this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

58473 readers
3934 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MisterEspinacas@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I mean, law enforcement occasionally uses polygraph tests in their investigations even though that type of "evidence" isn't admissible in court and, to be honest, what kind of scientific credibility does a piece of technology like a polygraph even have? They'll use whatever they can get their hands on even if it's questionable. Some police forces probably even have a psychic consultant or something. It scares me.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The terrifying part to me is that cops across the nation have a long history of seeing that the tech they want to use is unreliable and based on junky science, but they still push it through anyway. Aren't police dogs about as reliable as a coin-flip when their handlers aren't nipping at their neck to get them to jump at anything? They don't care if it's right as long as they can use it to justify their behavior, so they make it policy.

[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

A lot if forensic "science" is utter bunk. Yet it continues to be used. Having a fair and equitable system was never the point.