Henley, Nicole. “Mannequin Eyes Are Watching You.” Techcrunch.com. 14 August 2013. HubPages. 28 August 2013.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Annotated Bibliographies
Academic Summary
Henley, Nicole. “Mannequin Eyes Are Watching You.” Techcrunch.com. 14 August 2013. HubPages. 28 August 2013.
In the article, “Mannequins Eyes Are Watching You” Nicole Henly is a researcher on public disturbances such as, mannequins with facial scanners in them. She asserts that the EyeSee mannequin makes shoppers feel that adding in facial recognition technology to stores without consent of the customers is going to be too much for the shoppers. Henly describes how the mannequins have the capability to distinguish your age, gender, and race just from scanning your face one time; even if your face is covered with a scarf. The author reports that the EyeSee mannequin is an Italian made product that scans your face to help businesses’ prosper compared to others. She then describes the mannequins pricing, and how they are an invasion of privacy to most or some shoppers. Henly describes that the mannequins actually look like mannequins, serve the purpose of mannequins, and have cameras located behind one eye that uses facial recognition to scan any bystander that walks past the mannequin.
This article is credible and written at a non-bias point of view. The author writes strictly from the facts, and notices each side. The author’s purpose is to educate consumers about the possible risks and benefits of Almax’s EyeSee mannequin’s. Some customers might feel that it is an invasion of privacy, while others might be hung up that is helps the business in the long run is how some customers feel. Nicole Henly’s work is important because Henly’s work clarifies what exactly these mannequins can and cannot do such as, configure your age, race, and gender just from one scan, but they cannot hold memory inside of the camera. Readers should care because these mannequins are slowly but surely being incorporated into the United States stores, and in the future that will be what we will have to deal with when shopping in a public mall. While Henly doesn’t describe everything we need know, she describes what these mannequins are, and what they are used for.
Evaluations On Sources
Lee, Nicole. “EyeSee mannequins used to spy on shoppers, confirm paranoid fears.” Engadget.com. 20 Nov 2012. Engad. 28 August 2013. .
In the article, “EyeSee mannequins used to spy on shoppers, confirm paranoid fears” the author Nicole Lee reports that EyeSee mannequins have cameras placed behind one eye, and that the camera scans your face to find out basic information about any person including the following: Hair color, eye color, race, age, or gender. The authors purpose is too inform shoppers that mannequins are being used in stores, and are using facial recognition for the company’s person business. Nicole Lee’s work is important because Lee’s work extends and clarifies what the EyeSee mannequins can actually do. Readers should care because the mannequins are not used for any actual meaning besides to help the stores, and they are doing it without customer’s permission. The mannequins are slowly being incorporated into the United Sates, and soon enough shoppers’ are going to be faced with them everywhere.
Arroyo, Gus. "Public Video Surveillance Is Not Intrusive." Ic.galegroup.com. 2006. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. 21 Sept. 2013. .
In the article, “Public Video Surveillance is not Intrusive” the author’s purpose is to try and persuade readers that public video surveillance is not invading anyone’s personal privacy. He does this by giving examples of the following: criminals that have been caught from the cameras, giving statistics about how public cameras help prevent crimes, legal matters, and some implications about public video surveillance. The author, Gus Arroyo’s work is important because Arroyo’s work challenges that video surveillance is not intrusive. Readers should care because it gives good points against the topic of, cameras are an invasion of privacy, but it also gives the benefits of having this type of public video surveillance. The article gives readers a valid reason as to why some people are for video surveillance, and why others might be against it. Not only did Gus explain how public video surveillance is not invading privacy, but he also gave key information about how it possibly can be an invasion of someone’s privacy.
Miller, Greg. "New Technologies Are Not a Threat to Privacy." Ic.galegroup.com. 2004. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. 21 Sept. 2013. .
