Sunday, May 12, 2019
Interesting reaction. Clearly the Dutch prefer ‘verify’ over ‘trust.’
Software update crashes police ankle monitors in the Netherlands
A borked software update has crashed hundreds of ankle monitoring devices used by Dutch police, Dutch government officials said today.
… The faulty update effectively stopped traffic from ankle monitors from reaching the Department of Justice's DV&O control rooms, preventing officials from knowing the locations of suspects in house arrests or released on bail.
The issue was fixed later in the day, on Thursday; however, the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security had to step in and preemptively arrest and jail some of its most high-risk suspects.
Interesting only because of the Colorado connection?
How facial recognition became a routine policing tool in America
… Unlike DNA evidence, which is costly and can take a laboratory days to produce, facial recognition requires little overhead once a system is installed. The relative ease of operation allows officers to make the technology part of their daily work. Rather than reserve it for serious or high-profile cases, they are using it to solve routine crimes and to quickly identify people they see as suspicious.
… But these systems are proliferating amid growing concern that facial recognition remains prone to errors — artificial-intelligence and privacy researchers have found that algorithms behind some systems incorrectly identify women and people with dark skin more frequently than white men — and allows the government to expand surveillance of the public without much oversight. While some agencies have policies on how facial recognition is used, there are few laws or regulations governing what databases the systems can tap into, who is included in those databases, the circumstances in which police can scan people’s photos, how accurate the systems are, and how much the government should share with the public about its use of the technology.
Perhaps this AI has a bias against rich people?
Who to Sue When a Robot Loses Your Fortune
The first known case of humans going to court over investment losses triggered by autonomous machines will test the limits of liability.
Robots are getting more humanoid every day, but they still can’t be sued.
So a Hong Kong tycoon is doing the next best thing. He’s going after the salesman who persuaded him to entrust a chunk of his fortune to the supercomputer whose trades cost him more than $20 million.