4 ms·

Article says nobody is responding as defendant except one individual who has filed a motion to dismiss based on being misidentified. I don’t know the status of

Article says nobody is responding as defendant except one individual who has filed a motion to dismiss based on being misidentified. I don’t know the status of that motion though.

xiiiixi 2y ago
[flagged]
- bugglebeetle 2y ago
  >Stylometric analysis shows this to be the same person with a high degree of probability. Sounds par for the course with all the kookery and bullshit that somehow passes for “expert” evidence in US courts.
  - RVuRnvbM2e 2y ago
    Yeah they'll have him take a polygraph next.
- yellowapple 2y ago
  I'd be very curious about that analysis should it be publicized. Specifically: how many other people does that stylometric analysis match "with a high degree of probability"? And what measures were taken to rule out things like adversarial stylometry? My point: stylometry alone doesn't strike me as particularly strong evidence - especially in this day and age wherein people influence each others' writing styles bidirectionally all the time.
- iczero 2y ago
  >"high degree of probability" what degree? what's the false positive rate? what's the false negative rate? what's the true negative rate? what other evidence have you got? even better, why are you talking about this at all? isn't it best practice to shut up about legal cases?
- computerfriend 2y ago
  Regardless, that is what the motion to dismiss is based on.
- justinclift 2y ago
  > Stylometric analysis shows this to be the same person with a high degree of probability. Sounds like this is a new technique unproven to the high standards really needed for legal evidence. The "anything plausible sounding goes" approach is already a problem for other widely used types of "evidence". Those need to be stamped out too, not have new unproven crap added, making the problem worse.
- justinclift 2y ago
  > An acquaintance of mine worked on this analysis for the plaintiffs. On that note, does your acquaintance have published work that can be fact checked? It sounds like they're an expert, so surely they must have public info about this technique, and its accuracy when they're utilising it.
- NautilusWave 2y ago
  Sounds just like the FBI's hair comparison analysis technique.

Article says nobody is responding as defendant except one individual who has filed a motion to dismiss based on being misidentified. I don’t know the status of that motion though.

xiiiixi 2y ago

[flagged]

bugglebeetle 2y ago
>Stylometric analysis shows this to be the same person with a high degree of probability. Sounds par for the course with all the kookery and bullshit that somehow passes for “expert” evidence in US courts.
- RVuRnvbM2e 2y ago
  Yeah they'll have him take a polygraph next.
yellowapple 2y ago
I'd be very curious about that analysis should it be publicized. Specifically: how many other people does that stylometric analysis match "with a high degree of probability"? And what measures were taken to rule out things like adversarial stylometry? My point: stylometry alone doesn't strike me as particularly strong evidence - especially in this day and age wherein people influence each others' writing styles bidirectionally all the time.
iczero 2y ago
>"high degree of probability" what degree? what's the false positive rate? what's the false negative rate? what's the true negative rate? what other evidence have you got? even better, why are you talking about this at all? isn't it best practice to shut up about legal cases?
computerfriend 2y ago
Regardless, that is what the motion to dismiss is based on.
justinclift 2y ago
> Stylometric analysis shows this to be the same person with a high degree of probability. Sounds like this is a new technique unproven to the high standards really needed for legal evidence. The "anything plausible sounding goes" approach is already a problem for other widely used types of "evidence". Those need to be stamped out too, not have new unproven crap added, making the problem worse.
justinclift 2y ago
> An acquaintance of mine worked on this analysis for the plaintiffs. On that note, does your acquaintance have published work that can be fact checked? It sounds like they're an expert, so surely they must have public info about this technique, and its accuracy when they're utilising it.
NautilusWave 2y ago
Sounds just like the FBI's hair comparison analysis technique.