Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Friday July 17 2020, @02:40AM   Printer-friendly
from the if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-y—oh-wait dept.

Facial recognition linked to a second wrongful arrest by Detroit police:

A false facial recognition match has led to the arrest of another innocent person. According to the Detroit Free Press, police in the city arrested a man for allegedly reaching into a person's car, taking their phone and throwing it, breaking the case and damaging the screen in the process.

Facial recognition flagged Michael Oliver as a possible suspect, and the victim identified him in a photo lineup as the person who damaged their phone. Oliver was charged with a felony count of larceny over the May 2019 incident. He said he didn't commit the crime and the evidence supported his claim.

The perpetrator, who was recorded in footage captured on a phone, doesn't look like Oliver. For one thing, he has tattoos on his arms, and there aren't any visible on the person in the video. When Oliver's attorney took photos of him to the victim and an assistant prosecutor, they agreed Oliver had been misidentified. A judge later dismissed the case.

[...] Late last month, Detroit Police Chief James Craig suggested the technology the department uses, which was created by DataWorks Plus, isn't always reliable. "If we were just to use the technology by itself, to identify someone, I would say 96 percent of the time it would misidentify," he said in a public meeting, according to Motherboard. From the start of the year through June 22nd, the force used the software 70 times per the department's public data. In all but two of those cases, the person whose image the technology analyzed was Black.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 17 2020, @06:53AM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 17 2020, @06:53AM (#1022800)

    Always better to go by the source documents than your perceived knowledge:
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by RS3 on Friday July 17 2020, @01:09PM (10 children)

    by RS3 (6367) on Friday July 17 2020, @01:09PM (#1022877)

    Amendment VIII (1791)
    "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

    I guess we have to argue and define "excessive". Let's look at the fundamental reason for bail- to ensure the accused shows up at trial, right? If I've got that wrong, I'll wait until you fix my broken thinking again.

    So to me, "excessive" means more than a person can afford. I'm not sure whose side you're on, but I'm on the "innocent until proven guilty" side. In some cases the proof is 100% clear up front, but IMHO, things have gradually eroded and cops have too much power. Far too many cases of innocent people not just being deprived of time and belongings and their future, but often they lose their life in the process. But maybe you haven't been watching the news lately...

    • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday July 17 2020, @03:18PM (9 children)

      by dry (223) on Friday July 17 2020, @03:18PM (#1022913) Journal

      It's a combination of what the accused can afford, the seriousness of the crime and likelihood of the accused not showing up. A murderer is going to have higher bail then a shoplifter, a rich person should have higher bail then a poor person. Think of the extreme case, young man with no money or ties to the area charged with murder, bail is going to be more then he can afford as he is likely to skip town.
      OTOH, it does seem to get abused a lot and is one of those subjective things. The other problem is not having a speedy trial, another subjective thing. I understand that being in remand waiting for trial is one of the worst ways to spend time in prison.

      • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Sunday July 19 2020, @04:26AM (8 children)

        by RS3 (6367) on Sunday July 19 2020, @04:26AM (#1023635)

        I understand (knew) everything you wrote, but my problem is:

        I understand that being in remand waiting for trial is one of the worst ways to spend time in prison.

        The whole point is that you can't mount a defense if you're locked up. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not mean "but you can only do it by a combination of being clever, making stuff up, dumb luck, having a good attorney, the prosecution botching things, a tree falling on a witness who's against you, etc."

        It's a system set up by lawyers to benefit, yup, lawyers. Sorry if you're one- they're not all bad. Again, I blame a degraded system.

        • (Score: 2) by dry on Sunday July 19 2020, @05:59PM (7 children)

          by dry (223) on Sunday July 19 2020, @05:59PM (#1023788) Journal

          It's a problem, what do you do with someone charged with a major crime who is likely to skip town?
          One thing the courts are doing here is enforcing the right to a speedy trial, with speedy set at 18 months. Supreme Court just let off another probable murderer due to the trial taking too long.

          • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday July 20 2020, @02:58AM (6 children)

            by RS3 (6367) on Monday July 20 2020, @02:58AM (#1023947)

            You actually closed the circle, and I wasn't trying to steer you. That "speedy" == 18 months is one of the big problems. I really don't understand why these things are taking so long, but something needs to change in the way investigations, information compiled, and cases made.

