5 ms·

An argument here is that it disincentivizes others from doing similar crimes. If the technology is so spot on that 99% of the time you commit the crime you'll g

An argument here is that it disincentivizes others from doing similar crimes. If the technology is so spot on that 99% of the time you commit the crime you'll get caught, then others will likely not take the risk. Granted there's an easy counter argument there (all the more prescient these days) that they could wear a mask while committing the crime. There's a similar (less discussed about) trend happening these days. Law enforcement is using DNA evidence from crime scenes, passing it through (sometimes private) DNA databases and getting matches. Let's say those database continue to have more data – what are the odds that someone involved in a crime will leave some DNA behind, and will either themselves have their DNA in a database, or, a relative. The chances of you getting away with a crime converge to zero. And if you know you have high odds of getting caught when doing the crime, you might be less likely to do it in the first place.

noodlesUK 5y ago
I agree, it does disincentivise people from committing similar crimes to a certain extent, but I think what it often does is shift people to different kinds of crime. In the pandemic, burglaries dropped significantly, presumably because people were home and the perpetrators didn’t like the idea of being caught. However, scams have risen sharply.
- sentinel 5y ago
  Certainly possible. I don't know what the mapping would be there, and whether it is 1 to 1. > In the pandemic, burglaries dropped significantly, presumably because people were home I would have expected that to be the case too, but in fact in the US there's been a rise in burglaries during the pandemic.
nocturnial 5y ago
> If the technology is so spot on that 99% of the time you commit the crime you'll get caught And in 1% of the time[1], you are an innocent who had nothing to do with the crime. Now you have to spend your time: getting arrested, spending time with lawyers, getting people to collaborate your alibi (<- In the best case! Otherwise you're f'ed). If you want to make a case for facial recognition, criminal justice is one of worst possible cases you could make for it. [1] I don't accept your claim of 99% accuracy when this is applied on a massive scale. Maybe I'm wrong, so let's go with this number
- sentinel 5y ago
  The 1% there is that “the criminal won’t get caught”. Not that someone else, an innocent bystander, will get caught. Also what you described can happen to you today as well. It’s the imperfect system we live in.
  - smolder 5y ago
    False positives always exist in these systems along with the false negatives. There's no avoiding every case of false conviction if you rely on imprecise methods. That's admittedly already a problem without facial recog, but is a problem when using it, too.
  - nocturnial 5y ago
    > The 1% there is that “the criminal won’t get caught”. So the 99% is for the facial recognition system to identify criminals? What error rate does the best facial identatification have? If it's not zero then my original point still stands. You are throwing a lot of innocent people into the judicial system. Or at best being pestered by police for no good reason. > Also what you described can happen to you today as well. It’s the imperfect system we live in. That's correct. So instead of improving it, you suggest to automate it? This sounds insane to me. Why would you automate something that you know is defective? Check the user support of all the top tech companies who use "AI" to automate things. Now check the worst of the worst customer support of the top tech companies. There's an overlap. And if you want to expand (*censored*) tech support to the criminal justice system, people like me are going to get upset.
    - sentinel 5y ago
      > So instead of improving it, you suggest to automate it? I said no such thing. Read the whole thing again, take the upset level down a few notches and get back to us.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

noodlesUK 5y ago

I agree, it does disincentivise people from committing similar crimes to a certain extent, but I think what it often does is shift people to different kinds of crime. In the pandemic, burglaries dropped significantly, presumably because people were home and the perpetrators didn’t like the idea of being caught. However, scams have risen sharply.

sentinel 5y ago
Certainly possible. I don't know what the mapping would be there, and whether it is 1 to 1. > In the pandemic, burglaries dropped significantly, presumably because people were home I would have expected that to be the case too, but in fact in the US there's been a rise in burglaries during the pandemic.

nocturnial 5y ago

> If the technology is so spot on that 99% of the time you commit the crime you'll get caught And in 1% of the time[1], you are an innocent who had nothing to do with the crime. Now you have to spend your time: getting arrested, spending time with lawyers, getting people to collaborate your alibi (<- In the best case! Otherwise you're f'ed). If you want to make a case for facial recognition, criminal justice is one of worst possible cases you could make for it. [1] I don't accept your claim of 99% accuracy when this is applied on a massive scale. Maybe I'm wrong, so let's go with this number

sentinel 5y ago
The 1% there is that “the criminal won’t get caught”. Not that someone else, an innocent bystander, will get caught. Also what you described can happen to you today as well. It’s the imperfect system we live in.
- smolder 5y ago
  False positives always exist in these systems along with the false negatives. There's no avoiding every case of false conviction if you rely on imprecise methods. That's admittedly already a problem without facial recog, but is a problem when using it, too.
- nocturnial 5y ago
  > The 1% there is that “the criminal won’t get caught”. So the 99% is for the facial recognition system to identify criminals? What error rate does the best facial identatification have? If it's not zero then my original point still stands. You are throwing a lot of innocent people into the judicial system. Or at best being pestered by police for no good reason. > Also what you described can happen to you today as well. It’s the imperfect system we live in. That's correct. So instead of improving it, you suggest to automate it? This sounds insane to me. Why would you automate something that you know is defective? Check the user support of all the top tech companies who use "AI" to automate things. Now check the worst of the worst customer support of the top tech companies. There's an overlap. And if you want to expand (*censored*) tech support to the criminal justice system, people like me are going to get upset.
  - sentinel 5y ago
    > So instead of improving it, you suggest to automate it? I said no such thing. Read the whole thing again, take the upset level down a few notches and get back to us.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]