In the medical device I mentioned above, it was medically useful for caucasians and lighter-skinned Hispanics, so-so with Asians, and almost useless for Africans.
So, what–don't go to market until the technology has parity across all skin tones?
Not everything is about intent.
but I actually wrote a pretty successful 3d radiology/cardiology package. So I understand medical devices.
I just wanted to hop in here and say that there is NO WAY the FDA would give you clearance to use the device you describe on African Americans under the circumstances that your posts have postulated.
It seems a no brainer that the facial recognition software should not be used on African Americans either. At least, if it was MEDICAL software... it would DEFINITELY NOT be cleared with that kind of a failure rate. And any provider or delivery network using the facial recognition software on African Americans would be on his or her way to prison.
But the regulations on legal software may be more lackadaisical than the regulations on medical software. Getting things exactly right may not be as important. And the penalties for misuse of medical devices are, without question, far more draconian.
The FDA has approved drugs that are specifically intended to target medical issues in specific ethnicities, so I'm not sure about your assessment. That said, this product's market was outside the scope of the FDA, so it's irrelevant.
> It seems a no brainer that the facial recognition software should not be used on African Americans either.
Any data source which produces data that's better than a random guess should be considered when trying to solve a problem. That it offends some people's social sensibilities is a separate issue.
Look, I don't like the mere existence of the FBI's system, and I don't think the public's continued lack of concern for placing constitutional restraints on systems like it is a wise course forward, but to say it's a "no-brainer" when it might produce valuable leads is to focus on one aspect of the problem without considering the rest of it.
Just as it would also be a mistake to consider it more accurate than it is when trying to identify dark-skinned suspects. Witness accuracy is not a new problem.
It's also worth noting that the human eye is just as bad at facial recognition when the light and/or contrast is lower.
the system doesn't work. At least not for african americans. You can't "socialize" away the fact that it doesn't work.
Use it for the races that it works for. DON'T use it for the races it does NOT work for. That is common sense... also known as a "No Brainer".
To argue anything else is making it a matter of social sensibilities.
Because in Eyewitness identification, you're never truly dealing with "random" guesses. Again, my experience is on the medical side of this whole thing. I know, and understand, the rules as my company is obliged to play by them. And there is just no question that we would not be allowed to use that system on african americans. Review boards would look on it the same way you might look on someone using leeches in the middle ages.
Only worse... because we KNOW it doesn't work.
This post's comments are a great example of why technologists are fairly terrible at engineering social solutions, much the same way sociologists tend to be terrible at engineering technical solutions.
Claiming racism without understanding the problem is both unfair to the people involved, and an unwise undermining of one's own credibility for the times when people really are acting in bad faith. That may be in this case, but that may not be, and I don't like guilty-until-providen-innocent no matter whom it's leveled against (even a Federal agency of which I'm not the world's biggest fan, and a database the likes of which make me think we need a constitutional amendment to protect the privacy of the citizens).