zlacker

>>vermon+(OP)
Perhaps we, as technologists, are going about this the wrong way. Maybe, instead of trying to reduce the false alarm rate to an arbitrarily low number, we instead develop CFAR (Constant false alarm rate) systems, so that users of the system know that they will get some false alarms, and develop procedures for responding appropriately. In that way, we could get the benefit of the technology, whilst also ensuring that the system as a whole (man and machine together) are designed to be robust and have appropriate checks and balances.

>>w_t_pa+It2
We, as technologists, probably largely agree with this argument, but those in charge are all laymen: officers, Dept. leaders, politicians, even lawyers, can all be ignorant of that nuance, and will probably remain so unless walked through in detail, and then continuously badgered about it.