In the article, “New Technologies Are Not a Threat to Privacy” the authors purpose is too investigate on how new technologies do not invade privacy. Author Seth Godin does just this by explaining that privacy crimes happen without technology and with the increase of data it is a lot harder to hack online information. He also explains that for some hackers the internet makes it easier because the user is the one who gives out the information. He basically explains how it is not always the internet or technology that causes problems, but the user. Seth Godin’s work is important because Godin’s work clarifies that technology actually makes it harder to hack, and get into your privacy. His work is also important because is gives good reasoning, and statistics about how technologies help and hurt the privacy of the common man. Readers should care because knowing that technology makes hacking harder most people are going to want to be involved with our new technology which will help better the United States, and possibly help solve the issue of identity theft.
Turner, Michael. "Technology Should Not Be Blamed for All Privacy Threats." Ic.galegroup.com 2009. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. 21 September 2013. .
In the article, “Technology Should Not Be Blamed for All Privacy Threats” author Michael Turner examines technology versus reality. Turner does this by explaining the common mans security and privacy, and then explaining the reality about technology actually doing something that “hurts” someone. He basically explains that technology does not do anything it is the people that get a hold of it that do bad things with it. While technology can help enhance the situation, it does not cause anything. Turners work is important because Turners work illustrates clearly that technology rarely does anything to threaten anyone’s privacy. Readers should care because this clarifies that people cannot always directly blame technology for things that happen, but t they defiantly need to be wary about the people who get a hold of information that is someone’s privacy. Before this article was written, technology was mostly blamed for everything. This article helped to clarify that not only should technology not be blamed for all privacy threats, but if you think it is there a key points to look into about technology actually being a threat to privacy.
Henley, Nicole. “Mannequin Eyes Are Watching You.” Techcrunch.com. 14 August 2013. HubPages. 28 August 2013.
Cause and Effect Essay
Cause and Effect Essay
EyeSee mannequins seem to be the newest, greatest thing in the world today. They do everything for a store including the following tasks: See who shops there the most, catches criminals, and most of all helps the store/business prosper. They are great for helping people. They just seem to be the best, new thing that any store could ask for. They can be like the newest cameras for Hollywood! These mannequins are made to do all these good things for a store, but in reality, they just hurt the customers. They do a lot of stuff wrong to their customers, and worst of all the customers do not even know they exist. These mannequins are almost like a kid they can do things rights, and they do things wrong, but the only thing that is noticed and remembered about them is the wrong things that they do. EyeSee mannequins, which use facial recognition technology, has negative effects on people, such as, invasion of privacy, identity theft, and people being blamed for a crime they did not do.EyeSee mannequins use their technology in way that can be invading to someone’s privacy. In the article “Privacy Act Statement,” The Air Force Writer explains that “The Privacy Act prohibits the discloser of information from a system of records absent the written consent of the subject individual, unless the discloser is pursuant to one of twelve statutory exceptions.” (Air Force Writer).Basically, The Air Force Writer is saying that information cannot be taken from someone unless there is written consent. With that said, it is technically illegal for them to process customers information without their consent. According to Nicole Henly, “The mannequins are equipped with special cameras connected to a computer inside the mannequins head. The computer contains facial recognition software, as well as, audio and video recording capabilities. The mannequins record shopping patterns of the customers in the store.”(Nicole Henly 1). Henly’s point is that they are taking video and audio recordings of shoppers. What people do not know is that they are doing this without their consent.
With the EyeSee mannequins being an invasion of privacy by using facial recognition technology without the consent of customers, it is also possible for them to do more illegal things. The facial recognition technology used in EyeSee mannequins can receive someone’s information through a network, which can then be used to steal a person’s identity, if put into the hands of a criminal. In the article, “Technology Should Not Be Blamed for All Privacy Threats” Michael Turner states that “What about the strange calls we encounter occasionally when someones phones claiming to be with your bank attempts to get you to willingly volunteer your personal and financial information.”(Michael Turner 2). In other words, Turner argues that it is the customer who puts out their information, but in the case of facial recognition technology the customers have no choice as to who receives information or what information they receive. In the article, “New Technologies Are Not a Threat to Privacy” Greg Miller explains that “By that measure, sites should give consumers notice of what is collected, the choice to opt out, access to collected data, information on security and someone to contact with complaints.” (Greg Miller). Miller is saying that consumers should not what is being collected and shared, as well as to not agree to it. If that “rule” goes for internet commercial sites then it should be the same way for any commercial use as well.
