I'm not familiar with genome sequencing, but why are they even relying only on one program? Wouldn't it be possible to check it with different programs to reduce the possibility of failure here?
And just assuming they find a possible bug, would that mean all the sentences based on the programs result will be obsolete?
Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit
391–400 of 520 posts
Re: Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one of these scary areas where reality matches my teenaged experiences playing Shadowrun. I used to hope that the brutal dystopia we played through was just fun. Now I’m seeing that the present needs a word even more brutal than dystopia. :(
Kafkatopia
You nailed it! Thanks friend, that’s some wicked writing and thinking.
Re: Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit
#393There should be no such thing as a "trade secret" when talking about evidence that is used to convict someone. Correct judgement here.
Re: Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be implying that the prosecutor would prefer taking the life of an innocent rather than having it hurt his career, making the prosecutor kind of a criminal.
>taking the life of an innocent The prosecutor isn't unilaterally deciding whether the DNA evidence is valid. There will be a public hearing where both the prosecution and defense show evidence about the validity of the DNA evidence, and a court will rule based on that evidence.
Yeah, the system is in a pretty horrific state when you have to count on prosecutors' restraint for anything. Granted, we are in such a state, but it's beneficial not to just accept that as the status quo.
Re: Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit
#395Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not like you review all scientific evidence and re-do the experiments that lead up to the discovery of in the first place. Actually, it is . That's how science works and that's how convictions often get overturned. > Validating all that would also take years Are you suggesting that unvalidated data is being used to prosecute crimes? > and much of it can be established as generally accepted by all parties. The…
> Are you suggesting that unvalidated data is being used to prosecute crimes? Yes. Pseudoscience is the bread and butter of criminal forensics.
I think they meant "should be used to prosecute crimes."
Re: Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit
#396Earlier quoted context omitted.
These cases also often come up with drug and alcohol detection tests, and as John Oliver points out in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f2iawp0y5Y , software used to select jurors. All of these companies claim that their source code is valuable intellectual property and that disclosing it can hurt their business. Even if this were true, when you're providing something that can be a significant factor in someone being…
Without jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon, I'd also like to see this applied to voting software. I know it's a hot topic, and I'm honestly not trying to get political. Software that is critical to our fundamental human rights, and is being used by our government should be open source, or at least audited by a group of people who sign Non-competes/NDA and can't go work for competitors, or with some other mechanism t…
I feel very strongly that all votes in all important elections should be counted by hand, and be open for anyone to observe the process (within reasonable limits on disruptive behavior).
Not because of the possibility of voting machines being hacked, but because it is important for the public to have trust in the system. It is difficult to trust a system you do not understand, and only a very small minority is ever going to be able to audit voting software.
(I'm not American, so this is in no way a comment on your current predicament.)
Re: Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of bashing over a vague third-hand quote without a source. In the very next paragraph they say: > The company offered the defense access under tightly controlled conditions outlined in a non-disclosure agreement, which included accepting a $1m liability fine in the event code details leaked. But the defense team objected to the conditions, which they argued would hinder their evaluation and would deter any expe…
There is no legitimate need for IP protection against destroying innocent lives.
“If the criminals know how our system works, they can work around it!” is probably what they’re thinking. i.e. security through obscurity.
Re: Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of bashing over a vague third-hand quote without a source. In the very next paragraph they say: > The company offered the defense access under tightly controlled conditions outlined in a non-disclosure agreement, which included accepting a $1m liability fine in the event code details leaked. But the defense team objected to the conditions, which they argued would hinder their evaluation and would deter any expe…
There is no legitimate need for IP protection against destroying innocent lives.
Indeed. In fact, if there were a globally agreeable case for open science and open source, to which all governments could contribute, DNA analysis for criminal attribution would have to be it, no? A side benefit would be that sending evidence to numerous international labs would greatly frustrate attempts at domestic law enforcement / lab corruption.
Re: Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit
#399Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Second, even if it did take a full 8 years, is that a good reason to deny the defendant due process? No, 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. But I think it's warranted. An independent software review, and a double blind assertion with the exact version of the software used in the convictio…
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.
Re: Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit
#400> The co-founder of the company, Mark Perlin, is said to have argued against source code analysis by claiming that the program, consisting of 170,000 lines of MATLAB code, is so dense it would take eight and a half years to review at a rate of ten lines an hour. First, the defence doesn't necessarily have to evaluate all 170,000 lines. They just need to find one buggy line which could potentially overturn the result.…
Wait until you hear how long it would take at a rate of 2 lines per hour, as long as we're just throwing out random numbers.
[deleted]