3 ms·
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
by 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 agoWhat is there to challenge, than you look like someone else?
- xphilter 7y agoOr, as one example, that the algorithm was never tested on people of color and so the false positive rate is higher?
- gtirloni 7y agoYou'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 agoYou’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.