Not suggesting this as an article per se (though the 404 Media one might be a candidate), but seems like a subject of interest regarding ICE a subject of interest ICE activities. Might be worth some looking into.
Personally my thought is that I can understand on the practical level why this could be desired as an adjunct, but if this reporting is accurate at all it seems like a bad move to be relying on the tech too much, for the same reasons we don't use lie detectors in courts. Plus there's the surveillance angle.
I don't know if there's another source of info on this besides 404 Media, I learned about it because I was sent a Reddit link:
Disabled links.
https://www.reddit[DOT]com/r/technology/comments/1okvjek/you_cant_refuse_to_be_scanned_by_ices_facial/
https://www.404media[DOT]co/you-cant-refuse-to-be-scanned-by-ices-facial-recognition-app-dhs-document-says/
Latter article is by someone called Joseph Cox, and isn't directly readable without an account.
In any case, 404 Media seems like an interesting site to keep an eye on regarding surveillance, information control, and some AI topics.Only place it seems to be referenced in the forum is in THIS POST, referenced by an article as a source regarding the potential unreliability of a phone cracking tool used by law enforcement.
Of course, general warning about Wikipedia when it comes to controversial topics, but the app in question is called Mobile Fortify.
en.wikipedia.org
The current top comment in the Reddit post comes from a user with a slightly curious username including the word "djedi", which is mildly interesting. This is their claim, question is whether it's strictly true or outrage farming.
This short more or less captures the concerns that will tend to be raised around this (facial recognition being prone to false positives and being less effective on blurry, side-angle, and photos of people with darker skin) along with some allusions to commentary that might give additional info or lead to other discussions.
Any thoughts?
Personally my thought is that I can understand on the practical level why this could be desired as an adjunct, but if this reporting is accurate at all it seems like a bad move to be relying on the tech too much, for the same reasons we don't use lie detectors in courts. Plus there's the surveillance angle.
I don't know if there's another source of info on this besides 404 Media, I learned about it because I was sent a Reddit link:
Disabled links.
https://www.reddit[DOT]com/r/technology/comments/1okvjek/you_cant_refuse_to_be_scanned_by_ices_facial/
https://www.404media[DOT]co/you-cant-refuse-to-be-scanned-by-ices-facial-recognition-app-dhs-document-says/
Latter article is by someone called Joseph Cox, and isn't directly readable without an account.
In any case, 404 Media seems like an interesting site to keep an eye on regarding surveillance, information control, and some AI topics.Only place it seems to be referenced in the forum is in THIS POST, referenced by an article as a source regarding the potential unreliability of a phone cracking tool used by law enforcement.
Of course, general warning about Wikipedia when it comes to controversial topics, but the app in question is called Mobile Fortify.
Mobile Fortify - Wikipedia
The current top comment in the Reddit post comes from a user with a slightly curious username including the word "djedi", which is mildly interesting. This is their claim, question is whether it's strictly true or outrage farming.
This short more or less captures the concerns that will tend to be raised around this (facial recognition being prone to false positives and being less effective on blurry, side-angle, and photos of people with darker skin) along with some allusions to commentary that might give additional info or lead to other discussions.
Any thoughts?
