4 ms·

I have no opinion on the legal and ethical issues, I was commenting only on the classifier. I don't think your first question is appropriately described as "the

by gburt 11y ago

I have no opinion on the legal and ethical issues, I was commenting only on the classifier. I don't think your first question is appropriately described as "the real question" though, as one of the coolest results of machine learning is that there are techniques for combining multiple bad classifiers [0] in to one really good one. Even more so, I think that is actually what is happening here. An officer is acting as a tier 1 filter, and then the drug dog is acting as a tier 2 filter, further reducing the number of false positives, which in a "legal and ethical" sense, we generally feel are worse than false negatives. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_learning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_learning

nickff 11y ago
>" An officer is acting as a tier 1 filter, and then the drug dog is acting as a tier 2 filter, further reducing the number of false positives, which in a "legal and ethical" sense, we generally feel are worse than false negatives." If the officer is acting as a filter, then it seems to me like this is a search, and not allowable, because it would be subject to all the usual objections to random searches. You might be right, but if that is the only way for these searches to be better than the officer's guesses, it seems that drug dogs would not be allowed to 'sniff' in public without warrants.