After watching the accompanying video in the article, I don't find anything wrong with their implementation.
They are using it against existing mugshots and comparing to evidence provided by bystanders, security cameras, etc. From there any matches are investigated in the same way a bystander identifying someone in a photo lineup would be. The matches are not considered evidence, they are leads.
They also seem to be advocates for legislation to keep the scope narrow.
1 comment
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 10.6 ms ] threadThey are using it against existing mugshots and comparing to evidence provided by bystanders, security cameras, etc. From there any matches are investigated in the same way a bystander identifying someone in a photo lineup would be. The matches are not considered evidence, they are leads.
They also seem to be advocates for legislation to keep the scope narrow.