
How an accused drug dealer revealed Jacksonville's facial recognition network - FullMtlAlcoholc
http://jacksonville.com/public-safety/2016-11-11/how-accused-drug-dealer-revealed-jso-s-facial-recognition-network
======
FullMtlAlcoholc
>Using the technology, police can insert people with no criminal histories
into virtual lineups without their knowledge

"This tool is too important to give up for the fight against 'bad guys'. Fears
that it will spread are overblown. This technology will only be used to catch
the worst of the worst" This is beyond Orwellian. Now we're all stock images
for police lineups. I'd argue for royalties, but I'd settle for at least being
notified.

What happens if someone picks your mugshot when it was included to just fill
out the lineup? Do you now have to mount a costly legal while not having
access to any details on the program?

I dont agree with its secret use for national security purposes, but at least
i can understand it. Now its available to medium size cities with absolutely
no oversight or transparency. This is the type of tool that allows
unconstitutional investigations to be covered up with parallel construction.

On another note, Peter Thiel (Palantir) might have become the most powerful
man in the world overnight.

~~~
espadrine
The worst part is that even if the algorithm perfectly computed probabilities
and was completely open, humans would take away incorrect information.

I am reminded of this talk by Sid Meier: [https://youtu.be/bY7aRJE-
oOY?t=19m27s](https://youtu.be/bY7aRJE-oOY?t=19m27s)

People don't understand probabilities. They don't accept that if someone has a
75% chance of being guilty, they may very well not be.

It happened again with FiveThirtyEight when everybody accused their "70%
chance of Mrs Clinton winning" of being wrong, when it doesn't preclude Mr
Trump winning.

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
> They don't accept that if someone has a 75% chance of being guilty, they may
> very well not be.

Nothing drove this point home to me more than _X-COM: EU._ Missing 3
successive 90% shots at the worst possible time would cause me to fling my
keyboard across the room, but eventually, I learned to accept 90% isn't 100%
:).

~~~
Gravityloss
Well, considering the bayesian, I'd consider it likely there to be a bug,
either in the probability display or the outcome calculation...

~~~
csydas
Nah, it's just how these games are. The first two fire emblem games on
GameCube/wii were merciless in the same way on the normal modes. 80% hit
chance sounds good until you miss and the entire battle goes south because of
it. Since these games had permadeath, a miss could mean restarting if you
didn't just hit reset mod battle.

Sometimes those odds are just those odds. A lot of gaming which uses
pseudorandom had given a lot of people the gamblers fallacy as their
understanding of probability. In some games it perhaps makes sense; in league
of legends I believe the Critical hit chance is pseudo random to feel less
swingy, which is probably healthier for a competitive game. Diablo 3 weights
it's unique drop rates to ensure that players get a steady supply of relevant
uniques since there is no trade economy in d3 anymore. This also makes sense
in isolation.

Other games though that don't have as strong of a reason to fudge the roll
give a really bad impression of random to players.

~~~
foota
You might consider using a term other than pseudo random for that, since
pseudo random number generators generally try to be uniformly random, as
opposed to the sort of thing you're talking about.

~~~
madenine
The term comes from the games community - its what they call it.

For example, in DotA:
[http://wiki.teamliquid.net/dota2/Pseudo_Random_Distribution](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/dota2/Pseudo_Random_Distribution)

~~~
foota
Interesting, thanks for making that point. I think it might be best to refer
to one as a prng and the other as a prd (generator vs distribution) although
implementing a prd creates a prng, some prng attempt to target a real random
distribution.

~~~
csydas
Late reply but thanks for the heads up - I wasn't aware that prng was a term
that I could be using as opposed to prd. The above comment is accurate in how
I first came across the term as it's pretty commonly used in a lot of games in
a lay person's fashion.

------
coldcode
I'm in that database because my photo was taken for a driver's license.
Imagine the system is not 100% reliable (which of course it isn't), I wind up
being matched as a probable, and become a target for investigation, and
potentially arrested. At this point I am only guilty of driving a car and will
have to defend myself by hiring a lawyer. Eventually it will be obvious I
couldn't be the person. By then my life is mostly in ruin. Yet there is
nothing I can do to avoid this possibility legally.

~~~
gm-conspiracy
"Yet there is nothing I can do to avoid this possibility legally."

Don't drive? I know that sucks, but with self-driving cars on the horizon,
these sort of "capitulation of rights" scenarios should not need to exist.

We are very vulnerable (in terms of rights) when driving in the US.

~~~
CapitalistCartr
In the USA that doesn't help. If you don't have a driver's license, you have
to have a "state-issued ID card", which is the same except it doesn't confer
the right to drive. The only way to avoid both is to opt out of society
completely, which is effectively giving up living in this country.

~~~
uiri
> If you don't have a driver's license, you have to have a "state-issued ID
> card", which is the same except it doesn't confer the right to drive.

