Coffee machine camera at Amazon warehouse raises concerns about surveillance
sahanjournal.com
sahanjournal.com
Why is a camera involved in purchasing coffee with a card? Genuine question. Was there an issue of people stealing coffee cards, so they used facial-ID matching? If so that seems like an expensive and authoritarian solution to a minor problem, and it doesn't make sense that the machine would do this if Amazon isn't using the cards. And it doesn't fully explain this:
> An employee at the DMP1 Amazon Delivery Station was getting coffee on February 9 when he saw a button on the coffee vending machine’s touch screen that read “gallery.”....The employee pushed the button and came across around half a dozen random photos of the breakroom, according to Canaday.
If the photos were close-ups of employees making coffee then I would buy the explanation that this was a feature Amazon forgot to disable. But if they are truly "random photos of the breakroom" then this explanation doesn't make sense to me.
to scan the QR/bar code that's on the card
Perhaps the most famous: https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/9/21/16339122/e...
To the contrary, it's an essential measure for helping to track down theft and fraud.
Every self-checkout takes a photo of your face. Every ATM. And basically every store where you check out with a cashier has security cameras capturing your face from angles.
So there is no reason why engineers would want to angle the camera downwards.
I expect to be informed that recording will be occuring given I live in a two party consent state.
There is an expectation of privacy in certain circumstances, ex law office, Drs office, and the break room (given discussing working conditions in a break room is a protected activity where recording is disallowed)
Every customer support hotline I've ever dialed prefaces the message with 'this conversation may be recorded'. Most ATMs have a video surveillance tag somewhere nearby.
Regardless, if Amazon bought commercial products with recording devices and installed them in the break room, that's ultimately Amazon's responsibility. Perhaps it was an honest mistake, but IMHO Amazon has failed to Earn Trust and Disagree and Commit to following the law when it comes to labor regulations
That has nothing to do with audio recording, which seems to be what you're talking about. I'm not talking about audio, nor is the original article in question, nor the coffee machine in question.
The concept of "two party consent" only applies to conversations. They don't apply to video recordings.
As far as I am aware, two-party consent is specifically for audio recordings, not recordings without an audio component.
if you have been to a secure Amazon facility you know that there are cameras in every room and in every hall and at every point of entry and exit. Management appears to make no excuses about using those for every possible purpose. The people that work there seem in "constant compliance" mode, and there are more than a few wrecked individuals "just making a living" .. is this a social pattern for the most successful companies to emulate? It seems to be much more like the Ottoman Empire than any Western thing I know of..
However, they can't handle the information density of a 2d barcode and the transformations needed to scan a 2d barcode at an arbitrary orientation and reconstruct the original information are more finicky than including what is now a cheap digital camera. The difference between a digital still camera and a digital video is how often you read it out.
You can get a camera for under $10 ( https://www.adafruit.com/product/5733 ) and the ease of using that in combination with a library that can handle 2d barcodes in any orientation is much less work to use than trying to make a scanning laser system to read a 2d barcode.
It is also way cheaper to get off-the-shelf tablets with camera to embed into systems, then add extra hardware to read just barcodes.
Many times people who steal credit cards will try to make small purchases to validate cards. Since there is no human interaction someone who has stolen ~10 cards could try each one by buying a $1-2 coffee and seeing which ones work. The machine takes photos which could then be turned over if/when the card holder reports fraud.
Do you think using stolen credit cards is a big problem in Amazon warehouses, because what I think is this isn't a bug but a feature to detect who is working and who is slacking.
> uses a camera for people to purchase coffee with a card, she said. But Carroll added that Amazon offers the coffee to employees free of charge and has no practical use for the camera.
Would be like finding a camera in a girls locker room and then saying 'we have no need for that'. Like what the hell is doing there is the real question and I suspect it does have a practical purpose for Amazon.
That’s like I saying I approved of my Samsung fridge shitting the bed. No, Samsung did that. I just bought it.
