worktoplay, Easy fella...take deep breaths. lol
My original question has indeed been answered. There are clearly scenarios in which DNAWitness has value. We can possibly apply the technology to limit the number of possible suspects for a crime based on their GEOGRAPHICAL (right this time, lol) origin.
When this capability was applied to domestic crime it had value when there was some diversity in the suspect list, allowing for the elimination of a significant number of suspects and allowing the authorities to concentrate on those remaining. Obviously there are limitations on the value of such a technology when the suspect list is not diverse. For instance in the Ramsey case in Colorado, if the profile comes back suggesating a caucasion of European ancestry, then there is little value gained as the majority of the potential suspects fit that profile.
When we apply the technology to the war on terror, what do we gain?
What you and GE have come up with are scenarios in which the technology may be applied in such a way as to provide some value, but how would we quantify that value?
Narrowing down a world full of terrorist suspects to merely a continent full might have some mathematical advantage but narrowing down to just a few dozen million from a few billion doesn't seem like enough does it?
Now in the event that you have just a few hundred terrorist suspects to chose from then I suppose separating the Chechens from the Saudis could give you a leg up, but if you already have such a focused group it is doubtful that you don't already have a good idea what each is up to, that is what the FBI is supposed to do already..
My point is not that DNAWitness has no value in such investigations it's just the same limited benefit that it has in domestic applications. To suggest as the PR did, that there is a significant breakthrough that will greatly assist the war on terror is just a little over the top.
regards,
frog
