Or in other words, 19% flagged were guilty.
How large does it have to be to be useful?
Bueller?
Bueller?
How large does it have to be to be useful?
Bueller?
Bueller?
I wouldn't be surprised if these systems are used specifically in cases with weak evidence. If you had phone records or other hard evidence, you wouldn't need to rely on face matching. So the faulty system ends up used in the exact cases where it can do the most damage to innocent people.
This technology is primarily intended for identifying suspects; an 81% false positive rate is remarkably good and extremely useful if you're scanning a train station for a terrorism suspect or a public street for a wanted fugitive. In this application, a relatively high false-positive rate is entirely tolerable (from the perspective of the justice system, at least) because checking the identity of five people to apprehend one serious criminal is a complete no-brainer.
This system performs much better than existing tools like drug dogs.
I guess we subject the crowd of innocent false-positives to that statistic unecessarily.
No. This is a fully-general counterargument. You could say this of everything: 'innocent people could go to jail because of X!' This is true and irrelevant, because it is true of both good things and bad things, and not even wrong. It is sheer concern-trolling. The question is whether X works well enough. Nothing in OP or your comment remotely establishes whether it does or does not. Citing '81%' is merely throwing out scientific-sounding rhetoric. (It has numbers and it looks big, therefore it must be bad. It would be the same if it was 98.1% or 81% or 8.1%.)
So again: is 19% not enough? What is enough?
Bueller?
Bueller?
What happens to a poor sap who the facial detection system thinks looks like a known violent criminal? In the UK it means constant harassment. In the US it means eventually getting shot.
[1] There's several voluntary ID schemes for younger folks to prove they're old enough to be in a bar, buy alcohol or cigarettes etc.
The UK had them through the war and got rid in the 50s because they were thought an infringement of civil liberties - because police were asking to see them as habit, not for reasons of suspicion - funny how attitudes change. Not having ID makes something like facial recognition stations set up in the street seem an even larger overreach. We're supposed to be able to go about our business without interference unless suspected of something. OK, it doesn't always work quite that way in practice, but the principle used to be much clearer, and far better respected... I rather resent losing that.
It made for a bit of an oddity back where there were the troubles in Northern Ireland and the heavily policed border between north and south. You could get on to a ferry to Dublin from the UK with nothing. No ID, no passport, nowt. I did that several times, I don't remember anything other than a ticket check. Change some pounds into Irish pounds when you get there.
I suppose using colloquial language by using universal phrases for the sake of clarity is a 'no-no' because some pedant will call you out on it. How about this: "Convictions due to facial recognition false positives are low probability outliers to the extent that they will not impact the civil rights of citizenry".. Is that better? Does that improve conversation? Should we not provide a modicum of charity in interpreting the arguments of others?
BTW, you realize you undermined your point as well?
DNA is an incredible forensic tool, that outweighs any outliers. If you're claiming facial recognition is or is going to be like DNA identification, you lost your argument.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reaso...
From the beginning, Sutton and Adams denied any involvement. They both had alibis, and neither of them matched the profile from the victim’s original account: She’d described her assailants as short and skinny. Adams was 5 foot 11 and 180 pounds. Sutton was three inches taller and 25 pounds heavier, the captain of his high-school football team.
The DNA evidence was harder to refute. Having seen enough prime-time TV to believe that a DNA test would vindicate them, Sutton and Adams had agreed, while in custody, to provide the police with blood samples
Reality is that DNA evidence overrides actual evidence time and time again, and people are wrongfully sent to jail, have their lives ruined, and even die, because of it.
The same thing will happen with facial recognition, gait, etc.
Here's one example: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manches...
"Mr Scott, from Truro in Cornwall, spend nearly three months on remand in Strangeways after being charged with a single count of rape.
He strongly protested his innocence - and told detectives in interviews that he had never been to Manchester.
The Crown Prosecution Service formerly dropped the case during a hearing at Manchester Crown Court after the private firm confirmed the DNA blunder.
" Despite warnings of DNA contamination at the laboratory less than two week earlier, Adam Scott was arrested and held in custody – even though he had been hundreds of miles from the scene of the crime.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-accused-ada...