If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Courting disaster?   ( wired.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, DNA, law enforcement, TrueAllele, Kern County, DNA testing, DNA evidence, enforcement analyze DNA, DNA probabilistic analysis  
•       •       •

3756 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Dec 2017 at 8:45 PM (32 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



20 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-12-03 05:33:18 PM  
TrueAllele has recently announced that it will make the code accessible to defense attorneys for $10,000, plus $2,000 a day.

"In the interest of justice we need to take a look at your algorithm"

"F*ck you, pay me"
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2017-12-03 05:44:03 PM  
The same battle has been going on in traffic court, because the most important evidence in most DUI cases is the reading on a machine that defense attorneys are not allowed to understand. The prevailing opinion of judges is pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, obey the flashing lights.
 
2017-12-03 06:15:57 PM  

ZAZ: because the most important evidence in most DUI cases is the reading on a machine that defense attorneys are not allowed to understand.


Yep.  One of my other friends said that the first information that should be asked for is the calibration records/schedule/training required to use it.
 
2017-12-03 07:16:46 PM  
If you use anything evidence in a court, it should be fully open to the public except where it's not possible because of its nature, like child porn. But even in those cases, it should be fully open to the judge, jury, and lawyers working on the specific case.

Any kind of propriety algorithm like this should be illegal to submit as evidence without the source code also being made public.
 
2017-12-03 07:54:19 PM  

doglover: If you use anything evidence in a court, it should be fully open to the public except where it's not possible because of its nature, like child porn. But even in those cases, it should be fully open to the judge, jury, and lawyers working on the specific case.

Any kind of propriety algorithm like this should be illegal to submit as evidence without the source code also being made public.


Hey, if you start with something like that, what's next? Voting machines? How DARE you question the integrity of the Glorious Corporate Master Race, sirrah? HOW DARE YOU?
 
2017-12-03 08:56:59 PM  

doglover: If you use anything evidence in a court, it should be fully open to the public except where it's not possible because of its nature, like child porn. But even in those cases, it should be fully open to the judge, jury, and lawyers working on the specific case.

Any kind of propriety algorithm like this should be illegal to submit as evidence without the source code also being made public.


At the farking minimum, the goddamn defense attorneys. "fark you, pay me" indeed.
 
2017-12-03 09:27:43 PM  
I didn't see who is vetting this software. Or is the accuracy all marketing?
 
2017-12-03 09:37:01 PM  

wildcardjack: I didn't see who is vetting this software. Or is the accuracy all marketing?


Per the article, the company vetted it's own software and found no errors.

My arms are not long enough for the giant wanking motion in my soul.
 
2017-12-03 09:39:26 PM  
I'm out of money, I'm out of hope, it looks like self destruction.  Well how much more can we take with all of this corruption?
 
2017-12-04 12:34:28 AM  
You don't need the code. It should be relatively easy to setup a double blind experiment, and test the accuracy of the code. You probably wouldn't be able to estimate the true level of accuracy. But narrow it down to 10k to 1 or whatever the law requires, and it's all good.
 
2017-12-04 12:37:37 AM  

ZAZ: The same battle has been going on in traffic court, because the most important evidence in most DUI cases is the reading on a machine that defense attorneys are not allowed to understand. The prevailing opinion of judges is pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, obey the flashing lights.


That whole breathalyzer (sp?) thing was taken to court last year in this country. Went all the eay to our supreme court abd was shown to be unreliable and giving false positives. Therefore use of it is prohibited and blood samples must be taken and analized. The thing is, now with that, if they pull you over on a friday night and you look at all drunk when driving they take a blood sample and then throw you in jail until monday when the blood can be tested for alcohol levels (this being the country that it is and most professionals being completely unreacable over the weekends).

Not much of an improvement.
 
2017-12-04 12:40:59 AM  
At best, this tech could be used as probable cause to get a search warrant. But the fact that the companies do not want to reveal the source code used indicates it is not reliable for even that. No peer reviewed studies, no confirmation through a separate method? It isn't worth a damn then and should be shown to be the pseudoscience that it is.
 
2017-12-04 01:28:16 AM  
Convicting people using an undisclosed algorithm and the code that implements it is, frankly, insane. Reminds me of the red light cameras we used to have here in San Diego. When defendants demanded design documents so they could assess the system's reliability and accuracy, the manufacturer threatened them with lawsuits over disclosure of proprietary information.

TFA doesn't mention another "junk science" evidentiary technique of a couple decades ago: bullet lead signatures, in which lead from bullets supposedly contains trace materials that can narrow them down to a specific batch. If a crime scene bullet has the same trace materials as bullets in the perp's possession, you've supposedly got your man. Turns out not to be true, but they only figured that out after people were convicted based on it.
 
