Comment

Comment by motohagiography

It's an important development. Forensic labs and companies are expert witnesses with black box processes and the incentive to protect the authority of their profession. They are as likely to lie as any other witness. Perhaps even moreso.

"Those arguing on behalf of the defense cited past problems with other genetic testing software such as STRmix and FST (Forensic Statistical Tool). Defense expert witnesses Mats Heimdahl and Jeanna Matthews, for example, said that STRmix had 13 coding errors that affected 60 criminal cases, errors not revealed until a source code review." "They also pointed out, as the appeals court ruling describes, how an FST source code review "uncovered that a 'secret function . . . was present in the software, tending to overestimate the likelihood of guilt.'"

An analogous situation with an alcohol and drug testing lab caused a scandal in Canada and called into question 16,000 child protective services cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motherisk , and then at the same hospital(!), a forensic pathologist was giving fake prosecution evidence, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Smith_(pathologist)

Maybe there's just something about Toronto and compromised processes, but defense challenges to the integrity of automated systems looks like a growth field.

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton