PLEASE SEE ATTACHED DIRECTIONS

PLEASE SEE ATTACHED DIRECTIONS
James O’Neill June 10, 2019 The New York Times The New York Times Company Editorial 1,055 words (Level 4) 1190LFull Text:  “Technology has improved the profession beyond what the most imaginative officer could have conceived in those days.”James O’Neill is the police commissioner for the New York Police Department (NYPD) in New York, New York. In the followingviewpoint, O’Neill discusses the role of the Facial Identification Section of NYPD’s Detective Bureau and examines the advantagesand limitations of using facial recognition technology to investigate and prevent crime. The author describes the process of using thissoftware as a tool to apprehend suspects and clarifies that its findings are always subjected to further examination by trainedexperts. He argues that the NYPD’s use of facial recognition technology is especially crucial to public safety as a tool to investigateperpetrators of violent crimes and other serious offenses.As you read, consider the following questions: According to O’Neill, what checks are conducted by the NYPD to ensure that suspects identified by the Facial Identification1. Section are investigated fairly?What are some of the limitations of facial recognition technology as used by the NYPD? Why do you think the author2. emphasizes these limitations?In your opinion, under what circumstances, if any, should law enforcement employ facial recognition software to investigate or3. prosecute criminal activity? Explain your response.In 1983, when I was sworn in as a police officer, many of the routine tasks of the trade would have seemed more familiar to a copfrom my grandfather’s day than to a new police academy graduate today. I took ink fingerprints on paper cards and used a Polaroidcamera for mug shots. Reports were handwritten or typed on carbon triplicates. Biological evidence could be analyzed only in termsof blood type.Technology has improved the profession beyond what the most imaginative officer could have conceived in those days. Theseinnovations include facial recognition software, which has proved its worth as a crime-fighting resource since we adopted it in 2011.But the technology has also raised concerns about privacy, so the public should know how the New York Police Department uses itssystem — and the safeguards we have in place.When detectives obtain useful video in an investigation, they can provide it to the Facial Identification Section, of the DetectiveBureau. An algorithm makes a template of the face, measuring the shapes of features and their relative distances from each other. Adatabase consisting solely of arrest photos is then searched as the sole source of potential candidates — not photos from theDepartment of Motor Vehicles, Facebook, traffic cameras or the myriad streams of close-circuit TV video from around the city. Facial”landmarks” are compared without reference to race, gender or ethnicity.After the software generates a list of possible matches, an investigator assesses their resemblance to the suspect. If one is selected,a review is conducted by detectives and seasoned supervisors, noting similarities and differences. If they affirm the match, theinvestigator proceeds with further research, including an examination of social media and other open-source images.We might find social media images of a person at a birthday party wearing the same clothing as the suspect in a robbery. Thatperson then becomes a lead; the facial identification team will provide only a single such lead to the case detective. Leads providedby the unit are comparable to tips to our Crime Stoppers hotline — no matter how compelling, they must be verified to establishprobable cause for an arrest. No one can be arrested on the basis of the computer match alone.In 2018, detectives made 7,024 requests to the Facial Identification Section, and in 1,851 cases possible matches were returned,leading to 998 arrests. Some investigations are still being conducted and some suspects have not been apprehended. But in many cases there have been clear results. Recently, the work of the facial identification team led to the arrest of a manaccused of raping a worker at a day spa, and another charged with pushing a subway passenger onto the tracks. We have madearrests in murders, robberies and the on-air assault of a TV reporter. A woman whose dismembered body was found in trash bags intwo Bronx parks was identified. So was a woman hospitalized with Alzheimer’s, through an old arrest photo for driving without alicense.The software has also cleared suspects. According to the Innocence Project, 71 percent of its documented instances of falseconvictions are the result of mistaken witness identifications. When facial recognition technology is used as a limited and preliminarystep in an investigation — the way our department uses it — these miscarriages of justice are less likely.We have never put police sketches into the system; they would be of no value. We have used editing software to substitute a genericfeature when a suspect is closing his eyes or sticking out his tongue in the submitted photo. The system can also create a mirrorimage of the right side of a face if we have only the left side, for example, to produce a 3-D model.