491–500 of 520 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no reason to presume they did their own validation correctly absent proof of same.
I think this is the crux of the problem. If the defendant gets to decide when validation is sufficient then should they ever say it is sufficient?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
170,000 lines of Matlab code for a project is not a good sign. Unless they’re also including the source of various Matlab toolboxes which are already tested by the Mathworks. It’s such a high-level language it’s hard to imagine what the hell they’re doing with all that code. It’s probably mostly useless cruft from GUIDE.
I’ve made 4 decent sized gui based tools before. I would never use GUIDE. At minimum it uses eval. If you want a terrible gui-based gui creation interface: labview awaits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The burden of proof does not suddenly fall on the defendant just because one for-profit conviction company can’t back up their product.
Who said they can’t back it up? The defendant claimed he needed to review it. The company presumably has done its own validation.
>their own validation
That is not how things are proven.
“You don’t need to know how we came to this scientific conclusion.” An appeal to authority doesn’t fly in science and it certainly doesn’t in law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve made 4 decent sized gui based tools before. I would never use GUIDE. At minimum it uses eval. If you want a terrible gui-based gui creation interface: labview awaits.
I compiled eval once for fun.
Also just because eval can be compiled doesn't mean it should. It will forever be a security risk and I will not write code that uses it in good conscious. Fortunately, Mathworks has provided good alternatives. My personal favorite has been variable field names. It really opens up a lot of elegant coding.
https://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/matlab_prog/string-eva...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that middle zone (that most of us probably live in) is terrifying. And it’s why we get conned into so many different types of insurance. “One disaster and all that progress is gone.”
"Yes, that middle zone (that most of us probably live in) is terrifying" More terrifying than the bottom where you got nothing to loose? I doubt it. Otherwise, why be afraid of it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is the crux of the problem. If the defendant gets to decide when validation is sufficient then should they ever say it is sufficient?
When the jury agrees the evidence is there beyond a reasonable doubt. No one should trust any black box when it comes to criminal prosecution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Grossly oversimplifying it, but it is what my lawyer uncles say, and is consistent with what I saw as a juror on a civil trial involving many topics I'm personally an expert in, expert witnesses are paid to lie on the stand. At the very least they are paid very very well (the amount they were paid was emphasized at the trial I was at) to state only the information consistent with what the person paying them wanted to…
They answer any question put to them. The defense has to ask the right questions of course. I know expert witnesses. They are of impeccable character, and will seek to educate as well as they are allowed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all poor people are stupid.
Yes. Not sure how is it relevant. I don't expect small town judges and cops to be particularly poor, or particularly stupid for that matter. I do expect them to be uneducated and uncaring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one should use mail in voting either...
Except for the sick, disabled, elderly, deceased, people overseas or out-of-town, anyone in the military that's deployed, people who don't have good access to transportation, people who work long continuous shifts like healthcare workers and firefighters, poll workers, people in jail awaiting their trials, people with stalkers...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what if I say i need to review camera footage of me doing a crime and it will take me 100 years to validate it? You need to establish reasonable timelines for this or any guilty person will claim any technology used will take 100 years to verify. There is no reason you can’t analyze a DNA analysis codebase in 6 months. Unless you also need to verify the science.
I am not clear what you are arguing - it there a real problem where people invent fantastical amount of time to review simple evidence? The claim about the amount of time was not made by the defendant, it was from the company that produced the code.