Slashdot Mirror
Source Code On Trial In DNA Matching Case (post-gazette.com)
An anonymous reader writes: While computer analysis by other programs was inconclusive in matching DNA evidence to a suspect, one program, TrueAllele, gave a match. As reported in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, an expert witness for the defense wants access to the 170,000 lines of source code to determine whether the match is scientifically valid. Not surprisingly, the software creator is resisting. From the article: "TrueAllele, created by Dr. Perlin and in its current version since 2009, is the only computer software system of its kind that interprets DNA evidence using a statistical model. It can single out individuals in a complex DNA mixture by determining how much more probable a match is versus mere coincidence. Complex mixtures can involve multiple people, as well as degraded or small DNA samples. ... Although the technology is patented, the source code itself is not disclosed by any patent and cannot be derived from any publicly disclosed source. The source code has never been revealed, he said, and it would cause irreparable harm to the company if it were. In his declaration, Dr. Perlin said that reading the source code is unnecessary to validate the program, and that a review could be done in his office or online."
Perhaps it's time for a more open process and open source code backing these types devices before their results are accepted as forensic evidence.
CSI is a lie:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/csi-is-a-lie/390897/
Crime lab major errors:
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2013/02/14/news/saint-paul-crime-lab-major-errors-found
Nothing to do with copyright law.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
It has everything to do with copyright law. It's what the company is using in order to claim that they have a right to keep information from the court.
No, even if they would show the code, it wouldn't become magically free software or public domain. What they claim here is that they want to keep a trade secret.
What i find odd about this is that the code is supposed to be statistics. If the code is following the correct mathematical analysis then the code is technically already released to the public or at least academic records. The only thing protected here is the implementation, e.g. how it communicated with hardware, which algorithms are used, and the code got the UI. All this can be easily duplicated by any skilled CS student. So when he states that releasing the code even for court review will cause irreparable harm to his company it draws a serious issue to the credibility of his code. If he is using proprietary algorithms then the code cant be trusted anyway, as any algorithm that has not been scrutinized by peer review is assumed flawed and thus scientifically useless.
The only evidence in this case is a DNA result that was deemed too complex for analysis using any other method. Yet this software gets a hit, but how do we verify the result to ensure that the hit is valid? Well Dr. Perlin us using copyright and a claim that releasing the code will detrimental to his company. Only his laboratory or online can analyze it. But wait the linked article stated that no known method could analyze it? So which is true will an online search revel an algorithm that can analyze it, if so the algorithm is known and he could simply point them in the right direction, which should be disclosed right? Or the software is using an untested and unreviewed algorithm that cant be trusted. An examination in his office is useless, it has to be an unbiased 3rd party review as he is a biased party in this issue.