3 ms·

"Evem 99.999% is not good enough be enough because you will have at least one person that is guaranteed a false arrest and prosecution " This isn't the right c

by jariel 6y ago

"Evem 99.999% is not good enough be enough because you will have at least one person that is guaranteed a false arrest and prosecution " This isn't the right characterisation. Facial recognition at 95% can be very useful in helping to find people, initiate investigations. It doesn't have to provide grounds for arrest, let alone evidence for a trial. Of course, there are problems even there, depending on a variety of issues. Your license plate is being recorded in a variety of places, and for serious crimes, they will definitely use that information to 'look you up' FYI and face-matching isn't that much different. As for arrest and prosecution, obviously that's another can of worms, but even then, there is a threshold at which we will effectively call it 'evidence'. 99.999% ID + was in the vicinity, plus no alibi, plus motive and prior record? That's a case. If you think about it - we consider 'video evidence' to be fairly conclusive ... well I doubt humans are actually 99.999% accurate in their ability to matches faces to video! So it adds up. " When it comes to justice, mistakes are tolerable so long as adequate compensation exists" There doesn't need to be any compensation if there wasn't any malfeasance or incompetence in the system. To the extent our public servants are all acting above bar, using efficient, fair and lawful methods, then 'compensation' is not really the issue. "It's better to let actual guilty criminals get away than explicitly and systemically accept even one innocent person being punished incorrectly," "accepting any amount of injustice invalidates that legitimacy and authority." This is not true - by your very own logic. First - a justice system that 'lets people off who are 99.999% chance of being guilty' - implies quite a lot of injustice. Moreover, that in some instances, innocents will go to jail is tragic but absolutely inevitable. Not in 100 years will we have fixed this problem. Along with some of the racial injustice you mention, you know what is 'unjust'? The amount of crime, particularly murder that goes unpunished in the US due to low case clearances, particularly in violent communities. That means aggressive killers on the block go free, gloat in their crimes, and do it again. Can you imagine having your sibling or child killed, and essentially knowing 'who did it' - but having them go free? This is common. Facial recognition is not quite ready for prime-time, and it's invasive in ways that license plates are not, so it makes sense to ban it for the time being - however, there are thresholds at which it would make sense. Facial recognition in airports, near high value targets and such systems for alerting police to 'high value, dangerous targets' might make sense. But for everything else it's just not needed.

cbg0 6y ago
> Facial recognition at 95% can be very useful in helping to find people, initiate investigations. It doesn't have to provide grounds for arrest, let alone evidence for a trial. Even getting asked to come down to the station to give a statement based on an incorrect facial recognition is not something I would want to deal with for the sake of "the greater good". 95% seems awfully low accuracy, and even without an arrest this will cause a lot of headaches for many honest citizens. > No - there doesn't need to be any compensation if there wasn't any malfeasance or incompetence in the system. To the extent our public servants are all acting above bar, using efficient, fair and lawful methods, then 'compensation' is not really the issue. Sounds like a utopia, definitely not the world we live in.
badrabbit 6y ago
I will try to read and reply to your whole comment later but keep in mind that we live in a democracy not a technocracy. As a people, we did not give consent to this. In my city for example we got rid of all traffic cams as a matter of a referendum. No one cared if it was more accurate than actual cops. We dont want it, we dont want to be recorded and tracked. We are not willing to give up liberties regardless of the benefits of the technology. It can find a missing person but a person hiding from an abusive spouse or people trying to coordinate a movent against the government (see hongkong and china's abuse of facial recongnition) can also be tracked and subverted. This is a weapon pure and simple and it is up to the wielder to use it for good or evil. As a people, we do not trust the government or the ruling class to stop at the good uses of this technology. This is why technocracy is evil, it only looks at outcomes,disregarding the will and consent of the governed.
- lovelyviking 6y ago
  >As a people, we did not give consent to this. Exactly >We are not willing to give up liberties regardless of the benefits of the technology. Finally town with smart people. I wish I could live there. > As a people, we do not trust the government or the ruling class to stop at the good uses of this technology. This is why technocracy is evil, it only looks at outcomes, disregarding the will and consent of the governed. That's the way to go. Face recognition is even worse than Traffic cams. I don't even think it's the matter of referendum. It should be considered a human right. I do not wish to see some majority could strip anyone from basic human rights.

by jariel 6y ago

cbg0 6y ago

> Facial recognition at 95% can be very useful in helping to find people, initiate investigations. It doesn't have to provide grounds for arrest, let alone evidence for a trial. Even getting asked to come down to the station to give a statement based on an incorrect facial recognition is not something I would want to deal with for the sake of "the greater good". 95% seems awfully low accuracy, and even without an arrest this will cause a lot of headaches for many honest citizens. > No - there doesn't need to be any compensation if there wasn't any malfeasance or incompetence in the system. To the extent our public servants are all acting above bar, using efficient, fair and lawful methods, then 'compensation' is not really the issue. Sounds like a utopia, definitely not the world we live in.

badrabbit 6y ago

I will try to read and reply to your whole comment later but keep in mind that we live in a democracy not a technocracy. As a people, we did not give consent to this. In my city for example we got rid of all traffic cams as a matter of a referendum. No one cared if it was more accurate than actual cops. We dont want it, we dont want to be recorded and tracked. We are not willing to give up liberties regardless of the benefits of the technology. It can find a missing person but a person hiding from an abusive spouse or people trying to coordinate a movent against the government (see hongkong and china's abuse of facial recongnition) can also be tracked and subverted. This is a weapon pure and simple and it is up to the wielder to use it for good or evil. As a people, we do not trust the government or the ruling class to stop at the good uses of this technology. This is why technocracy is evil, it only looks at outcomes,disregarding the will and consent of the governed.

lovelyviking 6y ago
>As a people, we did not give consent to this. Exactly >We are not willing to give up liberties regardless of the benefits of the technology. Finally town with smart people. I wish I could live there. > As a people, we do not trust the government or the ruling class to stop at the good uses of this technology. This is why technocracy is evil, it only looks at outcomes, disregarding the will and consent of the governed. That's the way to go. Face recognition is even worse than Traffic cams. I don't even think it's the matter of referendum. It should be considered a human right. I do not wish to see some majority could strip anyone from basic human rights.