5 ms·

Would we have problem if he was identified by manual search in the database? If not, I don't see why using technology to remove the manual labor is worse. Is t

by Scea91 10y ago

Would we have problem if he was identified by manual search in the database? If not, I don't see why using technology to remove the manual labor is worse. Is the problem in the existence of the database? Then I would not make this a discussion about facial recognition software but about mugshot databases instead.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
> f not, I don't see why using technology to remove the manual labor is worse. What's its accuracy? How was the surveillance obtained? Is the time of the photo accurate or was the server clock set incorrectly? Was it obtained constitutionally or through an illegal investigation? What if it's incorrect, can I have the algorithm to help mount a legal defense
- Scea91 10y ago
  I suppose that the result is still evaluated by a human so the question about accuracy is irrelevant. All of the other questions can be asked irrespective if pattern recognition or manual labor was used.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- coleca 10y ago
  It shouldn't really matter what the accuracy of the software is being used properly. The facial recognition software should be used as a tool to help narrow down potential suspects. It shouldn't be the judge jury and executioner to decide if someone was indeed at the scene of a crime. The officers using the system need to be properly trained to understand the limitations of the system. For example just because the system finds a close match, it is only searching a database of people it already knows about. The actual suspect may not be in the system. Traditional police detective work still applies. The face match is just a lead not hard evidence. Also, the systems use should be public (just like the police's use of fingerprint biometrics is). Problems come in when you try to use this or any technology to automate law enforcement. Human judgement and police work need to always be part of the equation. Facial recognition should be thought of as a username not a username and password combination. It shouldn't be the only piece of evidence in a case to prosecute.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - bitJericho 10y ago
    You haven't met many prosecutors...
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
    > It shouldn't really matter what the accuracy of the software is being used properly. You seem to be under the impression that our legal system is efficient. It is not at all like that. You could be falsely arrested. It could take months before you actually able to have your case in front of a judge. In the meantime, you have to bail out of jail and hire a lawyer. That's thousands if not tens of thousands. In the end, the prosecution can just drop the case with any consequence and you've lost time, money, and possibly your job.
praptak 10y ago
Scale matters. The fact that I'm on the street is public knowledge. But yes, I'd have a problem with an automatically searchable database of all my moves in public places recorded by cameras. Edit: manually searchable footage is in-between. Manual search has natural throttling which makes it a bit less invasive against privacy.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  Anyone would. You don't have a right to privacy in public, but it's another thing for ubiquitous surveillance to track and detail all of your movements, and then save them indefinitely. Not having a right to privacy in public does not mean it's okay to have the equivalent of my google maps location history.
taneq 10y ago
The problem is that with a large enough database, no matter who's actually in your input photo, you're going to find one or more matches. And if your matching algorithm is any good, they're gonna look really really similar to your input photo. So you've got a pre-screened list of suspects that you can pick from, to put in front of a jury and say "see, here's a photo of this guy doing the crime, the computer says it's him."
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  Juror 1: This is like when they do enhance on CSI! If I saw it on TV, it must be real. Guilty! Not a joke. Jurors put a lot of faith in forensic techniques
SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
The answer is that false positives are a thing, and a test sufficiently specific to run a dozen times probably doesn't scale to a million times. Similarly, you can hit phase transitions in capability where more of the same isn't just the same any more. That's why we let police look at things by eye from public space, but count it as a search if they use technology to enhance their view (such as IR). The main concern is that technology is allowing police to expend more policing effort than we want them to. Their powers aren't supposed to be perfect, and pushing their success rate too high is dangerous for society. Police would get their human staff cut if they sat them down to build a cross correlation database of citizen activity out of photos from all around town. They'd be called the Stasi and worse. Why is it any different because they use computers instead of humans? Ed: I think of modern policing in the US as a sort of autoimmune disease, prompted by a combination of natural proclivity and particularly nasty, if brief, shock to the system a decade-and-a-half ago. Policing in the abstract is good for society; policing like we are now is not.
- marchenko 10y ago
  The main concern is that technology is allowing police to expend more policing effort than we want them to. Their powers aren't supposed to be perfect, and pushing their success rate too high is dangerous for society. Exactly. Imagine if we had perfect enforcement of laws against sodomy or miscegenation. In addition to the increase in human misery, it would have been impossible for a reservoir of free personally-invested persons to circulate in society, agitating for change. Manual search forces the police to expend energy enforcing the laws, which forces them to prioritize which laws to expend energy enforcing, which (sometimes, when we're lucky) forces them to be responsive to broader societal values. These databases create a vision of the future which is the very same boot stomping on the very same face in the very same quantity, forever.
  - SixSigma 10y ago
    As Richard Miller noted in SQUED "Show me a man that has never broken the law and I shall show you a man that has never driven a car." https://www.fantasticfiction.com/m/richard-miller/squed.htm https://www.fantasticfiction.com/m/richard-miller/squed.htm

by Scea91 10y ago

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

> f not, I don't see why using technology to remove the manual labor is worse. What's its accuracy? How was the surveillance obtained? Is the time of the photo accurate or was the server clock set incorrectly? Was it obtained constitutionally or through an illegal investigation? What if it's incorrect, can I have the algorithm to help mount a legal defense

