Detroit police chief pushes back against Rashida Tlaib's racist suggestion

**DeLemur** · October-09-19, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by K-slice

Until facial recognition systems become fully autonomous [[because all humans have gone blind I guess?) there is no reason to stop using it.

It's not like the system makes an identification and the police are dispatched immediately and jail time doled out. I'm not in law enforcement, but I find it hard to believe than when the system does identify someone there is no human taking a look to confirm the systems work. And assuming such is the case, the whole point of these systems not being fully reliable is moot.

Think this through. How many grainy, terrible images of perps faces have you seen on home or business cameras out there? Or glimpses of a face through a hood? A person can't help figure it out, that's why they go to facial recognition for the computer to link it. That's what they'll ultimately land on.

Not every time, there will be situations like you put it with clear looks and police just need a name, but a lot will be left to the software for evidence.

**K-slice** · October-10-19, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by DeLemur

Think this through. How many grainy, terrible images of perps faces have you seen on home or business cameras out there? Or glimpses of a face through a hood? A person can't help figure it out, that's why they go to facial recognition for the computer to link it. That's what they'll ultimately land on.

Not every time, there will be situations like you put it with clear looks and police just need a name, but a lot will be left to the software for evidence.

I think you have it backwards. An officer will not be the first one to look at the suspects picture then comb through thousands of known individuals looking for a match. More likely they will use the software to match surveillance footage to pictures in their database and any matches will then be confirmed or rejected by an officer.

Either way, I dont think a human check on the work of facial recognition technology will be going away any time soon which again, makes any bias in the system moot... Unless the human checking has the same bias of course...

**rb336** · October-10-19, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by bartocktoo

I'm not disagreeing with the facts on facial recognition it's completely problematic and unreliable. But it was 100% racist what she said. I HATE HATE HATE Trump but imagine if he had said that. What would you say?

How was it racist - please point out what was racist. Maybe I missed something

**Wheels** · October-10-19, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

How was it racist - please point out what was racist. Maybe I missed something

If she said all blacks look alike would that be racist? Because that is what she was inferring.

**JBMcB** · October-10-19, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

How was it racist - please point out what was racist. Maybe I missed something

She was saying, basically, that because white people aren't good at discerning the faces of black people, they shouldn't be involved with the facial recognition program.

Note that the studies that show this effect are pretty shaky. The controls they used were dodgy and, if I recall correctly, were amongst the social sciences studies that were unable to be reproduced when a researcher went through a bunch of these studies a couple of years ago. That's not to say the effect doesn't exist, but there isn't a lot of good evidence that it does.

**ABetterDetroit** · October-10-19, 06:47 PM

What exactly is the problem with technology aiding in investigation? A computer is not going to prosecute. Humans and a jury of peers will still be handling that.

**Honky Tonk** · October-11-19, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit

What exactly is the problem with technology aiding in investigation? A computer is not going to prosecute. Humans and a jury of peers will still be handling that.

Thank You.

**bartocktoo** · October-11-19, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Wheels

If she said all blacks look alike would that be racist? Because that is what she was inferring.

Bingo. And also saying only people of color should be doing facial recognition...in Detroit. There's kind of a lot there.

And I don't know if she is necessarily racist or just not very intelligent so I'll walk back from that. It's one or the other though.

**rb336** · October-11-19, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Wheels

If she said all blacks look alike would that be racist? Because that is what she was inferring.

Only to someone with an understanding deficit.

**bartocktoo** · October-11-19, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by rb336

Only to someone with an understanding deficit.

Interesting and insightful response.

**Wheels** · October-11-19, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

Only to someone with an understanding deficit.

Tlaib said. "It's true, I think non-African-Americans think African-Americans all look the same!"
Try reading the whole story and the exact quote. Maybe your mother can read it to you at bedtime!

**Seven&wyo** · October-11-19, 01:07 PM

As far as I can see this just more political pandering from a woman that I doubt has done anything for her constituents outside of "the orange man bad". She acts as if facial recognition would instigate some kind of Judge Dredd justice instead of what it would really be, a device to help law enforcement. And I'm saying all this as a millennial liberal.

**K-slice** · October-11-19, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit

What exactly is the problem with technology aiding in investigation? A computer is not going to prosecute. Humans and a jury of peers will still be handling that.

This was exactly my point! Facial recognition is a tool for police, it doesn't make arrests, try cases, or hand down judgement. So what's the big deal?

**Wesley Mouch** · October-11-19, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit

What exactly is the problem with technology aiding in investigation? A computer is not going to prosecute. Humans and a jury of peers will still be handling that.

Technology that doesn't achieve a reasonable level of impartiality can be a problem. Police and prosecutors have been known to be lazy, and weak technology may lead them into mistakes. I think its important that our technology is well-developed before being widely used.

With that said, technology is a tool. If facial recognition today doesn't work well with darker faces, then maybe we should be waiting until it does. But rejecting rapidly advancing technology because today's version isn't mature is also a mistake.

One mistake may result in an erroneous prosecution. The other mistake in a guilty person who could have been brought to justice remaining free. We've generally decided that its better to let a few bad apples go free than mistakenly convict the innocent.

