UK: Facial recognition wrongly identifies public as potential criminals 96% of time

[Independent voter]

Facial recognition technology has misidentified members of the public as potential criminals in 96 per cent of scans so far in London, new figures reveal.

The Metropolitan Police said the controversial software could help it hunt down wanted offenders and reduce violence, but critics have accused it of wasting public money and violating human rights.

The trials have so far cost more than £222,000 in London and are subject to a legal challenge and a separate probe by the Information Commissioner.

Eight trials carried in London between 2016 and 2018 resulted in a 96 per cent rate of “false positives” – where software wrongly alerts police that a person passing through the scanning area matches a photo on the database.

Big Brother Watch has raised £10,000 for a legal challenge that argues facial recognition “breaches fundamental human rights protecting privacy and freedom of expression”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rce=reddit.com

Does facial recognition software used by police to apprehend fugitives "breach fundamental human rights protecting privacy and freedom of expression"?

[Low Hanging Fruit]

I cannot say I care.

[Yadryonych]

Does facial recognition software used by police to apprehend fugitives "breach fundamental human rights protecting privacy and freedom of expression"?

One cannot breach that is long dead

[Unholyground]

Everyone is a criminal, change my mind.

[Ghostpanther]

Does facial recognition software used by police to apprehend fugitives "breach fundamental human rights protecting privacy and freedom of expression"?

Some people look too much alike for it to be a effective tool for the police. They need to rely on other things which are less prone to being wrong. DNA being the best.

[Reaper0329]

Big Brother working as intended.

[Bryntrollian]

Privacy yes, freedom of expression doesn't have anything to do with this though.

However, as this is based on machine learning, it will get better. I am 50/50 split about all this. Half of me is a privacy nut that is hates passionately that it's almost inevitable these days to maintain enough privacy while also having comfort and ease of use. I used to be paranoid when younger and erase every trace of my usage of compute devices. I stopped caring that much as I got older, for example I'm not even using my VPN (unless I need to skip some regional restrictions or visit some questionable site), cause my native 1Gbit connection is way faster.

The other 50% of me is loving that tech is spreading in every aspect of our lives. I have a lot of hopes for tech and humanity together - I am quite sure this is the way we will improve our limited bodies. So having ML used to identify people is natural.

But... yeah, that means 24/7 surveillance and loss of privacy, although let's be honest, there isn't much of that in the street. Hopefully in the future we would have some sort of AI/international conglomerate that deals with all these matters and supervises them, so the malicious/privacy aspects can be regulated and reduced as much as possible.

I think the freedom of expression thing is because they made it illegal to cover your face in a manner that would obstruct the facial recognition.

[Varitok]

I cannot say I care.

Of course not. More often then not the land of the free hates freedom.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Not surprised really. Bad angles as well as limited resolution on CCTV cameras make this a rather daunting task. I know how much of a pain it can be to configure a system to identify perfectly defined parts (which aren't that), with a perfect angle and proper resolution. Though I admit that I would have guessed a failure rate of 20% at best. 96%, if that is actually the case would be the death knell for such a system on the free market.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Of course not. More often then not the land of the free hates freedom.

I am very shackled. My whole live every time I went into the bank I was on a video camera. It is time for a revolution for sure.

L
O
L

[Gungnir]

Everyone is a criminal, change my mind.

Depends on your definition of crime.
If your definition of crime is "anything that is against the law" then everyone is a criminal, yes.

Hell, there's a state in the US where women aren't allowed to operate a motor vehicle without having a man walk infront with a red flag.
Surely we must all abide by the laws, they were written by reasonable folk and are always applicable.

[Captain Proton]

Of course not. More often then not the land of the free hates freedom.

All those CCTV cameras in the UK are really restricting muh freedoms in the US.