This is a research prototype. The data and analyses are preliminary and not yet validated — we'd welcome your .
Cybercheck, an AI tool developed by Global Intelligence Inc., is being used by law enforcement agencies across the U.S. to generate evidence for criminal investigations. Multiple reports and court filings allege that the tool produces unverifiable or inaccurate data, lacks transparency regarding its methodology, and that its founder has made false claims about the tool's accuracy and his own expert testimony. Consequently, several judges have barred the use of Cybercheck evidence in court, and prosecutors have withdrawn its reports from multiple murder cases.
Global Intelligence's Cybercheck AI tool, used by law enforcement to track suspects based on open source data, has allegedly been providing inaccurate or unverifiable evidence in several murder trials. Reportedly the tool lacks transparency and often produces unreliable reports, which has prompted prosecutors to withdraw Cybercheck evidence from multiple cases after its findings were challenged, reportedly wasting law enforcement time and resources while undermining prosecutors' cases.
Domain classification, causal taxonomy, severity scores, and national security assessments were LLM-classified and may contain errors.
AI systems that fail to perform reliably or effectively under varying conditions, exposing them to errors and failures that can have significant consequences, especially in critical applications or areas that require moral reasoning.
Also classified as
Law enforcement and prosecutors relied on unverified AI reports to charge and convict individuals in critical criminal cases.
The software's proprietary code and opaque methodology prevent independent verification of its findings by defense experts.
The primary issue is the AI system's lack of capability and robustness, as it generated inaccurate, unverified, and inconsistent geolocation reports used in critical legal proceedings.
AI system
Due to a decision or action made by an AI system
Unintentional
Due to an unexpected outcome from pursuing a goal
Post-deployment
Occurring after the AI model has been trained and deployed
The safety risks and unreliability stem from the Cybercheck AI system's automated data processing and geolocation algorithms, which were deployed and used in active criminal investigations.
Added categories peak at 2: Minor (Epistemic Harm, Direct)
The widespread deployment of Cybercheck, an unverified AI geolocation tool, in nearly 8,000 US criminal cases has compromised judicial integrity and defendant due process. While causing significant legal disruptions and civil rights concerns, the incident remains a domestic justice system issue manageable through standard judicial procedures, posing minor overall national security risks.
The reports describe Cybercheck as a software program that performs a specific, well-defined function of analyzing data to geolocate individuals based on direct inputs. It operates on direct input without context retention or independent goal-directed planning, producing outputs based on the data provided.
High Risk: The report describes an AI system used in law enforcement and justice administration ('law enforcement has increasingly been using AI tools to assist in solving crimes — and even putting people behind bars'), which falls under the High Risk category of the EU AI Act due to its significant implications for safety, fundamental rights, and public interests.
The primary function of Cybercheck is to identify potential suspects' physical locations and digital profiles ('cyber profiles') using open-source data to assist law enforcement in criminal investigations.
The reports provide detailed, consistent accounts from multiple reputable investigative journalism sources (The Week, NBC News, WIRED) detailing court filings, expert opinions, and specific case names. The limitations and failures of the AI tool are well-documented through legal motions and statements from prosecutors and defense attorneys.
One could argue the primary failure is human fraud by the founder rather than a technical AI failure, but the reports clearly show the AI tool itself produced faulty, unverified outputs (e.g., identical reports for different dates).
Technology
Opaque Machine Learning Algorithms
Proprietary algorithms cannot be inspected or verified by defense experts.
Lack of Data Preservation
Cybercheck does not store raw crawl data, preventing independent replication.
Unverifiable Geolocation Claims
Claims of Wi-Fi pings from open source data are technically implausible.
Data Inputs
Inaccurate input dates
System generated identical reports for different dates using same inputs.
Unreliable open source data
Profiles built on unverified emails and social media accounts.
Unverifiable Device Profiles
Defense experts could not locate the social media accounts used in profiles.
Human Factors
Expert witness misrepresentation
Founder lied under oath about peer reviews and prior testimonies.
Overreliance by law enforcement
Investigators accepted high accuracy claims without seeking supporting evidence.
Lack of technical expertise
Judges and prosecutors lack computer science skills to evaluate algorithms.
Process and Methods
Absence of peer review
The software was never independently peer-reviewed despite claims.
Lack of independent vetting
No third-party validation of the system's accuracy and methodology.
Flawed validation processes
Law enforcement failed to backstop or verify the software's reports.
Management
Prioritization of sales over truth
Company aggressively marketed unverified tech to police departments.
Lack of corporate transparency
Global Intelligence refused to disclose methodology or address criticisms.
Inadequate risk assessment
Prosecutors failed to assess the legal risks of using unvetted AI.
Regulatory Environment
Admissibility standards loophole
Courts allowed unproven AI evidence before Daubert challenges occurred.
Proprietary trade secret defense
Companies shield algorithms from disclosure by claiming trade secrets.
Lack of AI forensic standards
No regulatory standards exist to govern AI use in criminal forensics.
AI system involved
Identified by automated extraction; can differ from the alleged developers above.
