Tangent: I'm extremely frustrated at how ephemeral web pages are. I googled the story to provide a reference, and the most reputable sources for the story are dead. I found 404s on Salon.com, Fox News, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and PBS.org. Sadly, I found some of these links on a racist forum. It sucks that Storm Front keeps bytes around longer than these other sites.
Anyway, I just donated $25 to archive.org to support what they're doing. I've been using the Wayback Machine for years and always took it for granted. I'm not sure what made things different about tonight's frustration at broken links, but for the first time I just became worried about the preservation of history.
Making money is not the only goal of a for profit organization. Being public certainly doesn't help but if "don't be evil" is still ingrained in Google's culture, I would expect them to support archive.org's effort.
Huh? Dogs are brought so that the police can then do the search themselves. The police signal the dog to bark, and because of the barking justify their search. Not sure what the news here is.
This is well known to anyone who does scent work with their dog.
I do a game called k9 nosework with my corgi. You take a qtip dipped in certain scents and hide it in boxes in the beginning then progressing to furniture and outside areas. The game is for the dog to find the qtip and identify; there's even a contest / sport [1]. If you decide to do the sport, the handler has to read the dog and decide if the dog is identifying a given bit of car or whatever as the location of the goal scent or if the dog is just sniffing. The point of this rambling is even the plain trainers that do k9 nosework know that the handler has to go blind and can't know where the scent is or the dog will learn to read the handler instead of learning to use its nose to find the scent. The idea that the police are unaware of this is ludicrous, since this sport grew out of nose training for police dogs, and it's a major training obstacle.
When I was in high school I worked with k9 dogs a lot as an assistant trainer. This reminds me of a dog we had in that was deaf, but we had no idea until they hit the street.
We had trained the dog for 2-3 months just like any other k9 and everything seemed normal. The officer came for their week long training period and get to know the dog period everything was okay and any of the issues seemed minor and they were dismissed as just the dog and human learning to get to know each other.
Then the dog hit the streets and had tons of issues and we couldn't figure it out. Finally, after a bunch of trouble shooting we had the dogs hearing checked out. The dog was deaf, but how could it know the commands when it was in front of the officer or trainer? We're not 100% sure, but we noticed that based on the commands given and the person giving the commands often times they would assume a certain stance. Other times we found the trainer would bounce/not bounce the ball based the command given. The dog could feel the ball bouncing and tell the trainer had taken up a different stance based on the command.
A lot of the video isn't particularly relevant, but he does discuss how the officers are trained to incite the dog to alert and how the desire for the ball is a prey drive.
I wonder if repeated handler bias leads to a prejudiced dog. Then the animal would no longer need cues from the handler to perpetuate to unequal protection under the law.
I'm regularly embarrassed by my own little dog who for 10 years has been an incorrigible racist. She came as a puppy from the breeder with a deep seated hatred of black men, men in hats, and anyone on a bicycle which we have been unable to train out or even suppress. We just pretend she barks at everyone.
It's incredibly deep seated. We had a dog that we got through an animal shelter, and we knew that it hadn't been treated well by its former owner, but didn't really notice much for the best part of a year.
Then winter came, and one day I took him out while I was removing snow from the driveway. The instant I put on gloves he totally changed. He started circling me at high speed (he was built to run fast) and would snarl and try to bite my hands. Took the gloves off, and he'd instantly turn back into the most loveable dog ever. Back on, and the process was repeated.
This being in Norway, getting aggressive towards people with gloves on during winter was a bit of an issue, but at least once we knew we could keep a extra solid grip on the leash while walking him at winter. Thankfully he'd need to be quite close to someone before it was an issue.
I won't trust my dog alone with my slippers, but the government and enough of the populace trust dogs to the point they gave dogs the power to revoke our civil rights.
No they gave the police that power by letting them use dogs. I think at some point it was understood that the subjectivity of a dog's signaling interpretation can be used as a backdoor for searches. It is a clever trick and it works.
There are false positives when using eyes to discover things as well. So the fact that dogs are biased and make mistakes doesn't concern me. Law enforcement is not a perfect weapon.
