Police are willing to use broken machine learning technology because it “works for them” - they don’t necessarily care about accuracy they just want someone locked up.
The moment you understand that, it's not a mystery that they sort of blindly accept tools that seem to work without deep introspection. They are not equipped to be a data analytics shop, they are equipped to fill out paperwork and sometimes get into tussles.
Please keep in mind that this is not true worldwide. In various countries you're only admitted after 1.5-2 years of police-specific education. You might still not be a police officer if they seem you unfit.
Also, you don't seem to value plumbers or construction workers. A colleague used to be a construction worker. It's very interesting to hear the knowledge he has on that. Plus pretty damn handy for understanding how to improve your house. Just because he did a lot of work with his hands doesn't mean he isn't damn bright.
> Please keep in mind that this is not true worldwide
You're correct and my comment is US centric. What I find interesting is that some US cities have seemingly moved farther from a more educated police force, removing requirements around having college degrees and reducing trainings.
- Anatole FranceWhat doesn't make sense to me is the implication that decriminalizing petty theft would make the law more just. If people go around stealing $5 all the time, Walmart can absorb that loss - the guy who's flat broke until his paycheck this Friday can't.
Unless you pointed a gun or knife at your coworker, no it's not.
> but the laws themselves are unjust
Then address the laws and move to change them.
Technically, yes, it is in most states if the judge wanted to throw the book at you (for example, if you've ever committed a crime before) - https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federa... - and not only that but three strikes laws can result in imprisonment even if it wasn't.
DNA.
I can't think of anything that was developed by law enforcement for law enforcement though.
https://www.wired.com/story/how-facial-recognition-fighting-...
https://digital.1105media.com/SP/2019/CSS_1904/SI_APR19_SUP_...
https://morningconsult.com/opinions/touchless-interface-for-...
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2018/05/nist-study-sho...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/06/29/c...
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20200115/110380/HHRG...
https://nypost.com/2019/08/05/facial-recognition-leads-cops-...
https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/illinois/u-s-marshals-ar...
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/long-time-fugitive-neil-sta...
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/01/20/alleged-child-mo...
https://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2018/11/cbps-facial-bi...
edit: not trying to get you to do my work for me, but for an existence proof people don't commonly list a bunch of things by name without explaining how they apply. They list one thing (or one class of things, or how to construct a thing), and exactly how it applies.
That's why these systems always have to be combined with good policework. What's being asked for is a test that cannot be passed.
This pretty much applies across the board with evidence testing.