111–120 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>or they just don't give a shit about false postives in the slightest and they use it as justification to randomly stop and search people. We already have this. Look up the false positive rate of drug sniffing dogs.
This. Easiest way to circumvent the 4th amendment. Get the dog to bark.
This line caught my attention: > The FBI said its system is 86 percent accurate at finding the right person if a search is able to generate a list of 50 possible matches, according to the GAO. But the FBI has not tested its system’s accuracy under conditions that are closer to normal, such as when a facial search returns only a few possible matches. What the GAO study[1] actually said: > However, we found that the te…
Ugh, this is the worst part about this mess IMHO. U.S. law enforcement has time and time again shown that they are more than willing to argue in bad faith about statistics. This is going to turn out no different than fishing expeditions based on partial DNA matches where the prosecution predictably finds some 1/100,000 match after they search a database of 250,000 people and use that as some cornerstone of "obvious g…
I don't know too much about facial recognition technology (I work more in the ALPR space), but I know enough to tell you that a single photo is not enough to train the software to do anything useful. Either they were sold a dream by a company making bogus claims, or they just don't give a shit about false postives in the slightest and they use it as justification to randomly stop and search people. There was an artic…
> Either they were sold a dream by a company making bogus claims, or they just don't give a shit about false postives in the slightest and they use it as justification to randomly stop and search people. You hit the nail on the head. Any system that hinders law enforcement’s assumptions and hunches will be touted as defective, anything that confirms those assumptions will be exalted. This is why narcotics dogs are us…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Law enforcement will always be a compromise. The problem with the compromise argument is that it only ever goes one way. We had certain law enforcement capabilities in 1965 and civilization didn't collapse. Why would we expect it to collapse if they had exactly the same capabilities today? Whenever this argument is used, it's always to add new invasions. Databases that were never needed before, facial recognition t…
part of the issue is technology makes being a criminal more sophisticated too. If police were limited to 1965 tech, you could see any police car coming miles away due to radar and radio detectors.
There is nothing you can do about it. You have no meaningful impact on any government policies. Why waste time writing about this stuff if legislative representatives do not care about your writings? Genuinely curious why people waste time complaining about things they have zero control over.
Kinda weird for you to say that, when right in the article: « Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), the House Oversight Committee’s ranking Republican, seemed particularly incensed during a hearing into the technology last month at the use of driver’s license photos in federal facial-recognition searches without the approval of state legislators or individual license holders. »
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would these 'hate speech' laws ban exactly? I'm trying to picture who exactly the implied oppressive government is ran by.
> What would these 'hate speech' laws ban exactly? Is it not authoritarianism if it's Our Guys? You can classify anything as hate speech. Propose a restrictive immigration policy? That's hate speech against immigrant populations, an attack on their economic opportunity. Propose a permissive immigration policy? Hate speech against the native population, an attack on their cultural survival. Anything that affects anyon…
Isn't this the argument that the concentration camps being run to detain refugees and separate their families aren't authoritarian because the government and their media allies say so?
The problem with the 2nd amendment approach is that a lot of the militia types are quite in favour of authoritarianism so long as it hits people they don't like.
Imagine a USA where the citizens are no longer armed, and the 1st Amendment has been cannibalized by the passing of various "hate speech" laws that only serve the interests of the current elected... and then imagine trying to redress a Government gone full Orwellian. Just sayin.
It's only six dead children so far. Barely moves the outrage needle. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/migrant-chil...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this particular development relevant? The US government still has nukes, SSN, etc etc etc. This particular reading of the 2nd Amendment seems to have been frozen in time since the drafting of the Constitution.
There's a reason Kent State went down the way it did, and also why there's no US version of Tiananmen square. A radioactive crater isn't much of an economy, and the armed forces are made up of, well, you know, people who like most folk, don't enjoy shooting at people much like them. The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant a right to bear arms - it prohibits the Government from restricting the right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Your credulous, at best, belief in law enforcement's use of the system largely ignores the prevailing example given in the article Law enforcement will always be a compromise. There will always be some who abuse it, and there will always be a need for it (if you want a reasonable level of civilization anyway). It's not binary. It's not "Give up all freedom and rights for infinite security" vs "Give up absolutely no…
> Law enforcement will always be a compromise. The problem with the compromise argument is that it only ever goes one way. We had certain law enforcement capabilities in 1965 and civilization didn't collapse. Why would we expect it to collapse if they had exactly the same capabilities today? Whenever this argument is used, it's always to add new invasions. Databases that were never needed before, facial recognition t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A single picture is surprisingly effective in recognizing that person in another photo. I've been playing around with a python wrapper on dlib's facial recognition [0] and it's astonishing how it can identify people from just one photo. It's not like other machine learning methods that include training a classifier or even fine tuning a classifier. It works by encoding the persons face to a 128 dimension vector and t…
These libs assume the angle is the same, i.e. square shot of the face. Cameras mounted up high are completely useless with these types of libs. Unless the tech. exists to magically rerender a front face shot so you can image how it would look from 12 - 20 feed raised up, this doesn't work.