[dfundako]

I would be shocked if LE started using this tech, imprisoned a bunch of people, and used the excuse "Well, we followed the FAQS." I would imagine they would work very closely with Amazon and run a ton of calibration. For the ACLU to say that we used the default settings and it doesn't work correctly is disingenuous.

[delecti]

I would not be shocked at all if some LE somewhere used the default settings. It seems absurd to assume otherwise. It's not as though LE has a great track record.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List#False_positives

[Jweb_Guru]

Assuming that law enforcement is going to spend any amount of time being careful about enforcing correct use of forensic tools is hard to reconcile with the history of the American judicial system. For example, there is essentially no scientific evidence that a polygraph test measures anything at all, but polygraph evidence is considered admissible in many courts and used to be admitted in many more. Moreover, rigorous studies of fingerprint evidence have found them to have false positive rates as high as 1 in 18, but they are still often treated as close to infallible in court. I am not sure why you think facial recognition is going to be different.

[spamizbad]

LE doesn't have the best track record following best practices. For example, they still rely heavily on notoriously unreliable eye-witness accounts and polygraph tests, two things science has largely debunked.

They were slow to let go of phrenology as well.

[philipodonnell]

You are going to be very very shocked my friend!