It doesn't say one group commits more crime. It says the system is more correct on identifying black people on a list. So black suspects were being identified better than other groups.
but the system was more likely to correctly identify men than women and it was “statistically significantly more likely to correctly identify black participants than participants from other ethnic groups"
With it being better at IDing men than women too there's an implication that it's just better at IDing demographics it has the most experience searching for. Most of these AI systems just keep improving with more data and feedback, so if it's constantly finding black criminals and then getting feedback on if it was right, it's going to improve at finding them faster.
There's also just an argument that the black criminal demographic in britain is just the most visually distinctive. You can often tell a Jamaican from a Somalian from a Sudanese just at first glance, and all of those are pretty likely options. Whereas most the white criminals are going to be white British and therefore most of the time it's working with one big homogeneous group where look-a-likes are far more likely to occur.
Possible reasons for the latest issue with LFR include overtraining of the algorithm on the faces of black people. Experts believe it could be rectified by adjusting system settings.
What's really crazy here is the implication (issue, overtraining) that they should "adjust" settings to, what, not correctly identify Black people as much?
Black people aren't the victim here; Black criminals are being correctly identified. It's Whites that are being accused of crimes they didn't commit. But, of course, the Guardian frames it as though Blacks are being persecuted, when they're just being prosecuted.
Which doesn't make any sense because all the facial recognition literature up to this point has shown the opposite outcome; Whites are more easily identified than Blacks.
If you’re an offender passing facial recognition cameras which are set up as they have been in Essex, the chances of being identified as being on a police watchlist are greater if you’re black. To me, that warrants further investigation.
It does warrant investigation.
And then, after that investigation is concluded, how those results are then used within the system will require investigation.
If criminal acts are found along the way then appropriate punishments will be required with the idea of preventing them from occurring again.
Otherwise, we should dismiss the idea of law altogether.
A world without law would likely clear up a lot of the problems perceived. But then that world would likely reintroduce law to maintain that equilibrium.
It's only victims between here and there and who cares about them anyway?
Removal of the facial recognition system is the goal. The means of achieving it here are suspect, but if it gets rid of this practice, that's good. As long as it never returns.
It doesn't say one group commits more crime. It says the system is more correct on identifying black people on a list. So black suspects were being identified better than other groups.
With it being better at IDing men than women too there's an implication that it's just better at IDing demographics it has the most experience searching for. Most of these AI systems just keep improving with more data and feedback, so if it's constantly finding black criminals and then getting feedback on if it was right, it's going to improve at finding them faster.
There's also just an argument that the black criminal demographic in britain is just the most visually distinctive. You can often tell a Jamaican from a Somalian from a Sudanese just at first glance, and all of those are pretty likely options. Whereas most the white criminals are going to be white British and therefore most of the time it's working with one big homogeneous group where look-a-likes are far more likely to occur.
What's really crazy here is the implication (issue, overtraining) that they should "adjust" settings to, what, not correctly identify Black people as much?
Black people aren't the victim here; Black criminals are being correctly identified. It's Whites that are being accused of crimes they didn't commit. But, of course, the Guardian frames it as though Blacks are being persecuted, when they're just being prosecuted.
Which doesn't make any sense because all the facial recognition literature up to this point has shown the opposite outcome; Whites are more easily identified than Blacks.
It does warrant investigation.
And then, after that investigation is concluded, how those results are then used within the system will require investigation.
If criminal acts are found along the way then appropriate punishments will be required with the idea of preventing them from occurring again.
Otherwise, we should dismiss the idea of law altogether.
A world without law would likely clear up a lot of the problems perceived. But then that world would likely reintroduce law to maintain that equilibrium.
It's only victims between here and there and who cares about them anyway?
This could be any majority White country. But my guess is the UK.
Removal of the facial recognition system is the goal. The means of achieving it here are suspect, but if it gets rid of this practice, that's good. As long as it never returns.