4 ms·

a possible problem is when the software gets better then humans ... And you get many people who all can be identified by the vitness, witch one do you prosecute

by z3t4 10y ago

a possible problem is when the software gets better then humans ... And you get many people who all can be identified by the vitness, witch one do you prosecute ?

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
on the other side of the coin, it's also a problem when the software is buggy. If innocent, it's tough to mount an effective defense without access to the algorithm.
- benevol 10y ago
  > it's also a problem when the software is buggy Or when the software is not open source and therefor can contain elements of corruption because not being reviewed by the public.
makomk 10y ago
You prosecute the one who seems most likely to have done it - who has a record, or was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or... Then you claim in court that there was less than a 1 in a million chance that he matched the suspect's photo, omitting the fact that there were numerous other matches. This is already happening with some of the less accurate forms of DNA testing.
foolrush 10y ago
“Better” here is problematic on many levels, not the least of which is an entirely automated (and likely privatized) legal system, streamlined for razor sharp "efficiency". Every law an ethical implication, written by a culture frozen in a frail moment of history or worse, by the cultural detritus of corporate ownership, malignant power, or shady backrooms. Every line of code written by a human, with bias and imbalance. The "efficiency" of such a system is carved out of the bedrock of dystopian science fiction.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> a possible problem is when the software gets better then humans ... And you get many people who all can be identified by the vitness, witch one do you prosecute ? The non-rhetorical answer, according to how the system is supposed to work, is none of them. It's not possible for four independent actors to each have a 95% chance of being the perpetrator. If one has a 95% probability then the combined probability of all the others has to be <5%. And if the probability of the "most likely suspect" to have done it is e.g. 40%, that clearly isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt." But this was all true even before computers. The system doesn't care about the math. A crime is committed, someone is to be punished, they put the most likely suspect in front of a jury and most of the time the jury will convict regardless. In reality most of the time the accused will plead guilty to take a six month sentence over the 90+% chance of getting five years from a jury who doesn't understand (and is not given an opportunity to understand) how the probabilities actually work. And that incentive to plead guilty for a shorter sentence and lower legal bills is the same whether you're guilty or innocent.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  Effectively, taking away your right to a trial by a jury of your peers. Plea bargains are one of the many elements of our legal system that is completely antithetical to actual justice and the Bill of Rights.

by z3t4 10y ago

a possible problem is when the software gets better then humans ... And you get many people who all can be identified by the vitness, witch one do you prosecute ?

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

on the other side of the coin, it's also a problem when the software is buggy. If innocent, it's tough to mount an effective defense without access to the algorithm.

benevol 10y ago
> it's also a problem when the software is buggy Or when the software is not open source and therefor can contain elements of corruption because not being reviewed by the public.

makomk 10y ago

You prosecute the one who seems most likely to have done it - who has a record, or was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or... Then you claim in court that there was less than a 1 in a million chance that he matched the suspect's photo, omitting the fact that there were numerous other matches. This is already happening with some of the less accurate forms of DNA testing.

foolrush 10y ago

“Better” here is problematic on many levels, not the least of which is an entirely automated (and likely privatized) legal system, streamlined for razor sharp "efficiency". Every law an ethical implication, written by a culture frozen in a frail moment of history or worse, by the cultural detritus of corporate ownership, malignant power, or shady backrooms. Every line of code written by a human, with bias and imbalance. The "efficiency" of such a system is carved out of the bedrock of dystopian science fiction.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> a possible problem is when the software gets better then humans ... And you get many people who all can be identified by the vitness, witch one do you prosecute ? The non-rhetorical answer, according to how the system is supposed to work, is none of them. It's not possible for four independent actors to each have a 95% chance of being the perpetrator. If one has a 95% probability then the combined probability of all the others has to be <5%. And if the probability of the "most likely suspect" to have done it is e.g. 40%, that clearly isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt." But this was all true even before computers. The system doesn't care about the math. A crime is committed, someone is to be punished, they put the most likely suspect in front of a jury and most of the time the jury will convict regardless. In reality most of the time the accused will plead guilty to take a six month sentence over the 90+% chance of getting five years from a jury who doesn't understand (and is not given an opportunity to understand) how the probabilities actually work. And that incentive to plead guilty for a shorter sentence and lower legal bills is the same whether you're guilty or innocent.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
Effectively, taking away your right to a trial by a jury of your peers. Plea bargains are one of the many elements of our legal system that is completely antithetical to actual justice and the Bill of Rights.