Facial Recognition The Ticking Time Bomb?
Once again science fiction has become science fact, facial recognition technology is no longer confined to TV dramas such as CSI, it is being used by the FBI, Interpol and law enforcement agencies worldwide.
The technology is following the arc of all new tech, at first it is cumbersome and expensive, but as the months and years pass, so to does the software and hardware improve in quality and reduce in price, until it is cheap enough to give to a consumer on a smartphone or laptop.
However it is not the consumer side of this technology that we have potential worries about, it is its use by law enforcement that could bring about a worrying state of affairs. A Brave New World in which convictions are made in total certainty, ignoring the natural fallacies that come with such a technology.
Only As Good As Your Input
In 1986 in Leicester (pronounced less-ter) England, the biologist Alec Jeffreys made history by using DNA evidence in court to confirm the validity of a rape-murder suspect. Shortly after in 1987, Tommie Lee Andrews became the first person in America to be convicted using DNA evidence, and so began its acceptance as credible evidence in courtrooms across the globe.
Gaining convictions by DNA became the holy-grail for law enforcement agencies, seeing as our DNA is unique in each one of us that is not a maternal identical twin below a few days old (DNA of identical twins can differ very slightly if they live different lives).
However after some time we realised that genetic evidence is not always infallible. For a start if the lab taking the sample has not collected it in a certain way there is room for error. And as David Butler found out in 2012, there are other ways for your DNA to end up in a crime scene.
Mr Butler was wrongly arrested on suspicion of murdering Anne Marie Foy in the UK in 2005, despite CCTV evidence placing him at the scene of the crime being completely disproved. The confidence in DNA evidence was such that the trial went ahead anyway. It was only when a forensic expert showed that Mr Butler's skin condition led him to shed more genetic material than the average person, coupled with him being a taxi driver and handling money all day, was he acquitted.
Unfortunately Ms Foy's murderer has never been caught and the case remains open. The case highlights the dangers of having a 'magic bullet' of evidence to convict. DNA is unique, ergo if your DNA is found at a crime scene you are guilty and damn any other explanations why. This line of reasoning cost David Butler 8 months of his life in a remand prison (jail) and probably gained him a fair amount of stigma and suspicion.
The New Digital DNA?
As companies like FindFace, Amazon, Microsoft and others develop and sell their facial recognition tech to the FBI and law enforcement agencies around the world, there is a danger that we are creating an over-reliability on the new magic bullet.
Facial recognition would perhaps be less fallible if the initial samples were taken from actual live faces, but of course this is rarely the case. The FBI for instance use the 400 million photographs they have on file from passports and drivers licenses.
This means that the quality of the photograph comes into play; how long will it be before somebody who looks like the photograph of a criminal is convicted?
Safeguarding The Future
Of course we all want to be safe, when we use airports or crowded places we want to know that terrorists and criminals are being monitored and thwarted. What we don't want is a situation whereby we are all considered terrorists until proven innocent.
A situation such as that could thrust us into the fantasy world of Minority Report, whereby potential criminals are arrested before they have even committed a crime.
We must be careful that no matter how great and seemingly infallible a new technology is, that we don't give it magic bullet status. Otherwise we may find that we use it to shoot society in the foot.
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY; IS IT HARMLESS FUN AND A GOOD TOOL TO FIGHT CRIME? OR PERHAPS AN IMPEDING PROBLEM THAT WILL BLOW UP IN OUR FACES?
AS EVER, LET ME KNOW BELOW!
News Sources/Further Reading:
DNA test jailed innocent man for murder - BBC NewsEvolution of DNA Evidence for Crime Solving - A Judicial and Legislative History - Forensic Mag
IDing 1 Person in a Billion In 1 Second - Important Innovations
Title Image: Vince Fleming on Unsplash
I think all technology is neutral, and can be used for good or evil. Strangely enough, this is why I have never put a profile picture of myself in Steemit. It isn't because I am famous, but because privacy is getting more and more difficult. Suppose I interviewed for a job, and they did a facial recognition search? Would everything I have ever posted be part of their consideration? Some Steemit users use a portrait or caricature instead. That may be the route I go. Interesting post!
Hahahaha, nothing like privacy again in this generation.
Even with your hidden your pictures, your details are all out there for all to see.
It's inevitable so we'll just have to deal with it. Ironically the future may have people fighting for the right to conceal their face with hijab like head gear. As for misidentification the blockchain holds the answer. We should all run blockchain logging off our location which we can choose to release should the need arise.
A very interesting idea; this could happen in the not too distant future... hmm food for thought.
Cryptogee
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
I think it has been proven as a decent tool for things such as unlocking your phone etc. To actually be used for the solving of crimes and prosecution of them is quite another thing. There would have to be some form of second or third confirmation involved. I don't think the facial recognition alone would be enough to press charges or render a conviction. The whole idea of new technology being used in this way kind of reminds me of an article I read a while ago about the CSI effect. Lawyers were saying that it was becoming much harder to get guilty verdicts in cases because many juries wanted to see all of the forensic evidence that they saw being produced in the television shows. If more shows continue to show and use facial recognition as a means to an end, it may not matter if the real world wants it or needs it. It may be forced upon them.
Yea, it's a good tool for unlocking phones, but I don't see it serving the same purpose effectively when it comes convicting someone for a crime.
You said exactly that"Of course we all want to be safe, when we use airports or crowded places we want to know that terrorists and criminals are being monitored and thwarted. What we don't want is a situation whereby we are all considered terrorists until proven innocent". that is 100% real fact. i supported to your opinion.
Facial recognition is good...But the question remains, is it absolute...
Certainly not.
e.g. with advancement in technology like plastic surgery, facial recognition can be cheated...
Even a good make up artist can do pretty impressive work on a face...
Google the phrase "Celebrities and their pornstar doppelgangers"
Omg, this is a very great insight.
An injury to your face can manipulate the whole result. I don't see it working at all.
I think every technology ever created is only as good as the person using it. If the user's intentions are genuine then it will be used well.
That being said, it is wrong to base such a critical matter as crime solving on the results of computer generated evidence without human input. If facial recognition is to be used, let it be used with human factor considered.
Well said!
Just like the phone uses facial recognition with manual password... Lol
you gave us a great knowledge,thanks
Great writing sir.Thanks for sharing it.