I'm more concerned that that weapon is pointed at your civil liberties. What you put into your body or do with consenting adults is of no proper concern of government.
Assuming this is corroborated by more studies, I wonder how long this would take to result in a change in the acceptance of dog sniffs as probable cause. Does anyone know of any precedent or previous situation where such a change happened?
It would require a court to change the precedence since probable is determined by the courts. It could happen fairly quickly if the right case was argued in the right court. Best case would still take years. I personally think it will take decades. Courts don't move quickly without pressure to change and police don't like to give up the powers they have.
Yes, presumably. I guess I'm wondering what level of evidence/studies courts typically want in these situations before overturning precedent. Obviously it varies from court to court, though :)
Not sure. I would imagine one good expert witness with a good lawyer and a few studies could make headway if there was sufficient public pressure. Court cases don't happen in a vacuum. :)
Right. If one expert can make a compelling case to a jury, that jury will set a precedent for future defense lawyers. In fact, I'd be surprised if it isn't already the case in some jurisdictions.
The precedent affects the directions given to the jury by the judge, and can generally only be changed by an appellate court ("the direction given by the judge in x case was incorrect and therefore the conviction should be overturned/the case retried").
Regardless of the direction given, juries are generally entitled to return whatever verdict they want (see jury nullification). If a judge (correctly) directs them that a sniffer dog alert constitutes cause for a search they may still acquit.
I think you're confusing legal "precedent" with the colloquial meaning of the word.
Isn't it obvious that I meant "precedent" in the sense of "a jury found this expert's testimony to be credible once, and therefore is likely to do so again"?
Seems like the "for future defense lawyers" should have been enough of a clue to head off the pedantic hair-splitting.
Polygraphs are not admissible as evidence, nor is refusal to submit to one. They can be requested in interrogations if you agree, you may well be lied to about the results in an attempt to get a confession. You should never agree to take one if you find yourself in this circumstance.
But, last I checked, polygraphs were required for certain government positions in the U.S, but am having a problem finding a citation for that right now.
Ah, yes. I was speaking only in the context of a criminal investigation/prosecution. The page you linked states: While polygraph tests are commonly used in police investigations in the US, no defendant or witness can be forced to undergo the test
It appears some states may allow the results to be presented, but sounds like it cannot be required.
[EDIT: this isn't getting the (positive) karma I expected it to. Anyone has a hint?]
This article isn't nearly as convincing as the author hopes. (S)he mainly argues that drug dogs catch too many innocents to allow them to be used as "probable cause" for searches. However,
"The [extensive] review [of the Austrialian New South Wales Ombudsman] found that illegal drugs were found in only 26% of all searches that were initiated after a handler indicated that a dog alerted on the subject."
If there were a cheap-ish test that detected bombs with this accuracy, wouldn't we want to use it? Even if a few innocents would be unjustly searched?
I also agree with the author that we should look more closely at methodological issues of drug dogs; but this article is only convincing if you support the underlying premise that drugs aren't (all that) bad. (I do.)
(The article speculates that police dogs could be trained by their handlers to alert e.g. on blacks, but doesn't show that this actually happens, or that police dogs are more racist than police officers. The article also argues that dog-based evidence is not very strong, but only cites a case where it was thrown out; and "probable cause" is far weaker than "sufficient evidence to convict" anyway.)
How did we end up with bombs now? A second ago we were talking about (recreational?) drugs. Are you pulling the 'War on Terror' card here?
- '_cheapish_'
Backed up by what? What are the costs of training and keeping (feeding, medical treatment, housing) the dogs? Bringing the officers to search in the first place? What are the costs of the individuals being searched, who probably had to stop right there for quite a while and to sit back and wait.
- 'a _few_ innocents would be unjustly searched'
74 out of 100. 740 out of 1000. 7400 out of 10000. If 3/4 are 'few', where's 'half' and 'most' located on that scale?
Thanks for the explanation. Don't get me wrong, I think the War on Terror is even worse than the War on Drugs. I'll try to be clearer next time.
