He spent 10 days in jail after facial recognition led to arrest of the wrong man
nj.com
nj.com
As concerned as I am about state use of facial recognition, these kind of things have been happening to people for decades now. The solution to this problem is to better secure the rights of people accused of crimes.
We need to ensure that people accused do not lose their jobs and homes. That they have fair opportunity to communicate with counsel and family (both are often needlessly limited by DoC). And the state must be responsible to mitigate its mistakes.
Bail requirements are too often granted as par for the course and need a "burden of proof" type rethinking. Holding people at home should be required before incarceration. Lastly we need to remove the power of the legislatures to unequally empower prosecutors and public defense attorneys.
Buttle? Tuttle?
The facial recognition is relevant, as they relied on facial recognition software, though it is apparently illegal in New Jersey.
From the article as well:
> He asked for a lawyer, then was taken to a hallway where he was handcuffed to a bench. About an hour later, the officers – he counted seven – told him they were going to take him to a different room for more questions.
As far as I understand U.S.A. law, when a suspect ask for a lawyer, the interrogation is to stop immediately, and a lawyer must be provided or he must be allowed to call one, and the lawyer must be præsent ere the interrogation continue.
The real takeaway seems to be that the police did something illegal.
The rest of your post is about many more rules, but the issue is that the rules were broken here.
They can hold you for a surprisingly long time without a lawyer, and it's very easy to accidently rescind any rights you invoked. To be safe you need the ability to stay silent for 24h while still asserting your rights, possibly longer depending on the jurisdiction, and that's all before youre even charged with anything.
Someone being held for 10 days as a suspect for a crime they didn't commit is unfortunately a benign occurrence for the American legal system. People regularly lose months of their life, held in captivity, awaiting trial.
Maybe there should be consequences if you sell bad software that has bad consequences ? There are a lot of greedy bastards that will knowingly sell bad stuff but minimize the issues, why not have good standards like real professionals and say scientists where they need to prove that the thing they discovered is correct with a big confidence level. With AI there is no proof that it works correctly or the sell department is bullshitting a ton of claims.
I hope you do not make the point that the seller has the "capitalistic obligation" to misrepresent his shit and the buyers have the duty to triple check.
There should be strong laws, like if your software promised something that is not true in real world situation then the people that sold it should pay, no loopholes.
"LOSING FACE: How a Facial Recognition Mismatch Can Ruin Your Life"
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/how-a-facial-recognition...
FTFA:
"Talley said he was held for nearly two months in a maximum security pod and was released only after his public defender obtained his employer’s surveillance records. In a time-stamped audio recording from 11:12 a.m. on the day of the May robbery, Talley could be heard at his desk trying to sell mutual funds to a potential client."
Today Talley is still trying to claw his way back to normalcy.
In the outstanding book "Hello World" Hannah Fry examines Talley's story as part of a chapter on crime, AI and facial recognition. Reading Fry's book convinced me that facial recognition software simply does not work well enough to use in police work. As Fry says:
"If you're searching for a particular criminal in digital line-up of millions...the best-case scenario is that you won't find the right person one in six times...". That is not nearly good enough for law enforcement and the courts.
"Hello World" by Hannah Fry
At some point they even have a human compare the likeness, and the human also concludes it is the same person.
The article even features the sentence "teve Talley is hardly the first person to be arrested for the errors of a forensic evaluation."
And yet people seem to be hellbent to make it about AI.
Of course, because the alternative is to make it a human failure of critical actors in the justice system. Every story about mistaken identity has dozens of points where humans, police officers and magistrates, made a judgement call ... wrongly. And always obviously wrong.
That is the case here and the case in the linked article. You can clearly see the eyes don't match, the jaw is different, ... and in Steve's case you see the face is too small, his nose is much narrower than the robber's, the hairline doesn't match, Steve has a square face the robber doesn't, his body shape (the shoulders) are very different, and Steve's ears are almost pointy, whereas the robber's are much more rounded, and much shorter than Steve's. It is not a reasonable mistake for the 10-15 people involved to make.
