4 ms·
The product in question is Rekognition, which matches photos. It would be more verifiable by naked human eye than bite marks? As long as the results are not ta
by noway421 8y ago
The product in question is Rekognition, which matches photos. It would be more verifiable by naked human eye than bite marks?
As long as the results are not taken as judgements, but only auxiliary tool, it would not be a concern.
The article indeed argues that any positive match should be vetted by a human.
- mcny 8y ago> The article indeed argues that any positive match should be vetted by a human. I have said before and I will say again: after the disaster that was the Amazon Fire Phone I have zero trust in any Amazon.com employee to pick up that any time phone to sound the alarm or if they do, I don't expect Amazon to "do the right thing". The reason I mention this is because I don't think this PhD fellow speaks for the the sales "engineers" at Amazon.com. The sales people will say what they have to say to make a sale. Lets face it: we programmers just work at a company, the business actually runs the show. I have zero confidence that the customer will understand that "any positive match should be vetted by a human". What does vetting mean anyway? No police has ever stopped me for matching the profile of a suspect, ever. However, I know people who say it happens (or at least used to happen) to them at least twice a year. Is a blanket ban on law enforcement from using facial recognition possible? Or at least restrict it to federal agencies (a ban on all law enforcement that is not a federal agency)?
- noway421 8y agoThat's actually a very good point, sales people will try to exaggerate the capabilities of the technology to the dangerous levels... Well said.