Emotional expressions as an output of FR Facial Recognition splits into up to e.g. 36 different states of mood. How can forensics get use of these indicators? Foremost a very accurate timeline has to be underlined. But the question is What is the trigger, the reason behind an expression? How long last different emotional states in average? How to find the may invisible trigger of an emotion (the part outside the video)?
In western countries we fall behind China who uses FR for the convenience of daily live activities and collects yotta-amounts of data for AI.
How should Law Enforcement change the way of finding evidence by taking-in E3?
Please post here examples where E3 was crucial in evidence finding. Thank you.
Emotional expressions as an output of FR Facial Recognition splits into up to e.g. 36 different states of mood. How can forensics get use of these indicators?
Can you cite any serious reports or evaluations that indicate that this is a reliable methodology for forensic purposes? (And perhaps also why this is considered to be a computer forensic topic, and not a forensic psychology topic?)
From a very brief perusal of available material these methods currently appears to be somewhat below the stringency level of bite mark identification, voice comparison, and similar techniques. Claiming that expression X1 followed by X2 and X3 in rapid succession (I'm making up these things, obviously), is a strong indicator of … well, whatever, clearly has to be based on something more than just a law enforcement officer's say-so.
Thus, it should be preferably not be used at all, until there is a solid scientific base to stand on. And for that research is needed. So … law enforcement should possibly fund such research, unless a suitable LE body is capable of performing such research themselves.
The bars have been raised there's enough concern about flawed forensics expressed in recent years that some form of acknowledgement of the importance of method reliability, statistical validity, etc should be in place before it is used in practice.
Out of this doc the element of ME Micro Expression catched my attention
https://
Until now evidence does trust on E3 and forensics focusses on digital 100% reliable facts. The two endpoints of sure - unsure are black or white. But there is an area between which needs probability to be considered.
I don't know any court-related event E3 was crucial. But its time to think about how to bring together forensics and E3. Until you know you cannot say its unreliable and if E3 assists the fact you want to proove you will let beside E3.
Thats the first question Does forensics NEED to have E3? I would say yes. There is evidence based on words only. And words miss the element of emotions and interpretation. By comparing 'normal' emotions related to the situation, 'exceptional' (you name it may differently) emotions there must be a 'hidden' trigger, a reason how this specific emotions was started. Intrinsic - Extrinsic first to decide.
If you miss hard facts you need soft facts. If you miss them you have to learn to take into consideraton E3 I am convinced.
Start thinking! The flood of surveillance cams exloding around the world driven by terror fear is also a chance. Video material is a raw resource to learn and force to get out new elements of evidence, not just location.
Emotional Expression for sure is partially reliable and a huge part not. But start thinking!