            I just think that it's highly highly criminal to incarcerate an innocent person, and if you look at the whole situation from that perspective, you might change your defense of the existing (very broken IMHO) system. I don't know if you or anyone you know has ever been falsely accused, or assumed guilty due to some coincidence, circumstantial but incorrect "evidence", trumped-up charges, blackmail, railroading, etc., but I'm on the side of most of the Founding Fathers that it is supremely wrong for a government to deprive an innocent person of their freedom. People love to argue how much worse it is in other countries and situations but that's one of those logical fallacies ("whataboutism" if nothing else) that I can't identify but obviously wrong.

            I know in many cases there's a preliminary hearing where the prosecution presents strong evidence to a judge, who decides how high bail should be set (if at all) to prevent flight risk. Again, sometimes those people are innocent but set up by (criminal IMHO) cops, but are given NO opportunity to defend themselves.

            I'd be much more okay with the current system if the proven innocent person could put the cops and judges in prison. It's one of too many mechanisms in our government where there are no working "checks and balances".

            • (Score: 2) by dry on Monday July 20 2020, @04:50AM (5 children)

              by dry (223) on Monday July 20 2020, @04:50AM (#1023979) Journal

              Well, 18 months is a lot better then many years. One problem here is a simple shortage of Judges. And getting to trial can take time, along with the standard procedures. You get arrested, presented to a Judge with charges etc where bail is decided, or a delay to get a lawyer and then decide bail. Then there are a series of appearances where things like discovery happen and then more time for the defense to get their defense together, maybe a preliminary hearing, which is about if there is enough evidence to go to trial, and then the trial. What is needed is more courts so trials don't need to be booked so far in advance, but it still takes time. Picking someone up and putting them on trial the next week isn't fair either as people need time to do discovery, go over the evidence and mount a defense. It should take a couple of months.
              I really don't like the idea of innocent people spending time in remand, or worse, being convicted with a long sentence or in some places, put to death. I also don't like the idea of a cold blooded murderer being allowed to skip town and country.

              • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday July 20 2020, @06:49AM (4 children)

                by RS3 (6367) on Monday July 20 2020, @06:49AM (#1023999)

                Thanks, but all things I know and are probably common knowledge (?).

                We generally agree in principal, but not on where to draw the line. I'm not sure where you're based (Canada? UK?) but if you think about the US in particular, we were founded by mostly well behaved ethical moral people who were breaking away from tyranny. They felt strongly (as do I) about the rights of individuals, and you hear and read about those rights a lot. I know we differ on this, and I'm okay with differing, but I'd rather a murderer on the loose than innocent people in prison.

                We certainly have a shortage of judges and courts, COVID-19 shutdowns aside. I wish our Constitution specified a "speedy" trial. There are no easy answers, and any hard lines drawn will result in injustice. I've always hated the adversarial system. I just don't agree with it on principal. I'd rather have a neutral third-party handle legal cases- an augmented judge system. Not just 1 judge and a big theatrical court showdown, but from the start judicial staff coordinating all evidence, deciding if someone needs to be held, etc. But at that point the evidence better be solid verifiable facts, not AI facial recognition or other flaky crap. Too many liars out there.

                Criminals skipping town is a problem. Here in the US we have another problem: if you're ticketed by an automated system like red light cameras, but for whatever reason you don't receive the notice, the courts don't care- they consider you properly notified. They hold court anyway, find you guilty by default, you still don't know, you don't pay the fine because you don't know (maybe you moved, Postal Service didn't forward mail) so now there's an arrest warrant out for you. Cop stops you for simple traffic violation (or just because they're cops) and now you're actually arrested. No fault of your own. Sorry, but that's a crime committed by govt.

                More to write, too tired. We can agree to disagree. :) I hope you never get caught up in it, but if you do, or someone close to you, you might re-think some of these things and where to draw lines.

                • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday July 21 2020, @01:42AM (3 children)

