It really sounds preferable to me, even if the initial versions of these algorithms are biased. They will provide a concrete thing against which to test for bias and improve against. It is easily verifiable if your changes to an algorithm have removed the bias you are worried about. Conversely it is basically impossible to tell if your training on a human has changed their biases in the field, sort of just having them do their job again and see if they are biased.
> They will provide a concrete thing against which to test for bias and improve against.
The history of junk forensic science has pretty clearly demonstrated that nobody in law enforcement cares about testing their biases, or improving the processes.
Law enforcement is general is not good at self-accountability. That accountability has to be rigorously enforced from the outside.
With algorithms, I think it can be done... but given how subtle the negative effects can be, the process must be stringent and err on the side of caution. In other words, any algorithm should be assumed to be biased until proven otherwise, and with a relatively high bar at that. There should be clear technical standards for what constitutes a valid proof. The testing process should be reproducible by third parties. And there should be a straightforward way to challenge either the process itself, or its results in any particular case.
In practice, given how low our bar for law enforcement accountability is today in other cases - including those where people die or are badly hurt - I'd say that we need to fix those issues first before talking about face recognition and its regulation in this context. And until then, it should be off-limits, because the potential for abuse is so high.
> Law enforcement is general is not good at self-accountability. That accountability has to be rigorously enforced from the outside.
Absolutely. One major positive outcome of the OJ Simpson trial was how Simpson's attorneys completely trashed the police handling of forensic evidence on a national stage, forcing law enforcement across the country to raise their game.
> That accountability has to be rigorously enforced from the outside.
I agree. But the reason that we don't have that right now isn't related to whether or not computers are involved, and introducing algorithms won't solve that situation.
The reason that police accountability is weak is political.
Sure. But until we resolve the accountability, we shouldn't increase the power of law enforcement. The more unaccountable power they have, the more it will be abused, and the graver the abuses.
