We use cookies and similar technologies that are necessary to operate the website. Additional cookies are used to perform analysis of website usage. By continuing to use our website, you consent to our use of cookies. For more information, please read our Cookies Policy.

Closing this modal default settings will be saved.

Legal Challenges Mount Against AI Software Used in Thousands of Criminal Cases

Cybercheck's founder claims over 90% accuracy, but defense lawyers allege he lied about the technology's usage details

Owner's Profile

Staff Writer, TLR

Published on May 7, 2024, 08:51:34


cybercheck, ai software, artifical intelligence, convictions, criminal case, legal, criminal intelligence technology

Cybercheck, a software hailed for its role in aiding investigations and convictions in serious criminal cases, is now facing legal scrutiny. While its founder claims over 90 per cent accuracy, defense lawyers allege perjury and misinformation regarding its efficacy and application.

Law enforcement agencies across states like Colorado to New York have increasingly relied on Cybercheck, an artificial intelligence tool, for assistance in solving murder cases, human trafficking crimes, cold cases, and manhunts.

However, as its usage expands, doubts regarding its accuracy and transparency have emerged, particularly from defense attorneys who question its methodology and lack of independent validation.

The software, developed by Adam Mosher, purportedly utilises machine learning to analyse vast online data, including social media profiles and publicly available information, to aid in suspect identification and crime scene analysis.

Mosher claims a remarkable accuracy rate exceeding 90 per cent, asserting that Cybercheck streamlines investigations that would otherwise demand hundreds of human hours. As of last year, it had been deployed in nearly 8,000 cases across 40 states and nearly 300 agencies.

However, legal challenges have arisen, casting doubt on Cybercheck's reliability. In a New York case, a judge excluded Cybercheck evidence due to its unproven reliability and acceptance. Similarly, in Ohio, a judge blocked its analysis when Mosher declined to disclose its methodology.

Critics argue that the lack of transparency surrounding Cybercheck's algorithms violates defendants' due process rights. In a recent motion filed in an Ohio robbery case, defense lawyers demanded access to Cybercheck's proprietary code and algorithm, alleging that Mosher misled authorities about his expertise and the software's usage.

Mosher's refusal to provide access to Cybercheck's inner workings has intensified skepticism. The Canadian company behind Cybercheck, Global Intelligence Inc., has remained silent, citing ongoing legal proceedings.

Despite these challenges, law enforcement agencies continue to utilise Cybercheck, often under contracts worth thousands of dollars. In one instance, Akron signed a $25,000 agreement for Cybercheck's services.

In the Akron case, where two defendants were charged with murder, Cybercheck reportedly produced a report linking them to the crime scene through online data analysis. However, the defense has raised concerns about the report's credibility, highlighting discrepancies and lack of verifiable evidence.

At a hearing, Mosher claimed a high accuracy rate for Cybercheck's conclusions, yet the methodology behind this assertion remains unclear. Additionally, Mosher admitted that Cybercheck has never undergone peer review, further fueling doubts about its reliability.

As legal battles over Cybercheck's admissibility continue, questions persist regarding its role in shaping criminal investigations and court proceedings.

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.