Russia’s new FindFace app identifies strangers in a crowd with 70% accuracy

Post by imgabe » Wed, May 18, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

sbov wrote: post #144

imgabe wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It becomes a problem when it's used for profiling, such as "Don't hire that person, there's a 65% chance they'll be an alcoholic" or "send a drone to kill that person, there's an 80% chance they're a terrorist"

I agree that it's a problem, but your distinction still seems generally pointless. If you have a company policy to not hire alcoholics and you reject 1,000 people based upon this metric then 65% would have been an alcoholic.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 18, 2016, 8:42 PM UTC

allemagne wrote: post #150

aub3bhat wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Should we be offering that access and privilege to governments? They already have it. >> your argument seems to be that it's "unfair" not to offer the same to businesses? Bizarre. In Sorrell vs IMS Health (2011) Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor IMS Health, that Commercial Speech was protected under First Amendment. This case is particularly relevant since IMS Health counsel successfully argued that Government coul…

Whether the government already has data is immaterial when the question is whether they "should" have it from a moral or philosophical standpoint, which is the context I'm assuming we're working within. The legality of their having it certainly has questionable constitutionality. In Sorrell vs IMS Health, the issue does not seem to be whether government and private companies could use the same data to market pharmace…