Only in America are the inmates running the asylum.
1
We can't even get DNA samples available for the justice system with a year, can we? Is the federal gov't going to have to fund evaluating DNA samples?
Wonderful article. Thank you.
This growing practice you highlight seems like a very clear violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. We have all seen big data, A.I. and algorithms fail too often. A defendant should always be able to understand and challange the "witnesses" against him..especially those made up of ones and zeros.
This growing practice you highlight seems like a very clear violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. We have all seen big data, A.I. and algorithms fail too often. A defendant should always be able to understand and challange the "witnesses" against him..especially those made up of ones and zeros.
6
If you are suggesting appropriating this corporate property, as you seem to be, then these companies should be compensated, under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. Perhaps it would be better to require the government to only use algorithms that they are willing to share or forego their use.
2
This is a problem. The software is not 100%. In fact the error rate would be documented in the company's internal testing. I'm not sure the source code is required. Software validation plan and results would be more informative, because they would show what was tested and what was not.
Also, if an input is wrong, you have to rerun the algorithm with the correct input to determine the effect of the error. Otherwise, it is somewhat speculative.
Also, if an input is wrong, you have to rerun the algorithm with the correct input to determine the effect of the error. Otherwise, it is somewhat speculative.
1
The article touched on but did not specify a key question in the use of probabilistic software - the question of the use of race and gender in determining various responses from the criminal justice system - verdict, sentence, parole, etc. Historically, this country has not allowed explicit use of race in criminal proceedings - even though some groups are fare more likely to commit crime than others. And my understanding of COMPAS (from a brief discussion of someone who uses this in OH) is that it likewise excludes explicit mention of race. Yet, it does ask certain questions that could be considered proxies - e.g. Have you ever been convicted previously ? Were your parents ever incarcerated ?
It's a tough question. From a libertarian point of view, everyone should be judged as an individual. On the other hand, society has a right to protect itself. Consider parole. Recidivism is incredibly high - "Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested." And contrary to the allegations of liberals, very few people are incarcerated for low level non-violent drug crimes. (I recommend John Pfaff's new book, Locked In.) If the recidivism rate is so high and the most frequent reason for being incarcerated is violent crime, shouldn't society be asking these kinds of questions to prevent further violence ?
It's a tough question. From a libertarian point of view, everyone should be judged as an individual. On the other hand, society has a right to protect itself. Consider parole. Recidivism is incredibly high - "Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested." And contrary to the allegations of liberals, very few people are incarcerated for low level non-violent drug crimes. (I recommend John Pfaff's new book, Locked In.) If the recidivism rate is so high and the most frequent reason for being incarcerated is violent crime, shouldn't society be asking these kinds of questions to prevent further violence ?
1
When one race or ethnicity is eight to ten times as likely to respond with gun violence as another, you'd better have race and ethnicity considered in predictions or you just wasted a ton of money.
We could experiment by having the big cities go with polite and politically correct programs while the rest of the country goes the other way, and then see which worked out the best in a decade.
We could experiment by having the big cities go with polite and politically correct programs while the rest of the country goes the other way, and then see which worked out the best in a decade.
Given the well established fact that racial and socioeconomic profiling occur throughout this country, statistics on how many parolees or former convicts are re-arrested within 5 years are almost meaningless. These programs should be open source, all of them. Otherwise, abuse is inevitable. This is, or will become, a calculated way to introduce inadmissible evidence for the prosecution. The very fact that the software developers are allowed to profit off of this gives them incentive to magnify the bad effects of underlying preexistant biases in the justice system. If you are not allowed to review their code when it threatens to put or keep you in jail... I am at a loss for words. Who reviews and approves the patenting, licensing, and purchasing of such programs? The proprietary rights of the software developer would be no more vulnerable if he/she was required to divulge the code. Anyone trying to steal their algorithm would have to yield also. There is no legitimate excuse for this.
This is the most frightening article I have read this year.
Stay awake, America.
This is the most frightening article I have read this year.
Stay awake, America.
2
So the liberals mock the rest of the world that question man's effect on global warming but cry foul when a similar scientific basis is added to criminal prosecution and parole hearings.
How do you compare statistical inference versus three political appointees in assessing parole?
And it is never used on its own - it is always part of a suite of elements to consider.
How do you compare statistical inference versus three political appointees in assessing parole?
And it is never used on its own - it is always part of a suite of elements to consider.
2
I think you don't get it. The opinion is not saying that scientific basis or statistical inference should not be used at all. It is saying that the basis and the algorithm should be disclosed. Any scientist will tell you that disclosing how they reached their conclusion is an important part of the scientific method. This is not a liberal/conservative question. It is common sense.
9
SteveRR, I really do not know what you mean by "liberals." It gets used so often as a dismissive label by people with any one of a particular set of agendas. I think of a liberal as one who is open to a change of mind when presented with new information. I cannot help that the converse is so often true - that a political conservative is often willing, even eager, to ignore, obfuscate, shout down, or otherwise suppress information that might invalidate his or her point of view.
No matter, it is true that an overwhelming statistically significant majority of those who understand the scientific method are down with the fact that humans are warming up the planet. Those among us who are in this group do often find the inevitably fallacious arguments to the contrary presented by "climate deniers," (is that the politically correct term?) to be humorous. Sorry if your feelings got hurt. Still, you seem to be indignant about the fact that "liberals" do not like the idea of using the proprietary software programs mentioned in the article as inscrutable tools of criminal justice. You imply that it is hypocritical to ignore scientific evidence in one context while embracing it in another. But, how is anyone to know if there is any science at all behind the software in question? How does one replicate the software developers' methods and then verify their results? Well, clearly, we cannot, under the circumstances described in the article. You take too much for granted, I think.
No matter, it is true that an overwhelming statistically significant majority of those who understand the scientific method are down with the fact that humans are warming up the planet. Those among us who are in this group do often find the inevitably fallacious arguments to the contrary presented by "climate deniers," (is that the politically correct term?) to be humorous. Sorry if your feelings got hurt. Still, you seem to be indignant about the fact that "liberals" do not like the idea of using the proprietary software programs mentioned in the article as inscrutable tools of criminal justice. You imply that it is hypocritical to ignore scientific evidence in one context while embracing it in another. But, how is anyone to know if there is any science at all behind the software in question? How does one replicate the software developers' methods and then verify their results? Well, clearly, we cannot, under the circumstances described in the article. You take too much for granted, I think.
7
Bravo for real investigative journalism. This should not be a partisan issue. If you believe in due process.
5
This is alarming on two counts.
1) Admitting the computer evaluation as evidence under these circumstances seems to clearly violate the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment.
2) Protection of trade secrets seems to undermine the patent system. Why should a company ever get a patent if they can keep the details of the invention secret and prosecute anyone who discloses the details for disclosing trade secrets?
1) Admitting the computer evaluation as evidence under these circumstances seems to clearly violate the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment.
2) Protection of trade secrets seems to undermine the patent system. Why should a company ever get a patent if they can keep the details of the invention secret and prosecute anyone who discloses the details for disclosing trade secrets?
4
But deny the creators and programmers protection of their intellectual work and the next generation of that industry either goes offshore or disappears.
When people like Richard Stallman talk about how free software is not just better but necessary, they get laughed at and worse.
After these software-based criminal punishments, after Volkswagen's emissions code tricks, after the App Store's numerous arbitrary app rejections, after having to jailbreak your own phone just to use software, after the creepy "internet of things", after the creepier Google+ and Facebook, after ransomware, after adware, after everything Microsoft has done and still does...
*deep breath* whew...
...shouldn't we be working to end the patent (which corporations now only really use to deny free software authors their rights and fidget spinner inventors their money), shorten copyright terms to a decade, ban "intellectual property" cartels like MPAA and RIAA and the BSA, and *require* any software used by the government and in education to not only be unclassified but under a free software license like the GPL?
Or should we just laugh and using Word and Excel on Windows and Snapchat on iOS so our own software sentences us to life in a metaphorical—or actual—prison?
After these software-based criminal punishments, after Volkswagen's emissions code tricks, after the App Store's numerous arbitrary app rejections, after having to jailbreak your own phone just to use software, after the creepy "internet of things", after the creepier Google+ and Facebook, after ransomware, after adware, after everything Microsoft has done and still does...
*deep breath* whew...
...shouldn't we be working to end the patent (which corporations now only really use to deny free software authors their rights and fidget spinner inventors their money), shorten copyright terms to a decade, ban "intellectual property" cartels like MPAA and RIAA and the BSA, and *require* any software used by the government and in education to not only be unclassified but under a free software license like the GPL?
Or should we just laugh and using Word and Excel on Windows and Snapchat on iOS so our own software sentences us to life in a metaphorical—or actual—prison?
4
The SCOTUS will rule that such "evidence" is quite sufficient for "average citizens but not for important people"....like themselves and Congressmen and of course evil, nasty orange creatures like THEtRUMP.
2
What is it about the software industry that produces such horrible human beings? If the makers of Compas or TrueAllele think that their evidence cannot be challenged in court, I say they are traitors to their country and should have their citizenship revoked.
4
An abomination!! Although I am only an amateur scholar of constitutional law, I know that the intent and spirit of the due process guarantee would put the lie to keeping such methods secret and, I'll bet dollars to donuts, incompletely proven.
4
One thing everyone has to understand: in the criminal justice system, you’re not just on trial for the crime you’re accused of; your whole life is on trial. Everything you’ve ever done, everything about you, the person you are, YOU.
2
The issue is purely political and concerns about the role of Forensic Science in law enforcement. Originally undermined by Obama, who advocated scientific doubt in favor of defendants, now reversed by Sessions, who's more interested clinching convictions when juries are otherwise hung.
The Sessions approach appears to be more prudent, because juries are not convicting based on DNA alone, and didn't do so with Johnson. The software only steps in when DNA matches are inconclusive. Defense attorneys wish to interpret that as excluding, therefore basis to demand dismissal, even in the face of other incriminating evidence.
So really, it's being used to prevent miscarriages of justice, a laudable goal, and also now a policy objective.
So much for TellMeMoreTellMeMore. It sings a good song, will sail through SCOTUS. As for sentencing and parole, the court may admit the software's not perfect (what is?), but will not allow established guilty parties to make it useless.
Separately, what's funny is that Climate Science is no different, if not far less perfect than current judicial "risk assessment instrument". It too depends on probabilities. Furthermore, its data is much younger, more vulnerable to vigorous questioning. Yet Obama happily glazed over all that, went ahead and signed a Climate "agreement" in Paris.
Not to forget, NYT gave Hillary over 90% odds to win the election. Hopefully, they've already destroyed the source code. If they want to disclose, can call SNL.
The Sessions approach appears to be more prudent, because juries are not convicting based on DNA alone, and didn't do so with Johnson. The software only steps in when DNA matches are inconclusive. Defense attorneys wish to interpret that as excluding, therefore basis to demand dismissal, even in the face of other incriminating evidence.
So really, it's being used to prevent miscarriages of justice, a laudable goal, and also now a policy objective.
So much for TellMeMoreTellMeMore. It sings a good song, will sail through SCOTUS. As for sentencing and parole, the court may admit the software's not perfect (what is?), but will not allow established guilty parties to make it useless.
Separately, what's funny is that Climate Science is no different, if not far less perfect than current judicial "risk assessment instrument". It too depends on probabilities. Furthermore, its data is much younger, more vulnerable to vigorous questioning. Yet Obama happily glazed over all that, went ahead and signed a Climate "agreement" in Paris.
Not to forget, NYT gave Hillary over 90% odds to win the election. Hopefully, they've already destroyed the source code. If they want to disclose, can call SNL.
4
This is disturbing. I was under the impression that if the defendant cannot challenge something it has to be excluded as evidence. Of any type.
1
If business want to make money from the criminal justice system, they should have to accept that their algorithms have to be reviewed.
4
On the one hand, I'm no fan of the excessive weight placed on intellectual property in our country.
On the other hand, I can't see a jury of regular folks listening to an Expert Witness cross examining a Programmer and think anything good is going to come out of it. Twelve randomly selected people should not be deciding if TrueAllele is able to accurately analyze trace DNA evidence. Sure, demand that the police provide some independent certification that the software works, but dragging a programmer into court is lunacy.
On the other hand, I can't see a jury of regular folks listening to an Expert Witness cross examining a Programmer and think anything good is going to come out of it. Twelve randomly selected people should not be deciding if TrueAllele is able to accurately analyze trace DNA evidence. Sure, demand that the police provide some independent certification that the software works, but dragging a programmer into court is lunacy.
1
You think the police are more capable than the general public at assessing and verifying the accuracy of such software tools?
So.... How many cops do you know with a four year degree? How does the incentive structure work for the police, or for prosecutors?
