Slashdot Mirror
CEO of Facial Recognition Company Kairos Argues that the Technology's Bias and Capacity For Abuse Make It Too Dangerous For Use By Law Enforcement (techcrunch.com)
Brian Brackeen, chief executive officer of the facial recognition software developer Kairos, writes in an op-ed: Recent news of Amazon's engagement with law enforcement to provide facial recognition surveillance (branded "Rekognition"), along with the almost unbelievable news of China's use of the technology, means that the technology industry needs to address the darker, more offensive side of some of its more spectacular advancements. Facial recognition technologies, used in the identification of suspects, negatively affects people of color. To deny this fact would be a lie. And clearly, facial recognition-powered government surveillance is an extraordinary invasion of the privacy of all citizens -- and a slippery slope to losing control of our identities altogether.
There's really no "nice" way to acknowledge these things. I've been pretty clear about the potential dangers associated with current racial biases in face recognition, and open in my opposition to the use of the technology in law enforcement. [...] To be truly effective, the algorithms powering facial recognition software require a massive amount of information. The more images of people of color it sees, the more likely it is to properly identify them. The problem is, existing software has not been exposed to enough images of people of color to be confidently relied upon to identify them.
There's really no "nice" way to acknowledge these things. I've been pretty clear about the potential dangers associated with current racial biases in face recognition, and open in my opposition to the use of the technology in law enforcement. [...] To be truly effective, the algorithms powering facial recognition software require a massive amount of information. The more images of people of color it sees, the more likely it is to properly identify them. The problem is, existing software has not been exposed to enough images of people of color to be confidently relied upon to identify them.
made it will be and those in power will use it to expand and protect their power
Facial recognition technologies, used in the identification of suspects, negatively affects people of color.
Surely only if the suspect is a person of color.
Facial recognition technologies, used in the identification of suspects, negatively affects people of color
This statement is outright saying that black people are mostly criminals, the only case in which facial recognition identifying suspects "negatively affects people of color".
I think it's time we put an end to subtle racism like this, just because someone is black does not mean they are a criminal.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_rate_statistics
Ugh, this racism has me SO TRIGGERED right now.
...is a lie. Welcome to 2018.
Time for the devil's advocate point of view: This technology can save lives, so having this, as well as the Chinese detection of emotions on faces.
Scenario 1: Some student deciding to grab their dad's assault weapon, and go rack up some points. Camera detects their oddball emotions, resource officer does questioning, and they are stopped from doing this. Lives saved: Tens to hundreds.
Scenario 2: Some person looking for a weak target. The recognition cameras detect them, police nab them. Lives saved: Lots.
Scenario 3: Someone evicted from an apartment for a domestic comes back. Cameras detect them, police nab them. Lives saved: A mother and her family.
We -need- this technology NOW. It will do more to save lives than anything else we have.
You guys created it to help sell things, obviously. That tech, once created, can also be used for law enforcement, in the "good" countries, and suppression and oppression, in the "bad" countries.
Maybe next time think before you tech.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
it doesn't work.
Mostly random stuff.
reciprocating 1rc.easynews.com
Seems to work well over there. As it is, it is a tool and any defense lawyer worth his salt will recognize that they better have more than that.
I'm afraid you are going to have to show your work here.
The problem is, existing software has not been exposed to enough images of people of color to be confidently relied upon to identify them.
Are you sure? And if so, why hasn't it?
This isn't the 1960s. Who exactly is biasing facial image databases, in 2018? Noted hotbeds of racism like universities and tech companies? How are they doing so?
Well, why not put a few million faces of each race or whatever it's called now into your training dataset? I'm sure there are underground datasets that exist.
simply so he could benefit personally. This fucker should be hanged.
The technology doesn't routinely make judgement calls that are inaccurate in a specific direction. It is however much less accurate but lack of accuracy does not mean bias.
Second, it is the policies around how it is used that negatively affect non-white people. This is a policy problem not a technology problem. I'm really not keen on being tracked and scanned by facial recognition or any of the other ways organizations track me but please don't exaggerate and play the racism card just to get clicks. In the end it numbs us to real abuse.
Facial recognition negatively affects people of color because people of color commit disproportionately more crimes per capita than their counterparts.
