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?

[Layzej]

For instance, for any mission critical component NASA may have three different programs, each written in a different language and running on a unique platform. If at any time one of the programs gives an answer that is not consistent with the other two then the minority report is discarded and the other two are presumed to be correct. No need to halt the proceedings and debug at that point.

In this case there is only one program that finds a match. It should be considered unreliable and discarded.

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?

[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."

Re:Wrong industry?

[gerddie]

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.

Patented so no reason to keep secret

[Eunuchswear]

If his method is patented he has no need to keep his code secret.

Unless it's shit, of course.

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.

Speaking as an IT expert witness of 16 years...

[bfwebster]

...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.

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