[Genuine Realist]

GR, it sounds like you haven't spent a lot of time working with facial recognition algorithms.  There are aspects of these algorithms that are highly accurate, and yet they are still capable of producing errors.  I don't think the comparison to DNA technology is apt, but I'll think on that a bit tomorrow.

One basic truism of hi tech is that any given day is day one. Facial recognition software is sophisticated enough to be useful today, but it is nothing like the sophistication it is going to have in a year, let alone five years.

Do you think facial recognition software sophistication will ever reach a point where it would be sufficient by itself to convict? Ask yourself, whether you - sitting as a juror - would ever accept the determination of a computer program over your own visual judgment. It's so far beyond the realm of possibility now as to be laughable. What you'd use it for is to identify a person of interest and then investigate, to see if you can build a case against him.  If the case is there, the circumstantial evidence will be, too, that being the nature of reality. 

It might surprise you to know that no one goes to trial on DNA or fingerprints alone. It's very powerful evidence, of course, but investigators ALWAYS look for circumstances that tie the defendant to the crime. Making judgments on other human beings is the task of human beings, not biological or technical tools. If society ever devolves (sic) to the point where we delegate to automated processes, the fault will be our societys', and not the tools.

I can think of three beneficial applications for FRS right now, the third of which bears on Covid-19 and brings us back to topic:

(a) With a sufficiently sophisticated program and a robust database, you could minimize the intrusive pat downs at airports. The computer scans you, compares your photo to a database of millions of drivers' license and booking photos, and determines that you do not - or in rare cases, do - fall into some sort of threatening category. Whatever ethnic bias might exist at the start becomes more and more minimal as the program develops greater sophistication. Increased information ALWAYS reduces bias - a truism the ACLU has yet to understand.

(b) The primary goal of inner city law enforcement fo 50 years has been to stop gangbangers killing each other. That's why the NYPD and others went to stop-and-frisk 30 years ago. It worked. Homicide rates dropped dramatically. But it came at the cost of embittering any number of Black males who suffered an unnecessary intrusion. With FRS, a cop could take a phone pic of someone loitering with possibly criminal intent, run it through a database, and find out whether the kid is a gangbanger possibly up to no good, or a college kid slumming. You also eliminate randomness - a cop doing a stop-and-frisk is able to tell the kid why. And finally, when you do have someone with a racial bias, it's going to show up in the pattern of his or her inquiries, and you can get them counseling or put them on an assignment where it doesn't matter so much.

(c ) Finally, getting to Covid-19, and contact tracing, you could ask the infected patient about recent public visits. With places that have digital surveillance - just about everyone - you can feed the patient's picture into the computer, run the digital stream past the id pic, and have the FCS identify the patient at the times and place where he or she actually was. You can then pick out the pics from the stream of persons nearby who may have been infected, run the process in reverse to ID them, and contact them to alert them of their situation.

(This scares you? You think that having the patient reconstruct his movements, laboriously ID persons in the vicinity, and then use shoe leather to contact them is any LESS intrusive? It's just less efficient.)

Increased information ALWAYS facilitates whatever social goals or tasks a society wants to undertake. The tool by itself is neutral. If you're worrried society will use the tool to do harmful things, address the social values. Don't limit the tools.

[Genuine Realist]

GR, it sounds like you haven't spent a lot of time working with facial recognition algorithms.  There are aspects of these algorithms that are highly accurate, and yet they are still capable of producing errors.  I don't think the comparison to DNA technology is apt, but I'll think on that a bit tomorrow.

One basic truism of hi tech is that any given day is day one. Facial recognition software is sophisticated enough to be useful today, but it is nothing like the sophistication it is going to have in a year, let alone five years.

Do you think facial recognition software sophistication will ever reach a point where it would be sufficient by itself to convict? Ask yourself, whether you - sitting as a juror - would ever accept the determination of a computer program over your own visual judgment. It's so far beyond the realm of possibility now as to be laughable. What you'd use it for is to identify a person of interest and then investigate, to see if you can build a case against him.  If the case is there, the circumstantial evidence will be, too, that being the nature of reality. 

It might surprise you to know that no one goes to trial on DNA or fingerprints alone. It's very powerful evidence, of course, but investigators ALWAYS look for circumstances that tie the defendant to the crime. Making judgments on other human beings is the task of human beings, not biological or technical tools. If society ever devolves (sic) to the point where we delegate to automated processes, the fault will be our societys', and not the tools.

I can think of three beneficial applications for FRS right now, the third of which bears on Covid-19 and brings us back to topic:

(a) With a sufficiently sophisticated program and a robust database, you could minimize the intrusive pat downs at airports. The computer scans you, compares your photo to a database of millions of drivers' license and booking photos, and determines that you do not - or in rare cases, do - fall into some sort of threatening category. Whatever ethnic bias might exist at the start becomes more and more minimal as the program develops greater sophistication. Increased information ALWAYS reduces bias - a truism the ACLU has yet to understand.

(b) The primary goal of inner city law enforcement fo 50 years has been to stop gangbangers killing each other. That's why the NYPD and others went to stop-and-frisk 30 years ago. It worked. Homicide rates dropped dramatically. But it came at the cost of embittering any number of Black males who suffered an unnecessary intrusion. With FRS, a cop could take a phone pic of someone loitering with possibly criminal intent, run it through a database, and find out whether the kid is a gangbanger possibly up to no good, or a college kid slumming. You also eliminate randomness - a cop doing a stop-and-frisk is able to tell the kid why. And finally, when you do have someone with a racial bias, it's going to show up in the pattern of his or her inquiries, and you can get them counseling or put them on an assignment where it doesn't matter so much.

(c ) Finally, getting to Covid-19, and contact tracing, you could ask the infected patient about recent public visits. With places that have digital surveillance - just about everyone - you can feed the patient's picture into the computer, run the digital stream past the id pic, and have the FCS identify the patient at the times and place where he or she actually was. You can then pick out the pics from the stream of persons nearby who may have been infected, run the process in reverse to ID them, and contact them to alert them of their situation.

(This scares you? You think that having the patient reconstruct his movements, laboriously ID persons in the vicinity, and then use shoe leather to contact them is any LESS intrusive? It's just less efficient.)

Increased information ALWAYS facilitates whatever social goals or tasks a society wants to undertake. The tool by itself is neutral. If you're worrried society will use the tool to do harmful things, address the social values. Don't limit the tools.