DNA phenotyping. Opens up a whole can of worms.Is your issue the tweet or the use of DNA phenotyping?
I know nothing at all about the science behind this, but even if the science is sound this has to be a very bad idea, surely?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
(Canada but anyway)
This is sooo….?!?!
Can’t believe someone actually ok’d this.
If the science is sound then it's a great idea. But it doesn't seem to help much...Bascially we seem to be looking for a brown man with a 50% chance of brown eyes. Not much to go on really!I know nothing at all about the science behind this, but even if the science is sound this has to be a very bad idea, surely?
My thinking is that even if the science is sound, your parameters are going to be vague enough that the very specific picture you're putting out is going to look like a lot of innocent people, who could then be inconvenienced for no great benefit (as you say, doesn't seem to help much). In that article by the police, they basically tell people to call them if they know a person who looks like that.If the science is sound then it's a great idea. But it doesn't seem to help much...Bascially we seem to be looking for a brown man with a 50% chance of brown eyes. Not much to go on really!
Basically this. There's no way the science would be so specifically accurate as to not cause mistaken identities. It's not DNA.My thinking is that even if the science is sound, your parameters are going to be vague enough that the very specific picture you're putting out is going to look like a lot of innocent people, who could then be inconvenienced for no great benefit (as you say, doesn't seem to help much). In that article by the police, they basically tell people to call them if they know a person who looks like that.
It’s literally DNA, but I get your point.Basically this. There's no way the science would be so specifically accurate as to not cause mistaken identities. It's not DNA.
I get what you mean.It’s literally DNA, but I get your point.
fecking hell that’s SOOOO dodgy…Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
(Canada but anyway)
This is sooo….?!?!
Can’t believe someone actually ok’d this.
The same was said about STR analysis, about fingerprint analysis, etc. Today those are seen as gold standards of evidence.fecking he’ll that’s SOOOO dodgy…
Can’t believe there are people in here saying ‘if the science is sound’ etc.
The science of it is, by definition, racial/genetic profiling, but not in the biased sense. The use of it here though is most assuredly in the vein of negative racial profiling.couldn't this be argued/considered racial profiling?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
You would also hope the police officers get some sort of jail time too. Miracle she didn't die. Really negligent.Cretins.
I hope she gets fecking millions in compensation.
fecking hellTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
WTF. Thankfully the kid is miraculously OK!Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I was shocked that he survived.WTF. Thankfully the kid is miraculously OK!
That’s just plain ol’ attempted murder right there!Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I guess sometimes it's a good thing that American cops aren't properly trained.WTF. Thankfully the kid is miraculously OK!
I was reading about this earlier. Puts out this traffic that it’s a car that took off on him earlier in the week. Walks up and just opens the door. Starts firing because ___? They Still charged the kid with assaulting an officer.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
They love to memorialize their wrongdoings.I think there was a post on this somewhere in here, but the badge was a new wrinkle for me.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
For me, the use of any new science/technology should come down to:
1. Is the science sound and the controls robust?
2. Is the science being used in a manner that is impartial and will provide a benefit to investigators?
3. Will the use of the science cause harm to people/communities simply by its use, and is that harm offset by the benefits?
Based on a quick read of the review article I posted I would say the answer to #1 is a definite maybe but I don't see how the answers to 2&3 are not negative.
You arrest a 6 year old for having a strop. What's the world coming to. She should have been made to have a time out until she came back and apologised.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
And they charged the teen with assault & evasion.I was reading about this earlier. Puts out this traffic that it’s a car that took off on him earlier in the week. Walks up and just opens the door. Starts firing because ___? They Still charged the kid with assaulting an officer.
And…..it wasn’t the right car in the end anyway.
No, that is not what I said. I said that certain characteristics (eye color, hair color, skin color) can, with relative certainty, be predicated. This information can be used to narrow down a potential suspect pool. The posting of a picture on that Tweet was irresponsible as there is no way that the face depicted was anything other than a generic reconstruction.You think we can reconstruct faces accurately from genetic sequence?
I'm unsure of just how much it can actually narrow down the potential suspect pool, given that it's just a very informed prediction. In the abstract of the paper you linked earlier, it says that the accuracy for prediction of hair colour was 0.64 - 0.94. Even if it's 94%, you can't really very effectively narrow down the suspect pool based on that. Even with the ones that get to 99%, there's an element of risk there, assuming you get to 99% and not the lower part of the range.No, that is not what I said. I said that certain characteristics (eye color, hair color, skin color) can, with relative certainty, be predicated. This information can be used to narrow down a potential suspect pool. The posting of a picture on that Tweet was irresponsible as there is no way that the face depicted was anything other than a generic reconstruction.
That being said, if you read the review article I posted above you will see that some characteristics (for example blue eyes) have a 90%+ confidence score, while others (blond vs brown hair) are much lower. These factors should be taken into account when deciding if the genetic phenotypic analysis yields credible results, not just guesses.
Absolutely there is, but I would say that 94% accurate is still better than the performance of most eyewitnesses, and their recollection is commonly used to narrow down the suspect pool, as is tire and shoe prints analysis. This type of analysis should never be used at trial to convict someone all by itself, but if it is part of a comprehensive analysis, it can be one of many tools used to solve crimes.I'm unsure of just how much it can actually narrow down the potential suspect pool, given that it's just a very informed prediction. In the abstract of the paper you linked earlier, it says that the accuracy for prediction of hair colour was 0.64 - 0.94. Even if it's 94%, you can't really very effectively narrow down the suspect pool based on that. Even with the ones that get to 99%, there's an element of risk there, assuming you get to 99% and not the lower part of the range.
Why on earth have they called the police to deal with a child?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Well, we can’t have people running away while the police are trying to murder them for thinking they’re someone else from some other time, can we now?And they charged the teen with assault & evasion.