There's huge loss/fraud prevention value in creating visual audit trails.
You don't need to do facial ID matching to recognize recurring theft. You just need a historical photo to correlate who used a card (that you subsequently might learn was a fraudulent charge).
Same way CCTV cameras are used in retail.
in a company owned cafeteria, for ordinary pay-per-purchase coffee ?
where is the "loss" ?
better question - is management addicted to spying here?
Did you read the thread you are responding to? They said they don't use the camera for this exact reason.
Typically, the way these operations work is that either the employer contracts out the snack bin to a vendor, or the employer buys the snacks themselves, then charges the employees for them. In either case, if the expectation is to pay for the snacks, and you don't, that's theft.
I have complicated opinions about whether or not an employer should charge their own employees for break-room snacks, but once an employer decides that they should charge for the snacks, then the loss is clear when a snack is taken without paying.
Back around 2003 a coworker thought she left her credit card at a store (I think Target). She called them, they asked her to read the number off of the receipt, pulled up the video of her transaction, and told her she had put the card back in her wallet/purse.
I was surprised they had that level of integration and can't imagine what they've got these days.
On the one hand, I'm not surprised at all that there are security people in the company that can instantly pull up security cam footage of a register from the receipt number. That makes total sense.
But on the other hand, I never would have guessed that a customer service rep would have access to the system -- or even that if they had to transfer it to the security department, that the security department would be allowed to use the footage for anything customer-facing like that.
Still, that's kinda cool and helpful! Assuming it can't be used for any kind of nefarious invasion-of-privacy uses...
Although someone could probably watch your fingers at the checkout lane put in your pin. Camera script to correlate fingers to access pins automatedly. Machine vision is so much more advanced. Four finger movements, four numbers, tada, debit card access. I could probably write that with ML Kit.
Correlated to your exact receipt, purchases, and time of purchase (with enough fidelity to say "you put your card in your pocket at ##:##"). Track your card through the system, and what bank/clearing house is passing the transaction. When did this exact number amount of money go through and where did the lines send the data? What account was the final transaction processed through?
Maybe I'll mess up on the PIN, too, to throw people off (although that's probably caused by not being able to see the numbers).
They could also use sound to detect the keypress, but I'm hoping any legit retailer hasn't gone that far, yet.
I'd guess your friend was forwarded to an asset protection person at the store or similar.
Also, in this case, there's not much sensitive about "we saw you put it in your purse."
It'd be a different story if your friend had asked "Did you see what 4-number code I entered on the PIN pad?"
I think the real answer is that Kroger simply does not take operations seriously. Theres evidence for this in their app, their self checkout experience, how often sales are not applied, the quality of their produce, how dirty the stores are, the way their merger and acquisition stores are all 1/3 integrated, and more im sure
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2006/01/29/r...
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/csi-w...
It's hard to keep competency from developing when you have (frequent, sophisticated attacker) + (financial motive to fund countermeasures and resourcing).
(Albeit some retail still seems to find a way)
Whoever installed the coffee machine probably just plugged it in and filled it with beans.
Another employee might have changed the settings. I know if I came across an unlocked admin interface, I would fuck with it.
I press all buttons
The sheer number of people in here espousing great volumes of text to explain the ulterior motives of a shitty OEM android control panel on a vending machine crashing out of kiosk mode is utterly unbelievable.
gorkish's comment does at least bring things back down to earth.
This spot in Seattle has a digital dot matrix sign (says "Surface Mount Technology" in the street view) that has been in factory reset mode, cycling through a demo of its fonts and specs for its serial port, for at least five years.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/87wymvx6kxKToacq5
I've always wondered what the store was behind it. Maybe some defunct business?
Luckily, we fixed the controller (which is IR based) but I fully understand why one of those signs would stay in that state now.
Check the POS card pads at your local Starbucks, drug store, grocery store, etc. ALL of the new ones have cameras on them now (not just the self-checkout kiosks), and it's reasonable to assume they are snapping pics of everyone to assist with fraud investigations.
