Technology
Can't we just go back to proper police work where we are simply looking for a black man from New York and arrest anyone who matches
A US man was arrested and thrown in jail for nearly a week due to an alleged false facial-recognition match. Randall Reid, 28, was pulled over by cops as he was driving along a highway in Georgia on November 25. There was a warrant out for Reid's arrest as he was suspected of stealing designer purses from a shop in Metairie, a …
Really, in the US it's "have enough money to credibly threaten a suit the liable authority (city, county, etc) doesn't want to pay to defend". If they actually go to trial, the courts almost always decide qualified immunity applies, regardless of how egregious the police misconduct was. SCOTUS has stretched the definition of qualified immunity to a ridiculous extent (and some justices, such as Scalia, are on record as wanting to stretch it further).
It's only the cost of defense that makes local governments willing to settle these cases.
I've had so many things misaddressed - job applications to a UK embassy (my name is similar to a retired senior member of staff), confirmations of bookings for art shows in the US (my name is also similar to an upcoming artist), as well as payslips for an Australian brickie (which I informed the company about several times, but they still kept coming).
The person that was arrested for strong arm robbery and resisting arrest that already has a record that takes an entire box of paper to print in full is released on a personal signature bond, again, while awaiting trial on a previous charge.
You would think that there should be some oversight on issuing warrant's. To do that based solely on a facial recognition match of a driving license photo is filled with problems. The last time I had to renew my license in person and get a new photo I let grew out my beard and the hair on my head. Normally I keep my hair short and I'm clean shaven (for a certain value of shaven). I also had the photo taken with my glasses off. I'm pretty nearsighted so a CCTV photo of me without my glasses on would be a dead give-away that it wasn't me. It would be worth the expense to have an attorney press for an expedited arraignment.
"You get quicker justice if you pay in America?"
You would if there were a "justice" system instead of a "legal" system. If you can afford a good attorney of your own, you can get better and faster service than waiting to be assigned a free attorney by the court.
Race has no factor and there is no such thing as "White Privilege". Being wealthy is an advantage everywhere.
> Race has no factor and there is no such thing as "White Privilege". Being wealthy is an advantage everywhere.
Just for clarity, the last assertion there does not imply (either or both of) the first two.
That is to say, while money may well buy you better-quality legal representation and thus a better chance of obtaining timely justice, this does not in itself automatically rule out other factors being in play, race included.
The facial recognition match would have thrown up a number of likely candidates. To proceed further someone would have then matched the (high resolution) store camera images to the person and quite likely looked for additional evidence (I'd hope so -- eyewitness recognition isn't that reliable). Claiming it was racial discrimination and the computer's fault is likely just a Hail Mary job on his part.
But we'll have to wait and see how this pans out.
A relative of mine (in the UK) was arrested and swiftly de-arrested for stealing a car similar to one reported stolen 10 minutes prior because of an ANPR mistake, and the officer completely trusting the ANPR over their own eyes.
There were several things wrong:
1) The number plate was different by a single character (one of the common S/5 or B/8 mistakes).
2) The vehicle was a different colour (make and model were correct though).
3) My relative is a different colour and height and was dressed differently to the description given of the person seen taking the vehicle.
The discrepancies were realised when the arresting officer radioed the arrest back to the station and was told the stolen car had already been crashed and the real suspect arrested.
>My relative was detained for having the same name as a wanted man. The wanted man was black. My relative is white.
So there is no discrimination in the justice system.
See also cases of 3 year olds being on a no-fly list because they have the same name as a long dead journalist on Nixon's "enemies list"
Facial recognition can find a match, but if you have plenty of people to match against, then you will have many false positives.
So being "recognised" by facial recognition is a good reason to investigate the person. But the first step would be is to have a human compare photo and the real person, then check if the real person would be a suspect otherwise. So it is a useful first step to finding a suspect, but shouldn't be used for anything else.
That's actually a very good question to ask with any recognition process: how many OTHER people were also identified? Given the error rate of these processes it would be one of the quickest way for any criminal to establish reasonable doubt , so it's a good thing not many people know about that yet..
A known issue with DNA matching is the large number of "dopplegangers" in the database. The US FBI has notoriously refused to allow their database to be examined for this. FBI resists scrutiny of matches. Not only is big brother watching, he's hallucinating.
DNA matching is better served as a way of ELIMINATING people than of matching them
As with fingerprints, an inadequate number of data points is stored for "matching" purposes and false positives crop up regularly
It was OK when only known criminals had their data stored (allowing repeat offenders to be rapidly identified and dealt with) but doesn't scale to "the entire population" (or even a tiny fraction thereof)
Incidentally, a number of miscarriages of justice have involved the withholding/tampering of DNA evidence which shows the person charged couldn't possibly be the actual perpetrator and Law enforcement keeps getting away with it because there aren't sufficient criminal/civil penalties (ie: against the perpetrating department and the person who "the buck stops here" with in them - Even worse, if such laws are passed there will be even bigger coverups and more people willing to go to extremes to avoid jail time for egrarious misbehaviour)
Yeah, if you are trying to use it right.
