11 ms·

It's going to be really easy for them to weasel out by claiming the match was like "99% confidence" or something, so not actually false per se. This is supporte

It's going to be really easy for them to weasel out by claiming the match was like "99% confidence" or something, so not actually false per se. This is supported by the facts: "one of the alleged fraudsters looked like Mr. Reid" They can also claim their technology does not make an accusation, it provides a similarity score that LEO can use in their investigations. This is also supported by the facts: sheriff’s officer insisted it was a "positive match". The sheriff's officer actually gives up the game here, revealing they improperly relied on the similarity score to deduce a suspects guilt, but an actually competent prosecutor would know better. The fault lies with the LEO in this case. Good luck suing them.

konschubert 4y ago
The problem is that people's priors for "is this the same guy?" are not normalised to "we have used an AI to scan the whole country for lookalikes".
- tantalor 4y ago
  Police already know about this. It's called a "dragnet". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(policing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(policing) Since the 1950s, such "dragnets" have generally been held to be unconstitutional as unreasonable search and seizure actions. Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_search_warrant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_search_warrant
Teever 4y ago
Is there really that much of a difference, legally speaking between the statements "I'm pretty sure that tantalor is the zodiac killer", or "I'm 99% sure that tantalor is the zodiac killer", or "tantalor is the zodiac killer?"
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > Is there really that much of a difference Certainly. If a box outputs "this, M, is the best matching I have to A", it takes a sloppy fool to entail that "M is A". If an OCR says that it sees some specific characters, that is not a "certainty obligation" - it is just a "best effort" through reasonable algorithms and imperfect data. You are obliged to check. The fact that some people - and workers, and with responsibility - can be confused on those basics shows the urgency on rebuilding "common sense", a civic upgrade to "good sense", in society.
notfed 4y ago
I want to say it's silly to blame the AI, or company here, because humans should ultimately be the judge of whether two faces match. But I must admit, facial recognition instantaneously brings millions of faces onto the suspect list that never would have been considered. Two chances increase: the chance of finding the true suspect and the chance of finding an unfortunate look-alike.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > humans should ultimately be the judge Of course. This is confusion between tool and worker. It is not very far from leaving a screwdriver near the wood planks and expecting to find the cupboard built.
- soraminazuki 4y ago
  It's silly to let Clearview AI off the hook here. This is a company that's hoarding personal information it scraped from the internet and selling it without consent. It's mainly being used to let law enforcement agencies evade privacy rules, frame and screw over people like what happened in this instance. This sort of behavior has no place in a society governed by the rule of law. It's also worth noting that this company has been criticized many times in the past, but nothing has changed. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-privacy-facial-recognition.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-priv...

konschubert 4y ago

The problem is that people's priors for "is this the same guy?" are not normalised to "we have used an AI to scan the whole country for lookalikes".

tantalor 4y ago
Police already know about this. It's called a "dragnet". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(policing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(policing) Since the 1950s, such "dragnets" have generally been held to be unconstitutional as unreasonable search and seizure actions. Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_search_warrant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_search_warrant

Teever 4y ago

Is there really that much of a difference, legally speaking between the statements "I'm pretty sure that tantalor is the zodiac killer", or "I'm 99% sure that tantalor is the zodiac killer", or "tantalor is the zodiac killer?"

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mdp2021 4y ago
> Is there really that much of a difference Certainly. If a box outputs "this, M, is the best matching I have to A", it takes a sloppy fool to entail that "M is A". If an OCR says that it sees some specific characters, that is not a "certainty obligation" - it is just a "best effort" through reasonable algorithms and imperfect data. You are obliged to check. The fact that some people - and workers, and with responsibility - can be confused on those basics shows the urgency on rebuilding "common sense", a civic upgrade to "good sense", in society.

notfed 4y ago

I want to say it's silly to blame the AI, or company here, because humans should ultimately be the judge of whether two faces match. But I must admit, facial recognition instantaneously brings millions of faces onto the suspect list that never would have been considered. Two chances increase: the chance of finding the true suspect and the chance of finding an unfortunate look-alike.

mdp2021 4y ago
> humans should ultimately be the judge Of course. This is confusion between tool and worker. It is not very far from leaving a screwdriver near the wood planks and expecting to find the cupboard built.
soraminazuki 4y ago
It's silly to let Clearview AI off the hook here. This is a company that's hoarding personal information it scraped from the internet and selling it without consent. It's mainly being used to let law enforcement agencies evade privacy rules, frame and screw over people like what happened in this instance. This sort of behavior has no place in a society governed by the rule of law. It's also worth noting that this company has been criticized many times in the past, but nothing has changed. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-privacy-facial-recognition.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-priv...