85% accurate is doing a lot of hiding LOL. Searching a multi-million-face gallery and even high per-comparison accuray turns into mostly false positive. THese systems are only ever defensible as an investigative lead, neve as probable cause.
To the average person it means: No matter what task you apply the tool to, that you will be right 85% of the time, and 85% is a solid B, a passing grade, so let's use it.
This is exactly like that case from Fargo earlier this year. We got a new police chief after this, but she still hasn't been compensated and nobody got in trouble for it.
That's why we don't trust them alone or can demand tests from different sources. AI, however, gets sold as an ultimate cure. Just like anything computers touch, it is assumed infallible.
This isn't just AI misidentification. This is also an eye witness picking him out of a lineup. This is really AI extending the reach of the already sketchy eye witness practice.
> Richardson’s attorney showed time sheets proving he was at work 400 miles away from Florida when the stolen car was sold. Richardson said he has never been to Florida, and his attorney tried to present this evidence for months.
I continue to not understand why anyone finds it tolerable for the justice system to move so slowly. I don't want to make excuses for AI identification, but no identification process is perfect, it should not be possible that it takes months to clear up.
> I don't want to make excuses for AI identification, but no identification process is perfect, it should not be possible that it takes months to clear up.
Indeed you shouldn't make excuses. "{Sketchy component} is just one part of the process and is harmless in principle because we have other safeguards such as... nothing we care to subject to your scrutiny" is the prototypical excuse of a broken system:
> The office stated, “Facial recognition technology is used as one tool among many available to investigators. In this case, it was one tool, but certainly not the only tool, which lent to the probable cause determination that Mr. Richardson was the perpetrator of these crimes.”
The other tool appears to have been good ol' fashioned racism:
> Richardson alleged racial profiling played a role in his misidentification. “I want to say racial profiling. The guy said it was a guy with dreads and a big nose, and then they picked me out of a lineup of guys that look nothing like me,” Richardson said.
This will happen more often in many domains, and it raises the general question of liability.
Should it be the AI company that created the model? The company that build the face recognition software using the model? The police department that decided to use the face recognition software?
I would assume the police department is the one legally liable, though they may turn around and sue the software company, and I guess the question is whether they can sue the frontier model company.
In this particular case false AI identification was only small part of generic fuckup. Choosing guy from line-up done in completely racially biased way, prosecutor office refusing proof of crime has been committed by someone else, etc. etc. The only way this ever going to be fixed is when our fucking overlords will be held personally responsible which is never.
I don't understand why you would be downvoted. Is your comment raising a pitchfork? Yes. But sometimes when a person's life gets ruined, pitchforks deserve to come out.
> Richardson’s attorney showed time sheets proving he was at work 400 miles away from Florida when the stolen car was sold. Richardson said he has never been to Florida, and his attorney tried to present this evidence for months.
> Richardson alleged racial profiling played a role in his misidentification. “I want to say racial profiling. The guy said it was a guy with dreads and a big nose, and then they picked me out of a lineup of guys that look nothing like me,” Richardson said.
> While he was incarcerated [for two months], Richardson lost his job and his home. He also said he lost custody of two of his children.
Everyone: It's okay to get angry at injustice. Indeed it is the more noble reaction than to shrug and say, "Now let's be reasonable, I'm sure the institution that caused this will redress this."
origin is geoblocking. https://archive.is/DtYSf
> He stated he was held in the Mecklenburg County Jail for one month.
> While he was incarcerated, Richardson lost his job and his home. He also said he lost custody of two of his children.
Alright. Time to ban AI in policing. It can't be used responsibly, so it can't be used at all.
85% accurate is doing a lot of hiding LOL. Searching a multi-million-face gallery and even high per-comparison accuray turns into mostly false positive. THese systems are only ever defensible as an investigative lead, neve as probable cause.
What does 85% accurate even mean?
To the average person it means: No matter what task you apply the tool to, that you will be right 85% of the time, and 85% is a solid B, a passing grade, so let's use it.