The problem is that the "training" the actual police/LE get is basically marketing material for the snake oil salesmen that are pushing these systems. So no surprise that Louisiana cops misused their tools, and that Georgia cops threw the suspect in jail for more than a week without checking for an alibi. The people that sold it to them lied about how reliable it was, and how to use it properly, to close the sale.
In a less insane and Kafkaesue world the issuing agency would need a second check beyond a face "match" before an arrest warrant was issued. A potential match would be good justification to pull things like location/phone records next. If the target was in another state when the crime happened that's a pretty good indication an arrest warrant isn't justified. So why are they issuing them. Don't rely on the cops to self enforce this stuff though. The best of them are overworked and make mistakes, and the worst of them in Louisiana are, well monsters frankly. The Georgia cops probably could have checked his Alibi and cleared him at the time of his initial arrest.
That's the biggest change that ought to be made. Right now when the cops show up to arrest you, if you protest your innocence and give an alibi, the cops will take your statement, say not my problem, and arrest you anyway. It's still up to you to sort it out from inside jail. The cops should be required to try to verify basic information and make a good faith effort to promptly check for cases of mistaken identity before they complete an arrest. This should be a 50 state regulation as well, or the worst offenders will be the last to accept the reforms.
"Georgia cops threw the suspect in jail for more than a week without checking for an alibi"
This is the core of the problem. You might get a facial matching ping, but that MUST be cross-referenced and verified by humans and keeping someone in jail for an extended period because they can't be arsed doing their jobs needs sufficient civil penalties to make them think twice
Make it hurt their budget - $250k/day or more - and it won't happen nearly as much
And make it "Statutory damages" so that local outfits can't argue they're "too high and they make the department hurt" - they're SUPPOSED to do that
Once they'd pulled him over and verified his ID (I presume he had his driver's license on him etc) did they need to arrest him and sling him in jail at that point really? Couldn't they have arranged to interview him at a Police station later to sort all this out? How come it took nearly a week once he was in jail?
After all the incidents in the last few years I have to say I'm surprised:
1) He was only in jail for a week
2) They didn't charge him for wasting police time and resources
3) He wasn't taken out back to be 'taught a lesson' for refusing to admit his guilt for a crime he didn't commit
4) They didn't give him 'more lessons' when he moved after the first set of 'lessons' for resisting
5) 'Accidentally discharge' a pistol during the 'lessons' which had the unfortunate effect of killing him, the blaming him because he tried to stand up which caused the pistol to load itself and jump into the officers hands by magic.
<sarcasm>End of the day it's his own fault for being in the good old US of A when the burglaries took place, and he deserves everything he got.</sarcasm>
Possibly the worst thing is unless he has a fortune he won't be able to afford to take them to court and be compensated for wrongful arrest, wrongful imprisonment, loss of earnings, mental trauma ...........
Icon - Sherlock would have got the right man in the first place.
Surprised they didn't just shoot him from a distance based on the make of the car
Although to be fair, Minis are extremely rare in Britain and mostly driven by escaped murderers so are an irresistible target to firearms officers
"did they need to arrest him and sling him in jail at that point really?"
There isn't always supporting information across jurisdictions. A police department in another state may only receive notice that a certain person has a warrant out for their arrest and the charge, but naught else. The originating department is also the agency doing the investigation, not the arresting agency. So, yes, they did need to arrest the person as they had an arrest warrant issued against them.
Plus he might now have a criminal record which as I understand it is a difficult and expensive thing to get rid of in the US and that can blight your life for years.
"A common misconception among people who have been wrongly arrested or had charges against them dropped is that their records will reflect those facts. Some people even assume that an arrest won’t appear on their records if it didn’t lead to further legal action. However, this isn’t the case. Arrests remain on the record, and responsibility for sealing the record lies with the person who was arrested."
This is a blatant attempt on the part of the perpetrator to interfere with, dupe, obfuscate and distort the findings of a perfectly legitimate computer system going about its everyday business - enforcing the law! How dare he conduct himself in such a manner and in public too! Whats more it is an even worse offence than: "Walking in a 'loud' shirt in a built-up area during the hours of darkness".
Off to jail with him! We don't spend millions of tax payers dollars on these wonderful computer systems only to have people such as this take the micky! Such behaviour simply cannot be allowed to continue.
/S
Let me get this straight. He was driving on a highway in Georgia
A police department in Louisiana apparently had access to his driving licence photograph.
He claims he has never been to Louisiana, so it would not be a Louisiana driving licence .
From the article, it would seem that either Clearview AI or Morphotrak had this image (or the Georgia driving licence agency shared its database [1]).
