Re: checks and balances on incorrect id say MET
"but how do you improve the wetware? "
If you delve into the details of the case, it would appear that at least one of the issues was that the first piece of wetware that identified the suspect was in fact having a pee at the time. So rather than saying "I've no idea who that is" a certain class of wetware just lies t cover their own ass.
That subsequently no-one checked and a run on of worst case assumptions lead to some terrible decision making. Normal behavior, like getting off a bus, finding the train station closed, then getting back on another bus, was interpreted as him "seeking a target".
The inquiry is quite insightful reading. The main thing that they do a good job of dodging is admitting that they where using military assets (surveillance teams, possibly the shooters) in what should be a civvy only situation. Hence why no prosecution for the individuals, since that would inevitably show that sending in a soldier results in a killing, rather than a sending in a cop and getting an arrest.
But yes, I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion of FR, other than to emphasise that the wetware checks and balances are as susceptible to bias as the computer.