4 ms·

The phrasing of this rubs me the wrong way -- I get the feeling that you're more afraid of guilty people being presumed innocent than you are of innocent people

The phrasing of this rubs me the wrong way -- I get the feeling that you're more afraid of guilty people being presumed innocent than you are of innocent people being framed by deepfakes. Our justice system worked for a very long time in an environment where cell phones didn't exist, where cities weren't covered end-to-end in CCTV cameras, and our courts were able to do a decent job of protecting the innocent and putting away the bad guys. Distrust of video evidence only makes us revert back 30 years to when we weren't so monitored. It's something that we can survive. On the other hand, if we don't see an outright rejection of deepfakes in our courts, we're going to see it used as a political weapon. We can survive the former, but not the latter. Unfortunately, I don't see it working out that way. Once courts and police get their hands on a new technology and it becomes sufficiently ingrained, it doesn't matter how little sense it makes. Drug dogs are bullshit, but they're still everywhere. [1] DNA evidence can be synthesized and planted, but it's the gold standard in terms of courtroom evidence. [2] Given all of this, I don't have a lot of faith in our justice system getting deepfakes right, and that worries me a lot more than guilty people being presumed innocent. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/05/supreme-courts-alternative-facts-about-drug-sniffing-dogs/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/05/supreme-c... [2]: Good reason to avoid giving your DNA to 23andMe or to the state. Unfortunately, both my parents did 23andMe, so I'm screwed regardless. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html

rossdavidh 6y ago
I don't think the history regarding how courts (and juries) handled eyewitness testimony, is all that different from how they handle DNA evidence. It's regarded as far more reliable than it is.
Klinky 6y ago
The track record of the justice system has been extremely mixed for many, and downright awful for minorities. DNA testing has been absolutely crucial in the last 30 - 40 years for undoing some of the damage the justice system caused before DNA testing was adequately available. There is no comfort found in regressing backwards to where forensic science becomes easily dismissible, and we're reliant on who can buy the most prestigious expert witness to testify for them.
- Rule35 6y ago
  Courts and police have still done vastly more for minorities than against them.
  - lupire 6y ago
    That's not really comforting to the minority people whose lives were ruined by them.
    - Rule35 6y ago
      > That's not really comforting to the minority people whose lives were ruined by them. Actually, it probably is somewhat. I hate paying money but that my taxes go to useful things makes it bearable. I hate sucking up to a guy in a uniform but that he also arrests murderers makes it less infuriating. But moreover, that's not the issue brought up originally, which was net damage to a group. The implication was that the justice system harmed minorities and as a group that's simply not true. Also, the language used is trying to borrow outrage. Harmed minorities? No, harmed the poor. Many of whom were minorities. But there are rich racial minorities too.
      - Klinky 6y ago
        You are trying to dilute the impact the racist history of US has had on minorities via the justice system. Justice and policing policies disproportionately target minorities. Sure the poor are affected by lack of proper representation, but minority populations also happen to be disproportionately affected by poverty. Stop and frisk, racial profiling, less lenient prosecutory discretion, mandatory minimum sentencing, and the War on Drugs all disproportionately impact minority groups compared to Caucasians[1]. If you just think we need to solve the poverty problem, a significant part of that problem is rooted in systemic racism too. Per the Innocence Project, 70% of the cases they have exonerated have been of a minority group, and often these cases involved underlying racial prejudice to railroad an innocent person into a long-term prison sentence or death.[2] >As of November 2019, 367 people previously convicted of serious crimes in the United States had been exonerated by DNA testing since 1989, 21 of whom had been sentenced to death.[9] Almost all (99%) of the wrongful convictions were males,[19] with minority groups constituting approximately 70% (61% African American and 8% Latino). 1.https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/ https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-... 2.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project#Overturned_convictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project#Overturned_c...
Daho0n 6y ago
>Drug dogs are bullshit, but they're still everywhere. [1] Just because some abuse them and have no proper training doesn't mean they are fake. You clearly have never seen a police dog work. They are able to find dead people, drugs, etc. that is at the bottom of the sea or follow the path the target took while inside a car. What is BS is the "police" and justice system in the US.
- samatman 6y ago
  This is a misunderstanding of why "drug dogs are bullshit". Yes, dogs are capable of sniffing out people, animals, and substances. This has been made use of for centuries. Dogs are also capable of "hitting" on the trunk of a car, just because they guess that their master wants to look inside it. Plenty of evidence that this happens all the time. Which undermines the right protecting against unreasonable search and seizure. All you have to do is be the wrong color, or driving in a "suspicious" way (which means whatever police want it to mean), and they can bring a K9 by, the dog will dutifully point at the trunk, and the cops get their search. It's no different from the "I smelled pot" routine: there aren't any penalties to the police for doing an "I smelled pot" search and not finding cannabis, and there are no consequences for a K9 'hitting' on a trunk which turns out to have nothing more interesting than a gym bag.
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    That is a very convoluted way of stating that police dog handlers in the US are as bad as the rest of the US police. It is not that "drug dogs are BS" but that "US police have a huge problem and it includes their use of drug dogs".
- rStar 6y ago
  drug dogs usefulness to law enforcement, almost exclusively, are as machines to manufacture probable cause on command. As this is how they’re used, “bullshit” is far too kind a descriptor.
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    In the US perhaps.