[If you use technology, someone is using your information. We’ll tell you how — and what you can do about it. Sign up for our limited-run newsletter .]We use these methods solely to fill in missing or distorted data. And when we do so, we bring an additional degree of scrutiny to theprocess. To compare this to filling in a partial fingerprint, as the Georgetown Center for Privacy and Technology did in a recent report,is absurd. It makes sense to create an image of a suspect’s left ear using his right ear as a model. But it is impossible to infer theshape of a nose from the shape of a chin. As the algorithm is constantly improving in its ability to read lower-quality images, theediting software is used less and less frequently.The department does not conduct civil immigration enforcement, and neither does our Facial Identification Section. But we do workwith other police departments when appropriate. A recent request from the F.B.I. led to the identification of a child sex trafficker whoadvertised his services on social media.Biometric technology is no longer new. It is routinely used everywhere from shopping malls to doctors’ offices. Its application by thedepartment is carefully controlled and its invaluable contributions to police investigations have been achieved without infringement onthe public’s right to privacy. When cases using this technology have been prosecuted, our methods and findings are subject toexamination in court.Facial recognition technology can provide a uniquely powerful tool in our most challenging investigations: when a stranger suddenlycommits a violent act on the street. In the days of fingerprint cards and Polaroid mug shots, these crimes defined New York City, forvisitors and residents alike.Though far rarer now, they remain life-altering, and sometimes life-ending, events. To keep New York City safe requires enormousand relentless effort. It would be an injustice to the people we serve if we policed our 21st-century city without using 21st-centurytechnology.James O’Neill is the police commissioner for New York City.Like other media companies, The Times collects data on its visitors when they read stories like this one. For more detail please seeour privacy policy and our publisher’s description of The Times’s practices and continued steps to increase transparency andprotections.Follow @privacyproject on Twitter and The New York Times Opinion Section on Facebook and Instagram .This is a more complete version of the story than the one that appeared in print.CAPTION(S):DRAWING (DRAWING BY ERIK CARTER) COPYRIGHT 2019 The New York Times Company http://www.nytimes.com (MLA 8th Edition)    O’Neill, James. “How Facial Recognition Makes You Safer.” , 10 June 2019, p. A23(L). , https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A588322355/OVIC?u=uphoenix&sid=OVIC&xid=ffd7b777. Accessed 4 Oct. 2020. GALE|A588322355
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED DIRECTIONS
Farhad Manjoo May 17, 2019 The New York Times The New York Times Company Editorial 1,487 words (Level 4) 1220LFull Text:  “We might still decide, at a later time, to give ourselves over to cameras everywhere. But let’s not jump into an all-seeing futurewithout understanding the risks at hand.”Farhad Manjoo is an opinion columnist with the New York Times . In the following viewpoint, Manjoo cautions against using facialrecognition technology. He contends that it poses serious risks to privacy and civil rights, especially as it has been used by lawenforcement to investigate criminal activity. Manjoo cites the findings of researchers at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, toillustrate these fears. According to the author, studies have identified instances of flagrant misuse of facial recognition technology bylaw enforcement to locate and arrest individuals suspected of criminal activity. Manjoo posits that, while facial recognition technologymay hold some benefits, its use should be carefully regulated.As you read, consider the following questions: Why is the author concerned about ongoing plans for the use of facial recognition technology in Detroit, Michigan?1. Do you share the author’s concerns about the increased use of camera surveillance technology by law enforcement agencies?2. Why or why not?In your opinion, what types of restrictions on law enforcement’s use of facial recognition technology would be appropriate?3. Explain your answer.What are we going to do about all the cameras? The question keeps me up at night, in something like terror.Cameras are the defining technological advance of our age. They are the keys to our smartphones, the eyes of tomorrow’sautonomous drones and the FOMO engines that drive Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and Pornhub. Cheap, ubiquitous, viralphotography has fed social movements like Black Lives Matter, but cameras are already prompting more problems than we knowwhat to do with — revenge porn, live-streamed terrorism, YouTube reactionaries and other photographic ills.And cameras aren’t done. They keep getting cheaper and — in ways both amazing and alarming — they are getting smarter.Advances in computer vision are giving machines the ability to distinguish and track faces, to make guesses about people’sbehaviors and intentions, and to comprehend and navigate threats in the physical environment. In China, smart cameras sit at thefoundation of an all-encompassing surveillance totalitarianism unprecedented in human history. In the West, intelligent cameras arenow being sold as cheap solutions to nearly every private and public woe, from catching cheating spouses and package thieves topreventing school shootings and immigration violations. I suspect these and more uses will take off, because in my years of coveringtech, I’ve gleaned one ironclad axiom about society: If you put a camera in it, it will sell.That’s why I worry that we’re stumbling dumbly into a surveillance state. And it’s why I think the only reasonable thing to do aboutsmart cameras now is to put a stop to them.