This new technology used is harmful to people more than it is helping because it is causing legal matters to arise. This new technology is made to catch criminals, but in most situations, that is not what they are used for. Nicole Lee claims that “The original rationale of such technology was to identify criminals in places like the airport, but retailers are apparently now using it to personalize store offerings.”(Nicole Lee). In making this comment, Lee shows that the original idea of this technology changed to something completely different just so stores can have prospering businesses, and possibly because the original idea did not work. In the article, “Public Video Surveillance is Not Intrusive” Gus Arroyo explains that “Most legal analysts have concluded that the use of video technology to monitor public places is permitted and does not present significant legal obstacles.”(Gus Arroyo). In making this comment Arroyo shows that it is not illegal if used to catch criminals but it is obvious that the mannequins aren’t used for that purpose.
The mannequin’s main use is to help a business make more money, not to catch criminals. There is so much going wrong with these mannequins, and yet they are transported across the globe for retail purposes. Many solutions are available to fix this rising problem. Any person can walk into a store and just question if these mannequins are used or not. Customers can protest on invasion of privacy, taking information illegally, and possible concerns of identity theft. If enough people come to speak out against these mannequins, then soon enough they will diminish from the United States for good. All it takes is enough factual evidence against them for stores to get rid of them. Another solution is that stores just do what they are suppose to do, and put up a warning sign about the mannequins explaining what information is going to be collected. It does not take a lot of time to do what is best for the customers, but sometimes it takes some push and shoves to actually accomplish this task. The mannequins should not be watching us, we should be watching the mannequins.
Works Cited
Henley, Nicole. “Mannequin Eyes Are Watching You.” Techcrunch.com. 14 August 2013. HubPages. 28 August 2013. Thursday, October 24, 2013
Friday, October 11, 2013
Narrative Poem
Emily Cocchiola
English 2
Ms. McKoy
Block 1
9 October 2013
Are
You Watching Me?
Innocent
15 year old girl,
Hair
so pretty with luscious curls.
Curls
bouncing like a ball,
Soon
her friends seem to call.
Buying
new clothes for her date,
Not
realizing that she is direct bait.
Minding
her own business it seems to be
Not
knowing that she is being seen
Having
a good time, meeting with her friends
When
suddenly the mannequin slowly bends.
She
thinks it was just her eyes,
When
suddenly the commercial ad changed by surprise!
To
a girl almost like her
She
questioned, “How did that happen, sir?”
The
mannequins have cameras he dares to say,
But
the secret of the cameras was something he did not want to say
They
are facial scanners to see who shops,
For
all of those million dollar tops.
The
girl looks in fear,
That’s
not a good thing to hear,
I
don’t want to be stalked
In
this store, or any store, she says with a shock
No
signs, no postings, nothing!
You
would think that there would be at least something!
To
scan my face with no permission
That
right there can put your store in bad condition
Without
signs or postings to warn,
You
are invading my privacy, with no return
American
Eagle, Aeropostale, Hollister, and more
Might
all going to be going into a little business war
I
don’t see why stores use these
Or
think they do not have to say anything, geez!
These
mannequins need to be gone
Preferably
before the next dawn
These
mannequins are invading my space,
They
need to go to another place.
Either
get signs, or get rid of them
To
make us all very happy like a hen!
Letter to The Editor
Emily
Cocchiola
HCS
Early College High School
2050
Hwy. 501 E
Conway,
SC 29529
(843-349-3131)
September
19, 2013
The
Sun News
Letter
to the Editor
P.O.
Box 406
Myrtle
Beach, SC 29578
Dear
Editor-in-chief,
I
am writing to inform about mannequins that use facial recognition technology
without the consent of customers.
