Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

JwSatan t1_jdy9mqx wrote

Police should be required to get a warrant to use Clearview

416

[deleted] t1_jdy9zir wrote

Probably digging up dirt on ex-wives.

95

supercyberlurker t1_jdyktnc wrote

Replying to fiftyeleventimes (#2,406,913)

We all fear what's coming.

That thing where there's cameras everywhere, hooked up to machine learning systems like hall monitors, microticketing us into compete compliance with every regulation everywhere we go, digitizing our every public moment.

What's worse is, there won't even be the three seashells.

68

Mikethebest78 t1_jdylyv0 wrote

And if that doesn't frighten the hell out of you it should.

160

Watcher0363 t1_jdyq95z wrote

Coming to your local PD soon. I know what you did last minute.

39

lfnoise t1_jdyv7s1 wrote

In the future everyone will wear niqab.

13

ArugulaZ t1_jdyw8b8 wrote

To make up photographic evidence...?

11

akurra_dev t1_jdz13nm wrote

Replying to Mikethebest78 (#2,408,409)

It should frighten everyone, and yet like 30% of Americans are clamoring for this shit. It's so ironic how Republican voters claim to want small government yet excitedly vote for a police state.

79

Treadcc t1_jdz2vi3 wrote

The problem is the dumb cops who are bad at their job will use this as a crutch to skip steps and build cases around the wrong people just like they have done before. So as much as I'd like to have better tools to catch criminals our unchecked and bad police processes will cause innocent people to get swept up.

168

kstinfo t1_jdz7djk wrote

Fact:

If we lock everyone up there will be no more crime.

6

ytaqebidg t1_jdzeii3 wrote

My favorite part:

"There are a handful of documented cases of mistaken identity using facial recognition by the police. However, the lack of data and transparency around police use means the true figure is likely far higher."

289

krichuvisz t1_jdzg0mr wrote

Replying to akurra_dev (#2,410,616)

They shout freedom but put millions in private jails. They don't live in cities but like to destroy the environment, They claim to be pro live but destroy lives wherever they can, asf. The whole conservative movement is a huge paradoxon, racing towards Armageddon.

16

firehawk1115 t1_jdzrn6k wrote

Replying to danger_davis (#2,412,654)

I guess it depends on where Clearview gets the photos. If they scrape from the internet and someone didn't 100% give them permission they probably wouldnt want Clearview to have them and by extension the police.

34

Mobely t1_jdzvrtd wrote

Replying to RonBourbondi (#2,414,087)

And if it identified the wrong person? Who could not produce the child they don’t have? And are sentenced to death form presumably murdering said child since the child is nowhere to be found?

32

DigitalArbitrage t1_jdzvvll wrote

Replying to firehawk1115 (#2,413,916)

They were the lowest bidder on a government contract to provide face scanning to sign in for filing federal taxes. Basically every adult in the U.S. would have been required to give them face scans if civil liberty groups hadn't pushed back on it.

For decades police in some states (e.g. Florida) have also been using databases of driver's license photos to search for fugitives.

32

Art-Zuron t1_je01a0j wrote

Replying to MhaloTov (#2,415,267)

Amazon's hiring algorithm once had to be turned off becsuse it became racist and sexist. It was automatically excluding non white and female sounding names.

Iirc, it was because the majority of applicants were white males. As a result, most of the hires were white males. The AI recognized this as meaning that white males were the ideal candidate and would hire them more, which caused a feedback loop.

55

Mobely t1_je038qm wrote

Replying to RonBourbondi (#2,414,649)

Well if we're going down that road, almost all child kidnappings are done by the kids other parent and it's not to kill them.

So if we are looking to stop all child kidnappings that result in the child's murder, we would have an insanely high false positive result. You'd be jailing thousands of people, leaving their kids orphaned and vulnerable to violence. So yeah, don't use the shitty tools to cause more harm than good.

FP/N=FP/FP+TN

12

RonBourbondi t1_je065xw wrote

Replying to Mobely (#2,415,888)

Nah because this goes off of pictures to identify themselves.

Not only that cops post pictures of suspects on news all the time. Thus AI is no different than crowdsurfing except it is more accurate and better.

−10

JwSatan t1_je08b77 wrote

Replying to danger_davis (#2,412,654)

I did not give the police approval to use my photos

>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[2]

10

worldofzero t1_je09byu wrote

Replying to firehawk1115 (#2,413,916)

Clearview scrapes online info and will not let you remove yourself from their database without giving them your gov I'd. If you or your friends use social media and share pictures your in your database and there is nothing you can do about it. They're ethically a black hole.

