3 ms·
Regardless 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
by TFortunato 7y ago
Regardless 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.