3 ms·

99.99% is probably better than actual cops right? Also there is the idea that such an infastructure would scare criminals into not doing incriminating things.

by winrid 6y ago

badrabbit 6y ago
Thats what I said, better than humans is not good enough. Humans can make mistakes but they can be held accountable and their mistake is not an accepted outcome of the system. To put it differently, facial recongition would be compared with explicitly accepting only low IQ people for cop jobs (which some PDs do!) as opposed to hiring the best people and expecting them to have 100% accuracy. Their mistake is a matter of judgement and negligence. Facial recongition's mistakes are a matter of the system accepting the mistake. Technical people often focus on the pure metrics but as in engineering,why faults happen is important. The metric should never be the goal. To put it differently, explicitly accepting injustice is incompatible with mine and I believe society's understanding of justice. This is the same reason why ML shouldn't be used to replace human judges regardless of improvements in outcome. The authority of judges,cops and legislators is legitimate because the people have a contract with them where the people's view of justice is implemented as law in return the people subject themselves to these laws. Facial recogntion and ML judges violate that contract and as a result the outcome is illegitimate,100% of convicts become wrongly convicted because as a people the views on justice of their society was nor enforced by a member of their society that is elected or appointed by the people but by a blackbox logic that only looks at the outcome as a metric. A defense attorney can claim eyewitness testimony is inaccurate for example and cross examine witnesses but that attorney cannot interrogate a ML presenting as evidence a blurry picture with a 99% accuracy match.
- winrid 6y ago
  It seems a lot of arguments like this are based on immediate conviction. I'm totally not for that. I think your identity should be verified using other means before being arrested when possible.
  - badrabbit 6y ago
    You dont need any conviction, even setting aside the horrors of the US justice system, this is simply not a sacrifice I and many others are willing to make just to secure more convictions. There are manyblong standing issues of the system that must be fixed before something like this is even considered. To start, law enforcement acting with malicious and criminal intent repeatedly get away with framing suspects, falsifying evidence and brutalizing suspects. I don't need them to be tracking everyone's movements too. I think I'll pass on a genocide this morning (some of them actually say they want a race war). And thats just the very tip of the iceberg. Rule number 1 of getting out of a hole: stop digging it.
BiteCode_dev 6y ago
> Also there is the idea that such an infastructure would scare criminals into not doing incriminating things. Even if the criminals were afraid of the repercussion of their actions, and were aware of the system to catch them and be convinced it will work and would lead to their capture (that's already a LOT of if), this would only work on premeditated crimes, which is a minority of the ones commited in the street. A lot of crimes are not though in advance, but done on the moment. People fighting because they are angry. Somebody stealing because they saw an opportunity. We hear a lot about recurring pick pockets, or bank heists. But those are not the majority. Most bad things in the street happen without being planned, and without consideration for the consequences. Planned crimes are white colar crimes, and they don't get caught by cameras.
- winrid 6y ago
  You also have to have a political system that can incriminate people caught on camera, for ex: (2019) https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-02/california-car-burglaries-lawmakers-loophole%3f_amp=true https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/california/stor... I still think it makes a big difference. I spent time in China and honestly I felt safer in areas where terrorists were a concern than I do in downtown SF.

99.99% is probably better than actual cops right? Also there is the idea that such an infastructure would scare criminals into not doing incriminating things.

by winrid 6y ago

99.99% is probably better than actual cops right? Also there is the idea that such an infastructure would scare criminals into not doing incriminating things.

badrabbit 6y ago

Thats what I said, better than humans is not good enough. Humans can make mistakes but they can be held accountable and their mistake is not an accepted outcome of the system. To put it differently, facial recongition would be compared with explicitly accepting only low IQ people for cop jobs (which some PDs do!) as opposed to hiring the best people and expecting them to have 100% accuracy. Their mistake is a matter of judgement and negligence. Facial recongition's mistakes are a matter of the system accepting the mistake. Technical people often focus on the pure metrics but as in engineering,why faults happen is important. The metric should never be the goal. To put it differently, explicitly accepting injustice is incompatible with mine and I believe society's understanding of justice. This is the same reason why ML shouldn't be used to replace human judges regardless of improvements in outcome. The authority of judges,cops and legislators is legitimate because the people have a contract with them where the people's view of justice is implemented as law in return the people subject themselves to these laws. Facial recogntion and ML judges violate that contract and as a result the outcome is illegitimate,100% of convicts become wrongly convicted because as a people the views on justice of their society was nor enforced by a member of their society that is elected or appointed by the people but by a blackbox logic that only looks at the outcome as a metric. A defense attorney can claim eyewitness testimony is inaccurate for example and cross examine witnesses but that attorney cannot interrogate a ML presenting as evidence a blurry picture with a 99% accuracy match.

winrid 6y ago
It seems a lot of arguments like this are based on immediate conviction. I'm totally not for that. I think your identity should be verified using other means before being arrested when possible.
- badrabbit 6y ago
  You dont need any conviction, even setting aside the horrors of the US justice system, this is simply not a sacrifice I and many others are willing to make just to secure more convictions. There are manyblong standing issues of the system that must be fixed before something like this is even considered. To start, law enforcement acting with malicious and criminal intent repeatedly get away with framing suspects, falsifying evidence and brutalizing suspects. I don't need them to be tracking everyone's movements too. I think I'll pass on a genocide this morning (some of them actually say they want a race war). And thats just the very tip of the iceberg. Rule number 1 of getting out of a hole: stop digging it.

BiteCode_dev 6y ago

> Also there is the idea that such an infastructure would scare criminals into not doing incriminating things. Even if the criminals were afraid of the repercussion of their actions, and were aware of the system to catch them and be convinced it will work and would lead to their capture (that's already a LOT of if), this would only work on premeditated crimes, which is a minority of the ones commited in the street. A lot of crimes are not though in advance, but done on the moment. People fighting because they are angry. Somebody stealing because they saw an opportunity. We hear a lot about recurring pick pockets, or bank heists. But those are not the majority. Most bad things in the street happen without being planned, and without consideration for the consequences. Planned crimes are white colar crimes, and they don't get caught by cameras.

winrid 6y ago
You also have to have a political system that can incriminate people caught on camera, for ex: (2019) https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-02/california-car-burglaries-lawmakers-loophole%3f_amp=true https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/california/stor... I still think it makes a big difference. I spent time in China and honestly I felt safer in areas where terrorists were a concern than I do in downtown SF.