Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by vintermann 1 day ago
> happens to have Kik on his device

That would have been (highly likely) true by construction, after all the single underscore username did exist. The only case it wouldn't have been true is if they deleted the app but not their account I guess.
2 comments
jasonfarnon 10 hours ago
"That would have been (highly likely) true by construction"

You're assuming people knew what evidence to question. That is having the kik app on his device isn't evidence against the claim that "kik didn't return the wrong guys username". Of course it's evidence in support of what he was accused of.

link
nimonian 22 hours ago
_Exactly_.

Both the article and the parent comment treat "happens to have Kik account" as an independent discovery that affects our Bayesian inference.

No. The innocent was identified exactly _because_ they have a Kik account, so the conditional probability they have a Kik account is 1.

link
jasonfarnon 10 hours ago
No. If the target of your "Bayesian inference" is whether the chain kik->gmail->ISP is reliable, then it isn't independent evidence. But that isn't the same as the target of inference in court, which is guilt or innocence, and obviously having kik is additional evidence for that. As I mentioned, the chain kik->gmail->ISP would not even be disputed in a run-of-the-mill accusation in the US, any more than DNA evidence gets scrutinized for lab mix-ups. You would need expensive attorneys and experts for that.
link