False positives always exist in these systems along with the false negatives. There's no avoiding every case of false conviction if you rely on imprecise methods. That's admittedly already a problem without facial recog, but is a problem when using it, too.
> The 1% there is that “the criminal won’t get caught”.
So the 99% is for the facial recognition system to identify criminals?
What error rate does the best facial identatification have? If it's not zero then my original point still stands. You are throwing a lot of innocent people into the judicial system. Or at best being pestered by police for no good reason.
> Also what you described can happen to you today as well. It’s the imperfect system we live in.
That's correct. So instead of improving it, you suggest to automate it? This sounds insane to me. Why would you automate something that you know is defective? Check the user support of all the top tech companies who use "AI" to automate things. Now check the worst of the worst customer support of the top tech companies. There's an overlap. And if you want to expand (*censored*) tech support to the criminal justice system, people like me are going to get upset.
You brought up the fact that FR could identify criminals. I
brought up the fact it could also identify innocent people as criminals. When innocent people are accused of crimes they didn't do, they usually get upset.
I didn't say I personally was upset with your message. I said they would get upset. I'm not a "people" person, but this should be obvious. And I think I would be upset too if I got accused of something I didn't do.
You still didn't tell me how you would resolve an innocent person being misidentified by a facial recognition system. Can they sue the company or person who developed it?