13

Slinghshots t1_je09ese wrote

Question: Couldn't an AI just generate a couple million faces to throw off this facial recognition system?

4

Antnee83 t1_je0brsg wrote

Replying to RonBourbondi (#2,415,531)

"easily cleared up"

Tell me you have no experience with this without telling me...

Have fun getting a job when every background check shows "ARRESTED FOR KIDNAPPING A CHILD." Good fucking luck "clearing that up easily"

12

An_best_seller t1_je0dfi6 wrote

Replying to Mobely (#2,414,567)

Trigger Warning: Mass-shooting, rape.

I think that this technology shouldn't be used as evidence, but just as a tool to find potential (but not definitive) criminals/perpetrators and to find suspects way faster. However, the person should only be sentenced by a judge if they find evidence of the crime that is not based on their face.

Here are some examples:

  • There is a mass-shooting. A camera films a video of the mass-shooter face. Police don't know where nor who the mass-shooter is. Police uses Artificial Intelligence to find people that have a similar face to the mass-shooter. They find 7 people with the same face in the USA. They start investigating each person and they find that 1 of the 7 face-suspects bought a gun with the same type of bullets that the ones found in the crime scene. They also find that this one suspect has shoes that match the shape of the blood footprints of the crime scene. And they find that the suspect had been searching in Google Maps the location of the crime scene before the mass-shooting happened. They arrest this one suspect and keep looking for more evidence and they finally go to trial, and the overwhelming evidence tells they are guilty, so they sentence them to life in prison or death penalty (I'm not going to argue right now whether the death penalty is wrong or right. That's off-topic).
  • A woman is raped by a man. A camara from a bar films the video of the rapist face. Police don't know where nor who the rapist is. Police uses Artificial Intelligence to find people that have a similar face to the rapist. They find 9 people with the same face in the USA. They take DNA samples from each of these 9 people and compare them to the DNA from the semen found in the victim's body. It happens that 1 of these 9 people have the exact same DNA. They start investigating this man and find that his friends were in the same bar of the crime scene and the same day of the crime. His friends tell police that that they were with the current suspect at that bar on that day. The man goes to trial, more evidence of the crime is found and he is sentenced.

As you can see, I don't support using Artificial Intelligence as definitive evidence to sentence someone to prison time nor death penalty. But I think that it can make the process of finding possible/potential criminals much easier and much faster, and then allow police to start looking for evidence in one of each suspects. If police doesn't find evidence in one, multiple or all of the suspects, they should let them go. A suspect should only be sentenced if they find more evidence than the one from the Artificial Intelligence research. Of course, when I say that they should be sentenced if they find "more evidene" of the suspect, I mean solid and important evidence. I don't mean evidence such as "The suspect lives in the same city as the victim, therefore they are guilty". I mean high-quality evidence.

By the way, I don't know too much about crimes nor types of evidence nor the protocols of the police, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm just guessing how the process could be like.

−2

TogepiMain t1_je0e2zc wrote

Replying to RonBourbondi (#2,417,621)

I sure am! You know how many lives are ruined by being thrown up on the "suspect" wall? No one cares that they didn't do it, all that matters is that their photo was in the news with the words "probably did a crime??" Underneath

7

Iohet t1_je0lbwo wrote

Replying to firehawk1115 (#2,413,916)

If they're publicly accessible on the internet, I don't think it really matters. You don't need a warrant to look at someone's public Facebook, but you do to get to their private messages.

8

Socialistpiggy t1_je0pooa wrote

Replying to JwSatan (#2,416,867)

If your photos are publicly available, or you give them to someone else (Facebook, Instagram, etc) you no longer have a privacy interest in them. When you willingly give something to someone else, it is no longer yours. You can have an agreement (civil contract) that you expect that company to keep things private, but they can still voluntarily give them to the police. Your remedy would be to civilly sue them for breach of your contract, but said photos can still be used against you.

4

RonBourbondi t1_je0z8a0 wrote

Replying to Paizzu (#2,421,261)

Think of the kidnapped then. Lol.

If you have footage and pictures of the perp run them in an AI database to help narrow down suspects to then save lives.

Not particularly controversial.

−1

bshepp t1_je13eqk wrote

Replying to Iohet (#2,419,090)

Posting something that is accessible to the public doesn't automatically make it public and posting something publicly doesn't necessarily give anyone the right to copy it, use it, or make derivative works from it.

