A data strategist named Warren Rajah was wrongly asked to leave a Sainsbury’s store in Elephant and Castle after staff mistook him for a person on the Facewatch facial recognition system.

Sainsbury’s defended the Facewatch system and apologized to Rajah, asserting there was no fault in the technology and that it is used in seven stores to identify shoplifters.

Facewatch confirmed Rajah was not on their database and said staff followed standard procedures to verify identity, including safeguards around data deletion after verification.

Rajah expressed concern about possible permanent records on Facewatch, questioning how data would be stored or deleted and noting the lack of processes to challenge misidentifications, especially for vulnerable individuals.

Experts and watchdogs criticized store use of facial recognition, with Big Brother Watch highlighting the chilling risk of misidentification and the burden of seeking remedies, while the ICO stressed legal compliance and robust accuracy controls.

The Information Commissioner’s Office acknowledged potential public benefits of facial recognition but underscored the need for data protection compliance and strong misidentification risk management.

Big Brother Watch’s Jasleen Chaggar argued biometric surveillance can cause trauma and urged remedies beyond apologies when misidentifications occur.

The incident underscores debates over accuracy and human impact of private facial recognition in retail, including potential trauma from misidentifications and the need for clear explanations and safeguards.

Questions arise about balancing retailer security with privacy and transparency of facial recognition practices in public spaces.

The case fits a broader pattern of prior misidentifications in retail facial recognition, highlighting ongoing concerns about accuracy and due process.

Rajah described the incident as Orwellian and Minority Report-like, noting he received little explanation and was redirected to a Facewatch website QR code to verify his identity.

Staff confiscated Rajah’s purchases and removed him from the store, prompting questions about the decision and its lack of clear justification.