3 ms·
There is something a bit perverse about taking something that was originally meant to promote Police accountability and using it for this.
by pmorici 7y ago
There is something a bit perverse about taking something that was originally meant to promote Police accountability and using it for this.
- mullingitover 7y agoI mean, as someone who isn't wanted by the police, I don't really have problem with the police catching people they're looking for. I thought the body cameras were for everyone accountability, not just police. Lots and lots of crime goes unpunished (and I'm not talking about victimless crimes) because police don't identify the perpetrator or can't find them. I'd be thrilled if everyone who'd committed a hit and run, or mugged someone, was terrified knowing that they were definitely going to be caught with this technology. So many people are victimized because the perpetrators are fairly certain they won't be caught. Society as a whole would be better off if people were guaranteed to be caught and punished when they victimize someone.
- TFortunato 7y agoRegardless of my personal feelings on the matter - you should know that the facial recognition tech you are advocating for increases the chances that you would become wanted by the police, even if you didn't do anything, because the tech has been shown to be horribly inaccurate in actual, real-world policing uses. There is a huge difference between banning "finding the person they are looking for", and banning the use of bad tech.
- cycrutchfield 7y agoPlease cite your sources
- TFortunato 7y agoI don't have time to find scholarly articles for you, but this type of thing isn't exactly a secret. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44089161 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44089161 The parent article linked even mentioned that their inaccuracy was part of the reason in considering the ban.
- cycrutchfield 7y agoThe article just says that the system has a lot of false positives. It says nothing about the sensitivity or specificity of the system, nor does it say whether the system was tuned to, for example, maximize for sensitivity at the expense of specificity (as you would probably want to do if your goal is to identify criminals).
- mullingitover 7y agoI take this to mean you will fully support it when the false positive rate is close enough to zero, and you're not simply concern trolling.
- TFortunato 7y ago?
- mullingitover 7y agoWould you be satisfied if the technology was allowed on the condition it met a minimum threshold for accuracy?
- 420codebro 7y agoLol of course he won't. He is slanging FUD because fundamentally he doesn't want cops using it.