This is exactly like that case from Fargo earlier this year. We got a new police chief after this, but she still hasn't been compensated and nobody got in trouble for it.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/03/18/fargo-polices-use-o...
This is horrifying. The prosecutor who sought an extradition based on an 85% accurate AI model should be disbarred.
I have bad news about the accuracy of almost all forensic science, especially fingerprints and dna
I have bad news about Prosecutorial Immunity. It is damn near impossible to punish a prosecutor for anything done in the line of work.
That's why we don't trust them alone or can demand tests from different sources. AI, however, gets sold as an ultimate cure. Just like anything computers touch, it is assumed infallible.
Kidnapping and false imprisonment charges seem reasonable.
"Reasonable" does not have a legal meaning. Or rather, it has hundreds of thousands of pages of legal meaning. Which means it means nothing.
Reasonable, yes, but they won't happen, because prosecutors never prosecute themselves.
This isn't just AI misidentification. This is also an eye witness picking him out of a lineup. This is really AI extending the reach of the already sketchy eye witness practice.
Racist technology and a racist plaintiff in two racist states. What could go wrong????
It sounds like a plot for this movie: Mercy [0]
[0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31050594/
> Richardson’s attorney showed time sheets proving he was at work 400 miles away from Florida when the stolen car was sold. Richardson said he has never been to Florida, and his attorney tried to present this evidence for months.
I continue to not understand why anyone finds it tolerable for the justice system to move so slowly. I don't want to make excuses for AI identification, but no identification process is perfect, it should not be possible that it takes months to clear up.
> I don't want to make excuses for AI identification, but no identification process is perfect, it should not be possible that it takes months to clear up.
Indeed you shouldn't make excuses. "{Sketchy component} is just one part of the process and is harmless in principle because we have other safeguards such as... nothing we care to subject to your scrutiny" is the prototypical excuse of a broken system:
> The office stated, “Facial recognition technology is used as one tool among many available to investigators. In this case, it was one tool, but certainly not the only tool, which lent to the probable cause determination that Mr. Richardson was the perpetrator of these crimes.”
The other tool appears to have been good ol' fashioned racism:
> Richardson alleged racial profiling played a role in his misidentification. “I want to say racial profiling. The guy said it was a guy with dreads and a big nose, and then they picked me out of a lineup of guys that look nothing like me,” Richardson said.
The first word of the article is "Jalil", the name of the person involved.
That is the answer to your question.
[delayed]
Maddening.
This will happen more often in many domains, and it raises the general question of liability.
Should it be the AI company that created the model? The company that build the face recognition software using the model? The police department that decided to use the face recognition software?
I would assume the police department is the one legally liable, though they may turn around and sue the software company, and I guess the question is whether they can sue the frontier model company.
In this particular case false AI identification was only small part of generic fuckup. Choosing guy from line-up done in completely racially biased way, prosecutor office refusing proof of crime has been committed by someone else, etc. etc. The only way this ever going to be fixed is when our fucking overlords will be held personally responsible which is never.
I sincerely hope this man get seek redress for this disgusting miscarriage of justice.
I sent this to my lawyer friends who like to help so hopefully we can get some restitution for him
These clowns need to be taken for all the money they can
I don't understand why you would be downvoted. Is your comment raising a pitchfork? Yes. But sometimes when a person's life gets ruined, pitchforks deserve to come out.
> Richardson’s attorney showed time sheets proving he was at work 400 miles away from Florida when the stolen car was sold. Richardson said he has never been to Florida, and his attorney tried to present this evidence for months.
> Richardson alleged racial profiling played a role in his misidentification. “I want to say racial profiling. The guy said it was a guy with dreads and a big nose, and then they picked me out of a lineup of guys that look nothing like me,” Richardson said.
> While he was incarcerated [for two months], Richardson lost his job and his home. He also said he lost custody of two of his children.
Everyone: It's okay to get angry at injustice. Indeed it is the more noble reaction than to shrug and say, "Now let's be reasonable, I'm sure the institution that caused this will redress this."
People have made accounts just to downvote me. So I must be doing something right.