3 ms·
Well this is all stupid. Because we have double blind testing. It doesn't matter what the algorithm is, it just matters whether the test is accurate. And we can
by mcherm 9y ago
Well this is all stupid. Because we have double blind testing. It doesn't matter what the algorithm is, it just matters whether the test is accurate. And we can determine that by sending in test samples and having them rate these. If we want to test its accuracy when working from the minimal DNA included in a fingerprint then have a few people touch a spot and send in a swab to compare (sometimes ask to compare to the DNA of the person who touched it, sometimes to a different person).
A blind study means don't tell the DNA testing company which submissions are for real cases and which are for testing. A double-blid study means don't tell the police submitting it either (to avoid giving subtle clues to the testing company, like calling to follow up on tests but not real cases, or vice versa).
If they (the testing company and the police) are willing to conduct a double-bind study, then its results are a reliable way to assess the technology. If they are NOT willing to conduct a double-blind study then we should ask why not. The answer is almost certainly because they are afraid of what the results might show.
- DoofusOfDeath 9y ago> Well this is all stupid. Because we have double blind testing. It doesn't matter what the algorithm is, it just matters whether the test is accurate. Seems to me that your kind of reasoning is why the Volkswagon cheating went undetected for so long.
- tomohawk 9y agoIt went undetected so long because the regulators were not competent and constructed a test that was easy to game. Science is best based on techniques such as properly formulated studies than source code analysis. Consider how many bugs fuzzing has uncovered that escaped source code analysis for many years by many experts.
- dtech 9y agoWhat does this have to do with Volkswagen? A double-blind study using that test would have shown that the test was faulty for the model of cars that were cheating.
- marchenko 9y agoEvery step of the judicial process should be completely open to scrutiny in every particular by the accused and in general (eg exact methods) by any motivated citizen. This transparency is more important to the long-term viability of our legal system than extra accuracy provided by a proprietary algorithm. It is possible that this analysis is not amenable to monetization at the level necessary to sustain private investment, which is a different problem.