In other words, the inevitable conclusion is that:
1) the police and prosecutor as well as at least 1 judge knew they had the wrong guy
2) they all cooperated to use their power to extract a wrongful confession from the guy, including that judge
3) they used "testimony" from someone with a clear grudge against him without question
4) which additionally was not reasonable given the bad quality images
5) they refused to believe testimony when it disagreed with their working hypothesis
6) instead, they used psychological torture to force a confession from an innocent
7) essentially, they refused to set a person free without being offered another victim
Clearly at the very least they've shown they, both as an organisation and all individuals in it, would much rather wrongfully convict an innocent person than to be left without suspects or traces. They weren't protecting the bank, society, or anyone, they were VERY clearly abusing and violating the law to protect themselves from embarrassment.
People just can't deal with this. That police just fight to get someone, anyone, convicted at all costs rather than making damn sure they got the right guy, as the law demands. That they do this disregarding all costs to the suspect and society is not something most people are willing to consider ...
Because AI identified the wrong man. That a human also did, does not make the identification by AI any less wrong.
Such systems are used in one of two modes, verification or identification.
Verificatiom means that the system is given as input an image and a class label and outputs positive if the input matches the label, and negative otherwise.
Identification means that the system is given as input an image and outputs a class label.
In either case, the system may not directly return a single label, but a set of labels each associated to a real-valued number, interpreted (by the operators of the system) as a likelihood. However, in that case the system has a threshold delimiting positive from negative identifications. That is, if the likelihood that the system assigns to a classification is above the threshold, that is considered a "positive identificetion", etc.
In other words, yes, a system that outputs a continuous distribution over classes representing sets of images of peoples' faces can still be "wrong".
Think about it this way: if a system could only ever signal uncertainty, how could we use it to make decisions?
Legal back-and-forth continues as of 12/14/2020
Given that this is the case, the use of AI cannot be accepted by any members of the US justice system. If I had access to a facial recognition system, I would use it as a whittling down tool, to reduce the amount of hay to find the needle in. But they clearly see a straw and conclude that it is a needle.
It's like giving a four year old a handgun. It's just not responsible. They're just not as good at this as I am. So no handgun for you.
It's a pity. Ideally you should be able to discriminate, and intelligent police should be given the tool, and stupid police not. However, because stupid police and smart police exist in an emulsion, it is better to just waste the time of the smart police than to give the stupid police too powerful a tool.
It's almost as if you stop cops from just locking people up it creates an immense snowball effect on the whole system...
It's like giving a four year old a handgun. It's just not responsible. They're just not as good at this as I am. So no handgun for you.
Just wanted to say I've never heard such an argument worded so well. What is the course of action for the common man other than verbalizing such thoughts to local city councils and law enforcement?
Having lived elsewhere and in the US (a country I practically adore), I suspect it is because Americans have not really had true authoritarianism in any sense at any point in their history. Every time they stray close to the darkness and walk away unscathed and it convinces them that they can never really be consumed by it so they're willing to walk its very edge. Perhaps the UK having a monarch and a state religion is a visible reminder of what a monstrosity the state can be.
It's funny that both nations have populations that support the massive expansion of the state into human affairs: it's just that the Americans want it to enforce behaviour and the British want it to redistribute wealth.
The most amusing manifestation of the American comfort with violence is the difference in how streakers are handled in British football games and American football games. The former have overweight stewards lumber after naked people, failing repeatedly to apprehend, eventually accompanying them off the field. The latter have large, muscular guards catch up to and violently tackle the streaker to the ground.
That is not really true. American history is constant struggle between authoritarianism and opposition.
Seems like there should be a discussion about all of this in the article.
Facial recognition as the sole evidence must not be used to make arrests.
Blaming the technology excuses these awful, incompetent police who will just screw up in a low tech way.
Once the computer flagged a suspect a basic investigation should have ruled out or confirmed the suspect.
That can't be solved with a software update.
It's worth pointing out that the technology isn't capable of what people think it is capable of.
Seems like we'd need to know the ambient rate to tell if we're really regressing.
I'm absolutely NOT advocating for its use at all, but it seems like that might be a good source for well-tagged, organized data for what is turning out to be a very problematic (though apparently allowed) use case.