If the software developers are planning on marketing these tools to the police, how does that influence the design of the software?
So.... How many cops do you know with a four year degree? How does the incentive structure work for the police, or for prosecutors?
If the software developers are planning on marketing these tools to the police, how does that influence the design of the software?
As long as you've brought up "intellectual property," I want to remind your readers that the same claims have allowed the software that now runs our elections to be claimed as private and "proprietary," and kept secret from voters. That's why the Russians sought to ensnare elections officials, and why the NSA contractor sought to publicize both the attempted attacks, and the fact that the NSA had not publicized them.
I can barely bring myself to bother voting any more
I can barely bring myself to bother voting any more
As soon as I read the words "privately owned and sold for profit" in the description of the technology, I knew the end results would be innocent people going to prison and software companies and jails making gobs of money.
4
I would be surprised if a defense attorney had not already tried this line of defense but I would argue that a defendants right to "face his/her accuser" would allow for a judge to release the logic, if not the actual source code to the defense. If refused, much the same as a witness for the prosecution failing to testify, the "evidence" should or would, never get in front of a jury.
1
When an adverse credit decision is taken against you based on an algorithm derived credit score, the lender has to say so, and list the major factors reducing your score. Shouldn't we require the same for scores that affect your freedom? Shouldn't we require checking for discriminatory impact, as is done with credit as well?
4
If it weren't for the mystique associated with the term "algorithm" (and I write them for a living), we would not be having this discussion. Allowing evidence into a courtroom based on logic concealed under the guise of a trade secret amounts to permitting hearsay testimony from an anonymous witness. Not in this country, we don't.
7
I am impressed.
Computer code is man-made, using our own biases and prejudices and yes, our own limitations. If the code is perfect, then why we need to update them regularly? If the code is imperfect, do we know the limitations? Some of them are based on "machine-learning (whatever that may mean)"- and they change themselves (in common langauge, they produce irreproducible results) making any assessment unrealistic.
They are useful only as an aid- do you accept all the suggestions microsoft word makes in your article?
Computer code is man-made, using our own biases and prejudices and yes, our own limitations. If the code is perfect, then why we need to update them regularly? If the code is imperfect, do we know the limitations? Some of them are based on "machine-learning (whatever that may mean)"- and they change themselves (in common langauge, they produce irreproducible results) making any assessment unrealistic.
They are useful only as an aid- do you accept all the suggestions microsoft word makes in your article?
2
This is the land of private opportunity. If you don't want to fall into the hands of the private sector, move to Canada or western Europe.
1
Very similar to the FICO score in credit reporting. At various times my husband and I got low credit scores despite millions of dollars in 100% on time payment of multi-decades long mortgages because a $99 tenant's utility bill left in the landlord's (our) name was unpaid for a month or two. Cannot believe the entire nation is hostage to this credit evaluation software, whose algorithms cannot be revealed. When I watch people testifying before Congress on all sorts of subjects I fantasize about testifying on the specifics of our personal financial and credit affairs and illuminating the powers that be on the travesty of computerized judging of many aspects of people's lives.
5
Alternatively, if the computer system's report cannot be fully challenged in court then it should not be admissible in court. (Similarly, if the software used in our voting machines cannot be inspected in order to determine whether it malfunctions or has been hacked then that software should not be used in our elections.)
4
The politicians responsible for the rise of the for-profit prison-industrial complex should be held accountable. The taxpayer dollars could be used much more productively to protect and support our country.
4
We cannot allow computer programs to be treated like black boxes. They are not magical spells that produce the correct answers; they are inherently at least as fallible as those who program them. And in rereading the Constitution's provisions regarding the rights of the accused, I see no exemption for trade secrets.
3
Is it just me, or does this sound like we're starting down the road to a future where the tactics used in Philip K. Dick's Minority Report will come true?
When no one in the judicial system knows how a piece of software with the power to convict an accused has arrived at that decision, we're heading toward a very different future.
When we would read science fiction stories like this when I was a kid, we'd just shake our heads and say, "It could never happen here!" Wow.
When no one in the judicial system knows how a piece of software with the power to convict an accused has arrived at that decision, we're heading toward a very different future.
When we would read science fiction stories like this when I was a kid, we'd just shake our heads and say, "It could never happen here!" Wow.
2
"Technological advancement is, in theory, a welcome development." No, it is not. It depends entirely on how it is used and what its effects are. This essay alone gives ample reason to qualify the statement, and it treats only one aspect of "technological advancement".
Here is another (well known) dubious advancement: all-electronic voting machines. A number of jurisdictions here and abroad are getting rid of them because (a) the insides are secret, (b) they can't be trusted, and (c) they leave no verifiable evidence, for instance if a recount is needed.
Here is another (well known) dubious advancement: all-electronic voting machines. A number of jurisdictions here and abroad are getting rid of them because (a) the insides are secret, (b) they can't be trusted, and (c) they leave no verifiable evidence, for instance if a recount is needed.
1
So why would any government agency, like the police and the courts, blindly utilize these software algorithms to make such life consequential choices? And why wouldn't the software companies disclose what criteria they rely upon? Is it a fear of sharing intellectual property, or is it because of a fear of disclosing unconvincing and prejudicial assumptions? This is big brother, at its scariest.
1
Algorithms make probabilistic predictions. At a minimum courts, parole boards, and the like need to know what these probabilities and whether they vary by charge, age, race/ethnicity, etc. No single "number" can be taken at face value and enough needs to be revealed so that people can make informed use of the information generated by an algorithm.What I have laid out here would be an expectation if the algorithms were to be published by a peer reviewed science journal. If they cannot generate the kind of validation expected from scientific researchers, then these never should be used in practice and any procurement process that contracts out their development has failed miserably to provide even a minimal level of evidence.
3
What is to prevent anyone from making a program that automatically rules
against the defence? It could not be advertised as such but how would anyone know the inevitable outcome unless someone can review the program, under court order not to disclose the program.
Any program results from "secret coding" should automatically be disallowed in court unless an independent outside reviewer can give it credibility.
against the defence? It could not be advertised as such but how would anyone know the inevitable outcome unless someone can review the program, under court order not to disclose the program.
Any program results from "secret coding" should automatically be disallowed in court unless an independent outside reviewer can give it credibility.
2
Everyone involved in modern technology, especially programmers, know that there are ALWAYS bugs, errors, and even design and logical errors in computer driven systems - which includes everything these days.
Therefore, IP or not, there must be a provision to review software/systems that control peoples lives, including inmates in for-profit jails.
Remember the demo flight of the A-320 aircraft. It crashed in (partial) view of the reviewing stand, because the control systems insisted the plane was landing since the pilot had low airspeed and extended landing gear - but there was no airstrip, and the pilot just wanted a go-around - the system prevented the pilot from adding speed. Fatality due to bug, not to mention embarrassment for Airbus.
Now, lets consider deliberate hacking of incarceration systems .. .
Therefore, IP or not, there must be a provision to review software/systems that control peoples lives, including inmates in for-profit jails.
Remember the demo flight of the A-320 aircraft. It crashed in (partial) view of the reviewing stand, because the control systems insisted the plane was landing since the pilot had low airspeed and extended landing gear - but there was no airstrip, and the pilot just wanted a go-around - the system prevented the pilot from adding speed. Fatality due to bug, not to mention embarrassment for Airbus.
Now, lets consider deliberate hacking of incarceration systems .. .
2
Pretty clearly a violation of the Constitution. You have the right to cross examine witnesses at trial, and if an automated program is determining who you are and what you were doing, that program IS the witness, and as such, you have the write the examine the processes used to determine your guilt. If there was any dignity left in the Supreme Court, they would clearly come to the same conclusion.
5
Shouldn't a defendant be allowed to confront his accuser? Surely in the case of a parole hearing the officers are using a software program which is accusing the inmate of something akin to 'Pre-Crime.'
If the defendant is not allowed to confront this accuser or it's creators then anything it surmises should be tossed out of court.
If the defendant is not allowed to confront this accuser or it's creators then anything it surmises should be tossed out of court.
4
This is appalling, and a travesty of justice. If something is used against the defendant, the defendant has the right to know what that is so that it can be questioned. The prosecution has to share all its evidence with the defense for this reason. Why is this an exception?
Oh, and guess what: software like this has millions, even billions of lines of code. Would any of the coders or company executives be willing to put their life on the line and bet that there isn't a single error?
Shameful.
Oh, and guess what: software like this has millions, even billions of lines of code. Would any of the coders or company executives be willing to put their life on the line and bet that there isn't a single error?
Shameful.
3
Those who work in the IT industry have known for years that Garbage In means
Garbage Out. GIGO exists and these companies want to say we are always correct; take our word for it.
Garbage Out. GIGO exists and these companies want to say we are always correct; take our word for it.
3
This is a serious problem, but the proposed solution is all wrong.
Few defendants would have the resources to hire experts to review the code and then, even IF they did, how would jurors with little knowledge of statistics or computer programming decide who was right??
Soon after DNA evidence began to be used in court, scientists (including those who worked for both prosecution and defense teams) got together and established standards. However, few other aspects of forensic "science" have such standards. Contrary to what people (including most jurors) see on TV shows like NCIS much of what passes for *forensic science* is actually *junk science*. This has been well documented in a serious of National Academy of Science reports.
What is needed is a national independent laboratory system to evaluate and test these tools. Only those which meet rigorous scientific standards should be allowed to be introduced into court. One of the first steps in this process was the establishment of the National Commission on Forensic Science. Unfortunately, Jeff Sessions has decided not to renew funding for this commission.
This affects all of us. When the innocent are convicted, the guilty are free to commit more crimes.
Few defendants would have the resources to hire experts to review the code and then, even IF they did, how would jurors with little knowledge of statistics or computer programming decide who was right??
Soon after DNA evidence began to be used in court, scientists (including those who worked for both prosecution and defense teams) got together and established standards. However, few other aspects of forensic "science" have such standards. Contrary to what people (including most jurors) see on TV shows like NCIS much of what passes for *forensic science* is actually *junk science*. This has been well documented in a serious of National Academy of Science reports.
What is needed is a national independent laboratory system to evaluate and test these tools. Only those which meet rigorous scientific standards should be allowed to be introduced into court. One of the first steps in this process was the establishment of the National Commission on Forensic Science. Unfortunately, Jeff Sessions has decided not to renew funding for this commission.
This affects all of us. When the innocent are convicted, the guilty are free to commit more crimes.
6
So much room for abuse. Besides the fictional Minority Report, this has a whiff of the US' troubled history with eugenics. Also, whatever happened to being able to face your accuser in court? If a computer algorithm determines that a particular person will have a high rate of recidivism, that person should be able to challenge those results. There is no way to know, otherwise, if the designer(s), and then the coder(s) built their own personal biases into the algorithms.
Sounds like Precrime to me.
1
Soon we'll all be nothing more than data points to be analyzed, dissected and decoded by silicon chips which will be designed and programmed, not by faulty humans, but by "self-improving" prior generations of silicon chips.
I guess then the entreaty to "Know Thyself" carved on the Delphic temple will be achieved and we can get a computer printout to answer the question, "Who am I?".
Best of all, we'll also then be living in a world where there are no secrets and lying is pointless.
Hhmm.
I guess then the entreaty to "Know Thyself" carved on the Delphic temple will be achieved and we can get a computer printout to answer the question, "Who am I?".
Best of all, we'll also then be living in a world where there are no secrets and lying is pointless.
Hhmm.
2
Having been married to a police officer and then getting my JD in addition to my MD (Back in the 1990s I sought to understand the law so that patients had better access to medical care.) I got first hand knowledge of “the system.”
The criminal justice (Ha!) system is so broken! Look at the actual persons making up this system. Police officers who have changed from “to serve and protect” to everyone is a skel (police slang for criminal) not to be trusted. They stay inside their cars only REACTING to 911 calls instead of being PROACTIVE getting out on the street, knowing the folks in neighborhoods, the small business owners, the kids playing in empty lots. If all you ever see are the people under extreme duress in a call out, then EVERYBODY is the same low-life getting in fights, stealing, or CAPs. (Crimes against persons--assault etc). Everyone is scum except for your brothers in blue.
I saw it change when the “war on drugs” (well “war on minorities”) started up. With the addition of weapons of war handed out by the military--tanks, body army, sound cannons AND water cannons--the war was on.
Lawyers. Sure if you’re rich you can get a $700/hr attorney. But if you’re poor or middle income- Fuhgeddaboutit! Legal aid lawyers are backed up for a year! If you can’t make bail on a misdemeanor you can rot for months/years! YES we have returned to debtor’s prisons.
PRIVATIZE! And now we’re letting software determine sentences? David Duke’s posse could be writing them!
