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.
No comments:
Post a Comment