Alec Baldwin is in serious trouble in New Mexico; Donald Trump's lawyer Alina Habba is in more serious trouble than he is; Brian Walshe's Google searches have caused him serious trouble
This is pedantic, but it's an important concept in testing, so I'm going to say it anyway in hopes that it helps someone.
In the scenario where two friends search how to get rid of a body to fact-check Law and Order, if the algorithm identified them as possible murderers, then that would be a false positive, not a false negative. If someone searched how to get rid of a body because they had murdered someone, and the algorithm did NOT identify the person as a possible murderer, then that would be a false negative.
As an aside, if I were to write this algorithm, then I would try to write it to minimize false negatives even if it meant more false positive results because this approach means fewer people would be murdered. The problem with that approach (as Ken and Josh accurately assess) is that there would be WAY too many false positives for any human to sort through. In which case, another algorithm would be needed to sort through the false positives, and now we are right back where we started.
Now, in theory you could make the algorithm more complicated or use a neural network, but then you would need a lot of test scenarios or training data to ensure the algorithm was working correctly. Ironically, this means a lot of people need to get murdered for the algorithm to get good at distinguishing between benign suspicious searches and malevolent suspicious searches.
It would be expensive for Google to develop this algorithm (and maintain it); they have no financial incentive to do it; and it would cause all kinds of 4th amendment issues. Those are all pretty important reasons to not develop an algorithm like this.
True story prompted by Josh's question about whether it's RICO to file a frivolous RICO claim: a former colleague once succeeded in getting judgment on a RICO claim against another law firm and their outside expert witnesses based on mail and wire fraud they'd engaged in surrounding litigation they'd filed.
I'm not sharing this because I think that's a viable strategy here, I just get a little puckish delight thinking about how it's going to trigger Ken. :-)
This is maybe a dumb question, Ken, and I understand why it wouldn’t be totally acquitting but Re Alec Baldwin, does it not matter at all that all of Hollywood and the professional film guilds have been like “actors are told not to check the guns after the armorer hands it to them”? Or is that just like an argument for the jury?
How are maximum fines and incarceration durations determined? A $5000 fine seems absurdly disproportionate to the impact of 18 months in prison. If you make minimum wage, losing 18 months of work is $20,000, and that's ignoring all the other consequences that being imprisoned causes.
The "how NM law stuff works" background Ken dug up may be of value in future. I see that Eastman seems to be a NM resident, and then there's all the stuff - money laundering investigation for the campaign finances of NM's Solomon Pena, an election denier now in jail for arranging for the homes of 4 dem officials (2 commissioners, 2 state legislators) to have their homes shot at.
10 Ways To Incriminate Yourself If You Really Need To
This is pedantic, but it's an important concept in testing, so I'm going to say it anyway in hopes that it helps someone.
In the scenario where two friends search how to get rid of a body to fact-check Law and Order, if the algorithm identified them as possible murderers, then that would be a false positive, not a false negative. If someone searched how to get rid of a body because they had murdered someone, and the algorithm did NOT identify the person as a possible murderer, then that would be a false negative.
As an aside, if I were to write this algorithm, then I would try to write it to minimize false negatives even if it meant more false positive results because this approach means fewer people would be murdered. The problem with that approach (as Ken and Josh accurately assess) is that there would be WAY too many false positives for any human to sort through. In which case, another algorithm would be needed to sort through the false positives, and now we are right back where we started.
Now, in theory you could make the algorithm more complicated or use a neural network, but then you would need a lot of test scenarios or training data to ensure the algorithm was working correctly. Ironically, this means a lot of people need to get murdered for the algorithm to get good at distinguishing between benign suspicious searches and malevolent suspicious searches.
It would be expensive for Google to develop this algorithm (and maintain it); they have no financial incentive to do it; and it would cause all kinds of 4th amendment issues. Those are all pretty important reasons to not develop an algorithm like this.
So disappointed in the last segment. Not a single mention of in corpus delicti. I wanted Josh to ask Ken why the law thinks corpses are delicious.
True story prompted by Josh's question about whether it's RICO to file a frivolous RICO claim: a former colleague once succeeded in getting judgment on a RICO claim against another law firm and their outside expert witnesses based on mail and wire fraud they'd engaged in surrounding litigation they'd filed.
I'm not sharing this because I think that's a viable strategy here, I just get a little puckish delight thinking about how it's going to trigger Ken. :-)
This is maybe a dumb question, Ken, and I understand why it wouldn’t be totally acquitting but Re Alec Baldwin, does it not matter at all that all of Hollywood and the professional film guilds have been like “actors are told not to check the guns after the armorer hands it to them”? Or is that just like an argument for the jury?
How are maximum fines and incarceration durations determined? A $5000 fine seems absurdly disproportionate to the impact of 18 months in prison. If you make minimum wage, losing 18 months of work is $20,000, and that's ignoring all the other consequences that being imprisoned causes.
My favorite part of Judge Middlebrooks' ruling was his ominous commentary on that food court lawsuit against Letisha James.
The "how NM law stuff works" background Ken dug up may be of value in future. I see that Eastman seems to be a NM resident, and then there's all the stuff - money laundering investigation for the campaign finances of NM's Solomon Pena, an election denier now in jail for arranging for the homes of 4 dem officials (2 commissioners, 2 state legislators) to have their homes shot at.