[eddz]

As long as the data is used as one of many guideline sources which is scrutinised by human officers before the individuals are suspected and acted upon, I personally don't see a problem with the inaccuracy (which will get better over time).

[mtgx]

> As long as the data is used as one of many guideline sources which is scrutinised by human officers

What makes you think that's going to happen? If anything, the trend is in the opposite direction - reducing the need for humans within automated systems as much as possible.

If a fast food store manager brings in robots to serve people food, do you think he'll still want to hire people around to make sure the robots are serving the right food to people? No, if he brought in robots, then it's because he wants to get rid of as many human employees as possible.

Maybe the humans will be there for like the first month or two while the robots are being tested, but that's it - or at least that would be the goal. Look how fast Musk wanted to get rid of human employees at Tesla, too. Complete 100% automation will be the goal for both companies and governments.

Even the Pentagon is rushing to allow its AI drones to kill "targets" on their own (thanks, Google). You don't think governments will rush to get humans out of the equation for more "trivial" stuff like arresting people?

If 20% of the people are wrongfully accused, but the system catches 99.9% of the actual criminals, then they will be very happy with that system. Just like Facebook is happy to censor 10%, 20%, 40% other innocent content, as long as it can brag to Congress that it "censored 99% of the terrorist content" (which probably isn't true, either). They don't care about the collateral damage.

[eddz]

Some programs are designed to replace humans, others are designed as tools. Automation does not always equal the replacement of humans.

I appreciate your analogies but there is not evidence in the article to suggests that police and investigators are being replaced by automated systems.

Data such as this can be used to eliminate a lot of the investigative work which usually goes into law enforcement.

Are you familiar with a police lineup? Police detain a selection of suspects based on various characteristics and ask witnesses to select the perpetrator, who may or may not be present at the lineup.

Neither a police lineup nor facial recognition are accurate or reliable when used alone, but when used in combination with other facts, tools, and resources an arrest can be made with increased speed and confidence.

[seszett]

> If 20% of the people are wrongfully accused, but the system catches 99.9% of the actual criminals, then they will be very happy with that system.

The opposite (presumption of innocence, preferring having some criminals leave free than a single innocent person wrongly imprisonned, etc) has been the norm in all occidental democracies for the last two centuries or so. What makes you think it could change?