26 | New Scientist | 14 March 2020
Editor’s pick
Face recognition’s faults
will bring death from afar
22 February, p 13
From Brian Horton,
West Launceston, Tasmania, Australia
The US military is developing a
face-recognition device that could
be accurate from a kilometre away.
The idea seems to be to use this on
drones, which will presumably act
when detecting a person of interest.
A separate prize challenge
for such a system, from the US
National Institute of Standards and
Technology, allowed a false match
rate of one in 1000 people. This
may sound impressive, but if a
drone with this technology is flying
past a village of 1000 or so people,
it will almost certainly pick one of
them in error as a target.From Bryn Glover,
Kirkby Malzeard, North Yorkshire, UK
Long-distance, drone-mounted
face-recognition systems should
surely cause consternation. You
have previously reported the
inherent errors of this technology,
particularly when dealing with faces
that don’t belong to white men
(17 February 2018, p 5). Those
tests used still photographs,
presumably taken by firmly fixed
static cameras that were no more
than a few metres from their
subjects. Amnesty International
is right to be alarmed about the
implications of such devices.Smartphones can be tools
against tuberculosis too
1 February, p 12
From Timothy McHugh,
London, UK
I am impressed and intrigued
by the skill of your picture desk
in selecting eye-catching images:
this is nicely demonstrated by the
one printed with your article on
mobile phone data and mental
health. It shows a person on their
phone in front of a vehicle bearing
the National Health Service logo.
The vehicle is the Find&Treat
mobile X-ray unit of UniversityCollege London Hospitals:
I am part of its tuberculosis
management group. Find&Treat
brings diagnosis of this disease
to vulnerable communities.
The picture is particularly apt as
Find&Treat has pioneered the use
of mobile phones for supervising
antitubercular treatment. In
video-observed therapy, patients
are supported through a mobile
phone app as they follow the
demanding regimen for
treatment of tuberculosis.
TB remains a global health
emergency: novel approaches
such as this are needed to meet
this challenge. Readers may wish
to learn more by joining us for
World TB Day on 24 March.More consequences of
giving pigs human genes
22 February, p 18
From Karen Hinchley, Newark-
on-Trent, Nottinghamshire, UK
Jessica Hamzelou addresses
the ethical dilemmas around
beings with a mix of human
and other genes, their grade
of humanity and how we treat
them. These quandaries extend
to the disposal of, for example,pig-human tissue. If such tissue
isn’t deemed “substantially
human”, then what disposal
mechanisms should be employed?
How would you feel about
such meat entering the food
chain? Would that depend on
the percentage of human genetic
material? This is before we get
to the stage of considering an
adult chimera’s right to live – or
whether a chimera with “morally
significant” characteristics, such
as self-consciousness, should be
offered therapy for its identity
crisis. If we can’t decide on a life
form’s value to humanity, perhaps
we shouldn’t put ourselves into
that quandary in the first place.We promote best practice
certificates for aquaculture
Leader, 22 February
From Steven Hedlund,
Global Aquaculture Alliance,
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, US
You discuss the prospect of lab-
made shrimp, saying it would be
an improvement over shrimp
farming and that aquaculture
has sustainability problems.
Aquaculture aligns with the
majority of the 17 United Nations’Sustainable Development Goals.
It is highly resource-efficient,
especially compared with
terrestrial animal production.
It makes a significant socio-
economic contribution in coastal
and rural communities where
financial opportunities tend to
be limited, and produces a rich
source of protein, essential fats,
vitamins and minerals.
There is a worldwide effort to
ensure that the proper methods
are applied through third-party
certification programmes like the
Global Aquaculture Alliance’s set
of best practices.Keeping hieroglyphics
would cement privilege
8 February, p 34
From Geoffrey Harding,
Sydney, Australia
Your article on the invention
of the alphabet was fascinating.
I suggest a further possible
reason for its delayed uptake.
For scribes, intellectuals and
government officials, knowledge
of hieroglyphs assisted them in
maintaining their positions of
power and influence in society.
They would rightly fear andViews You r le t te r s