9 ms·

That's the point? These systems invariably turn out to not be any sort of AI at all, but sales people ready to make a call any way their customer (police) wants

That's the point? These systems invariably turn out to not be any sort of AI at all, but sales people ready to make a call any way their customer (police) wants it made. Later it's presented as AI to a jury. It's basically the same scam as lots of forensics, junk science to get a desired result.

giantg2 5y ago
I generally agree, but wouldn't necessarily say a lot of forensics is junk science. The science is generally sound (procedures and theory). Usually it's the prosecutors that present the forensics in a way that misrepresents what the results actually mean. Or lab techs make mistakes or perform misconduct (How to Fix a Drug Scandal on Netflix is interesting).
- wyager 5y ago
  Fingerprinting is junk science. Polygraphs are junk science. Tons of things that have been or are admissible as evidence are junk science.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I wouldn't call polygraphs forensics. Most states do not allow them as evidence. Do you have a link for the fingerprinting claim?
    - monetus 5y ago
      (Not who you responded to) https://www.crammlawfirm.com/fingerprint-match-jails-innocent-man/ https://www.crammlawfirm.com/fingerprint-match-jails-innocen... This isn't the case I originally recalled, and doesn't say how many points were matched, but I remember a 5 point match being used to convict a person who was later proven innocent.
      - newswasboring 5y ago
        That shows its flawed, not junk.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Oh, yeah. I've heard of them using too few points. I would have lumped that into misconduct or mistakes by the lab tech or prosecution.
        monetus 5y ago
        Yeah, knowing or not, comparing with too few points is misconduct - that should be the fault of someone besides the defense, but that is somewhat tangential - does anyone with more knowledge know where the line is drawn? I imagine there are some outlandish coincedences happening.
      - arp242 5y ago
        Fingerprints aren't "junk science", but they do have error margins and plenty of room for mistakes. The problem is that many juries, judges, prosecutors, and even defenders forget about this. This is the case for many types of evidence; witness statements for example can also be notoriously unreliable. It's not bad to use this kind of evidence, but you do have a problem if you consider any witness statement to be absolute truth and never consider any "reasonable doubt" there may be, and this is how you end up convicting people based purely on "I saw the suspect commit the crime from 50 metres away in the dark and I'm sure it was him!" or some such. If you have six independent witness statements like that, or a witness statement and fingerprints then the reasonable doubt starts becoming a lot less reasonable. This is also the problem with the case in this article: a piece of evidence over which it seems like reasonable doubt should exists is the singular piece of evidence tying this person to the crime. The problem here isn't the evidence as such IMHO, but that juries and/or defenders (depends on the case) seem exceedingly bad at sceptically examining physical evidence.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Fingerprints aren't "junk science" Fingerprints are directly-recorded facts. What may be junk science is what expert witnesses present about the interpretation of fingerprints. > The problem is that many juries, judges, prosecutors, and even defenders forget about this. Juries as triers of fact, and judges insofar as they are ruling on the facts of the case, aren't, in any case, supposed to allow themselves fo be guided by extrinsic knowledge, they are supposed to act based on facts (both direct and the expert knowledge relating to the import of direct facts) provided as evidence, both testimony and exhibits, in the case.
    - k1t 5y ago
      Not fingerprinting, but related issue for microscopic hair comparisons: The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000. Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo...
  - tzs 5y ago
    > Fingerprinting is junk science. How then do you explain the success of Touch ID on Apple devices and the equivalent systems on other phones and tablets? Random people can't just walk up and unlock a Touch ID device with their fingerprint, which suggests that fingerprints are in fact a very good way to tell people apart. Yes, it is possible to make a fake fingerprint that Touch ID will not be able to distinguish from my fingerprint. But that fake fingerprint will only unlock my device, not your device, so it is still correctly distinguishing our fingerprints.
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      Because other surfaces are not a purpose built sensor designed to detect the features of a finger then repeatedly trained with a specific set of finger scans? Like are you joking? Saying TouchID validates fingerprinting is like saying MRI machines validate psychics.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Are you joking? It seems you two have a different idea of what is being discussed. The underlying fundamentals of finger prints are solid. The part that can make them ineffective is when they are using insufficiently tested tools or matching on too few points. And of course misrepresentating what a match actually means and how it pertains to the case.
        z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
        I can effectively burn off my fingerprints completely... They are not completely effective at all
        DSMan195276 5y ago
        > The underlying fundamentals of finger prints are solid. What exactly are these underlying 'fundamentals'? Nobody even knows if everybody has unique fingerprints, it's just an assumption. Beyond that, it's not all that relevant since as you mentioned how the matching is done is largely subjective, and it depends a lot on the number of "points" used and who does the matching, and that should really bring the accuracy even more into question. What exactly is the statistical probability of an incorrect match based on the number of points used? Good luck answering that question. IMO the situation is made a lot worse by the fact that the public generally assumes fingerprinting to be extremely accurate (or 100% accurate).
- emodendroket 5y ago
  No, the procedures and theory behind, e.g., bite mark analysis or fire analysis, are total junk.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Do you have some links for this? My understanding is the interpretation part can be BS, but stuff like finding and identifying potential ignition or accelerant locations and types should be more settled.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      https://theintercept.com/2019/05/05/forensic-evidence-aafs-junk-science/ https://theintercept.com/2019/05/05/forensic-evidence-aafs-j... https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/jeff-sessions-is-keeping-junk-science-in-americas-courts-194492/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/jeff...
      - giantg2 5y ago
        That doesn't exactly support your claims for most of forensics. If you read/skim the NAS report these articles are based on, you will see that much of the issue is not with the underlying science, but rather in the "interpretation" part. Yes, the odontology seems to be unsupported. But even the fire analysis that you list as an example is said to have a scientific basis like chemistry, but that the interpretation part has issues.
        tooltower 5y ago
