3 ms·

It sounds like they had weren't looking for any specific person (just anyone on "the watchlist") and they were simply mass processing faces to find potential ma

by hnbad 2y ago

It sounds like they had weren't looking for any specific person (just anyone on "the watchlist") and they were simply mass processing faces to find potential matches. Let's ignore the privacy implications as not all countries have an expectation of privacy outside windowless closed private spaces. How is this meaningfully different from a general stop and frisk policy? Sure, this adds a non-physical filter before the physical police interaction but it's still a widespread warrantless search. How does this work with the presumption of innocence?

foldr 2y ago
The counterpoint would be to ask how this is meaningfully different from a group of police officers standing on the street comparing the faces they see to a set of photos of known suspects. The efficiency of the automated system obviously makes it feel very different. However, fundamentally, being arrested for looking like someone else is not a new phenomenon. I do not like what is going on here, but I’m not sure that your particular line of argument against it is very strong.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Same deal as LLMs. Police don't get to automatically input facial data into a database when on the streets. If there was some guarantee all that data wasn't going into some government sanctioned back end, we can start to compare it to police out on the street. >However, fundamentally, being arrested for looking like someone else is not a new phenomenon. Was always wrong and still is wrong. But if you want a modern difference: companies these days (even minimum wage) are really strict about arrests. Even a false arrest can cause complications in a background check, so there is more potential (albeit indirect) slanderous effects from mistaking people nowadays.
  - foldr 2y ago
    > Was always wrong and still is wrong. I don’t understand this comment. The police sometimes have to arrest people based on descriptions and other fallible data points. It’s unfortunate when the wrong person is arrested (and false arrests should obviously be minimized), but it’s not reasonable to expect police to get this right absolutely 100% of the time. If someone is a fugitive then they are very unlikely to reveal any information that identifies them with certainty. Also, police in the US use the same technology: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/post-final/facial-recognition-nypd-impact-and-use-policy_10.26.23.pdf https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_informa...
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      It's not reasonable to be 100% correct, no. But given current police conduct in the US I trust them less than ever to try and resolve wrongdoings when it comes up. It's not even "oops" level anymore. It's always been wrong and still is wrong, but the reasons changed over the years. Americans have traditionally been adverse to mass surveillance and I don't think that changes much today. The government just does it in sneaker ways nowadays.

by hnbad 2y ago

foldr 2y ago

The counterpoint would be to ask how this is meaningfully different from a group of police officers standing on the street comparing the faces they see to a set of photos of known suspects. The efficiency of the automated system obviously makes it feel very different. However, fundamentally, being arrested for looking like someone else is not a new phenomenon. I do not like what is going on here, but I’m not sure that your particular line of argument against it is very strong.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
Same deal as LLMs. Police don't get to automatically input facial data into a database when on the streets. If there was some guarantee all that data wasn't going into some government sanctioned back end, we can start to compare it to police out on the street. >However, fundamentally, being arrested for looking like someone else is not a new phenomenon. Was always wrong and still is wrong. But if you want a modern difference: companies these days (even minimum wage) are really strict about arrests. Even a false arrest can cause complications in a background check, so there is more potential (albeit indirect) slanderous effects from mistaking people nowadays.
- foldr 2y ago
  > Was always wrong and still is wrong. I don’t understand this comment. The police sometimes have to arrest people based on descriptions and other fallible data points. It’s unfortunate when the wrong person is arrested (and false arrests should obviously be minimized), but it’s not reasonable to expect police to get this right absolutely 100% of the time. If someone is a fugitive then they are very unlikely to reveal any information that identifies them with certainty. Also, police in the US use the same technology: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/post-final/facial-recognition-nypd-impact-and-use-policy_10.26.23.pdf https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_informa...
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    It's not reasonable to be 100% correct, no. But given current police conduct in the US I trust them less than ever to try and resolve wrongdoings when it comes up. It's not even "oops" level anymore. It's always been wrong and still is wrong, but the reasons changed over the years. Americans have traditionally been adverse to mass surveillance and I don't think that changes much today. The government just does it in sneaker ways nowadays.