Slashdot Mirror
This Impenetrable Program Is Transforming How Courts Treat DNA Evidence (wired.com)
mirandakatz writes: Probabilistic genotyping is a type of DNA testing that's becoming increasingly popular in courtrooms: It uses complex mathematical formulas to examine the statistical likelihood that a certain genotype comes from one individual over another, and it can work with the subtlest traces of DNA. At Backchannel, Jessica Pishko looks at one company that's caught criminal justice advocates' attention: Cybergenetics, which sells a probabilistic genotyping program called TrueAllele -- and that refuses to reveal its source code. As Pishko notes, some legal experts are arguing that Trueallele revealing its source code 'is necessary in order to properly evaluate the technology. In fact, they say, justice from an unknown algorithm is no justice at all.'
As Terry Pratchett wrote somewhere: "Evidence means 'that what is seen'". Nuff said.
Paaia
A lot of expert witness testimony comes down to a judgement call -- "In your opinion, as someone who has been working in this field for 20 years, how confident are you that these signatures / bullet marks / fingerprints / DNA match?" That's the result of an algorithm that you can't examine either, and has at least as much opportunity for being corrupted by unconscious prejudice or outright bribery as a piece of software.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
Jurors and judges need to know what the probabilities are. Remember, in a criminal trial, the standard for evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Sending people to prison for life or even to death row based on flimsy evidence is unacceptable.
This isn't to say that it hasn't happened before -- Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Texas on the testimony of an "arson expert" with no formal training in the field.
The code should be evaluated or the tool should be banned from court. The company doesn't like it? Too bad. They don't have to sell to the forensic lab/law enforcement market.
You have the right to face your accuser, which includes examining the evidence against you. This is secret evidence. It amounts to "because we say so", and should not be tolerated.
A software bug you're not permitted to look for could send you to jail. At least with a human expert witness you can cross-examine them.
Expert judgement can be countered by other experts. Here we are being presented with something as a "Fact". There is no way to dispute it and there is no way to verify it which is what people are having a problem with.
Questioning expert's qualifications is fair game in trials. If you can demonstrate that expert is not impartial, you can largely mitigate their testimony.
How do you question algorithm like if (1) = Guilty; other than code review?
Please point to this model and indicate where it shows your precise location will be under 10' of water by now. Either that or admit you are full of shit and a liar.
A lack of evidence of this "model" will indicate you are a liar whether you respond or not.
You get to ask an expert witness why their opinion is what it is, and if they answer "I'm not telling," their credibility is shot and there's a good chance their testimony will be thrown out. This software is an expert witness that nobody has any reason to believe giving testimony damning a person and then refusing to explain why but maintaining credibility. Analyzing whatever algorithm the software uses would be like questioning the witness, which is your right as a defendant in the USA, and keeping it hidden is literally denying you that right.
You can't handle the truth [insert full quote here]
but anyway this should not be admissable in court until the source code (with needed toolchain) has been vetted by the Oldest and Crankiest Qualified persons they can find.
(does this have a bias as to which "race" it comes up with?? will it pop certain trait markers more often??)
As a programmer I can assure you that I am infallible and perfect. My superiority is the reason I am a programmer and most people are not.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I don't think even NDA access is appropriate. How versed are you in probabilistic medical programming? How many people would you say are?
Hell, even the most experienced developer will need some time to acclimatize to any sufficiently complex codebase, now throw in the specialties on top of it. It's beyond unreasonable to expect any "expert" to have limited access ( both physical and temporal ) to the codebase then be expected to give expert testimony in court on it.
The only way things like this get properly vetted is via "many eyes", and even that's no guarantee.
Speaking of experts; let's pretend your some poor schmuck ( literally ), using a tool like this in a case where you can't afford an expert witness ( and it would be beyond pricy I'd expect. I know I'd charge a shitload ) only guarantees a compromised defense.
No, I can't see any reason why the code shouldn't be publicly available if the tool will be used to help convict people.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
All software used in criminal convictions should be open source as a requirement of using it.
Speed traps, DNA processing, fingerprint matching, gait detection, photo enhancement software, even the firmware in the cameras used at the crime scene.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC