Anyways, without giving too much away, I'll quickly connect this amazing podcast to my science blog!
This story is part courtroom (melo)drama. Fifteen years ago a young man was convicted of murder, BUT not everything adds up. Most importantly, the CELL PHONE DATA which the prosecution uses to "prove" the defendant's guilt became a huge question for me.
The reporter only briefly mentions that the actual science behind using cell-phone data in court is questionable. I needed to get deeper...
According to the Washington Post, using cell-phone towers to track people's location can be very inaccurate. One particular "ping" to a tower can have a 420 square mile radius! So, it's great for proving where you are not (like, Brazil, for instance), not so great for proving where you are. According to the Columbia Tribune, defense attorneys often overstate their understanding and the accuracy of cell phone plotting, and thus mislead juries into believing their own misconceptions! According to the Economist, cellphones don't just connect to whichever tower is closest, it actually depends on many factors, like if you are driving in traffic, how many tall, steel and concrete buildings are around you, maybe you're lounging behind a considerably fluffy shrub. The point is, two people making a call in the same location can have each of their calls be processed by different towers.
Remember, that 420 square mile ping? Well the New York Times says it's only up to about a 20 mile radius. So this demonstrates not only the inconsistent understanding of cell phone plotting by major news articles, but the broader public's misunderstanding of cell-phone towers and how they work (I've done all this research, and I'm still unsure). And, lawyers, judges, and jurors (oh my!) are most definitely part of the broader public.
Even though all these inconsistencies and inaccuracies about cell phone plotting are coming to the forefront, courts are still using this data to put people in prison. The American Bar Association has put out an article highlighting these difficulties, but it does not recommend to change the data's admissibility. Law enforcement agencies around the country are asking for more and more access to cell-phone data.
Despite all these doubts about its inaccuracies, cell phone data can indeed be useful in court. If, and only if, everyone involved has a clear understanding of how it works. Larry Daniel, a forensic expert from North Carolina, said, "It's not really junk science, it's misinterpreted science."
We've all heard about the bulk collection of phone data by the NSA (thanks, Edward). An ethical and moral dilemma faces our tech-obsessed world. Will we allow this data to control us? Will we allow that data tell us what to think and who to suspect? Will we let that data be the silent, invisible, judge and juror?
I hope not...
Sources:
Washington Post: Experts Say Law Enforcement's Use of Cell Phone Records Can Be Inaccurate
ABA Journal: Prosecutor's Use of Mobile Phone Tracking is Junk Science, critics say
Columbia Tribune: Cellphone Plotting Data in Debate for Upcoming Murder Trial
New York Times: Growing Presence in the Courtroom: Cellphone Data as Witness
American Bar, Judge's Journal: Scientific Fact or Junk Science? Tracking a Cellphone without GPS
The Economist: The Two Towers, Junk Science Putting People in Jail
No comments:
Post a Comment