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. 
No comments:
Post a Comment