Sometimes I carry around little stickers with me and cover the cameras up.
Bonus item: Canteen had to mail me a check for $30 after losing a class action lawsuit. You could register a fingerprint to access your account with, but we were in Illinois and they did not collect a biometrics waiver during enrollment.
> The breakroom in question has two other cameras present: a security camera on the ceiling and another security camera attached to a self-checkout kiosk employees use when buying food, Canaday said.
It's totally normal for workplaces to have cameras in public employee areas.
The article tries to make a point:
> He said that Amazon workers must feel free to talk about work in the breakroom without the fear of being surveilled.
But there's no microphone in question here, the article even says so specifically. Conversations are not being snooped on here.
And the camera is used for scanning cards to purchase coffee with, so it's not exactly nefarious.
This is non-news.
I've never heard of anybody complaining about it.
Adding a security camera or two on the inside won't make stuff creepier.
If I worked in a warehouse job with a strong anti-union position I'd assume the whole place was bugged. Even convincing people to act as if they are under surveillance would be a huge anti-union win.
You used the word "invasive" -- that's of course an ambiguous phrase to the common person, but it's not going to ambiguous to the security/fraud group at a big company. They will know that they can do X but not Y, and they will do the most of X that they can.
Of course, this quickly escalates to "no porn", "no video games", and other non-work things. But those are usually larger organizations where they lose track of individuals and their behaviour.
But sure, clickbait titles are good bait for clicks.
> [...] East African workers, who comprise a sizable amount of Amazon’s Minnesota workforce. Local East African Muslim workers have a history of protesting the company’s wages and workplace conditions, including its handling of workers’ daily prayer practices and requests for time off for Muslim holidays.
> Amazon spokesperson Alisa Carroll said a malfunction caused the camera to take photos.
wonder if a malfunction will make the security cameras "without microphones" start recording audio too
>The machine, provided by the vending supplier Canteen, features a touch screen and uses a camera for people to purchase coffee with a card, she said.
Short and stout…
But why stop there? They could watch you walk to your car and do ALPR there too.
Seems like a microcosm of the entire Internet.
For example, around 15 years ago we had these guys steal multiple crimpers ($400 to $800 ea.), CNC cutting tools ($100 to $400 ea.) and accessories in the thousands of dollars. Even seemingly stupid things, like 300 meter rolls of wire.
We brought them into the conference room and confronted them with the situation by saying: We know you stole these items (presented a list). If you return them within the next couple of days you will be fired and no charges will be filed.
They lied, said they did not steal a thing and were offended by the false accusation.
We then played the surveillance videos on the conference room screen. Their tune changed dramatically to admitting what they did and asking forgiveness. Of course, this entire meeting was also recorded.
They were given one opportunity to not lie, return what they stole and be fired. Instead, they were arrested.
When you are working for a company, privacy isn't to be expected outside of the bathrooms.
There are other issues as well. It is really unfortunate that, as a business owner, you are forced to think defensively in these matters. It really is. I am a firm believer in that people are basically good. Mainly because behaving badly in person (let's not talk about online, that's a different matter) can have serious consequences.
In that category if you hire women --no reason not to-- you better have security cameras everywhere allowed by law. Why? Because of two things. First, women can be subject to serious sexual harassment. This has to be taken seriously and acted upon. Second, a woman can falsely acuse someone at work of this and absolutely ruin their lives. Video surveillance, if thorough enough, should provide one of the requisite safety layer.
Of course, employees have to be made aware of these policies. I don't know if it is a legal requirement (it might be in some jurisdictions), it's the right thing to do.
Sadly, we have to use such measures just because of a very small number of idiots who don't seem to have a brain.
It's so common it's a 20 year old joke at least: https://www.amazon.com/Build-Better-Stealing-Office-Supplies...
That's what we did first. And then the three of them. Same result.
They were stupid enough to list the items on eBay. Pretty sad.