        While my stance on forensics is not as negative as the parent comment, I don't see how you are drawing such a sharp distinction between the "science" and the "interpretation". They are not separate things. When a scientist proposes a new test, they include measurement techniques as well as a method of interpretation. If a medical test is used in a way that is frequently prone to misinterpretation, it would be fair to call that entire test useless.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  Not all forensics disciplins are created equal and some of them, such as hair forensics, are definitely junk science.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    How is hair analysis junk science? Maybe you just mean that people misuse the facts to come to incorrect conclusions? It's only supposed to be used to include or exclude someone, and based on the numbers/probabilities it's generally only useful for excluding someone. Of course that's not how most prosecutors use it...
    - openasocket 5y ago
      Hair analysis, as in looking at two hair samples under a microscope and determining if they are a match, is definitely junk science. The FBI has specifically acknowledged this, dozens of cases have been overturned because subsequent genetic testing has shown hair samples did not, in fact, match. In at least one case someone was convicted based almost entirely on hair sample analysis, and later DNS testing showed that not only was the hair not a match, the hair found at the crime scene belonged to a dog. https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/blog/fbi-forensics-convicted-innocent-man-for-28-years-claiming-dog-hair-was-his.cfm https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/blog/fbi-forensics-convicte...
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  Citation strongly needed on forensics bring generally sound.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    There have been plenty of references in this post to the NAS study on the state of forensics. Basically, the majority of forensics are based on sound theories and practices. The issues are when professionals and prosecutors try to "interpret" the facts. I would be interested in any citations showing that forensics are generally unsound.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  As soon as the analysts making judgments about the evidence are in communication with the prosecutors or police, it's junk science. You wouldn't do a psychology or medical experiment without at least single blinding, and certainly not with the experimenter telling the subjects what result they want! Look at this damming quote - "ShotSpotter strongly insisted it had not improperly altered any data to favor the police's case". That shows they don't have a system in place to prevent data being altered or to prevent themselves knowing what the police want, so all their findings are suspect.
sdenton4 5y ago
Most forensic science is junk. That said, human in the loop ML can be extremely useful. Surfacing possible positive examples for human review and/or cutting down 'obvious' negatives can multiply the productivity of human reviewers in many contexts.
- theelous3 5y ago
  > Most forensic science is junk. I'm ignorant on the topic. Got links?
  - sdenton4 5y ago
    Forensics is full of gee-whiz-cool csi stuff which eventually is shown to be worthless. Polygraphs are a great example; they're still very wisely used in the US, despite piles of evidence showing they're prone to both false positives and false negatives. Sibling comments saying they aren't forensics because they've been discredited are missing the point: these are typical crime tech, and have been lately discredited, but are still in use in the US regardless. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph For a more recent example, here's an article on denim analysis... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/science/denim-pattern-matching-forensic-crime.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/science/denim-pattern-mat... The underlying problems seem to be bad incentives (the prosecution is paid+evaluated on its ability to put people in jail) and the court's willingness to accept insufficiently validated tech.
    - ransom1538 5y ago
      https://innocenceproject.org/what-is-bite-mark-evidence-forensic-science/ https://innocenceproject.org/what-is-bite-mark-evidence-fore...
    - duskwuff 5y ago
      To add to that list: fire investigation. There have historically been a lot of myths in the field regarding forms of "proof" that a fire was caused by arson, and many of them were historically used to obtain (likely false) convictions. https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/long_held_beliefs_about_arson_science_have_been_debunked_after_decades_of_m https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/long_held_belief...
jdjd6 5y ago
It really boggles my mind how desperate people are to try and include and blame the police for everything. >sales people ready to make a call any way their customer (police) wants it made. You really believe people signed up for a dangerous amd thankless job with high liability and low pay so they can feverishly conspire to have this guy arrested? Edit: This place is becoming reddit. Someone posting links which dont substantiate their statements gets upvoted, meanwhile my replies questioning this get hit by a downvote brigade.
- aeturnum 5y ago
  Just fyi - Police are generally quite well paid for the area they live in. For example, in Alameda (the county I live in) it's common for police to make over $450,000 a year[1]. Also, while police to have a more-dangerous-than-average job[2] (and face unique risks - they are probably the most likely profession to die of a gunshot on the job), there are much more dangerous jobs[3]. So if you have been excusing police because you think they are accepting poverty for danger, I'd ask you to consider that Police are more like extremely well paid garbage collectors[4]. [1] https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2019/alameda-county/ https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2019/alameda-coun... [2] https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/police-2018.htm https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/police-2018.htm [3] https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/logging/default.html https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/logging/default.html [4] https://qz.com/410585/garbage-collectors-are-more-likely-to-die-on-the-job-than-police-patrol-officers/ https://qz.com/410585/garbage-collectors-are-more-likely-to-...
  - sharken 5y ago
    With $450,000 as yearly pay i should give up being a software developer. Alameda even has a violent crime rate of half the US average. https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Alameda-California.html https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Alameda-California.htm... I do wonder if the pay negatively affects the confrontations that the individual officer will risk, e.g. let a suspect escape due to not having good enough backup.
    - P_I_Staker 5y ago
Gibbon1 5y ago
What freaks me out about forensics is no one at all is doing any validation testing. And they aren't doing blind testing either.
robocat 5y ago
Police are telling ShotSpotter to alter evidence from gunshot-detecting AI https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8xbq/police-are-telling-shotspotter-to-alter-evidence-from-gunshot-detecting-ai https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8xbq/police-are-telling-sh... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27959755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27959755

