Cellebrite Dumps AI Into Its Cell Phone-Scraping Tool So Cops Can Hallucinate Evidence

Comments

• Ledericas@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Fabricating evidence is the one thing cops are good at .

  source
• dangling_cat@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Even RAG is terrible at accuracy and avoiding hallucinations.

  source
• reddig33@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Sounds like a great way to get evidence thrown out of court.

  source

  • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    In a just judicial system, yes. But that’s now what we have.

    source
  • Naz@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Mission is going according to plan

    source
• Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Ha ha ha, good quality headline from The Onion!

  sees source

  …well fuck.

  source

  • tonytins@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    A month or two ago, there were a few articles involving Jim Jordan that were peak Not The Onion material.

    source
• MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  The fourth amendment implications are on point here, but this tool isn’t “hallucinating” evidence. It’s a shitty LLM that lazy investigtors can use to find links between different device artifacts mostly.

  Cellebrite is dumping money into this because its the industry buzz right now. They just want more of that sweet government contract money. It’s usefulness (and even invasiveness in some cases) is pretty overstated.

  source

  • lemmylommy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Even less shitty LLMs tend to hallucinate.

    source
  • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    While it being junk is all well and good, how to you convince a judge or a jury that their “evidence” is garbage?

    source
• MrEff@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  This article is written with some wild speculations by both the author of the article and the source they are quoting. When cell phones are cracked for evidence they have to use write blockers when they copy the phone. They do the analysis on the copy. The original is then re-copied in court to show what was found. This way the original is never tampered with and made inadmissible, and whatever analysis bullshit you did isn’t mixed in with your court room copy. What this also means is that your AI can hallucinate all it wants and make up any evidence you can imagine all day long, but when you get into the court room and have to then point to where the conclusions came from and you can’t-you will be standing there with a dick on your forehead and with a case being tossed out.

  source
• twjolson@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Ironically, the number of inaccuracies and half truths this article contains makes me think it was written by AI.

  source