From a photography standpoint, it seems to follow that identical lighting in the same room where they're taking everyone's mugshots could produce different levels of contrast for facial features across different skin tones, simply as an artifact of cheap lenses and a lack of white-balancing or overall care, really. If persons A and B have different skin tones, then the routine, careless, terrible, one-size-fits-all black-and-white photo by an underpaid government office worker may not accurately capture the contrast in the shadows of both of their facial features to the same degree, no futile human bias required.
This lack of definition may then further help promote any existing biases in ML training, enforcement, etc. towards people whose features aren't as well contrasted in the resultant, awful photos. Perhaps training on such a grainy, washed-out dataset would at least help the ML distinguish smaller variances in contrast to a finer degree, if nothing else. Us humans can do it, after all.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/6/21126063/facebook-clearvie...
* "Facebook and LinkedIn are latest to demand Clearview stop scraping images for facial recognition tech. Twitter and YouTube have also objected."
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
Novel evidence like this is probably unlikely to do well in court for the reasons you describe.
Nevertheless, they imprisoned a man for ten days, and proceeded to press for criminal charges over the course of the year. As described the man had to spend his entire savings on this defense.
The court system worked correctly, in that the judge told the prosecutor to produce more evidence. The charges were dismissed.
So we have the "happy" ending of a man whose life has been turned upside down, whose financial situation has been ruined, and who has had to spend his time and effort defending himself rather than contributing to society in a positive way. All because facial recognition was used as the only piece of evidence.
Or would this be fair use?
Now, things get complicated when you involve firms which, in the process of signing up a user, might force an agreement to sell/market the data in a non-exclusive manner to "trusted partners". Sooooo...is it illegal? Depends on on the lawyer and how long you can fund a lawsuit for, I suppose.
>Models in general are generally considered “transformative works” and the copyright owners of whatever data the model was trained on have no copyright on the model. (The fact that the datasets or inputs are copyrighted is irrelevant, as training on them is universally considered fair use and transformative, similar to artists or search engines; see the further reading.) The model is copyrighted to whomever created it.
What I'd be interested to know is if they have pictures of minors in their database, which could theoretically require some sort of release for them to collect/use (which I'm quite sure they wouldn't have).
https://slate.com/technology/2020/02/youtube-linkedin-and-ot...
* "Twitter sent a cease-and-desist letter to the company ordering it to stop mining the social media platform’s data and delete anything it had already collected."
* "YouTube, and Venmo sent their own cease-and-desist letters"
* "Here’s a LinkedIn spokesperson on Clearview AI: “We are sending a cease & desist letter to Clearview AI. The scraping of member information is not allowed under our terms of service and we take action to protect our members.”"
* "Facebook notably has not sent a formal cease-and-desist letter but claims to have sent other letters to Clearview to request more detail on its practices and then eventually “demanded” that it stop scraping user data. Peter Thiel, a venture capitalist and notable surveillance enthusiast who sits on Facebook’s board of directors, invested $200,000 in Clearview’s first round of funding."
All I know is that I'm highly skeptical that this white guy would suffer the same fate, even if I were to have a similar criminal record. Facial recognition seems to be the polygraph for a new century. But unlike a polygraph, it mostly false positives only for dark-skinned people. While I'm not quite ready to allow my cynicism to let me think it is an intentional feature, I question how many are demanding a fix.
However, the dirtiest thing is to use all kind useless evidence and intimidation techniques to scare otherwise innocent people into taking plea deals. This whole guilty plea saga is a disgrace to the justice system.
That's not the only place where they can be used, and cause damage.
Recordings of interrogations that feature them also show that they tend to come along with other appeals to ethos ("this is doctor so-and-so...") and hand-wavey forms of intimidation like touting their "seriousness" or "efficacy".
Anything that requires a person to "interpret" its output is likely not very deterministic, and so likely not very reliable for establishing... anything. This is akin to palm reading or graphology.
Unfortunately, revealing to the police in such a situation exactly how foolish they look by getting behind such a device isn't exactly advisable either!
Video evidence of me entering the store, using the atm, and immediately leaving the store? That was not evidence to them because I failed the polygraph.
I take an exceedingly dim view of any police department that uses a polygraph in any capacity. They've been proven time and time and time again to be worthless as a tool, but police still use them. The rough equivalent is using tarot cards as a tool for solving crimes.