"Bombs" is intended to mean "something that we can all agree is really bad". I intended to say "the costs seem acceptable if they stop something really bad" (exaggerating for effect, "nobody who's not already in favour of legalisation is going to buy this argument"). Remember that many think that drugs are really bad.
(Some of the data you requested, although I don't think it helps much: http://people.howstuffworks.com/police-dog2.htm suggests that a police dog costs $8500 to acquire. Housing a dog in a shelter costs ~$3000 over the dog's lifetime, IIRC; so $15000 seems a reasonable guess at a dog's lifetime cost. I didn't find the number of active dogs or the cost of officer training, which would be required to calculate cost/successful search.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs: "In 2008, 1.5 million Americans were arrested for drug offenses. 500,000 were imprisoned." Even if we assume that this corresponds to 1.5 million successful searches after a dog alerted, you'd get 6 million searches per year, or about one search every fifty years per American. Of course, that assumes those searches will be randomly distributed; but still, if I felt that drugs were really bad and could be stopped by repression, I'd consider that a reasonable price to pay.)
> If there were a cheap-ish test that detected bombs with this accuracy, wouldn't we want to use it? Even if a few innocents would be unjustly searched?
Good point, though it's slippery slopes everywhere you look: What it if works on bombs, but only in 1% of the cases? What about 0.01%? What if we had a similar test for other, more trivial misdemeanours?
Either way, I'm sure that even fairly strict prohibitionists will agree that carrying around a bomb is a more significant threat to others, so it shouldn't be surprising that a more significant invasion of people's rights is tolerated. How much bigger the threat and how tolerable an intrusion is in each instance, that's exactly the crux of the matter. I suppose that was your point, too.
Edit: Another point: Seeing this, it's not surprising that there is such a range of opinion about it. People have very different evaluations towards the threat posed by drugs, and different people also have very different attitudes about how tolerable those kinds of intrusions are. This opens up a 2D space, where I suppose people often fall on a diagonal or end up in opposite corners.
You need a very low false positive rate for something to be useful in screening for unlikely events. We can't compute the false-positive rate here, though, because we don't know how many people the dogs "scanned"—only how many positives they gave.
Take an example: assume you have a detection technology that has a 1% false positive rate. That is, if you scan 100 people (without bombs) you get 1 positive (which is false, of course). Ignore for a moment any false negatives (people with bombs that are missed); assume the false-negative rate is 0.
Now, what is the chance of a random person you're screening having a bomb? It's very low. Consider that there are nearly a billion air passengers per year in the US, and almost no bombers. Let's say one in 200 million passengers has a bomb.
So, you screen 1 billion passengers, you get 5 true positives. You also get 1% false positives—that is, 10 million.
So, you unjustly searched (as you put it) 10 million people to catch 5 (not 5 million, just 5). And also, its not cheap anymore; you're spending a lot of time (thus money) on those 10 million useless searches.
>or that police dogs are more racist than police officers
I think the point is that police dogs are supposed to be LESS racist (and more objective) than police officers, since they can be used as probable cause for a search (unlike an officer's hunch).
Indeed. The article speculates that police dogs may pick up on their handlers' prejudices; but it does not show that. And even if dogs do pick up some prejudice, they may still be sufficiently objective to be used as probable cause.
Please help keep this site about hacking and startups and articles that are actually intellectually interesting, rather than some sort of advocacy/"internet getting its dander up" by flagging articles like these. Thanks!
Tangent: I'm extremely frustrated at how ephemeral web pages are. I googled the story to provide a reference, and the most reputable sources for the story are dead. I found 404s on Salon.com, Fox News, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and PBS.org. Sadly, I found some of these links on a racist forum. It sucks that Storm Front keeps bytes around longer than these other sites.
Anyway, I just donated $25 to archive.org to support what they're doing. I've been using the Wayback Machine for years and always took it for granted. I'm not sure what made things different about tonight's frustration at broken links, but for the first time I just became worried about the preservation of history.