The criminal justice (Ha!) system is so broken! Look at the actual persons making up this system. Police officers who have changed from “to serve and protect” to everyone is a skel (police slang for criminal) not to be trusted. They stay inside their cars only REACTING to 911 calls instead of being PROACTIVE getting out on the street, knowing the folks in neighborhoods, the small business owners, the kids playing in empty lots. If all you ever see are the people under extreme duress in a call out, then EVERYBODY is the same low-life getting in fights, stealing, or CAPs. (Crimes against persons--assault etc). Everyone is scum except for your brothers in blue.
I saw it change when the “war on drugs” (well “war on minorities”) started up. With the addition of weapons of war handed out by the military--tanks, body army, sound cannons AND water cannons--the war was on.
Lawyers. Sure if you’re rich you can get a $700/hr attorney. But if you’re poor or middle income- Fuhgeddaboutit! Legal aid lawyers are backed up for a year! If you can’t make bail on a misdemeanor you can rot for months/years! YES we have returned to debtor’s prisons.
PRIVATIZE! And now we’re letting software determine sentences? David Duke’s posse could be writing them!
4
This is as obvious violation of constitutional law, both in spirit and in application, as one can possibly imagine. Not to be able to examine the evidence, when the evidence is the facto an expert witness? At least with the expert witness one has the CV and a cross examination to challenge the validity of the conclusion..
3
As a computer professional I can tell you that any company that insists its code should be kept private, even from people it keeps in jail, should be shown the door. There is no significant software "solution" in the world that is not riddled with good, old-fashioned bugs and the biases of the programmers that wrote it. That is no way to deal with people who have been accused of crimes.
4
The whole point of intellectual property law is that something is no less valuable because it's not tangible. If an artist makes the investment in time and expertise to create a song, book, movie, computer code, new drug, etc, then using that property without paying for it is the same as picking a pocket, stealing a car or jumping a turnstile.
Who would spend their time and money to create a technology (that over the aggregate keeps all of us safer) if they didn't have legal protection for their creation?
In this country, someone accused of a crime has the right to see any evidence used against them.
Shouldn't be so difficult to accommodate the two.
However, parole is considered an 'act of grace' which can be denied for any or no reason.
Who would spend their time and money to create a technology (that over the aggregate keeps all of us safer) if they didn't have legal protection for their creation?
In this country, someone accused of a crime has the right to see any evidence used against them.
Shouldn't be so difficult to accommodate the two.
However, parole is considered an 'act of grace' which can be denied for any or no reason.
1
Convincing more and more citizens the system is rigged against them by (and for) elites: Where might that lead us?
1
I am familiar with COMPAS having used it many times. One of the other issues with COMPAS is that not everyone who uses it will necessarily end up with the same result. There were reasons for starting to use assessments - one being that seat of the pants decisions were not considered useful or fair. It was an attempt to make things more uniform. That in itself is not a bad thing. It should also be noted that in some parole and probation departments, discussions can be had to overrule the assessment if there is a valid reason to do so.
Quite simple: if the source code is not available for verification by outside auditors it should not be allowed in court.
5
In these cases people are making assertions on the quality of the program. While it's "fair" to consider that the program itself is trade secret, what is missing is that if your "innocent until proven guilty" that you should have a recourse that says that an independent auditor has reviewed the program and agreed with the findings.
The auditor would be covered under NDA to not expose the specifics of the code and methodology of the program, but would be able to attest that the code itself is correct and the results are accurate.
The auditor would be covered under NDA to not expose the specifics of the code and methodology of the program, but would be able to attest that the code itself is correct and the results are accurate.
This all sounds like a real life variant of the "Minority Report". Everyone is expected to trust the answer without a clear understanding of how that answer is achieved. As a technologist myself I understand the vendor's concerns. That said, the Constitutional right to confront an accuser and challenge evidence presented is effectively hamstrung by treating this as protected intellectual property. This is especially true when dealing with tools doing the tasks outlined in the article. The business concerns of the vendors cannot be allowed to override the constitutional rights of the accused. If these companies wish to play in this space that should be part of the deal. Otherwise, stick to personnel systems or credit monitoring.
4
Criminal prosecution has always been tilted in its power towards the government that prosecutes; their resources, power base and prestige in the community from which jurors are selected. Rightly so, the argument goes, since the prosecution has the burden of proof which defendants do not. There is little scrutiny as to why plea bargains represent 90% or more of the guilty verdicts, but again, the arguments are that those pleas save money and court time, protect victims and witnesses, and serves justice.
But in many jurisdictions, the conviction mill may be accursed of feeding for profit prison systems, or perhaps state run systems that rely on prison labor. Equally, some prosecutors seem to have a vengeful attitude (as perhaps the Attorney General may have) or that judges, parole boards and legislatures have.
That stacks the deck decidedly in favor of the government, but constitutional protections still exist. The software thus piece describes has enormous potential to disrupt due process, illegal search and seizure, and self incrimination for starters. The intellectual property rights of companies and developers (I am such a person) pale by contrast and consequence to the rights of the accused. Unfortunately, the stacked decks, now including those business interests, may well prove to be too much for the courts and laws to readily catch up anytime soon.
But in many jurisdictions, the conviction mill may be accursed of feeding for profit prison systems, or perhaps state run systems that rely on prison labor. Equally, some prosecutors seem to have a vengeful attitude (as perhaps the Attorney General may have) or that judges, parole boards and legislatures have.
That stacks the deck decidedly in favor of the government, but constitutional protections still exist. The software thus piece describes has enormous potential to disrupt due process, illegal search and seizure, and self incrimination for starters. The intellectual property rights of companies and developers (I am such a person) pale by contrast and consequence to the rights of the accused. Unfortunately, the stacked decks, now including those business interests, may well prove to be too much for the courts and laws to readily catch up anytime soon.
4
It seems to me that these cases have to be ananlyzed in the context of the Constitution's confrontation clause, a clause for which the Supreme Court has demonstrated great fondness over its history. Who is the witness, the human on the stand or the computer program? In either event, not allowing the lawyer under proper secrecy procedures access to the code prevents him from confronting either witness and the confrontation clause may be violated.
4
It's important to include, with any automated risk assessment tool (like the COMPAS), a professional override feature. The ability for well-trained case managers to provide mitigating circumstances, related to assessment for correctional clients, is essential to overcoming issues like that noted in this opinion piece. Technology is not going away. Nor should professional discretion.
2
Your last two sentences remind me of Home Depot. . . No matter how obvious the thing is with the missing barcode scan number is and the computer can't read it, the whole store shuts down practically while the helpless professional clerk stands looking totally dazed as to what to do next. At least after our brains shrivel up and atrophy away out of disuse, they'll be nothing there to freeze up anymore.
Most predictive analytics tools nowadays cannot be reduced to just code - they contain parameters that are the result of training an algorithm (or ensemble of algorithms) using predefined data. The data must be carefully catered to make sure it contains unbiased outcomes based on real life examples. After training, and careful validation and testing, the resulting parameters are embedded into a predictive algorithm. This algorithm can then be used to make predictions based on the same type of data that were used to do the training, validation, and testing.
The algorithm will need to be periodically retrained, whenever new cases of a type never before seen arise. And previous convictions based on the old versions of the algorithm should be reevaluated using the new one.
The justice system should create carefully catered testing data sets and use them to measure both the degree of bias and accuracy of closed and open source predictive systems, and score them accordingly. This method would not expose any trade secrets - just how biased and accurate an algorithm really is, information that should always be in the public domain. This would increase vendor competition - and motivate courts to always use the most unbiased and accurate algorithms and testing datasets available.
The algorithm will need to be periodically retrained, whenever new cases of a type never before seen arise. And previous convictions based on the old versions of the algorithm should be reevaluated using the new one.
The justice system should create carefully catered testing data sets and use them to measure both the degree of bias and accuracy of closed and open source predictive systems, and score them accordingly. This method would not expose any trade secrets - just how biased and accurate an algorithm really is, information that should always be in the public domain. This would increase vendor competition - and motivate courts to always use the most unbiased and accurate algorithms and testing datasets available.
6
One of the greatest challenges in human society today is the increasing use of 'machine learning' in all sorts of analysis. For the most part, ML is helpful: it can analyze millions of medical cases and identify the best treatment for a particular individual, or perhaps combinations of materials to improve the efficacy or drug treatments.
Yet all of this comes with a risk: machine learning cannot explain it's findings. It can only report its results after analysis of parameters. Once we begin trusting AI to make life or death decisions, we risk the loss of our ability to understand how or why the decision was made. Are we really ready to give up human judgement in favor of systems that are 'black boxes'?
Yet all of this comes with a risk: machine learning cannot explain it's findings. It can only report its results after analysis of parameters. Once we begin trusting AI to make life or death decisions, we risk the loss of our ability to understand how or why the decision was made. Are we really ready to give up human judgement in favor of systems that are 'black boxes'?
5
I don't understand how this could be allowed. It is clearly unconstitutional for the accused not to have the evidence used against him. Nor do I understand how "trade secrets" could stand in the way. We have a mechanism for people to protect their intellectual property: it is called a "patent."
6
Patents may not be of much help in protecting this kind of intellectual property. Other commenters have noted that the technology in question can be split into the decision-making algorithms and the data set used by the algorithms. Algorithms can be patented (whether they should be is another question; don't get me started). Data cannot. A patent, according to Google, covers "the making, using, or selling of an invention." A data set is not an invention.
1
I believe it is a fundamental right of the accused to confront his accusers and the evidence against him. As a pathologist, I expect my testimony and reasoning behind my conclusions to be subject to rigorous examination, even to the extent of counsel to attempt to denigrate my abilities. Law enforcement should likewise expect any techniques they use, including computer programs, to be subject to the same rigorous analysis. No proprietery factors should prevent this.
The technology should be used to guide the judges/committees in the search for facts. The facts or finding should be transparent. Global "scores" as such should never be used in these cases because the weighting is subjective, even if it is possible to justify the weights statistically. Statistics cannot replace judgment.
A single score should be used only when a rapid decision is warranted at the expense of detailed analysis. This is clearly not the case here.
A single score should be used only when a rapid decision is warranted at the expense of detailed analysis. This is clearly not the case here.
2
What ever happened to our transparency principles? It appears from the article that Mr. Rodriguez' problem was either a data entry mistake, either in the data for him or in an underlying database, or else a "minor" coding error in the software. We have seen outcomes of several recent elections and referenda that were badly predicted by computer programs. Here, where a person's freedom is at stake, we should be able to do better. Judges explain their rulings and so should software companies.
3
Why not get rid of the judges, lawyers and juries and let cognitive technology like IBM's Watson run the courts. The AI software running Watson might provide a more fair and balanced justice system.
Then the FBI could expand its cyber unit to include algorithm agents to keep the lobbyists from buying software changes that keep their masters from going to jail.
I am just saying.
Then the FBI could expand its cyber unit to include algorithm agents to keep the lobbyists from buying software changes that keep their masters from going to jail.
I am just saying.
2
This is an interesting and important article - and I largely agree with the hypothesis. But I also believe that data-based risk assessment tools do offer some promise in ameliorating some of the ills of our criminal justice system. For example, they have demonstrated promise in identifying diversionary program (such as drug courts) in the critical period between arrest and arraignment; and can help assist understaffed local law enforcement staff screen for those who might be in need of mental health services before they enter correctional environments.
But most importantly, we cannot forget that these scores are only supposed to be one element of pre-sentencing report or parole board recommendation and the decision making process -- and that human beings are still the gatekeepers of our criminal justice system.
More often than not judges, politicians, and parole boards are far more influenced by the incessant media focus and politicization of the outliers - the individual who commits a heinous crime after they are paroled - more than any rational interpretation of underlying statistics that these assessments purport to offer.
As long as fear and retribution are the driving narratives of our justice system, automation represents little more than a swirling undercurrent in the overwhelming tide of injustice in our deeply broken system.
But most importantly, we cannot forget that these scores are only supposed to be one element of pre-sentencing report or parole board recommendation and the decision making process -- and that human beings are still the gatekeepers of our criminal justice system.
More often than not judges, politicians, and parole boards are far more influenced by the incessant media focus and politicization of the outliers - the individual who commits a heinous crime after they are paroled - more than any rational interpretation of underlying statistics that these assessments purport to offer.
As long as fear and retribution are the driving narratives of our justice system, automation represents little more than a swirling undercurrent in the overwhelming tide of injustice in our deeply broken system.
1
I think that the one thing we have to be careful about is that we tend to mistrust the results of technology we don't understand. I would argue that these systems need to be more open in their decision-making process (meaning how they come up with their evidence) and I think these software programs need to be thoroughly vetted before being widely used. We need a process for analyzing the validity of evidence from these programs before it gets to court, and a way to track performance of these algorithms over time.