Eye Witness Testimony for example, aside from the fact the people are terrible at recall anyway and High Stress causes memory problems above and beyond the normal memory issues of the human mind, it is very very very easy to manipulate a victim either directly or indirectly to identify the "target" no necessarily the actual criminal
police "drug" dogs are another one, it is more or less a blank check to probable cause for a search.
Then there is one people never even question because it is the foundation of the legal system, the good old finger print... It always amazes me that with DNA it is always probabilistic, "1 in 4 billion people will have this same DNA" but with Finger Prints is an absolute, Match no match.. Call me crazy but I don't think that position is scientifically valid
They don't even need to do that. They can just lie to you. "Hey, your buddy just totally ratted you out in the other room, you better tell us your side of it if you don't want to take the rap for everything"
They can tell you to just say you were there, and they'll go easy on you. You lie and say you were there, now they have evidence that can actually lock you up, even if you are a random person off the street.
For example, in this case police threatened to arrest the mans wife if he didn’t confess to killing his child (a new trial was ordered): https://brooklyneagle.com/articles/2014/02/20/police-can-lie...
But they went on to say it was still acceptable to lie to suspects... I imagine this murky area of the law will eventually say that police cannot lie to suspects. The Central Park Five is mentioned in that article and is a blatant example of police lying to coerce testimony and then putting innocent children in prison.
in any other context these tactics themselves would be illegal, and i am firm believer that you can not enforce the law by breaking, and that the police should NEVER how the power to do things the public can not
But I really wonder if the same officers that dealt with the suspect also questioned the innocent victim in this case - it seems like this wouldn't be the case (and gross negligence on their part) - those people should've been able to tell them apart (instead of solely relying on the picture they got from the license). I think this is what the judge wanted instead of just the facial recognition "evidence" (which eventually led to the charges being dropped) - something like, oh I don't know, the fingerprints from the abandoned vehicle? Basic investigative work, perhaps?
Like I said - either the officers that dealt with the suspect didn’t deal with/look at the victim, or else they’re blind (or trying to meet a quota).
If the police make an arrest based on facial recognition alone they have essentially given up doing police work and are just following suggestions that a computer makes. If that's what society chooses to use for justice then fire all the police officers and employ some minimum wage workers to do the job instead.
Those two men truly do look a lot alike, unlike the two men referenced in the article. Even so, there's no way looking like someone should imply anything at all. After all, I bear somewhat of a resemblance to a "moderately well known, but only a real fan would recognize him on the street"-level actor, and I'd really hate to get picked up if he decided to go off and do some cocaine or something.
I would hope police are better at this sort of thing then me.
Also i would hope better quality images would be used, these are terrible quality.
I've learned that each phenotype has to be weighed differently than the people you grew up around the most. Completely different phenotypes and patterns often times.
uncannily ? The images aren't exactly high-res, but that's definitely two different guys. The first two photos (color one at the top and b/w mugshot pair) are the same guy, but it should hopefully be obvious that the guy in the drivers license photo is someone else. Especially to the police, since we're comparing low-res scans while the feds may have had a larger copy potentially in-hand when looking at the guy they arrested.
You may just be looking at the wrong photos from the article - in which case yes, that guy looks uncannily like himself!
The subtleties of the human face that change from person to person are things like cheekbone position, jawline, head shape, eye shape/size/placement, etc. They're what enable someone to "recognize" you in a human-to-human context, sometimes even with a facemask on. They're part of how you distinguish yourself in the mirror from other humans also.
However, if a significant portion of one race is indistinguishable for a given observer, they haven't done enough observation. Certainly not enough to arrest someone based on their "observations". A relative inability to identify facial subtleties in member of other races is a known phenomenon and has been studied - incidentally making it the perfect candidate for law enforcement training. Seems that wasn't the case here in TFA, unfortunately.
For reference, I am a different race from these guys, and my SO is a different one still, but I don't think it takes a particularly keen observer to distinguish between the two mens' faces.
Anywho this is a prime example of why you need humans that aren't involved in a situation to be in the loop to augment the facial-recognition algorithms. Enable them to view clean, high-res, zoom-able versions of the source images and then have them make the final call. Heck, if you're worried about bias, assign the task to a panel of people from various ethnicities, or maybe just to people of the same ethnicity as the involved person.
