and how could anyone on hacker news claim there is 'no evidence' that unreviewed software may do something other than what people claim it does? especially if it 170,000 lines of matlab?
from the article:
> "Without scrutinizing its software's source code – a human-made set of instructions that may contain bugs, glitches, and defects – in the context of an adversarial system, no finding that it properly implements the underlying science could realistically be made," the ruling says.
>probabilistic genotyping [1]
and
>solves mixed DNA samples, low template DNA and kinship problems [1]
And the product sheet discusses
> models for PCR artifacts [2]
This sure feels like they go way beyond typical dna match technology into maximally extracting information via statistics, so their methods definitely should be open for review.
[1] https://www.cybgen.com/products/casework.shtml
[2] https://www.cybgen.com/solutions/brochures/unique_features.p...
On one side were 6 impeccably dressed men in what I presumed were multi-thousand dollar suits. On the other side was single overwhelmed, overworked, and under-dressed defender who was steam-rolled at every sentence she spoke.
I ended up in traffic court last year for a parking ticket that I can only think must have been stolen from my car during a festival. After spending just a few hours waiting my turn, it was pretty clear who exactly the police target for traffic violations. But this is a tangent.
Anecdotally, if you replace 'paid' with 'incentivized' my understanding is the same.
And here's a totally unrelated Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baden
I know expert witnesses. They are of impeccable character, and will seek to educate as well as they are allowed.
Not to mention we have a constitutional right (6th amendment) to face and cross examine witnesses against us in the US, a black box should not void that right.
What you call abuse, I call due process.
(And your proposed solution is already part of the expert certification and questioning process in criminal trials, so it isn't a solution. Experts must testify that the equipment they used was calibrated/certified/etc based on the standards applicable to the field.)
Responses to my comment are all around 'how it is now' which seems not to be very reliable. A responsible testing/certification process would address that.
You still need to allow the "independent certification" to be examined in court to validate both the independence and the certification. The means testimony on the applicable standards, and how the specific equipment used satisfied those standards. And right now, the expert witness already does the latter with respect to calibration, etc., for the equipment they used.
Of course self-certification is not the best. To bring up that straw man (as most of these posts do) is not advancing the conversation.
If you can't validate the equipment used to analyze the DNA, gunshot residue, or other scientific evidence, then that evidence should not be allowed in court, because that's prima facie reasonable doubt.
Any challenge is "allowed" in the sense that the parties can try to convince the judge there is a flaw.
The question is one of burden of proof: should the expert prove they have a trustworthy result, or should the expert testimony stand on their credibility alone, and the defense scramble to poke holes into it armed with incomplete information.
For a system that can put people into jail for life and that acts as a direct extension of state power, it's obvious the latter can have disastrous consequences. Effectively, any one who acquirers the "judicial expert" title can put people in jail at their whim.
It's important for experts to use validated, tested equipment. That's clear. And by the sound of it that is happening (stories of how code was tested and found wanting confirm that; stories of double-blind testing).
Maybe what is needed is, an 'underwriters lab' certification for such devices. To forstal the inevitable gaming of the 'right to challenge'.