News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on A one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition. Parent comment

Re:A one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition by setr on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @08:25PM (#23483817)
If you had accuracy similar to a human, and assuming this is an existing procedure humans do use, then of course it's useful -- you're doing the same task cheaper/faster.

Presumably you'd also use the same techniques as used by humans today to narrow down further, like taking into account location, time, etc of match

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition by couchand on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @08:45PM (#23483975)
Doing the same thing but faster and cheaper doesn't necessarily mean it's better. If there's a high cost to a procedure, then the user would need to show the value of checking a candidate in some other way for it to be worth the effort. Making it easier and faster means you're more likely to check against random innocent individuals.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition by randomdude402 on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @10:54PM (#23484787)
Fast, cheap, good. You can only ever choose two.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition by TheCoelacanth on Thursday June 11, 2020 @03:12PM (#23492335)
Often, you are lucky to get one.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition by rozab on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @09:59PM (#23484502)
Seems like the equivalent of p-hacking to me. Sure they could apply complex queries to narrow down the suspects in a fair way, but I don't trust them to do that.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition by mumblemumble on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @10:32PM (#23484663)
> you're doing the same task cheaper/faster

Move fast and break lives.

[ Parent | on HN ]