For better and for worse, that is the case ^^^
Back in the 90s (before cell phones), I had to give a training to a bunch of managers to teach them how to eavesdrop on employees' phone calls. I asked if this was legal and was told yes, the phones are company property. That never sat well with me. However, it got worse: I later found out that one of the managers was having an extramarital affair with an employee and wanted to monitor what she was saying to her husband or something weird like that.
Video captures little to none of this unless someone is being physically molested or raped. Sexual harassment (in the actual legal sense, not woke theocratic law) usually takes place verbally or over SMS/WhatsApp on personal devices.
We're dealing with a generation of people trained in stagecraft. Trust nothing.
That's why I said "one of the...". I think these days it is an absolute must for more reasons than I care to list here. Let's just say I've seen weird stuff happen. People are in a range between "that was funny" to "stupid beyond description".
I'm in favor of local, private, surveillance of private property.
I'm not in favor of aggregating that surveillance in a way that allows warrantless search by government officials.
Nowadays we have to define what we mean by warrantless search. In this context, I specifically mean any system or human associated with a government having access to the footage in any way prior to obtaining a warrant. This includes indexing the footage into a database accessible by law enforcement without a physical transfer of property.
When it comes to my property, I have surveillance. It's all offline. It goes to a set of HDDs with redundant onsite backups. The system can survive a power outage for a _long_ time on battery backups, all the cameras are PoE and the storage device and wifi network for accessing the footage are all on a dedicated backup power circuit.
If something happens on my property, I have recordings of it. Those recordings exist to protect my family and our assets. Proving my innocence, or helping us find and recover my kids, if we ever have "one bad day."
I choose what to do with those recordings. The recordings self destruct on a timer. And it's not accessible without a warrant. You have to go through me to get them.
This is in contrast to the form of surveillance I'm not in favor of, which appears to have been normalized over my lifetime in the U.S.
The U.S. scoops up a huge amount of surveillance data into databases, and then focuses the conversation on whether or not those databases can be queried without a warrant.
It's a mind bending situation where our government has managed to reclassify "search" as querying a database, claiming the search didn't happen when the information was indexed into the database.
The physical analogue, for me, is a government official coming into your home once a day. They take a complete inventory of all of your property. They put that inventory into a folder, and then place the folder in a filing cabinet promising not to look at it unless they suspect its relevant to a crime. Then they claim that the search doesn't happen until the look in the filing cabinet.
No good sir, the search happened when you aggregated the inventory of my home.
There is a nuance here that this analogue uses _content_ and not _metadata_ - but I'd posit that for many privacy advocates that nuance isn't a meaningful distinction.
This is a classic political statement. Perhaps 100% correct.
But notice how they didn't say "no audio is recorded in the room".
https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/RECORDING...
I know there is a strong human impulse to paint the situation in black and white as evil megacorp versus hapless but plucky workers uncovering its scheme, but despite the workers surely being the more sympathetic side in this dispute my first instinct would be to check if, along with the exposed gallery app, the machine doesn't also have an exposed camera app somewhere, which the labor organisers could have used to take these half a dozen pictures before "exposing" them to galvanise support. Second most likely theory would be some seldom-triggered code path in the coffee machine making it snap a diagnostic picture when it detects excessive vibration, intermittent power loss or some other disturbance.
I guess maybe one could argue that a breakroom should be excluded, but then that falls afoul of the analysis that sometimes people steal from vending machines and the devices need surveillance to prevent that.
an other plausible use is Amazon's passion for automation (e.g., lights, air-conditioning), and squeeze a penny where possible and remove human interaction.
edit: carriage returns edit2: "hidden"
How to deny that the hidden camera is a problem without directly addressing the fact that there's a hidden camera in the break room.
Talking about this as a software mistake or anything other than "there's a hidden camera in the break room" is a failure.
The problem isn't that there's a camera in the breakroom, it's that the camera malfunctioned and took pictures that no one expected.