giantg2 5y ago

I generally agree, but wouldn't necessarily say a lot of forensics is junk science. The science is generally sound (procedures and theory). Usually it's the prosecutors that present the forensics in a way that misrepresents what the results actually mean. Or lab techs make mistakes or perform misconduct (How to Fix a Drug Scandal on Netflix is interesting).

wyager 5y ago
Fingerprinting is junk science. Polygraphs are junk science. Tons of things that have been or are admissible as evidence are junk science.
- giantg2 5y ago
  I wouldn't call polygraphs forensics. Most states do not allow them as evidence. Do you have a link for the fingerprinting claim?
  - monetus 5y ago
    (Not who you responded to) https://www.crammlawfirm.com/fingerprint-match-jails-innocent-man/ https://www.crammlawfirm.com/fingerprint-match-jails-innocen... This isn't the case I originally recalled, and doesn't say how many points were matched, but I remember a 5 point match being used to convict a person who was later proven innocent.
    - newswasboring 5y ago
      That shows its flawed, not junk.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Oh, yeah. I've heard of them using too few points. I would have lumped that into misconduct or mistakes by the lab tech or prosecution.
      - monetus 5y ago
        Yeah, knowing or not, comparing with too few points is misconduct - that should be the fault of someone besides the defense, but that is somewhat tangential - does anyone with more knowledge know where the line is drawn? I imagine there are some outlandish coincedences happening.
    - arp242 5y ago
      Fingerprints aren't "junk science", but they do have error margins and plenty of room for mistakes. The problem is that many juries, judges, prosecutors, and even defenders forget about this. This is the case for many types of evidence; witness statements for example can also be notoriously unreliable. It's not bad to use this kind of evidence, but you do have a problem if you consider any witness statement to be absolute truth and never consider any "reasonable doubt" there may be, and this is how you end up convicting people based purely on "I saw the suspect commit the crime from 50 metres away in the dark and I'm sure it was him!" or some such. If you have six independent witness statements like that, or a witness statement and fingerprints then the reasonable doubt starts becoming a lot less reasonable. This is also the problem with the case in this article: a piece of evidence over which it seems like reasonable doubt should exists is the singular piece of evidence tying this person to the crime. The problem here isn't the evidence as such IMHO, but that juries and/or defenders (depends on the case) seem exceedingly bad at sceptically examining physical evidence.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Fingerprints aren't "junk science" Fingerprints are directly-recorded facts. What may be junk science is what expert witnesses present about the interpretation of fingerprints. > The problem is that many juries, judges, prosecutors, and even defenders forget about this. Juries as triers of fact, and judges insofar as they are ruling on the facts of the case, aren't, in any case, supposed to allow themselves fo be guided by extrinsic knowledge, they are supposed to act based on facts (both direct and the expert knowledge relating to the import of direct facts) provided as evidence, both testimony and exhibits, in the case.
  - k1t 5y ago
    Not fingerprinting, but related issue for microscopic hair comparisons: The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000. Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo...
- tzs 5y ago
  > Fingerprinting is junk science. How then do you explain the success of Touch ID on Apple devices and the equivalent systems on other phones and tablets? Random people can't just walk up and unlock a Touch ID device with their fingerprint, which suggests that fingerprints are in fact a very good way to tell people apart. Yes, it is possible to make a fake fingerprint that Touch ID will not be able to distinguish from my fingerprint. But that fake fingerprint will only unlock my device, not your device, so it is still correctly distinguishing our fingerprints.
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    Because other surfaces are not a purpose built sensor designed to detect the features of a finger then repeatedly trained with a specific set of finger scans? Like are you joking? Saying TouchID validates fingerprinting is like saying MRI machines validate psychics.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Are you joking? It seems you two have a different idea of what is being discussed. The underlying fundamentals of finger prints are solid. The part that can make them ineffective is when they are using insufficiently tested tools or matching on too few points. And of course misrepresentating what a match actually means and how it pertains to the case.
