this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
127 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

73833 readers
3729 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Cops Used DNA to Predict a Suspect’s Face—and Tried to Run Facial Recognition on It | Leaked records reveal what appears to be the first known instance of a police department attempting to use faci...::Police around the US say they're justified to run DNA-generated 3D models of faces through facial recognition tools to help crack cold cases. Everyone but the cops thinks that’s a bad idea.

all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 76 points 2 years ago (4 children)

“As long as we can pin it on someone…”

[–] ULS@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 years ago

They just look for anything to make the case... Ruining lives. It's so dystopian and sad.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

Been the someone. It's shit. ACAB.

[–] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Exactly. Just so very dumb.

[–] aaaantoine@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There's no way this would have been admissable as evidence on its own.

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Heh, you wish. All it takes is one corrupt judge.

[–] dirthawker0@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's far too vague to be reliable. You notice how easily the facial construction became termed a "photo" as in "We have a photo of the suspect." DNA is not going to have info on hair length, facial hair, if the suspect dyed their hair, or weight.

[–] 7heo@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago

Any face mods, scars, etc will also render that totally useless. I can't wait to have to register any cosmetic surgery with the state police...

[–] Land_Strider@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Algorithm printing the pig face as the most likely suspect:

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

Algorithm: "Police are much more likely to commit a crime."

Police: "We've stopped using the algorithm because of inherit flaws in the code."

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

Yay, the Department of Pre-crime.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

IMO, the only valid use of DNA-based face generation would be to rule out existing suspects, not to label random people as suspects based on their faces alone.

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I hate to say it, but there’s a better way to eliminate suspects based on our current DNA technology.

If all your suspects are black, and the dna is from a someone with Irish heritage, it’s probably not any of the black people.

Trying to reconstruct someone’s face seems really inaccurate, considering I have the same DNA as I did 10 years ago, but I’ve had high school friends who have walked passed me without recognizing me because I lost a lot of weight and grew a beard since they last saw me.

As much as racial profiling is shitty, it’s way easier to tell someone’s ethnicity from dna than it is to reconstruct their whole face. You can then use that to narrow down a list of suspects, similar to how we used to use blood type analysis before dna was a thing.

[–] Rootiest@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

While I'm as skeptical as you are, I don't think people recognizing you is a good metric.

A better test would be if an AI trained on your younger face could accurately and reliably identify you with your adult face.

The way AI and human face recognition work are different from each other. An AI may be able to identify you based on markers that human recognition doesn't account for

[–] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 1 points 2 years ago

AI does a scary good job of recognizing age different photos sometimes. I've set up a couple self hosted photo management apps that contain such functions (photo prism and immich) and had surprising results. After feeding it a number of recent digital pictures I went on to put on n a bunch of old scanned photos from 10+ years earlier, and with a reasonably good accuracy it was able to dicern the difference in baby pictures between two kids to match with the older pictures.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

Frenology 2.0, only difference is the science being misused to fuel it has bigger words and shinier tech.

[–] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 years ago

The vast majority of the world's population is feeding this entire mass surveillance system with their valuable personal and behavioral data, often without realizing that this system they feed is already oppressing themselves in the present. All in exchange for exaggerated convenience

[–] Gork@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Archive link to bypass the paywall.

Edit: on reading the article, I'm curious to know if anyone has actually gotten arrested or charged with a crime based on an algorithmically generated face which is then scanned though facial detection software.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

That looks like the most average man possible. Surely no one will look like that except the perp.

[–] Steve@communick.news 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This is an interesting idea. Absolutely worth looking into. But I wouldn't approve it to use on active cases until the false positive rate was below 1:1000.

[–] diabeetusman@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 2 years ago

That would mean ~300k false positives with every search.

[–] neptune@dmv.social 11 points 2 years ago

Nature VS nurture heavily implies this will never ever work