4 ms·

I can't imagine that this kind of evidence would be admissible in court, right? It might be useful to give you some leads but I would hope that no one is convic

I can't imagine that this kind of evidence would be admissible in court, right? It might be useful to give you some leads but I would hope that no one is convicted on this tech alone.

chimeracoder 3y ago
> I would hope that no one is convicted on this tech alone. I have bad news for you about what is already regularly used in court to convict people, and the scientific validity thereof.
- cooper_ganglia 3y ago
  Any examples?
  - chimeracoder 3y ago
    > Any examples? Pretty much everything that makes up "forensics", except for DNA analysis (and even that carries a huge asterisk). Fingerprints, bite marks, blood spatter... the list goes on. Drug tests are borderline - reliable drug tests exist, but police often use tests with much higher false positive rates. Believe it or not, "police psychics" also exist[0], and are used to manufacture probable cause, so that also fits the definition of "used to convict people". Forensic psuedoscience is widely known to be junk by modern scientific standards, but courts have stuck by it, in part because "that's how it's been done for decades/centuries", and in part because they have acknowledged that it would be too difficult to convict many cases if forensics were deemed inadmissible. [0] https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R000100280009-3.pdf https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R0001002...
  - chucksta 3y ago
    Notable missing in the other response is polygraph, only a handful of states accept them. https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/are-lie-detector-tests-admissible-in-court.html https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/are-lie-d...
  - rossant 3y ago
    Look up shaken baby syndrome https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402
basch 3y ago
It’s not evidence. The dna draws the face, the face is back checked for a match, the match has his dna collected and the dna is compared. The process in-between and the face match isn’t the evidence.
kube-system 3y ago
You're not even going to get a good lead out of this, facial recognition works on fine details, and guessing a face from DNA has none of that fidelity. This is akin to: Police having grainy monochrome security camera snapshot of a suspect, putting the photo in a microscope, and concluding that the suspect has salt-and-pepper hair and a square pixel shaped face. "fair skin, brown eyes and hair, no freckles, and bushy eyebrows" isn't enough entropy for facial recognition to work. Any entropy that any facial recognition would be operating on here is completely made up out of thin air by the rendering program.
- chimeracoder 3y ago
  > "fair skin, brown eyes and hair, no freckles, and bushy eyebrows" isn't enough entropy for facial recognition to work. No, but it's more than enough to profile people, which is the real point.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    Yes, humans often use vague information to profile others. But that isn't what is happening here, because the output is being fed into a face recognition program. It's just going to create spurious matches based on coincidentally generated attributes inherent to the procedures baked into the image generation software.

I can't imagine that this kind of evidence would be admissible in court, right? It might be useful to give you some leads but I would hope that no one is convicted on this tech alone.

chimeracoder 3y ago

> I would hope that no one is convicted on this tech alone. I have bad news for you about what is already regularly used in court to convict people, and the scientific validity thereof.

cooper_ganglia 3y ago
Any examples?
- chimeracoder 3y ago
  > Any examples? Pretty much everything that makes up "forensics", except for DNA analysis (and even that carries a huge asterisk). Fingerprints, bite marks, blood spatter... the list goes on. Drug tests are borderline - reliable drug tests exist, but police often use tests with much higher false positive rates. Believe it or not, "police psychics" also exist[0], and are used to manufacture probable cause, so that also fits the definition of "used to convict people". Forensic psuedoscience is widely known to be junk by modern scientific standards, but courts have stuck by it, in part because "that's how it's been done for decades/centuries", and in part because they have acknowledged that it would be too difficult to convict many cases if forensics were deemed inadmissible. [0] https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R000100280009-3.pdf https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R0001002...
- chucksta 3y ago
  Notable missing in the other response is polygraph, only a handful of states accept them. https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/are-lie-detector-tests-admissible-in-court.html https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/are-lie-d...
- rossant 3y ago
  Look up shaken baby syndrome https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402

basch 3y ago

It’s not evidence. The dna draws the face, the face is back checked for a match, the match has his dna collected and the dna is compared. The process in-between and the face match isn’t the evidence.

kube-system 3y ago

You're not even going to get a good lead out of this, facial recognition works on fine details, and guessing a face from DNA has none of that fidelity. This is akin to: Police having grainy monochrome security camera snapshot of a suspect, putting the photo in a microscope, and concluding that the suspect has salt-and-pepper hair and a square pixel shaped face. "fair skin, brown eyes and hair, no freckles, and bushy eyebrows" isn't enough entropy for facial recognition to work. Any entropy that any facial recognition would be operating on here is completely made up out of thin air by the rendering program.

chimeracoder 3y ago
> "fair skin, brown eyes and hair, no freckles, and bushy eyebrows" isn't enough entropy for facial recognition to work. No, but it's more than enough to profile people, which is the real point.
- kube-system 3y ago
  Yes, humans often use vague information to profile others. But that isn't what is happening here, because the output is being fed into a face recognition program. It's just going to create spurious matches based on coincidentally generated attributes inherent to the procedures baked into the image generation software.