Could facial recognition at ticket gates reduce fare evasion?

[saismee]

Moderator note: split from

SWR cracking down on Vauxhall - Waterloo doughnuts/short fares

Get ready for a spate of posts! South Western Railway has launched a major enforcement operation targeting 'short faring'; specifically passengers traveling from further out who purchase cheap barcode tickets for the short Vauxhall-to-Waterloo leg simply to clear the barriers at Waterloo. SWR...

www.railforums.co.uk

You can't prosecute if you can't prove to the criminal standard that fare evasion took place. The criminal standard is beyond all reasonable doubt. This is often paraphrased as being so sure as to be certain.

No, and I didn't say you could.

What I do hope for is that these new Cubic gates could link a picture of the person to the scan data to prove who used the ticket each time.

That would help greatly with prosecution. It would of course take an unholy amount of storage, so perhaps only the extra-suspicious scans could be captured while the person is being investigated. I suppose if you can prove it was them then civil court wouldn't even be necessary.

 

[MotCO]

What I do hope for is that these new Cubic gates could link a picture of the person to the scan data to prove who used the ticket each time.

But that would rely on the program linking the ticket read and photo image is correct and in time with each other, and how could passengers prove or dispute this Following the Post Office Horizon scandal, I would not be convinced that all computer programs are correct.

 

[Bishops]

What I do hope for is that these new Cubic gates could link a picture of the person to the scan data to prove who used the ticket each time.

Id very much stop using e tickets if that was the case. im sick of being recorded everywhere in the faux belief its for crime prevention and my security.

It would also cost far more to implement than it would recoup in revenue

 

[davp]

What I do hope for is that these new Cubic gates could link a picture of the person to the scan data to prove who used the ticket each time.

I think this is a good idea. If a ticket is used correctly it can be immediately erased and it starts to build a case against people playing the system. Certainty of getting caught is the best deterrent and this probably takes us in that direction.

If people are uncomfortable with facial recognition then they can buy a paper ticket, and for that matter probably want to be careful where they shop. The technology seems to be everywhere now.

 

[35B]

I think this is a good idea. If a ticket is used correctly it can be immediately erased and it starts to build a case against people playing the system. Certainty of getting caught is the best deterrent and this probably takes us in that direction.

If people are uncomfortable with facial recognition then they can buy a paper ticket, and for that matter probably want to be careful where they shop. The technology seems to be everywhere now.

There's a whole set of questions about facial recognition, which are a topic in themselves. But are you seriously suggesting that, in a system where rapid processing is a safety critical feature, there should also be a photograph taken and tied to the individual scan?

If you can make that work, there's a job for you sorting out EES

 

[Western Gaffer]

But that would rely on the program linking the ticket read and photo image is correct and in time with each other, and how could passengers prove or dispute this Following the Post Office Horizon scandal, I would not be convinced that all computer programs are correct.

Using Horizon as a stick with which to beat all use of computers is overkill! Except for the most trivial of examples, all software has bugs of one sort or another, but as long as there are adequate exception handling processes, these can be accommodated, and aligning image capture times with other events is hardly ground-breaking technology...

 

[Tetchytyke]

What I do hope for is that these new Cubic gates could link a picture of the person to the scan data to prove who used the ticket each time.

Just put a hat and sunglasses on, or even just look away from the camera, and the whole thing is stymied.

Oh, it's a photo of a 6' man in sunglasses and a baseball hat. Is that me? Go on, prove it.

aligning image capture times with other events is hardly ground-breaking technology

It is at the speed required for a ticket barrier at a major station. EES-style queues at every station wouldn't be a great development.

Using Horizon as a stick with which to beat all use of computers is overkill!

It's fair comment. Horizon wasn't a complicated technical matter, it was a very simple human matter: Fujitsu salesmen lied about their system's capabilities. All IT companies are the same. IT salesmen will make all sorts of bold claims about their products and most of those claims will vastly exceed the technology's actual capability.

Cubic are now trying to flog incredibly expensive 'smart gates' to TfL. Cubic reckon they can identify tailgaters and flag them to RPIs. Cubic also reckon it is "impossible" for someone to be wrongly flagged by their system. Impossible is a bold promise.

Manchester Airport have installed very expensive biometric gates for domestic flights. This was sold to them by Amadeus as a way of allowing international and domestic passengers to mix airside, meaning they could save money by not having a segregated domestic arrivals channel. But the Amadeus system can't even reliably recognise me, a middle aged white man, between two biometric gates which are less than 100 yards apart and where I'm making absolutely no effort to conceal my identity. Last time I was there it took four gates over 10 minutes to process 50 people. Can you imagine that at Waterloo?

So Manchester Airport have had to retrofit a domestic arrivals channel into their terminal after all.

AI and facial recognition is just the latest IT snake oil.

And even if you install the gates, you still need the RPI there to stop the tailgater. So what's the point? An experienced RPI's Mk1 eyeball will be just as effective at identifying tailgaters.

