Junk Science? You...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Junk Science? Your thoughts.

40 Posts
10 Users
0 Likes
2,176 Views
(@armresl)
Posts: 1011
Noble Member
Topic starter
 

http//www.abajournal.com/mobile/mag_article/prosecutors_use_of_mobile_phone_tracking_is_junk_science_critics_say/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tech_monthly

Lots of attorneys lately are going the other way and hiring people like this guy. What do you think about your livelihood being called Junk Science.

 
Posted : 30/05/2013 2:48 am
Bulldawg
(@bulldawg)
Posts: 190
Estimable Member
 

I don't know about junk science, but cell tower tracking is certainly subject to a challenge under Daubert vs. Dow. If the methods used aren't commercially available or the science hasn't been peer reviewed or it is not widely accepted in the industry, then it doesn't meet the fairly high bar set by Daubert. It's not like a file

The article mentions that cell tower tracking is only done in the law enforcement community. I don't know if this is entirely true or not, but if so this is a natural consequence of law enforcement keeping their toys to themselves.

 
Posted : 30/05/2013 2:59 am
jaclaz
(@jaclaz)
Posts: 5133
Illustrious Member
 

I only hope that this is not an exact report

But Mark Eckenwiler, until recently the Justice Department’s primary authority on electronic surveillance, says cell tower records, while no smoking gun, can provide reliable and highly probative evidence of a defendant’s guilt or innocence.

These are not the words of someone who also says (again as reported)

In the brief he co-authored, Eckenwiler said that cell tower records can provide a “general indication” of where a call was made down to within a few hundred yards under certain conditions, but was “too imprecise” to place a caller inside a constitutionally protected space, such as a home.

jaclaz

 
Posted : 30/05/2013 4:21 am
keydet89
(@keydet89)
Posts: 3568
Famed Member
 

If the methods used aren't commercially available or the science hasn't been peer reviewed or it is not widely accepted in the industry, then it doesn't meet the fairly high bar set by Daubert.

Interesting. I would suggest that a lot of what we do isn't "commercially available", nor is it peer reviewed.

 
Posted : 30/05/2013 6:08 am
jaclaz
(@jaclaz)
Posts: 5133
Illustrious Member
 

This should be the "actual brief" mentioned ? .
http//judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/04252013/Eckenwiler%2004252013.pdf
It seems to me like it goes at length in part "B." (Laws and regulations) and touches "very lightly" the actual scientific data (in part "A.").
As I read it

The degree to which CSLI reveals the location of a user’s phone varies for several reasons. First, these records do not provide grid coordinates for the phone itself; rather, they indicate which nearby antenna transmitted a communication associated with that handset. Because tower spacing varies enormously, the radius of corresponding tower coverage does as well, and therefore the projected area from where a call was placed will likewise vary.
In heavily populated urban areas, CSLI can—subject to the further limitations discussed below—place a handset in an area of approximately 1,000 square meters. In suburban areas with towers spaced further apart, CSLI may suggest an area of a square mile or more. Tower data from rural areas, by contrast, provides only very broad location data often covering dozens of square miles or more.
Other factors also contribute to the general imprecision of CSLI. For example, the boundaries between the sectors of an individual cell tower, as well as the boundaries between areas served by different towers, are neither precise nor fixed. Records showing communications activity alternating between two adjacent coverage areas may indicate handset movement back and forth between the areas, or may instead result from the activity of a non-moving user in an area of overlapping coverage.
More importantly, a particular communication is not always handled by the closest tower. Both natural terrain features (e.g., hills and valleys) and man-made structures interfere with line-of-sight radio transmission. Weather conditions, including precipitation or even humidity level, also may affect signal propagation.
At times, the carrier antenna closest to the user’s handset may even be entirely unavailable. This can result from local, temporary equipment or network outages, or simply from network congestion. For example, when highway traffic backs up at a toll plaza or accident scene, the nearest tower’s capacity may be saturated by unusually high activity levels. In these circumstances, the next user trying to make a call may only be able connect to a more distant, less burdened tower; the resulting CSLI record will indicate usage of the latter, creating the misleading impression that the handset was closer to that tower than to any other.

it describes *something* that may well be part of "clues", but only in some (rare ? ) specific cases "definite evidence".
I.e. it definitely pinpoints the handy in a given area, but the size of this area seems to be too large to place it in a given "exact" location.

jaclaz

 
Posted : 30/05/2013 6:01 pm
jhup
 jhup
(@jhup)
Posts: 1442
Noble Member
 

Cell site analysis is not junk science.

Lawyers say a lot of things. Their job is not to be truthful. Ours is. mrgreen

Lots of attorneys lately are going the other way and hiring people like this guy. What do you think about your livelihood being called Junk Science.

 
Posted : 30/05/2013 10:42 pm
(@armresl)
Posts: 1011
Noble Member
Topic starter
 

I tend to agree with ya JHup, but who is this Michael Cherry and his partner then?

Cell site analysis is not junk science.