      - z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
        I can effectively burn off my fingerprints completely... They are not completely effective at all
      - DSMan195276 5y ago
        > The underlying fundamentals of finger prints are solid. What exactly are these underlying 'fundamentals'? Nobody even knows if everybody has unique fingerprints, it's just an assumption. Beyond that, it's not all that relevant since as you mentioned how the matching is done is largely subjective, and it depends a lot on the number of "points" used and who does the matching, and that should really bring the accuracy even more into question. What exactly is the statistical probability of an incorrect match based on the number of points used? Good luck answering that question. IMO the situation is made a lot worse by the fact that the public generally assumes fingerprinting to be extremely accurate (or 100% accurate).
emodendroket 5y ago
No, the procedures and theory behind, e.g., bite mark analysis or fire analysis, are total junk.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Do you have some links for this? My understanding is the interpretation part can be BS, but stuff like finding and identifying potential ignition or accelerant locations and types should be more settled.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    https://theintercept.com/2019/05/05/forensic-evidence-aafs-junk-science/ https://theintercept.com/2019/05/05/forensic-evidence-aafs-j... https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/jeff-sessions-is-keeping-junk-science-in-americas-courts-194492/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/jeff...
    - giantg2 5y ago
      That doesn't exactly support your claims for most of forensics. If you read/skim the NAS report these articles are based on, you will see that much of the issue is not with the underlying science, but rather in the "interpretation" part. Yes, the odontology seems to be unsupported. But even the fire analysis that you list as an example is said to have a scientific basis like chemistry, but that the interpretation part has issues.
      - tooltower 5y ago
        While my stance on forensics is not as negative as the parent comment, I don't see how you are drawing such a sharp distinction between the "science" and the "interpretation". They are not separate things. When a scientist proposes a new test, they include measurement techniques as well as a method of interpretation. If a medical test is used in a way that is frequently prone to misinterpretation, it would be fair to call that entire test useless.
shkkmo 5y ago
Not all forensics disciplins are created equal and some of them, such as hair forensics, are definitely junk science.
- giantg2 5y ago
  How is hair analysis junk science? Maybe you just mean that people misuse the facts to come to incorrect conclusions? It's only supposed to be used to include or exclude someone, and based on the numbers/probabilities it's generally only useful for excluding someone. Of course that's not how most prosecutors use it...
  - openasocket 5y ago
    Hair analysis, as in looking at two hair samples under a microscope and determining if they are a match, is definitely junk science. The FBI has specifically acknowledged this, dozens of cases have been overturned because subsequent genetic testing has shown hair samples did not, in fact, match. In at least one case someone was convicted based almost entirely on hair sample analysis, and later DNS testing showed that not only was the hair not a match, the hair found at the crime scene belonged to a dog. https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/blog/fbi-forensics-convicted-innocent-man-for-28-years-claiming-dog-hair-was-his.cfm https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/blog/fbi-forensics-convicte...
alisonkisk 5y ago
Citation strongly needed on forensics bring generally sound.
- giantg2 5y ago
  There have been plenty of references in this post to the NAS study on the state of forensics. Basically, the majority of forensics are based on sound theories and practices. The issues are when professionals and prosecutors try to "interpret" the facts. I would be interested in any citations showing that forensics are generally unsound.
exporectomy 5y ago
As soon as the analysts making judgments about the evidence are in communication with the prosecutors or police, it's junk science. You wouldn't do a psychology or medical experiment without at least single blinding, and certainly not with the experimenter telling the subjects what result they want! Look at this damming quote - "ShotSpotter strongly insisted it had not improperly altered any data to favor the police's case". That shows they don't have a system in place to prevent data being altered or to prevent themselves knowing what the police want, so all their findings are suspect.

