I think when people learn of him, he is rated appropriately. I think what you want to convey is he doesn't get much attention for the amount of impact he had, and if this indeed what you want to convey, then I would suggest that the president's staff also do not get much attention for the amount of impact they have.
It is common for the leaders to get the attention, positive or negative, for the results of the groups they lead.
They must be targeting people who just want to use this for internal purposes, rather than developers who want to integrate Jitsi with an existing product.
Except DIY kits are not an option to admit in court. They are not admissible. There is a temporary order allowing them to be collected during COVID-19 in California only. It is yet to see if these will even hold up.
None of that matters in civil proceedings, like divorce or child custody hearings. Even pictures of Facebook chats are admissible there. If those are more important to you (even if they're not happening yet), I would still understand the choice to go for these.
Furthermore, admissible only matters to a limited extent. It means someone won't go to jail based on this evidence alone. It doesn't mean it doesn't get considered at all. Even then, there's hacks, you could have someone from the company testify to the results of the kit and what the results mean, for example.
Using these kids deprives the government and public prosecutor of many options and places a lot of power with the individual. That weakens the case, but that may be a good trade for people. I'm not sure giving people extra options between keeping silent and going full-on nuclear with zero control and uncertain result (the government route) is such a bad thing.
I can also see why a person with this job (and the conviction that makes one take a job like this) would consider it a terrible thing.
It's interesting to see the only comments defending this startup are from newly created accounts.
The article you shared appears to conflict with what this startup is offering.
> It's being called a "temporary protocol" that so far, has only been used once on April 5. Nassoura said the process starts by the victim calling law enforcement and then, "The officer goes to the victim's residence, places it (the sexual assault test) on the front door step, waits in the vehicle. The victim then goes to the front door gets the sample and they begin a zoom video call." That zoom video call involves a forensic nurse, the detective and a victim advocate. Once the victim's statement is taken by the officer, the nurse is the only one that remains on the call. The victim then self-collects the sample under the nurse's guidance and direction.
And to your point:
> Moreover, further research will show you that the startup explicitly encourages survivors to visit a hospital or contact law enforcement if at all possible.
The problem is, this startup's business model specifically relies on victims not visiting the hospital.
> Ask sexual assault survivors what they would like to see instead.
They would probably want their evidence to be admitted in court, rather than raise reasonable doubt.
This is the issue here the issue of CoC isn’t about what happens to the kit once it’s submitted but how the collection is done.
What ever temporary protocol California or any other state has put into place I can guarantee you that it involves the forensic nurse not only instructing the victim on how to use the kit but verifies that the victim collects samples only from themselves and that these samples are sealed in an tamper resilient bag/container by the victim in clear view of the nurse.
As in the nurse has to watch the victim swab their own vagina, anus, finger nails and any other body part that may have DNA evidence and place the swab in a bag and seal it.
The seal would then be inspected by law enforcement and the lab and the CoC would be documented and preserved.
At that point the amount of doubt is more or less identical to having consensual sex to gather DNA evidence and then falsely accusing someone of rape which can happen regardless of where the evidence collection takes place.
This is the part these kits cannot provide and this is why they cannot be admissible there is quite a big difference between having consensual sex to collect DNA evidence which is easier to prove and just being able to take a cotton swab to someone toothbrush or water bottle.
It appears that if they are persevering despite putting countless rape victims at risk, they might have bad intentions.
From the same article you posted:
> Defense attorneys worry that allowing victims to conduct their own rape exams could result in cross-contamination and raise issues of reasonable doubt. “If you want to frame someone, it’s easy to get their DNA onto a swab where you do a sex assault kit, and say, ‘Oh, look, here’s their DNA,’” criminal defense attorney Mark Reichel told the AP. Since they first hit the market last year, there has been a push to ban DIY kits for reasons like this.
Also from the article you posted:
> Northern California has issued a temporary order allowing rape kits to be collected by the survivor, at home, while a nurse walks them through the process via video call
First of all, who said this is the #1 rule of business? Lol. Did you write the only book on business? Are you Steven P Jobs?
Secondly, revenues can't go to infinity. Not only is infinity an uncountable times bigger than a Googol, but market sizes are limited. Organic growth is limited.
It is much easier to cut costs than increase revenue in business. This is why most large companies prefer to cut costs rather than invest in innovation.
The best entrepreneurs are frugal. Warren Buffett is famously frugal and prefers to invest in frugal entrepreneurs. To the point where Buffett once bragged about investing in an entrepreneur who was so frugal he resorted to counting the sheets of toilet paper at his business because he thought he was being cheated (he was).
I just saw an update on this from the compliance guidelines and seems to go against the whole ordeal they came out on top of two years ago.