248
Man sues Macy’s, saying false facial recognition match led to jail assault
(www.washingtonpost.com)
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
248 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
58081 readers
3389 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wild that you can base a whole case on what a photo AI thinks it is seeing. These programs at the very least should work like DNA or fingerprint matching and provide a percentage of its accuracy, not just that it finds some kinda close image in its database and everyone rolls with it. And it should need some other piece of evidence as well to back it up, it should never be the "best" part of a prosecutors case.
This is why traffic cams in the US have had issues for years, and most of them are run privately, and issue "civil fines".
Because "civil fines" (taxes, under another name, same as "civil fees") don't have the legal issues of receiving a ticket.
Tickets generally require interaction with an officer. Since cameras and their companies aren't officers, they can't generate a ticket/summons. So the gov end-runs this by using civil fees/fines, with the camera operators receiving upward of 85% of the fee.
And being a fee/fine, it's difficult to get out of, even if you're innocent and pursue it in court.
Of course, every jurisdiction is different, so it depends on the local legal structure.
To add onto this, here's a story about how someone who had their car stolen (and they could prove it) lost their initial objection to the charges from a red light camera.
The charges only dissappeared once the news got involved. https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-red-light-ticket-camera-illinois-car-stolen-theft/11677595/
With most digital forensic tools thats exactly what they do. There's a specific threshold that gives a match probability. It's designed as a way to point someone in a direction, not to confirm identity.
I can totally see cops using this as probable cause but it would get totally laughed out of a courtroom.
Should, not would. Get a backwards ass judge and it'll fly. Your life is already fucked by the time you appeal it.