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."

Comments

Wrong industry?

[Type44Q]

Guess if he didn't want his code audited, this guy shouldn't have marketed his software to this particular industry. Dumbass.

Re: Wrong industry?

[SLi]

Well, not really. If the relevant facts are roughly as stated in the summary, it's indeed quite possible that the company will be forced to produce the source code or not rely on the evidence. However the only thing this means is that the defendant's paid experts get access to the source code under a strict protective order. They will then produce an expert report, which is the only thing anybody else will have access to, and even that may be sealed in whole or part if it would reveal, in the opinion of the judge (and often anyway unless the defendants object) significant trade secrets.

I think the two most realistic reasons to oppose are the costs of production and the possible loss of reputation if the evidence due to the inevitable criticism by opposing experts.

Re:Wrong industry?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get to use the code. It is opened for analysis only for few selected professionals and most certainly not shown to someone who has competing code. There is no problem with copyright here. The copyright is still with the one (company) who wrote the code.

Re:Wrong industry?

[alzoron]

Exactly right.

This is basically the same as asking an expert witness how they determined that the defendant was involved in a crime and the witness refusing to answer the question because "It's a secret."

Reasonable Doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

From the perspective of the burden of proof placed on the Prosecution, they have to disclose how they arrived at this derived 'evidence' of a match via TrueAllele. Criminal justice can't be served using a "Black-Box" as an input.

Disclose the software and its methods to a legally-sworn-to-secrecy-expert-witness, or toss the evidence as inadmissible.

Thrown it out

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess if we can't see the code that shows that the DNA sample is valid then thrown out the results, pretty simple.

People need to learn if they are creating software that needs to hold up in court that they can't hide it. Trowing out the evidence would be the first step to make sure no one wants to pay for software that can't be audited in a investigation. Then no one will buy his software anymore and he can be happy that it is still safe from prying eyes.

Computerized evidence, destructive sampling

[silas_moeckel]

If your going to use a computer to generate evidence then yes you must allow the defence to look at the technique that means source code. You must never be required to merely observe at somebody else's lab especially when there companys continued business relies on the test succeeding. Realy anything that another lab that is not associated to the first can not do should not be admissible.

This gets even more important when the tests are destructive so it can only be done once. Validating the means used etc etc elsewise it becomes a black box to provide evidence against whoever they want.

Re:Wrong industry? (not a copyright issue)

[tkrotchko]

As the other poster said, he's not saying it's a patent or copyright issue, he's effectively saying it's a trade secret.

So the issue is really pretty clear isn't it? If he refuses to show his code to an expert witness and explain it, then the evidence can't be used.

We'll see what the judge has to say.

If results cannot be reproduced...

[OrangeTide]

Then it is not science, and it should not be admissible as evidence. It doesn't really matter that it can't be reproduced because the software vendor won't share their techniques as they believe the software to be a trade secret. If it is not possible to confirm results, it's not science! Yes, TrueAllele is a toy and not only am I skeptical of anyone using it as the basis of their scientific research, use of TrueAllele om court ought to throw any conviction into question as well.

Re:Wrong industry? (not a copyright issue)

[mspohr]

Essentially this guy is going to jail based on a secret algorithm that can't be verified.
I can't imagine how this could be legal.

Re:Wrong industry? (not a copyright issue)

[almechist]

Essentially this guy is going to jail based on a secret algorithm that can't be verified. I can't imagine how this could be legal.

Actually, it's worse than that, he's facing a death sentence. It's inconceivable to me - but, sadly, unsurprising in this day and age - that someone might be legally executed based in part on the results of a proprietary algorithm that the defense is not allowed to examine. I can only hope the judge recognizes the seriousness of the situation. This case definitely bears watching

Re:Not true.

[sjames]

Honestly, the 50,000 foot view of the methodology sounds a bit dodgy to me. I would like to know what peer reviewed experiments have demonstrated that the methodologies in use can identify a single person out of a mix of DNA that actually owned the item. Were they replicated? Then there is a need to show that the software actually performed that methodology without error. Perhaps the prosecution would care to have a third party run the methodology by hand in a blind test?

If those 2 sticking points cannot be satisfied, then the "evidence" is bunk.