4

Joe-Schmeaux t1_je170nr wrote

Replying to RonBourbondi (#2,422,732)

From the police misusing identification software and apprehending innocent people who end up in prison? Any such person would be at risk for murder or suicide. It's a shitty situation as is, let's not add things that can make it worse and give the already powerful, corrupt police forces of the world even more power. Trusting them to not misuse this can make things even worse, and we'll still have people being kidnapped.

3

No-Significance2113 t1_je17ni8 wrote

Replying to Treadcc (#2,410,817)

It's why the law is "innocent until proven guilty" because it can be so easy to convict an innocent person that the laws supposed to be biased towards letting people go. God knows how many innocent people have been thrown in jail it must be atrouchise.

5

Joe-Schmeaux t1_je18w64 wrote

Replying to RonBourbondi (#2,422,921)

I just googled it and this was the first article to come up. He spent ten days in jail and $5000 in legal defense. This was three years ago. He may not have suffered physical harm, but the potential for misuse and abuse of this kind of power is concerning.

3

DazedinDenver t1_je1d2x5 wrote

Perhaps we should all declare that our images in the Clearview database are obscene in our judgment and must be removed immediately. Hey, if Michelangelo's "David" is obscene, then certainly any image of my ugly mug must qualify. And since we're apparently now enabling the tyranny of the minority in this country we might as well take advantage of that. And no, to stifle any comments to the contrary, I do not have a dick nose or scrotum lips...

1

empfindsamkeit t1_je1l1q4 wrote

Replying to supercyberlurker (#2,408,217)

You know we have control over all those regulations right? If they're law and it's okay for a relative few to be randomly caught and published, it should be okay for 100% to be punished, or it should've never been law in the first place. And the proper avenue is repeal rather than just trying to ensure most laws aren't enforced most of the time.

1

Iohet t1_je1ycpv wrote

Replying to bshepp (#2,422,211)

If you're trying to argue that you should be able to issue a DMCA Takedown, then by all means try that route, but as far as complying with the 4th amendment, public is public, and if you give something to an intermediary, the 4th amendment rights are the intermediary's rights, not your rights.

7

bshepp t1_je2187x wrote

Replying to Iohet (#2,427,494)

If you leave your house unlocked does that mean your house is now a public space? That is the point I am trying to make. Uploading something to the web does not necessarily make it public. It's entirely possible they used entirely public resources in this instance. Again I'm just saying accessable to the public doesn't necessarily mean it is in the public.

4

Iohet t1_je2210o wrote

Replying to bshepp (#2,427,970)

Yea, but the door is open. Plain view doctrine. As far as Facebook goes, it's based on reasonable expectation of privacy. The courts have found that private messages have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but not public posts. They can't get into items locked behind your user in your account without a warrant, but publicly posted things are fair game

4

Iohet t1_je27ow8 wrote

Replying to Plenty_Branch_516 (#2,428,330)

I'm not even sure it's not just. If you publicly post something that ties you to an illegal activity, that's on you. If you privately post something, you're afforded some level of privacy, but, again, once you give it to Facebook, they're the ones served the warrant, not you, and they don't give a shit about you enough to fight it. So, really, just don't do it.

Absolutely push your legislators to ban this type of data collection, but, in absence of that, just because new methods of accessing old public data are better doesn't mean the concept is no longer just, and one should be aware of that before they say anything that could hurt them

3

Plenty_Branch_516 t1_je29c0e wrote

Replying to Iohet (#2,429,127)

"Just" short for justice is a finicky concept. As technology improves what can be considered the boundary for privacy begins to falter.

In a photo someone else posted? Your privacy is gone. Connect to public wifi? Your privacy is gone. Ping off a cell tower? Your privacy is gone. One of your relatives use ancestry.com? They can trace you to any DNA found even if you aren't in a criminal database.

Point being, you are not in control of your privacy. Far from it.

One doesn't need to give permission to join the pool of public data. In fact it requires significant effort to avoid it and in rare cases retract information added to it. A right to privacy is usually considered just. However, as our technology improves and it becomes easier to link disparate sources of data together, that right to privacy is eroded. Potentially even sold for a pitiful sum.

Don't get me wrong though. It's all a net good. For most of us, privacy is an incredibly cheap price to pay for the boons we are getting in science and technology.

