This will happen more often in many domains, and it raises the general question of liability.
Should it be the AI company that created the model? The company that build the face recognition software using the model? The police department that decided to use the face recognition software?
I would assume the police department is the one legally liable, though they may turn around and sue the software company, and I guess the question is whether they can sue the frontier model company.
This is exactly like that case from Fargo earlier this year. We got a new police chief after this, but she still hasn't been compensated and nobody got in trouble for it.
85% accurate is doing a lot of hiding LOL. Searching a multi-million-face gallery and even high per-comparison accuray turns into mostly false positive. THese systems are only ever defensible as an investigative lead, neve as probable cause.
This isn't just AI misidentification. This is also an eye witness picking him out of a lineup. This is really AI extending the reach of the already sketchy eye witness practice.
Frankly, eyewitness' testimony should be inadmissible in court. Why does it even count as evidence at all, and "direct" evidence at that? People can't be trusted to accurately remember things. Neither can technology be trusted to uncover the circumstance correctly. Perhaps we should just abolish the criminal system entirely; wrongful prosecution is a much bigger problem than complete lack of prosecution would ever be.
> Richardson’s attorney showed time sheets proving he was at work 400 miles away from Florida when the stolen car was sold. Richardson said he has never been to Florida, and his attorney tried to present this evidence for months.
I continue to not understand why anyone finds it tolerable for the justice system to move so slowly. I don't want to make excuses for AI identification, but no identification process is perfect, it should not be possible that it takes months to clear up.
Especially the "jailed for one month with no evidence" thing. Well, except for a lineup, which I've learned is about as legit as a lie-detector test, field sobriety test, or a drug-sniffing dog; tenuous at best and very easy to get a false positive.
14 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 39.7 ms ] threadThese clowns need to be taken for all the money they can
This will happen more often in many domains, and it raises the general question of liability.
Should it be the AI company that created the model? The company that build the face recognition software using the model? The police department that decided to use the face recognition software?
I would assume the police department is the one legally liable, though they may turn around and sue the software company, and I guess the question is whether they can sue the frontier model company.
[0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31050594/
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/03/18/fargo-polices-use-o...
Frankly, eyewitness' testimony should be inadmissible in court. Why does it even count as evidence at all, and "direct" evidence at that? People can't be trusted to accurately remember things. Neither can technology be trusted to uncover the circumstance correctly. Perhaps we should just abolish the criminal system entirely; wrongful prosecution is a much bigger problem than complete lack of prosecution would ever be.
I continue to not understand why anyone finds it tolerable for the justice system to move so slowly. I don't want to make excuses for AI identification, but no identification process is perfect, it should not be possible that it takes months to clear up.
> While he was incarcerated, Richardson lost his job and his home. He also said he lost custody of two of his children.
Alright. Time to ban AI in policing. It can't be used responsibly, so it can't be used at all.
Especially the "jailed for one month with no evidence" thing. Well, except for a lineup, which I've learned is about as legit as a lie-detector test, field sobriety test, or a drug-sniffing dog; tenuous at best and very easy to get a false positive.