Reasonable Search & Seizure vs. Computer Vision

It’s no big secret. Computers help us to optimize, transform and improve our overall processes. They make humans more efficient, so why not police?

One of the most loved and influential things about America is the idea that every human should have rights. NPR posted an article today about Orlando police testing Amazon’s real time facial recognition. According to the 4th Amendment to the Constitute of the United States, searching for people in crowds using cameras could possibly violate this right.

Why is this a big deal? We all want to find sex offenders, murderers, violent exes, and shooters, right? In theory, yes, this would be beneficial but would it be beneficial always, and always the right thing to do?

A few things to explore.

1. America’s “systems” are not set-up to make sure that every person has afair judgement against them which would include but not be limited to a fair chance to not commit crimes, have the proper levels of support indicated to be necessary to move people out of poverty (in schools and community centers) and to help them obtain and keep stable jobs (if you haven’t read Carl Hart Jr.’s High Price yet, please read it before responding).
2. That all laws were ethical.
3. In a mobile society, and where the 4th Amendment was set-up to protect someone so they could retreat into their own ‘home’, and where homes are considered cars, or wearable architecture, it isn’t clear whether or not our body or clothing should be considered a ‘home’ in which we have the right to privacy (I certainly think wearing clothing to protect my privacy is a strong case for this).
4. In a mobile society where most of us ‘meet’ or have business meetings over our phones while walking and in the case of Silverman v. United States, “the Court unanimously held that a federal officer may not, without warrant, physically place themselves into the space of a person’s office or home to secretly observe or listen and relate at the man’s subsequent criminal trial what was seen or heard.”

Suitaloon, considered wearable architecture.

It would make sense that reasonable search and seizure would include someone who had recently committed a crime and was an immediate threat to others, so cameras were searched to find that person to prevent others from being hurt, but in cities like Ferguson, where arrest warrants are out for minor crimes, and people are removed from coffee shops because of the color of their skin are getting in trouble it does not seem it should be appropriate that cameras be used to find people to hold them accountable for any and all crimes.

How should computer vision be used to improve society?

1. Be used to find persons exhibiting unusual behavior (such as pulling out a gun or acting erratically).
2. Be able to find people who are known to be and are in immediate danger.
3. Be available to help prove the location of a person if a crime was under investigation in which they could be jailed, or lose significant rights as a result of the outcome.

You have a choice in the future. Many of you who read this will be among the privileged who have the time and luxury to do so and will be less likely to be affected by these rulings. Would you speak for others so that we all can have a chance to work together to build a better world? What is the right thing to do?

I’d love to hear your stance and if you believe constant public monitoring is ethical and reasonable.

Disclosure: We first deeply explored this area when asked to investigate the use of Lumenora’s AR capable glasses as a tool for the police force. These are reflective of our findings but not those of a lawyer or of Lumenora, Inc. officially. We have made it known that any use of our glasses in such a situation would need to follow all applicable laws, including but not limited to there needing to be a reason to investigate for a crime when using this technology. This is subject to change in the future.