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

171–180 of 221 posts

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

#171

Post by ultrarunner »

HDBaseT wrote: post #131
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.

I don't think people on HN think "AI is infallible", I think people on HN believe HN is sufficient enough for "most tasks". In the context of HN "most tasks" refers to programming tasks, not arresting and jailing people tasks. You should always validate the results, but there is an inherint difference between an AI generated tool for personal use and a tool which could be used to destroy someones life.

The problem is that the people who will put this in place rate capability on a linear scale: in their view the ability to write software is sufficiently magic, so such an ability is obviously good enough to recognize criminals. From their perspective, there are hurdles to be crossed (like probable cause) and an AI flagging a suspect feels like a magical intelligence crossing those hurdles and allowing them to continue in the process.

They don't validate the results of their fellow officers, or the validity of warrants, or anything else that predicates an arrest. Why would they start with this?

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

#172

Post by zephen »

rootusrootus wrote: post #161
zephen wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sounds fine. Really? Maybe your perception of the "average" person is colored by where you live and who you interact with. In any case, the dumber they are, the more lethal they are. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...

I've been called an intellectual snob before, because I tended to look down on people unfairly. I've even been tested (with a real test, not some online crap) as having a fairly high IQ. So I find it interesting that I'm now being accused of thinking too highly of the ~50% of the population with IQ between 85 and 115. In any case I stand by my assessment. Someone with a 100 IQ is perfectly capable of being a competen…

> Someone with a 100 IQ is perfectly capable of being a competent, well behaved police officer.

Sure. But, depending on which source you use, 104 or 98.4 is average, and the standard deviation is between 11 and 14. If we use the most generous of those numbers, that would still mean that 21% of the police have an IQ below 93.

And while a policeman with an IQ below 93 might even manage to do most things OK, I submit that the amount of training necessary to get them to understand the limitations of AI is almost certainly much higher than what they have received to date.

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

#173

Post by true_religion »

helterskelter wrote: post #150
retrochameleon wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree with this sentiment but when you start punishing this sort of thing you create more incentive to cover it up. It's a tricky problem and I'm not sure there's a perfect solution. What we really need is a change in police culture.

We already have administrative punishments for the police when they incorrectly assign blame and cause a public relations mess.

Is the termination of your career and/or potential retraining and social embarrassment not already an incentive to cover up?

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

#174

Post by csomar »

guelo wrote: post #85
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.

To get your data deleted in the states that require it you have to submit a photo of yourself which I really don't want to do for a sketchy company with ties to evil billionaire Peter Thiel.

Would that data be admissible in a lawsuit if you'd already submitted a deletion request?

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

#175

Post by balderdash »

pstuart wrote: post #170
retrochameleon wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

These dialogs always prompt me to chime in with my solution: make the police be self-insured, backed by their pension fund. The police today have zero incentive to serve the public, they have zero skin in the game and can literally get away with murder. Any time you hear the call for "law and order", that is the audience that supports the current system, because they like it like this.

Great idea, Except that this will never happen because public sector unions are important voting blocks. Public sector unions should be abolished (don’t have a problem with unions) but the conflict of interest is just too great.

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

#176

Post by balderdash »

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.

lol you have to give them your picture to delete your picture

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

#177

Post by FireBeyond »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #160
fc417fc802 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a recipe for domestic terrorism - the systemic disenfranchisement of people who have done nothing wrong for no apparent reason other than sheer greed. How long has this been in effect there?

The system doesn't push the issue on people who can't afford it. Blood from a stone and all that.

Are you suggesting that Florida it’s to go ‘soft on “crime”’? That would fly in the face of almost all available evidence.

I have extended family in Florida. The system absolutely can and does and will push the issue. There’s a reason that it’s a crime not to pay for your incarceration even if you have a finding of factual innocence against you.

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

#178

Post by NL807 »

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…

>No, challenge the entire system.

Agree in principle. But people like her does not have the resources, financially and emotionally to go through the legal system again. Unless there are charitable lawyers who are willing to do it on her behalf for free.

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

#179

Post by jcgrillo »

helterskelter wrote: post #150
retrochameleon wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree with this sentiment but when you start punishing this sort of thing you create more incentive to cover it up. It's a tricky problem and I'm not sure there's a perfect solution. What we really need is a change in police culture.

> change in police culture

until then, there's a simple rule which works well: never talk to a cop. Or at least say the minimum number of words possible, give them nothing to use against you. Present ID if they ask for it, but never admit anything. If they persist, "lawyer". That has worked for me.

Post reply on HN