3 ms·

This may look like an option, but once technology has a low failure rate, everything that doesn't match or that does seem unusual will trigger an alarm. Just w

by rmoriz 10y ago

This may look like an option, but once technology has a low failure rate, everything that doesn't match or that does seem unusual will trigger an alarm. Just watch the airport security checks after 9/11 when entering the US: Either you provide a biometric passport accept x-ray radiation or you will be personally annoyed… for your own safety, of course. I believe this is not because of any bad intention, however it trains people to accept such strict rules and when it works there, why not enforce it in other parts of our civil life? For example after some madman shot at a german court house a couple of years ago, they started mandatory checks on every single court house as well. Another case from Germany: We have started to collect car plates from trucks on the Autobahn because of a new electronic toll system (only to catch trucks that don't have the onboard unit activated, no regular use case for visual checks). Of course those car plate recognition software by design is also able to save car plates… of course everything will be deleted… really? It might be true for the moment, but in the future?

rhizome 10y ago
It's going to be a long, long time before facial recognition has a low failure rate. It's hard enough with speech recognition.
- rmoriz 10y ago
  Did you read the opening posting on VK.com? I guess it only takes 10-15 years. And in some situations, e.g. entrace checks, public transport etc. you've even right now a high chance to obtain great facial images because you (as in state, authority) are able to control the environment.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    From the article, they only get 90% accuracy in controlled conditions, and much, much worse when comparing images taken in the wild. In voice recognition, perhaps a smaller problem space, 90% accuracy means everything gets proofread by a human. "10-15 years" is not an estimate, it's a carrot on a stick. I can imagine that at some point, some level of accuracy will be deemed "accurate," after which we'll still see mistakes. That will be too bad in the eventuality that this technology is used to help justify a killing.

by rmoriz 10y ago

rhizome 10y ago

It's going to be a long, long time before facial recognition has a low failure rate. It's hard enough with speech recognition.

rmoriz 10y ago
Did you read the opening posting on VK.com? I guess it only takes 10-15 years. And in some situations, e.g. entrace checks, public transport etc. you've even right now a high chance to obtain great facial images because you (as in state, authority) are able to control the environment.
- rhizome 10y ago
  From the article, they only get 90% accuracy in controlled conditions, and much, much worse when comparing images taken in the wild. In voice recognition, perhaps a smaller problem space, 90% accuracy means everything gets proofread by a human. "10-15 years" is not an estimate, it's a carrot on a stick. I can imagine that at some point, some level of accuracy will be deemed "accurate," after which we'll still see mistakes. That will be too bad in the eventuality that this technology is used to help justify a killing.