2
Well, states can certainly make laws that if a company will not reveal the code, then evidence produced by the code can not be used in a trial or for probation decisions.
Overall, it's pretty clear that right now the system is privileging companies making money over people--what else is new?
Overall, it's pretty clear that right now the system is privileging companies making money over people--what else is new?
9
Exactly. It's the future and it's here now. Once we dismantle all of our democracy we will hand the control our lives to corporations. Get used to it.
1
Fantastic. I am sure the companies just love that you are not allowed to challenge their buggy software. Goes along with mandatory arbitration for consumers (class-action not allowed), and non-compete clauses preventing ordinary people from finding new jobs. And all your data being owned by Google.
Corporations are on top of people like never before.
Corporations are on top of people like never before.
6
Interesting that this comes out on the same day that computers begin moderating our comments. https://nyti.ms/2sjsmLF At least that algorithm is promised to be open source.
3
the accused is not allowed to challenge the evidence? Kaka comes to America! One has to wonder about the intellect of our judges who make such idiot decisions.
5
Wow! Digital technology's wonders ought to be liberating us from some basic 'memory' glitches, so justice may have a chance to expedite things, and be fair instead of punishing...without recourse. Safeguards must be instituted now, before further injustice is inflicted; buy the private secrets and make them public, available to all, and stop this stupidity from becoming 'business as usual' on the backs of the most vulnerable. The technology is neutral, if not a blessing; the abuse of it is what needs harnessing.
3
So maybe it is safe to assume that the third frontier has been conquered by lobbyists: the Judiciary. We're done.
6
If they can crack/backdoor my phone or laptop every time I get on a plane/enter the country, I think that pretty much states where the privilege lies. Profit is a sign of God's blessing, not personal justice. I think that's the Prosperity Gospel now being pumped through the WH45 speakers, anyway.
You Americans will long for the "peaceful land" of Pyongyang conveniently located on the Taedong River about 109 kilometres (68 mi) upstream from its mouth on the Yellow Sea. Send your resumes to...
You Americans will long for the "peaceful land" of Pyongyang conveniently located on the Taedong River about 109 kilometres (68 mi) upstream from its mouth on the Yellow Sea. Send your resumes to...
1
Such evidence should then be disallowed.
6
Could privately programmed computers become the judge and jury and then quite possibly the executioner in the future of the criminal justice system?
4
Pre-crime units, here we come!
(see/read Minority Report)
(see/read Minority Report)
6
It's all about the money. A company that want a court system to use its software should just ask for sufficient money up front and expose the code to the courts. If someone else can come up with a better version of the code, then so-be-it.
1
No, computers are not harming criminal justice. The people in charge of the programs on the computers are harming criminal justice. The programmers do the coding. But it's the companies that sell these products and if they make money based upon the computer program's "decision" they are not going to share how the algorithms work. One thing that seems to have been forgotten when using computers is this: GIGO, garbage in, garbage out. If we aren't capable of predicting when someone will revert to their criminal ways why should we expect a computer to do a better job? A program is only as good as the programmer who writes it.
People in the form of prosecutors, judges, police, the jury, the parole make criminal justice what it is or isn't. Society decides whether or not to free a person, to spend money on rehabilitating them, to execute them. And society and the people making the decision can make the wrong one. What's really difficult in America is understanding that white collar crime is every bit as heinous as violent crime. We still let white collar criminals, some of whom have robbed people of their life savings, out of prison while we incarcerate others who have been caught just once with drugs. The person sitting there who was a respectable accountant can be as dangerous as the person caught selling or possessing drugs. When you take a person's life savings you have committed a heinous crime.
People in the form of prosecutors, judges, police, the jury, the parole make criminal justice what it is or isn't. Society decides whether or not to free a person, to spend money on rehabilitating them, to execute them. And society and the people making the decision can make the wrong one. What's really difficult in America is understanding that white collar crime is every bit as heinous as violent crime. We still let white collar criminals, some of whom have robbed people of their life savings, out of prison while we incarcerate others who have been caught just once with drugs. The person sitting there who was a respectable accountant can be as dangerous as the person caught selling or possessing drugs. When you take a person's life savings you have committed a heinous crime.
5
While the Supreme Court weighs accepting the case, I can't help but extrapolate its previous decision that corporations be treated as people. What judge would let an expert human witness present conclusions based on a "proprietary" thought process, about which they could not be cross-examined in order to protect their "intellectual property? In this situation, treating a corporation as a person would be seems like a perfectly reasonable outcome.
5
Again, corporate interests trump those of individuals.
10
Wow, Secret computer code used to convict and incarcerate. Why would anyone distrust secret computer code? It is not as if Volkswagen engineers or code writers are involved.
16
Critical public functions, especially the interface between the collective will and individual liberty, should not, indeed cannot, be privatized. A private company performing such critical public functions is a public company. The problem is not computers. It is with judges who let "trade secrets" override due process.
12
The decision to declare a person guilty or innocent is far more nuanced than present technology can account for; in fact I doubt technology will ever catch up. No two people are the same, even if they can fall into broad parameters that may indicate anti-social behavior. But the Courts and prosecutors love this 1984 approach to judgment. Since when can a computer predict or judge human behavior?
3
These instruments are not used to determine guilt or innocence. They are used as "assessment" instruments regarding the degree to which someone already convicted of a crime is considered likely to re-offend (they are used to assess recidivism). So they are used post conviction to determine sentencing. And this information from these instruments is usually shared with a sentencing Judge (in NYS). They are based on academic research which the software producers claim to be validated.
Sorry, but defendants have the right to validate the software. Once the state uses it, becomes subject to the Constitution.
BTW, is the academic research to which you refer peer-reviewed? Is the means by which the software developers "validate" their product peer-reviewed? How do we know the software works? Is it merely because the developer's sales force managed to get the jurisdiction in question to buy? If so, how did the jurisdiction "validate" the software? By letting the developer take them out to lunch at a fancy restaurant? By donating money to political campaigns?
BTW, is the academic research to which you refer peer-reviewed? Is the means by which the software developers "validate" their product peer-reviewed? How do we know the software works? Is it merely because the developer's sales force managed to get the jurisdiction in question to buy? If so, how did the jurisdiction "validate" the software? By letting the developer take them out to lunch at a fancy restaurant? By donating money to political campaigns?
5
Re: JES comment below - yes, these instruments are indeed used to determine guilt or innocence, and not merely risk assessment at the bail or post-conviction stage. TrueAllele, mentioned above, is a DNA mixture interpretation program that is used to declare a match statistic (eg this person is 10,000 times more likely than a random person to have contributed to this mixture found at the crime scene) that is then given to the jury to weigh as evidence of guilt. The software does indeed have published validation studies. But litigants argue that these validation studies are insufficient; we don't allow a human DNA analyst to give testimony without any chance at cross-examination or impeachment simply because her method has been validated. Also, validation studies typically involve samples that are not as degraded/low quantity/complex as the complex mixtures in real life where computer programs hold the most comparative advantage. Finally, validation studies might show that a program like TrueAllele doesn't typically falsely accuse someone who clearly isn't a contributor to a DNA mixture, but that doesn't mean that its match statistics (the 10,000 number) are reliable; they might be off by a factor of 10 or more because of a glitch in the algorithm and existing validation studies wouldn't tell you that.
It is indeed troubling that we rely on technologies whose inner workings we don't understand and cannot examine and contest. Law enforcement is unlikely to want to rock the boat and challenge the validity of the software because they have used the software as basis for evidence used to convict criminals. If the software is found to be incorrect, then all prior convictions based on evidence using such software will be called into question.
At best the software should be used to assist with speeding up the processing, but should then be confirmed with known, manual process wherever possible. i.e. if facial recognition software was used to find a match, visual examination is still necessary.
There is no reason why non-disclosure agreements couldn't be signed by those who wish the examine the source code and seek to understand how it works, even if the source code is claimed to be trade secret. The justice system does a disservice to the public if it simply trusts the companies to provide accurate results. I would even go as far as to say that software used in such ways should be open-sourced. Just as our statues and regulations are open to the public, so should the software that participate in decision making in the criminal justice system.
At best the software should be used to assist with speeding up the processing, but should then be confirmed with known, manual process wherever possible. i.e. if facial recognition software was used to find a match, visual examination is still necessary.
There is no reason why non-disclosure agreements couldn't be signed by those who wish the examine the source code and seek to understand how it works, even if the source code is claimed to be trade secret. The justice system does a disservice to the public if it simply trusts the companies to provide accurate results. I would even go as far as to say that software used in such ways should be open-sourced. Just as our statues and regulations are open to the public, so should the software that participate in decision making in the criminal justice system.
2
The software is not "used to convict." It is used in sentencing and parole decisions, and in some cases in bail/ror release prior to conviction decisions. That doesn't make it more valid, but again, these instruments have nothing to do with guilt or innocence prior to conviction.
1
JES, the software is used to incarcerate. Incarceration--i.e., sentencing--along with conviction, are the essential functions of the criminal justice system. And sentencing is subject to the same due process requirements as conviction.
1
My point was that the assessment instruments are used to determine sentences, not to determine guilt or innocence. Of course sentencing is subject to the same due process. Sentences could be overturned by looking at these instruments, but not the original conviction. The computerized testing of evidence is a separate issue that would involve guilt or innocence re convictions. And could involve the over-turning of convictions. The original premise of the sentencing instruments (also used for parole decisions) was that law enforcement, and judges, could not be trusted to make these decisions appropriately. Academics engaged in an "evidence based" system sought to overcome what they saw as the lack of knowledge and bias that law enforcement officials and judges were using to make decisions by applying what they claimed was "evidence based" decision making (based on research they conducted and published). They then engaged with software companies to develop the software. The corporate entities that developed the software (along with the research it was based on) have now come into question. How to evaluate and combat recidivism has been a long standing question for law enforcement and correctional professionals. The research has also looked at how to change behavior (and attitudes) to prevent recidivism. It has also served perhaps as a "cover your a.." way to defend having released an offender who then re-offends.
Evidence is what goes into the algorithm. What comes out is only opinion. And, if the algorithm cannot be repeated by others, it's not science.
10
Excellent point!!
All of these proprietary softwares that are not revealed to any must undergo their own trial by reproduction of their results by some other different methodology that concurs with it's findings.If none can't....it's worthless information and not valid evidence.
All of these proprietary softwares that are not revealed to any must undergo their own trial by reproduction of their results by some other different methodology that concurs with it's findings.If none can't....it's worthless information and not valid evidence.
What if a human witness appeared in a hazmat suit and spoke into a voice distorting mike? If this were a defense witness, prosecutors would demand to know the identity of the witness.
5
what has happened to common sense? are these cases cherry picked? A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to cross examination evidenced against him. If the prosecution is unable to provide an analysis as too how they reached an opinion, whether that opinion is a by a computer or a person, the defendant's constitution rights are violated and the evidence must be excludedI can assure you that the programmers will quickly divulge their source code if no one can buy it because it is useless in a court of law..
9
Not all the same rights apply at sentencing. I have not read the Chubb decision so I do not know its exact language or issues. From the article though it appears to be related to sentencing or post sentencing hearings. At parole hearings the rules are more constricted about confronting the accuser. In fact, at a hearing to revoke probation a police report can be used to support the revocation.
us army 1969-1971/california jd
us army 1969-1971/california jd
I defer to your knowledge on parole hearings. But several of the cases cited by the article refer to criminal trials--what a seriously wrong result
Seattle Dave notes: "Just what are the checks on the accuracy of this stuff? Or that the input data is correct?" A lot of what happens is a "garbage in, garbage out" phenomenon. Which can act to the benefit, or detriment, of the offender. Information begins to be gathered at the time of arrest, and then is expanded post plea or conviction at the time of a probation pre sentencing investigation. Post sentence a parole department or correctional facility adds more information into the offenders history. How much of that information gathered from all these sources is always correct? A defendant will often claim to have finished high school, or completed school through the 11th grade. And this statement will go into the records without anyone ever reviewing actual school records. That same defendant may actually have stopped attending school regularly at the age of 12, but didn't officially drop out until age 16. This belief that he is a high school graduate by the assessment instrument may help him with release. On the other hand, law enforcement officers could repeatedly assess that an offender has primarily anti-social companions without any real evidence of that, and that could create a higher risk score on an assessment instrument. Garbage in, garbage out. And these companies may well be more worried that releasing information about their instruments may reveal that the academic research upon which their software was built is also flawed.
5
The article complains that the software was developed privately. Think about it it. Without the opportunity for profit the software would never have been developed at all......