2017-12-04 02:12:26 AM  

jjorsett: Convicting people using an undisclosed algorithm and the code that implements it is, frankly, insane. Reminds me of the red light cameras we used to have here in San Diego. When defendants demanded design documents so they could assess the system's reliability and accuracy, the manufacturer threatened them with lawsuits over disclosure of proprietary information.

TFA doesn't mention another "junk science" evidentiary technique of a couple decades ago: bullet lead signatures, in which lead from bullets supposedly contains trace materials that can narrow them down to a specific batch. If a crime scene bullet has the same trace materials as bullets in the perp's possession, you've supposedly got your man. Turns out not to be true, but they only figured that out after people were convicted based on it.


I'll bet the Innocence Project uses the same system to exonerate people as well.  You can't have it both ways.  If it can't be used to convict people because, "that's insane", it can't be used to free them either.
 
2017-12-04 02:29:40 AM  

devildog123: jjorsett: Convicting people using an undisclosed algorithm and the code that implements it is, frankly, insane. Reminds me of the red light cameras we used to have here in San Diego. When defendants demanded design documents so they could assess the system's reliability and accuracy, the manufacturer threatened them with lawsuits over disclosure of proprietary information.

TFA doesn't mention another "junk science" evidentiary technique of a couple decades ago: bullet lead signatures, in which lead from bullets supposedly contains trace materials that can narrow them down to a specific batch. If a crime scene bullet has the same trace materials as bullets in the perp's possession, you've supposedly got your man. Turns out not to be true, but they only figured that out after people were convicted based on it.

I'll bet the Innocence Project uses the same system to exonerate people as well.  You can't have it both ways.  If it can't be used to convict people because, "that's insane", it can't be used to free them either.


Exactly, but everything I have read of the Innocence project has use just normal DNA evidence that was not at all available or simply wasn't processed at the time of the trials. They also focus on prosecutorial and police misconduct. Never checking on a lead or interviewing an eye witness that would exclude the person happens far too often. That and not turning over all evidence and witness list to the defense. There are also cases of inadequate or inept defense from either apathy, incompetence, or case overload. Keep in mind that the prosecutor has a budget to hire investigators and has the police on their side. Most defendants get a single lawyer that has dozens of other cases and is paid poorly.

Our system of justice is flawed and does need review from outside groups.
 
2017-12-04 03:58:24 AM  
Yeah... closed and proprietary technology should definitely be inadmissible in criminal cases at the least, and more realistically it should be automatically considered an illegal search to use it to establish probable cause etc, too.

Same applies to red light camera systems, etc, and the principle in general needs to also apply to voting machines and basically any wireless communications system (the airwaves are owned collectively by the public).  You want to use a public resource to do a thing, or be able to use your product to impact the course of public services?  That's the minimum cost of business.
 
2017-12-04 04:00:53 AM  
I'd rather just go flirting with disaster.

Molly Hatchet- Flirting With Disaster
Youtube 0wxAMa3Prhk
 
2017-12-04 05:19:48 AM  
devildog123:

False. Innocent until proven guilty means you only have to prove the evidence is true. Even a shadow of doubt means the evidence should be discarded, the conviction overturned, and the prosecutor who okayed it beaten a percentage of the way to death from 0-100% depending on the severity of the case and the unreliability of the alleged evidence.

But alas, no one cares about justice.
 
2017-12-04 08:49:27 AM  

Smoking GNU: ZAZ: The same battle has been going on in traffic court, because the most important evidence in most DUI cases is the reading on a machine that defense attorneys are not allowed to understand. The prevailing opinion of judges is pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, obey the flashing lights.

That whole breathalyzer (sp?) thing was taken to court last year in this country. Went all the eay to our supreme court abd was shown to be unreliable and giving false positives. Therefore use of it is prohibited and blood samples must be taken and analized. The thing is, now with that, if they pull you over on a friday night and you look at all drunk when driving they take a blood sample and then throw you in jail until monday when the blood can be tested for alcohol levels (this being the country that it is and most professionals being completely unreacable over the weekends).

Not much of an improvement.


Namibia has breathalyzers?  I know it only for its beautiful minerals, such as Pietersite and Sodalite.
 
2017-12-04 08:52:03 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Smoking GNU: ZAZ: The same battle has been going on in traffic court, because the most important evidence in most DUI cases is the reading on a machine that defense attorneys are not allowed to understand. The prevailing opinion of judges is pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, obey the flashing lights.

That whole breathalyzer (sp?) thing was taken to court last year in this country. Went all the eay to our supreme court abd was shown to be unreliable and giving false positives. Therefore use of it is prohibited and blood samples must be taken and analized. The thing is, now with that, if they pull you over on a friday night and you look at all drunk when driving they take a blood sample and then throw you in jail until monday when the blood can be tested for alcohol levels (this being the country that it is and most professionals being completely unreacable over the weekends).

Not much of an improvement.

Namibia has breathalyzers?  I know it only for its beautiful minerals, such as Pietersite and Sodalite.


Had.
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report