4 ms·

> That's quite a claim. Prove it. Why does it need to be proven before it is implemented? Did you ask for proof that use of Microsoft Office or electricity by

> That's quite a claim. Prove it. Why does it need to be proven before it is implemented? Did you ask for proof that use of Microsoft Office or electricity by police departments would make them more efficient? It seems inherently obvious and frankly, common sense, that a network of cameras and facial recognition software are going to be more effective at identifying perps in the wild than a handful of officers patrolling the streets, needing to remember the faces of everyone they're on the lookout for, and scanning their surroundings constantly for matches. > I don't understand. Are you saying that using a filter negates a false positive? I don't think that's accurate at all. The concern often raised is that trusting an imprecise algorithm is risky. But in reality matches from facial recognition software are reviewed by humans as a second-pass filter prior to taking action (like dispatching officers). We already trust humans to perform policing inherently by the act of having police forces exist, so there is no elevated risk introduced by use of facial recognition that isn't proportionally offset by a higher degree of true positive matches, since any elevated false positive match raised by the algorithm is contained by the humans reviewing potential matches first. > What about the rights of someone who's been falsely implicated? They still have rights, and can fight those claims. Why would you expect this to be any different due to the use of facial recognition? If the suspect looks like whoever police are seeking, then they would be exposed to the risk of implication orthogonal to the existence of facial recognition. And there are ways (even if not perfect) to fight those claims. We retain policing as a necessary part of society despite its imperfections because it is necessary and hugely better than the alternative of not having police forces. And all this holds true even with police departments adopting technology - whether that is electricity, Microsoft Office, or facial recognition.

inetknght 7y ago
> Why does it need to be proven before it is implemented? We're talking about peoples' safety and justice. It's not just some product that people can return if they don't like it. > Did you ask for proof that use of Microsoft Office or electricity by police departments would make them more efficient? I didn't have that opportunity. But yes, I would have. > It seems inherently obvious and frankly, common sense, that a network of cameras and facial recognition software are going to be more effective at identifying perps in the wild I don't think it's obvious. Indeed, I think the potential for abuse is very high. It would be easy for someone to say "the algorithm said so" to someone who's been accused. How would someone without specific knowledge of the algorithm be able to dispute that? > But in reality matches from facial recognition software are reviewed by humans as a second-pass filter prior to taking action (like dispatching officers). We already trust humans to perform policing inherently by the act of having police forces exist, so there is no elevated risk introduced by use of facial recognition You are wrong. Matches from facial recognition software might be reviewed by humans. But then again, payroll is reviewed by humans too and that has tons of problems. If we can't fix our own money tracking systems, then how exactly do you think we can keep our facial recognition software correctly working? To claim that "there is no _elevated_ risk introduced by use of facial recognition" makes me wonder whether you've thought about how it could even unintentionally cause problems. That's a very dangerous line of thought to ignore, by the way. > They still have rights, and can fight those claims. Bullshit. Not just bullshit, but fucking bullshit. People who are accused today don't have the knowledge and money necessary to fight claims that don't even involve magic hidden behind the guise of an algorithm. When [1] officers [2] plant [3] evidence [4] and prosecutors [5] go [6] for [7] plea deals, the public suffers. It's especially perverse when the people who are supposed to be a part of the justice system argue that "they're guilty of something". Innocent peoples lives can be ruined when they don't have the ability to demonstrate their innocence [8]. I'm going to stop adding links because these ones were found with literally just thirty seconds of searching. It's that common of a problem. I could see you then arguing that the goalpost is moving: solve the officer problem or solve the prosecutorial problem. Of course you're right. But you'd also miss the point: adding more abilities for "law enforcement" to put people behind bars is not what the world needs today. You support adding a new, ever more complex, way for people to be caught up by the law for reasons completely foreign to them. Your love for computers and algorithms and AI, and desire to see them in action, blinds you to the real world. I challenge you to meet people, innocent and not, who've been affected by law enforcement. I challenge you to really think hard about what you want from facial recognition. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/st-louis-officer-executed-suspect-planted-gun-his-car-prosecutor-n788626 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/st-louis-officer-execut... [2]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/body-cam-video-baltimore-police-department-officer-planted-drugs/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/body-cam-video-baltimore-police... [3]: https://news.yahoo.com/former-florida-officer-allegedly-planted-180952213.html https://news.yahoo.com/former-florida-officer-allegedly-plan... [4]: https://mynewsla.com/crime/2017/11/12/lapd-officer-planted-cocaine-suspect-department-examining-body-camera-footage/ https://mynewsla.com/crime/2017/11/12/lapd-officer-planted-c... [5]: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocence-is-irrelevant/534171/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocen... [6]: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1290&context=jpl https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic... [7]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/plea-bargaining-courts-prosecutors/524112/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/plea-ba... [8]: https://nvcopblock.org/163026/innocent-mans-life-ruined-by-false-dui-charges/ https://nvcopblock.org/163026/innocent-mans-life-ruined-by-f...