If people of color wish to be identified less frequently as criminals, they should commit fewer crimes.
Is that humanity in the name of safety is voluntarily putting itself in a self imposed prison. No longer is the individual entrusted with the ability and power to fend for himself and look after his own safety. Instead we delegate this primary responsibility to big brother in law enforcement.
Since we can not trust law enforcement to protect us fairly and impartially, we are further delegating this primary responsibility to machines.
Whether or not the SJW's think machines have an inherent prejudice against minorities, is side skirting the problem. The problem is that you can no longer legally protect yourself. You have to let machines monitor humanity for evil doers. This is straight up distopia. In a free society if you get robbed you handle your business and go after the robber Chuck Norris style. In a enslaved subservient society you need to constant protection of the state to provide for you safety and needs. The individual is impotent.
Come on guys..
If msmash is posting this, ZERO CREDIBILITY
people are pissed because they thought there was a way to "pass the buck" no only with regard to the task, but to the responsibility as well..
Lazy Cops are in a uproar everywhere. Minority report theories abroad.
Admit it, the tech sucks, the people behind it also suck (as things develop).
the Process behind it sucks
and now people are complaining it dont work when, based on the info above, how can it??
Garbage in, Garbage out, Distill, shake, and produce msmash.
When was the last time any one went to Valley Fair Mall and Looked up at the entry points, see that mega camera with the Multiple occulars??? Hmm, look familiar??
STOOOOOOOOOoooooooooPiD
He's saying that the ML training dataset for people of color is too small.
The complaint is about facial recognition *technologies* affecting people of color. Not about a specific application of facial recognition with a particular dataset. I really doubt the person who wrote the phrase I quoted would be placated by a better training dataset, in fact I am pretty sure they would claim it was racist to include too many black faces in a training set used to recognize criminals.
There is not one dataset for every use of facial recognition. Therefore he is not talking about training data sets, but about the *people* facial recognition technology is used to recognize.
Stop trying to cover for racists by telling us what they really meant was something else they plainly did not.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Scenario 4: There are a few hundred thousand people who will trigger the detection routines over and over again, because that's just how they look. So they get apprehended and arrested over and over again, and are unable to lead normal lives.
No, thanks, we do not need this.
And the common man can't use this tech? Maybe you should look at what's happening to cell-phones for a start?
The police have always used facial recognition--both the police recognizing criminals from previous knowledge and mugshots and witnesses recognizing criminals--from the criminals who attacked them to photos they see on TV.
This recognition has always had inaccuracy problems--and a lot of people have wrongly suffered. The (partial) solution has always been to use it in conjunction with other evidence.
So there is no basic difference from facial recognition from software vs facial recognition by people--and with time the software recognition will be much better.
EOM
love is just extroverted narcissism
and a slippery slope to losing control of our identities altogether.
What does this mean? Our identities are dependent of our ID papers and other official documents issued by the government and private parties such as banks and their databases storing our biometric information ultimately. Identity matters to our relationship with other people and organizations. Facial recognition enforces our identities. That's the whole point of it. We already know what happens to people without or with uncertain identities.
Devil's advocate says that if you arrest every 10th person you meet, you will probably advert a lot of crimes, if you just do it often enough. 99.99% of the people you arrest won't be on their way to a crime though.
...for the Pre-Cogs to show up in the news and then we are in deep sh*t....
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
Scenario 4: There are a few hundred thousand people who will trigger the detection routines over and over again, because that's just how they look. So they get apprehended and arrested over and over again, and are unable to lead normal lives.
No, thanks, we do not need this.
Stuff like this already happens if you happen to get stuck on the TSA no-fly list thru no fault of your own.....
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
They were told who to vote for and chose neo-con alt-right Trump. The FBI should invstigate these people forever, or until something sticks. That's the only way to ensure the super delegate's mandates aren't defied again. Heil Hitlary!
You should try direct democracy if you're fed-up with the people in power constantly tyring to screw you.
It might help when you the people ARE those in power.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The technology itself isn't responsible or culpable. It's the people who set the parameters and decide on what actions to take that are responsible and culpable. We simply have to find people who aren't bigots to set the parameters (or train the machine learning) and decide on what appropriate, proportionate actions should be taken.
