US Police Seldom Disclose Use of AI-Powered Facial Recognition, Investigation Finds (msn.com) 18
An anonymous reader shared this report from the Washington Post:
Hundreds of Americans have been arrested after being connected to a crime by facial recognition software, a Washington Post investigation has found, but many never know it because police seldom disclose their use of the controversial technology...
In fact, the records show that officers often obscured their reliance on the software in public-facing reports, saying that they identified suspects "through investigative means" or that a human source such as a witness or police officer made the initial identification... The Coral Springs Police Department in South Florida instructs officers not to reveal the use of facial recognition in written reports, according to operations deputy chief Ryan Gallagher. He said investigative techniques are exempt from Florida's public disclosure laws... The department would disclose the source of the investigative lead if it were asked in a criminal proceeding, Gallagher added....
Prosecutors are required to inform defendants about any information that would help prove their innocence, reduce their sentence or hurt the credibility of a witness testifying against them. When prosecutors fail to disclose such information — known as a "Brady violation" after the 1963 Supreme Court ruling that mandates it — the court can declare a mistrial, overturn a conviction or even sanction the prosecutor. No federal laws regulate facial recognition and courts do not agree whether AI identifications are subject to Brady rules. Some states and cities have begun mandating greater transparency around the technology, but even in these locations, the technology is either not being used that often or it's not being disclosed, according to interviews and public records requests...
Over the past four years, the Miami Police Department ran 2,500 facial recognition searches in investigations that led to at least 186 arrests and more than 50 convictions. Among the arrestees, just 1 in 16 were told about the technology's use — less than 7 percent — according to a review by The Post of public reports and interviews with some arrestees and their lawyers. The police department said that in some of those cases the technology was used for purposes other than identification, such as finding a suspect's social media feeds, but did not indicate in how many of the cases that happened. Carlos J. Martinez, the county's chief public defender, said he had no idea how many of his Miami clients were identified with facial recognition until The Post presented him with a list. "One of the basic tenets of our justice system is due process, is knowing what evidence there is against you and being able to challenge the evidence that's against you," Martinez said. "When that's kept from you, that is an all-powerful government that can trample all over us."
After reviewing The Post's findings, Miami police and local prosecutors announced plans to revise their policies to require clearer disclosure in every case involving facial recognition.
The article points out that Miami's Assistant Police Chief actually told a congressional panel on law enforcement AI use that his department is "the first to be completely transparent about" the use of facial recognition. (When confronted with the Washington Post's findings, he "acknowledged that officers may not have always informed local prosecutors [and] said the department would give prosecutors all information on the use of facial recognition, in past and future cases".
He told the Post that the department would "begin training officers to always disclose the use of facial recognition in incident reports." But he also said they would "leave it up to prosecutors to decide what to disclose to defendants."
In fact, the records show that officers often obscured their reliance on the software in public-facing reports, saying that they identified suspects "through investigative means" or that a human source such as a witness or police officer made the initial identification... The Coral Springs Police Department in South Florida instructs officers not to reveal the use of facial recognition in written reports, according to operations deputy chief Ryan Gallagher. He said investigative techniques are exempt from Florida's public disclosure laws... The department would disclose the source of the investigative lead if it were asked in a criminal proceeding, Gallagher added....
Prosecutors are required to inform defendants about any information that would help prove their innocence, reduce their sentence or hurt the credibility of a witness testifying against them. When prosecutors fail to disclose such information — known as a "Brady violation" after the 1963 Supreme Court ruling that mandates it — the court can declare a mistrial, overturn a conviction or even sanction the prosecutor. No federal laws regulate facial recognition and courts do not agree whether AI identifications are subject to Brady rules. Some states and cities have begun mandating greater transparency around the technology, but even in these locations, the technology is either not being used that often or it's not being disclosed, according to interviews and public records requests...
