6 ms·

>My prediction: this firm will probably try to get removed from the case, rather than open source their shitty code. That isn't necessarily their choice. The p

>My prediction: this firm will probably try to get removed from the case, rather than open source their shitty code. That isn't necessarily their choice. The prosecutors will make the decision about whether to withdraw the DNA evidence. They probably won't, given that they would need to give the defendant a new trial, which could lead to an accused murderer getting off. A bad look for any prosecutor. More to the point, if the firm withdraws from any case where their credibility is questioned, what does that say to law enforcement agencies who are thinking about using their software?

bdavisx 6y ago
It would also give every person convicted using their software an incentive to open an appeal.
- Spivak 6y ago
  I like how this is considered a bad thing. Like we can’t let this guy point out that he’s being convicted by an unauditable black box that suddenly isn’t worth using if it has to stand up to scrutiny because then everyone would want to. The horror. Like I’m actually kinda shocked this is the reality. I would have assumed that DNA evidence would have some blessed methodologies and tools/algorithms, with a strict definition of what constitutes a match or partial match specifically so this wouldn’t happen.
  - hluska 6y ago
    This is one of these scary areas where reality matches my teenaged experiences playing Shadowrun. I used to hope that the brutal dystopia we played through was just fun. Now I’m seeing that the present needs a word even more brutal than dystopia. :(
    - alchemism 6y ago
      Kafkatopia
      - hluska 6y ago
        You nailed it! Thanks friend, that’s some wicked writing and thinking.
  - belorn 6y ago
    Here in Sweden, there is a legal practice that you can't find someone guilty based on DNA evidence alone. Probabilistic evidence is nice to point law enforcement in a direction, but there is always a risk of false positives. In this case we are also dealing with probabilistic genotyping involving DNA Mixtures with DNA from several individual contributors, and most likely degraded DNA. It is the tool the police can use when other more traditional methods is not possible because of the mixture. That should mean the qualitative value of the DNA evidence is lower, requiring even stronger additional evidence from other sources.
    - MereInterest 6y ago
      Interesting. What does Swedish law consider non-probabilistic evidence? Even something like eye-witness testimony I would consider to be probabilistic, given how easy it is to manipulate memories, even unintentionally.
      - acct776 6y ago
        Clear videographic, use of a PIN that only the accused had access to, etc
        gwd 6y ago
        How do you prove that only the accused had access to a PIN? Surely that's probabilistic as well?
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      In the U.S.A., a man can be convicted upon the word of a single witness, even if the defence poked significant holes into the reliability of said witness. What can happen in the U.S.A. is that one lone man says “I saw the defendant do it.”; the defence attorney can point out that the witness was drunk at the time, that he has motive to lie, that he initially reported another story to the police and only later settled on this story, and what ever else to render him completely unreliable. The jury can nevertheless return a verdict of guilty, and there are no grounds for appeal then, as it is the power of the jury to decide who is “reliable”, and it is not required to explain it's thought process at all. What a shocking development that such would result into a criminal justice system where a defendant's race and gender plays such a factor.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    I do not find this reality worse at all than people being convicted upon the black box testimony of blood splatter analysts, which is simply an expert testifying that in his conclusion the blood indicated such-and-that. Or of course, that the U.S.A. permits conviction based on the sworn testimony of a single eye witness, which is noteably unreliable. All of these are black boxes that are routinely meant to convict. — it would not surprise me if such software were far more reliable than human eye witness accounts, but if there's one thing I noticed, it's that a man is seldom afraid of bad matters, he is only afraid of bad matters produced by new technology; far worse matters can stay, so long as they be ancient enough.
gidan 6y ago
That would be implying that the prosecutor would prefer taking the life of an innocent rather than having it hurt his career, making the prosecutor kind of a criminal.
- nickodell 6y ago
  >taking the life of an innocent The prosecutor isn't unilaterally deciding whether the DNA evidence is valid. There will be a public hearing where both the prosecution and defense show evidence about the validity of the DNA evidence, and a court will rule based on that evidence.
  - bscphil 6y ago
    Yeah, the system is in a pretty horrific state when you have to count on prosecutors' restraint for anything. Granted, we are in such a state, but it's beneficial not to just accept that as the status quo.
  - afthonos 6y ago
    You should read up on the rates of plea bargaining, as well as the methods prosecutors use to push defendants to do so, which include: - Not revealing all information they are required to. - Parallel construction (see above) - Overcharging, with the goal of making the plea more palatable than the cost/risk of defending multiple absurd charges. - Lying to you while getting to throw you in jail if you lie to them. As a result, only 5% of federal cases go to trial. None of behaviors these are rare. If your understanding of the legal system is based on popular culture, as most people’s is, it is basically law enforcement propaganda that has little relationship to reality.
    - nickodell 6y ago
      Believe it or not, I was already aware of all of those things, having followed a number of criminal defense blogs. If you read the article and appellate decision which is linked, it says what I just said: >On Wednesday, the appellate court sided with the defense [PDF] and sent the case back to a lower court directing the judge to compel Cybergenetics to make the TrueAllele code available to the defense team.
ahepp 6y ago
My understanding is that (some) law enforcement agencies have been more than happy to drop cases rather than subject investigative tools to proper scrutiny[0]. They have no qualms resorting to "parallel construction"[1], and simply using the inadmissible (sometimes illegal) evidence to find admissible evidence. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather-prosecutors-drop-cases-than-disclose-stingray-details/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
- canadianfella 6y ago
  You seem to imply there is a problem with parallel construction.
- nickodell 6y ago
  Stingrays are more useful as an investigative tool than an evidentiary tool. DNA is the other way around.

bdavisx 6y ago

It would also give every person convicted using their software an incentive to open an appeal.

