"It’s really just junk science to consider something like this," Jennifer Lynch, general counsel at civil liberties nonprofit the Electronic Frontier Foundation, tells WIRED. Running facial recognition with unreliable inputs, like an algorithmically generated face, is more likely to misidentify a suspect than provide law enforcement with a useful lead, she argues. "There’s no real evidence that Parabon can accurately produce a face in the first place," Lynch says. "It’s very dangerous, because it puts people at risk of being a suspect for a crime they didn’t commit."
[1] https://cifsjustice.org/about-cifs/reform-in-forensic-scienc...
[2] https://www.cambridgeblog.org/2023/05/a-journey-into-the-sha...
For fiber analysis, give the expert some fibers of known origin and see if they get it right. Give them some hair from one of 200 people; see if they can tell who it's from. None of that got done for decades. Police and judges clearly do not care.
... oftentimes that one guy is an ex-cop. No bias there.
There are judges, for example in France, who are now forcing cases to be re-opened due to greatly advanced and also greatly lowered costs for DNA testing.
So cases where DNA was collected decades ago is now usable.
A case has been solved a few days ago (forgot which one it was) but the one that impressed me the most was a cold case where the killer was a serial killer and... a cop. Once, 20 years after the last crime or so, a letter was sent to all the cops that could have been in Paris (they suspected a cop was the killer) at that time was sent to ask them for a DNA sample, that cop, now retired cop due to his age, committed suicide.
He knew it was "gg".
Bad times for bad guys who committed crimes a long time ago: at any point now the cold case may be solved.
These cold cases being solved also make it to the news, frontpage: constantly reminding those who got away with their crime that they cannot sleep tight.
It may be sci-fi, today, to use DNA to predict a face and then to run facial recognition on it but...
It's not sci-fi to use new science discoveries to solve cold cases. And I'm very happy that motherfuckers are getting caught.
It's old news here. From April 2018...
"Relative's DNA from genealogy websites cracked East Area Rapist case"
police combines unproven technology in criminal investigations without oversight.
"what precedent they'd argue allows this. Is this same as grabbing small part of fingerprint, using AI to complete fingerprint, then looking for match against fingerprint database? Or is this reaching beyond that? What are odds of a false positive in this case?" -- https://nitter.cz/KimZetter/status/1749504703371862452
I understand DNA isn't 100% perfect, but we convict based upon it so it doesn't seem unreasonable to try and generate a face and then run it through a facial recognizer to gather a list of suspects.
Now how they approach those suspects is a different matter. If you ask me, THAT is where the problems arise, not from the use of the tech itself. Although, having said that, I think it's clear this technique isn't all that useful.
I'm not. This sequence of events should in no way meet the probable cause standard. "DNA face prediction" is not even remotely an exact science (and is realistically more artistic than scientific), so you have this barely-to-not-credible face image, and then you run it through the next snake oil of "facial recognition" which has so many issues, bugs, concerns, and failings, especially with minorities and so on, and you're okay with demanding whatever comes out of that is something that can be used to compel a DNA sample out of someone?!?
I don't know how much more vehemently I could oppose this.
this isn't like "bitemark analysis" where the results themselves are used to convict people, once someone is found using this method DNA testing will confirm or deny that it's the right person.
Because of this, there will be solid evidence that this approach works or doesn't work. It will continue to be used or not continue to be used because the resulting DNA test provides conclusive evidence that it works or doesn't. As opposed to bite mark analysis, which relies on expert testimony with all the perverse incentives that exist there.
We agree on the potential problems around getting DNA samples to confirm, but the technical use is harmless otherwise.