> Why does it need to be proven before it is implemented?

We're talking about peoples' safety and justice. It's not just some product that people can return if they don't like it.

> Did you ask for proof that use of Microsoft Office or electricity by police departments would make them more efficient?

I didn't have that opportunity. But yes, I would have.

> It seems inherently obvious and frankly, common sense, that a network of cameras and facial recognition software are going to be more effective at identifying perps in the wild

I don't think it's obvious. Indeed, I think the potential for abuse is very high. It would be easy for someone to say "the algorithm said so" to someone who's been accused. How would someone without specific knowledge of the algorithm be able to dispute that?

> But in reality matches from facial recognition software are reviewed by humans as a second-pass filter prior to taking action (like dispatching officers). We already trust humans to perform policing inherently by the act of having police forces exist, so there is no elevated risk introduced by use of facial recognition

You are wrong.

Matches from facial recognition software might be reviewed by humans. But then again, payroll is reviewed by humans too and that has tons of problems. If we can't fix our own money tracking systems, then how exactly do you think we can keep our facial recognition software correctly working?

To claim that "there is no _elevated_ risk introduced by use of facial recognition" makes me wonder whether you've thought about how it could even unintentionally cause problems. That's a very dangerous line of thought to ignore, by the way.

> They still have rights, and can fight those claims.

Bullshit. Not just bullshit, but fucking bullshit. People who are accused today don't have the knowledge and money necessary to fight claims that don't even involve magic hidden behind the guise of an algorithm. When [1] officers [2] plant [3] evidence [4] and prosecutors [5] go [6] for [7] plea deals, the public suffers. It's especially perverse when the people who are supposed to be a part of the justice system argue that "they're guilty of something". Innocent peoples lives can be ruined when they don't have the ability to demonstrate their innocence [8]. I'm going to stop adding links because these ones were found with literally just thirty seconds of searching. It's that common of a problem.

I could see you then arguing that the goalpost is moving: solve the officer problem or solve the prosecutorial problem. Of course you're right. But you'd also miss the point: adding more abilities for "law enforcement" to put people behind bars is not what the world needs today.

You support adding a new, ever more complex, way for people to be caught up by the law for reasons completely foreign to them. Your love for computers and algorithms and AI, and desire to see them in action, blinds you to the real world. I challenge you to meet people, innocent and not, who've been affected by law enforcement. I challenge you to really think hard about what you want from facial recognition.

[1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/st-louis-officer-execut...

[2]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/body-cam-video-baltimore-police...

[3]: https://news.yahoo.com/former-florida-officer-allegedly-plan...

[4]: https://mynewsla.com/crime/2017/11/12/lapd-officer-planted-c...

[5]: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocen...

[6]: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...

[7]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/plea-ba...

[8]: https://nvcopblock.org/163026/innocent-mans-life-ruined-by-f...