ANON WHO KNOWS HOW TO please grab @0:36

the still shot and video from first airing of this video from shooting:

NOTICE RED CROSS patch on back pack that current replay is blurring out???

clearly see the RED CROSS logo @ 0:36 tall guy with the backpack:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtv6oyEYghM

BUT

NOW BEING BLURRED OUT in some photos and videos?:

BLURRING:

go to @1:40

>>7329293

notice the blurring out of same man backpack, no red cross?

Why blurring it out now??

I told this earlier today

from notables re: 8chan being a cesspool

PB

>>7329293

earlier today I posted that:

look

@1:40 tall guy backpack HAD A VERY VISIBLE RED CROSS like they RED CROSS symbol on his back pack which is now BLURRED out?

I posted that I saw it as it was live on CNN as it stuck out, now it is blurred?

here is the time and post when I saw it :

▶Anonymous 08/03/19 (Sat) 18:53:24 7fb8f5 (11) No.7330132

CNN live just now showing a video of a group of military type guys with backpacks at the Walmart…..one has a Red Cross on back of backpack

▶Anonymous 08/03/19 (Sat) 17:34:53 d58e5b (7) No.7329079>>7329091

If Walmart shooter was influenced by Christchurch shooter, why would he not use a gopro and livestream? Shimon Prokupeczropo and CNN host saying 8 chan is a toxic cesspool and our info brings people to the edge.

>>7331472

Compare @1:40

PB

>>7329293

>>7331496

THEN explain why are they blurring it in newer vidoe and pics???

RED CROSS is a thing and is deep in the DS

>>7331496

>>7331472

THEN explain why are they blurring it in newer vidoe and pics???

RED CROSS is a thing and is deep in the DS

>>7331542

>>7331472

THEN WHY BLUR IT IN NEWER VIDOE AND STILLS?

pb

>>7329293

>>7331594

>>7331542

>>7331472

@1:40 BLURRED SO IT IS REMOVED???

pb

>>7329293

>>7331720

um ok

>>7331753

yep. They can even zoom in over registers and see cash and receipts. They recently put in effect really god stuff due to self checkout major theft no scan of many items.

AND THIS REGARDING WALMART

TECHFACIAL RECOGNITION

Walmart’s Use of Sci-fi Tech To Spot Shoplifters Raises Privacy Questions

By Jeff John Roberts

November 9, 2015

So, if they say no footage and lots of it it is BS

_ _ _

In the old days, when a store caught someone stealing, a detective would march the thief to a backroom and take his picture with a Polaroid camera. The photo would be added to the retailer’s in-house rogues gallery to help store security keep an eye out for bad guys.

But earlier this year, Walmart (WMT) showed how times have changed.

It tested a system that scanned the face of everyone entering several of its stores, identified suspected shoplifters, and instantly alerted store security on their mobile devices.

The potential of such facial recognition technology has been discussed for years. But now some stores are actually using it.

Walmart’s experiment, which it ended after several months, highlights the powerful high-tech tools available to retailers to reduce theft. However, it also raises questions about whether stores should have to follow rules when using the technology to protect shoppers’ privacy.

“Put a grid on their face”

Joe Rosenkrantz, CEO of FaceFirst, a Southern California company that sells a facial recognition system to retailers, promises to “transform security at every store.” He says FaceFirst software is being used by several Fortune 500 retailers, which he declined to name because on non-disclosure agreements.

“The system is smart enough to notify a loss prevention associate on their iPhone within seven seconds,” says Rosenkrantz,

The automated notifications can include a profile of the suspect, as well as a “corporate directive” of how to respond. All store security has to do is scout the aisles to find the person in question and confront them.

Retailers using FaceFirst do not, however, save a photo record of everyone coming in the store. Instead, the software is set to find matches against an existing gallery of alleged offenders. Images of innocent shoppers are discarded. Stores only retain photos of suspects (or people who resemble them) who security staff have previously flagged.

“We give them a mobile app,” says Rosenkrantz. “It makes it so they can zap someone’s face. It puts a grid on their face [for future identification]”

Images from FaceFirst’s marketing material show how this might work in practice. Here is a screenshot from its brochure for retailers (the company also sells software to law enforcement and the military):

Here is another image from the same brochure, which depicts how the technology can match an image of someone who enters a store against the store’s database, and then transmit the relevant information to a computer or phone:

So who is actually using FaceFirst? The topic is a sensitive one and retailers are skittish about discussing it.

A handful of national retailers contacted by Fortune revealed little: Home Depot says it does not use face scanning software. Walgreens says it has no contract with FaceFirst, and added it does not discuss specific security measures. Target, meanwhile, would not confirm or deny if the company uses the software.

continued:

>>7331914

continued:

The only company that acknowledged using the software was Walmart. According to a spokesperson, the retailer tested facial recognition software in stores across several states for several months, but then discontinued the practice earlier this year.

“We were looking for a concrete business rationale … It didn’t have the ROI,” or return on investment, the spokesperson says.

The explanation suggests that any savings Walmart had by reducing shoplifting failed to offset the cost of deploying and using the technology. The company declined to discuss any specifics about how many suspected shoplifters it identified or describe the accuracy of the software.

Biometrics and who owns your face.

Facial recognition software is hardly new. Casinos have used it for years as has the military and law enforcement, but it has remained controversial A program giving facial recognition-equipped iPads and smartphones to all San Diego police officers is under scrutiny, in part due to a New York Times report that suggested police may be forcing innocent people to be scanned.

