4 ms·

This is the slippery slope that privacy advocates have sometimes been characterized as 'paranoid' for pointing out - "The database is just for ____ crimes!": na

by blintz 6y ago

This is the slippery slope that privacy advocates have sometimes been characterized as 'paranoid' for pointing out - "The database is just for ____ crimes!": national security, terrorism, heinous sexual assaults, child exploitation etc. But there is almost no world in which we do not slowly and methodically expand the scope of 'bad enough' crimes that the data gets used for. In this case, it slid from sexual assault to just plain assault, but there is rarely a line like this that gets kept firm.

zvrba 6y ago
But this is different: you find some DNA on a crime scene, don't find it in a database, then use the algorithm to sketch a face. Granted, they had to use some database to build their algorithm. Also: I looked at the examples linked to in another comment, and I don't think the algorithm is very good.
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  Of course it's not good, it's magic disguised as science. It's theoretically possible, but we're nowhere near the level of tech to be able to pull it off. It's basically a money grab.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    While that's quite likely true, I wonder if you have any solid reason to say this, or any background in the subject of the genetics of faces.
    - RandoHolmes 6y ago
      that's the wrong attitude. That would be like a layman hearing someone say "general AI isn't possible, their claims are bollocks" and someone responding with "maybe that's true, but do you have a background in general AI?". And this attitude causes things like police to arrest the wrong person because they don't understand the limits of machine learning. I don't need to be an expert to simply say this is problematic and shouldn't be used. YOU need an expert to explain why it CAN be used. We need more skepticism, not less. But to answer your question, I understand biology well enough to understand the challenges involved here. But you don't even need that to understand the problem. In their marketing photo's, they've attempted to replicate the _HAIRSTYLE_. That by itself is all you need to understand how low the applicability of this is. Just imagine a police officer arresting someone who was bald and sort of looked like the criminal because this algorithm chose to render them as bald. People aren't NEARLY good enough at being able to identify a _STRANGER_ with a radically different hairstyle to be trusted with this.
      - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        If you say something, be it positive or negative, you need to be able to back it up, so no it's not the wrong attitude. > YOU need an expert to explain why it CAN be used. Trying to offload onto ME the validating of YOUR claim is wrong. You claim, you back it up. Not me. > We need more skepticism, not less. Oh sure! But skepticisim isn't denial. You denied, calling it 'magic'. You back it up, with stats and science, not namecalling. > they've attempted to replicate the _HAIRSTYLE_. That I'm not stupid, I noticed that too. And I'm not stupid, I'm not going to put any faith into this until some value is shown, scientifically not via the marketing department. Don't assume I do.
        RandoHolmes 6y ago
        Are you SURE you're not stupid? Fine, maybe you're not stupid, but the alternative is immoral. One of those is under your control the other is not. Which do you want to choose?
  - roudaki 6y ago
    I understand why would you think that but you underestimate how little data cases can have and just getting basic sketch of race, gender and average facial features that you can use in the field and modify as new information gets available is big deal. But I can see movies presenting this as magic device with 100% exact face. I see big benefit in increasing speed of dna sample analysis and reducing price even more.
krick 6y ago
As if "just plain assault" is somehow better than "sexual assault".
- blintz 6y ago
  Sorry, the phrasing there is unfortunate - what I'm trying to say is that there was an already strange moral 'ordering' to crimes (that I agree is artificial) that was slowly eroded.
- DanBC 6y ago
  It depends a bit on where you are. In England sexual assault requires deliberate physical contact; the contact has to be sexual; and there has to be no consent or belief of consent. Common assault doesn't require any of that, and you can be convicted of assault without physically touching the victim.
White_Wolf 6y ago
Since it's "just" for crimes: It UK it can be used for thought crimes, social media crimes like pointing out basic biology and so on. You are spot on about the definition of "crimes" being altered in the last decade. It will only get worse by the looks of it.
- DanBC 6y ago
  > social media crimes like pointing out basic biology Do you have any examples?
  - 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
    Most likely transgender ideology and issues like that: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50858919 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50858919 In general, Europe has much stronger workers rights so companies can't and won't get rid of people just for PR. UK is always a bit different of course, the whole denying basic biology and sex is more an American topic but it's creeping to UK as well. As an example, here in Spain the socialist party that is very much left wing publish (in my personal opinion too much) open letters titled 'Arguments Against Theories Which Erase the Reality of Women' which would be called 'TERFs' in America and possibly hate crime in the UK.
    - DanBC 6y ago
      Maya Forstater wasn't "fired" for "denying basic biology", and this is all entirely civil law (an argument between two parties settled by the courts) and has nothing at all to do with criminal law (an argument between the state and an individual). 1) she wasn't fired, her contract was not renewed. 2) This had nothing to do with biology (which she got wrong), but was to do with her choice to harass people in the workplace, and to harass people on social media using an account tied to her workplace. I wish people would read the Maya Forstater tribunal case notes, because it's clear that there's a lot of misinformation. She tried to make the case that she held a philosophical belief and that her belief was thus protected. She failed because her belief was incoherent and because her absolutionist approach requires her to cause harm to other people. > However, I consider that the Claimant's view, in its absolutist nature, is incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others. [...] > I conclude from this, and the totality of the evidence, that the Claimant is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

by blintz 6y ago

zvrba 6y ago

But this is different: you find some DNA on a crime scene, don't find it in a database, then use the algorithm to sketch a face. Granted, they had to use some database to build their algorithm. Also: I looked at the examples linked to in another comment, and I don't think the algorithm is very good.