When the innocence or guilt of a person is determined in secret, our whole society is in peril. Now, prosecutors can prevent defendants for defending themselves claiming that the reliability of evidence is secret. That is not the American way. If the defence cannot have access to the software, the results should not be allowed into the court proceedings. this whole argument violated a person's Constitutional right to a fair trial. Next will be proof of guilt ny a secret computer generate profile.
10
There are a number of open source software packages that could be used instead (they could be government-funded), that could be continually improved if the public and research scientists had access to them. Companies could also rely on patent litigation and licensing to secure profit. Or there could be special review of the software by outside auditors that are not financially connected to the companies. The question this author is raising is whether trade secret doctrine should stop criminal defendants from being able to fully test the software in a way that the software industry insists upon in other areas (eg banking) where software failures would be catastrophic.
The source code should be open for examination if an error in the source code could result in an erroneous interpretation of the evidence. If the source code is merely meant to indentify a match of DNA or a fingerprint or face rapidly, but once the match is found, other techniques can validate the result, it is reasonable to withhold the source code.
Even if the source code is provided, it is very difficult to find bugs looking at the source code. One needs really to look at what the underlying mathematical models are, the parameters, how the models were calibrated, and the process used to test the software.
Even if the source code is provided, it is very difficult to find bugs looking at the source code. One needs really to look at what the underlying mathematical models are, the parameters, how the models were calibrated, and the process used to test the software.
6
Yes, it is difficult to find bugs in source code, but it is nearly impossible to do so without it.
If the source code is "merely meant to identify a match of DNA" it still might do so in an inaccurate way. Programs that purport to interpret complex DNA mixtures, like TrueAllele, rely on a number of assumptions in determining that a suspect matches the mixture at the crime scene, including allelic dropout/dropin rates; # of likely contributors; thresholds that should be used to assume that a peak on a graph is a true genetic marker rather than an artifact of the computer program (eg "stutter"); etc. These are all subjective calls that reasonable scientists can disagree on, and they can affect not only the match call itself, but also the match statistic (and there is a big difference between saying someone is 10 times more likely than an average person to have contributed to a mixture, and saying someone is 10,000,000 times more likely). Other techniques cannot "validate" this result, unless you're talking about running the data through another computer program. But see, e.g., People v. Hillary, the NY murder case, where 2 computer programs came to DIFFERENT results about whether the suspect was a potential contributor to the DNA mixture in that case.
This seems terrible. If a sw bug or algorithm error is discovered what incentive (or requirement) does the sw company have to report it to the court? If none, then it's not in their interest to do so since they could lose the contract and in addition the judicial customer might have to reevaluate or retry past cases. So no one but the defendant has any interest in oversight of the technology.
Just what are the checks on the accuracy of this stuff? Or that the input data is correct? How is it any different from checking the accuracy of a radar speed gun? It seems to me that concerns about intellectual property protections have to take a backseat. That should just be the nature of the playing field and if some companies no longer want to offer sw products under these rules then other companies will step up to do it.
I've worked in the computer industry for 30 years someone will provide the service.
Just what are the checks on the accuracy of this stuff? Or that the input data is correct? How is it any different from checking the accuracy of a radar speed gun? It seems to me that concerns about intellectual property protections have to take a backseat. That should just be the nature of the playing field and if some companies no longer want to offer sw products under these rules then other companies will step up to do it.
I've worked in the computer industry for 30 years someone will provide the service.
8
Money trumps freedom every time.
7
Nothing gets done without the possibility of profit...
THE CONSTITUTION Guarantees that a person accused is entitled to see the evidence against him or her and to confront his or her accuser. Except, of course, when the accuser is proprietary software. How is it NOT a constitutional violation to maintain secret files on citizens, whose content is unavailable to defense attorneys during the discovery phase of trials? Since when are constitutional rights Trumped (pun intended) by the profit motive of software developers? Guess what people, we're having a permanent 1984! Now and for the foreseeable future, until any and all evidence is available to individuals and their defense team. SHHHHHH! Big Brother is Watching You! But it's a SECRET!
33
Oh why isn't Scalia invoking "original intent" in the constitution to find some arcane reference that predicts the constitutionality of computer predictions based on what the founding fathers wrote.
Oh. He's dead. BUT he lives On and On and On and On.....hello Gorsuch
Oh. He's dead. BUT he lives On and On and On and On.....hello Gorsuch
Algorithms don't eliminate bias, they encode and automate it.
86
It was only a matter of time before private companies got into the game of predicting risk of re offense, risk of failing on parole or probation or failing to appear in court pending adjudication of all criminal charges. It's easier, to subject each pre trail detainee or sentenced offender to a computer generated formula and then using that to make decisions...and cheaper. This one size fits all approach is quick and convenient. Unfortunately it's not fool proof....and only as good as the people interpreting the data and their ability to override the results.
6
Is there a clear difference between courts that condemn someone because secret black box software told them to, and courts that condemn someone because the dear leader disapproves of them?
Are even the courts allowed to know what goes into these decisions?
Are even the courts allowed to know what goes into these decisions?
5
This is a profoundly disturbing article. Errors are made all the time in all fields of human endeavour. However, when mistakes are made in the criminal "justice" system, people's lives are affected: wrongful convictions can result, excessively harsh sentencing, denial of parole, treatment inside prison (such as use of isolation chambers for criminals who in now way deserve such cruel but all too usual punishment), etc. I always thought that one of the bedrocks of any decent "justice" or correctional system was the ability of the accused to know EXACTLY on what evidence and basis he or she is being accused, so that when errors in deriving or presenting the evidence and arguments being used to convict them occur, these errors can be exposed and corrected or falsified. Complicated computer programs such as ones to evaluate risk assessment, are ALWAYS riddled with errors small and large, and can easily produce wildly innacurate results . If the source code for these complicated programs is hidden by the prosecution behind walls of "proprietary information" bafflegab, then the accused loses a huge chunk of their rights. Might as well go back to the era of the Inquisition, where anonymous witness were routinely and unquestioningly used to decide whether or not people would be burned at the stake as felons.. oops i mean witches.
7
Dang! Common sense enters discussion of the criminal justice system. A breath of fresh air. Thank you, Rebecca Wexler.
7
You know who never needs to worry about the whims of a parole algo? People who don't commit crimes in the first place.
Does that mean that you have no concern for folks who make a mistake?
Josh, although you would obviously like it to be otherwise, even people convicted of crimes have civil rights and are supposed to be afforded due process in the USA. Suppose proprietary SW was used to erroneously convict you of a crime and you had no right or recourse to examine the accuracy of that proprietary SW? That's where this rabbit hole is leading you know.
You think this issue doesn't affect you or won't have the potentially to affect you in the future because this time the case at hand involves SW used to make parole decisions. Once the precedent is set to shield SW from examination due to "proprietary information" concerns trumping individual civil rights, the next SW application may be one that erroneously and egregiously impacts you or someone you know.
Your attitude of "you have nothing to worry about if you do nothing wrong" is a poster child for why democracies fade into autocracy as the US is now.
You think this issue doesn't affect you or won't have the potentially to affect you in the future because this time the case at hand involves SW used to make parole decisions. Once the precedent is set to shield SW from examination due to "proprietary information" concerns trumping individual civil rights, the next SW application may be one that erroneously and egregiously impacts you or someone you know.
Your attitude of "you have nothing to worry about if you do nothing wrong" is a poster child for why democracies fade into autocracy as the US is now.
3
It's a good thing only guilty people are ever accused of crimes. And of course with privatized prison systems there's no incentive to keep them fully stocked with prisoners to max the return on investment...
1
The issue here was accurately discussed and determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Dioguardi, 428 F.2d 1033 (1970). In a bankruptcy fraud prosecution, a government witness has used the conclusions of a computer program as evidence that there had been less hot dog product accounted for than the raw materials that had been purchased. Writing for the Court, Judge Friendly said:
"We fully agree that the defendants were entitled to know what operations the computer had been instructed to perform and to have the precise instruction that had been given. It is quite incomprehensible that the prosecution should tender a witness to state the results of a computer's operations without having the program available for defense scrutiny and use on cross-examination if desired. We place the Government on the clearest possible notice of its obligation to do this and also of the great desirability of making the program and other materials needed for cross-examination of computer witnesses, such as flow-charts used in the preparation of programs, available to the defense a reasonable time before trial. See United States v. Kelly, 420 F.2d 26 (2 Cir. 1969). * * * "
HJB
"We fully agree that the defendants were entitled to know what operations the computer had been instructed to perform and to have the precise instruction that had been given. It is quite incomprehensible that the prosecution should tender a witness to state the results of a computer's operations without having the program available for defense scrutiny and use on cross-examination if desired. We place the Government on the clearest possible notice of its obligation to do this and also of the great desirability of making the program and other materials needed for cross-examination of computer witnesses, such as flow-charts used in the preparation of programs, available to the defense a reasonable time before trial. See United States v. Kelly, 420 F.2d 26 (2 Cir. 1969). * * * "
HJB
5
The issue here is a parole hearing, a post sentencing hearing. The rules are different and relaxed compared to those constitutional guarantees for trial. The relaxation has been in effect for a long time. I do not and never have practiced parole hearing law, as it is a specialized field. I do know there is some similarity to probation revocation hearings however, where probation can be revoked and a person locked up based solely on a police report, no live testimony needed.
us army 1969-1971/california jd
us army 1969-1971/california jd
What AI could do to the political philosophy of emotion, i.e. Progressiveness?
As others have pointed out open software is the way to go here. Only lazy computers illiterates "AKA bureaucrats" will trust a black-box blindly to decide such serious matters.
1
Wow! This is great...a computer can predict the future criminal behavior of an inmate up for parole! You know what would be better? Use that computer system to predict whether or not a person who has not yet committed a crime will commit a future crime! Then just put all the potential criminals in jail! Free will be damned! And when the jailed person asks, "Why am I in jail? I didn't do anything wrong," just tell him that the computer told you to put him in jail.
2
Having worked in the computer hardware and software industry for 25 years I have seen innumerable instances where SW code and algorithms are flat out wrong. Shielding from examination and validation of accuracy by independent and/or defense counsels, technologies and code that are used as the basis for creating evidence that can be used in a court of law to imprison and destroy people's lives, is an unconscionable breach of the constitution and basic human rights.
Every US citizen should be alarmed and outraged at the debasing of the rights afforded us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights by the treatment of fallible computer automation created by fallible human beings (and worse fallible human beings with not only profit motives but other nefarious agendas) as infallible and not subject to examination and exposure by those whose rights are potentially violated by such technology. Not only does this apply to criminal proceedings but also your right to vote is being tampered with through technology and the self serving motives of private sector corporations that now run most of our elections: https://harpers.org/archive/2012/11/how-to-rig-an-election/
Every US citizen should be alarmed and outraged at the debasing of the rights afforded us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights by the treatment of fallible computer automation created by fallible human beings (and worse fallible human beings with not only profit motives but other nefarious agendas) as infallible and not subject to examination and exposure by those whose rights are potentially violated by such technology. Not only does this apply to criminal proceedings but also your right to vote is being tampered with through technology and the self serving motives of private sector corporations that now run most of our elections: https://harpers.org/archive/2012/11/how-to-rig-an-election/
14
I wonder if there are open source or public domain alternatives to protected proprietary programs like true-allele. If there are, it seems to me that the law should require them to be used exclusively instead of relying on programs with closed source. Failing that, contracts established for the use of a closed source program should be required to contain vetted boilerplate that spells out exceptions to confidentiality that protect the developer against leaks to competitors, but also protect potential victims of bias or errors in the software.
4
I'm sure our nation's Founders would be so proud to see that we privilege the property rights of business interests over the individual rights of actual human beings.
12
You think it's bad now? Just wait until machine learning takes over. ML apps are notorious for not being understood even by their developers, who just shrug and say, "It works well enough for me." Do you want your liberty to depend on a secret program that NOBODY understands?
3
What evidence do these propriety softwares provide of their predictive validity. The evidence of their effectiveness should be a matter of public record. Assuming that they have to provide evidence of their validity, which is unlikely given the state of the art and the difficulty in demonstrating effectiveness.
4
Two issues with the point of the article.
First, the average defense attorney, and much less the average juror, is not going to have any understanding of the intricacies of modern coding. for a coder to attempt to explain the inner workings of a system like this will lead only to massive confusion, which can be exploited by either side to create smoke, not light.
Second, exposing the logic of the program is not needed to establish the validity of the results. a sufficient number of test runs with known data can establish a statistically valid confidence interval. That should be required before the results of any system are accepted as evidence. It is the same as an industrial setting, the QC inspector does not need to know the manufacturing methods in order to test the output of a line, the results are sufficient.
First, the average defense attorney, and much less the average juror, is not going to have any understanding of the intricacies of modern coding. for a coder to attempt to explain the inner workings of a system like this will lead only to massive confusion, which can be exploited by either side to create smoke, not light.