Why? There are alternatives for ID and proof-of-age, such as a passport
booklet/card.

~~~
CapitalistCartr
They're expensive, most Americans don't have them, especially the poorer, and
they're a greater hassle: people expect a driver's license. And once you've
had one, they have your photo; too late to change.

Also, not having a driver's license is looked down on in most of the USA,
outside a few major cities. It constrains job/dating/social/living location
opportunities.

------
Scea91
Would we have problem if he was identified by manual search in the database?
If not, I don't see why using technology to remove the manual labor is worse.

Is the problem in the existence of the database? Then I would not make this a
discussion about facial recognition software but about mugshot databases
instead.

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
> f not, I don't see why using technology to remove the manual labor is worse.

What's its accuracy? How was the surveillance obtained? Is the time of the
photo accurate or was the server clock set incorrectly? Was it obtained
constitutionally or through an illegal investigation? What if it's incorrect,
can I have the algorithm to help mount a legal defense

~~~
coleca
It shouldn't really matter what the accuracy of the software is being used
properly. The facial recognition software should be used as a tool to help
narrow down potential suspects. It shouldn't be the judge jury and executioner
to decide if someone was indeed at the scene of a crime. The officers using
the system need to be properly trained to understand the limitations of the
system. For example just because the system finds a close match, it is only
searching a database of people it already knows about. The actual suspect may
not be in the system. Traditional police detective work still applies. The
face match is just a lead not hard evidence.

Also, the systems use should be public (just like the police's use of
fingerprint biometrics is). Problems come in when you try to use this or any
technology to automate law enforcement. Human judgement and police work need
to always be part of the equation.

Facial recognition should be thought of as a username not a username and
password combination. It shouldn't be the only piece of evidence in a case to
prosecute.

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
> It shouldn't really matter what the accuracy of the software is being used
> properly.

You seem to be under the impression that our legal system is efficient. It is
not at all like that. You could be falsely arrested. It could take months
before you actually able to have your case in front of a judge. In the
meantime, you have to bail out of jail and hire a lawyer. That's thousands if
not tens of thousands.

In the end, the prosecution can just drop the case with any consequence and
you've lost time, money, and possibly your job.

------
hackuser
What will a neo-authoritarian President do with such power? How about one who
threatens to use his legal power to suppress and punish his political enemies?
Would law enforcement, such as the FBI, act on behalf of one party?

It is on every one of us to act. What is your company doing to create or
reduce these risks? What is your legislator doing? If the United States is the
land of the free, if that is more than words, then its citizens must act like
it.

As many veterans of prior struggles have said: Don't get scared, don't get mad
- Organize!

------
kw71
I don't understand how these things get revealed in court. The cops are lying
to secure warrants and charging documents, so why don't they keep lying when
they're on the stand during a trial?

~~~
iliketosleep
perhaps because they are under oath. which sort of implies that it's OK for
them to lie normally..

~~~
kw71
They're also under oath when they raise their right hand before a magistrate
or other court officer and swear that the narratives they've written to
support the warrant they're requesting is 100% true.

------
lifeisstillgood
Kathy ONeill has written a book covering some of this new area of concern
(hers is the use of poorly controlled algorithms in making life altering
decisions (which teachers to fire, how long a prison sentence to recommend))

The existence of algorithms intending to help head teachers run their schools,
or here in technology intended to help police catch criminals, the existence
is _not_ the problem.

It's the poor use, the lack of transparency and the lack of oversight

I expect cameras covering public spaces to be ubiquitous in a decade - but the
difference between crime free neighbourhood and oppressive police state is who
has access to the video feed, what algorithms they use to process the faces
and so on.

This seems a sneaky move by the sheriffs department to avoid negative
headlines. A bad PR move one suspects but the principle ... that's what we
need to spend the next decade debating publically

~~~
marchenko
It is interesting to consider that we may not actually _want_ a 'crime-free'
neighborhood, depending on how crimes are defined, and the distribution of
personal and public costs associated with policing behavior and punishing
offenders.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
I quite agree. Facial recognition could have spotted Rosa Parks and simply
shut the door to the bus.

Again, how we use the technology is vital. But open and free technologies and
data feeds are far far less likely to be abused or if they are are much easier
to spot.

------
Overtonwindow
This article reminds me of the one where the guy in prison discovers the
existence of the Stingray devices. [1] A fine example of research and
investigative work to uncover a serious violation of rights.

[1]. [http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/13/10758380/stingray-
surveill...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/13/10758380/stingray-surveillance-
device-daniel-rigmaiden-case)

------
elcct
It is sad that so much effort is wasted on catching unlicensed drug dealers.
Maybe looking for killers etc. is too difficult?

~~~
hga
No, they generally do the latter, and generally well.

