4 ms·

And in other news, 25% of all stranger identifications by human eyewitnesses also were found to be erroneous.[1] [1] https://californiainnocenceproject.org/iss

And in other news, 25% of all stranger identifications by human eyewitnesses also were found to be erroneous.[1] [1] https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/eyewitness-identification/ https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/eyewit...

xphilter 7y ago
What’s the point of bringing that up? They’re not mutually exclusive. The difference though is that the accused is granted the right to test the veracity of the witness. Will the accused in cases like this be allowed to challenge the code? How can a poor person (who will undoubtedly be the one affected by this issue) afford that? And even if they can, the truth will be muddied by “experts” and a judge without any training or knowledge about facial recognition.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  What is there to challenge, than you look like someone else?
  - xphilter 7y ago
    Or, as one example, that the algorithm was never tested on people of color and so the false positive rate is higher?
    - gtirloni 7y ago
      You're assuming the "algorithm" has the same faulty memory as witnesses. There are recorded images that can be triple checked by humans before any verdict is given (in the case of a conviction). A judge is not simply going "oh sorry, the system tells me it was you and I can't verify that. Gotta trust it".
      - xphilter 7y ago
        You’re equally assuming plenty. If someone is arrested based on a false positive, they would likely be interrogated by the police. How crazy would it be for that same person to admit to a crime they didn’t do? There are plenty of hypos. My point is that there needs to be strong checks against the use of facial recognition. Citizens should see the algorithm, the training data, and results. The public should test the software rather than a poor criminal defendant.
gota 7y ago
I agree that automated systems applied to the same task will (eventually) beat human performance by a lot, but there are 2 issues that make this less relevant in this case. The first is one relates to this application of facial recognition targeting poor people. This woman had no documentation on her. I'd wager this is really common in Brazil. How could she possibly prove she is _NOT_ the person the software with 99.999..% accuracy says she is? If the actual criminal wasn't already in jail, would she be set free in the same day she was arrested? The second issue is perhaps more universal to other automations, but certainly potentializes the first one, dealing with _scale_. Human cops can't check every person they see against the entire database of wanted people. 25% of false-positives from every cop is a hell of a lot less than 0.00001% of an automated system when applied to every crowd, everywhere, all the time.
- gtirloni 7y ago
  For the first issue, carry your documents. I've been taught that since I first got my ID at 12yo. My understanding is that the automation is to verify people who are needed by law, right? They don't voluntarily hear a beep and go into the jail. There are police officers that still have to arrest them and check their documents. The situation is so bad in Rio that society simply will have to deal with any deficiencies in the automated system. It will still be better than the current reality. The fact that police officers are probably not giving people of color enough flexibility in situations like these is beyond the scope of the automation system. EDIT: Carrying your documents is not a popular opinion among the US audience, I understand. Still, I find it very reasonable and I think the situation that happened to this woman is being blown out of proportion.
  - droithomme 7y ago
    The US tries not to be a papers please police state where it's a crime not to carry papers with you and present them on demand. We consider systems like that to be totalitarian and despotic based on our past experiences observing and waging war against hostile oppressive nations with such systems.
    - 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

xphilter 7y ago

What’s the point of bringing that up? They’re not mutually exclusive. The difference though is that the accused is granted the right to test the veracity of the witness. Will the accused in cases like this be allowed to challenge the code? How can a poor person (who will undoubtedly be the one affected by this issue) afford that? And even if they can, the truth will be muddied by “experts” and a judge without any training or knowledge about facial recognition.

SiempreViernes 7y ago
What is there to challenge, than you look like someone else?
- xphilter 7y ago
  Or, as one example, that the algorithm was never tested on people of color and so the false positive rate is higher?
  - gtirloni 7y ago
    You're assuming the "algorithm" has the same faulty memory as witnesses. There are recorded images that can be triple checked by humans before any verdict is given (in the case of a conviction). A judge is not simply going "oh sorry, the system tells me it was you and I can't verify that. Gotta trust it".
    - xphilter 7y ago
      You’re equally assuming plenty. If someone is arrested based on a false positive, they would likely be interrogated by the police. How crazy would it be for that same person to admit to a crime they didn’t do? There are plenty of hypos. My point is that there needs to be strong checks against the use of facial recognition. Citizens should see the algorithm, the training data, and results. The public should test the software rather than a poor criminal defendant.

gota 7y ago

I agree that automated systems applied to the same task will (eventually) beat human performance by a lot, but there are 2 issues that make this less relevant in this case. The first is one relates to this application of facial recognition targeting poor people. This woman had no documentation on her. I'd wager this is really common in Brazil. How could she possibly prove she is _NOT_ the person the software with 99.999..% accuracy says she is? If the actual criminal wasn't already in jail, would she be set free in the same day she was arrested? The second issue is perhaps more universal to other automations, but certainly potentializes the first one, dealing with _scale_. Human cops can't check every person they see against the entire database of wanted people. 25% of false-positives from every cop is a hell of a lot less than 0.00001% of an automated system when applied to every crowd, everywhere, all the time.

gtirloni 7y ago
For the first issue, carry your documents. I've been taught that since I first got my ID at 12yo. My understanding is that the automation is to verify people who are needed by law, right? They don't voluntarily hear a beep and go into the jail. There are police officers that still have to arrest them and check their documents. The situation is so bad in Rio that society simply will have to deal with any deficiencies in the automated system. It will still be better than the current reality. The fact that police officers are probably not giving people of color enough flexibility in situations like these is beyond the scope of the automation system. EDIT: Carrying your documents is not a popular opinion among the US audience, I understand. Still, I find it very reasonable and I think the situation that happened to this woman is being blown out of proportion.
- droithomme 7y ago
  The US tries not to be a papers please police state where it's a crime not to carry papers with you and present them on demand. We consider systems like that to be totalitarian and despotic based on our past experiences observing and waging war against hostile oppressive nations with such systems.
  - 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]