3 ms·

> The use of facial recognition has grown in recent years, despite fears that the technology is flawed, disproportionately misidentifies people of color (which

by rr888 4y ago

> The use of facial recognition has grown in recent years, despite fears that the technology is flawed, disproportionately misidentifies people of color (which has led to wrongful arrests) and harms civil liberties, but is still deployed against protesters, for investigating minor crimes and used to justify arrests of individuals from a single face match. I feel like I'm the only peron where who doesn't see a problem with Police having access to facial recognition. Its not like anything used right now is accurate, eg eyewitnesses. If it really is unreliable it shouldn't be used as a sole basis to arrest people, I'd expect a civil suit if that really happened. However just because some police mis-used it doesn't mean it should be banned.

wang_li 4y ago
You’re not the only person who thinks this. It’s just a tool, people who think police shouldn’t properly use a useful tool are morons.
- akira2501 4y ago
  I agree.. I think the length of the time the data is stored and who has access to it and whether that access is audited or not are the important factors to legislate on. If it can still be useful while protecting the rights of the citizens, then why should the police not use it? If it can't be useful with these protections in place, then why would the police spend money on it?
- kevingadd 4y ago
  The problem here is the definition of "proper", and many people use a very broad definition of it where if a police officer is doing a thing it can't possibly be improper. This is often referred to as "qualified immunity"
- ok_dad 4y ago
  > people who think police shouldn’t properly use a useful tool are morons I agree, I think police should *properly* use their useful tools, but I don't trust them to use nearly any tool properly, so I would prefer they have a limited set of tools that still get the job done if they apply themselves but don't allow massive scales of mis-use. Unfortunately, cops are lazy and want to pick the lowest hanging fruit, like pulling over shitty looking cars and such.
- SantalBlush 4y ago
  The unstated premise in this comment seems to be that the police will use tools properly. That's going to need a lot of justification.
SilverBirch 4y ago
The problem with technology is it allows abuse on scale. Yes, there can be racist cops. But if you buy in technology that's racist, suddenly every cop is using a racist profiling system. In a similar way, yes, eye witnesses can be mistaken, but we know that, it's far more difficult to argue "oh this billion dollar AI machine is mistaken, oh actually they've threatened to sue me no they aren't". >If it really is unreliable it shouldn't be used as a sole basis to arrest people, It seems like you do get it. > I'd expect a civil suit if that really happened. That's not how the law works in the US. Just spend some time reading up on sovereign immunity. The likelihood of any police officer being punished for wrong-dooring is 0.

by rr888 4y ago

wang_li 4y ago

You’re not the only person who thinks this. It’s just a tool, people who think police shouldn’t properly use a useful tool are morons.

akira2501 4y ago
I agree.. I think the length of the time the data is stored and who has access to it and whether that access is audited or not are the important factors to legislate on. If it can still be useful while protecting the rights of the citizens, then why should the police not use it? If it can't be useful with these protections in place, then why would the police spend money on it?
kevingadd 4y ago
The problem here is the definition of "proper", and many people use a very broad definition of it where if a police officer is doing a thing it can't possibly be improper. This is often referred to as "qualified immunity"
ok_dad 4y ago
> people who think police shouldn’t properly use a useful tool are morons I agree, I think police should *properly* use their useful tools, but I don't trust them to use nearly any tool properly, so I would prefer they have a limited set of tools that still get the job done if they apply themselves but don't allow massive scales of mis-use. Unfortunately, cops are lazy and want to pick the lowest hanging fruit, like pulling over shitty looking cars and such.
SantalBlush 4y ago
The unstated premise in this comment seems to be that the police will use tools properly. That's going to need a lot of justification.

SilverBirch 4y ago

The problem with technology is it allows abuse on scale. Yes, there can be racist cops. But if you buy in technology that's racist, suddenly every cop is using a racist profiling system. In a similar way, yes, eye witnesses can be mistaken, but we know that, it's far more difficult to argue "oh this billion dollar AI machine is mistaken, oh actually they've threatened to sue me no they aren't". >If it really is unreliable it shouldn't be used as a sole basis to arrest people, It seems like you do get it. > I'd expect a civil suit if that really happened. That's not how the law works in the US. Just spend some time reading up on sovereign immunity. The likelihood of any police officer being punished for wrong-dooring is 0.