I was listening to a podcast episode that was talking about AI-based face recognition and how it’s being used.
The way it works, you take your shitty, off-center still from a security camera showing the suspect at an odd angle, and you feed it into the AI. The AI searches all the images it has access to to find people who look like the suspect.
Police take the results, pick up the person from that list that they think is the closest match, then they put them in front of a line-up, and ask the witnesses to identify the person who committed the crime. Once they have a positive ID, they use that to charge and convict the suspect.
The problem, of course, is that the AI is just finding people who look like the suspect. If they use the tool correctly, they would do some investigation to determine if there is any chance that anyone identified by the AI could actually be the suspect. Instead, they treat it like the AI identified the specific person they were looking for.
One example they used was a woman who was arrested. They arrested her despite the woman in the video not being pregnant and the woman they arrested being about 8 months along.
Surely they cannot possibly arrest somebody on charges of looking moderately similar to somebody from a 720p black and white CCTV camera. If it was a 4K full colour straight-on head shot and maybe but not the crap that convenience stores put up.
I used to work as a security guard, I don’t think any of the places I guarded had security cameras that would be good enough to stand up in court. Even the banks had crap low frame rate noisy cameras. The CCTV industry appears to be about 25 years behind the rest of the world when it comes to camera sensors.
They shouldn’t, but when has that ever stopped them? The (stupid) assumption they make is that the computer wouldn’t make a mistake, so they assume it found the exact person they were looking for.
Judges shouldn’t be issuing warrants solely because a face matching algorithm found someone who looked like the suspect, but they are probably as clueless about the technology as the police are.
I was listening to a podcast episode that was talking about AI-based face recognition and how it’s being used.
The way it works, you take your shitty, off-center still from a security camera showing the suspect at an odd angle, and you feed it into the AI. The AI searches all the images it has access to to find people who look like the suspect.
Police take the results, pick up the person from that list that they think is the closest match, then they put them in front of a line-up, and ask the witnesses to identify the person who committed the crime. Once they have a positive ID, they use that to charge and convict the suspect.
The problem, of course, is that the AI is just finding people who look like the suspect. If they use the tool correctly, they would do some investigation to determine if there is any chance that anyone identified by the AI could actually be the suspect. Instead, they treat it like the AI identified the specific person they were looking for.
One example they used was a woman who was arrested. They arrested her despite the woman in the video not being pregnant and the woman they arrested being about 8 months along.
Surely they cannot possibly arrest somebody on charges of looking moderately similar to somebody from a 720p black and white CCTV camera. If it was a 4K full colour straight-on head shot and maybe but not the crap that convenience stores put up.
I used to work as a security guard, I don’t think any of the places I guarded had security cameras that would be good enough to stand up in court. Even the banks had crap low frame rate noisy cameras. The CCTV industry appears to be about 25 years behind the rest of the world when it comes to camera sensors.
They shouldn’t, but when has that ever stopped them? The (stupid) assumption they make is that the computer wouldn’t make a mistake, so they assume it found the exact person they were looking for.
Judges shouldn’t be issuing warrants solely because a face matching algorithm found someone who looked like the suspect, but they are probably as clueless about the technology as the police are.