Any software used to convict people, especially on a such a serious crime, should be audited like the fed is. Twice yearly, once by a public firm and another by the government itself. It should have to pass both of these audits to be used.

It should be audited by science.

Yes there should be teams comprised of people whose expertise is in biology (specifically whatever field is responsible for DNA matching) and other people who are programmers that review the code and make sure there’s no mistakes. That would do it and I’m surprised this isn’t already a thing.

It should totally be available to be "red teamed", like the researchers who exploit fingerprint readers with gummy bear moulds made with laser prints of fingerprints, or who hold up photographs to face recognition systems.

The government should send a half a dozen to DefCon/CCC and let attendees loose trying to fool them.

Hardware and business process would also need review. Its no good having perfect code if you can insert the wrong sample. It's also no good having perfect code if a well-timed EMI burst or power level shift games the result.

Definitely. There was even a documentary about it on Netflix about how crimelab technicians were pushed for results rather than accuracy. A couple major scandals involved intentional faking of tests and resulting in countless people going to prison and the judicial consequences it caused as well as the friction involved to seek justice. Like, oh no, all these people convicted for life on flimsy grounds is such a burden of our time.

Eh that’s overkill. If can be proofed and guaranteed that it isn’t bugging out we don’t need to run through every building block this way.

I would have said that too before starting a hardware company. Now, I'm not so sure.

> but the person that wants to have it analyzed will have to either spend the time themselves, or pay the expert witness for their time; it could be a costly affair.

Sure.

And the prosecution using the company claiming to have "totally reliable DNA evidence" should be totally on the hook for those costs (plus damages) when that analysis or expert witnesses show up "reasonable doubt" flaws in the software or the processes in which that software is used, including then risking retrials or mistrials of all other cases in which it was used.

If the prosecutors want to play high stakes games with defendants lives and liberty using "evidence" from proprietary software or devices, they need to be held to the consequences of losing their stakes.

[Edit: I wonder what the legal system would think of a CyberGenetics competitor funding the expert witness analysis of their software on behalf of the defence???]