A big biometric security company in the UK, Facewatch, is in hot water after their facial recognition system caused a major snafu - the system wrongly identified a 19-year-old girl as a shoplifter.

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    9 months ago

    The developers should be looking at jail time as they falsely accused someone of commiting a crime. This should be treated exactly like if I SWATed someone.

    • Guest_User@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      I get your point but totally disagree this is the same as SWATing. People can die from that. While this is bad, she was excluded from stores, not murdered

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I’m not so sure the blame should solely be placed on the developers - unless you’re using that term colloquially.

      • IllNess@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Developers were probably the first people to say that it isn’t ready. Blame the sales people that will say anything for money.

        • yetAnotherUser@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s impossible to have a 0% false positive rate, it will never be ready and innocent people will always be affected. The only way to have a 0% false positive rate is with the following algorithm:

          def is_shoplifter(face_scan):
          return False

          • Zagorath@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago
            line 2
                return False
                ^^^^^^
            IndentationError: expected an indented block after function definition on line 1
            
            • yetAnotherUser@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Weird, for me the indentation renders correctly. Maybe because I used Jerboa and single ticks instead of triple ticks?

              • Zagorath@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Interesting. This is certainly not the first time there have been markdown parsing inconsistencies between clients on Lemmy, the most obvious example being subscript and superscript, especially when ~multiple words~ ^get used^ or you use ^reddit ^style ^(superscript text).

                But yeah, checking just now on Jerboa you’re right, it does display correctly the way you did it. I first saw it on the web in lemmy-ui, which doesn’t display it properly, unless you use the triple backticks.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          They worked on it, they knew what could happen. I could face criminal charges if I do certain things at work that harm the public.

          • IllNess@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            I have no idea where Facewatch got their software from. The developers of this software could’ve been told their software will be used to find missing kids. Not really fair to blame developers. Blame the people on top.