|
|
|
|
|
|
by FireBeyond
877 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
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.