Scea91 10y ago
I suppose that the result is still evaluated by a human so the question about accuracy is irrelevant. All of the other questions can be asked irrespective if pattern recognition or manual labor was used.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
coleca 10y ago
It shouldn't really matter what the accuracy of the software is being used properly. The facial recognition software should be used as a tool to help narrow down potential suspects. It shouldn't be the judge jury and executioner to decide if someone was indeed at the scene of a crime. The officers using the system need to be properly trained to understand the limitations of the system. For example just because the system finds a close match, it is only searching a database of people it already knows about. The actual suspect may not be in the system. Traditional police detective work still applies. The face match is just a lead not hard evidence. Also, the systems use should be public (just like the police's use of fingerprint biometrics is). Problems come in when you try to use this or any technology to automate law enforcement. Human judgement and police work need to always be part of the equation. Facial recognition should be thought of as a username not a username and password combination. It shouldn't be the only piece of evidence in a case to prosecute.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- bitJericho 10y ago
  You haven't met many prosecutors...
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  > It shouldn't really matter what the accuracy of the software is being used properly. You seem to be under the impression that our legal system is efficient. It is not at all like that. You could be falsely arrested. It could take months before you actually able to have your case in front of a judge. In the meantime, you have to bail out of jail and hire a lawyer. That's thousands if not tens of thousands. In the end, the prosecution can just drop the case with any consequence and you've lost time, money, and possibly your job.

praptak 10y ago

Scale matters. The fact that I'm on the street is public knowledge. But yes, I'd have a problem with an automatically searchable database of all my moves in public places recorded by cameras. Edit: manually searchable footage is in-between. Manual search has natural throttling which makes it a bit less invasive against privacy.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
Anyone would. You don't have a right to privacy in public, but it's another thing for ubiquitous surveillance to track and detail all of your movements, and then save them indefinitely. Not having a right to privacy in public does not mean it's okay to have the equivalent of my google maps location history.

taneq 10y ago

The problem is that with a large enough database, no matter who's actually in your input photo, you're going to find one or more matches. And if your matching algorithm is any good, they're gonna look really really similar to your input photo. So you've got a pre-screened list of suspects that you can pick from, to put in front of a jury and say "see, here's a photo of this guy doing the crime, the computer says it's him."

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
Juror 1: This is like when they do enhance on CSI! If I saw it on TV, it must be real. Guilty! Not a joke. Jurors put a lot of faith in forensic techniques

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago

The answer is that false positives are a thing, and a test sufficiently specific to run a dozen times probably doesn't scale to a million times. Similarly, you can hit phase transitions in capability where more of the same isn't just the same any more. That's why we let police look at things by eye from public space, but count it as a search if they use technology to enhance their view (such as IR). The main concern is that technology is allowing police to expend more policing effort than we want them to. Their powers aren't supposed to be perfect, and pushing their success rate too high is dangerous for society. Police would get their human staff cut if they sat them down to build a cross correlation database of citizen activity out of photos from all around town. They'd be called the Stasi and worse. Why is it any different because they use computers instead of humans? Ed: I think of modern policing in the US as a sort of autoimmune disease, prompted by a combination of natural proclivity and particularly nasty, if brief, shock to the system a decade-and-a-half ago. Policing in the abstract is good for society; policing like we are now is not.

marchenko 10y ago
The main concern is that technology is allowing police to expend more policing effort than we want them to. Their powers aren't supposed to be perfect, and pushing their success rate too high is dangerous for society. Exactly. Imagine if we had perfect enforcement of laws against sodomy or miscegenation. In addition to the increase in human misery, it would have been impossible for a reservoir of free personally-invested persons to circulate in society, agitating for change. Manual search forces the police to expend energy enforcing the laws, which forces them to prioritize which laws to expend energy enforcing, which (sometimes, when we're lucky) forces them to be responsive to broader societal values. These databases create a vision of the future which is the very same boot stomping on the very same face in the very same quantity, forever.
- SixSigma 10y ago
  As Richard Miller noted in SQUED "Show me a man that has never broken the law and I shall show you a man that has never driven a car." https://www.fantasticfiction.com/m/richard-miller/squed.htm https://www.fantasticfiction.com/m/richard-miller/squed.htm