Grazie Giacomo! basta grattare appena appena la superficie per osservare che *pare* che un pochino di scienza e un pochino di tecnica sono... taroccate. «The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind». Giacomo Tesio <giacomo@tesio.it> writes: [...]
Those arguing on behalf of the defense cited past problems with other genetic testing software such as STRmix and FST (Forensic Statistical Tool).
Il tema generale è quello della tecnica denominata «Probabilistic genotyping» https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_genotyping --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Probabilistic genotyping is the use of statistical methods and mathematical algorithms in DNA Profiling. It may be used instead of manual methods in difficult situations, such as when a DNA sample is very small or includes a mixture of multiple individuals' DNA.[1] Probabilistic genotyping, unlike traditional methods, avoids the need for subjective judgment.[1] The reliability of the method has been questioned by some defense lawyers because the source code of some probabilistic genotyping programs is proprietary.[2] --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- [1] https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/assets/articlePDFs/v31/31HarvJLTech275.pdf [2] http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/code_of_science_defense_lawyers_w...
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.
Software validato e approvato dal Department for Forensic Sciences USA: https://dfs.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dfs/page_content/attachments... ...però non trovo un documento che elenchi o spieghi i 13 coding errors trovati in STRmix
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.'"
Per approfondire questo (FST) l'articolo stesso include il link a questo: «Federal Judge Unseals New York Crime Lab’s Software for Analyzing DNA Evidence» https://www.propublica.org/article/federal-judge-unseals-new-york-crime-labs... In quel caso il giudice ha ordinato la pubblicazione del sorgente. [...]
"Without scrutinizing its software's source code – a human-made set of instructions that may contain bugs, glitches, and defects – in the context of an adversarial system, no finding that it properly implements the underlying science could realistically be made," the ruling says.
Ecco perché sarebbe proprio il caso che fosse scritto a chiare lettere nei codici di procedura penale che il software utilizzato per raccogliere "evidenze scientifiche" valide nei processi **deve** essere software libero (e riproducibile). Non solo, sarebbe *anche* il caso di migliorare drasticamente la riproducibilità delle ricerche scientifiche, soprattutto quando usate per raccogliere "evidenze scientifiche" nei processi o per supportare decisioni chessò, di politica economica come quindici anni di austerity :-O ... ... perché: «Federal Court Says 'Touch DNA' Analysis Is Mostly Guesswork That Can't Be Used As Evidence» Oct 30th 2019 https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191026/12493943266/federal-court-says-to... --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- [...] But the myth that DNA evidence is nigh-infallible persists. Some of this is due to the inscrutable nature of the processes that turn stray cells into evidence. Some of this is due to forensic experts overstating the certainty of their findings. When DNA evidence is pretty much the only evidence holding a case together, the evidence had better be solid. A federal court in Michigan has found that the framework behind one company's (STRmix) DNA evidence testing is a cobbled-together mess that sounds nice and science-y, but isn't much more than overly-educated guesswork. [...] The court points to the lack of standardization across law enforcement agencies utilizing the software as well as the lack of objective peer review of research written and published by the developers of STRmix. Throwing a bunch of science together in a blender, like so many DNA samples pulled from a doorknob, is no way to make definitive declarations about probability. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- L'articolo sopra contiene interessantissimi link, tra i quali: 1. «Study Buried For Four Years Shows Crime Lab DNA Testing Is Severely Flawed» Sep 27th 2018 https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180924/18174740705/study-buried-four-yea... 2. «DOJ/FBI Admit They May Have Abused Hair Analysis To Convict Hundreds To Thousands Of Innocent People» Jul 23rd 2013 https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130723/00563923895/dojfbi-admit-they-may... Ohibò! [...] Saluti, Giovanni. P.S.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn «The cotton swabs used by many state police departments were found to have been contaminated before shipping.» -- Giovanni Biscuolo