I&#x27;m much more interested in how science can change criminal justice. For too long, the scientific community has been content to leave the justice system to its own devices. Letting it carry on as a scientific backwater, like nutrition or social science. Consequently, police have technology without any idea of how to use it, or more importantly how to understand its limitations. For example, forensic experts are routinely allowed to testify about random match probabilities as if they are equivalent to the probability of guilt, even though in practice lab error dominates the random match probability as a source of error.<p>This is an area where technologists can succeed where their colleagues in the physical sciences have failed. It is easy to pass off quackery as reliable forensic methods. It would be a disaster if, e.g., it was as easy to pass off quackery as legitimate data forensics. The only way that can be prevented is if the legitimate practitioners, the institutions that represent the mainstream of the profession, are vocal in calling out the charlatans that use unreliable methods.