Milestone-Proposal talk:AFIS NEC
Advocates and reviewers will post their comments below. In addition, any IEEE member can sign in with their ETHW login (different from IEEE Single Sign On) and comment on the milestone proposal's accuracy or completeness as a form of public review.
Advocate's comments (posted on advocate's behalf by -- Administrator4 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I have reviewed this proposal and have also done some in depth consultation discussions with image processing experts in the industry and academia that I had the opportunity to work with. And we agree that this effort deserves the recognition.
A few notes - this accomplishment is about building a high accuracy and a high utility system rather than a breakthrough invention of some fundamental technique or concept. So it is s little different from other milestones that typically recognize seminal efforts that later manifest into major fields of technology. The social impact of this milestone is huge - it enabled better crime solving and assisted in solving a few marqueee crime cases in the history such as LA’s Night Stalker.
Re: Advocate's comments (posted on advocate's behalf by -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
As part of the Milestone process, please have two experts provide their reviews and approval of the Milestone in this forum. It is important that we have this documented.
Milestone Subcommittee Chair
I would suggest changing the word “criminals” to “suspects” in the last sentence and rephrasing to avoid vague passive voice: It enabled the world's police agencies to expedite searches for suspects, an efficiency that many public-safety experts valued.
The accuracy of fingerprint identification has been called into question in recent years by studies of the National Academy of Sciences, the President's Councils of Advisors on Science and Technology, and others, for example:
Should this debate be taken into consideration in the formulation of the plaque citation, or at least be mentioned in the ETHW information?
Yes, I had the same concerns as Corinna, that there have been serious questions about the errors/careless use of fingerprints as evidence. Presumably, however, the plaque cannot get away with questioning this too much, both for word-length limits and what’s seen as acceptable. Moreover, one can say that the errors and abuses are in the human/social/institutional misinterpretation of the data (though then one can argue whether the technology itself promotes or facilitates such misinterpretation by giving an impression of perfect accuracy and making it so easy to search for “matches.” Anyway, it’s because I had the same concerns as Corinna that I suggested changing “criminals” to “suspects” and saying “many” public safety experts like this technology (leaving open the possibility that others may have reservations and that civil-liberties and privacy commenters may see things differently.
- 1 Advocate's comments (posted on advocate's behalf by -- Administrator4 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- 2 Citation word change? -- Amy Bix (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- 3 Accuracy of fingerprint identification -- CSchlombs (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- 4 Accuracy of information -- Amy Bix (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)