6 ms·

>Using the technology, police can insert people with no criminal histories into virtual lineups without their knowledge "This tool is too important to give up

>Using the technology, police can insert people with no criminal histories into virtual lineups without their knowledge "This tool is too important to give up for the fight against 'bad guys'. Fears that it will spread are overblown. This technology will only be used to catch the worst of the worst" This is beyond Orwellian. Now we're all stock images for police lineups. I'd argue for royalties, but I'd settle for at least being notified. What happens if someone picks your mugshot when it was included to just fill out the lineup? Do you now have to mount a costly legal while not having access to any details on the program? I dont agree with its secret use for national security purposes, but at least i can understand it. Now its available to medium size cities with absolutely no oversight or transparency. This is the type of tool that allows unconstitutional investigations to be covered up with parallel construction. On another note, Peter Thiel (Palantir) might have become the most powerful man in the world overnight.

criddell 10y ago
> Peter Thiel/Palantir might have become the most powerful man in the world overnight. Overnight? Thiel has been building Palantir for a long time now. It's older than Twitter. It sucks, but I'm not sure what can be done. The technology is only going to get better and cheaper and more accessible.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  He's leading Trump's transition team as of a couple of days ago.
  - benevol 10y ago
    Thiel brings the mass surveillance, Trump adds the hate. Explosive mix, but again, this danger was obvious a couple of decades ago.
    - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
      Well, now not only is he the defacto head of the NSA, he has a direct line to the President, AND he'll most likely be Trump's go to guy on policies towards the Silicon Valley. I know this has been coming for a while, but without the Trump win, he's not nearly as powerful.
      - nyolfen 10y ago
        >Well, now not only is he the defacto head of the NSA not a fan of thiel, but this is not even close to true
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - StreamBright 10y ago
        This is greatly exaggerated. You are talking about Peter Thiel who is one of the best chess players of the country. He has strategical thinking and strong business focus, but he has almost nothing to do with the NSA. Palantir's clients are almost all of the agencies of the US working in the national security space not only NSA. If this is what you meant by that.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - mythrwy 10y ago
      "Trump adds the hate." Can we PLEASE stop with that nonsense? You might not agree. It doesn't mean it's "hate". The election is over. Get over it. Please.
      - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
        Well, several things that Trump has said in public during his presidential campaign can arguably be called "hate speech". The UK legal definition is """ A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby. """ Would you seriously suggest that when Trump says """ When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. """ that this is does not fit the above definition of hate speech?
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  In retrospect Thiel's bet on Trump was very good from a game theoretical perspective. Suppose he had supported Hillary and she won - he would have been one of very many Silicon Valley donors/supporters. Where as at the moment his position is almost unique and a lot more meaningful.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
    While Thiel might not be serially vindictive like Trump in terms of settling scores, he sure wasted no expense destroying Gawker. I wonder how those who cut ties with him after the donation are feeling.
espadrine 10y ago
The worst part is that even if the algorithm perfectly computed probabilities and was completely open, humans would take away incorrect information. I am reminded of this talk by Sid Meier: https://youtu.be/bY7aRJE-oOY?t=19m27s https://youtu.be/bY7aRJE-oOY?t=19m27s People don't understand probabilities. They don't accept that if someone has a 75% chance of being guilty, they may very well not be. It happened again with FiveThirtyEight when everybody accused their "70% chance of Mrs Clinton winning" of being wrong, when it doesn't preclude Mr Trump winning.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  > They don't accept that if someone has a 75% chance of being guilty, they may very well not be. Nothing drove this point home to me more than X-COM: EU. Missing 3 successive 90% shots at the worst possible time would cause me to fling my keyboard across the room, but eventually, I learned to accept 90% isn't 100% :).
  - Gravityloss 10y ago
    Well, considering the bayesian, I'd consider it likely there to be a bug, either in the probability display or the outcome calculation...
    - csydas 10y ago
      Nah, it's just how these games are. The first two fire emblem games on GameCube/wii were merciless in the same way on the normal modes. 80% hit chance sounds good until you miss and the entire battle goes south because of it. Since these games had permadeath, a miss could mean restarting if you didn't just hit reset mod battle. Sometimes those odds are just those odds. A lot of gaming which uses pseudorandom had given a lot of people the gamblers fallacy as their understanding of probability. In some games it perhaps makes sense; in league of legends I believe the Critical hit chance is pseudo random to feel less swingy, which is probably healthier for a competitive game. Diablo 3 weights it's unique drop rates to ensure that players get a steady supply of relevant uniques since there is no trade economy in d3 anymore. This also makes sense in isolation. Other games though that don't have as strong of a reason to fudge the roll give a really bad impression of random to players.
M_Grey 10y ago
Yeah, well... people have been mooing and ignoring this for a while, and as with climate change, it's time to pay the piper.
bostonpete 10y ago
> What happens if someone picks your mugshot when it was included to just fill out the lineup? I don't see how it would be any different than traditional lineups, where if a witness selects one of the foils, they've just failed to select the police suspect. Police don't just stack a lineup with potential suspects in order to decide who to investigate.

