>

So those “bans” which were so popular a few years ago are starting to expire with the expected results.
Summary: Police blindly assumed the name the software gave them was the guy, but if they'd actually looked at a photo and compared to the footage they would've been able to tell it wasn't him because of a visible mole and huge difference in body size, but they didn't so they arrested him and it took a week to correct it.
We could twist and try to blame facial recognition software, but the problem was the police. >

It's both.
The tech made the error, the police are taught to blindly trust their tech...like Michael Scott driving into a lake. >


like Michael Scott driving into a lake.

Except in this case, Michael has a gun on his hip, and a very well funded union he belongs to. >

And immunity to the law. >

Civil immunity, not criminal. >

Unless there's massive protests it's usually both. There was a cop in Philidelphia that beat a protestor and falsely charged him with assaulting a police officer. When the DA saw video evidence that it was a lie they dismissed the charges and the cop got off without any penalty. DAs work with cops all the time and don't want to make enemies.