Substances such as DNA found at crime scenes are treated as evidence in criminal investigations, but attorneys and tech policy analysts say they’ve not seen a facial recognition scan used as evidence at trial. Still, the technology may have helped identify a suspect, without the suspect or their legal team having been informed. This has prompted defense attorneys to hunt for hints that the technology was used and to devise strategies to force disclosure.
in 2019 and 2020, respectively. Attorneys representing the men say they’ve requested lists of all potential matches in those cases as part of lawsuits against police. Clare Garvie, a former senior associate at Georgetown’s Center on Privacy and Technology, has spent the better part of a decade tracking police use of facial recognition and trained more than 2,000 defense attorneys on how to spot use of the technology. She advises them to look in arrest warrants for the names of companies that make facial recognition technology, police department units like the Facial Identification Section in New York City, or the names of specific police officers.
Could you have the wired social media folks look into their wording here, which isn’t in your piece, kharijohnson?
Fact check: this is a lie.
Did you mean to say, “Police are constantly surveilling everything they possibly can and using wildly inaccurate, racist ‘AI’ to arrest innocent people with no known benefit to anyone but cops and corporations”?
High correlation is the aspect and irrespective, on ground realities should overrule. Tech tools are still probabilistic at times not conclusive.