One problem is there just aren't enough killers etc. anymore, crime rates are
_way_ down from their peaks not so many decades ago. But, somehow, where this
has happened, it hasn't resulted in a reduction in the size of what I like to
call the police-judicial complex. This book's underlying thesis is that too
avoid unthinkable layoffs, the complex needs a steady diet of "the clueless"
to keep running at it's current tempo: _Arrest-Proof Yourself_
([https://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Dale-C-
Carson/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Dale-C-
Carson/dp/1613748043/)) I haven't read the 2nd edition I linked to, but I
can't recommend the 1st highly enough in every respect, theory to practice.

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
> No, they generally do the latter, and generally well.

Minor quibble, but I don't find a 50% clearance rate on murders to be good.
[0] I also don't put much faith in the accuracy of many (most) police
departments numbers as they "Juke the Stats" [1]

[0]
[http://laist.com/2015/01/26/almost_half_of_the_murders_in_th...](http://laist.com/2015/01/26/almost_half_of_the_murders_in_the_c.php)

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH_6_8NOfwI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH_6_8NOfwI)

~~~
hga
Stranger murders are particularly difficult cases to clear; here I'm talking
about "real felonies" in general, and I'm also speaking _very_ generally. E.g.
Chicago's murder clearance rate for 2016 murders has plummeted to 21%
([http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-
chicago...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-
homicide-clearance-rate-20160909-story.html)).

Here in my above average crime rate (old mining town) corner of SW Missouri,
the murder clearance rate is _very_ high. However, the first relevant thing I
found on Google was a State Police summary document for 2013
([https://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/Crime%20in...](https://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/Crime%20in%20Missouri%202013%20ver%205.pdf)),
violent crime clearance rate was ~50%, murder ~64%. And Missouri overall might
be a good proxy for the US in general, we have everything from two old urban
centers to the most rural of areas.

So, yeah, you could well be right in #0, and you're _certainly_ right with #1.

------
gcb0
everyone forgets the obvious: line ups don't work.

you got a broken concept, and throw expensive technology that only contribute
to the illusion but doesn't address any of the flaws, just make it easier for
the enforcers of the broken system. the result is people abusing even more the
broken system, because now it's easier, and some tech provider getting very
rich, and then sponsoring campaigns so that the system never change.

------
z3t4
a possible problem is when the software gets better then humans ... And you
get many people who all can be identified by the vitness, witch one do you
prosecute ?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> a possible problem is when the software gets better then humans ... And you
> get many people who all can be identified by the vitness, witch one do you
> prosecute ?

The non-rhetorical answer, according to how the system is _supposed_ to work,
is none of them. It's not possible for four independent actors to each have a
95% chance of being the perpetrator. If one has a 95% probability then the
combined probability of all the others has to be <5%. And if the probability
of the "most likely suspect" to have done it is e.g. 40%, that clearly isn't
"beyond a reasonable doubt."

But this was all true even before computers. The system doesn't care about the
math. A crime is committed, someone is to be punished, they put the most
likely suspect in front of a jury and most of the time the jury will convict
regardless.

In reality most of the time the accused will plead guilty to take a six month
sentence over the 90+% chance of getting five years from a jury who doesn't
understand (and is not given an opportunity to understand) how the
probabilities actually work. And that incentive to plead guilty for a shorter
sentence and lower legal bills is the same whether you're guilty or innocent.

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
Effectively, taking away your right to a trial by a jury of your peers. Plea
bargains are one of the many elements of our legal system that is completely
antithetical to actual justice and the Bill of Rights.

------
warsaw
Americans are whistling down to the concentration camps.

~~~
hga
Not those of us who've been buying guns, but primarily rifles, of military
utility in ever greater numbers, starting in the George W. Bush
administration....

And let me quote Alexander Solzhenitsyn in _The GULAG Archipelago_ on the
general question of "whistling" vs. resisting:

 _And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been
like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest,
had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to
his family?

Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they
arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in
their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at
every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose
and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people
with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?

After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no
good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the
skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria [Government limo] sitting
out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur — what if it had been driven
off or its tires spiked.

The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and
transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine
would have ground to a halt!_

~~~
masonic
"Not those of us who've been buying guns, but primarily rifles, of military
utility in ever greater numbers, starting in the George W. Bush
administration"

Actually, gun ownership surged during the early _Clinton_ administration in
response to his party's push for gun bans and the "Brady Bill".

~~~
hga
I can well believe that, but as I remember the big surge started after 9/11,
when we were told the only thing we could personally do was to shop (support
the already crashing economy), i.e. that we were are our own.

Quibble: our best numbers come from NICS checks, and they only started in 1998
based on 1993's Brady Bill. E.g. they capture sales of used guns, which the
ATF otherwise doesn't have visibility into like they do with new stuff through
Pittman Robertson
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Fede...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act)).
And even that data is getting iffier as more and more people get concealed
carry licenses, which generally allow you to skip the NICS check.

But, yeah, pretty much every effort, mooted or actual, at gun control prompts
us ornery gun owners to resist, generally by buying some of what's under fire,
so to speak.

