Maybe, if she had a house, a car, a dog and a few million to fund the lawsuits. I guess it's just her fault that she's a hapless victim and doesn't have the means to sue, so she doesn't deserve justice. At least, that seems to be the essence of the system.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 4 points 2 weeks ago

Generally lawyers take cases for post payment from the payout, if it's a good case.

She's going to win this one.

But the payout will come from tax payers, yhe budgets and pensions of police will be unaffected, and the facial recognition abuse will continue.

[–] percent 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I don't take pleasure in defending an AI company, and I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt she'd have case here. The AI tool is just a tool (and one based on probabilistic algorithms). She should sue whatever parts of the "justice" system misused the tool.

If a cop wrongfully shoots someone, and it's the cop's fault (i.e. not a gun malfunction), I would guess that it would be hard to sue the gun manufacturer instead of the police department.