My point is that there is nothing wrong with this technology in principle. I'm not saying anything about this technology in particular. The comparison to wall street should be extremely encouraging - a small number of extremely smart firms consistently beat the market. If a small number of firms can produce policing tools that make it more efficient, that'd be great.
It's unacceptable in principle. If a wall street model is right more than it is wrong then it wins. If police are wrong half the time we have a big problem on our hands.
Nobody makes all the right calls on wall street. Some just win more than they lose.
I don't see how that's relevant. As has been pointed out to you many times "it's as good as wall street" isn't an acceptable standard for criminal investigation.
Sigh. Convictions are the only place that you need a 100% success rate. How do you think a criminal investigation gets conducted? Do you think they only investigate a lead when they are 100% sure that it will lead directly to a conviction? If a piece of software generated them 5 extra leads, and 1 of those extra leads lead to actionable evidence - that's useful. You're right - 'good as wall street' isn't the standard, much less good than wall street is a perfectly acceptable standard for software that acts as an additive, informational aid to policing.