Meanwhile, tech giants like Facebook (FB) and Google are becoming increasingly accurate at automatic face “tagging.” Their computers learn to recognize individuals based on certain features in their face by creating a “faceprint.” The services can then prompt users to identify people in social media photos. In some cases like Facebook’s “Moments”, they simply add names to faces automatically.

However, not everyone is comfortable with companies using their face like this. In Illinois, consumers have filed class action suits against Facebook and photo-service Shutterfly for violating a state law related to biometrics. In European countries and Canada, meanwhile, automated photo tagging features are unavailable because regulators are uneasy about their privacy implications.

Such controversies over facial recognition could become more common. The reason is that the technology has improved significantly in recent years, leading more companies to adopt it for consumer purposes. Although the technology is most commonly used by retailers for detecting shoplifters, some stores are exploring whether facial recognition could serve as a way to identify and reward loyal customers. Indeed, a site called “Facedeals” invites people to submit a scan of their face in return for discounts from local businesses.

Despite the marketing, however, the accuracy of facial recognition in retail stores is unclear. While Rosenkrantz, of FaceFirst, says his company’s software is accurate in the 98% to 100% range, others are skeptical. A source familiar with experiments by major retailers and unaffiliated with FaceFirst says that companies have concluded that facial recognition is “not ready for prime time.”

This may because computer computers can have trouble recognizing faces when shadows obscure them or when people wear hats or glasses. The success rate also depends on having good quality photos of suspects to compare to. In the case of retailers, FaceFirst offers to help its clients build an initial database of suspects based on a store’s existing photo records (including Polaroids).

continued:

>>7331914

>>7331932

continued:

Whatever the state of the technology, however, U.S. retailers are likely to continue their experiments, especially as there are few laws that prevent them from doing so.

Legal vacuum

“The whole issue of facial recognition and biometrics has been discussed for a while, and there’s no consensus of how the privacy structure should work,” says Jeffrey Neuburger, a lawyer who heads the privacy and data security group at Proskauer in New York.

He explained that the debate turns on whether companies must notify shoppers that they are using the technology, or offer opt-out options. However, an initiative to create rules fell apart last summer when nine privacy groups quit a Commerce Department working group, saying industry would not agree to even basic boundaries on facial recognition. Since then, civil liberties groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation continue to decry the lack of oversight.

This may because computer computers can have trouble recognizing faces when shadows obscure them or when people wear hats or glasses. The success rate also depends on having good quality photos of suspects to compare to. In the case of retailers, FaceFirst offers to help its clients build an initial database of suspects based on a store’s existing photo records (including Polaroids).

Whatever the state of the technology, however, U.S. retailers are likely to continue their experiments, especially as there are few laws that prevent them from doing so.

Legal vacuum

“The whole issue of facial recognition and biometrics has been discussed for a while, and there’s no consensus of how the privacy structure should work,” says Jeffrey Neuburger, a lawyer who heads the privacy and data security group at Proskauer in New York.

He explained that the debate turns on whether companies must notify shoppers that they are using the technology, or offer opt-out options. However, an initiative to create rules fell apart last summer when nine privacy groups quit a Commerce Department working group, saying industry would not agree to even basic boundaries on facial recognition. Since then, civil liberties groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation continue to decry the lack of oversight.

This story was updated on 11/10 to include Commerce Department statement.

To learn more about how tech is changing daily life, see how Facebook’s CEO wants to create AI systems “that are better than humans.”

>>7331914

WALMART:

THEY have the technology in place already to scan faces of all who come into the store.

from 2015 article

didn't LIFELOG say they ended that as well?

Ask Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg….

>>7331914

>Walmart’s experiment, which it ended after several months,

highlights the powerful high-tech tools available to retailers to reduce theft. However, it also raises questions about whether stores should have to follow rules when using the technology to protect shoppers’ privacy.

>“Put a grid on their face”

you really think they don't have the faces of real shooter(s)?

>The automated notifications can include a profile of the suspect, as well as a “corporate directive” of how to respond

>>7331914

>“The system is smart enough to notify a loss prevention associate on their iPhone within seven seconds

2015

>The only company that acknowledged using the software was Walmart. According to a spokesperson, the retailer tested facial recognition software in stores across several states for several months, but then discontinued the practice earlier this year.

>Facial recognition software is hardly new. Casinos have used it for years as has the military and law enforcement, but it has remained controversial A program giving facial recognition-equipped iPads and smartphones to all San Diego police officers is under scrutiny, in part due to a New York Times report that suggested police may be forcing innocent people to be scanned.

Meanwhile, tech giants like Facebook (FB) and Google are becoming increasingly accurate at automatic face “tagging.” Their computers learn to recognize individuals based on certain features in their face by creating a “faceprint.” The services can then prompt users to identify people in social media photos. In some cases like Facebook’s “Moments”, they simply add names to faces automatically.

>>7331472

AND all the requests over and over for BLOOD donations.

I wonder how many RED CROSS telemarketers are dialing tonight for donor dollars? Next week calls across America on premise tosolicit blood donations, but then the ASK for cash donations via tlemarketing.

I know because I used to work as one of the callers/telemarketers at a chairitable call center that called for many organiztions….For theRNC, Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, for a call center in AZ.(MDS Communications in Mesa)

I even called in 2010 for the earthquake in Haiti.

Makes me ill just thinking about it. I guarantee calls are and will be made ASAP for cash donations, and they especialy dial previous donors and beg for upping from their previous $$$ amounts.

>>7332174

collecting in real time all the FF fuckery as it went down. I think it is all beign archived so when they dump the real deal re: shootings in due time we will all be able to see it. EVERYONE is on social media talking about this, so when it all comes out with the proof white hats have been collecting about the days events, everyone will be dumbfounded who think the MSM narritive is real.