Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Police used AI facial recognition to wrongly arrest TN woman for crimes in ND

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 221 posts

Re: Police used AI facial recognition to wrongly arrest TN woman for crimes in ND

#121

Post by retrochameleon »

rcvassallo83 wrote: post #94
firefoxd wrote: post #30

Without even looking at the AI part, I have a single question: Did anybody investigate? That's it. Whether it's AI that flagged her, or a witness who saw her, or her IP address appeared on the logs. Did anybody bothered to ask her "where were you the morning of july 10th between 3 and 4pm. But that's not what happened, they saw the data and said "we got her". But this is the worst part of the story: > And after her o…

The thing about the legal system is there's no incentive to investigate to find the truth. The incentive is to prosecte and prove the charges. Speaking from the experience of being falsely accused after calling 911 to stop a drunk woman from driving. The narrative they "investigated" was so obviously false, bodycam evidence directly contradicted multiple key facts. Officials are interested only seeking to prove the c…

There needs to be consequences for shitty, procedure-ignoring police work. Period.

Minimum 1 year of jail time for grossly wrongful arrests that could be avoided with standard procedure or investigation tactics that were not applied.

Re: Police used AI facial recognition to wrongly arrest TN woman for crimes in ND

#122

Post by cogman10 »

bl4ckneon wrote: post #47
firefoxd wrote: post #30

Without even looking at the AI part, I have a single question: Did anybody investigate? That's it. Whether it's AI that flagged her, or a witness who saw her, or her IP address appeared on the logs. Did anybody bothered to ask her "where were you the morning of july 10th between 3 and 4pm. But that's not what happened, they saw the data and said "we got her". But this is the worst part of the story: > And after her o…

I think you missed many important points. "The trauma, loss of liberty, and reputational damage cannot be easily fixed,” Lipps' lawyers told CNN in an email. That sounds a LOT like a statement you make for before suing for damages, not to mention they literally say "Her lawyers are exploring civil rights claims but have yet to file a lawsuit, they said." This lady probably just wants to go back to normal life and get…

The real problem here is she'll get money, who knows how much, but that ultimately does nothing to actually address the problems in the system.

Effectively it just raises taxes to cover the cost of these failed prosecutions.

Everytime one of these cases happens, a cop and a prosecutor should be out of a job permanently. Possibly even jailed. The false arrest should lose the cop their job and get them blacklisted, the prosecution should lose the prosecutor's right to practice law.

And if the police union doesn't like that and decides to strike, every one of those cops should simply be fired. Much like we did to the ATC. We'd be better off hiring untrained civilians as cops than to keep propping up this system of warrior cops abusing the citizens.

Re: Police used AI facial recognition to wrongly arrest TN woman for crimes in ND

#123

Post by fc417fc802 »

frankharv wrote: post #52
3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was worse than that, the reporting from an earlier story[0] ...Unable to pay her bills from jail, she lost her home, her car and even her dog. There is not a jury in the country that will side against the woman. I am not even sure who will make the best pop culture mashup - John Wick or a country song writer? (Also, what happened to journalism - no Oxford comma?) [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47356968

Indeed let out on Christmas Eve with no money 1000 miles from your homeland. Where your home was lost to foreclosure because one JUDGE did not look at the paperwork. There should be a way to personally sue somebody when they don't do their job. Protecting the innocent. The JUDGE failed badly here. Flimsy evidence would mean no warrant. Do your basic investigation please... Rubberstamping JUDGE caused this. Why are th…

TBF isn't it rather unreasonable that our system permits your home to be foreclosed while you're detained prior to a hearing?

Also rather unreasonable to arrest someone who is clearly neither violent nor a flight risk. You could literally hold the trial via video conference at that point and there would be no downside.

Re: Police used AI facial recognition to wrongly arrest TN woman for crimes in ND

#124

Post by advisedwang »

For me the worst thing in this case is that a JUDGE signed off on an arrest warrant with only a clearview match linking Ms Lipps to the crime.

A judge and the warrant process are supposed to be the safeguard against police doing shady stuff (like relying on an AI hit to decide who commit a crime). But if the judges can't be bothered...