Second, exposing the logic of the program is not needed to establish the validity of the results. a sufficient number of test runs with known data can establish a statistically valid confidence interval. That should be required before the results of any system are accepted as evidence. It is the same as an industrial setting, the QC inspector does not need to know the manufacturing methods in order to test the output of a line, the results are sufficient.
4
In fact, the article does not mention coding as being the issue so much as it does the weighing of inputs, the ability to evaluate whether a program has been correctly calibrated, and the algorithms used, among other issues. For instance, the COMPAS assessment of Mr. Rodriguez was faulty because an offender rehabilitation coordinator, i.e., human being, made an error on one of the survey questions, which skewed the results, and yet the weighing of this faulty input was considered to be proprietary information.
1
jp - The weighing of inputs is contained within the code, and the algorithms are code as well. Therefore, in order to directly evaluate these things, code review is essential. This is why I recommend evaluation of test results, to avoid the necessity of reviewing code.
Surely the most far-reaching damage by computers to criminal justice is the pre-employment background check, for it ensures that the debt of even the least of misdemeanor charges shall never be paid. Nevermind conviction. Simply being charged can now destroy lives. God bless America.
32
An important issue, but in some ways the piece focuses on the wrong thing, going for the easy target of "evil corporations" as one of the favored go to bad guys in our society.
I am not a computer scientist and really can't say to any degree of certainty whether or not knowing the complex source codes really would reveal anything of value in a criminal defense proceeding, though one wonders. The ability to protect such trade secrets is vital to commerce. I wouldn't be typing on this computer if some manufacturer hadn't been able to protect its intellectual property, especially in the aggressive world we now face, where such secrets would immediately scooped up in China or elsewhere.
The courts, however, can address this issue today without destroying such protections. If the judiciary (and the legislature in some more enlightened instances) feel that it is in fact reasonable to question the validity of a prosecutorial claim without such data, they have an existing and readily available response - the evidence can be excluded and ignored at the direction of the judge. The burden of proof rests with the State, and the courts can and do restrict improperly obtained evidence all the time.
We need not make this a case of trade secrets versus liberty, destroying or diminishing one or the other. If critical evidence is not clear or fair then the courts should not allow it to be used in trials or hearings, something which they have already gave the power to do.
I am not a computer scientist and really can't say to any degree of certainty whether or not knowing the complex source codes really would reveal anything of value in a criminal defense proceeding, though one wonders. The ability to protect such trade secrets is vital to commerce. I wouldn't be typing on this computer if some manufacturer hadn't been able to protect its intellectual property, especially in the aggressive world we now face, where such secrets would immediately scooped up in China or elsewhere.
The courts, however, can address this issue today without destroying such protections. If the judiciary (and the legislature in some more enlightened instances) feel that it is in fact reasonable to question the validity of a prosecutorial claim without such data, they have an existing and readily available response - the evidence can be excluded and ignored at the direction of the judge. The burden of proof rests with the State, and the courts can and do restrict improperly obtained evidence all the time.
We need not make this a case of trade secrets versus liberty, destroying or diminishing one or the other. If critical evidence is not clear or fair then the courts should not allow it to be used in trials or hearings, something which they have already gave the power to do.
5
People make decisions, technology doesn't. Instead of simply dismissing the value of technology, it would be far more compelling to compare the scoring systems and their impact on society, safety and prisoners rights rather than singling out potential errors in the system. The question is whether these systems provide input for the human decision makers that make the outcomes better for society. Like a FICO score, predictive analytics is a tool not a decision. It's up to the human minders to make good use of technology
1
As a COBOL programmer I worked with industrial engineers for years developing programs to determine worker efficiency. Every time a new engineer came into the plant I had to change the formulas used in my programs to get the results that engineer wanted to see. I cannot imagine that the programs referenced in this article are developed or modified any differently than the ones I worked on.
My opinion is that there should be only one software system that is certified for use for the purposes mentioned in this article, that the software be the property of the FBI and made available to local jurisdictions upon request in a complete package including the source code and any compilers or other utilities necessary for generating the object code. This package should be available for review by any party in involved in an adjudication.
My opinion is that there should be only one software system that is certified for use for the purposes mentioned in this article, that the software be the property of the FBI and made available to local jurisdictions upon request in a complete package including the source code and any compilers or other utilities necessary for generating the object code. This package should be available for review by any party in involved in an adjudication.
45
Exactly! Could not recommend more. All we're doing is drawing lines through data and your results are entirely based on where you choose to draw those lines.
To say that this is proprietary IP and it's secrecy is necessary for these companies to exist is a baseless argument- if our system requires transparency and you can only exist without it, you don't have a right to exist. Especially when we're talking about the freedom of our citizenry.
To say that this is proprietary IP and it's secrecy is necessary for these companies to exist is a baseless argument- if our system requires transparency and you can only exist without it, you don't have a right to exist. Especially when we're talking about the freedom of our citizenry.
Scientifically, DNA analysis as performed by TrueAllele is very different from recidivism risk assessment. The problem is better defined, depending on the quality of the forensic data. Fingerprint analysis relies on "latent prints" found at crime scenes, which aren't always very good. The quality of the evidence is the real legal issue, and a human forensic expert can assess that without knowing the algorithm. The same principle should hold for DNA matching algorithms. The issue is with the quality of the evidence, not with the use of an algorithm for analyzing it. Further, it should be possible to analyze how well algorithms perform, compared with human experts, whose abilities vary.
5
If Uber, a company with a $70 billion value, can admit it's code had an error as it's drivers were not paid the proper amount I have not doubt that these criminal justice softwares from relatively small companies have many flaws. It's a shame they aren't in an open platform. Once a coder or coders family member goes to jail it won't be intellectual property for much longer.
5
So it has come to this: Commercial interests are being deemed by our courts as superior to the right of liberty. We have gone mad.
48
Wow, the Minority Report was even more prescient a movie than I thought! Or was it The Bourne Identity?
3
We are living The Minority Report more and more every day. Look at the ads that come up on your NYT page! THEY KNOW WHAT YOU WANT!
1
How is this not the same as the English Star Chamber? That judges rule on the side of commercial interests against citizens facing criminal penalties shows one thing: how beholden and biased our judges are to the State. How can one person's ability to make money IN ANY WAY curtail someone's right to confront evidence against him? It's bizarre and sickening.
25
Garbage in/garbage out relays the idea that the beginning assumptions, values, perspectives, and information or black hole thereof all affect the quality and reliability--the integrity--of the resulting conclusion. This is why it is imperative for all of us--not only courts and defense teams--to learn what exactly makes up one of these so-called invaluable mathematical gizmo-enablers called software programs. Are we really deciding--through brainless acquiescence--to default our freedoms as human beings to a few profit-blinded software developers?
7
The larger and larger fine nets cast with the help of computers seem to be aiding greatly in catching small fish. Traffic offenders can be caught by a license tag scanner, stopped, ticketed, and even arrested. In some locales that can mean that thereafter, you are dis-enfranchised.
This is a little like the trawling at sea that catches all life-forms in the paths of the nets, and suffocates them even before they're hauled up above water, where they might have been thrown back into the water by the more conscientious of trawler operators.
But the big fishes get away, like the executive with significant responsibility for the largest bankruptcy in history, who gets "off the hook" because a lawyer in London had pronounced his oversight approach to be legitimate.
The big fishes have intervenors who help with this escape, while the fingerlings die in the nets.
Weighing each catch at the shore, the unbalanced scales of Justice tell a sad tale.
This is a little like the trawling at sea that catches all life-forms in the paths of the nets, and suffocates them even before they're hauled up above water, where they might have been thrown back into the water by the more conscientious of trawler operators.
But the big fishes get away, like the executive with significant responsibility for the largest bankruptcy in history, who gets "off the hook" because a lawyer in London had pronounced his oversight approach to be legitimate.
The big fishes have intervenors who help with this escape, while the fingerlings die in the nets.
Weighing each catch at the shore, the unbalanced scales of Justice tell a sad tale.
9
All I'm reading is, "business as usual." In a country where we enslaved black people post-reconstruction for things like loitering and vagrancy in the name of law and order that continues to this day, where we routinely uphold unjust convictions, rigged a system where you can see statistically pretty clearly that justice favors money and where private enterprise is incentivized to keep people imprisoned... is anyone surprised?
I am depressed when I read articles like this because despite the good people working hard for change all throughout our nation's history all I see is progress in the reverse direction. A man isn't free if he can be detained against his will unjustly and that's the fear we should all be living under, and if we don't, we're fools.
I am depressed when I read articles like this because despite the good people working hard for change all throughout our nation's history all I see is progress in the reverse direction. A man isn't free if he can be detained against his will unjustly and that's the fear we should all be living under, and if we don't, we're fools.
11
Like everything else in the US, justice is about money and only money. If innocent people go to jail because they are unable to mount a defence, that is acceptable collateral damage.
Such laws not only protect commercial interests they protect error and even outright fraud.
Such laws not only protect commercial interests they protect error and even outright fraud.
8
Practiced law for over 40 years. Artificial Intelligence is an effective tool to help examine claims both criminal and civil. The problem isn't with technology, but instead with petty bureaucrats who solely rely upon it instead of thinking for themselves and who hide behind algorithms instead.
Taken to its logical extension, every proceeding will turn into an extensive and expensive battle of "Experts". Junk Science Take 2. Use your skills and skewer the bureaucrats on cross examination instead more and more discovery especially from third parties.
Taken to its logical extension, every proceeding will turn into an extensive and expensive battle of "Experts". Junk Science Take 2. Use your skills and skewer the bureaucrats on cross examination instead more and more discovery especially from third parties.
8
Some other technology they told us was going to reduce error
Phrenology
Bite matching
Ballistic matching
Fingerprints
As long as the govt prints the money and builds the jails poor folk will get hosed
Phrenology
Bite matching
Ballistic matching
Fingerprints
As long as the govt prints the money and builds the jails poor folk will get hosed
11
What about the constitutional right to confront an accuser? Wouldn't these software programs count as accusers in that sense?
11
Reminds me of Kafka's "The Trial". All software has faults and, beyond logic and syntax, these include assumptions like the "weights" assigned to parameters, which can be arbitrary and capricious. But, who's to know if you can't examine and challenge the code? "You're guilty because the computer says so!" Byzantine in the extreme.
10
Isn't the right to confront one's accuser fundamental to criminal justice. As we know corporations are people so they should be confronted. In this country the only way these problems will change is if the courts start to inter vein (fat chance) or a wrongfully damaged person gets a huge civil suit settlement.
5
The analysis here is a mess: gunshot techno ("Shot Spotter"), fingerprint or DNA detection, pooled with parole decision-making
One type echo-locates sounds or emulates pretty routinized decision making, the other is a judgmental process, maybe not be entirely formulaic
The prosecutor et al, likely do not know the algorithms, and we should not have prosecutors not knowing how decisions are made. We DO delegate many things to code writers, ie expert systems called knowledge based, 'expert' is bad optics
This is unrelated to trade secrets, rather transparency in process. BUT, but I doubt pre- or non-tech parole decisions are very transparent
So prosecutors should not such software thus leaving intellectual property intact
There is always the type I error vs the type II error, societal trade-offs. We vaccinate people even though some people die from vaccines
And I have yet to hear from NYT the complaint of excess leniency, if NYT prefers rule based systems
NYT should share with us the error in the Rodriguez case, how it was found, how parole is otherwise decided, so that we may be informed members of society. I doubt well-behaved prisoner is the only criterion
The click through, as expected, says "But [unnamed] critics argue .... tools disproportionately harm minorities and entrench existing inequalities in criminal justice data under a veneer of scientific objectivity."
We have no idea of course if this is the problem, only the usual suspects, race and inequality
One type echo-locates sounds or emulates pretty routinized decision making, the other is a judgmental process, maybe not be entirely formulaic
The prosecutor et al, likely do not know the algorithms, and we should not have prosecutors not knowing how decisions are made. We DO delegate many things to code writers, ie expert systems called knowledge based, 'expert' is bad optics
This is unrelated to trade secrets, rather transparency in process. BUT, but I doubt pre- or non-tech parole decisions are very transparent
So prosecutors should not such software thus leaving intellectual property intact
There is always the type I error vs the type II error, societal trade-offs. We vaccinate people even though some people die from vaccines
And I have yet to hear from NYT the complaint of excess leniency, if NYT prefers rule based systems
NYT should share with us the error in the Rodriguez case, how it was found, how parole is otherwise decided, so that we may be informed members of society. I doubt well-behaved prisoner is the only criterion
The click through, as expected, says "But [unnamed] critics argue .... tools disproportionately harm minorities and entrench existing inequalities in criminal justice data under a veneer of scientific objectivity."
