Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors across the US have increasingly turned to an artificial intelligence tool called Cybercheck to aid in investigating serious crimes. This tool scours the web to gather open source intelligence in order to identify potential suspects. Concerns have been raised by defense lawyers regarding the accuracy and reliability of Cybercheck, questioning its methodology and lack of independent vetting. Despite the company claiming an accuracy rate of over 90%, doubts persist about its reliability.
In a New York case, a judge barred authorities from introducing Cybercheck evidence due to concerns about its reliability. In another case in Ohio, a judge blocked a Cybercheck analysis when the creator, Adam Mosher, refused to disclose the software’s methodology. Defense lawyers in a fatal robbery case in Akron demanded that Mosher provide the software’s proprietary code and algorithm, alleging that he had lied under oath about his expertise. Prosecutors continue to rely on Mosher as an expert, despite these concerns.
Legal challenges have been mounted against the use of Cybercheck in various cases, with defense lawyers demanding transparency regarding the software’s methodology. The defense in the Akron homicide prosecution argued that Cybercheck does not preserve the data it uses to create or locate cyber profiles, raising further questions about its reliability. Prosecutors have appealed rulings barring Cybercheck evidence, claiming that it hinders effective prosecution.
Allegations have been made regarding Cybercheck’s accuracy and Mosher’s claims about its efficacy. The software produced a report in the Akron fatal robbery case placing both defendants at the scene based on web searches and automated processes. There are questions about how the software verifies information and connects suspects to crime scenes. In some cases, key pieces of evidence relied on Cybercheck have been found to be circumstantial or inaccurate.
Mosher’s credibility as an expert witness has also been called into question, with discrepancies between his claims of testifying experience in different cases. Claims made under oath in one case regarding his expertise were found to be false based on information from prosecutors in Canada. Prosecutors moved to dismiss charges in a Colorado case after it was discovered that Mosher had provided false testimony. These issues raise further doubts about Cybercheck’s reliability and Mosher’s credibility as an expert.
Legal battles continue over the use of Cybercheck in various cases, with defense lawyers pushing for transparency and accountability in the software’s methodology. The lack of independent validation and concerns about data preservation add to the skepticism surrounding the tool. As the debate over the use of AI in law enforcement and criminal justice systems continues, the case of Cybercheck highlights the complexities and challenges associated with relying on technology in legal proceedings.