[Farhad Manjoo will answer your questions about his column on Friday at 1:30 p.m. Eastern: @fmanjoo ]This week, San Francisco’s board of supervisors voted to ban the use of facial-recognition technology by the city’s police and otheragencies. Oakland and Berkeley are also considering bans, as is the city of Somerville, Mass. I’m hoping for a cascade. States, citiesand the federal government should impose an immediate moratorium on facial recognition, especially its use by law-enforcementagencies. We might still decide, at a later time, to give ourselves over to cameras everywhere. But let’s not jump into an all-seeingfuture without understanding the risks at hand.What are the risks? Two new reports by Clare Garvie, a researcher who studies facial recognition at Georgetown Law, brought the dangers home for me. In one report — written with Laura Moy, executive director of Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy &Technology — Ms. Garvie uncovered municipal contracts indicating that law enforcement agencies in Chicago, Detroit and severalother cities are moving quickly, and with little public notice, to install Chinese-style ”real time” facial recognition systems.In Detroit, the researchers discovered that the city signed a $1 million deal with DataWorks Plus, a facial recognition vendor, forsoftware that allows for continuous screening of hundreds of private and public cameras set up around the city — in gas stations, fast-food restaurants, churches, hotels, clinics, addiction treatment centers, affordable-housing apartments and schools. Faces caught bythe cameras can be searched against Michigan’s driver’s license photo database. Researchers also obtained the Detroit PoliceDepartment’s rules governing how officers can use the system. The rules are broad, allowing police to scan faces ”on live or recordedvideo” for a wide variety of reasons, including to ”investigate and/or corroborate tips and leads.” In a letter to Ms. Garvie, James E.Craig, Detroit’s police chief, disputed any ”Orwellian activities,” adding that he took ”great umbrage” at the suggestion that the policewould ”violate the rights of law-abiding citizens.”[Facial recognition technology has stoked controversy over the years. Here’s a look back.]I’m less optimistic, and so is Ms. Garvie. ”Face recognition gives law enforcement a unique ability that they’ve never had before,” Ms.Garvie told me. ”That’s the ability to conduct biometric surveillance — the ability to see not just what is happening on the ground butwho is doing it. This has never been possible before. We’ve never been able to take mass fingerprint scans of a group of people insecret. We’ve never been able to do that with DNA. Now we can with face scans.”That ability alters how we should think about privacy in public spaces. It has chilling implications for speech and assembly protectedby the First Amendment; it means that the police can watch who participates in protests against the police and keep tabs on themafterward.In fact, this is already happening. In 2015, when protests erupted in Baltimore over the death of Freddie Gray while in police custody,the Baltimore County Police Department used facial recognition software to find people in the crowd who had outstanding warrants –arresting them immediately, in the name of public safety.But there’s another wrinkle in the debate over facial recognition. In a second report, Ms. Garvie found that for all their alleged power,face-scanning systems are being used by the police in a rushed, sloppy way that should call into question their results.Here’s one of the many crazy stories in Ms. Garvie’s report: In the spring of 2017, a man was caught on a security camera stealingbeer from a CVS store in New York. But the camera didn’t get a good shot of the man, and the city’s face-scanning system returnedno match.The police, however, were undeterred. A detective in the New York Police Department’s facial recognition department thought theman in the pixelated CVS video looked like the actor Woody Harrelson. So the detective went to Google Images, got a picture of theactor and ran his face through the face scanner. That produced a match, and the law made its move. A man was arrested for thecrime not because he looked like the guy caught on tape but because Woody Harrelson did.Devora Kaye, a spokeswoman for the New York Police Department, told me that the department uses facial recognition merely as aninvestigative lead and that ”further investigation is always needed to develop probable cause to arrest.” She added that ”the N.Y.P.D.constantly reassesses our existing procedures and in line with that are in the process of reviewing our existent facial recognitionprotocols.”This sort of sketchy search is routine in the face business. Face-scanning software sold to the police allows for easy editing of inputphotos. To increase the hits they get on a photo, the police are advised to replace people’s mouths, eyes and other facial featureswith model images pulled from Google. The software also allows for ”3D modeling,” essentially using computer animation to rotate orotherwise change a face so that it can match a standard mug-shot photo.In a bizarre twist, some police departments are even pushing the use of facial recognition on forensic sketches: They will search forreal people’s faces based on artists’ renderings of an eyewitness account, a process riddled with the sort of human subjectivity thatfacial recognition was supposed to obviate.The most troubling thing about all of this is that there are almost no rules governing its use. ”If we were to find out that a fingerprintanalyst were drawing in where he thought the missing lines of a fingerprint were, that would be grounds for a mistrial,” Ms. Garviesaid.But people are being arrested, charged and convicted based on similar practices in face searches. And because there are nomandates about