Defensive Carry banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,626 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
  • Like
Reactions: Tstone and msgt/ret

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,087 Posts
Anyone who has ever worked closely with the "experts" at Microsloth, Appleorange, Gargle, I-BM-in-the-potty, or any other commercial enterprise who is primarily interested in making money hand over fist, will tell you that trusting your life to the garbage they produce is extraordinarily risky. Facial recognition software is extraordinarily risky to the public treasury as well. Like nuclear weapons, you have to get it right first time, every time. Most cannot even approach that standard.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,724 Posts
Interesting. It is now difficult to find a new smartphone that does not utilize facial recognition to unlock the phones.

I was searching for a new phone and found I would have to go to an older model to get a fingerprint phone instead of one equipped with facial recognition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G26Raven

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,505 Posts
Who could have seen that coming?
 
  • Like
Reactions: G26Raven

·
Registered
Joined
·
765 Posts
I am constantly being mistaken for a well known Hollywood hero. Sure hope he doesn't bite anyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,626 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
  • Like
Reactions: ctr

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
I read about this a while back and read the article in the post. My take is that in this specific case it’s really more about lazy police work not that facial recognition is bad. It’s no different if the cops rely on a single eyewitness and fail to do any corroboration or further investigation. Such as talking to the person of interest, which is what appears to not have been done here.

I’m not trying to make the case of expansive and intrusive facial recognition in public places. Traffic cameras that automatically send out traffic tickets piss me off.

Think about it this way. we have databases of millions and millions of fingerprints. Imagine if cops had go into a vault and look through them with their own eyes one at a time, comparing them to a physical print book! Same thing for DNA. Smart IT guys have developed very accurate automated search algorithms decades ago for electronic fingerprint matching, and more recently for DNA and facial recognition.

If law enforcement gets a hit on any of these it should only be used to start an inquiry or as further fact finding in an ongoing investigation. Again, in this case that didn’t happen.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,505 Posts
I read about this a while back and read the article in the post. My take is that in this specific case it’s really more about lazy police work not that facial recognition is bad. It’s no different if the cops rely on a single eyewitness and fail to do any corroboration or further investigation. Such as talking to the person of interest, which is what appears to not have been done here.

I’m not trying to make the case of expansive and intrusive facial recognition in public places. Traffic cameras that automatically send out traffic tickets piss me off.

Think about it this way. we have databases of millions and millions of fingerprints. Imagine if cops had go into a vault and look through them with their own eyes one at a time, comparing them to a physical print book! Same thing for DNA. Smart IT guys have developed very accurate automated search algorithms decades ago for electronic fingerprint matching, and more recently for DNA and facial recognition.

If law enforcement gets a hit on any of these it should only be used to start an inquiry or as further fact finding in an ongoing investigation. Again, in this case that didn’t happen.
Many of these databases contain mistakes. Bad data has ruined lives. These Smart IT guys make assumptions and mistakes. Happens all the time. The old IT adage is 3% error rate in data. A database with 10 million records will have 300,000 mistakes. Scale up to larger criminal databases and there are significant problems.

We have not sufficiently mastered technology and no man should be imprisioned without absolute certainty. This is the foundation of our justice system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G26Raven

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,198 Posts
I wouldn't write off facial recognition software entirely, but it seems it is only one of many tools available to law enforcement, not nearly as infallible as DNA. And DNA has its limits too. I see FR as a tool to narrow down suspects, but it's too 'fuzzy' to rely on exclusively. Its obvious limitation is in the quality and resolution of the camera being used. As MisterCrabby said, it takes other quality police work to confirm a particular suspect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,936 Posts
This is an excuse any criminal can now use if facial recognition was used. If it's been documented to be completely wrong in one case how can you trust it for another?
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top