We have no idea of course if this is the problem, only the usual suspects, race and inequality
Adding to my own post, hereabouts, persons who have killed or been associated thereto, should be in jail for at least as long as he decedent is dead
as in this case Rodriguez case, you are no less dead for having been killed by a juvenile
as in this case Rodriguez case, you are no less dead for having been killed by a juvenile
Hey this is America - liberty and justice for the rich, connected and profit makers.
After all there are for profit prisons to support, social agendas to be advanced (think penalties for drugs used by the others vs drugs used by non-others with money), lawyers who need country club fees (think Mar-a-Lago - sorry I could not resists), a system of legalize bribery to support (think campaign contributions - judges are often politicians/party members first), favors to swap and hedge fund/corporate profits to protect.
I love my country as evidenced by my long military service; however, a major course correction is needed if our country is to someday truly have liberty and justice for all.
After all there are for profit prisons to support, social agendas to be advanced (think penalties for drugs used by the others vs drugs used by non-others with money), lawyers who need country club fees (think Mar-a-Lago - sorry I could not resists), a system of legalize bribery to support (think campaign contributions - judges are often politicians/party members first), favors to swap and hedge fund/corporate profits to protect.
I love my country as evidenced by my long military service; however, a major course correction is needed if our country is to someday truly have liberty and justice for all.
13
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution as enshrined in the Bill of Rights states:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
It is the "right to be confronted with the witnesses against him" that is key. The privately owned computer software is the "witness against him" and the criminal defendant has a constitutional right, under the confrontation clause, to question and cross examine that witness' testimony, that is, its software devised results. This should trump any contractual claim that the software company may have. I am a trial judge and I would so rule.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
It is the "right to be confronted with the witnesses against him" that is key. The privately owned computer software is the "witness against him" and the criminal defendant has a constitutional right, under the confrontation clause, to question and cross examine that witness' testimony, that is, its software devised results. This should trump any contractual claim that the software company may have. I am a trial judge and I would so rule.
30
Then why do so many Judges not rule as you rightly would?
1
My PhD is in AI, and this article sounds uninformed to me. I'm familiar with the forensic applications, but not algorithms for assessment of recidivism risk, although I know the techniques well. I have a few constructive comments, primarily for risk analysis, which is the most difficult application discussed:
1. Procedures for testing and validation of the algorithm are critical, and don't need to be proprietary. I was a postdoc at NIST, which would be a reasonable place for testing. That would require a sizable database with high quality data, at least some of it not available to developers. If something like this is already in place, I don't believe Ms Wexler's concerns are valid, However
2. Individual data appeared to be the issue with Glenn Rodriguez. The undisclosed blemishes in his record would have affected human judgments, as well as artificial risk scoring. Mr. Rodriguez didn't need to know parameters of the algorithm in order to find an error in his record.
3. My development experience, ranging from face recognition to bank failure risk assessment, indicates a solution to the issues raised, alla what Liberty Lover wrote: If a group of "good" algorithms use the same data, their results won't differ much. Public domain algorithms could analyze the basis for a decision - or algorithms developers could be required to add a feature that explains the decision. I could do it! If the algorithm is logic based rather than data driven, reasoning is already part of it.
1. Procedures for testing and validation of the algorithm are critical, and don't need to be proprietary. I was a postdoc at NIST, which would be a reasonable place for testing. That would require a sizable database with high quality data, at least some of it not available to developers. If something like this is already in place, I don't believe Ms Wexler's concerns are valid, However
2. Individual data appeared to be the issue with Glenn Rodriguez. The undisclosed blemishes in his record would have affected human judgments, as well as artificial risk scoring. Mr. Rodriguez didn't need to know parameters of the algorithm in order to find an error in his record.
3. My development experience, ranging from face recognition to bank failure risk assessment, indicates a solution to the issues raised, alla what Liberty Lover wrote: If a group of "good" algorithms use the same data, their results won't differ much. Public domain algorithms could analyze the basis for a decision - or algorithms developers could be required to add a feature that explains the decision. I could do it! If the algorithm is logic based rather than data driven, reasoning is already part of it.
4
Perhaps you could help others like Glenn Rodriguez who are denied justice?
1
I would recommend a revised title as it is not Computers, but trade secrets (proprietary information) that is harming Criminal Justice. The same is true for our voting system that cannot be properly audited for security.
9
Honest pre-election polling can assist in dissuading electoral fraud. For when the results match the polling data, as in '16, fraud is not a factor.
It is when Progressives will manufacture polls that say they are winning when they know they are losing, then claim fraud when the honest people actually vote, that is of greater concern. Which is why honest pre-election polling -- perhaps done by Russians, can prevent such corruption.
It is when Progressives will manufacture polls that say they are winning when they know they are losing, then claim fraud when the honest people actually vote, that is of greater concern. Which is why honest pre-election polling -- perhaps done by Russians, can prevent such corruption.
Re Fabelhaft:
This is not about Red Pill versus Blue Pill, so save us your talking points.
All commercial, government and NGO computers are audited for security with the exception of those that tally the votes in our elections. State and County officials are kept from protecting the integrity of our elections because the makers of eVoting machines are all hiding behind software that does not allow for security audits.
This is the exact same problem outlined in the article regarding computer software and systems involved in our criminal justice system. No government should purchase computer hardware or software that cannot be audited for security or for accuracy. That is not a Democratic or Republican position- it is common sense.
No reasonable person wants anyone's vote denied if they are qualified to vote and we do not want people denied parole because of errant software.That was my point.
This is not about Red Pill versus Blue Pill, so save us your talking points.
All commercial, government and NGO computers are audited for security with the exception of those that tally the votes in our elections. State and County officials are kept from protecting the integrity of our elections because the makers of eVoting machines are all hiding behind software that does not allow for security audits.
This is the exact same problem outlined in the article regarding computer software and systems involved in our criminal justice system. No government should purchase computer hardware or software that cannot be audited for security or for accuracy. That is not a Democratic or Republican position- it is common sense.
No reasonable person wants anyone's vote denied if they are qualified to vote and we do not want people denied parole because of errant software.That was my point.
It should be possible to deconstruct these results, provided at least those are made available. Set up a series of reasonable weights and a formula for calculating variables and see what comes from the fairest set of values used for assessment, and then add in unfair values and note how the numbers skew.
2
How are these tests admissible as evidence if no one outside the company's programmers know how they work?
28
Lousy judges.
My worry is how do you select them in the first place- and when you are dealing with people's lives and freedom.
I'm sorry, but blaming the software is nothing but a mask of the true problems. It has always been "blame the software" since programs were first used in general society in the 1950s. It is not the software program, It is the people behind making the decisions to use it. Do you blame some financial system on the software if it is providing false and wrong answers. Of course no. You either fix it or get a different program.
So go after the politicians and officials who continue to put up with this type of software. Software companies follow the money like most businesses. No sales and they will change the program to fit their clients.
So go after the politicians and officials who continue to put up with this type of software. Software companies follow the money like most businesses. No sales and they will change the program to fit their clients.
10
I believe you are misunderstanding what the author is saying. No one here blames the software, the blame lies with the inability to independently audit or verify the workings of the software. As you say, defects in the software should be identified and fixed, but this simply isn't possible with a proprietary, closed system that is legally shielded from examination.
1
@Charleston Yank - If the underlying code and algorithms of a SW program cannot be examined to determine the veracity/accuracy of it's output, then no one other than a defendant in a criminal proceeding will ever know if that output is wrong. Thus, if the code is hidden in the black box of "propriety information" and not subject to examination there will never be any evidence to support that there is a problem with it to fix. CATCH 22.
SW companies that produce technologies that support governmental functions such as criminal justice and administration of elections use lobbyists, campaign contributions, and political affiliations to sell their wares. "The consumers" are government agencies that can use these technologies with the potential hazard that it will adversely affect criminal court decisions, voting results, and a myriad of other analytical decision making processes by the government that affect our rights as citizens. If we the citizens who are impacted by those flawed tools are prevented from examining the underlying logic, code, and algorithms behind them, government will be content to keep using them. Particularly if the company producing that SW donates generously to the campaigns of the politicians deciding on which SW is adopted by a governmental agency.
SW companies that produce technologies that support governmental functions such as criminal justice and administration of elections use lobbyists, campaign contributions, and political affiliations to sell their wares. "The consumers" are government agencies that can use these technologies with the potential hazard that it will adversely affect criminal court decisions, voting results, and a myriad of other analytical decision making processes by the government that affect our rights as citizens. If we the citizens who are impacted by those flawed tools are prevented from examining the underlying logic, code, and algorithms behind them, government will be content to keep using them. Particularly if the company producing that SW donates generously to the campaigns of the politicians deciding on which SW is adopted by a governmental agency.
1
This is a very important and insightful article. It reveals something quite frightening that we need to address across the board, and that is our borderline religious belief that technology is somehow 'pure'. As we see here, it is not. It is not benign. It is coldly efficient perhaps, but certainly capable of concealing an agenda. As people are herded and data-mined through social platforms, workers lose life and dignity to automation and A.I., we see that the pay out from invention in our day and age is the potential for marginalization of the the many for the convenience and profit of the few. And to add insult to injury, the tech firms use the legal system to assert and protect their right to dehumanize.
11
What an alarming editorial. Compas or True Allelle results and the secret probability programs for fingerprint and ballistic matches all smack more of Kafka's Trial procedures than of a criminal justice system supposed to afford due process and rely only on evidence proven to be accurate and reliable. The State of Michigan, by the way, bought a computer program to block fraudulent unemployment benefit claims with inaccurate results - it has now been determined 4 years later - in at least 92% of denied benefits cases. Surely, the Rules of Evidence in criminal and civil cases must allow a person to challenge the accuracy and reliability of any evidence offered - including computer algorithms. The trade secret evidentiary privilege approved in People v Chubbs defies the bedrock principle that any evidence offered in court must be subject to challenge before that same court. Thank you, Ms. Wexler, for speaking against this advance toward secret, unaccountable injustice.
47
If there are competitors who produce the same kind of software, that software should be available to defense attorneys to test the same evidence.
9
Hiding the algorithm is a sure fire way to obscure more institutional racism. The previous zip code would be used in the risk assessment of the parolee. Setting red lines and hiding them in the proprietary code.
58
How dare these courts allow these programs to run unfettered. You would think that governments would demand access to code when necessary as part of the contract.
5
This is part of a bigger problem: forensic science, psychology, computation, statistics, biology and so many other important elements in assessing guilt or innocence have advanced far beyond most jurors' and even judges' ability to understand them.
Jurors faced with opposing views choose the better presenter rather than the right answer.
It may be time to eliminate our much-vaunted adversarial system and replace it (or at least supplement it) with one in which there is an independent expert whose role is to find the truth rather than to present one side or the other - treating it like any other scientific study.
Jurors faced with opposing views choose the better presenter rather than the right answer.
It may be time to eliminate our much-vaunted adversarial system and replace it (or at least supplement it) with one in which there is an independent expert whose role is to find the truth rather than to present one side or the other - treating it like any other scientific study.
2
Rubbish. Any such "independent" investigator would be appointed by the same state that is prosecuting the defendants. He would soon learn that any prodefendant ruling would label him "soft on crime" and soon result in his termination. He would quickly come to understand what was expected of him - an unquestioning rubber stamp of the prosecution's case.
These computers apply a formula. The formula is kept secret, the reasons for the choices that went into it are unknown. Worst of all, any formula must be a simplification, and the variety of human experience means real people are victimized by simplified averages.
They might provide a start, to help with other hints. But they cannot provide answers. They cannot be allowed to become the authorized standard. They can't bear that weight.
They might provide a start, to help with other hints. But they cannot provide answers. They cannot be allowed to become the authorized standard. They can't bear that weight.
9
Seems like a violation of the Constitutional due process right to cross examine witnesses about the basis of their testimony.
117
So not only do we now consider corporations people, we consider them people with special privileges. No individual could tell a court that the process they used to generate evidence is secret. Their evidence would be discarded, and the person would likely be taken into custody for refusing to cooperate.
This issue goes way beyond the criminal justice system. Ruling for the corporations means that human drivers may be blocked from challenging the algorithms of self-driving cars after an accident and that patients will be hindered in challenging the programming of robotic surgeons after a botched operation.
This issue goes way beyond the criminal justice system. Ruling for the corporations means that human drivers may be blocked from challenging the algorithms of self-driving cars after an accident and that patients will be hindered in challenging the programming of robotic surgeons after a botched operation.
118
I work professional with these systems and have become a firm believer in open source code as the best way promote software quality. Most of these closed source systems are not only hiding secrets but also mistakes. To me this is just a travesty to allow these systems to impact the lives of individuals to this extent.