criddell 10y ago

> Peter Thiel/Palantir might have become the most powerful man in the world overnight. Overnight? Thiel has been building Palantir for a long time now. It's older than Twitter. It sucks, but I'm not sure what can be done. The technology is only going to get better and cheaper and more accessible.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
He's leading Trump's transition team as of a couple of days ago.
- benevol 10y ago
  Thiel brings the mass surveillance, Trump adds the hate. Explosive mix, but again, this danger was obvious a couple of decades ago.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
    Well, now not only is he the defacto head of the NSA, he has a direct line to the President, AND he'll most likely be Trump's go to guy on policies towards the Silicon Valley. I know this has been coming for a while, but without the Trump win, he's not nearly as powerful.
    - nyolfen 10y ago
      >Well, now not only is he the defacto head of the NSA not a fan of thiel, but this is not even close to true
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - StreamBright 10y ago
      This is greatly exaggerated. You are talking about Peter Thiel who is one of the best chess players of the country. He has strategical thinking and strong business focus, but he has almost nothing to do with the NSA. Palantir's clients are almost all of the agencies of the US working in the national security space not only NSA. If this is what you meant by that.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - mythrwy 10y ago
    "Trump adds the hate." Can we PLEASE stop with that nonsense? You might not agree. It doesn't mean it's "hate". The election is over. Get over it. Please.
    - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
      Well, several things that Trump has said in public during his presidential campaign can arguably be called "hate speech". The UK legal definition is """ A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby. """ Would you seriously suggest that when Trump says """ When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. """ that this is does not fit the above definition of hate speech?
forgotpwtomain 10y ago
In retrospect Thiel's bet on Trump was very good from a game theoretical perspective. Suppose he had supported Hillary and she won - he would have been one of very many Silicon Valley donors/supporters. Where as at the moment his position is almost unique and a lot more meaningful.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  While Thiel might not be serially vindictive like Trump in terms of settling scores, he sure wasted no expense destroying Gawker. I wonder how those who cut ties with him after the donation are feeling.

espadrine 10y ago

The worst part is that even if the algorithm perfectly computed probabilities and was completely open, humans would take away incorrect information. I am reminded of this talk by Sid Meier: https://youtu.be/bY7aRJE-oOY?t=19m27s https://youtu.be/bY7aRJE-oOY?t=19m27s People don't understand probabilities. They don't accept that if someone has a 75% chance of being guilty, they may very well not be. It happened again with FiveThirtyEight when everybody accused their "70% chance of Mrs Clinton winning" of being wrong, when it doesn't preclude Mr Trump winning.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
> They don't accept that if someone has a 75% chance of being guilty, they may very well not be. Nothing drove this point home to me more than X-COM: EU. Missing 3 successive 90% shots at the worst possible time would cause me to fling my keyboard across the room, but eventually, I learned to accept 90% isn't 100% :).
- Gravityloss 10y ago
  Well, considering the bayesian, I'd consider it likely there to be a bug, either in the probability display or the outcome calculation...
  - csydas 10y ago
    Nah, it's just how these games are. The first two fire emblem games on GameCube/wii were merciless in the same way on the normal modes. 80% hit chance sounds good until you miss and the entire battle goes south because of it. Since these games had permadeath, a miss could mean restarting if you didn't just hit reset mod battle. Sometimes those odds are just those odds. A lot of gaming which uses pseudorandom had given a lot of people the gamblers fallacy as their understanding of probability. In some games it perhaps makes sense; in league of legends I believe the Critical hit chance is pseudo random to feel less swingy, which is probably healthier for a competitive game. Diablo 3 weights it's unique drop rates to ensure that players get a steady supply of relevant uniques since there is no trade economy in d3 anymore. This also makes sense in isolation. Other games though that don't have as strong of a reason to fudge the roll give a really bad impression of random to players.

M_Grey 10y ago

Yeah, well... people have been mooing and ignoring this for a while, and as with climate change, it's time to pay the piper.

bostonpete 10y ago

> What happens if someone picks your mugshot when it was included to just fill out the lineup? I don't see how it would be any different than traditional lineups, where if a witness selects one of the foils, they've just failed to select the police suspect. Police don't just stack a lineup with potential suspects in order to decide who to investigate.