Rare common sense, but missing the purpose
Via Eurekalert, a group of "social" "scientists" warns that technology to detect facial expressions won't work.

There's nothing new or "scientific" in the warning. You don't need "science" to figure out that facial expressions are a very poor indicator of intention and purpose. Artists and actors and salesmen have known it for centuries. Cultural and national habits shape expression above all. Brazilians smile all the time and Russians rarely smile. Innate tendencies also shape expression. Unwanted people guard their outputs carefully from long experience with rejection. Popular people let it all out because they can. Popular people win every time regardless of expression.

Beyond the generalities, a specific setting of the face can be read in many different ways depending on situation and motion. Ask Mona Lisa.

The FBI and the Transportation Security Administration have trained agents in the past to assess smiling, scowling and other facial movements to identify and stop potential terrorists. Law enforcement agencies in the United States and Europe are now experimenting with technologies designed to automate emotion detection through facial scans. Some companies are experimenting with software to track the facial movements of job applicants during interviews. Such technology might be able to detect facial movements, but they do not detect the psychological meaning of those facial movements, Barrett and co-authors say.

These "scientists" are courageously opposing the tech monsters, but they're misreading Deepstate's PURPOSE in using facial recognition.

FBI isn't trying to "identify and stop" people who are already terrorists. That's a null set. FBI is trying to "identify and START" people who can be shaped into "terrorists" working for FBI. I'd guess that a limited range of expression denotes an alienated rejected male who is ripe for cultivation.

Companies using the tech for job interviews may simply be screwing around with Innovative Disruptive shit because Zuckerberg says it's cool. If they have any real purpose, they're trying to create an "objective" way to reject people they would reject anyway. It's easier to defend a Die-Versity lawsuit when you can say "This is what the MACHINE told us." The suing lawyers won't be able to prove that the MACHINE is following pre-matched correlations of successful vs unsuccessful applicants.
  ¶ 11:23 PM