|
|
|
|
|
|
by stickfigure
2913 days ago
|
|
|
There's a lot of assumption about future behavior here. I think there are a couple reasons to be hopeful about court systems taking a more nuanced view of this technology: 1) it cannot be denied that it is imprecise, and 2) it's pretty easy for laity to understand (at least in principle) how it works. DNA evidence is effectively magic by comparison. I actually think the imprecision is an asset for this technology. I would much rather this tool be 95% reliable than 99.99% reliable. The former inherently requires law enforcement to work harder; the later tempts "oh the machine said so it must be right". |
|
|
Like this guy, who spent 23 years in prison because FBI told the jury some hair they found was his... while it was actually not even human but dog hair.
>An FBI analyst testified that one of the hairs from the stocking mask linked Tribble to the crime and “matched in all microscopic characteristics.” >Tribble’s attorneys were successful in obtaining mitochondrial DNA testing on the 13 hairs recovered from the stocking mask. None of the hairs—including the alleged match—implicated Tribble or Wright. Further, the analysis revealed FBI analysts’ errors, including mistakenly calling a dog hair human. https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/santae-tribble/
As for face recognition, I wonder if you're correct. I'd expect a lot of people think it's very precise. Well, at least the "My Sibling can unlock my iPhone with their face" debacle might have generated some press to combat that misconception.