Lawyers say a lot of things. Their job is not to be truthful. Ours is. mrgreen

Lots of attorneys lately are going the other way and hiring people like this guy. What do you think about your livelihood being called Junk Science.

 
Posted : 31/05/2013 1:57 am
jaclaz
(@jaclaz)
Posts: 5133
Illustrious Member
 

Here is an article by M.Cherry (and others)
http//educatedevidence.com/Viewpoint_J-F.pdf

The actual Court paper in the Antonio Evans case is this one
http//celltowertracking.com/Daubert_Order.pdf

Some snippets

Special Agent Raschke testified that using a theory of granulization he can estimate the
range of certain cell sites based on a tower’s location to other towers. This in turn allows him to predict the coverage overlap of two closely positioned towers. Special Agent Raschke testified that he has used this theory numerous times in the field to locate individuals in other cases with a zero percent rate of error. He also testified that other agents have successfully used this same method without error. No evidence was offered, however, beyond Special Agent Raschke’s testimony, to substantiate the FBI’s successful use of granulization theory or its rate of error in the field.
Despite Special Agent Raschke’s assurances, the court remains unconvinced that granulization theory is reliable.
First, in determining the coverage overlap of the two towers used by Evans’s cell phone on August 24, 2010, Special Agent Raschke assumed that Evans’s cell phone used the towers closest to it at the time of the calls. But as previously discussed, there are a number of factors that could have caused Evans’s phone to connect to these towers even though another tower was closer. For example, a building could have obstructed the phone’s access to the closest tower or the call could have been rerouted due to network traffic. Special Agent Raschke acknowledged these factors but did not fully account for them in his analysis. Rather, he relied on his training and experience to estimate the coverage overlap between the two. Estimating the coverage area of radio frequency waves requires more than just training and experience, however, it requires scientific calculations that take into account factors that can affect coverage. Special Agent Raschke presented no scientific calculations and did not consider a variety of relevant factors. Although the call data records upon which he relied are undisputed, the link between those records and his conclusions is deficient.
….
Second, the granulization theory remains wholly untested by the scientific community,
while other methods of historical cell site analysis can be and have been tested by scientists.
….
Granulization theory has not been subject to scientific testing or formal peer review and has not been generally accepted in the scientific community. These factors weigh against a finding of reliability.
Given that multiple factors can affect the signal strength of a tower and that Special Agent Raschke’s chosen methodology has received no scrutiny outside the law enforcement community, the court concludes that the government has not demonstrated that testimony relatedto the granulization theory is reliable. As such, testimony concerning this theory, along with the estimated range of coverage for each of the towers indicated on summary exhibit 6, will be excluded under Rule 702 and Daubert.

jaclaz

 
Posted : 31/05/2013 7:18 pm
hcso1510
(@hcso1510)
Posts: 303
Reputable Member
 

Utilizing cell site data is not junk science! It’s the same science utilized when searching for missing children, hikers, Alzheimer’s patients, etc. In these cases LE is lauded for its ability to interpret and apply the data which helped pluck (insert name) from deaths grip and bring them back to safety.

It’s the same science utilized to locate the body of a suicide victim that took a final stroll into the woods. We all love bringing closure to families. Maybe they can even have an open casket funeral depending on the timeframe and or the method. Great job LE

But, if you utilized it to put someones tail feathers in jail the normal suspects like the ACLU, EFF, Digital due process and their cronies show up and say “Whoa, whoa, whoa! Who the heck are you to say and where the heck did you get your qualifications?

The thing that makes it “junk science” is that it is new. They said the same thing about DNA when it was in its infancy. How about when cell site data exonerates a client? I’m sure that is Championed by defense attorneys. I’m just wondering how they feel about this “junk” being used to rule their client out? Again; I guess then its good stuff. Right?

I think the issue is that in several cases LE has overstated what the data actually says. The available training, the data; it’s all good, but it’s like obtaining a drivers license. Once you obtain it, if you chose to get out on the road and drive recklessly that’s your problem. Only in these cases we make it tougher for the other drivers by creating bad case law.

I think if we just testify to what the data says and not go beyond that we should be fine?

 
Posted : 01/06/2013 9:32 pm
(@athulin)
Posts: 1156
Noble Member
 

The thing that makes it “junk science” is that it is new.

The thing that makes something junk science is that the conclusions are not supported by scientific evidence.

If either side – prosecution or defense – tries to stretch evidence to cover more than it really does, the way a dishonest salesman of rubber bands stretches his goods to fit, it's junk.

And if the opposing side fails to show it up for junk, … then we have dishonesty on one side and incompetence on the other.

I don't see that it is anything but a good thing that forensic methods and legal arguments based on the results of those methods, are being challenged. After all, that is the process of science Fleischman and Pons were largely discredited when their results in cold fusion could not be duplicated reliably, for example. Noone wants unsupported claims to be used as the basis of a legal argument.

If the methods can't be shown to be sound, there is no ground for them to be used. This is not something that is settled once and for ever – it's a question of constant questioning, everlasting challenges, eternal vigilance.

 
Posted : 01/06/2013 11:33 pm
Page 1 / 4
Share: