Facial Recognition, and Extending Exclusions

In April we noted that Ontario was in the midst of installing cameras tied to facial recognition software to help enforce casino exclusions. Apparently the system is now up and running in 19 of Ontario's 27 casinos, with complete coverage slated by the end of the year. One big hurdle that the proponents of the technology claim to have overcome is safeguarding the information identifying gamblers from intrusions by hackers.

The last line of the linked article indicates one potential penalty that can be applied to a self-excluded gambler who attempts to breach the agreement by sneaking into a casino. The regulatory agency can unilaterally extend the length of the exclusion of such miscreants, turning a voluntary self-exclusion into a third-party, mandated exclusion. I would hope that this move would be complemented with a positive step, an offer of treatment for gambling addiction. People who violate exclusion agreements, particularly ones with non-trivial penalties attached for non-compliance, are indicating that they have relatively serious control problems, perhaps even within the subset of gamblers who exclude -- so there is something to be said for directing treatment resources at these people. Angela Hawken, who promotes the analgous approach for drug users within the criminal justice system, calls such treatment targeting "behavioral triage."

"Re-Legalizing Drugs"

On April 17, 2011, I gave a talk (yes, "Re-Legalizing Drugs") as part of the TEDxUChicago festivities. The whole 17-minute ordeal is viewable here; the exclusion material starts around the 9:20 mark, and addresses both mandatory exclusions and voluntary self-exclusions from drugs.

[A similar link to the TEDxUChicago talk was posted on Vice Squad.]

British Columbia Casino ID Checks

In Canada's British Columbia, the drinking age and the minimum age to patronize a casino are both nineteen. A television investigative news team sent two 18 year-olds to four casinos, and at three of the four locations, the youths managed to walk right in, gamble a little, collect their winnings, and get a drink. Turns out the alcohol violation is the more serious offense, and the investigation has spurred a policy change: electronic ID readers will be employed at entrances and on the casino floor. Eventually the readers might be tied to self-exclusion lists, easing the enforcement of exclusion orders.

Mandated Exclusion from Alcohol

An underused tool for drug regulation is to revoke (for some period of time) a person's right to consume a drug, if that person has previously been violent or otherwise seriously misbehaved under the influence of the drug. Drunk drivers often lose their right to drive, but not their right to drink. In the case of repeat DWI offenders, South Dakota has a program that is effective at removing the privilege to consume alcohol. One can imagine that people might sign up for voluntary alcohol exclusion or limitation (as they do for gambling), if the implementation (including enforcement) of the exclusion were not too onerous. I think that many people would welcome a cheap, transparent, easy-functioning ignition interlock device in their car, too -- most people (when non-intoxicated) are not anxious to drive when they are unsafe or liable for arrest, though they might drive drunk anyway in the absence of an enforceable pre-commitment. (OK, "pre-commitment" is sort of a redundancy, but it is a popular one!)

An important 1933 book on alcohol policy, by Fosdick and Scott, includes (page 49) some information about exclusion. They are outlining how they think legal licensed alcohol sellers should be regulated following the (then imminent) demise of Prohibition. (Fosdick and Scott prefer state monopoly stores to licensed sellers for distilled alcohol, but they nevertheless provide detailed suggestions for how a licensing system might best be implemented.) "Rules are also necessary forbidding sale to minors, habitual alcoholics, paupers, mental defectives and to anyone who is drunk." The quoted sentence concludes with a footnote, which among other things indicates that Rhode Island has a law in which "an order of interdiction is prescribed for persons receiving town aid and for those whose relatives have filed complaint." That is, the Rhode Island alcohol law exhibited features that are replicated in current gambling regulations in Singapore.

My interest in mandated as well as voluntary exclusion derives in large measure by my belief that the (future) regulatory system for currently-prohibited drugs should, in many instances, include these elements.

Mandatory Gambling Limits in Australia?

Electronic gaming machines in Australia are slated to be retrofitted with card readers or other devices that will be able to keep track of a player's wagers. The idea is to enforce limits to gambling -- and it will be mandatory for gamblers to pre-specify those limits, at least if the central government gets its way. The proposal is meeting significant opposition, with pubs, clubs, and hotels that host gaming machines involved in the backlash. One of the animating developments behind the "mandatory pre-commitment" movement is the 2010 Productivity Commission report on gambling that (once again) showed the extent to which profits drawn from electronic gaming machines come from problem gamblers. From Chapter 5 (pdf here) of the report:

"Based on available survey data, there are between 80 000 and 160 000 Australian adults suffering significant problems from their gambling (0.5 to 1.0 per cent of adults), with a further 230 000 to 350 000 experiencing moderate risks that may make them vulnerable to problem gambling (1.4 to 2.1 per cent of adults).

Although there are substantial difficulties in calculating gambling expenditure, it is estimated that problem gamblers account for 22 to 60 per cent of total gaming machine spending (average of 41). The likely range for moderate risk and problem gamblers together is 42 to 75 per cent."

Enforcing Self-exclusion Through Facial Recognition

Ontario will soon be enforcing self-exclusion at its casinos via face recognition software, it seems. I am all for serious enforcement of self-exclusion programs, but I have to overcome some Big Brother-style fears when it comes to face recognition software. Apparently there are ways of keeping the information private? [PDF version, 23 pages, here.] I am late to this story, of course: here's a newspaper article from January that provides details. Humans will still make the final call on whether to approach a patron whom the computer has identified as on the exclusion list.

Reinstatement

A comment on this blog from last June informed us of the process for ending a self-exclusion in Pennsylvania. The idea is that once your chosen term for exclusion is over, you still might have to jump through some hoops to be reinstated. I think that there is something to be said for the need to take a positive step to be reinstated, as long as that step is not too onerous. (One of the problems with making reinstatement difficult is that wavering people might decide to forgo self-exclusion entirely; I think that also is a problem for exclusion schemes that offer only lifetime or long-term bans.)

The National Center for Responsible Gaming publication on Self-exclusion (54-page pdf here) contains an appendix summarizing self-exclusion programs in US states and selected other jurisdictions. Drawing on this source, some of the reinstatement schemes that involve barriers, and those barriers, follow:

Illinois: requires an affidavit from a mental health professional indicating that controlled gambling is feasible; Louisiana has a similar provision;

Kansas: excluders must take courses on healthy lifestyles and undertake a problem gambling assessment;

Pennsylvania: two personal visits, at least five days apart, are required for reinstatement; classes might be mandated, too;

Delaware (racetrack casinos): an in-person request for reinstatement is mandated;

Florida (racetrack casinos): A written request, and evidence of treatment, is required from the excluded individual; further, the casino manager must indicate in writing why the ban should be lifted;

Maine, New Mexico, and West Virginia (racetrack casinos): a petition is necessary for reinstatement; some New York racinos also require a petition for reinstatement;

SKYCITY Adelaide in Australia: excluders seeking reinstatement must undergo counseling, and agree to limits on both gambling spending and casino visits;

Ontario and Nova Scotia, in Canada: petitions are required for early reinstatement, and an investigation is then triggered;

Singapore: self- or family-excluded individuals must apply in person for reinstatement;

South Africa: an application, plus evidence of treatment, are required for reinstatement;

United Kingdom: an application for reinstatement is required, with a one-day cooling off period before the ban can be lifted.