This
act is going against the privacy laws. The point of privacy laws is to protect
people from invasion of privacy. Stores everywhere have implemented mannequins
that use facial scanners to help their business. The stores do not see it
affecting customers, and that is because customers do not know about them. The
people that do know about them find them to creepy because they scan your face
revealing your age, gender, and race. If you've ever been tagged in a picture
on Facebook then they can go into the memory and find out exactly who and where
you are. Stores do not give you any warning that they use these, so they need
to be put to a stop now.
Sincerely,
Emily
Cocchiola
Exploratory Essay
Emily Cocchiola
McKoy-1
English 2
4 September 2013
Mannequins
That Watch You Shop
Do you ever feel as if you're being
watched when nobody is there? If so, you might be right. Stores across the
nation have been using EyeSee mannequins to help the stores business. While
some people think that their face is not as important as a social security
number, others might. The mannequins scan your face revealing your age, gender,
and race. If you have ever been tagged in a picture on facebook, then these
mannequins can find out exactly who, and where you are. While these mannequins
might be good to help track and stop bad guys, they are an invasion of privacy
to the common man and I. We already have to deal with surveillance cameras, for
security reasons, and now this? EyeSee mannequins might be new across the
globe, but they need to be put to a stop now.
The privacy acts of 1974 states,
"Give a Privacy Act Statement (PAS) orally or in writing to the subject of
the record when you are collecting information that will go in a system of
records." When stores do have these EyeSee mannequins there is nothing
posted about them being there, and a lot of the customers do not even know they
exist. EyeSee mannequins use facial technology, so it is important to have
warning about facial scanners because some people might not be comfortable with
that. Other people might claim that the information is not being stored, but
once it is recorded it will always be in the memory of the camera. In addition, The Air force Writer, states the
whole privacy act of 1974, along with how to orally give or write a PAS. This
website is dependable because it states the most recent update in the top left
corner. It is also dependable because it is quoting the law, with information
explaining it. This website will help me with my research because it will help
me argue that these mannequins are going against the privacy act. Starting off
with this research has helped me make my point about the mannequins. It has
helped me to do this by telling me what is and isn't an invasion of privacy. I
personally did not know until I did this research, and there are a lot of
people out in the world that do not know of the privacy act either. In the
article, Mannequins Eyes are
Watching You, it
states, "the computer contains facial recognition software, as well as,
audio, and video recording capabilities." This article helped defend my
point that they finding out unneeded information about the shoppers without
their permission. They say that the information being collected is not used in
any harmful way, but why does it matter? It is still our personal information.
I would like to do further research
on EyeSee mannequins being an invasion of privacy because I want students to
know about the technology they are using in the world today. I want everyone to
come to a realization that anyone can watch them at anytime. For stores wanting
to increase business does not have to become a privacy issue. A possible
argument that I make is, are these EyeSee mannequins an invasion of privacy or
not? Although some people might now seem to think so, I do, and it will be a
great opportunity to grab a hold of all this new technology. Research helped me
to come up with my essential question: "Should stores be allowed to use
facial recognition technology without consent of their customers?" To
develop my thesis statement more which states, I do not think stores should be
allowed to use facial recognition technology without consent of the customer; I
did more research and analyzing on the mannequins themselves, proving that they
go against the privacy act.
Works Cited
Henley,
Nicole. “Mannequin Eyes Are Watching You.”
Techcrunch.com. 14 August 2013. HubPages. 28 August 2013. <http://nicolehenley.hubpages.com/hub/Almax-Mannequins-Their-Eyes-are-Watching-You.>
Lee,
Nicole. “EyeSee mannequins used to spy on shoppers, confirm paranoid fears.” Engadget.com.
20 Nov 2012. Engad. 28 August 2013. <http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/20/eyesee-mannequins/>.
“Privacy
Act Statement.” www.airforcewriter.com. 2013. Air Force Writer. 1 September 2013.
<http://www.airforcewriter.com/privacy_act_statement.htm>.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)