4 ms·
Does this mean that AI facial recognition evidence is inadmissable in court?
by arbol 5y ago
Does this mean that AI facial recognition evidence is inadmissable in court?
- quietbritishjim 5y agoSurely just common sense (amongst people who understand AI, anyway) means that AI facial recognition evidence is inadmissable in court. At best, ignoring privacy issues, it should be used to identify a potential match if the workload is too much for a human, then a human does the verification step on the matched faces.
- shakna 5y agoWe've had charges filed [0], without a human being part of the verification step. I don't think we've yet seen whether this information can be used as admissible evidence... But it wouldn't surprise me it is only a matter of time. [0] https://www.wired.com/story/flawed-facial-recognition-system-sent-man-jail/ https://www.wired.com/story/flawed-facial-recognition-system...
- arbol 5y agoYeah I realised after that humans would (hopefully) vet the match!
- BoxOfRain 5y agoSadly the Venn diagram of “people who understand AI” and “people involved in the lawmaking process” seems to be almost just two separate circles.
- jessaustin 5y agoPhotos and video are admissible. It would seem fairly dumb to set up cameras for facial recognition and not keep the originals?
- jobigoud 5y agoAnd use humans for the recognition? What if computers get better on average?
- jessaustin 5y agoIf that ever happens, the courts could be the last to know. Or, more probably they will assume it's true several decades too early.