"reframe the question and ask another sample set of volunteers"
There will be no question framed in a way that could result in a "not thanks" response.
42272 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"On the same basis would we be burning certain pages out of Hansard just because the policy or law being debated at the time has been changed since?"
No, because they record what was said even if the policy or law has changed since.
But consider this. You have a web page with a banner saying some of the rest of the content on the page may be untrue - or out of date if you prefer the verbose form. Now go through each piece of information on the page, testing it against the banner and delete it if cannot be relied on. Because the banner tells you it can't be relied on you'll delete every piece of information and be left with an empty page. At that point you might reasonably decide to go for the current page.
A page which purports to tell you something current needs to be current. Stale pages have been the curse of the web almost singe TBL invented it.
"may contain out of date information"
If there's no way of telling that information on the page may be true or false - which is what "outdated" means then the page contains no information at all and ought to be removed because there's no point in keeping it.
Archive it off-line for historical purposes if that's required.
AFAICS it is you who is wrong. From TFA "Passkeys work by creating a cryptographic key pair between a user's device and the protected account." After that just about any quickly found explanation on the web seems to resort to hand waving, the more detailed mentioning "challenge" but if it requires a cryptographic pair on the two ends it suggests that it involves exchanging some encrypted text.
This is not the same as having KeePass generate passwords that look like line noise and store them encrypted. Having said that the KeyPass option would be my choice. The ability to share copies across devices avoids the reliance on a single device.
"I can store passkeys in my browser or 1Password which are stored locally on my machine."
I can store my passwords locally on my machine in Keepass. I can sync to my local NextCloud and from that to my spare machine.
Keepass is encrypted and protected by its own password which is the only one I need to remember.
"despite repeated attempts by both Donald Trump's first and second administrations to cut funding"
Nevertheless, when it's in orbit it will be claimed as a Trump success.
Then he'll insist it's renamed after himself. Of course DDTT has a certain structure to it : Despite Donald Trump Telescope.
The data is supposed to be collected from volunteers. It sounds very much like the outfit I corresponded with some time ago as a possible volunteer. I tried to get some sensible answers about control and access. I failed - in fact they stopped responding - and left it there. I am not surprised by this report.
The tools were fine (note independent examination of DNA, the problem was with those wielding them.
The Wikipedia article mentions hair examination. The FBI lab used to maintain they could make positive identifications. I never believed I could and neither did my colleagues. A match fell into a category of "yes, it looks the same but that doesn't say much". I had the strange experience of being cross examined by the counsel who called me* trying to get me to go further which I wouldn't; the defence eventually stepped in and objected.
This is what happened to the FBI's claims: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-testimony-on-microscopic-hair-analysis-contained-errors-in-at-least-90-percent-of-cases-in-ongoing-review
* Counsel aren't supposed to cross examine their own witnesses unless the judge agrees they're hostile witnesses.
It was certainly the case in N Ireland. It was almost impossible to get a guilty verdict from a jury west of the Bann. The consequences are worth reflecting on.
Patients' money was being stolen. One of the nurses on the ward was suspected. We supplied a marking material (various components, some fluorescent, some not) and I gave evidence identifying them on the suspect. In addition,the thefts started when he joined the ward and stopped when he left.
The jury, who are there to represent the community, the community that also included the patients who were the victims, gave a not guilty verdict.
None.
Holding the vendors responsible to the victims is the only thing I can suggest but it would probably have the effect of them throwing it in the bin.
The administrative mind always wants short cuts. That might be in the Home Office, the Met Police or anywhere else. In my view there are no short cuts to achieving justice.
I note there are some interesting downvotes here but whoever it is who's in favour of miscarriages of justice doesn't seem to want to identify themselves.
My comparison fluorescence microscopes, TLC, my colleagues electrophoesis, heated stage microscope/Cargill oil kit, GLC, IR spec and all the rest, nowadays DNA profiling systems were/are also only tools. But they damn well better turn out correct results 100% of the time because that's what was required of them.
