Opaque Cybercheck AI crime fighting tool accused of contributing to multiple wrongful convictions

Questions are being asked about the accuracy, reliability, and transparency of AI-powered crime fighting tool Cybercheck , raising the prospect of multiple miscarriages of justice and the erosion of trust in the US justice system. What happened Developed by Adam Mosher and used in nearly 8,000 cases across 40 US states, Cybercheck employs machine learning to analyse extensive data sources, including social media and digital forensics, to identify suspects and gather evidence. Mosher claims the tool boasts over 90 percent accuracy, significantly expediting research that would typically require hundreds of human hours. However, multiple cases call into question Mosher's claims. For example, Cybercheck was used to convict Adarus Black of murder for his supposed involvement in the 2020 drive-by shooting of 18-year-old high school graduate Na’Kia Crawford, leading to a life sentence. The AI tool reportedly triangulated Black's cellphone location with over 90 percent accuracy. However, there was no direct evidence linking him to the location of his alleged crime and jurors indicated they may not have convicted him without the Cybercheck report. Why it happened Black’s defense team did not challenge the scientific validity of the Cybercheck evidence during the original trial. It was only after his conviction that the tool's reliability came under fire, mostly due to Mosher 's refus al to provide evidence to support his claims of his system's accuracy and relaibiility, or allow a n independent third-party to audit it. The lack of transparency raised the prospect of multiple potential miscarriages of justice , and led some c ourts to exclude Cybercheck evidence . For example, a New York judge ruled against its use when prosecutors failed to demonstrate its acceptance within the scientific community. In vestigations have also revealed that Mosher made dubious claims about his qualifications and previous expert testimonies. What it means The ongoing legal challenges and criticisms of Cybercheck highlight concerns about the tool itself and the governance of its owner Global Intelligence and the cases it has been involved in. It also raises broader questions regarding the use of AI in policing and criminal justice. Notably, the increasing reliance on AI tools - particularly unverified tools - in the US justice system raises questions about fairness in legal proceedings and the potential for wrongful convictions based on flawed data analysis. C ontinued skepticism from defense attorneys and judges may al so erode public confidence in the justice and police system s . The situation is also seen to highlight the necessity for appropriate regulatory frameworks governing the use of AI in law enforcement, notably that these kinds of technologies undergo rigorous testing and validation before being deployed in high-risk areas such as criminal justice. What we think Hardly surprisingly, Mosher's refusal to allow meaningful analysis of his Cybercheck system begs more questions than answers about its accuracy and reliability. That his personal credibility is also in the spotlight does little to help his cause. Governments should not let system owners and deployers hide behind convenient shields such as trade secrecy and copyright , especially when deployed in the public sector in high-risk scenarios. Rather, high-risk uses of AI should be subject to mandatory transparency obligations that enable experts, defendents, victims and the general public to understand how they work, what their limitations and known risks are, and the actual impacts - both positive and negative - of their use . System 🤖 Cybercheck Case Developer: Global Intelligence Inc. Country: USA Sector: Govt - justice; Govt - police Purpose: Identify criminal supsects Technology: Machine learning Issue: Accountability; Accuracy/reliability; Human/civil rights; Transparency Timeline ⏰ June 14, 2020. Na’Kia Crawford is murdered in Akron, Ohio. February 8, 2022. Adarus Black is captured i

Date it happened

2024-01-01

Product, system or model

Cybercheck

This is a record of what was reported, not a finding that anyone broke the law. If it names your organisation and you believe it is wrong, the corrections process is free and open to everyone.