Btw, I'm not saying they look the same. I'm saying at a casual glance or quick look, or grainy-surveillance footage level, they do look strikingly similar.
Another factor though we may not be considering in general regarding facial-recognition is identity theft. I've dealt with that sort of thing before, and if you're not careful the government might get really confused as to who the "actual" person is, and who was the one that stole the identity is. Again, not the case here, but it is something that police need to consider.
Are you sure you’re not comparing the wrong photos? I’m confident if you saw these two men stand side-by-side, you would not say that they look uncannily alike, unless you’re visually impaired.
I agree with someone else’s comments about the importance of observation. My brother and I worked at the same startup. I was full-time. He was an intern. After several weeks, another intern was some how confused and thought my brother and I were the exact same person. I mean sure, siblings do look alike. But some how she didn’t notice that one of us has light brown skin and the other has dark brown skin, one of us is a whole 3 inches shorter, one of us is a whole 40 pounds heavier, one of us wore glasses and the other didn’t, one of us has a full head of hair while the other one is balding in several spots with a receding hairline, etc you already see where I’m going with this. Yet for 3 whole weeks, she came to work M-F and thought we were the same person? It was an open office environment and we all sat in one large room.
<INSERT REASONABLE STATEMENT ABOUT TIMNIT GEBRU AND THE IMPORTANCE OF ETHICAL AI BUT GET DOWNVOTED TO OBLIVION>
It is not clear to me that a prosecutor's office which has demonstrated that it is not interested in justice, would have cared about the color of skin in the beginning. They're after low-hanging fruit and maybe establishing facial recognition as 'proof enough'. A poor, white ex-con who can't afford a lawyer might just take a plea deal. I think the point of possible divergence is when the guy lawyer-ed up.
Dunno what the technical reason is, but if there was one, I bet it went something like this:
v1: sales 'engineer' says: "Our FR product works great on light skin but terribly on darker skin so we've largely disabled that" and made zero sales.
On v2 (version2 or vendor2), they just dialed up the acceptable false positive rate, said "ya, it works on everyone, no problem!" and sold sold sold!
Edit: I'm placing this higher up in the thread for more visibility, but, for those interested, here are some tips for photographing people with darker skin tones: https://creativecloud.adobe.com/discover/article/10-tips-for...
Or, maybe the fact that there are relatively few black people in tech means that the developers of these algorithms don't even notice that there's a bias to correct for, whether it's in the input or not.
The technology to photograph is biased to better capture white skinned people.
It even says so in the very article you link to:
“A lot of [the design of film and motion technology] was conceived with the idea of the best representation of white people.”
Improve the technology!
I also resent your implication that I meant anything other than that. I never claimed it was the fault of black people, or that there was anything any individual black person could do about it. I think you should check your bias here.
There is a deeply prevailing western misconception that systems that work for white people should also work for everyone else. When it invariably doesn't, it's always the fault of the minority. Funny how that is.
This is less true in digital photography, given the level of control over post processing one has. However, the end result is the same: it take more effort to produce a faithful photo of a black person than a white person, for reasons completely out of the control of either the photographer or the subject.
That is all that is meant by the statement I made. Indeed, it is literally the entire content of the statement I made. I would defy you to quote where I blamed black people, or even implied there was even anything any black person could do about this unfortunate reality.
Edit: Incidentally, literally everything I've said here about the difficulties of faithfully photographing people applies to darker skinned people of any ethnicity, such as Indians or Afro-Arab people. None of this is racist in the sense that it implies anyone is lesser than anyone else, just that that's the way current technology works.
No it's not.
Shadows are harder to notice on black skin for example.
And it's important to improve the tech and try to make it work fine for everyone
But then you'll need to first realize that by default the tech is sometimes going to be broken for a group of people.
Otherwise how can you be aware about that there's a problem to solve.
And, just to continue the anecdote where the camera turned my friend green, y'all know it's not like anybody said "Hey, $FRINEDS_NAME, can you just be less black, or something?" In fact, what we did was all laugh together (including our friend, the subject of the photo), joke a little, and, IIRC, take a digital portrait.