Re: Police used AI facial recognition to wrongly arrest TN woman for crimes in ND

#125

Post by the_af »

jmalicki wrote: post #112
harshreality wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you seeing people being told that AI is infallible? AI is being hyped to the moon, but "infallible" is not one of the claims. To the extent people trust AI to be infallible, it's just laziness and rapport (AI is rarely if ever rude without prompting, nor does it criticize extensive question-asking as many humans would, it's the quintessential enabler [1]) that causes people to assume that because it's usefu…

> Where are you seeing people being told that AI is infallible? AI is being hyped to the moon, but "infallible" is not one of the claims. I see all kinds of people being told that AI-based AI detection software used for detecting AI in writing is infallible! You want to make sure people aren't using fallible AI? Use our AI to detect AI? What could possibly go wrong.

Where did you see this claim about AI-based AI detection?

Re: Police used AI facial recognition to wrongly arrest TN woman for crimes in ND

#126

Post by fc417fc802 »

tovej wrote: post #29
mikkupikku wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When somebody uses a tool to hurt somebody, they need to be held accountable. If I smack you with a hammer, that needs to be prosecuted. Using AI is no different. The problem here is incidental to the tool; it was done by the cops and therefore nobody will be held accountable.

Systems are also a tool. Whoever institutes and helps build the system that systematically results in harm is also responsible. That would be the vendors, the system planners, and the institutions that greenlit this. It would also include the larger financial tech circle that is trying to drive large scale AI adoption. Like Peter Thiel, who sees technology as an "alternative to politics". I.e. a way to circumvent dem…

Nonsense. The manufacturer, distributor, and vendor of a hammer are not liable for its misuse. We already litigated and then legislated this regarding guns in the US.

As much as I detest Clearview and Thiel the fault for this incident falls squarely on the justice system.

Re: Police used AI facial recognition to wrongly arrest TN woman for crimes in ND

#127

Post by fc417fc802 »

tgv wrote: post #15
garyfirestorm wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a tool. Used incorrectly will lead to errors. Just like a hammer, used incorrectly could hit the users finger.

This tool, however, is specifically built for mass surveillance. It serves no other purpose. The tool is broken, and everybody knows it. The tool makers are at least as guilty as those who use it.

The tool is unethical, not broken. And unfortunately remains legal for the time being. To that end it's a social or political problem that can be fixed.

Re: Police used AI facial recognition to wrongly arrest TN woman for crimes in ND

#128

Post by latexr »

harshreality wrote: post #111
latexr wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, of course someone should have investigated, but the larger point here is that people don’t because they are being sold a false narrative that AI is infallible and can do anything. We could sit here all day arguing “you should always validate the results”, but even on HN there are people loudly advocating that you don’t need to.

Where are you seeing people being told that AI is infallible? AI is being hyped to the moon, but "infallible" is not one of the claims. To the extent people trust AI to be infallible, it's just laziness and rapport (AI is rarely if ever rude without prompting, nor does it criticize extensive question-asking as many humans would, it's the quintessential enabler [1]) that causes people to assume that because it's usefu…

> To the extent people trust AI to be infallible, it's just laziness and rapport (…) that causes people to assume that because it's useful and helpful for so many things, it'll be right about everything.

Why it happens is secondary to the fact that it does.

> The models all have disclaimers that state the inverse. People just gradually lose sight of that.

Those disclaimers are barely effective (if at all), and everyone knows that. Including the ones putting them there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj4aRhHJOWU

Re: Police used AI facial recognition to wrongly arrest TN woman for crimes in ND

#129

Post by clcaev »

garethsprice wrote: post #67

The vendor they used, Clearview AI, does not allow you to request data deletion unless you live in one of the half-dozen states that legally mandate it. https://www.clearview.ai/privacy-and-requests I have suddenly becomes very interested in New York's S1422 Biometric Privacy Act.

For IL residents the policy requires collection and retention of your biomarkers. Presumably there is a law enforcement exclusion implicitly or explicitly, eg search via administrative warrant.

Re: Police used AI facial recognition to wrongly arrest TN woman for crimes in ND

#130

Post by dnaranjo »

lucasfin000 wrote: post #119

The actual scariest part isn't that the AI got it wrong... it's that nobody felt the need to verify the AI. A tip from an anonymous caller can get investigated and found out if its true or not, and a match from a facial recognition system apparently does not. People haven't built better investigative tools they've just built better ways to skip around the investigation.

[dead]
Post reply on HN