5 ms·

The dog got a reward when it signaled the presence of drugs. (before an actual search to confirm the dog's signal) That seems like a great way to train a dog to

The dog got a reward when it signaled the presence of drugs. (before an actual search to confirm the dog's signal) That seems like a great way to train a dog to always signal the presence of drugs.

steve_g 5y ago
Anyone who knows anything about dogs would say that drug-sniffing dogs are a constitutional nightmare. They're basically a rubber-stamp. Dogs want to please their handlers. If the handler wants the dog to alert, the dog will alert. The presence or absence of drugs isn't relevant to the dog.
- moate 5y ago
  Drug K-9 units are right up there with polygraph tests in the "fake nonsense without enough science involved and a high-degree of abusability".
  - the_doctah 5y ago
    Pretty sure polygraphs are inadmissible in court these days and are mostly used as an interrogation tactic to elicit a confession
    - moate 5y ago
      Actually in several states they're still usable. Some as supporting evidence, others requiring double consent, and some just as evidence. Their time has not completely passed sadly. Never mind that the government itself still uses them as part of their security clearance process...
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Yes. I train my dogs to give me its paw when I show it a cookie and say "paw". It never takes long for them to just sit down and start waiving their paw around as soon as I pull out the cookie. Or rushing to the door when I get home and doing the same thing even when I didn't present a dog treat.
- meowface 5y ago
  Do you have a source on this, and on how common it is? I certainly wouldn't be surprised at all if it's true, but I'm curious about actual studies.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    The article for this post is a pretty good source: 100% rate for the dog indicating the presence of drugs is pretty much a rubber stamp.
    - meowface 5y ago
      >Similar patterns abound nationwide, suggesting that Karma's career was not unusual. Lex, a drug detection dog in Illinois, alerted for narcotics 93 percent of the time during roadside sniffs, but was wrong in more than 40 percent of cases. Sella, a drug detection dog in Florida, gave false alerts 53 percent of the time. Bono, a drug detection dog in Virginia, incorrectly indicated the presence of drugs 74 percent of the time. These are concerning false positive rates, but I don't think anything in the article suggests the extent of what the parent wrote, in a universal sense: >They're basically a rubber-stamp. Dogs want to please their handlers. If the handler wants the dog to alert, the dog will alert. The presence or absence of drugs isn't relevant to the dog.
      - jschwartzi 5y ago
        If I took a test in college and got 40% of the answers wrong I would get an F.
        Smithalicious 5y ago
        It's interesting to see the difference in testing between the US and Europe (or NL at least) - here getting 60% correct is a passing grade (usually 50% is the minimum)
        brewdad 5y ago
        I had a class in college where a 40% curved to a B. But yeah, the drug dogs are an end-around of the 4th Amendment.
amalcon 5y ago
It's tricky because, while dogs can understand fairly complex vocabulary, their ability to reason abstractly about events is less developed. If the dog alerts, you spend two minutes searching, and then you reward the dog, it will have trouble connecting the reward to the alert. The obvious solution is to train the dog to search things that you know have drugs (or don't) because the trainer set it up that way. You'll need to then repeat this training often, and not always in the same environment. If you don't, eventually the dog will figure out that it will always be rewarded for alerting in the field. The problem with this, of course, is that it's expensive and cumbersome to do. You need to set up cars/bags/lockers/etc with and without drugs in them in a variety of locations, secure them (lest actual criminals steal the drugs), and bring the dogs to them (lots of time out of the handler's day). Also, even if you do this, you'll still get false positives: dogs are living animals, not machines.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Or you just reward the dog when you put it back in the police vehicle whether it indicated the presence of drugs.
- walrus01 5y ago
  > It's tricky because, while dogs can understand fairly complex vocabulary, their ability to reason abstractly about events is less developed. dogs are also experts at picking up on non verbal body language and cues, whether you're intentionally giving them off or not.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  This is hilarious. It's exactly the same problem as the "use AI to identify suspicious people" thing except that everyone freaks out about the former but loves this dog thing because they're fluffy. If we ever make fuzzy happy fun killbot, I think civil rights might be doomed because there'll be an army of killbot fans who will defend them even if they run internally on an API call to random.org
elif 5y ago
I think the condititoning is more like "train a dog to signal the presence of drugs _when the officer wants there to be drugs_" At least that's what happened when I was K9 nonconsent searched. The dog didn't signal for 4 laps and then the handler looked at him like i look at my dog when he eats cat food. Of course the dog then sat.
arp242 5y ago
In the case of Wendy Farris it's actually even more blatant than that as the dog handler actually touched the car, after which the dog looks at the owner and "finds drugs" immediately in exactly that location. Surprise surprise. This is at the end of the second pass. A clue to the dog about as subtle as a brick in the face. The best possible good faith interpretation I can give to this is spectacular ignorance in understanding how dogs work.
Johnny555 5y ago
My dog tried to train me to give him a night time treat. When I let him out at night, I give him a treat when he comes back in after doing his business outside. Then he got smart enough to scratch at the door to go out again, then came right back in and sat by the cabinet to wait for his treat. Finally he gave up on the extra treats when he found it didn't work. Dogs are very good at figuring out the actions they need to do to get a reward.