RandoHolmes 6y ago
Of course it's not good, it's magic disguised as science. It's theoretically possible, but we're nowhere near the level of tech to be able to pull it off. It's basically a money grab.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  While that's quite likely true, I wonder if you have any solid reason to say this, or any background in the subject of the genetics of faces.
  - RandoHolmes 6y ago
    that's the wrong attitude. That would be like a layman hearing someone say "general AI isn't possible, their claims are bollocks" and someone responding with "maybe that's true, but do you have a background in general AI?". And this attitude causes things like police to arrest the wrong person because they don't understand the limits of machine learning. I don't need to be an expert to simply say this is problematic and shouldn't be used. YOU need an expert to explain why it CAN be used. We need more skepticism, not less. But to answer your question, I understand biology well enough to understand the challenges involved here. But you don't even need that to understand the problem. In their marketing photo's, they've attempted to replicate the _HAIRSTYLE_. That by itself is all you need to understand how low the applicability of this is. Just imagine a police officer arresting someone who was bald and sort of looked like the criminal because this algorithm chose to render them as bald. People aren't NEARLY good enough at being able to identify a _STRANGER_ with a radically different hairstyle to be trusted with this.
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      If you say something, be it positive or negative, you need to be able to back it up, so no it's not the wrong attitude. > YOU need an expert to explain why it CAN be used. Trying to offload onto ME the validating of YOUR claim is wrong. You claim, you back it up. Not me. > We need more skepticism, not less. Oh sure! But skepticisim isn't denial. You denied, calling it 'magic'. You back it up, with stats and science, not namecalling. > they've attempted to replicate the _HAIRSTYLE_. That I'm not stupid, I noticed that too. And I'm not stupid, I'm not going to put any faith into this until some value is shown, scientifically not via the marketing department. Don't assume I do.
      - RandoHolmes 6y ago
        Are you SURE you're not stupid? Fine, maybe you're not stupid, but the alternative is immoral. One of those is under your control the other is not. Which do you want to choose?
- roudaki 6y ago
  I understand why would you think that but you underestimate how little data cases can have and just getting basic sketch of race, gender and average facial features that you can use in the field and modify as new information gets available is big deal. But I can see movies presenting this as magic device with 100% exact face. I see big benefit in increasing speed of dna sample analysis and reducing price even more.

krick 6y ago

As if "just plain assault" is somehow better than "sexual assault".

blintz 6y ago
Sorry, the phrasing there is unfortunate - what I'm trying to say is that there was an already strange moral 'ordering' to crimes (that I agree is artificial) that was slowly eroded.
DanBC 6y ago
It depends a bit on where you are. In England sexual assault requires deliberate physical contact; the contact has to be sexual; and there has to be no consent or belief of consent. Common assault doesn't require any of that, and you can be convicted of assault without physically touching the victim.

White_Wolf 6y ago

Since it's "just" for crimes: It UK it can be used for thought crimes, social media crimes like pointing out basic biology and so on. You are spot on about the definition of "crimes" being altered in the last decade. It will only get worse by the looks of it.

DanBC 6y ago
> social media crimes like pointing out basic biology Do you have any examples?
- 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
  Most likely transgender ideology and issues like that: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50858919 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50858919 In general, Europe has much stronger workers rights so companies can't and won't get rid of people just for PR. UK is always a bit different of course, the whole denying basic biology and sex is more an American topic but it's creeping to UK as well. As an example, here in Spain the socialist party that is very much left wing publish (in my personal opinion too much) open letters titled 'Arguments Against Theories Which Erase the Reality of Women' which would be called 'TERFs' in America and possibly hate crime in the UK.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    Maya Forstater wasn't "fired" for "denying basic biology", and this is all entirely civil law (an argument between two parties settled by the courts) and has nothing at all to do with criminal law (an argument between the state and an individual). 1) she wasn't fired, her contract was not renewed. 2) This had nothing to do with biology (which she got wrong), but was to do with her choice to harass people in the workplace, and to harass people on social media using an account tied to her workplace. I wish people would read the Maya Forstater tribunal case notes, because it's clear that there's a lot of misinformation. She tried to make the case that she held a philosophical belief and that her belief was thus protected. She failed because her belief was incoherent and because her absolutionist approach requires her to cause harm to other people. > However, I consider that the Claimant's view, in its absolutist nature, is incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others. [...] > I conclude from this, and the totality of the evidence, that the Claimant is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.