In January, in the first known case of its kind, a man in Michigan was arrested for a crime he did not commit due to a flawed algorithmic facial recognition match. I told his story here: nytimes.com/2020/06/24/tec…
Robert Williams initially thought the call at work from the police, telling him to come in to be arrested, was a prank. But when he got home, he was handcuffed on his front lawn in front of his wife and two young, distraught daughters.
He was held overnight, had fingerprints, mugshot, DNA taken. During interrogation, detectives showed him a surveillance still of a shoplifter who stole 5 watches, asking if it was Robert. “No, this is not me,” he said, holding it to his face. “You think all Black men look alike?”
A recent federal study of facial recognition algorithms found them to be biased and wrongly identify people of color at higher rates than white people. The study included the two algorithms used to do the search that led to Robert Williams’s arrest.
The @ACLUofMichigan has filed a complaint in Mr. Williams’s case asking that his information be purged from the criminal system and that Detroit stop using facial recognition. aclu.org/letter/aclu-mi…
“I strongly suspect this is not the first case to misidentify someone to arrest them for a crime they didn’t commit. This is just the first time we know about it.” — @ClareAngelyn who has done extensive research on the government’s use of face recognition flawedfacedata.com
There are other cases where it’s suspected this has happened but the defendants have been found guilty or have not been given access to the facial recognition evidence used against them because it’s only “an investigative lead.”
Some will point to this to say it’s happened before, but Steve Talley’s face match was done by humans not an algorithmic database. First people called a tip line to say he looked like the unknown bank robber & later a forensic examiner compared the faces. theintercept.com/2016/10/13/how…
I went deep on exactly how this investigation happened and why Mr. Williams spent the day before his 42nd birthday in a Detroit detention center. I hope you will read: nytimes.com/2020/06/24/tec…
The Prosecutor's office issued a statement in response to the story, apologizing and saying it would expunge Robert Williams's case and "have his fingerprints returned." Asking about DNA and mugshot... 
Update on our story about a Michigan man wrongfully arrested based on a flawed facial recognition search:
“We apologize,” the prosecutor, Kym L. Worthy, said. “This does not in any way make up for the hours that Mr. Williams spent in jail.”
nytimes.com/2020/06/24/tec…
“We apologize,” the prosecutor, Kym L. Worthy, said. “This does not in any way make up for the hours that Mr. Williams spent in jail.”
nytimes.com/2020/06/24/tec…
Fewer people than follow me have clicked through on this story according to twitter stats, so here it is again: nytimes.com/2020/06/24/tec… It's on the front page today. It's an important one to read. Don't make me DM you all.
Reporter asked Detroit @MayorMikeDuggan about the Williams case during a briefing. facebook.com/CityofDetroit/… (25:19). He said: "Yes. I’m very angry about that case. I join Prosecutor @PAKymWorthy in my apologies to Mr. Williams." BUT....
The mayor said of the case, "It’s about subpar detective work & subpar warrant prosector work." What they did with facial recog, and ID by someone who wasn't there, "was the start of the investigation." "To say that reflects on the technology, I just don’t think that’s accurate."
Dogged reporter follows up about how the tech has been proven to be biased. "That’s like saying if a detective and a prosecutor made a mistake with DNA, we shouldn’t use DNA anymore," said the mayor. (DNA is a forensic science. Facial recognition is not. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_…)
The Detroit mayor said Mr. Williams should not have been arrested and that the city has five requirements in a stringent, now 9-month old policy that will prevent it from happening again.
Those 5 things:
1. Need a clear computer image for search. (I'm curious how that's defined)
2. Must use Detroit face recognition center, not state police.
3. Only for violent crime.
4. Two "expert" officers must agree on the match.
5. Warrant request based on more than that.
1. Need a clear computer image for search. (I'm curious how that's defined)
2. Must use Detroit face recognition center, not state police.
3. Only for violent crime.
4. Two "expert" officers must agree on the match.
5. Warrant request based on more than that.
