3 ms·
> If they followed protocol and found real evidence that is what matters. That is what is yet to be determined. Trying to shield the process from public scrut
by woodman 11y ago
> If they followed protocol and found real evidence that is what matters.
That is what is yet to be determined. Trying to shield the process from public scrutiny and justifying it with an appeal to authority is a pretty bad idea. Imagine the same logic applied in the non-digital world: traffic stops conducted with probable cause delivered by a black box and an authoritative "Just trust me, I'm an expert."
- wldcordeiro 11y agoYou mean a drug dog?
- woodman 11y agoI think that the unreliability has entered the public consciousness fairly recently, so we'll see how that goes. Polygraphs offer a more positive example, as well as breathalyzers. [0] [0] http://embeddedgurus.com/barr-code/2009/11/breathalyzer-source-code-analysis/ http://embeddedgurus.com/barr-code/2009/11/breathalyzer-sour...
- hvidgaard 11y agoI agree, and if the defendant wants a judge and domain experts to go over it, fine, but the public does not need to know for this particular case.
- woodman 11y agoI'm not sure how that would work without more secrecy (FISA style courts) or compelled silence (NSLs). Before we do that, maybe we should take a moment to reevaluate the premise of state secrets, and the benefits they provide a free society.