 

[Haywain]

Id very much stop using e tickets if that was the case. im sick of being recorded everywhere in the faux belief its for crime prevention and my security.

You are already filmed pretty much every time you go through a gateline, regardless of the sort of ticket you hold.

It is at the speed required for a ticket barrier at a major station.

TfL don't seem to find it problematic.

 

[Tetchytyke]

TfL don't seem to find it problematic.

CCTV as primary evidence is weak. It's fine if you're using it to corroborate other evidence, such as witness statements. But otherwise, not so much.

TfL don't tend to use it very much for this reason. They rely on better evidence- witness statements from the RPI.

 

[saismee]

Just put a hat and sunglasses on, or even just look away from the camera, and the whole thing is stymied.

Oh, it's a photo of a 6' man in sunglasses and a baseball hat. Is that me? Go on, prove it.

Suddenly 30% of Waterloo's passengers are wearing sunglasses and a baseball hat? I think it'd be pretty obvious what they're doing if a revenue block suddenly appears, then they're truly screwed. You can't do much to those who are determined to evade their fares, but you can catch the majority.

And even if you install the gates, you still need the RPI there to stop the tailgater.

You need police or security. Most people tailgating aren't going to stop for someone who can't physically stop them.

But that would rely on the program linking the ticket read and photo image is correct and in time with each other, and how could passengers prove or dispute this Following the Post Office Horizon scandal, I would not be convinced that all computer programs are correct.

The current problem is ensuring the CCTV time and the barrier's clock are perfectly in sync as even a couple seconds would pin the blame on the wrong person. If the gate itself had the camera and captured the video upon scanning, it could directly link the UTN of the ticket to the video. CCTV can then be used to further identify the movement of the individual based on appearance and prove they actually boarded a train rather than just entered for Costa or something.

 

[35B]

Suddenly 30% of Waterloo's passengers are wearing sunglasses and a baseball hat? I think it'd be pretty obvious what they're doing if a revenue block suddenly appears, then they're truly screwed. You can't do much to those who are determined to evade their fares, but you can catch the majority.


You need police or security. Most people tailgating aren't going to stop for someone who can't physically stop them.


The current problem is ensuring the CCTV time and the barrier's clock are perfectly in sync as even a couple seconds would pin the blame on the wrong person. If the gate itself had the camera and captured the video upon scanning, it could directly link the UTN of the ticket to the video. CCTV can then be used to further identify the movement of the individual based on appearance and prove they actually boarded a train rather than just entered for Costa or something.

Yet more tech to go wrong, and invalidate a case. As for Waterloo gateline, just try a sunny day - plenty of both baseball caps and sunglasses.

The tech has to work fast, and VERY reliably. 99% reliability means that, on a full class 701, more than 10 people will be wrongly assessed. If that's 10% false negatives, that 10% of your revenue protection undermined. If they're false positives, that each one of them will need to be spoken to, assessed, and dealt with. That needs staff - on the barrier, and in the back office.

 

[MotCO]

Using Horizon as a stick with which to beat all use of computers is overkill! Except for the most trivial of examples, all software has bugs of one sort or another, but as long as there are adequate exception handling processes, these can be accommodated, and aligning image capture times with other events is hardly ground-breaking technology...

But if I am accused of fare dodging, even though I hold a valid ticket, based on a photo taken when the ticket was supposed to have been fed through the barrier, how can I prove that the program is wrong, or the camera and barrier clocks are out of sync? I can't prove I'm innocent, even though the technology is faulty a la Horizon. That would manifestly be a miscarriage of justice, which I can't get out of.

(I'm assuming that the ticket is withheld by the ticket barrier, so I can't prove I held a valid ticket)

 

[gembercannelle]

You need police or security. Most people tailgating aren't going to stop for someone who can't physically stop them.
The current problem is ensuring the CCTV time and the barrier's clock are perfectly in sync as even a couple seconds would pin the blame on the wrong person. If the gate itself had the camera and captured the video upon scanning, it could directly link the UTN of the ticket to the video. CCTV can then be used to further identify the movement of the individual based on appearance and prove they actually boarded a train rather than just entered for Costa or something.

At Kings Cross, about 5 - 10 expensive laptops are stolen daily. In plain daylight, CCTV captures the thieves in act. Police says the image is no good enough to assist them in identifying the criminals. It would be good if they care to stop the crime, before they start monitoring daily traffic in and out of city.

 

[35B]

But if I am accused of fare dodging, even though I hold a valid ticket, based on a photo taken when the ticket was supposed to have been fed through the barrier, how can I prove that the program is wrong, or the camera and barrier clocks are out of sync? I can't prove I'm innocent, even though the technology is faulty a la Horizon. That would manifestly be a miscarriage of justice, which I can't get out of.

