I attended a seminar this week where a shoplifting-prevention professional was speaking (no, I was a guest, not a subject). She claimed that there are now stores that have mannequins which have a surveillance video camera hidden in the eye. Intrigued, I googled it, and can find no information on any such thing. I know that it’s feasible; I just have never seen nor heard of it in action at this time. I vaguely remember hearing something about this awhile back. Is this still just a myth/wishful thinking, or are there really such mannequins already in place in stores?
If it ain’t on the Web, it ain’t happenin.
Creeeeeeeeeeeepy.
But if you’ve got cameras you have to hide, why bother hiding them in eyes of anything as opposed to just random objects around the store?
A camera lens masquerading as an eye would probably not attract as much attention as a lens in the middle of a mannequin’s forehead, doncha think?
Depends. If it’s a pinhole-type camera, you could probably hide it anywhere (button, vase, fake smoke detector, the walls, stuffed animals, etc.). If it requires a visible lens, you know, it just seems like putting in the mannequin’s eyes – cloudy, soulless pupil and all – would be both unnecessarily creepy and counter-productive in the long run if only because once word gets out that “the mannequins are watching you!”, people will just avoid their gaze and steal behind their backs, literally. And you’d have to strategically position their heads in a way that would give you good coverage of the store’s goods, which may not be the most aesthetically pleasing posture available… insofar as these abominations could be considered aesthetically pleasing to begin with.
But mannequins look out windows, or away for clothing racks, into the aisles.
Away from high risk areas.
The idea is supposed to be to deter shoplifters, not just catch them in the act. The ceiling-mounted ball cameras are unobtrusive, but visible. Hiding it in the mannequin’s eye seems counter-productive, and, like **Bosda **says, not so fruitful if they’re not even pointed in the right direction.
Really? All mannequins are placed that way? Always? Is there some law I don’t know about that says they can’t be looking at high-traffic areas? If you wanted to conceal a camera, would someone stop you from placing it where it would observe the best?
Considering that most mannequins don’t even have eyes, I seriously doubt this. Besides, there are hundreds of other places I could hide cameras in a store. Check out “spy cameras” on Google. The point is that cameras are so small, you can hide them anywhere you want to, so sure you could put them in a mannequin, but you would only do it if it was going to give you a good view of what you want to protect. Ceiling mounted cameras generally do a better job due to the angle and they are less likely to be blocked by someone standing in front of the camera.
The other point is that most places don’t even monitor the cameras, anyways – they just let them record and if something happens, they can play it back. Big exception to this is casinos in Vegas. They watch the cameras in the casinos like hawks.
Well, if the mannequins can’t see you, then they can’t reach out and grab you when you aren’t looking, can they?
That’s it. I’ll never buy clothing again.
Department stores have surveillance cameras all over the place, and this time of year they’re full of security personnel posing as shoppers, as well. (Actually, not just this time of year, any busy shopping period.) Why would they need to have them in mannequins’ eyes?
For that matter, a lot of the mannequins don’t have eyes. Or even heads!
If a camera is hidden in a mannequin, it’ll either need a power cord or be battery powered. The video could easily be sent over wireless, but the power’s gotta come from some place.
I’ve never seen a cord sticking out of a mannequin. Neither would I expect the clerks to be able to keep changing batteries in mannequins every day. Pretty soon they’d all be even deader than plain old-fashioned blind mannequins.
To conserve battery power, or more accurately to conserve the cost of batteries & the cost of labor to keep replacing them, you’d expect the seeing-eye mannequins to have an exposed on/off switch; most stores are open at most 12 hours a day. I’ve never seen such a switch, even on a naked mannequin.
Nor a battery compartment door. Something like that isn’t doing to run a wireless transmitter in continuous transmission for 12 hours on a single AAA. It’d probably need more like a couple D cells.
Both the switch & door need to be readily accessible while the mannequn is dressed, but also not visible to the public. People with doors & switches on them look creepy, and that will adversly affect the customer’s perception of the merchandise.
IMO bottom line: Urban legend as the others above has said.
Oh, I imagine that they are being manufactured. There’s always something dumb and superfluous being manufactured. It won’t last, tho.
Best wishes,
hh
Reminds me of the Video Girl Barbie which is causing some concerns.
Not in India
Maybe I’m being naive, but it seems to me that googling would bring up some instance of this existing if it is in fact currently being used in stores.
What are you googling?
I keyed in “surveillance camera in mannequin” and got examples in first couple pages.
An article from 1989, a patent from 1991, and a listing for this in Top 10 Surveillance Cameras list from 2010.
The article from 1989 seems to be all that there is, and no mannequins were actually said to be sold. The Top 10 list uses “mannequin” to mean a fake dome camera to deter shoplifters, not a store mannequin. There is the patent, but that doesn’t mean it’s been implemented or even built.
You’re right, I didn’t read the Top 10 one, just took a quick glance at the google pages.