3 ms·

The article casts doubt on expanded use of facial recognition but that’s not the right reaction IMO. Facial recognition systems are used as a first pass filter.

The article casts doubt on expanded use of facial recognition but that’s not the right reaction IMO. Facial recognition systems are used as a first pass filter. That is they are reducing a large space of possible matches to a lesser space of possible matches. It is significantly better than expecting beat cops to match faces on the sidewalk as they look around, for example. No one, to my knowledge, is relying on facial recognition systems as absolute matches. The ACLU rep that is quoted is IMO relying on hyperbole to make his point (“One false match can lead to missed flights, lengthy interrogations, tense police encounters, false arrests, or worse”). If the match is close enough that a human would confirm it as well, and conduct an “interrogation”, then presumably facial recognition technology did not incrementally add to the problem of mismatching since a human would also make the same false match. So if it makes policing more efficient and enables more criminals to be nabbed, and it is used as a first pass filter (so the false positive rate doesn’t matter), I am all for it.

nyolfen 7y ago
> If the match is close enough that a human would confirm it as well, and conduct an “interrogation”, then presumably facial recognition technology did not incrementally add to the problem of mismatching since a human would also make the same false match. it seems likely to me that cops might use it as justification for a fishing expedition, or TSA agents may just go along with it as a cover-your-ass measure
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  “Sir do I smell marijuana in your vehicle?” “Sir, this dog detected something on your person” “Sir, the scanned detected an object under your shirt please step over here” “Sir, you’ve been flagged by this facial recognition software” ... agreed. I think this is better to head off before that last one can be abused.

nyolfen 7y ago

> If the match is close enough that a human would confirm it as well, and conduct an “interrogation”, then presumably facial recognition technology did not incrementally add to the problem of mismatching since a human would also make the same false match. it seems likely to me that cops might use it as justification for a fishing expedition, or TSA agents may just go along with it as a cover-your-ass measure

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
“Sir do I smell marijuana in your vehicle?” “Sir, this dog detected something on your person” “Sir, the scanned detected an object under your shirt please step over here” “Sir, you’ve been flagged by this facial recognition software” ... agreed. I think this is better to head off before that last one can be abused.