inetknght 7y ago

> Why does it need to be proven before it is implemented? We're talking about peoples' safety and justice. It's not just some product that people can return if they don't like it. > Did you ask for proof that use of Microsoft Office or electricity by police departments would make them more efficient? I didn't have that opportunity. But yes, I would have. > It seems inherently obvious and frankly, common sense, that a network of cameras and facial recognition software are going to be more effective at identifying perps in the wild I don't think it's obvious. Indeed, I think the potential for abuse is very high. It would be easy for someone to say "the algorithm said so" to someone who's been accused. How would someone without specific knowledge of the algorithm be able to dispute that? > But in reality matches from facial recognition software are reviewed by humans as a second-pass filter prior to taking action (like dispatching officers). We already trust humans to perform policing inherently by the act of having police forces exist, so there is no elevated risk introduced by use of facial recognition You are wrong. Matches from facial recognition software might be reviewed by humans. But then again, payroll is reviewed by humans too and that has tons of problems. If we can't fix our own money tracking systems, then how exactly do you think we can keep our facial recognition software correctly working? To claim that "there is no _elevated_ risk introduced by use of facial recognition" makes me wonder whether you've thought about how it could even unintentionally cause problems. That's a very dangerous line of thought to ignore, by the way. > They still have rights, and can fight those claims. Bullshit. Not just bullshit, but fucking bullshit. People who are accused today don't have the knowledge and money necessary to fight claims that don't even involve magic hidden behind the guise of an algorithm. When [1] officers [2] plant [3] evidence [4] and prosecutors [5] go [6] for [7] plea deals, the public suffers. It's especially perverse when the people who are supposed to be a part of the justice system argue that "they're guilty of something". Innocent peoples lives can be ruined when they don't have the ability to demonstrate their innocence [8]. I'm going to stop adding links because these ones were found with literally just thirty seconds of searching. It's that common of a problem. I could see you then arguing that the goalpost is moving: solve the officer problem or solve the prosecutorial problem. Of course you're right. But you'd also miss the point: adding more abilities for "law enforcement" to put people behind bars is not what the world needs today. You support adding a new, ever more complex, way for people to be caught up by the law for reasons completely foreign to them. Your love for computers and algorithms and AI, and desire to see them in action, blinds you to the real world. I challenge you to meet people, innocent and not, who've been affected by law enforcement. I challenge you to really think hard about what you want from facial recognition. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/st-louis-officer-executed-suspect-planted-gun-his-car-prosecutor-n788626 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/st-louis-officer-execut... [2]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/body-cam-video-baltimore-police-department-officer-planted-drugs/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/body-cam-video-baltimore-police... [3]: https://news.yahoo.com/former-florida-officer-allegedly-planted-180952213.html https://news.yahoo.com/former-florida-officer-allegedly-plan... [4]: https://mynewsla.com/crime/2017/11/12/lapd-officer-planted-cocaine-suspect-department-examining-body-camera-footage/ https://mynewsla.com/crime/2017/11/12/lapd-officer-planted-c... [5]: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocence-is-irrelevant/534171/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocen... [6]: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1290&context=jpl https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic... [7]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/plea-bargaining-courts-prosecutors/524112/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/plea-ba... [8]: https://nvcopblock.org/163026/innocent-mans-life-ruined-by-false-dui-charges/ https://nvcopblock.org/163026/innocent-mans-life-ruined-by-f...