He may have a case for wrongful arrest but I can't see the justification for suing the teacher, or indeed the officer that entered the image into the facial recognition software.
A developer granted free access to OpenAI’s API has revealed how much the AI lab plans to charge its customers to use its largest language model. The pricing is split into four tiers, depending on how much companies or individuals plan to employ GPT-3, according to the screenshot below. According to reports, OpenAI announced …
"He may have a case for wrongful arrest but I can't see the justification for suing the teacher,"
Well, the artice states that "the teacher confirmed from photos that Oliver was the man who attacked him".
In either case, I don't think there is a case since eyewitnesses often give wrong testimonies, but is it punishable to point the wrong person in a lineup?
Also, why would 2 days in detention mean $12 Million payout? Was Mr Oliver paid $6M a day and he missed out?
The original article at Detroit Free Press doesn't tell how Mr. Oliver's face was in the database, nor is that picture shown - which may have not had the tattoos or the same haircut. There is certain resemblance in the faces of the real perp and Mr. Oliver (IMHO) but obviously there was real lack of proper investigation from the Detroit PD.
If nothing else, lawsuits such as these would hopefully teach the police and other authorities not to deploy software with such a high failure rate. Remember that case in London about two/three months ago where facial recognition software was deployed? It had a verified 96% failure rate.
"Also, why would 2 days in detention mean $12 Million payout? Was Mr Oliver paid $6M a day and he missed out?"
In the case of the teacher, incorrect testimony, while damaging to the one arrested, is likely not intentional and can't produce damages. In the case of the police, let them suffer. They used software that isn't capable of doing anything correctly to arrest an innocent person. Despite it being easy to disprove the incorrect software by comparing pictures, they got him anyway, failed to do the comparison when looking at him in person, put him in a lineup, failed to see the differences, put him in prison, failed to check that picture again, pressed charges, failed to see if he was the person they thought he was when they were constructing said charges, and it eventually fell to someone else to point out this rudimentary difference and end the farce. If I had kidnapped you for two and a half days, I'd spend years in prison (in that state, I could get a sentence of life imprisonment). I view several million as an acceptable alternative punishment for what is, in effect, a very similar offense.
In US Law, if you make a bolt for a car that crashes you can be sued even if your bolt was not the cause of the crash.
All more work for scumbag lawyers!
But... only $12M? peanuts. He spent two days in jail and the cops didn't tell him why he had been arrested?
That alone should make it $12B.
"After two-and-a-half days behind bars not knowing what he had been arrested for"
Yes, that's the bit that leapt out at me too. US Police can "arrest" you and lock you away without telling you why? Really? Surely when you are "read your rights" that includes the reason for the arrest? If not, it should and if so, then he was not "read his rights" in the first place. Where was his phone call and his lawyer? It seems a number of processes where not followed correctly here.
"You are under arrest on suspicion of assault."
That doesn't tell him why they suspect him of assault, which assault or the evidence that led to the arrest. No process breach.
In the UK the police can hold you without charge for a period (24 hours minimum, more in relation to some crimes) and have no obligation to tell you why, or to answer your questions.
Do you know that he didn't get a phone call, that he wasn't able to engage a lawyer?
"In the UK the police can hold you without charge for a period (24 hours minimum, more in relation to some crimes) and have no obligation to tell you why, or to answer your questions."
True, but they have to have, when challenged, good reason to believe the person has committed a crime. If you arrest some guy who doesn't look like a picture, even if an eyewitness pretends it is them, that doesn't =count. Look at the photo, look at the person standing in front of you.
The same is true in the US. Hence the lawsuit.
> Surely when you are "read your rights" that includes the reason for the arrest?
There was an eyewitness, who, it turns out, incorrectly identified him. The eyewitness also provided a video. The video was fed into some crap AI software that erroneously confirmed the eyewitness' mistaken identification.
That's the line the DPD will use to justify their actions. They may have even obtained an arrest warrant based on the eyewitness' testimony plus the facial recognition software confirmation.
Is this OK? No.
Should this facial recognition piece of garbage software be banned from police use? Yes.
Should the manufacturer of the facial recognition software be held liable for violating this person's civil rights? Yes.
Should the manufacturer of the facial recognition software be held liable for misrepresenting the capabilities of their software to a law enforcement agency? Yes.
Should there be a national standard for the use of facial recognition software by police? Definitely Yes.
Will any of this happen? Doubtful.
Now, academics working in related areas can submit research proposals to apply for funding.
Now that might have been interesting and rewarding had they not right royally fcuked everything up with default bog standard Uncle Sam ineligibility information ....
Who May Submit Proposals:
Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) - Two- and four-year IHEs (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. Special Instructions for International Branch Campuses of US IHEs: If the proposal includes funding to be provided to an international branch campus of a US institution of higher education (including through use of subawards and consultant arrangements), the proposer must explain the benefit(s) to the project of performance at the international branch campus, and justify why the project activities cannot be performed at the US campus.
Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research labs, professional societies and similar organizations in the U.S. associated with educational or research activities.
One imagines that is invariably always included somewhere in such sorts of disruptive experimentation to try and ensure a monopolistic retention of a distinctively exclusive overwhelming advantage ...... Lead Prime Cutting Edge.
Thanks be to Whoever is the Controller of All That Is - I finally get a chance to use 'hoosegow' in a sentence.
I ask, 'prison or hoosegow' which also means 'prison or gaol' -- well?
Jail, gaol, hoosegow is NOT prison. I'm gutted that this distinction has escaped the author of this dreadful tale.
Have you a defense? I thought not. Odds are, no defence either. Haaaaarumph.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020