
DNA sketch leads to suspect confession in Texas slaying - smaili
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/dna-sketch-leads-to-suspect-confession-in-texas-slaying/
======
xr4ti
This looks like something that is just begging to misinterpreted and abused by
investigators and prosecutors.

>Opaque technology with an unknown error profile? Check.

>Broad search criteria that guarantee a high false positive rate? Check.

>Evidence that requires careful consideration of prior odds to properly
assess? Check.

Imo, the main ingredients here were the low population density and the
suspect's own sense of guilt/fear.

~~~
adrianmonk
I'd be curious to see a comparison between the accuracy of this new technology
and good old-fashioned eyewitnesses (who are working from memory) and hand
sketches done by a human artist. I wouldn't assume that this is less accurate
than the human approach.

~~~
shkkmo
Eyewitnesses are potentially quite unreliable and the reliability can be
heavily influenced by the stress level of the situation, relative racial
experience of the witness (It's harder to recognize/differentiate members of
an ethnicity you don't spend much time around), interview techniques and line-
up methodology.

Yet eyewitness testimony is generally treated as highly accurate and some
places do not allow expert witnesses who can educate the jury on the factors
that can influence the reliability of eye witness testimony.

------
curtis
If there's enough DNA for a DNA sketch, then there pretty much has to be
enough DNA for a regular DNA test. Nobody is going to go to jail for looking
like a DNA sketch. There is a risk here where innocent people with no
connection at all to the crime might be compelled to give a DNA sample. If the
DNA from the "suspect" is tested, excluded, and then all information about
that DNA is then destroyed, maybe that's not a big deal. But I don't think we
have that guarantee now for DNA samples.

------
bluetwo
As someone who is often mistaken for other people, I'm not looking forward to
this.

~~~
seiferteric
How is it any different than being misidentified by a witness's description?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Because people can discredit a witness. But with this they say "DNA evidence"
and the jury is already deciding.

~~~
crusso
Don't worry, once we have an AI in charge of the legal system, it will know
the stats of DNA identification. It's much less likely that you'll be
liquidated without cause.

~~~
aaron_m04
> It's much less likely that you'll be liquidated without cause.

Well I'm sure the AI would prefer behavior modification devices to liquidation
as humans are too expensive to grow from scratch.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
But what's their marginal value? Fewer could be better, overall!

~~~
oceanswave
We could implement a human screening program that keeps only the humans of
value! This program needs a name, I say we name it after an informal grouping
of preditory members of Telluraves

------
kss238
I'll believe it if there is an actual DNA match between the man and DNA found
at the scene.

------
sxates
Am I the only one that doesn't see a strong correlation between the sketch and
the actual suspect, other than "generic white guy"?

------
WhitneyLand
Does anyone know what the likelihood of is of developing algorithms to do this
without relying so much on statical modeling?

Shouldn’t it be possible in principle? I realize there are other factors that
contribute to hoe we look, even what we eat, the environment around us, etc.
But even if theoretical best rendering of just DNA was achieved I’d imagine it
would be very impressive.

------
nitwit005
So basically, the people who look like "generic white guy" or whatever are
going to get hounded by the police. Great.

At least they can probably escape attention by gaining a lot of weight,
growing a beard, or smoking and drinking lot to cause skin damage.

------
rwill128
Super afraid for this technology to be applied to fetuses. Parents can't
decide on an abortion? They can check if they think he or she will be ugly or
not.

~~~
recursive
If the parents decide to abort based on a DNA prediction of ugliness, that kid
would have a bad life either way. Those are terrible parents, and that would
be such a rare scenario it seems basically irrelevant.

~~~
JimmyAustin
Imagine if you could pay a sum of money to have a certain number of eggs
harvested and implanted, then measured to determine fitness over: \-
Likelyhood of diabetes/cancer \- Height \- Intelligence \- Mental Illness

How strange would it be to add attractiveness to that list? Is it really being
a bad parent to pick out the best attributes for your child?

~~~
recursive
There are a ton of embedded assumptions in this question, and I disagree with
pretty much all of them. It wouldn't be that strange to add attractiveness to
the list, but you're starting from a very already strange place. It's _good_
parenting to pick the best for your kids. But that's different from _picking_
your kids.

~~~
perl4ever
I disagree that it's "very strange" or even strange at all to "pick your
kids", setting aside adoption.

Choosing which sperm is fittest is something that's done unconsciously (by the
egg) and consciously (by choosing a partner), and selecting them through
technology, (such as DNA sequencing or abortion) is just another method of
accomplishing the goal that is fundamental to reproduction. So I disagree with
the idea that it's strange to "pick your kids" \- although that doesn't
address moral issues.

As far as moral issues go, some people want to outlaw abortion of babies with
Down Syndrome. But in any case, it's common to do that (in some places more
than others), hence why people propose to stop it.

Eugenics is a bad word. My own thoughts are that while some people say
"eugenics" and mean the selection of desirable genetic characteristics by
anyone and any means, I think that is an untenable definition. I find it more
useful to use "eugenics" to mean the selection of genetic characteristics by
someone other than the parents, an external authority that "knows best". That
is the sort of eugenics that I think ought to be guarded against, primarily.

