![]() Smith said he was aware that officers had used the program during a trial run but the department’s chief, Tanya Schwartz, told him the department ultimately did not move forward with a subscription because of the lack of established procedures, policies and legal precedent. ![]() So if he didn’t find it valuable, that’s one part, but then the biggest part is usually the finances.”Ĭaptain Matt Smith of the Burnsville Police Department, which had between 1,001 to 5,000 usages according to Buzzfeed’s data, said he wasn’t aware of the amount of times his department used the system as it was never tracked. “If he finds a benefit for it, things that other officers would use, he would bring it to the admin to look at maybe getting it. “The officer we had test it is really good at trying new things and testing out new technology and whatnot,” Bisek said. The department’s Public Records Supervisor Jennifer Bisek told Buzzfeed and the West Central Tribune that only one officer used a trial version of the software after being contacted by a Clearview AI representative.īisek wrote in an email that the officer who tested the system did not recall how many results came back with his search and that their search count was between one and five, not 1,001 and 5,000.īisek said no search results led to any arrests or any substantial leads. The Prior Lake Police Department, which had one of the state’s highest usages between 1,001 and 5,000 uses, according to Buzzfeed’s data, also ultimately did not end up purchasing the program. The Renville County Sheriff’s Office decision not to use the product following a trial run corresponds with the majority of law enforcement agencies in Minnesota that responded to Buzzfeed’s questions about their use of the tool, with agencies either deciding not to use the software or saying it returned no usable leads. “However, I’m not sure that we have a need for it at this point,” Anderson wrote. Michael Anderson wrote in an email that his department has never looked at facial recognition software. “We just have never had a use for it here due to the lack of backbone systems to maintain it or make it feasible on businesses or public ends,” Holien wrote. Holien also wrote that it’s legally problematic to maintain such a program and that it would only help in a small portion of cases due to the quality of photos they typically have of suspects. Kandiyohi County Sheriff Eric Holien wrote in an email that the expense of maintaining a program like that - along with data retention, data requests and the potential oversight needed - could exceed what could be managed by his office. “And of course, if (the software) couldn’t do what it was purported to do, then there’s probably not a lot of value in what we were trying to use it for.”ĭo not use facial recognition software, according to officials from both of the agencies. “(The investigator) had a pretty clear picture of who it was that he was trying to identify,” Hable said. ![]() The Renville County Sheriff’s Office does not have a subscription to the service, according to Hable. ![]() ![]() Hable said an investigator used the Clearview AI software on a trial basis and submitted a photo of a suspect, resulting in two possible matches that were determined not to be the suspect. The Renville County Sheriff’s Office used the tool during a burglary investigation but the software did not generate any leads in the case, according to Sheriff Scott Hable. Usage of facial recognition software in Minnesota ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |