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
If you follow the link, you'll see that the computer report had this message right at the top in massive letters:

THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT A POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION. IT IS AN INVESTIGATIVE LEAD ONLY AND IS _NOT_ PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST. FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS NEEDED TO DEVELOP PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST.

I mean, what else could the technologists have done?

>>gwd+Du2
Well .. it looks like it isn't enough, and additional human-factors oriented requirements need to be documented - like deliberately engineering the system to produce a certain number of false alarms so the police always have to do additional work to discard them - as opposed to only sometimes.