So how could the Louisiana cops ID him from a different state's data?
1. Assuming it was a Georgia licence.
"So how could the Louisiana cops ID him from a different state's data?"
It might be more common for adjoining states to have access back and forth. There are some towns where one side of a street is in one state and the other side is in another. They gotta put the line somewhere. If you want strange, at the border of California and Nevada in Primm, NV, the is a lottery store that's just over the line in California so they can sell CA lottery tickets. You have to go into Nevada to reach the off-ramp to access the parking lot.
You can at least attempt to correct things going on in government agencies using official tools, such as Freedom of Information requests. If it is a private company you would need to pursue them through the legal system. Effectively private companies, such as Clearview AI or Morphotrak, can hold and classify information as they choose and police can then rely on that with much more impunity than if they maintained the information themselves. It's a loophole about the size and shape of a noose.
"You can at least attempt to correct things going on in government agencies using official tools, such as Freedom of Information requests."
HJudging by what went on with DNA matching, I doubt it: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-jul-20-me-dna20-story.html
Note how the FBI attempted to make itself utterly unaccountable and at every step of the chain the prevailing attitude of the governments was "You are not entitled to this information"
The have a bunch of other info in them as well, including fingerprints.
If you want to drive, you have no choice but to consent to the state taking and then sharing it with whoever they want. So most of the employed are already searchable, by right of needing to get to work.
Clearview and it's ilk add a ton more data by scraping other image sources. But the technology they are using for face matching literally cannon work reliably off one photo of a person. So if they only have a 2-3 year old drivers license photo of the match target, the false positive rate will always be dangerously high and should never be relied on by itself. Something that the issuing officers could and should have cleared up with other tools before an arrest was requested, and something that no judge should be issuing a warrant on. That's assuming the arrest warrant was complete and accurate, which I'd also have the lawyers look at.
Just goes to show the difference between the UK and US justice systems. Although i've no doubt the UK plod will use facial recognition to arrest someone and make similar mistakes while doing so, you certainly wouldn't be banged up for a week in jail for suspected theft of some handbags.
The most the UK police can hold you without charge is 24 hours (with some exceptions) but for what would be considered a relatively petty crime such as theft the suspect would be released on bail even if they were charged to either go before the courts at a later date or the case dropped for lack of evidence. And FYI for any US readers UK bail is free there is no money to pay.
Also the consequences of arrest are a lot less. Even being arrested and charged then acquitted is unlikely to blight your career prospects unless you're actually intending to work in a particularly sensitive field. Criminal records are not as freely available here and for most people only conviction is a problem.
I get the impression that being arrested in the US is seen as more serious and an indication of wrong doing 'no smoke without fire' and all that. Whereas in the UK being arrested just means that the police want to stop you running away while they investigate and aside from the personal trauma is of no significance.
I know which system I prefer. Innocent until proven guilty should mean as few consequences as possible until and unless a court says you are guilty.
True. The same is true in the US if arrested for a felony offence.
Do you have any examples of people who have unfairly suffered because of it? There have been a lot of convictions resulting from it (including resolution of several cold cases).
I mean for the record I'm not suggesting that the UK legal system is perfect but at least there is almost no chance of my life being adversely impacted just because the police arrest me. Even if they charge me it's unlikely to be a major problem. And I can be back out on the streets pending the trial within a few days at no cost to myself.
Innocent until proven guilty ;)
This post has been deleted by its author
"Whereas in the UK being arrested just means that the police want to stop you running away while they investigate and aside from the personal trauma is of no significance."
In the US there is a distinction between being detained and arrested. If you are only being detained, there isn't always a hard limit, but it's often far less than 24 hours. Usually it's only long enough for the officer(s) to sort out what's been going on. People held the longest usually do or say something that makes them more "of interest" such as lying about their name or yelling and screaming bad words at the officers.
In the US, an arrest record is not a criminal record. There are plenty of Big Data companies that regularly hoover up records of arrests as they are published. What you can wind up with is a note in your file that you were arrested on suspicion of something, but the record of your being released from any further investigation isn't attached to the same record. Even if it is, the Big Data company might not preserve the link.
In the USA the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution apply (due process)
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/how-long-may-police-hold-suspects-before-charges-must-be-filed.html
The police department in question is likely to find itself significantly out of pocket - and I don't particularly care that it will come out of a municipal budget - if they keep hurting financially they WILL sort out their poor policing issues and money is the only thing most of these cockwombles understand
A large chunk of the problem in the USA is that police departments are directly descended from slave catchers (the sherriffs star was originally a bounty hunter one, which is a reason for it being as offensive in the American South as a Confederate Flag) and still hold those attitudes (vs "policing by consent") and American police (particularly at county levels) have virtually zero training compared to other countries (again, an artifact of the origin of policing being slavecatching, and posses originally being raised to catch runaways)