zlacker

>>vermon+(OP)
This story is really alarming because as described, the police ran a face recognition tool based on a frame of grainy security footage and got a positive hit. Does this tool give any indication of a confidence value? Does it return a list (sorted by confidence) of possible suspects, or any other kind of feedback that would indicate even to a layperson how much uncertainty there is?

The issue of face recognition algorithms performing worse on dark faces is a major problem. But the other side of it is: would police be more hesitant to act on such fuzzy evidence if the top match appeared to be a middle-class Caucasian (i.e. someone who is more likely to take legal recourse)?

>>danso+02
> Does this tool give any indication of a confidence value?

Yes.

> Does it return a list (sorted by confidence) of possible suspects,

Yes.

> ... or any other kind of feedback that would indicate even to a layperson how much uncertainty there is?

Yes it does. It also states in large print heading “THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT A POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION IT IS AN INVESTIGATIVE LEAD AND IS NOT PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST”.

You can see a picture of this in the ACLU article.

The police bungled this badly by setting up a fake photo lineup with the loss prevention clerk who submitted the report (who had only ever seen the same footage they had).

However, tools that are rife for misuse do not get a pass because they include a bold disclaimer. If the tool/process can not prevent misuse, the tool/process is broken and possibly dangerous.

That said, we have little data on how often the tool results in catching dangerous criminals versus how often it misidentifies innocent people. We have little data on if those innocent people tend to skew toward a particular demographic.

But I have a fair suspicion that dragnet techniques like this unfortunately can be both effective and also problematic.

>>zaroth+67
I think the software would be potentially less problematic if the victim/witness were given access, and (ostensibly) could see the pool of matches and how much/little the top likely match differed from the less confident matches.

> The police bungled this badly by setting up a fake photo lineup...*

FWIW, this process is similar to traditional police lineups. The witness is shown 4-6 people – one who is the actual suspect, and several that vaguely match a description of the suspect. When I was asked to identify a suspect in my robbery, the lineup included an assistant attorney who would later end up prosecuting the case. The police had to go out and find tall slight-skinned men to round out the lineup.

> ... with the loss prevention clerk who submitted the report (who had only ever seen the same footage they had).

Yeah, I would hope that this is not standard process. The lineup process is already imperfect and flawed as it is even with a witness who at least saw the crime first-hand.