sdenton4 5y ago

Most forensic science is junk. That said, human in the loop ML can be extremely useful. Surfacing possible positive examples for human review and/or cutting down 'obvious' negatives can multiply the productivity of human reviewers in many contexts.

theelous3 5y ago
> Most forensic science is junk. I'm ignorant on the topic. Got links?
- sdenton4 5y ago
  Forensics is full of gee-whiz-cool csi stuff which eventually is shown to be worthless. Polygraphs are a great example; they're still very wisely used in the US, despite piles of evidence showing they're prone to both false positives and false negatives. Sibling comments saying they aren't forensics because they've been discredited are missing the point: these are typical crime tech, and have been lately discredited, but are still in use in the US regardless. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph For a more recent example, here's an article on denim analysis... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/science/denim-pattern-matching-forensic-crime.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/science/denim-pattern-mat... The underlying problems seem to be bad incentives (the prosecution is paid+evaluated on its ability to put people in jail) and the court's willingness to accept insufficiently validated tech.
  - ransom1538 5y ago
    https://innocenceproject.org/what-is-bite-mark-evidence-forensic-science/ https://innocenceproject.org/what-is-bite-mark-evidence-fore...
  - duskwuff 5y ago
    To add to that list: fire investigation. There have historically been a lot of myths in the field regarding forms of "proof" that a fire was caused by arson, and many of them were historically used to obtain (likely false) convictions. https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/long_held_beliefs_about_arson_science_have_been_debunked_after_decades_of_m https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/long_held_belief...

jdjd6 5y ago

It really boggles my mind how desperate people are to try and include and blame the police for everything. >sales people ready to make a call any way their customer (police) wants it made. You really believe people signed up for a dangerous amd thankless job with high liability and low pay so they can feverishly conspire to have this guy arrested? Edit: This place is becoming reddit. Someone posting links which dont substantiate their statements gets upvoted, meanwhile my replies questioning this get hit by a downvote brigade.

aeturnum 5y ago
Just fyi - Police are generally quite well paid for the area they live in. For example, in Alameda (the county I live in) it's common for police to make over $450,000 a year[1]. Also, while police to have a more-dangerous-than-average job[2] (and face unique risks - they are probably the most likely profession to die of a gunshot on the job), there are much more dangerous jobs[3]. So if you have been excusing police because you think they are accepting poverty for danger, I'd ask you to consider that Police are more like extremely well paid garbage collectors[4]. [1] https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2019/alameda-county/ https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2019/alameda-coun... [2] https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/police-2018.htm https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/police-2018.htm [3] https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/logging/default.html https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/logging/default.html [4] https://qz.com/410585/garbage-collectors-are-more-likely-to-die-on-the-job-than-police-patrol-officers/ https://qz.com/410585/garbage-collectors-are-more-likely-to-...
- sharken 5y ago
  With $450,000 as yearly pay i should give up being a software developer. Alameda even has a violent crime rate of half the US average. https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Alameda-California.html https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Alameda-California.htm... I do wonder if the pay negatively affects the confrontations that the individual officer will risk, e.g. let a suspect escape due to not having good enough backup.
  - P_I_Staker 5y ago

Gibbon1 5y ago

What freaks me out about forensics is no one at all is doing any validation testing. And they aren't doing blind testing either.

robocat 5y ago

Police are telling ShotSpotter to alter evidence from gunshot-detecting AI https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8xbq/police-are-telling-shotspotter-to-alter-evidence-from-gunshot-detecting-ai https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8xbq/police-are-telling-sh... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27959755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27959755