Angela Lipps spent nearly six months in jail in Tennessee and North Dakota after being misidentified by Fargo police through AI facial recognition in a bank fraud investigation.
There are 4 things that need to be true for a defamation case. The statement must be false. The statement must be presented in away a reasonable person would believe it. The statement must be published for at least one other person to see. The statement must cause harm
The hardest part will be the second condition. The software publisher probably has all kinds of disclaimers in their EULA to cover this one. It also depends on how the software presents the information to the user.
It’s not the woman it’s the police officer/department that would agree. So, if there is language saying the user knows and understands that the system is not accurate then it becomes harder to go after the developer.
I find it hard to believe the software gives a yes or no answer. It almost certainly gives some sort of score and it’s up to the human to interpret that.
If I was the architect of the system that is how I would do it. However a high enough score could still be sufficient in this case. The system made an assertion that lead to damages even if the assertion was 60% match.
There are 4 things that need to be true for a defamation case. The statement must be false. The statement must be presented in away a reasonable person would believe it. The statement must be published for at least one other person to see. The statement must cause harm
The hardest part will be the second condition. The software publisher probably has all kinds of disclaimers in their EULA to cover this one. It also depends on how the software presents the information to the user.
The woman didn’t sign a EULA with the vendor.
I would say your three reqs are met.
It’s not the woman it’s the police officer/department that would agree. So, if there is language saying the user knows and understands that the system is not accurate then it becomes harder to go after the developer.
I find it hard to believe the software gives a yes or no answer. It almost certainly gives some sort of score and it’s up to the human to interpret that.
This is entirely on Fargo police
If I was the architect of the system that is how I would do it. However a high enough score could still be sufficient in this case. The system made an assertion that lead to damages even if the assertion was 60% match.