zlacker

Nope. But It's certainly far more accurate than eyewitnesses. And will reduce the frequency of false positives. Compare this to "suspect is a 6' male approx 200lbs with a white shirt and blue jeans" and then having police frantically pick up everyone in the area that meets this description.

This is the story that gets attention though. Despite it representing an improvement in likely every potential metic you can measure.

The response is what is interesting to me. It triggers a 1984 reflex resulting in people attempting to reject a dramatic enchantment in law enforcement ostensibly because it is not perfect. Or because they believe it a threat to privacy. I think people who are rejecting it should dig deep into their assumptions and reasoning to examine why they are really opposed to technology like this.

>>gnarba+(OP)
> think people who are rejecting it should dig deep into their assumptions and reasoning to examine why they are really opposed to technology like this.

Because a false positive ruins lives? Is that not sufficient? This man’s arrest record is public and won’t disappear. Many employers won’t hire if you have an arrest record (regardless of conviction). His reputation is also permanently smeared. These records are permanently public and in fact some counties publish weekly arrest records on their websites and in newspapers (not that newspapers matter much anymore)

Someday this technology may be better and work more reliably. We’re not there yet. Right now it’s like the early days of voice recognition from the ‘90s.

>>TedDoe+E3
This will ruin lives far less frequently than the existing (worse) procedures.

>>gnarba+r8
But as the founders of this country wisely understood, human error is preferable to systematic error. That is the principle under which juries, wildly fallible, exist.

Human error is preferable, even if it is more frequent than the alternative, when it comes to justice. The more human the better.

Humans can be held accountable.