I've had a quick (it's tea time!) skim through. AFAICS it dealt with fairly narrow grounds on the legality of the Met's policy for deployment. These were the second and third of the original grounds for complaint. The first and second apparently related to the stopping of Shaun Thompson on suspicion of being his brother and were discharged with costs and compensation awarded to him. Because of that the information is limited but it sounds intriguing. The brother was on bail after being charged with attacking him. It's not clear why they should have stopped, as they thought based on the system, the brother. Being on bail doesn't sound sufficient unless it was a location where he would have been in breach of bail conditions.
The outcome partly seems to revolve on deployment being enabled by UK law which brings us back to whether the system should be allowed, and under what circumstances if it is.
"The judges love to treat the population like serfs."
In the course of many years of watching court procedure and giving evidence myself that was not my experience.
In this case I wonder whether the false positive line was argued well enough or the requirements are not adequate. Maybe I should find tome to read the judgement.
"I don't have a problem with the technology itself.
...
Anyone wrongly identified should be questioned, of course"
Let's run a thought experiment:
Cav is making his or her way through London and has a train to catch on the way to a job interview. He or she is flagged as a false positive, is stopped, taken for questioning, finger-printed, held until the misidentification is corrected and is eventually released, By now the train and interview are well in the past. Apologies on the lines of "I was held up by the Met." will scarcely be conducive to getting the interview rearranged even if the job hadn't been filled by another interviewee.
Is Cav still without a problem with the technology itself?
As many readers will know from my previous posts I spent many years in forensic science. One of my nightmares was that I wake up one day and find a breaking story that one of my old cases had become a miscarriage of justice. The efforts involved in avoiding mistakes was considerable because of the knowledge the mistake could seriously affect someone innocent. The accumulated stress of that eventually became too much.
The notion that we can airily accept this technology because it only makes mistakes that result in a few people being wrongly pulled in for questioning is anathema to me. Yes, I know the police will inevitably pull in the wrong people for questioning for various reasons but that is not an excuse for adding to those reasons.
"Overall, the system's performance remains in line with expectations,"
Whose expectations? False positive rates need to be evaluated in the light of the impact on those affected. If the consequence is an arrest and prevention of the victims' going about their daily business, however urgent they should be financially supported in making a claim for false arrest against the officer concerned - or maybe the Commissioner - and libel against the equipment vendor who should have strict liability.
"and any demographic imbalances observed are not statistically significant,"
Unless the cameras are deployed in locations where 80% of the faces are black the figures do not support this claim.
What happened to the principle of policing by consent.
I remember reading of some product which worked the other way round. It would explain the system in natural language. I thought it might have been just the thing to document the database for manglement but the company was snapped up - or should we say embraced - and the whole thing never heard of again.
I wonder is it's possible to take the fight to the beancounters who are the perennial source of the problem.
Require accounting standards to include quantifing the risk of the internet connection in terms of money and deduct that from the book value of the companies assets. It would show up as a sharp loss in the first year which could be reduced by spending rather less than the loss in eliminating as much of the risk as possible.
"it would probably be simpler and cheaper to rip out and rebuild than try and harden existing infrastructure, but either way it's going to cost a bloody fortune."
In some cases it might be possible to refurbish and reconnect the old infrastructure that was disconnected when the inernet connection was installed. That shouldn't be too expensive.
CEO Tim Cook has served shareholders well, but he increased the company's value at the expense of Apple's image and reputation.
... Thanks to the legal concept of fiduciary duty to shareholders, public companies have to spend most of their energy on "think profit."
Profit on what time-scale? Concentration on short-term profit at the cost of image and reputation may be harmful to long term profit. Is that really consistent with that fiduciary duty?
Here's a particular instance that illustrates one use case:
My cousin-in-law fell victim* to a rather amateurish virus - it didn't actually overwrite the files, it wrote out new encrypted versions and just DEL-ed the originals which could be restored**.
However to be on the safe side and protect against future occurrences I repartitioned her drive and installed Zorin***. Being able to read N\tFS partitions in Linux enabled me to set up a folder which was a link to her original data on the original partition.
* Phished by an email purporting to be from someone she knew.
** Photorec to the rescue!
*** Contrary to the expectations of some of the nay-sayers she had no problems with the switch from W7 to Linux and from MS Office to Libre Office. She is now in her 90s and still uses it regularly. Even her Windows-using children in their 50s are able to use it. I've come to the conclusion that the only people who find a switch to Linux difficult are Windows-using IT folks of any age.