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.

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)

Failure rate for biometric pokies?

Use of biometrics to reduce problem gambling would suffer a 20 to 30 per cent failure rate, says smart card salesman (ZDNet.com.au)

"About 12 per cent of the population do not have a fingerprint. They are too old or they have been engaged in manual work and it may have worn off. There is no wall on the end of their thumb. Biometrics are going to be a much more expensive solution," he told the committee.

"This is mainly because, if you have to maintain 197,000 biometric readers ... it is going to be extraordinarily expensive. You are looking at something like five times the cost for biometrics."

Donald said there would have to be many exceptions made to the system if biometrics were used.

This article invites a question we often ask: Compared to what? We'll be charitable and take the percentages in the article as given. How many problem gamblers are being detected in the absence of a system? If the answer is less than 70%, what is the improvement from current levels of detection to a 70% detection rate worth? What does the proposed system cost? In short, does the proposed system offer a positive return on investment (ROI)?

Secondly, because of their accuracy, ease of use, low cost and strong history of delivering positive ROI, fingerprint biometrics are all the rage. But they are not the only game in town. Facial recognition may be the preferred modality in this application. One facial recognition system at the front door of the facility can eliminate the need to have a biometric reader at every machine. The same can be said for a fingerprint system, but face-rec systems are less intrusive and they address the problem, raised in the article (we're still being charitable), of the 12% of the population who can't use all fingerprint readers.

Third, why does anyone assume that vandalizing property in order to circumvent security measures is an indictment of the security measure? Someone who finds a way to break a slot machine to get the money out of it doesn't have a gambling problem, they have a stealing problem. Someone who damages property (breaks a fingerprint reader) in the misguided hope that the machine will enable an enrolled problem gambler to use the machine, has a vandalism problem. Granted, a gambling addiction could serve as one impetus for both behaviors, but preventing this type of behavior isn't what the problem gambler program is built to address. These systems are meant to allow problem gamblers to put themselves on a "do not serve" list while reducing the abuse of the program by non-problem gamblers who simply wish to indemnify themselves against gambling losses.

The amusement and biometric sensor manufacturers both take the durability and physical security of the devices they manufacture seriously but they aren't, and never will be, invincible.

Casino face scanners make a lot of sense

Steven Gallagher: The Daily Observer (Pembroke, Ontario)

At first glance, it seems like a less-than-appealing idea: Walk into a government-run facility and have your face digitally scanned by a camera.

It smacks of "Big Brother is watching you."

However, a plan by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. to install facial recognition scanners at the province's 27 gaming facilities, including the two casinos in Niagara Falls and the slots at the Fort Erie Race Track, makes sense.

Face-Rec helps gambling addicts, reduces fraud

Facial recognition a system problem gamblers can’t beat? (Toronto Star)

An unfortunate fact of life is that every time we institute a new program designed to help the truly afflicted, fraudsters come out of the woodwork to exploit the program.

Problem gamblers' registries are humane tools designed to minimize the social cost of gambling by allowing problem gamblers to exclude themselves from facilities where gambling takes place.

If a self-excluded gambler is served by a casino, any losses are unenforceable and the money must be returned to the person who should not have been served.

This created an irresistible opportunity for some to commit fraud. Simply enroll in the problem gambler database and if you can sneak into a casino, you can't lose. If you win, you leave; if you lose, you get your money back.

Enter Face-Rec.

Problem gamblers beware. The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. — which critics say hasn't done enough to keep you out — plans to be up to the challenge this spring.

OLG is set to unveil a new facial recognition program at all 27 of its gambling facilities in Ontario. It's being praised as a high roller in the privacy protection game.

“It's the most privacy-protected system using biometric encryption in the world,” said Ann Cavoukian, Ontario's privacy commissioner, who approved the new system.

Those who think society should take a more active role in creating the structures to help the vulnerable should be open-minded about reducing the opportunities for fraud that social programs invite. High-tech identity management techniques are a piece of the puzzle and they can be implemented in ways that are consistent with individual privacy.


Earlier post on the subject here.

Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation To Use Facial Scans to Aid Problem Gamblers

OnlineCasinosPro.com

Across Ontario, racetracks and casinos will soon be implementing new facial recognition technology to help problem gamblers stay out of gambling venues. By the end of 2011, all 27 of Ontario’s casinos will be fitted with this new technology.

More biometrics ROI.

Many jurisdictions where gambling has been legalized have required casinos to maintain a list of problem gamblers. People may opt to place themselves on that list. Casinos are required to refuse service to those on the list.

Unfortunately, there is a high potential for abuse within this system. Needless to say, taking a casino's money is never termed a gambling problem by the winner. A registered problem gambler may enter a casino to play the odds. If she wins, she leaves with her winnings. If she loses, the casino shouldn't have served her.

While imperfect, facial recognition technology can detect people enrolled in the problem gambler registry and prevent some of the losses due to the abuse of the problem gambler rolls.