>

Okay, rephrase the question.
What crimes that they could they justify the cost for, would not be worth going after?
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. >

So those “bans” which were so popular a few years ago are starting to expire with the expected results. >

WOW ARE THE COMMENTS HERE ALL OVER THE BOARD OR WHAT?
Frankly it boggles the mind that the police didn't check further then the facial recognition software. Even on traffic cams an officer normally has to check the video before a ticket is issued. >

I suspect that police didn't check because there's no direct consequences to them.  Even if a judge ruled denied qualified immunity, they're highly unlikely to be fired or face any other disciplinary action. 
Also, no one told them they have to. >


Police in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, used facial recognition to secure an arrest warrant for 28-year-old Randal Reid for a $7,500 June purse robbery at a consignment shop in Metairie

So a $200 purse. >

Oh shit. Does that mean the purses were stolen from a consignment shop and so they’re actually all used, but they used the full retail price to charge them? Oh man, if I was on that jury I’d hold out and vote to acquit on that fact alone if that’s what they did. >

I wouldn't just sue the police department, I'd be calling lawyers around the country to go directly after the company that sold the tech. >

I mean the company probably sold the tech with a huge disclaimer that the accuracy is 99.something%, and that all results should be checked by a human as false positives are possible. It's really not the company's fault that the police misused the tech. If a cop car runs you over while speeding, you generally don't sue the car manufacturer. >

That's the problem. Pretty much all software has a disclaimer in their terms of use. It's just enough that their lawyers can get them absolved - or carry out a case until the complainant runs out of money. >

Computers aren't magically perfect. >

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" [...] I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. >

I tried to search my face and multiple porn actresses came back. I
saw some resemblance but wasn’t me. >

What I would tell my family also. >

Nah bro, shitty police work lead to week-long wrongful imprisonment. Which is much less severe than it usually is. >

Good lord we are turning into China. How is this allowed? I'm just glad I live in a state that still doesn't have cameras at intersections that can fine you automatically. Police using genealogy sites that family members used to catch people is fucked up too; even if it's for a good cause. >


Police using genealogy sites that family members used to catch people is fucked up too; even if it's for a good cause.

Interested to hear your views on what's wrong about that one. I mean generally the crimes their going after are pretty serious. >

...so far