It seems to me this is not a facial recognition story but a story about how the state, with very little evidence, can ruin your life and leave you with very little recourse.
As concerned as I am about state use of facial recognition, these kind of things have been happening to people for decades now. The solution to this problem is to better secure the rights of people accused of crimes.
We need to ensure that people accused do not lose their jobs and homes. That they have fair opportunity to communicate with counsel and family (both are often needlessly limited by DoC). And the state must be responsible to mitigate its mistakes.
Bail requirements are too often granted as par for the course and need a "burden of proof" type rethinking. Holding people at home should be required before incarceration. Lastly we need to remove the power of the legislatures to unequally empower prosecutors and public defense attorneys.
> It seems to me this is not a facial recognition story but a story about how the state, with very little evidence, can ruin your life and leave you with very little recourse.
The facial recognition is relevant, as they relied on facial recognition software, though it is apparently illegal in New Jersey.
From the article as well:
> He asked for a lawyer, then was taken to a hallway where he was handcuffed to a bench. About an hour later, the officers – he counted seven – told him they were going to take him to a different room for more questions.
As far as I understand U.S.A. law, when a suspect ask for a lawyer, the interrogation is to stop immediately, and a lawyer must be provided or he must be allowed to call one, and the lawyer must be præsent ere the interrogation continue.
The real takeaway seems to be that the police did something illegal.
The rest of your post is about many more rules, but the issue is that the rules were broken here.
> As far as I understand U.S.A. law, when a suspect ask for a lawyer, the interrogation is to stop immediately, and a lawyer must be provided or he must be allowed to call one, and the lawyer must be præsent ere the interrogation continue.
They can hold you for a surprisingly long time without a lawyer, and it's very easy to accidently rescind any rights you invoked. To be safe you need the ability to stay silent for 24h while still asserting your rights, possibly longer depending on the jurisdiction, and that's all before youre even charged with anything.
Someone being held for 10 days as a suspect for a crime they didn't commit is unfortunately a benign occurrence for the American legal system. People regularly lose months of their life, held in captivity, awaiting trial.
>It seems to me this is not a facial recognition story
Maybe there should be consequences if you sell bad software that has bad consequences ? There are a lot of greedy bastards that will knowingly sell bad stuff but minimize the issues, why not have good standards like real professionals and say scientists where they need to prove that the thing they discovered is correct with a big confidence level. With AI there is no proof that it works correctly or the sell department is bullshitting a ton of claims.
I will disagree, there was a guy here on HN that was promoting his shit software, it had a demo page where it would detect your IP and show you a list of all torrents you downloaded. I checked it and I am 100% sure it was garbage in my case. I am imagining this type of people that maybe have some connections or some money to get this shit software sold and innocent people getting threaten that they downloaded copyrighted or illegal stuff, that would cause a lot of suffering and drama in a family.
I hope you do not make the point that the seller has the "capitalistic obligation" to misrepresent his shit and the buyers have the duty to triple check.
There should be strong laws, like if your software promised something that is not true in real world situation then the people that sold it should pay, no loopholes.
Or just take the German approach and reimburse people who aren't convicted as well as guarantee everything else you would lose in the US in that event as well. Which is entirely why their court system is far more choosey over who they take to court. Unlike the US which is basically a lottery where the odds are much much higher than any powerball and have terrible consequences if you win.
As concerned as I am about state use of facial recognition, these kind of things have been happening to people for decades now. The solution to this problem is to better secure the rights of people accused of crimes.
We need to ensure that people accused do not lose their jobs and homes. That they have fair opportunity to communicate with counsel and family (both are often needlessly limited by DoC). And the state must be responsible to mitigate its mistakes.
Bail requirements are too often granted as par for the course and need a "burden of proof" type rethinking. Holding people at home should be required before incarceration. Lastly we need to remove the power of the legislatures to unequally empower prosecutors and public defense attorneys.