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."
Guess if he didn't want his code audited, this guy shouldn't have marketed his software to this particular industry. Dumbass.
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.
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
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.
If his method is patented he has no need to keep his code secret.
Unless it's shit, of course.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
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.
No sir I dont like it.
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.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
...I think the defense has the better argument. I have used software tools (both third party and ones I have developed personally) to do source code comparisons and analysis, but they only serve to point me to likely areas of investigation; I have never directly reported and relied upon the output from one of my custom tools in my expert reports.
A key aspect of expert testimony is that your analysis should, in theory, be repeatable by any other qualified expert using the same methodology (which needs to be spelled out in your report). If Perlin is relying directly upon his custom program for his conclusions, he needs to thoroughly expose his methodology -- which, in effect, means either allowing his source code to be reviewed or producing a detailed summary of his methodology that would allow someone else to reproduce it. Trying to claim trade secret status (which is what he's doing, in effect) for a expert methodology is an oxymoron.
Bruce F. Webster (brucefwebster.com)
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.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I can understand why the manufacturers don't want to do that. It may well show that, oh dear, the best product is wrong 5% of the time (not good). Or that product X is head and shoulders above the rest.
But seriously, what industry-wide testing has been done? We're staking peoples' lives to the efficacy of this technology. How effective is it?
linquendum tondere
This has already been ruled on for traffic cameras. I think that is a pretty good precedent.
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.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
The main problem is finding a disposable expert.
The people who originally clean-roomed the IBM BIOS for Compaq were split into two teams, with a Chinese wall between them: the analysis team, and the implementation team. The analysis team analyzed the IBM BIOS, wrote a specification, and then the implementation team implemented a BIOS to that specification. At which point the analysis team were effectively "burned", as in being forever barred from ever working on an implementation team in the future. They were highly paid for this, but they were disposable.
As with clean-room engineering, this expert would not be permitted to work on any software covered by the trade secret in the future. In an expert witness situation, you might be able to get away with disposing of the expert, if all they did was witnessing, rather than actually coding in the field of expertise themselves. However, how likely is it that you can find someone like that who also qualifies as an expert?
Further complication: Having testified (presumably in favor of the prosecution, in this case), would the expert witness be permitted to testify on similar goal programs in the future, given what the [now] knows about the process and techniques of the one they testify about today? Would exposure to multiple, competing trade secrets, damage their ability to perform an unbiased analysis, given what they knew from earlier experience? In general, I think you [as the defense] could argue that it, in fact, did damage their impartiality in their analysis.
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
The typical reason to keep code secret from everybody is because it is of abysmally bad quality or there are other severe problems hidden in there. Reasonable-quality code gets inspected and audited by 3rd parties all the time under NDA. In this particular case, it may also well be that the code does not do what its creator claims and the patent is bogus. If the expert finds this, the code becomes worthless and the creator may even become a target for litigation.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
From the article
According to a court filing made by Dr. Perlin in the case, his company, Cybergenetics, “has invested millions of dollars over two decades to develop its TrueAllele system, the company’s flagship product. Although the technology is patented, the source code itself is not disclosed by any patent and cannot be derived from any publicly disclosed source.”
Other points 1) Dr Perlin's software does not have a cited "independent validation study" that is a study without the involvement of Dr Perlin. 2) "TrueAllele, created by Dr. Perlin, "is the only computer software system of its kind that interprets DNA evidence using a statistical model."
Here is the trouble I see, 1) Cybergenetics may have a problem defending it's patent, give that the software cannot be derived from "any publicly disclosed source" does the patent really disclose the real methods or it is likely this is another "software patent" with all the legal problems these currently have at the supreme court. 2) The sofware, Cybergenetics and software validates all seem to be tied to Dr Perlin, if this causes problems in courts Cybergenetics market with law enforcement will evaporate. 3) We know "software engineers" have been publicly accused in the VW matter, could they not do the same for Cybergenetics with out Dr Perlin's knowledge?
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.