Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cops Used DNA to Predict a Suspect's Face – and Tried Facial Recognition on It

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–14 of 14 posts

Re: Cops Used DNA to Predict a Suspect's Face – and Tried Facial Recognition on It

#11

Post by FireBeyond »

mrguyorama wrote: post #4
gigama wrote: post #2

"The detective’s request to run a DNA-generated estimation of a suspect’s face through facial recognition tech has not previously been reported. Found in a trove of hacked police records published by the transparency collective Distributed Denial of Secrets, it appears to be the first known instance of a police department attempting to use facial recognition on a face algorithmically generated from crime-scene DNA."…

Police LOVE using BS "science" in their work. So many "forensic methods" are just bogus, completely made up by one guy who tours the country selling his "method" to police departments. Most of them are even regularly used in court, despite being utter trash. As long as you can get an "Expert" to take some money to say it in court, a judge will allow it, and allow juries to believe it is as true as cops say.

> completely made up by one guy who tours the country selling his "method" to police departments

... oftentimes that one guy is an ex-cop. No bias there.

Re: Cops Used DNA to Predict a Suspect's Face – and Tried Facial Recognition on It

#12

Post by FireBeyond »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #9

honestly, as long as DNA is used to confirm the suspect, I'm ok with it. I understand DNA isn't 100% perfect, but we convict based upon it so it doesn't seem unreasonable to try and generate a face and then run it through a facial recognizer to gather a list of suspects. Now how they approach those suspects is a different matter. If you ask me, THAT is where the problems arise, not from the use of the tech itself. Al…

> honestly, as long as DNA is used to confirm the suspect, I'm ok with it.

I'm not. This sequence of events should in no way meet the probable cause standard. "DNA face prediction" is not even remotely an exact science (and is realistically more artistic than scientific), so you have this barely-to-not-credible face image, and then you run it through the next snake oil of "facial recognition" which has so many issues, bugs, concerns, and failings, especially with minorities and so on, and you're okay with demanding whatever comes out of that is something that can be used to compel a DNA sample out of someone?!?

I don't know how much more vehemently I could oppose this.

Re: Cops Used DNA to Predict a Suspect's Face – and Tried Facial Recognition on It

#13

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

FireBeyond wrote: post #12
PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #9

honestly, as long as DNA is used to confirm the suspect, I'm ok with it. I understand DNA isn't 100% perfect, but we convict based upon it so it doesn't seem unreasonable to try and generate a face and then run it through a facial recognizer to gather a list of suspects. Now how they approach those suspects is a different matter. If you ask me, THAT is where the problems arise, not from the use of the tech itself. Al…

> honestly, as long as DNA is used to confirm the suspect, I'm ok with it. I'm not. This sequence of events should in no way meet the probable cause standard. "DNA face prediction" is not even remotely an exact science (and is realistically more artistic than scientific), so you have this barely-to-not-credible face image, and then you run it through the next snake oil of "facial recognition" which has so many issues…

as I said in my post, how they approach the people they get hits on is where the problems actually are.

this isn't like "bitemark analysis" where the results themselves are used to convict people, once someone is found using this method DNA testing will confirm or deny that it's the right person.

Because of this, there will be solid evidence that this approach works or doesn't work. It will continue to be used or not continue to be used because the resulting DNA test provides conclusive evidence that it works or doesn't. As opposed to bite mark analysis, which relies on expert testimony with all the perverse incentives that exist there.

We agree on the potential problems around getting DNA samples to confirm, but the technical use is harmless otherwise.

Post reply on HN