4 ms·

Whether the matches are plausible is completely besides the point. This isn't an evaluation of Amazon's recognition quality, it's a demonstration that the syste

Whether the matches are plausible is completely besides the point. This isn't an evaluation of Amazon's recognition quality, it's a demonstration that the system is fallible and notes on the consequences. Same thing re data setup. Not the point again. Even if law enforcement hires the world's best computer vision experts (fat chance, it'll go to cheapest contractor) this is a note that there can be mistakes that get people killed.

petermcneeley 8y ago
What are the consequences?? How is this any different than the suspect sketches? This is a far worse situation and still quite minor https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-mother-child-no-fly-list-1.4390544 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-mother-ch...
- HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
  One major difference is that non-technical people tend to trust what a computer says far more than they should. People are familiar with sketches and can make judgments on how clearly they match a face. They have no similar frame of reference for computer face recognition.
  - l9k 8y ago
    But people are familiar with photographs. There is no way the software wouldn't show the picture that's been matched before an action (arrest...) is taken
- sudhirj 8y ago
  What does the link have to do with sketches? It's about name similarity on the no fly list. Regarding sketches, they're actually interesting because they force a human to exercise judgement, being ambiguous by nature. This is fine - any law enforcement officer stopping someone who looks like a sketch is going to give them the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, if a computer tells an officer a person ahead is an 89% match with a known killer, the conversation will start with guns drawn, and that will greatly increase the likelyhood of things going south. You really don't want to be scanned by a trigger happy cop having a bad day. God knows who you happen to look like from that angle.
  - zo1 8y ago
    "[..]conversation will start with guns drawn, and that will greatly increase the likelyhood of things going south." That is where the two sides of this argument diverge. First: That things "will start with guns drawn". And Second: That things are more likely to "go south" for an innocent individual incorrectly blamed by this.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - pas 8y ago
      I don't really understand the sides and arguments you are implying here. Could you spell it out please? (I'm not from the US, and have no relevant experience with cops, guns.)
    - larkeith 8y ago
      Regarding point two, I can't really see any argument that an encounter with a police officer is not more likely to go south if the officer is under the misapprehension that one is a potentially dangerous criminal; Police shootings are already not infrequent in the US, and adding the tension of greater perceived danger makes an already volatile situation worse - a sudden movement that might otherwise pass unnoticed is much more threatening from someone who has been misidentified as an armed gunman, for example, and is far more likely to elicit lethal response.
    - stevew20 8y ago
      Police have a poor history in the US of exercising trigger discipline. A fair amount of this is due to overly aggressive training that is designed to keep the officers as safe as possible, sacrificing safety of anyone perceived as a threat (real or not), but another large portion is caused by the culture of dominance and entitlement that is endemic to our law enforcement. If police engage a target with a weapon already drawn, there is a long list of things that person can do that will get them shot, and a very short (and often unclear) list of actions that will keep them safe. Source: 10 years PMO in the Marine Corps, 1 month SFPD (then quit because their training was so shitty)
- StanislavPetrov 8y ago
  Because most people don't view sketches with the sort of religious reverence they do technology.
zo1 8y ago
I don't see how this is a problem, unless the police are feeding it blurry surveillance camera footage then claiming "success, it matched person X", which I doubt, as it would fall apart at the smallest of questioning. For the most part, this sort of article makes things seem like there will be some sort of racial-based, dystopian police future where automated algorithms will target people and have them put into jail. I don't see that happening in the near future at all. The police departments' personnel currently using this probably LOOK at the matches and only then make a further call. Just like I would assume AFIS fingerprint hit results are double-checked by skilled operators after matching to reduce false-positives.

petermcneeley 8y ago

What are the consequences?? How is this any different than the suspect sketches? This is a far worse situation and still quite minor https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-mother-child-no-fly-list-1.4390544 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-mother-ch...

HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
One major difference is that non-technical people tend to trust what a computer says far more than they should. People are familiar with sketches and can make judgments on how clearly they match a face. They have no similar frame of reference for computer face recognition.
- l9k 8y ago
  But people are familiar with photographs. There is no way the software wouldn't show the picture that's been matched before an action (arrest...) is taken
sudhirj 8y ago
What does the link have to do with sketches? It's about name similarity on the no fly list. Regarding sketches, they're actually interesting because they force a human to exercise judgement, being ambiguous by nature. This is fine - any law enforcement officer stopping someone who looks like a sketch is going to give them the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, if a computer tells an officer a person ahead is an 89% match with a known killer, the conversation will start with guns drawn, and that will greatly increase the likelyhood of things going south. You really don't want to be scanned by a trigger happy cop having a bad day. God knows who you happen to look like from that angle.
- zo1 8y ago
  "[..]conversation will start with guns drawn, and that will greatly increase the likelyhood of things going south." That is where the two sides of this argument diverge. First: That things "will start with guns drawn". And Second: That things are more likely to "go south" for an innocent individual incorrectly blamed by this.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - pas 8y ago
    I don't really understand the sides and arguments you are implying here. Could you spell it out please? (I'm not from the US, and have no relevant experience with cops, guns.)
  - larkeith 8y ago
    Regarding point two, I can't really see any argument that an encounter with a police officer is not more likely to go south if the officer is under the misapprehension that one is a potentially dangerous criminal; Police shootings are already not infrequent in the US, and adding the tension of greater perceived danger makes an already volatile situation worse - a sudden movement that might otherwise pass unnoticed is much more threatening from someone who has been misidentified as an armed gunman, for example, and is far more likely to elicit lethal response.
  - stevew20 8y ago
    Police have a poor history in the US of exercising trigger discipline. A fair amount of this is due to overly aggressive training that is designed to keep the officers as safe as possible, sacrificing safety of anyone perceived as a threat (real or not), but another large portion is caused by the culture of dominance and entitlement that is endemic to our law enforcement. If police engage a target with a weapon already drawn, there is a long list of things that person can do that will get them shot, and a very short (and often unclear) list of actions that will keep them safe. Source: 10 years PMO in the Marine Corps, 1 month SFPD (then quit because their training was so shitty)
StanislavPetrov 8y ago
Because most people don't view sketches with the sort of religious reverence they do technology.

zo1 8y ago

I don't see how this is a problem, unless the police are feeding it blurry surveillance camera footage then claiming "success, it matched person X", which I doubt, as it would fall apart at the smallest of questioning. For the most part, this sort of article makes things seem like there will be some sort of racial-based, dystopian police future where automated algorithms will target people and have them put into jail. I don't see that happening in the near future at all. The police departments' personnel currently using this probably LOOK at the matches and only then make a further call. Just like I would assume AFIS fingerprint hit results are double-checked by skilled operators after matching to reduce false-positives.