hoc biometrics sharing: privacy chief (ZDNet.com.au)

Earlier post here.

Australian Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim has warned pubs and clubs collecting biometric information from their patrons not to "automatically" share that information with other clubs unless they have notified their patrons.

This Makes sense. The terms of service between bar owners and their customers should be transparent and understood by all parties, just as they are when users input personal information into web sites.

If the owner can reduce costs and better serve customers by making the environment safer by identifying and discouraging the few patrons that spoil the experience for everyone else, the owner should be free to take measures in furtherance of that goal. If biometrics are the method of accomplishing this goal with the greatest efficacy (ROI), then so be it.

It is reasonable to infer that the bar owners who have adopted biometric systems believe that a hard-drinking, trouble-making bully drives away customers, raises expenses and leaves the owner liable for damages to innocent people and their property while the biometric check simply drives away some customers and leads others to feel safer.

I might, however, suggest that there is a solution that could accomplish the goal while reducing many of the privacy concerns raised by concerned stakeholders: Facial Recognition.

Fingerprints are cheap and effective (huge ROI) which is why they are being adopted at such a high rate. But for reasons more cultural than scientific, they are sometimes perceived as invasive of privacy.

In an era where everyone has a video camera in their pocket and business establishments have had cameras (and signs alerting the customers as to their presence) installed for twenty-five years or more, installing a video camera at the front door is simply not that controversial. There is also no well established expectation of privacy from being photographed in a public place. The terms of use for video and photos are already implicitly understood.

The systems are a bit more expensive and they are a bit less accurate than the near-perfect results offered by fingerprint systems but their deployment is less controversial and there is nothing preventing the sharing of a photograph among private parties.

There is no magic bullet in biometric identity management. Different modalities are suited to different applications depending upon the physical and social environment in which they are deployed. A good cost-benefit analysis incorporating financial and social considerations helps determine the preferred identity management system.

SecurLinx offers a product, FaceTrac, developed for the specific concern the pub owners are attempting to address.

For additional information about FaceTrac: mail@securlinx.com
For blog comments: blog@securlinx.com

Australian pubs and clubs are using biometrics databases in efforts to curb violence

National biometric pub list use 'explodes' (ZDNet.com.au)

While patrons remain divided on the need to surrender biometric data to buy a beer, the system appears to have led to a halt in violence in pubs and clubs.

The Woodport Inn on the NSW Central Coast has obliterated the incidents of violence which had once troubled its night club.

"[The] violent people here are gone, just gone," said one bar manager. "They are scared of it. They know they will be caught".

The venue is one of several in the area that use NightKey fingerprint scanners, including the Central Coast Hotel and Woy Woy Leagues Club, but it does not share ban lists.

A manager from a Sydney CBD bar who requested anonymity said that the ban database had cut violence, adding that the venue may soon be able to reduce its security headcount. The machines are not classified by NSW Police as security equipment and can be operated by a staff member.

Alcohol-related incidences have dropped by up to 80 per cent in some venues that use the scanners, according to Perrett. He said the data is a smoking gun that police can use to convict violent offenders.

This article touches upon many of the issues we regularly address here: ROI, public safety & Privacy vs. Anonymity to name a few.