0

Artanthos t1_je31qmn wrote

Replying to ytaqebidg (#2,412,123)

The important part is, is it more accurate than human witnesses identifying suspects from photos.

Pretty certain this software is going to be more accurate. Human identification has always had a substantial error rate.

3

Artanthos t1_je32amj wrote

Replying to Treadcc (#2,410,817)

Cops cannot visually identify everyone. No human can.

Before this, all the cops had to identify a picture from a camera was files full of mug shots. This would present several problems addressed by facial recognition.

​

  1. Human identification from mug shots is notoriously error prone
  2. It only work if there are mug shots or other evidence that identifies the individual.
  3. Fingerprints and DNA are only going to be available if the person was previously arrested. The same problem that mug shots present.
−2

Artanthos t1_je32oli wrote

Replying to PMme10DollarPSNcode (#2,417,332)

8 years is an eternity in AI development.

Comparing a modern AI to something from that long ago would be the equivalent of taking someone with a masters degree and judging them by the work they did in kindergarten.

1

bananafobe t1_je39ig8 wrote

Replying to Artanthos (#2,434,807)

At the same time, that perceived accuracy can mean a false positive is less likely to be questioned, compared to an eye witness whose testimony can be interrogated.

A defense attorney asking a jury to consider whether a witness's recollection seems trustworthy can appeal to a juror's experience with their own memory being unreliable. A defense attorney trying to explain a statistical probability resulting from AI coding has an uphill battle, given how many of us basically assume computers are magic.

21

tallbartender t1_je39oij wrote

From the article "Clearview allows the customer to upload a photo of a face and find matches in a database of billions of images it has collected.

It then provides links to where matching images appear online. It is considered one of the most powerful and accurate facial recognition companies in the world."

For people (like me) who don't want to read the article, but just want to know what's going on.

3

bananafobe t1_je3ahll wrote

Replying to danger_davis (#2,412,654)

I don't think the issue is necessarily that they're not allowed to provide access (though, we shouldn't just assume they are), but that if they are allowed, whether that is something we want as citizens, and whether they have an obligation to allow us to opt out, at the very least.

1

bananafobe t1_je3bchy wrote

Replying to Iohet (#2,429,127)

>If you publicly post something that ties you to an illegal activity, that's on you.

I think this is part of the issue. It's not necessarily posting photos of yourself committing crimes, but rather a potentially flawed program using a database of unrelated photos to link you to a crime that you may have had nothing to do with.

1

danger_davis t1_je3bvib wrote

Replying to bananafobe (#2,436,707)

The problem is that I want criminals to be caught but I don't want a police state hampering freedoms. Traffic cameras and pictures taken from open internet sources don't bother me. If they were snooping into my Google drive or Apple account without a warrant that is where I would be livid. But if I create a Facebook page with my face on the front photo I am not going to be upset when the government is able to see that photo. There is no expectation of privacy there.

2

neutralityparty t1_je3megk wrote

The case should automatically be dismissed if AI is involved. AI violates 6th amendment

2

GlocalBridge t1_je3tycn wrote

How is this different from what China is doing? Where are our privacy laws?

3

Artanthos t1_je5o19d wrote

Replying to Rstrofdth (#2,447,563)

Very few people are going to willingly testify in court unless they are bringing an ax to grind.

If the court had a real reason for his testimony, it could compel his appearance.

1

Artanthos t1_je5phv5 wrote

Replying to bananafobe (#2,436,512)

No photograph is blindly accepted. A lot of human eyes will be on both the images and the person between them being called out as a suspect and conviction.

That includes the defense attorney.

2

bananafobe t1_je64ry9 wrote

Replying to Artanthos (#2,452,302)

And when the AI generates a face from a partially obscured or low-resolution photograph, and presents that as a scientifically accurate representation with 99.9% validity in clinical studies (or whatever), how easy is it going to be for the average public defender to explain to a jury that what they're seeing is basically a computer drawing, even though it looks like a photograph, and that 99.9% actually refers to a statistical probability about some obscure metric, and not that it's 99.9% likely that this is the right person?

1

Artanthos t1_je67as6 wrote

Replying to bananafobe (#2,455,420)

That’s not how facial recognition works, and it’s not how the technology is used.

All this does is compare images from a camera connected to a crime with a database of publicly accessible photos. When it finds matches, it provides the match locations, e.g. Facebook.

Police investigators then use those leads to identify potential suspects.

You still have the rest of the investigation, and human eyes on the images and the potential suspects.

2