(I'm assuming that the ticket is withheld by the ticket barrier, so I can't prove I held a valid ticket)

There are two points here. The first is that the discussion is focused on e-tickets, so nothing gets passed through but instead the photo is tied to a scan of a ticket that never leaves your possession. The second is that the burden of proof remains on the body claiming the fault to demonstrate the photo is of you at the time you made your scan. That means that, if it were tied to a physical ticket, there has to be a chain of evidence that can prove the connection

As @Tetchytyke observes, Horizon involves a very specific set of issues (in that case about how bank balances were reconciled, and then the approach of POL to the "errors" that showed as a result). He's absolutely right that it's a cautionary tale that those, like me, in the technology industry need to be aware of but it is not a proof that use of IT systems means that they will catch the wrong people - and one of the good things about the scandal is that it's made all involved in the justice system much more aware that technology isn't flawless, and that system integrity can't just be assumed.

 

[Mattplans]

Id very much stop using e tickets if that was the case. im sick of being recorded everywhere in the faux belief its for crime prevention and my security.

Strongly agree. Not to mention it won't be long until they take it a step further: https://www.theguardian.com/technol...cial-recognition-struggle-to-clear-their-name
(A link to an article about supermarkets falsely accusing shoppers of shoplifting, entitled Guilty until proven innocent: shoppers falsely identified by facial recognition system struggle to clear their names)

 

[Western Gaffer]

But if I am accused of fare dodging, even though I hold a valid ticket, based on a photo taken when the ticket was supposed to have been fed through the barrier, how can I prove that the program is wrong, or the camera and barrier clocks are out of sync? I can't prove I'm innocent, even though the technology is faulty a la Horizon. That would manifestly be a miscarriage of justice, which I can't get out of.

(I'm assuming that the ticket is withheld by the ticket barrier, so I can't prove I held a valid ticket)

There need to be sufficient checks and balances surrounding the technology itself - I'd see it as broadly analogous to speed cameras, where there has to be a rolling programme of regular calibration, etc, to validate that it's working correctly. There is clearly reliance already placed on systems tracking ticket scans, none of which can be guaranteed to be 100% accurate 100% of the time...

 

[davp]

The tech has to work fast, and VERY reliably.

It is at the speed required for a ticket barrier at a major station. EES-style queues at every station wouldn't be a great development.

I've not been working in technology for a few years now, but matching a high quality timestamped image (from a continuous feed) to the timestamp of the gate being opened is trivial and wouldn't interfere with the speed of gates being opened. I'm suggesting the analysis is done after the event and any images that are clearly not linked to any suspicious activity deleted. What is left may help to strengthen the evidence against people who are repeatedly misusing tickets.

Reliability of these technologies is improving all the time and the post analysis is a good candidate for AI. It will have to be developed, tested and any actions against people will have to be correct. If it can help to improve the certainty of being caught for fare evasion that is going to help change people's behaviour.

 

[signed]

Facial recognition for train travel? Come on, stop trying to infringe on privacy more than we already are. Revenue protection is a very large, mostly unsolvable game of whackamole.

And what’s next, your ID/Passport becomes your only way to take the train? That exist, but I don’t think it would be this popular in the UK.

 

[Sonic1234]

And what’s next, your ID/Passport becomes your only way to take the train?

Effectively eTickets have solved ID issues for the railway, which is one reason they like them. It is very hard (not impossible, depending on the retailer's security settings) to buy them with false details. The uncooperative fare dodger with no ticket, an intimidating presence, no fear of consequences and physical strength is a problem.

Those fare dodging with eTickets (like Vauxhall to Waterloo short fares) are likely cheating the railway out of significant sums, will be compliant when caught and be able to be identified. Someone pushing a Tube gateline is likely to be difficult on all fronts, and has only cheated the railway out of a railcard-discounted tube fare in the outer zones (most are of an age where if they did pay for their travel, they could get a railcard).

 

[davp]

Facial recognition for train travel?

Many retailers are now using it, including major supermarkets. Of course people are free to shop elsewhere but choices are becoming limited.

I appreciate there needs to be a conversation about privacy. I don't have a problem if it is used with proper safeguards in order to reduce fare evasion. I'm not suggesting travelling is made any more complicated.

 

[35B]

Many retailers are now using it, including major supermarkets. Of course people are free to shop elsewhere but choices are becoming limited.

I appreciate there needs to be a conversation about privacy. I don't have a problem if it is used with proper safeguards in order to reduce fare evasion. I'm not suggesting travelling is made any more complicated.

Understood, but that means being quite precise about how it might be used - and thinking through whether it's actually a cost-effective tool bearing in mind that the objective of ticket checking is to increase the total income.

 

[Bishops]

You are already filmed pretty much every time you go through a gateline, regardless of the sort of ticket you hold.

But thats just general CCTV and doesnt tie me to something else and is somethign i can accept in normal life .

No way should it be tied to what ticket i or someone else has bought for the sake of a few fare dodgers. Its bad enough they do this at self service tills in some supermarkets now, its unnecessary