Over the past four years, the Miami Police Department ran 2,500 facial recognition searches in investigations that led to at least 186 arrests and more than 50 convictions. Among the arrestees, just 1 in 16 were told about the technology's use — less than 7 percent — according to a review by The Post of public reports and interviews with some arrestees and their lawyers. The police department said that in some of those cases the technology was used for purposes other than identification, such as finding a suspect's social media feeds, but did not indicate in how many of the cases that happened. Carlos J. Martinez, the county's chief public defender, said he had no idea how many of his Miami clients were identified with facial recognition until The Post presented him with a list. "One of the basic tenets of our justice system is due process, is knowing what evidence there is against you and being able to challenge the evidence that's against you," Martinez said. "When that's kept from you, that is an all-powerful government that can trample all over us."
After reviewing The Post's findings, Miami police and local prosecutors announced plans to revise their policies to require clearer disclosure in every case involving facial recognition.
The article points out that Miami's Assistant Police Chief actually told a congressional panel on law enforcement AI use that his department is "the first to be completely transparent about" the use of facial recognition. (When confronted with the Washington Post's findings, he "acknowledged that officers may not have always informed local prosecutors [and] said the department would give prosecutors all information on the use of facial recognition, in past and future cases".
He told the Post that the department would "begin training officers to always disclose the use of facial recognition in incident reports." But he also said they would "leave it up to prosecutors to decide what to disclose to defendants."
Re: (Score:3)
It's not exactly legal, you know.
Unfortunately, it's not exactly illegal, either.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Could you elaborate on the "unfortunate" part? Why are you lamenting law enforcement's use of facial recognition?
As well as DNA and fingerprints, while you're at it...
colour me thurprithte (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
This disingenuous weaseling seriously undermines Armando Aguilar's credibility. He seems to be saying, "It's not the police's fault if the prosecutor fails to disclose" ... however the prosecutor can't disclose what the police do not disclose. Armando Aguilar knows very well that prosecutors are not supposed "to decide what to disclose to defendants", but it is clear that the culture in law enforcement by both the police and the prosecutors offices has been to violate Brady on a daily basis.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the key: the facial recognition is not used as evidence. They cannot claim "you're him!" because an algorithm thinks you are. That's not what this is about.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Huh? (Score:1)
As a reminder, the prosecution relies on one of two things in a criminal case to get a conviction - a unanimous jury decision OR a confession of guilt.
Can the wrong person be convicted? Sure, it happens, but not because Facial Recognition picked a name out of a hat and decided that that is the person of color to investigate/prosecute.
Re: Huh? (Score:1)
Short answer, never talk to the cops. They're not trying to straighten things out or understand your situation. They're looking to get a conviction, regardless of whether you're the one who committed the crime or whether their was an actual crime committed at all. Nothing you tell them will ever serve your best interests, it will only ever serve theirs.
Re: Huh? (Score:1)
The court has no mercy.
Re: (Score:2)
At that point, the fact that the initial tip by which the
Re: (Score:2)
The Brady decision did not concern itself with unconstitutional investigation methods, but withholding evidence which could prove innocence. If the defendant bragged about the crime on social media and they found the bragging through AI, how does knowing that help the defendant prove his innocence?
This is just a different flavor of parallel construction and there should be rulings against that, but Brady isn't it.
On the basis of facial recognition alone? (Score:2)
Can someone be wrongly convicted of a crime they didn't commit based solely on facial recognition?
I don't think so.
I imagine facial recognition gives them a starting point to build a case, but having the computer identify, say, a rapist by comparing video with the state drivers license photo database? I'm ok with that.
Defense can challenge the idea, present exonerating facts, etc - this isn't a reverse "Johnnie Cochran" ("if the face is recognized, you must convict")
This is kinda fucked up (Score:3)
Two lines in the summary really stood out.
He said investigative techniques are exempt from Florida's public disclosure laws...
Like "is that true?" and seems like, yes, it is. [flsenate.gov] I get that, you don't want to disclose all your methods with the criminals but it kinda clashes with the second one
acknowledged that officers may not have always informed local prosecutors
That seems somewhat malicious in intent. Prosecutors should definitely not be in the dark about these things and what kind of department lets officers use this tools and not record that it happened or at their discretion disclose it or this guy is passing the buck to diffuse "officers". Prosecutors should probably have access to records of these types of searches being performed.
If it isn't used as evidence... (Score:2)
does have it to be submitted to the defendant?