168
Opening the inner workings of forensic analysis to defense attorneys in the quest for justice sounds like a good idea? Here's an example of a drunk driving case I have familiarity with. The defense attorney made requests to our police department to provide details of every aspect of the breath analyzer we used on his client. He wanted the date the machine was manufactured. The date and proof it was calibrated. The date and by whom calibrated it. The certification credentials of the person that calibrated it, The certification of the lab that provided training to persons that calibrate the machine, the credentials of the state agency and persons associated with providing training and credentialing to persons, companies, employees that calibrate the machine. All persons in the last 60 days that had access and previously used the machine. A copy of the training manual provided to officers. That's not even the complete list. Was this all necessary? Failure to comply with the defense requests for discovery can result in dismissal of the case. Should defense lawyers be allowed to make excessive and frivolous discovery requests?
8
Yes, they should. I had a DUI trial where that very inquiry led to the state's dismissal of the charge in the middle of trial because of a cross-examination that revealed how staff had not been properly calibrating or using the machine. Due process may not be convenient for you, but it's the best tool to fight against wrongful convictions.
67
"Should defense lawyers be allowed to make excessive and frivolous discovery requests?"
That is one of the questions a judge gets paid to sort out. Also, it seems to me what is "excessive and frivolous" depends on what end of the justice barrel you are looking at.
Perhaps a better question might be who can profit from the process - privatized prison, lawyer, judge with a favor in his pocket, etc.
Finally if the dunk driver has money or is connected (google DUI politicians) those questions will mostly likely never be asked.
Hey it America money talks and the rich/connected walk with liberty and justice for all.
Cheers
That is one of the questions a judge gets paid to sort out. Also, it seems to me what is "excessive and frivolous" depends on what end of the justice barrel you are looking at.
Perhaps a better question might be who can profit from the process - privatized prison, lawyer, judge with a favor in his pocket, etc.
Finally if the dunk driver has money or is connected (google DUI politicians) those questions will mostly likely never be asked.
Hey it America money talks and the rich/connected walk with liberty and justice for all.
Cheers
6
Defense attorneys not only should zealously represent their clients in every legal way possible, they are obligated by oath to zealous representation. What may seem friviolous to you, may and often has, proven a very important part of the case.
The only problem with such zealous representation is that due to overburdened and under funded public defenders, the only clients that get any level of strident representation are the well off paying private counsel. The poor, minorities and mentally ill are never going to see the "excessive" representation you describe.
The only problem with such zealous representation is that due to overburdened and under funded public defenders, the only clients that get any level of strident representation are the well off paying private counsel. The poor, minorities and mentally ill are never going to see the "excessive" representation you describe.
8
This is only one of the ways computers are doing harm in the world of criminal justice. Anytime in history until the last 15 years if a person got into trouble with the law that person would do whatever was required to serve a sentence and mostly be done with it. If need be she could move across the country and start fresh. Now computers enable cheap background checks and an arrest from 10 years ago can keep that person unable to get a job (ironically greatly increasing the possibility that she'll need to commit crime in order to survive) Sadly, computer databases are so incomplete the even the FBI's database lacks information about what happened after an arrest in 50% of cases, meaning that being arrested might well be recorded there but nothing about the fact that the charges were dropped or thrown out by a judge. There are those that believe that people convicted of any crime, including victimless non-violent crimes, will always pose such a risk to everyone else that it is vital to keep such information available to everyone now that the technology exists to do so. What is strange is that it doesn't occur to such people that by and large people don't want to live outside the law and starting over after legal trouble is the norm not the exception. When we make it impossible for someone to put a mistake behind them because they are unable to get a job or an apartment or public assistance or public housing then what choice does someone trying to survive have except crime?
59
If the SCOTUS does hear the case, it will decide 5-4 in favor of the corporation. That is because the SCOTUS is greatly concerned with the rights of people, and, "corporations are people too, my friend".
40
SCOTUS can clean this up if it is so inclined. Secrets are shared between competitors all the time under nondisclosure agreements and as the author writes, in civil cases the protective order allows their disclosure for the purpose of litigation and prescribes consequences for breach. And yes - civil trials have juries too, with the potential for big mouths and conflicting interests. There are ways to deal with all of this. There is no - repeat, no - reason why this practice cannot be followed in criminal proceedings.
16
Computers have allowed law enforcement to solve cases that were previously unsolvable. But we must never forget that they are just a tool. Insights from human beings should be just as relevant and used in tandem.
Those who create tools for law enforcement should be able to patent their creations thus protecting their intellectual rights. As others have stated, if you are creating a new tool for law enforcement and you're doing so for financial gain you are in the wrong profession. There's a reason justice is blind. We're all entitled to a fair and transparent hearing of our alleged crime.
Those who create tools for law enforcement should be able to patent their creations thus protecting their intellectual rights. As others have stated, if you are creating a new tool for law enforcement and you're doing so for financial gain you are in the wrong profession. There's a reason justice is blind. We're all entitled to a fair and transparent hearing of our alleged crime.
10
" There's a reason justice is blind. We're all entitled to a fair and transparent hearing of our alleged crime"
Except American Justice is supposed to be Blind but rarely i.
Just like the right of all to health Care should be something that all people are entitled to but for some reason aren't in America but are in most other similarly rich /developed Countries.
Except American Justice is supposed to be Blind but rarely i.
Just like the right of all to health Care should be something that all people are entitled to but for some reason aren't in America but are in most other similarly rich /developed Countries.
So TrueAllele's source code/business is more important than a person's possible freedom.
Right.
Capitalism gone berserk.
Right.
Capitalism gone berserk.
162
This is what happens when corporations are people too. Unalienable human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness mutate into the rights of businesses to pursue profits. Intellectual property laws increasingly protect greedy corporate interests over actual people.
Some good Samaritan hackers ought to create some open source tools for the criminal justice system.
Some good Samaritan hackers ought to create some open source tools for the criminal justice system.
93
Open source software is not all that it is cracked up to be. You still have to have people to support it either by contacting with a company or having your own staff. Then you have to pay dearly to get alterations to slightly lower the risk of getting hacked. Then there is the question of who is to blame when it all goes wrong. Open source is great for some applications but not all.
When it comes to trials and subpoenas the source code must be produced. Just looking at the user interface, a really good software engineer can give you a pretty good picture of what the code is doing and can give a decent replication of the actual code.
When it comes to trials and subpoenas the source code must be produced. Just looking at the user interface, a really good software engineer can give you a pretty good picture of what the code is doing and can give a decent replication of the actual code.
3
"A pretty good picture" and "decent replication" would probably not be adequate to surmount the burden of proof required to challenge the admissibility of the software in question. An attorney good enough to block access to the source code of a product such as TrueAllele would surely call into question the accuracy of the "decent replication". Defendants must be able to see the evidence presented against them in court in order to challenge its validity or our criminal justice system will devolve into a kangaroo court. These proprietary and undisclosed software "tools" with their secret algorithms are insidious and prone to abuse and manipulation by the for profit prison system. Positively Orwellian.
1
I could not agree more that this what happens when corporations are people.
us army 1969-1971/california jd
us army 1969-1971/california jd
1
Surely evidence (and this is effectively evidence) that cannot be challenged in court cannot be used in court?
158
Accused tortfeasors today, regular law-abiding citizens tomorrow. And when the robot/virtual "physician" enters your code into the system, everything that follows will be dictated by an unseen, proprietary, undeniable cloud-based AI which will prescribe, deny, alter and otherwise control your every movement in order to continue to receive treatment. Deviations will be punished, and these transgressions will be coded into your implanted medical history chip. Enjoy the brave new world - for the masses, a utopian dystopia.
11
This is already happening. Patients who use sleep apnea devices have to prove they used it for a certain amount of time, as measured by the machine, in order for Medicare to continue authorizing monthly payment to the private vendor for rental of the machine, regardless of the patient's conditon. "Deviations will be punished," indeed! The next step is denial of any future treatment of any kind of ailment because of one's past record as a non-compliant apneatic.
1
Those of us who work enforcing the Trade Secrets Act through our interdiction of counterfeit and pirated goods must laugh...there's so much bogus stuff coming into the commerce of the United States on a daily basis and enriching people like ISIS through its exorbitant markup and sale. With any software or program it's merely a matter of time before some Russian boffin figures out the code, pirates and markets it for a great profit. The future of criminal justice will be the same as its past: those who can afford decent legal representation will prevail in a courtroom while the poor will suffer disproportionately and be punished for having insufficient means...in this case by the device of programs they cannot readily comprehend.
23
Companies that do not want their secrets disclosed should go into other lines of business. There are plenty of people involved in the interface between criminal justice and computers who would be able and glad to develop software for the joy of developing something, solving a problem, and serving justice and humanity rather than to become rich. The best software is often written by people who are not doing it to become rich, such as the languages and operating systems that came out of Bell Labs, such as Unix and C. But people seeking riches frequently oppose and mock and fight those who are willing to leave money on the table (the primary sin of capitalism).
37
What I do not understand is why the defense does not use other software to calculate the probability of allelic matches. In 1991 I got my PhD (cum laude) with a completely documented software package to compute arbitrary pedigree probabilities (te Meerman, University Groningen, 1991) and this software would do forensic calculations as well. There are no secrets when it comes to the basic logic of such calculations, and there are many competent statistical geneticists around in the USA and elesewhere that could easily provide expertise.
24
Most criminal defendants do not have the resources to pay for their own independent expert analysis of evidence. If the state allows prosecutors to use expert computer analysis shrouded in capitalistic darkness, the the time has come for a defendant's right to receive free experts just like they have a right to legal counsel.
3
Because it's expensive to send the raw data to an expert or to another software company, and judges are loath to approve expert vouchers unless they think it's absolutely constitutionally necessary. also, not all defense attorneys ask for the raw data; when they see a DNA match they assume that the case is over.
1
Two solutions I can think of: insist on Open Source software for all matters of Democracy, from voting to criminal justice. Or, at a minimum, change patent law to allow what are now trade secrets to be patented, thereby protecting the for-profit developers but at the same time disclosing the nature of the algorithms and their realizations.
63
I gather your solution for the criminal justice system remains automation that assigns people to certain classes (but does it more transparently, perhaps even more accurately) and then treats people in a class identically knowing that some people still will have been misassigned to that class and that even if correctly assigned not all people in the class will behave in the same way. I wonder if a judge can do this easier and cheaper without such help.
I was writing much more narrowly, Doug Karo. I am not judging the appropriateness of any particular software for any particular function in our democratic processes. I am simply asserting that the software in question should be transparent and reviewable by all.
1
Both reasonable suggestions, except:
1. Open source projects are not likely to attract investors, for the obvious reason: the product is not protectable.
2. Existing patent law allows trade secrets to be patented, so long as they are novel, useful and not obvious. Granting patent protection to technologies that lack any one of these three criteria (aside perhaps the 'useful' requirement) would open up an already shaky system to much more abuse.
Perhaps a better solution is to compel full disclosure in a non-public setting, where all participants are required to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
1. Open source projects are not likely to attract investors, for the obvious reason: the product is not protectable.
2. Existing patent law allows trade secrets to be patented, so long as they are novel, useful and not obvious. Granting patent protection to technologies that lack any one of these three criteria (aside perhaps the 'useful' requirement) would open up an already shaky system to much more abuse.
Perhaps a better solution is to compel full disclosure in a non-public setting, where all participants are required to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
Nowhere else in the free world would this be allowed to happen, I suppose it is similar to what happens in Russia and China and the USA puts itself out front s the leader of the Free World. The Justice system in the US really needs to have a good look at itself.
64
Actually, I understand that in general the U.S. justice system is far more transparent than those of most other countries. Of course, that does not mean that decisions are always correct and just; but results can be challenged.
dogrunner Reread the article. It can't so far in some cases, in order to protect business interests.
Completely agree with you!...it's unbelievable this is accepted let alone legally allowed to be used!
Nowhere else indeed!
Nowhere else indeed!
If DNA matching finds the suspects DNA in /at a Murder scene /on a weapon etc etc then that is one piece of strong evidence....not if some private DNA software company matches a suspects DNA to a sample containing part DNA that could belong to thousands of other people and then relies on a software compiling program that is proprietary to the Company and not revealed or explained is Ludicrous!
Is that how people are tried and sentenced and found guilty by in the U.S?
Of course such examples as provided in the article are all wrong and blatently Illegal And should Never be used to convict or keep a man jailed when no one even is privy to the software and parameters used to provide such information....or deny parole...!!
Next you will be telling me that in the U.S a person's Guilt and punishment is determined by how much money they have or haven't or by what race they are!
Surely Not!
doh.