4 ms·

Fingerprinting is a notoriously inaccurate pseudoscience along with polygraph testing. As was seen on HN[1], consumer DNA tests are also inaccurate. In fact, u

Fingerprinting is a notoriously inaccurate pseudoscience along with polygraph testing. As was seen on HN[1], consumer DNA tests are also inaccurate. In fact, up to 40% of gene variants on consumer DNA tests are false positives[2]. False positives happen with criminal investigations and DNA testing[3]. And now, consumer DNA databases are generating false positives[4] that upend and potentially ruin innocent people's lives. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18938750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18938750 [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/gim201838 https://www.nature.com/articles/gim201838 [3] https://gizmodo.com/when-bad-dna-tests-lead-to-false-convictions-1797915655 https://gizmodo.com/when-bad-dna-tests-lead-to-false-convict... [4] https://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/article_1b3a3f96-d574-59e0-9c6a-c3c7c0d2f166.html https://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/article_1b3a3f9...

kilo_bravo_3 8y ago
Fingerprinting is inaccurate. DNA tests are inaccurate. Witness statements are inaccurate. Confessions are inaccurate. Thanks to deepfakes, video is inaccurate. Someone steals your car, eyewitnesses claim they saw them in possession of it, their fingerprints are in it, their hair is in it, a gas station security camera recorded them in it, cops found them in it, and they confessed. "Your honor that evidence is, in order, a stress-induced misrecognition, a flawed analysis, pseudoscience, tampered with, a setup, and coerced." What remains?
- mikeash 8y ago
  What remains is an understanding of statistics and probability applied to scientifically studied accuracy rates of the various evidence available. Combining error-prone evidence can give fairly certain results.
- ndnxhs 8y ago
  Any one of those could be wrong but all of them together are almost impossible to fake. The source of the video is also important. What incentive does a petrol station have to fake a car theft? If you can prove that the station owner is somehow involved then that changes things.

kilo_bravo_3 8y ago

Fingerprinting is inaccurate. DNA tests are inaccurate. Witness statements are inaccurate. Confessions are inaccurate. Thanks to deepfakes, video is inaccurate. Someone steals your car, eyewitnesses claim they saw them in possession of it, their fingerprints are in it, their hair is in it, a gas station security camera recorded them in it, cops found them in it, and they confessed. "Your honor that evidence is, in order, a stress-induced misrecognition, a flawed analysis, pseudoscience, tampered with, a setup, and coerced." What remains?

mikeash 8y ago
What remains is an understanding of statistics and probability applied to scientifically studied accuracy rates of the various evidence available. Combining error-prone evidence can give fairly certain results.
ndnxhs 8y ago
Any one of those could be wrong but all of them together are almost impossible to fake. The source of the video is also important. What incentive does a petrol station have to fake a car theft? If you can prove that the station owner is somehow involved then that changes things.