                  by dry (223) on Tuesday July 21 2020, @01:42AM (#1024389) Journal

                  I'm in Canada, a country where one of our founding populations were also "mostly well behaved ethical moral people who were breaking away from tyranny", though in their case, it was being tarred and feathered, lynched by Col. Lynch and friends as well as the American colonial legislatures that were in revolt, using letters of attainder to steal their property and worse, without judicial oversight. It makes an impression when the people revolting over their rights being violated, violate peoples rights.
                  I'd also prefer a murderer on the loose then an innocent in prison or executed, I just think that wrongful convictions (and the innocence project has lots of examples), especially when it involves someones life, is a bigger problem then remanding someone with lots of evidence that they'll probably be found guilty in a court of law and it is a serious crime and the person really has to be a high risk of flight. I think remand is used much less here then there.
                  And yes, the adversarial system has lots of problems, just ask any woman trying to be a defendant in a sexual assault case. There's a reason that most women don't pursue charges, yet, even at 10% of false accusations, there needs to be some type of trial.
                  You seem to be referring to more of how civil law systems handle court cases, they seem to result in injustice too much as well.
                  At least here, traffic violations are not criminal, with some exceptions. Our country is set up differently, criminal law is purely a Federal responsibility while traffic violations and such are Provincial. In the red light camera example, here you'd find out about it when you dealt with the motor vehicle branch, renewing your registration or driving license, at which point you could escalate it to court or pay the fine.

                  • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday July 21 2020, @02:46AM (2 children)

                    by RS3 (6367) on Tuesday July 21 2020, @02:46AM (#1024418)

                    Very cool, I agree on all points, esp. with your qualifying info. :)

                    So here in USA we have both state and federal crimes, and there are many layers that make such decisions. One of many complaints I have about US law and politics is that state and federal legislatures give far too much power to various agencies, and they run amok. Especially various prosecutors, state's attorneys general, local district attorneys, and of course the federal ones have been in the news a lot. They have far too much power to decide on which cases to investigate and prosecute, who to handcuff and lock up, etc. I don't want to give too much away but I asked for a local (county) assistant district attorney to look into something and they refused- I have to pay big $ to mount a civil case, and if I win, they'll follow up. Nevermind that they have huge investigative, subpoena, and other powers that I don't have. Very broken system with too much power given to too few people. Again, it varies, sometimes quite a bit, sometimes not at all, from state to state. Some states allow an individual to file a criminal complaint against someone; most states require DA or AG to file the case.

                    Traffic tickets here are generally a "summary" offense. You are automatically summoned to court, but you can just check off "guilty" and send in the fine and not need to go to court. If you choose to fight it, the cop may not show up, but you still have to present a defense. Nope, not "innocent until proven guilty". That's a pipe dream. Of course some offenses like drunk driving are immediate arrest. People often incorrectly say they were "arrested" when issued a traffic ticket. Arrest means handcuffs, booked into jail, await prelim. hearing, bail if offered, etc.

                    • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday July 21 2020, @05:27AM (1 child)

                      by dry (223) on Tuesday July 21 2020, @05:27AM (#1024470) Journal

                      Yes, it is scary how politicized your criminal system is. Having prosecutors, district attorneys, Judges, even the head of the police, often being elected and so responsible to the governing party, and therefore partisan. Even in the States that don't elect these offices, they still seem way too partisan. Courts and police should be independent of politics.
                      Here, excepting the Attorney General, who is part of the government, though still independent, the court system works for the Crown, and while they're appointed on the advice of the government, it really seems to be based on qualifications rather then politics. And while the Provincial broadly directs law enforcement, there is really a feeling of independence with general directives like don't worry about prosecuting personal drug use in my Province. I wasn't clear up the page, feds write criminal law, Provinces enforce it unless it is something under Federal jurisdiction.
                      Traffic tickets are offences under the Motor Vehicle Act here, default is the courts aren't involved though you can elect to argue in court, and hope the cop doesn't show. Serious driving offences like dangerous driving causing death are criminal and DUI can be either, usually handled by the Provinces laws but the option for criminal charges is there.
                      We also have summary and indictable offences, with arrest usually for an indictable offence, though the Crown might decide to pursue it as a summary offence,where you just sign a promise to appear. We also have more limits on the right to a jury trial, basically if facing 5+ years, you can elect trial by jury.

                      • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday July 21 2020, @05:57AM

                        by RS3 (6367) on Tuesday July 21 2020, @05:57AM (#1024475)

                        I've often thought I'd be happier in Canada.

                        Yes, we have the right to jury trial, and it's interesting the strategizing that goes on. There are many factors. Juries are more apt to make emotional and empathetic decisions, so that's got to be considered.

                        Yes, judges, DAs, AGs, etc., are mostly elected and strongly identify with a political party. I dream of a world with no political parties, or many, rather than mostly 2 that constantly fight like ill-behaved unattended children.

                        I was just reminded of "Writ of Habeas Corpus" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus [wikipedia.org] so there is some possible help for incarcerated innocents. I'm not sure when or how often it's used.

                        Your system sounds a lot better. I've always wanted an independent investigator system. Not arrest-happy head-thumping cops and DAs that work hand-in-hand.