If that were true, that would just mean photography-based systems are currently not good enough to work across any population that includes dark skinned people. Society should not, and cannot collectively wrings hands and say "Oh, well, it's really because of the photons" and go ahead make use of a provably unjust technology.
Thankfully, modern phone cameras can take great high dynamic range photos as well as low-light/night pictures - I'm confident to say capturing dark-skin is a much easier bar to clear (dynamic range can be much smaller if you only care for a person's face). The fact that good-enough technology is not used (or mandated), and the solutions providers & their clients decide on cheap(er) sensors with exposures that only work well with light skin tones... well, that tells a story by itself, doesn't it?
https://nypost.com/2017/12/21/chinese-users-claim-iphone-x-f...
Hanlon's razor is hinted at in the later discussion, i.e.
"never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" (at least, both the words incompetence and malice appear under discussion)
But, I prefer to apply a different rule-of-thumb:
"incompetence is strongly equivalent to malice"
The corresponding XKCD comic: https://xkcd.com/2030/
Not ethical, but also not exactly uncommon.
Such an automated system at first glance may seem like it reduces on-the-ground human flaws and bias, but it actually enables far deeper corruption. Those with administrative control would be able to selectively highlight or concoct any sort of offense to undermine their personal or political opponents.
"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" - Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin's Chief of Secret Police
As to your question, I also wonder about such things as:
* Makeup: https://www.vogue.com/article/anti-surveillance-makeup-cv-da...
* Hair styles: https://cvdazzle.com/
* Clothes: https://www.businessinsider.com/clothes-accessories-that-out...
* Infrared LEDs: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/03/fooling_face_...
* Image manipulation software: https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/4/21353810/facial-recognitio...
And other things.
It’s true accurate identification in ideal conditions is still possible, but catching random jaywalkers is hardly ideal conditions.
How much is 6 months converted into units of "new JS frameworks," BTW? ;)
That's not even true in research, let alone production-ready deployment at scale.
Just because there might be a paper out that pushes SOTA by a few percentage points, doesn't mean there's a halfway usable product behind it as well.
In theory, in practice it's unlikely to be very reliable outside of controlled situations like passport checks. https://apex.aero/articles/facial-recognition-tech-works-mas...
inb4 'gait recognition is foolproof'.
Maybe in the short term we will see a push-back of all-weather snow-busting bicycle-riding mesh networkers in Berlin or something, but I think the global trajectory is clear. What we really need is an alternative to commercial cellular.
Then this information will be shared with insurance providers, and your car or health/life insurance will be automatically adjusted accordingly.
And, because why not, the dispute process is probably be some Kafkaesque ordeal.
I think someone still looks at the pictures right now for 5 seconds before sending it off, but that won't last for very long.
In democracies that will likely result in speed limits and traffic laws that reflect how people actually drive or reduced penalties or reduced fines to the point where a large enough fraction of the population can pay to play. And then half of HN will hand wring about how we have an 85mph speed limit on the interstate and won't somebody think of the children.
There will be a few rich suburbs (the kind of places where the electorate clutches their pearls at the idea of anyone breaking any law even though they all text and drive in their land rovers and pay their baby-sitters under the table) that figure out they can just do it to outsiders only and create a revenue stream. They'll have a good 5-10yr run in the time it takes the courts to smack them down.
This system is saying, "of the 10 million people we have in our database, this one looks like the photo you gave us."
It is the police and prosecutor who are asserting, "this person did it and should be held in jail."
This tool is a visual equivalent of looking up someone's name and is the visual equivalent of the no-fly-list being used as though no two people share the same name.
How do you question your accuser?
Do you have access to the software? How much access?
Do many people even have the resources to examine the software?
So how exactly did they get access to all photos? It must have been trained on public networks like instagram, not facebook, right?!? If it was FB that would be interesting.
> "Facebook and LinkedIn are latest to demand Clearview stop scraping images for facial recognition tech. Twitter and YouTube have also objected."
https://slate.com/technology/2020/02/youtube-linkedin-and-ot...