The dog got a reward when it signaled the presence of drugs. (before an actual search to confirm the dog's signal) That seems like a great way to train a dog to always signal the presence of drugs.

steve_g 5y ago

Anyone who knows anything about dogs would say that drug-sniffing dogs are a constitutional nightmare. They're basically a rubber-stamp. Dogs want to please their handlers. If the handler wants the dog to alert, the dog will alert. The presence or absence of drugs isn't relevant to the dog.

moate 5y ago
Drug K-9 units are right up there with polygraph tests in the "fake nonsense without enough science involved and a high-degree of abusability".
- the_doctah 5y ago
  Pretty sure polygraphs are inadmissible in court these days and are mostly used as an interrogation tactic to elicit a confession
  - moate 5y ago
    Actually in several states they're still usable. Some as supporting evidence, others requiring double consent, and some just as evidence. Their time has not completely passed sadly. Never mind that the government itself still uses them as part of their security clearance process...
ineedasername 5y ago
Yes. I train my dogs to give me its paw when I show it a cookie and say "paw". It never takes long for them to just sit down and start waiving their paw around as soon as I pull out the cookie. Or rushing to the door when I get home and doing the same thing even when I didn't present a dog treat.
meowface 5y ago
Do you have a source on this, and on how common it is? I certainly wouldn't be surprised at all if it's true, but I'm curious about actual studies.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  The article for this post is a pretty good source: 100% rate for the dog indicating the presence of drugs is pretty much a rubber stamp.
  - meowface 5y ago
    >Similar patterns abound nationwide, suggesting that Karma's career was not unusual. Lex, a drug detection dog in Illinois, alerted for narcotics 93 percent of the time during roadside sniffs, but was wrong in more than 40 percent of cases. Sella, a drug detection dog in Florida, gave false alerts 53 percent of the time. Bono, a drug detection dog in Virginia, incorrectly indicated the presence of drugs 74 percent of the time. These are concerning false positive rates, but I don't think anything in the article suggests the extent of what the parent wrote, in a universal sense: >They're basically a rubber-stamp. Dogs want to please their handlers. If the handler wants the dog to alert, the dog will alert. The presence or absence of drugs isn't relevant to the dog.
    - jschwartzi 5y ago
      If I took a test in college and got 40% of the answers wrong I would get an F.
      - Smithalicious 5y ago
        It's interesting to see the difference in testing between the US and Europe (or NL at least) - here getting 60% correct is a passing grade (usually 50% is the minimum)
      - brewdad 5y ago
        I had a class in college where a 40% curved to a B. But yeah, the drug dogs are an end-around of the 4th Amendment.

amalcon 5y ago

It's tricky because, while dogs can understand fairly complex vocabulary, their ability to reason abstractly about events is less developed. If the dog alerts, you spend two minutes searching, and then you reward the dog, it will have trouble connecting the reward to the alert. The obvious solution is to train the dog to search things that you know have drugs (or don't) because the trainer set it up that way. You'll need to then repeat this training often, and not always in the same environment. If you don't, eventually the dog will figure out that it will always be rewarded for alerting in the field. The problem with this, of course, is that it's expensive and cumbersome to do. You need to set up cars/bags/lockers/etc with and without drugs in them in a variety of locations, secure them (lest actual criminals steal the drugs), and bring the dogs to them (lots of time out of the handler's day). Also, even if you do this, you'll still get false positives: dogs are living animals, not machines.

ineedasername 5y ago
Or you just reward the dog when you put it back in the police vehicle whether it indicated the presence of drugs.
walrus01 5y ago
> It's tricky because, while dogs can understand fairly complex vocabulary, their ability to reason abstractly about events is less developed. dogs are also experts at picking up on non verbal body language and cues, whether you're intentionally giving them off or not.
renewiltord 5y ago
This is hilarious. It's exactly the same problem as the "use AI to identify suspicious people" thing except that everyone freaks out about the former but loves this dog thing because they're fluffy. If we ever make fuzzy happy fun killbot, I think civil rights might be doomed because there'll be an army of killbot fans who will defend them even if they run internally on an API call to random.org

elif 5y ago

I think the condititoning is more like "train a dog to signal the presence of drugs _when the officer wants there to be drugs_" At least that's what happened when I was K9 nonconsent searched. The dog didn't signal for 4 laps and then the handler looked at him like i look at my dog when he eats cat food. Of course the dog then sat.

arp242 5y ago

In the case of Wendy Farris it's actually even more blatant than that as the dog handler actually touched the car, after which the dog looks at the owner and "finds drugs" immediately in exactly that location. Surprise surprise. This is at the end of the second pass. A clue to the dog about as subtle as a brick in the face. The best possible good faith interpretation I can give to this is spectacular ignorance in understanding how dogs work.

Johnny555 5y ago

My dog tried to train me to give him a night time treat. When I let him out at night, I give him a treat when he comes back in after doing his business outside. Then he got smart enough to scratch at the door to go out again, then came right back in and sat by the cabinet to wait for his treat. Finally he gave up on the extra treats when he found it didn't work. Dogs are very good at figuring out the actions they need to do to get a reward.