181–190 of 210 posts
i do wonder, that in the age where we have image and video creation out of the bag, whether or not this will result in whole classes of evidence becoming completely unreliable.
Such a case should trigger a auto revision on all cases said officer ever touched.
You'd also think that police blatantly lying (with or without AI) in official documents and/or in court under oath would trigger immediate firing and a ban of them ever serving in law enforcement in any capacity ever again. But no.
If found guilty at trial, they'd be looking at a prison sentence as the abuse of position aspect would automatically mean high culpability. Expected starting point would be 4 years if an innocent person has been charged or convicted on the basis of the false evidence (which is implied by the report). Perhaps 6-7 years if multiple people have been. Very unlikely they'd ever be able to work in policing or related fields again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what about if: …the signature included the depth measured by the autofocus system across the image? …or a tiny stereo image was included to capture depth? …or a mini video in the ten seconds before and after the photo was taken? …and the key is in a tamper proof HSM? …and the key is deleted the moment the camera detects the case being taken apart? I know that it is a losing battle to try to build such hardware wh…
But also what about .. Even now there is a range of forensic tech that can be used to statistically indicate if an image has been doctored, or generated, wouldnt't adding more and more real world data to the capture increase the bar for doctoring, so that only attackers with infinite resources can do it? At least it would stop Bobby Rotten from doing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are we really going to go to a fictional TV show now?
It affects the jury. If the jury watches tv shows that builds the expectation that there is always a bunch of ballistics evidence etc and that it is always fool proof then they will 1) distrust when there isn’t that type of evidence (but enough other evidence) and 2) they will overvalue the evidence when it exists
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's because they're a scam. Point the camera at a forged image with a higher resolution than the camera sensor and it will make a signed copy of the unsigned forgery. That's before getting into the practical problems with securing the keys. Every camera by every manufacturer has keys in it and the attacker only needs one key from one camera, and they get to choose the model? Creating something premised on needing to…
But what about if: …the signature included the depth measured by the autofocus system across the image? …or a tiny stereo image was included to capture depth? …or a mini video in the ten seconds before and after the photo was taken? …and the key is in a tamper proof HSM? …and the key is deleted the moment the camera detects the case being taken apart? I know that it is a losing battle to try to build such hardware wh…
I would add a few more measures:
* Keys are regenerated for each device in the charging dock and are only valid until next recharge or a timeout.
* There is a sign-out process for the cameras that ties them to the operator.
* Police officers have no control over when the camera is recording, the camera instead controls this.
* Lower resolution data is streamed and synced to a cloud in real time, along with interesting data such as GPS, local BT/WiFi devices, etc.
As for privacy, British police are using more and more evasive camera technology out in public spaces, it's about time they were forced to wear it themselves. I want even the pencil pushers in the offices to be forced to wear it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When DNA matching was introduced, we discovered that at minimum 10% of people on death row were innocent. Death row cases are among the most litigated and examined cases. So, 10% is a reasonable floor, and we're already in double digits.
> This reasonably sets a floor I disagree wrt reasonableness. It’s just too big a leap. There are a lot of crimes, and not many land you on death row.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd also think that police blatantly lying (with or without AI) in official documents and/or in court under oath would trigger immediate firing and a ban of them ever serving in law enforcement in any capacity ever again. But no.
If charged, it would likely be as either forgery, perverting the course of justice, or perjury (or perhaps some combination of those) depending on the specifics. If found guilty at trial, they'd be looking at a prison sentence as the abuse of position aspect would automatically mean high culpability. Expected starting point would be 4 years if an innocent person has been charged or convicted on the basis of the false…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... Police in the united states have more than a century of flagrant misconduct under their belts. They protect their own, they almost never face consequences for killing people, they are frequently corrupt, they are frequently biased. Here's a couple fun examples: https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2026-06-05/boston-law-enforc... https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/la-is-investigating...
This is the UK, our cops don't even carry guns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the UK, our cops don't even carry guns.
Quite a few actually do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The observation was that death row represents the highest level of scrutiny, and still had 10% false positives for guilt. Is there any argument that less-scrutinized cases would have a lower level of false convictions?
The 10% claim has been refuted.