4 ms·

I don't think it's nearly that simple. Do you want the same for other techniques? If someone says in good faith that a fingerprint matches and it turns out it w

by im3w1l 4y ago

I don't think it's nearly that simple. Do you want the same for other techniques? If someone says in good faith that a fingerprint matches and it turns out it was a false positive it should be slander? Shoeprints? DNA? Clearview AI is providing a service in good faith like all these other things. It's up to the police and courts to use that information correctly. Furthermore notice that this guy was only arrested, and the evidence bar for arrest is lower than sentencing. I don't think we can even say the system malfunctioned here actually. He was arrested because it seemed probable he did it. That's how it's supposed to work. Then he was released and should be given routine compensation for being arrested and turning out to be innocent.

bb88 4y ago
I think this is why I don't think slander would work. Clearview AI didn't force the cops to arrest him, or say with 100% accuracy it was him. CVAI could have an accuracy of 99.9%, and the defense would be "Well see you were that 0.1% incorrect!" It's the police that need to do the investigation to make sure the guy arrested is the same person on the video. But then they could say too, "Well CVAI said it was a near certainty -- we just took their word for it! It would have wasted the taxpayers money to do a more thorough investigation -- afterall there's always some implicit uncertainty in standard policework!" I think a more interesting question is something like: Does Clearview AI fudge their accuracy numbers? Would the true 80% likelihood of you being the perp be more or less slanderous than a 99% likelihood?
- alixj 4y ago
  That would be a very weak excuse from the police. The same problem occurs even with DNA testing: https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/the-rule-of-probabilities/ https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/the-rule-of-....
JohnFen 4y ago
> He was arrested because it seemed probable he did it. That's how it's supposed to work. Which is itself a bit of a problem, as having an arrest on your record, even in the absence of a conviction, a trial, or even if you were found innocent, is rather damaging. It adversely impacts your ability to rent housing, for instance, or get certain jobs.
- FpUser 4y ago
  This sounds like invented by Stalin. Is this how it works in the US? This is totally disgusting. Well it may be the same in Canada as well judging by what info on a subject is available online. Innocent until proven guilty my ass. How does it manage to be in free and democratic society?
  - bilbo0s 4y ago
    May be totally disgusting, but, yes, that's how it works in the US.
    - FpUser 4y ago
      Any reason why it can not be legally challenged and abolished? Or at least keep the record sealed from the regular prying eyes of the companies / orgs?
      - bilbo0s 4y ago
        Um. Well, approaching the subject delicately, it's one of the tools the system uses to maintain our "societal power hierarchy". Is that the politically correct way to say it? Put it this way, traditionally in the US, the people who would challenge this state of affairs fall mainly within a certain group that has historically occupied the lower part of our "societal power hierarchy". Conveniently, this sort of "mistake", tends to happen to people belonging to that same group far more often than it happens to others. Which saddles that group with the problems outlined in the comment we're discussing. It also saddles them with the concomitant consequences with respect to their ability to advance in society. (Since they can get neither a good job nor a good place to live after their arrest.) That they were innocent is a nuisance to the system, not really a deterrent to the system. Certainly not a reason to change the system in the eyes of a lot of Americans.
        FpUser 4y ago
        So you think something like ACLU / whatever other human rights orgs share similar view?
sobkas 4y ago
> I don't think it's nearly that simple. Do you want the same for other techniques? If someone says in good faith that a fingerprint matches and it turns out it was a false positive it should be slander? Shoeprints? DNA? Every technique you listed have problems that prevents them from deciding in good faith if there is a match. Sometimes we can find out probability of match but most of the time even that is out of reach, we just don't know.
TomK32 4y ago
> Clearview AI is providing a service in good faith like all these other things. It's up to the police and courts to use that information correctly. Clearly the AI is more intelligent than the police officers using it and this needs to be addressed in a transparent way to allow for mistakes to be discovered faster. Transparency was absolutely lacking in this case. Heck, everyone, from Clearview staff to the judge and officers involved in the arrest and the victim should have been told "this AI had a 99% match, do you want to challenge it?".

by im3w1l 4y ago

bb88 4y ago

I think this is why I don't think slander would work. Clearview AI didn't force the cops to arrest him, or say with 100% accuracy it was him. CVAI could have an accuracy of 99.9%, and the defense would be "Well see you were that 0.1% incorrect!" It's the police that need to do the investigation to make sure the guy arrested is the same person on the video. But then they could say too, "Well CVAI said it was a near certainty -- we just took their word for it! It would have wasted the taxpayers money to do a more thorough investigation -- afterall there's always some implicit uncertainty in standard policework!" I think a more interesting question is something like: Does Clearview AI fudge their accuracy numbers? Would the true 80% likelihood of you being the perp be more or less slanderous than a 99% likelihood?

alixj 4y ago
That would be a very weak excuse from the police. The same problem occurs even with DNA testing: https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/the-rule-of-probabilities/ https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/the-rule-of-....

JohnFen 4y ago

> He was arrested because it seemed probable he did it. That's how it's supposed to work. Which is itself a bit of a problem, as having an arrest on your record, even in the absence of a conviction, a trial, or even if you were found innocent, is rather damaging. It adversely impacts your ability to rent housing, for instance, or get certain jobs.

FpUser 4y ago
This sounds like invented by Stalin. Is this how it works in the US? This is totally disgusting. Well it may be the same in Canada as well judging by what info on a subject is available online. Innocent until proven guilty my ass. How does it manage to be in free and democratic society?
- bilbo0s 4y ago
  May be totally disgusting, but, yes, that's how it works in the US.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    Any reason why it can not be legally challenged and abolished? Or at least keep the record sealed from the regular prying eyes of the companies / orgs?
    - bilbo0s 4y ago
      Um. Well, approaching the subject delicately, it's one of the tools the system uses to maintain our "societal power hierarchy". Is that the politically correct way to say it? Put it this way, traditionally in the US, the people who would challenge this state of affairs fall mainly within a certain group that has historically occupied the lower part of our "societal power hierarchy". Conveniently, this sort of "mistake", tends to happen to people belonging to that same group far more often than it happens to others. Which saddles that group with the problems outlined in the comment we're discussing. It also saddles them with the concomitant consequences with respect to their ability to advance in society. (Since they can get neither a good job nor a good place to live after their arrest.) That they were innocent is a nuisance to the system, not really a deterrent to the system. Certainly not a reason to change the system in the eyes of a lot of Americans.
      - FpUser 4y ago
        So you think something like ACLU / whatever other human rights orgs share similar view?

sobkas 4y ago

> I don't think it's nearly that simple. Do you want the same for other techniques? If someone says in good faith that a fingerprint matches and it turns out it was a false positive it should be slander? Shoeprints? DNA? Every technique you listed have problems that prevents them from deciding in good faith if there is a match. Sometimes we can find out probability of match but most of the time even that is out of reach, we just don't know.

TomK32 4y ago

> Clearview AI is providing a service in good faith like all these other things. It's up to the police and courts to use that information correctly. Clearly the AI is more intelligent than the police officers using it and this needs to be addressed in a transparent way to allow for mistakes to be discovered faster. Transparency was absolutely lacking in this case. Heck, everyone, from Clearview staff to the judge and officers involved in the arrest and the victim should have been told "this AI had a 99% match, do you want to challenge it?".