Spivak 6y ago
I like how this is considered a bad thing. Like we can’t let this guy point out that he’s being convicted by an unauditable black box that suddenly isn’t worth using if it has to stand up to scrutiny because then everyone would want to. The horror. Like I’m actually kinda shocked this is the reality. I would have assumed that DNA evidence would have some blessed methodologies and tools/algorithms, with a strict definition of what constitutes a match or partial match specifically so this wouldn’t happen.
- hluska 6y ago
  This is one of these scary areas where reality matches my teenaged experiences playing Shadowrun. I used to hope that the brutal dystopia we played through was just fun. Now I’m seeing that the present needs a word even more brutal than dystopia. :(
  - alchemism 6y ago
    Kafkatopia
    - hluska 6y ago
      You nailed it! Thanks friend, that’s some wicked writing and thinking.
- belorn 6y ago
  Here in Sweden, there is a legal practice that you can't find someone guilty based on DNA evidence alone. Probabilistic evidence is nice to point law enforcement in a direction, but there is always a risk of false positives. In this case we are also dealing with probabilistic genotyping involving DNA Mixtures with DNA from several individual contributors, and most likely degraded DNA. It is the tool the police can use when other more traditional methods is not possible because of the mixture. That should mean the qualitative value of the DNA evidence is lower, requiring even stronger additional evidence from other sources.
  - MereInterest 6y ago
    Interesting. What does Swedish law consider non-probabilistic evidence? Even something like eye-witness testimony I would consider to be probabilistic, given how easy it is to manipulate memories, even unintentionally.
    - acct776 6y ago
      Clear videographic, use of a PIN that only the accused had access to, etc
      - gwd 6y ago
        How do you prove that only the accused had access to a PIN? Surely that's probabilistic as well?
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    In the U.S.A., a man can be convicted upon the word of a single witness, even if the defence poked significant holes into the reliability of said witness. What can happen in the U.S.A. is that one lone man says “I saw the defendant do it.”; the defence attorney can point out that the witness was drunk at the time, that he has motive to lie, that he initially reported another story to the police and only later settled on this story, and what ever else to render him completely unreliable. The jury can nevertheless return a verdict of guilty, and there are no grounds for appeal then, as it is the power of the jury to decide who is “reliable”, and it is not required to explain it's thought process at all. What a shocking development that such would result into a criminal justice system where a defendant's race and gender plays such a factor.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  I do not find this reality worse at all than people being convicted upon the black box testimony of blood splatter analysts, which is simply an expert testifying that in his conclusion the blood indicated such-and-that. Or of course, that the U.S.A. permits conviction based on the sworn testimony of a single eye witness, which is noteably unreliable. All of these are black boxes that are routinely meant to convict. — it would not surprise me if such software were far more reliable than human eye witness accounts, but if there's one thing I noticed, it's that a man is seldom afraid of bad matters, he is only afraid of bad matters produced by new technology; far worse matters can stay, so long as they be ancient enough.

gidan 6y ago

That would be implying that the prosecutor would prefer taking the life of an innocent rather than having it hurt his career, making the prosecutor kind of a criminal.

nickodell 6y ago
>taking the life of an innocent The prosecutor isn't unilaterally deciding whether the DNA evidence is valid. There will be a public hearing where both the prosecution and defense show evidence about the validity of the DNA evidence, and a court will rule based on that evidence.
- bscphil 6y ago
  Yeah, the system is in a pretty horrific state when you have to count on prosecutors' restraint for anything. Granted, we are in such a state, but it's beneficial not to just accept that as the status quo.
- afthonos 6y ago
  You should read up on the rates of plea bargaining, as well as the methods prosecutors use to push defendants to do so, which include: - Not revealing all information they are required to. - Parallel construction (see above) - Overcharging, with the goal of making the plea more palatable than the cost/risk of defending multiple absurd charges. - Lying to you while getting to throw you in jail if you lie to them. As a result, only 5% of federal cases go to trial. None of behaviors these are rare. If your understanding of the legal system is based on popular culture, as most people’s is, it is basically law enforcement propaganda that has little relationship to reality.
  - nickodell 6y ago
    Believe it or not, I was already aware of all of those things, having followed a number of criminal defense blogs. If you read the article and appellate decision which is linked, it says what I just said: >On Wednesday, the appellate court sided with the defense [PDF] and sent the case back to a lower court directing the judge to compel Cybergenetics to make the TrueAllele code available to the defense team.

ahepp 6y ago

My understanding is that (some) law enforcement agencies have been more than happy to drop cases rather than subject investigative tools to proper scrutiny[0]. They have no qualms resorting to "parallel construction"[1], and simply using the inadmissible (sometimes illegal) evidence to find admissible evidence. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather-prosecutors-drop-cases-than-disclose-stingray-details/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

canadianfella 6y ago
You seem to imply there is a problem with parallel construction.
nickodell 6y ago
Stingrays are more useful as an investigative tool than an evidentiary tool. DNA is the other way around.