5 ms·

The tech will improve. Fingerprint data from cards use to be high tech. Also the William & Will West case was an older example of misidentifying by photography

The tech will improve. Fingerprint data from cards use to be high tech. Also the William & Will West case was an older example of misidentifying by photography. Modern tech has improved dramatically and will get more and more precise. Why apply early 2000’s tech issues to the advancements made in the past 15-20 years?

ziddoap 7y ago
It should not be massively adopted and utilized, for real arrests with real people, on the basis that "the tech will improve".
opencl 7y ago
Maybe it will get better at some point in the future but the systems available and in use today have a very alarmingly high false positive rate. https://news.sky.com/story/met-polices-facial-recognition-tech-has-81-error-rate-independent-report-says-11755941 https://news.sky.com/story/met-polices-facial-recognition-te...
spaceribs 7y ago
The same things were probably said when they rolled out the polygraph machine, and that's still notoriously ineffective.
mtgx 7y ago
Every single one of "most advanced face auth technologies" have been hacked within weeks at most, including Apple's faceid.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  When was Face ID hacked?
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    It wasn’t; It was tricked. But it required a 3D model of a face with a lot of effort put in. Though that’s probably what GP meant
    - 420codebro 7y ago
      In this thread people forget that nothing is truly perfect or secure. But it does not make it worthless. A threat model exists for a reason. A risk reduction model exists for a reason. Using a tool (computer/ML) to do 95% of the pattern matching is called one thing: not being a dumbass. I sincerely wonder if any of these super-hostile anti-facial ID activists have truly had someone close to them impacted by a crime, and had said crime go unsolved. Or are they merely idealistic loafers, clutching their pearls, to signal how "woke" they are?
arkades 7y ago
Lie detectors are woefully unreliable, but PDs use them. Forensic “matching” of bullets to guns is basically pseudoscience, but continues to be used in court to convict people. Roadside drug analysis kits are less useful than dowsing rods, but get people arrested on a daily basis. People that can’t afford bail, and plead guilty just to get back to their lives, despite the fact that an actual defense attorney would have had the case tossed in the trash. Previous experience suggests that police tech does not just “get better.” They can’t even progress past “disproven pseudoscience.” And the innocent people that have their lives messed with while waiting for the tech to catch up might not be indifferent to the process.
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  I’ve never heard of ballistics being pseudoscience. Not that I don’t believe it, but where can I read about that?
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
    I have heard of it being bunkum, but not quite of the same ~caliber~ as fiber matching and bite-mark matching. It can, at best, match ammo from the same machine-manufactured batch to a factory-stock model of gun. It automatically fails on hand-load cartridges, or ammo that the analyst cannot readily source. When there is a match, the prosecutor might say "this bullet was fired from this gun", but the science says "a bullet similar to the one in evidence was marked and deformed in a similar fashion, when fired by the weapon in evidence (just as it would with every other factory-stock copy of this model of gun)". It's like matching a nail to the hammer that drove it. If the test nail is already different from the reference nail, you cannot match it. If you have two or more identical hammers, you can't tell which one drove the nail. The hammer factory made thousands of identical hammers. In most cases, the tests are likely saying "the most commonly sold type of ammunition was fired from the most popular model of gun of that caliber". It's the sort of thing that should probably be used exclusively as exculpatory evidence. I.e. this model of gun always leaves distinctive markings, such as from an off-center diamond-shaped firing pin, or from an uncommon rifling twist, that were not found on the bullets in evidence, so the gun in evidence could not have fired them. Otherwise, a gun substantially similar, with all the same machine-made parts, could leave the same marks, so you could never know for sure which one fired the bullets. The only time it would be useful to convict is if someone used a unique, hand-made, gunsmithed gun to fire factory-made ammunition. And the number of (violent) crimes committed with that type of display-piece gun approaches zero, because they tend to be both expensive and less fit for use as a weapon than cheaper factory-built guns.

ziddoap 7y ago

It should not be massively adopted and utilized, for real arrests with real people, on the basis that "the tech will improve".

opencl 7y ago

Maybe it will get better at some point in the future but the systems available and in use today have a very alarmingly high false positive rate. https://news.sky.com/story/met-polices-facial-recognition-tech-has-81-error-rate-independent-report-says-11755941 https://news.sky.com/story/met-polices-facial-recognition-te...

spaceribs 7y ago

The same things were probably said when they rolled out the polygraph machine, and that's still notoriously ineffective.

mtgx 7y ago

Every single one of "most advanced face auth technologies" have been hacked within weeks at most, including Apple's faceid.

saagarjha 7y ago
When was Face ID hacked?
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  It wasn’t; It was tricked. But it required a 3D model of a face with a lot of effort put in. Though that’s probably what GP meant
  - 420codebro 7y ago
    In this thread people forget that nothing is truly perfect or secure. But it does not make it worthless. A threat model exists for a reason. A risk reduction model exists for a reason. Using a tool (computer/ML) to do 95% of the pattern matching is called one thing: not being a dumbass. I sincerely wonder if any of these super-hostile anti-facial ID activists have truly had someone close to them impacted by a crime, and had said crime go unsolved. Or are they merely idealistic loafers, clutching their pearls, to signal how "woke" they are?

arkades 7y ago

Lie detectors are woefully unreliable, but PDs use them. Forensic “matching” of bullets to guns is basically pseudoscience, but continues to be used in court to convict people. Roadside drug analysis kits are less useful than dowsing rods, but get people arrested on a daily basis. People that can’t afford bail, and plead guilty just to get back to their lives, despite the fact that an actual defense attorney would have had the case tossed in the trash. Previous experience suggests that police tech does not just “get better.” They can’t even progress past “disproven pseudoscience.” And the innocent people that have their lives messed with while waiting for the tech to catch up might not be indifferent to the process.

colejohnson66 7y ago
I’ve never heard of ballistics being pseudoscience. Not that I don’t believe it, but where can I read about that?
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  I have heard of it being bunkum, but not quite of the same ~caliber~ as fiber matching and bite-mark matching. It can, at best, match ammo from the same machine-manufactured batch to a factory-stock model of gun. It automatically fails on hand-load cartridges, or ammo that the analyst cannot readily source. When there is a match, the prosecutor might say "this bullet was fired from this gun", but the science says "a bullet similar to the one in evidence was marked and deformed in a similar fashion, when fired by the weapon in evidence (just as it would with every other factory-stock copy of this model of gun)". It's like matching a nail to the hammer that drove it. If the test nail is already different from the reference nail, you cannot match it. If you have two or more identical hammers, you can't tell which one drove the nail. The hammer factory made thousands of identical hammers. In most cases, the tests are likely saying "the most commonly sold type of ammunition was fired from the most popular model of gun of that caliber". It's the sort of thing that should probably be used exclusively as exculpatory evidence. I.e. this model of gun always leaves distinctive markings, such as from an off-center diamond-shaped firing pin, or from an uncommon rifling twist, that were not found on the bullets in evidence, so the gun in evidence could not have fired them. Otherwise, a gun substantially similar, with all the same machine-made parts, could leave the same marks, so you could never know for sure which one fired the bullets. The only time it would be useful to convict is if someone used a unique, hand-made, gunsmithed gun to fire factory-made ammunition. And the number of (violent) crimes committed with that type of display-piece gun approaches zero, because they tend to be both expensive and less fit for use as a weapon than cheaper factory-built guns.