A one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition

Re:A one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition by ajzinsbwbs on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @08:32PM (#23483866)

My guess is: Amazon writes that 99% is the recommended threshold because there is little chance of false positive. If an agency is deploying this system and complains that it isn’t working well, a solutions architect will say in a meeting (but not in writing) to lower the threshold. If it comes out that false positives occur, AWS isn’t responsible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition by abiogenesis on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @09:23PM (#23484275)

True, but one can't blame Amazon in this case. The agency can reduce the threshold to 0% (ad absurdum) and claim that Amazon's technology is not working.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition by perl4ever on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @11:36PM (#23484984)

You can blame Amazon if there's no point on the threshold scale where it works adequately.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition by abiogenesis on Wednesday June 10, 2020 @11:50PM (#23485039)

I guess one must define "adequate" first. The default value of 80% could work fine if you are developing a "find your celebrity doppelgänger" game while law enforcement should probably use 99%.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition by perl4ever on Thursday June 11, 2020 @12:29AM (#23485201)

I think you'd have a point at which the threshold increases but the probability of the true positive being in your results starts to drop severely. 99% might be useless if you have one or two hits and they are unlikely to be correct. You can't assume that the one you're looking for will be a 100% match; if it was, then you'd just set the threshold to that, presto.

[ Parent | on HN ]