Meanwhile, in the real-world, wouldn't it be great if the people in power and those who serve their needs and who are ultimately responsible for creating cultures of bigotry weren't bigots and selfish assholes? Then we might get systems and technologies that serve the people's best interests.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski
Darker colors absorb more light and diminish depth perception and contrast.
Facial recognition depends partly on depth perception and contrast, both in humans and machines.
It's not racist, it's Physics.
Not really. I think it is something like 5% of criminals commit all the crimes. You'd never be able to have a wide enough net without basically arresting everyone.
This is going to go to a really dark place. A choice is coming. We as a society have to choose, do we want a world with crime, or a world without freedom? There is no room for both to co-exist. We can have a colourful world with choice and the crime that comes with that. Or we can be controlled, every negative thought known to the government, dissent suppressed and control handed over to a few elite who are already in power to do with as they please. China shows that this control will not be in the hands of a benevolent or even democratic government.
To use the sentiments of the currenlaw enforcement of the US, at the highest levels: "It's public info. Why shouldn't we be able to use it?"
Why shouldn't they be able to use public info to build an automated panopticon to track definitively where everyone is at all times?
Answer: Because that is a dictator's wet dream. Tracking phone "metadata" without a warrant would trivially allowed The Tyrant King George to round up all the founding fathers.
Facial recognition live tracking, license plate live tracking, all feeding into the computerized panopticon tracker, well, China and Russia are well on their way to "Imagine a boot stepping on a human face...forever."
US constitutional design orients around not building these things to begin with, and certainly not using them without a warrant.
The 4th Amendment forbids the king from filching through your papers not because "you have nothing to hide", but rather most people, especially the powerful challengers to power, might very well have broken a law here or there.
Government does not get to seek out those violations because you are a politically uppity citizen.
We've had two disgusting displays by the past two presidents. Trump and his jail Hillary stuff, and Obama, who, when S&P downgraded the US' credit rating in response to $1.4 trillion a year borrowing, ordered the SEC to look into them, amd announced it publically. And they found some dirt and prosecuted...this politically uppity private group who dared.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
at least here in the states where everything is based on screwing everyone else, is there a point to trying to keep it out of law enforcement hands? it will just get subcontracted out 5 layers deep so they can claim they arenâ(TM)t using it while they use it.
Precog: I know what you are going to do.
Me: Good we are on the same page, while I mine and cook cracked stone bricks, you start leveling the foundation for the castle and start on the wall.
The 4th Amendment forbids the king from filching through your papers not because "you have nothing to hide", but rather most people, especially the powerful challengers to power, might very well have broken a law here or there.
Nonsense. Warrants are required in order to protect the innocent. And protecting the innocent is more important than catching all of the guilty.
scenario 5: people of color commit more crimes, therefore they have a higher probability of being mistaken for another person of color
city A:
population A: 93%
pop. B: 7%
pop. B commits 85% of the crime
having a smaller population and also a larger list of suspects, it's only logical the system would be bias towards detection,
now what needs to be looked at is not the totals, but rather the typical rate of misidentification on a per person basis within all groups
But they don't commit crimes all the time.
> Why shouldn't they be able to use public info to build an automated panopticon to track definitively where everyone is at all times?
Why shouldn't anyone? This is a basic liberty issue. What isn't explicitly forbidden is allowed in a free society. Anyone can do it. I could probably cobble something together myself. That's just the nature of technology in a sophisticated society.
You are whining about the wrong part of the equation.
It's the panopticon that's the problem.
Data that might make it more useful is just a red herring.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
There are clearly different levels of crime and different levels of safety. Why fight a strawman.
After all, he looks like every other male criminal in China.
People of color (which color?) don't commit more crimes, they get arrested for more crimes.
Anecdote time. I live in Minnesota, not all that far from where Philando Castile was shot. I was driving about 10 mph too fast on a local street, and I got pulled over.
Instead of gunning me down, the officer just admonished me to slow down and let me go. No ticket, no arrest, just a gentle reminder about speed. Colored people often don't get the same forbearance.
As opposed to all the totally ethical things it will be used for by the private sector?
Devil's advocate says that if you arrest every 10th person you meet, you will probably advert a lot of crimes, if you just do it often enough. 99.99% of the people you arrest won't be on their way to a crime though.
But how do you know that if you do not arrest them?