**Ray1936** · October-11-19, 05:00 PM

Police and prosecutors have been known to be lazy.

Well, if you say so. I only know I busted my ass for 29 years in the DPD and what I have to show for it now is a 20k pension with no medical benifits. But you go and think what you think you must think.

**Tig3rzhark** · October-13-19, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Technology that doesn't achieve a reasonable level of impartiality can be a problem. Police and prosecutors have been known to be lazy, and weak technology may lead them into mistakes. I think its important that our technology is well-developed before being widely used.

With that said, technology is a tool. If facial recognition today doesn't work well with darker faces, then maybe we should be waiting until it does. But rejecting rapidly advancing technology because today's version isn't mature is also a mistake.

One mistake may result in an erroneous prosecution. The other mistake in a guilty person who could have been brought to justice remaining free. We've generally decided that its better to let a few bad apples go free than mistakenly convict the innocent.

While looking through each post about this subject and reading the news and editorials about this, I have come to my own thoughts about this subject.

With cameras in other cities as well as ours, it is understood once again that new technologies are started out as imperfect, but are in time improved when the kinks are knocked out.

The same could be said about Facial Recognition.

The monitoring of Detroit's citizens, in a way, should be done by the people who actually live in the city, regardless of race.

However, with the technology being tested, there should be some form of human check on facial recognition. It should only be used as evidence in court when it is VERY accurate.

Over time, when the kinks are finally removed and the software is more perfected, only then should we be trusting it.

Until then, we should still test it, but only use it as evidence to major crimes when it is very accurate.

**softailrider** · October-13-19, 09:02 PM

As Alan Dershowitz is fond of saying [[I think he coined the phrase) police officers don’t testify they testa-lie.

**Johnnny5** · October-14-19, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by K-slice

This was exactly my point! Facial recognition is a tool for police, it doesn't make arrests, try cases, or hand down judgement. So what's the big deal?

A technology with known inherent flaws making it more likely to incorrectly identify people with dark faces than those with light colored faces is a big deal. Sure, a human may have the final say and be able to view the footage and override a false positive, but that's not a given. If it's true that dark skinned people are getting falsely accused or needlessly entangling into the system as a possible suspect due to an flawed or imperfect technology, then I'd say this technology should have no place within law enforcement on American soil.

**Zacha341** · October-14-19, 09:32 AM

Add this to the fact that we already have accusations without being able to face your accuser increasingly so. Now this.

Yes and and usual minorities will be most impacted. Seems everyone has forgotten the 6th amendment!

**bartocktoo** · October-14-19, 10:44 AM

OK the last two points are fair as far as facial recognition goes, but Tlaib did not say anything about the use of facial recognition, nor did she suggest that it shouldn't be used. Which to me would be a far more prudent suggestion than the suggestion she actually made.

**Zacha341** · October-14-19, 10:49 AM

^^^ Yes, I thought that as well.

**Wesley Mouch** · October-14-19, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Ray1936

Mouch: "Police and prosecutors have been known to be lazy".

Well, if you say so. I only know I busted my ass for 29 years in the DPD and what I have to show for it now is a 20k pension with no medical benifits. But you go and think what you think you must think.

Ray... that sentence was a bit lazy itself. I apologize.

I believe that 99 44/100% of police are pure, but with the power to destroy live we have decided to have a system that leans towards protecting the innocent more than pursing convictions. So even a very small percentage of 'lazy' cops, prosecutors, and judges requires us to be vigilant for mistakes.

Tlaib is a fool.

**Ray1936** · October-14-19, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Ray... that sentence was a bit lazy itself. I apologize.

Nah, no apology needed. Sometimes my wrong side gets up and is pissed off at the whole world. Such was the day I posted that.

**softailrider** · October-14-19, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Ray... that sentence was a bit lazy itself. I apologize.

I believe that 99 44/100% of police are pure, but with the power to destroy live we have decided to have a system that leans towards protecting the innocent more than pursing convictions. So even a very small percentage of 'lazy' cops, prosecutors, and judges requires us to be vigilant for mistakes.

Tlaib is a fool.

I would agree that the majority of police officers are decent honest people. However, when officers are perfectly aware of corrupt behavior on the part of their fellow officers and say nothing, I think that's a real problem.

**Ray1936** · October-14-19, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by softailrider

I would agree that the majority of police officers are decent honest people. However, when officers are perfectly aware of corrupt behavior on the part of their fellow officers and say nothing, I think that's a real problem.

It happens. And I'm guilty of taking a free drink from a bar owner during a routine inspection and shooting the shit. But some of the liquor laws back then [[and into today, even) are pure bullshit. For example, bars here in Nevada can serve 24/7, and it's no problem. Serve a beer in Michigan at 2:01 a.m. with a vice officer or MLCC inspector in the joint and there goes your license. That's bullshit, and I'm peeved at myself for attempting to enforce laws 60 years ago that I am in total opposition to today.

I guess there might be other examples, but at 82, my mind fails me. Fortunately, come next Sunday, October 20, I"ll be 83 and forgiven by all.