Global Intelligence claims its Cybercheck technology can help cops find key evidence to nail a case. But a WIRED investigation reveals the smoking gun often appears far less solid.
Parallel construction requires real evidence though. This company just seems to fabricate evidence to confirm police hypothesises. I think what happens is: Police ask “was this person there at that time on that day”, the company conjures up a report that the person’s mystical digital profile pinged a wireless printer at that place at roughly the right time, but also at a second other time for a tiny bit of credibility (but by only changing the date of the timestamp, which actually makes it more suspect). People go search for that printer, and then there never was a printer.
And given that the only thing that external parties saw, was less than a 1000 lines of code for automatic searches and none for interpretation, it might not even be automated, but just a human pasting together reports. A human pretending to be ai.
Honestly it seems more sinister than that, Its a black box deliberately designed to be as obscure about its methods as possible that can produce corroborating ‘evidence’ on demand in a way that’s deliberately un-verifiable but wrapped in some very authorotive sounding technobabble.
This is outsourced automated parallel construction.
Parallel construction requires real evidence though. This company just seems to fabricate evidence to confirm police hypothesises. I think what happens is: Police ask “was this person there at that time on that day”, the company conjures up a report that the person’s mystical digital profile pinged a wireless printer at that place at roughly the right time, but also at a second other time for a tiny bit of credibility (but by only changing the date of the timestamp, which actually makes it more suspect). People go search for that printer, and then there never was a printer.
And given that the only thing that external parties saw, was less than a 1000 lines of code for automatic searches and none for interpretation, it might not even be automated, but just a human pasting together reports. A human pretending to be ai.
I’d call it outsourced fabrication of evidence.
Honestly it seems more sinister than that, Its a black box deliberately designed to be as obscure about its methods as possible that can produce corroborating ‘evidence’ on demand in a way that’s deliberately un-verifiable but wrapped in some very authorotive sounding technobabble.