return2ozma@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 5 days agoLeak Shows ICE Planning to Use Facial Recognition Glasses to Identify Targets in Real Timefuturism.comexternal-linkmessage-square62fedilinkarrow-up1453arrow-down14cross-posted to: world@lemmy.worldnews@lemmy.worldworldnews@lemmy.mlworldnews@lemmy.ml
arrow-up1449arrow-down1external-linkLeak Shows ICE Planning to Use Facial Recognition Glasses to Identify Targets in Real Timefuturism.comreturn2ozma@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 5 days agomessage-square62fedilinkcross-posted to: world@lemmy.worldnews@lemmy.worldworldnews@lemmy.mlworldnews@lemmy.ml
minus-squareundrwater@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up73·5 days agoWill they care / understand about false positives? Not likely.
minus-squarecrandlecan@mander.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up16arrow-down1·5 days agoAs long as they kill p. of c., it’ll be deemed legal 🫡🤢
minus-squareempireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up18·5 days agoTheir “facial recognition” ends up just being a binary switch on a light detector
minus-squareLost_My_Mind@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6arrow-down4·5 days agoTook me waaaaay longer than it should have to realize “p. of c.” means “people of color”. Still haven’t figured out if you’re censoring it, or if you think p. of c. is a faster way to abbriviate it. Either way, that “shorthand” is stupid, and you should just write it out.
minus-squarefrongt@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11arrow-down2·5 days agoYou don’t need to ask about likelihood. It’s already been shown they don’t: https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/more-than-a-dozen-wrongful-arrests-due-to-police-reliance-on-facial-recognition-technology
minus-squareFlashMobOfOne@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·edit-25 days agoRemember 20 years ago when Wikileaks was telling us about all the false positives swept up in the War on Terror dragnet? Both Bush and Obama got reelected. No one at the federal level gives a shit.
minus-squareImgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·5 days agoImagine they would at the very least have some sort of double check procedure like a skin color chart they could reference if there was any question.
Will they care / understand about false positives?
Not likely.
Feature, not bug.
As long as they kill p. of c., it’ll be deemed legal 🫡🤢
Their “facial recognition” ends up just being a binary switch on a light detector
Took me waaaaay longer than it should have to realize “p. of c.” means “people of color”.
Still haven’t figured out if you’re censoring it, or if you think p. of c. is a faster way to abbriviate it.
Either way, that “shorthand” is stupid, and you should just write it out.
You don’t need to ask about likelihood. It’s already been shown they don’t: https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/more-than-a-dozen-wrongful-arrests-due-to-police-reliance-on-facial-recognition-technology
Remember 20 years ago when Wikileaks was telling us about all the false positives swept up in the War on Terror dragnet?
Both Bush and Obama got reelected. No one at the federal level gives a shit.
Imagine they would at the very least have some sort of double check procedure like a skin color chart they could reference if there was any question.