Live data from Hacker News

Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

themarkup.org

91–100 of 166 posts

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#91
post #72

At some point governments will have to address the elephant in the room. Across much of the globe, modern police forces have been empowered and emboldened to such a degree that many departments, and their members, feel institutionally above the law. In no other occupation, that I can think of, can so many rules and directives be flouted without losing ones job, as is the case with modern police. Its frankly insulting…

American police don’t feel institutionally above the law, for all intents and purposes they are. Qualified immunity, a doctrine made up out of whole cloth by the courts, means that cops often can’t be prosecuted or even sued for the most egregious of conduct. And the lengths the courts will go to protect cops are ridiculous, to the point where the courts have upheld the idea that a cop didn’t know that attacking a su…

^ This. Cops aren’t your friends. They can and will use anything you say against you, never for you, in a court of law.

I’m not saying we don’t need them. I’m saying they aren’t your friend. Never underestimate the ability of a cop to twist the truth. In court, a cop has the fullest faith of the courts even if they don’t show up. Defending yourself against what a cop says happened is almost impossible. It can be done though.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#92
post #58

When it comes to distributed/local technologies, does a ban really accomplish anything? I'm dubious that facial recognition technology will disappear because some random governments passed laws against it. Especially because it's nearly impossible to punish when police can just use parallel construction. "We received an anonymous tip and followed it up." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction The solutio…

Enforcement on these issues is trivial, given that the local authority actually desires to enforce the ban. Facial Recognition software is not free. The basic steps to stop these issues are 1. (The local authority) mandates that all contracts with vendors indicate that they do not perform facial recognition services for the police 2. (The local authority's) lawyers sign off on vendor contracts ( already happens ) 3.…

> Facial Recognition software is not free.

Open source versions will be here before long.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#93
post #72

At some point governments will have to address the elephant in the room. Across much of the globe, modern police forces have been empowered and emboldened to such a degree that many departments, and their members, feel institutionally above the law. In no other occupation, that I can think of, can so many rules and directives be flouted without losing ones job, as is the case with modern police. Its frankly insulting…

> In no other occupation, that I can think of, can so many rules and directives be flouted without losing ones job, as is the case with modern police. That isn't really true. Have you read half the corporate policies published by large companies? Neither have most of their employees. Nobody cares and they're not enforced until Something Bad happens, at which point it's time to open the book for the first time to see…

> Nobody cares and they're not enforced until Something Bad happens,

That's not my experience. I'm not claiming that it is never true just that as far as I can tell, in the UK and Norway, it is mostly not.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#94
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we (civilians) I just want to remind everyone that police are civilians too. I also sometimes forget

Some dictionaries seem to disagree with you: – a person who is not a member of the police or the armed forces https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/civil... – one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian – a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization. https:…

> why should they be considered civilians?

Because they are. Robert Peel was insistent on exactly that point when he set up the police force in the UK. See, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

Edit: corrected URL

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#95
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enforcement on these issues is trivial, given that the local authority actually desires to enforce the ban. Facial Recognition software is not free. The basic steps to stop these issues are 1. (The local authority) mandates that all contracts with vendors indicate that they do not perform facial recognition services for the police 2. (The local authority's) lawyers sign off on vendor contracts ( already happens ) 3.…

> Facial Recognition software is not free. Open source versions will be here before long.

How does that change any of what the comment you are responding to says?

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#96
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facial recognition has a disturbing habit of "catching" the wrong people. "We have video of a crime, arrest these people", is how facial recognition is advertised (and you bought the story). But it keeps being used as "there is a 87% chance that this person walking down the street in Atlanta is the person who robbed a liquor store in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan in 2006, go arrest that guy"

Is this actually true though? It sounds great, but where’s the data? * we need more than just the occasional anecdote to determine if this is a real issue

Facial recognition software fails legal tests if used with large datasets. It does so b/c software does not discriminate in the same way the human mind does.

For example, some facial recognition software identifies this picture of a man wearing glasses as actress Milla Jovovitch:

https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/0...

[The New Scientist article from which the above picture is taken is "Glasses make face recognition tech think you're Milla Jovovich":

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2111041-glasses-make-fa... ]

The (PDF) original paper:

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sbhagava/papers/face-rec-ccs16.pdf

Steven Talley was identified by the FBI as the primary suspect in two bank robberies using a facial recognition algorithm. He had an iron-clad alibi, but the police and FBI weren't convinced. In court one of the bank tellers said Talley definitely wasn't the robber. Nonetheless Talley lost his job, his wife and his family and was held in prison for months. For more details read:

"LOSING FACE: How a Facial Recognition Mismatch Can Ruin Your Life"

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/how-a-facial-recognition...

I found out about the facial recognition failures from he outstanding book "Hello World" by Hannah Fry. Fry tells the story of Steven Talley as part of a chapter on crime, AI and facial recognition.

https://www.amazon.com/Hello-World-Being-Human-Algorithms/dp...

Fry's book shows how/why facial recognition software simply does not work well enough to use in police work. She provides the studies and footnotes them. 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.

-from "Hello World" by Hannah Fry

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parallel construction sounds an awful lot like lying

They’re allowed to do that too

A lot of the comments in this discussion should be tagged with the country to which they apply.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In no other occupation, that I can think of, can so many rules and directives be flouted without losing ones job, as is the case with modern police. That isn't really true. Have you read half the corporate policies published by large companies? Neither have most of their employees. Nobody cares and they're not enforced until Something Bad happens, at which point it's time to open the book for the first time to see…

> Nobody cares and they're not enforced until Something Bad happens, That's not my experience. I'm not claiming that it is never true just that as far as I can tell, in the UK and Norway, it is mostly not.

I would certainly believe that this is different outside of the US.

The US is very litigious and as a result the rule book is often long and complicated enough that nobody really understands it because it's written by lawyers to avoid liability rather than as a set of practical measures designed to improve real outcomes.

Also, whenever Something Bad happens they generally add new rules to address it, even if the existing rules would have prevented it had people been following them. So the complexity grows over time and makes it less likely that anybody even reads the rules, much less implements them.

This also differs by industry or even by which rule book it is. If you have reasonable policies for handling hazardous materials, people follow them because if they don't then they get hurt. But even in the same company, the company policy on other things only gets followed if it gets enforced, and only gets enforced if not doing so caused trouble in practice.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#99
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is it literally not the job of the police to stop events like this? of course their safety needs to be considered to a degree, but any perceived threat isn't a reason for them to just act as a glorified clean up crew

"...the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens..." (1) (1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columb...

Doesn't apply in the circumstances of this event since it happened in London, England.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#100
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facial recognition has a disturbing habit of "catching" the wrong people. "We have video of a crime, arrest these people", is how facial recognition is advertised (and you bought the story). But it keeps being used as "there is a 87% chance that this person walking down the street in Atlanta is the person who robbed a liquor store in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan in 2006, go arrest that guy"

Is this actually true though? It sounds great, but where’s the data? * we need more than just the occasional anecdote to determine if this is a real issue

The police chief in Detroit said their facial recognition system had a 4% success rate. Presumably this means that 96% of the time they were targeting someone with absolutely no relation to the actual crime. What a complete waste of time and disregard for our civil liberties.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/detroit-police-c...

Post reply on HN