what defendants and their attorneys must be told about these searches, the police are allowed to act with impunity.None of this is to say that facial recognition should be banned forever. The technology may have some legitimate uses. But it alsoposes profound legal and ethical quandaries. What sort of rules should we impose on law enforcement’s use of facial recognition?What about on the use of smart cameras by our friends and neighbors, in their cars and doorbells? In short, who has the right tosurveil others — and under what circumstances can you object?It will take time and careful study to answer these questions. But we have time. There’s no need to rush into the unknown. Let’s stopusing facial recognition immediately, at least until we figure out what is going on.Office Hours With Farhad Manjoo Farhad wants to chat with readers on the phone . If you’re interested in talking to a New York Times columnist about anything that’son your mind, please fill out this form. He will select a few readers to call.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of ourarticles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .This is a more complete version of the story than the one that appeared in print.CAPTION(S):DRAWING (DRAWING BY SIMONE NORONHA) COPYRIGHT 2019 The New York Times Company http://www.nytimes.com (MLA 8th Edition)    Manjoo, Farhad. “Facial Recognition Must Be Put on Hold.” , 17 May 2019, p. A29(L). , https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A585695192/OVIC?u=uphoenix&sid=OVIC&xid=ca7be3a5. Accessed 4 Oct. 2020. GALE|A585695192
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED DIRECTIONS
HUM/115 v9 #1(WEEK 3)- In the first 2 weeks of this course, you learned about factors that can influence the effectiveness of critical thinking. This week, you learn about the effects of social errors, biases, and fallacies. These elements are helpful in persuasion. After completing the Learning Activities for the week, please respond to all the questions below. Your response should be a minimum of 175 words total (approx. 50 words per question). Review the Four Social Errors and Biases presented in Ch. 4 of THiNK: Critical Thinking and Logic Skills for Everyday Life. Which of the social errors/biases in the book are you most affected by? How can you overcome this social error/bias? Ch. 5 describes fallacies (when an argument seems to be correct but isn’t). What is one fallacy you have personally used or seen in an argument? Discuss how critical thinking skills will make you less likely to be influenced by arguments that are based on fallacies and faulty reasoning. Reflect on the learning activities, concepts, ideas, and topics covered this week. What is the most interesting activity or concept you learned this week? Mention any concepts that are still a bit confusing to you or that you have questions about. *****RESPOND IN 175 WORDS. #2(WEEK 4)- Every day we engage in arguments. This is another instance where defining our words is important. When we talk about critical thinking, the “arguments” we refer to are not the conflicts or squabbles we have with others in daily interactions. In critical thinking, arguments are acts of persuading others about the value of an action or point of view. Whether we want to convince someone to join our view, or they want us to agree with them, the exchange, or argument, is a place where the use of critical thinking is beneficial. After completing the Learning Activities for the week, please respond to all the questions below. Your response should be a minimum of 175 words total (approx. 50 words per question). Describe two factors we should consider when evaluating an argument (discussed in Ch. 6 of THiNK: Critical Thinking and Logic Skills for Everyday Life.) Why are they important? After reading Ch. 7 and 8 in THiNK: Critical Thinking and Logic Skills for Everyday Life, how would you describe, in your own words, the differences between inductive and deductive arguments? Reflect on the learning activities, concepts, ideas, and topics covered this week. What is the most interesting activity or concept you learned this week? Mention any concepts that are still a bit confusing to you or that you have questions on. *****RESPOND IN 175 WORDS. Arguments Review both the pro and con argument articles ATTACHED on facial recognition and then answer the following questions (your response to each question should be 50 words long): Identify the author and source (publisher) of the pro facial recognition article (using link provided above). Do you think this author/source is credible? Why or why not? (Hint: Review the author’s background, authority, etc.) What is one reason (premise) the author gives for supporting his conclusion that facial recognition software is beneficial and necessary?  What evidence, statistics and/or outside sources does he provide to support this reason? Identify the author and source (publisher) of the con facial recognition article (using link provided above). Do you think this author/source is credible? Why or why not? What is one reason (premise) the author gives for supporting his conclusion that facial recognition software can be detrimental and needs to be put on hold for now?  What evidence, statistics and/or outside sources does he provide to support this reason? Which of these articles do you feel met all the criteria of a strong argument (clear, relevant, credible, complete, and sound) and why (explain how the article meets each criteria in your response)? After reviewing and analyzing both articles, what do you think is the value of understanding multiple viewpoints before forming an opinion or argument? Copyright 2020 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.