rossdavidh 6y ago

I don't think the history regarding how courts (and juries) handled eyewitness testimony, is all that different from how they handle DNA evidence. It's regarded as far more reliable than it is.

Klinky 6y ago

The track record of the justice system has been extremely mixed for many, and downright awful for minorities. DNA testing has been absolutely crucial in the last 30 - 40 years for undoing some of the damage the justice system caused before DNA testing was adequately available. There is no comfort found in regressing backwards to where forensic science becomes easily dismissible, and we're reliant on who can buy the most prestigious expert witness to testify for them.

Rule35 6y ago
Courts and police have still done vastly more for minorities than against them.
- lupire 6y ago
  That's not really comforting to the minority people whose lives were ruined by them.
  - Rule35 6y ago
    > That's not really comforting to the minority people whose lives were ruined by them. Actually, it probably is somewhat. I hate paying money but that my taxes go to useful things makes it bearable. I hate sucking up to a guy in a uniform but that he also arrests murderers makes it less infuriating. But moreover, that's not the issue brought up originally, which was net damage to a group. The implication was that the justice system harmed minorities and as a group that's simply not true. Also, the language used is trying to borrow outrage. Harmed minorities? No, harmed the poor. Many of whom were minorities. But there are rich racial minorities too.
    - Klinky 6y ago
      You are trying to dilute the impact the racist history of US has had on minorities via the justice system. Justice and policing policies disproportionately target minorities. Sure the poor are affected by lack of proper representation, but minority populations also happen to be disproportionately affected by poverty. Stop and frisk, racial profiling, less lenient prosecutory discretion, mandatory minimum sentencing, and the War on Drugs all disproportionately impact minority groups compared to Caucasians[1]. If you just think we need to solve the poverty problem, a significant part of that problem is rooted in systemic racism too. Per the Innocence Project, 70% of the cases they have exonerated have been of a minority group, and often these cases involved underlying racial prejudice to railroad an innocent person into a long-term prison sentence or death.[2] >As of November 2019, 367 people previously convicted of serious crimes in the United States had been exonerated by DNA testing since 1989, 21 of whom had been sentenced to death.[9] Almost all (99%) of the wrongful convictions were males,[19] with minority groups constituting approximately 70% (61% African American and 8% Latino). 1.https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/ https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-... 2.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project#Overturned_convictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project#Overturned_c...

Daho0n 6y ago

>Drug dogs are bullshit, but they're still everywhere. [1] Just because some abuse them and have no proper training doesn't mean they are fake. You clearly have never seen a police dog work. They are able to find dead people, drugs, etc. that is at the bottom of the sea or follow the path the target took while inside a car. What is BS is the "police" and justice system in the US.

samatman 6y ago
This is a misunderstanding of why "drug dogs are bullshit". Yes, dogs are capable of sniffing out people, animals, and substances. This has been made use of for centuries. Dogs are also capable of "hitting" on the trunk of a car, just because they guess that their master wants to look inside it. Plenty of evidence that this happens all the time. Which undermines the right protecting against unreasonable search and seizure. All you have to do is be the wrong color, or driving in a "suspicious" way (which means whatever police want it to mean), and they can bring a K9 by, the dog will dutifully point at the trunk, and the cops get their search. It's no different from the "I smelled pot" routine: there aren't any penalties to the police for doing an "I smelled pot" search and not finding cannabis, and there are no consequences for a K9 'hitting' on a trunk which turns out to have nothing more interesting than a gym bag.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  That is a very convoluted way of stating that police dog handlers in the US are as bad as the rest of the US police. It is not that "drug dogs are BS" but that "US police have a huge problem and it includes their use of drug dogs".
rStar 6y ago
drug dogs usefulness to law enforcement, almost exclusively, are as machines to manufacture probable cause on command. As this is how they’re used, “bullshit” is far too kind a descriptor.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  In the US perhaps.