> "Facebook notably has not sent a formal cease-and-desist letter but claims to have sent other letters to Clearview to request more detail on its practices and then eventually “demanded” that it stop scraping user data. Peter Thiel, a venture capitalist and notable surveillance enthusiast who sits on Facebook’s board of directors, invested $200,000 in Clearview’s first round of funding."
That's weird. You would think a facial recognition system would return hundreds of matches in a case where it was searching through a whole lot of images. What does "high profile" mean in this case?
Of course, no AI system (facial recognition or not) should be a sole decision maker for even detaining anyone.
Not sure how this was justified for shoplifting.
A couple of examples:
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-...
https://www.startribune.com/fear-based-training-for-police-o...
https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2020/06/warrior-or...
Not sure how you characterize that as "shoplifting". They had already questioned him about the shoplifting, without pulling their guns. It was the escape, driving at the officers, and ramming that got the guns pulled.
It doesn't make sense to use the fact that he hit some stuff while fleeing from the men with guns to justify drawing the guns. In fact, provoking panicked flight seems like a pretty foreseeable outcome of drawing a gun on someone. If I had a gun drawn on me I might very well flee in a panic, potentially hitting cars with mine. They drew the guns before he did any of that and it's reasonable to think them drawing them made those outcomes more likely.
Edit: Here are the NJ deadly use of force standards [1]. My reading of the standards would not allow the use of deadly force in this situation. The rules also state that officers should only unholster their weapons when "circumstances create a reasonable belief that display of a firearm as an element of constructive authority helps establish or maintain control in a potentially dangerous situation." It's hard to see what was "potentially dangerous" in this situation before the guns were drawn.
People then use the mere word justified to determine if it matches their predisposition. Most of that comes from an appeal to authority, if an organization they respect (the district attorney, mayor, etc) gives them a confirmation that it was justified, then they feel comfortable in their world view. Despite not really knowing that the legal term justified is not universal or predictable, and just comes down to an officer choosing from a catalogue of available options, instead of being judged on which option they chose like a civilian would.
When I was maybe 11, we were in eastern Washington, I was on the back of the bike, and we got pulled over for failing to signal when pulling out of a gas station. Which I don't think is a violation? And also we did signal. But in any case, the cop approached the bike with gun drawn and pointed at us.
It's not about the suspected violation. These are cops willing to aggressively threaten lethal force when they are experiencing fear/anxiety/uncertainty based on what the suspect looks like, be it their skin color or their clothing.
The CHP called for backup forced them over and drew their weapons on them.
Same for friends at a University. High, and in possession they tried ditching the cops; bad move. Cops caught them drew weapons extremely infuriated at them.
There are also a fair amount of bully cowboys out there hiding behind the badge.
I was a teenage passenger in a car when a friend of mine held up his wallet in the light of the back window to see if he had his bank card or w/e. Cop car was behind us in traffic, pulls us over, and two cops get out guns drawn instructing everyone to get face down on the pavement.
Turns out they thought they saw a knife/gun when my friend had held us wallet up in the light, and they figured we were brandishing a weapon at them. We all got searched and when they found half of us Boy Scouts were carrying pocket knives things got really stupid really fast. We had to beg them to be rational with us, nose down on the pavement. Still makes my blood boil.
This is anecdotal in rural small-town Iowa.
It feels to me that the only solution is to completely shut it down
> the suspect shoplifted candy and other snacks from the hotel gift shop and darted into a men’s room after a hotel staffer called police.
> When two officers arrived, the man handed over a driver’s license from Tennessee identifying him as Jamal Owens.
> But police ran the name through the computer in the patrol car and determined the license was not valid and possibly fraudulent, according to the report.
> When the police pulled out their handcuffs to arrest the man, he fled out the back door of the hotel, losing a sneaker on the way.
The police outside has no idea about the threat-level it seems, for them it's just someone running from the law, possibly dangerous person.
That the situation even escalates to this point for some shoplifting and invalid license though, is quite telling of the public's feeling and fear for the police.
Every time someone fucks up using technology and noone is held accountable, that's what we hear.
https://artificialintelligence-news.com/2020/04/08/clearview...
As I read it, it is essentially "I don't see how a close association with white supremacists/racists is relevant to the fact that it mis-identifies black people as criminals", which I doubt is what you mean.