|
As this article explains, fingerprints are by no means the foolproof
form of ID we've been led to believe. All sorts of errors, both
deliberate and accidental, occur. Almost as bad as DNA evidence or
eyewitness testimony. Makes you wonder how many thousands of innocent
men are locked up.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/02/02/a_blow_to_the_credibility_of_fingerprint_evidence/
|
| |
| |
and women!
As this article explains, fingerprints are by no means the foolproof
form of ID we've been led to believe. All sorts of errors, both
deliberate and accidental, occur. Almost as bad as DNA evidence or
eyewitness testimony. Makes you wonder how many thousands of innocent
men are locked up.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/02/02/a_blow_to_the_credibility_of_fingerprint_evidence/
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 19:00:38 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
<> wrote:
As this article explains, fingerprints are by no means the foolproof
form of ID we've been led to believe. All sorts of errors, both
deliberate and accidental, occur. Almost as bad as DNA evidence or
eyewitness testimony. Makes you wonder how many thousands of innocent
men are locked up.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/02/02/a_blow_to_the_credibility_of_fingerprint_evidence/
A more critical reading of the article, than that of the original
poster, would indicate that perhaps two independent examiners be
required for all fingerprint identifications or some other safeguards.
The thread title makes you wonder how many sensible posters there are
on Usenet message boards.
|
| |
| |
There are many old wive's tales still lingering in science. The idea that
"no two snowflakes can be identical" has been questioned, and I believe
disproven with samples to back it up. "Lightning never strikes twice" is
definately false.
I have a great deal of faith in DNA, but there are many questions.
The idea that no two fingerprints could be identical is certainly a dubious
result of early forensics. I dont think the question has be addressed
formally in a satisfactory manner. I dont know if the question could really
be answered - it's exceedingly complex even against today's science.
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 19:00:38 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
<> wrote:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/02/02
/a_blow_to_the_credibility_of_fingerprint_evidence/
A more critical reading of the article, than that of the original
poster, would indicate that perhaps two independent examiners be
required for all fingerprint identifications or some other safeguards.
The thread title makes you wonder how many sensible posters there are
on Usenet message boards.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 03:02:09 GMT, Sam <sammy@nospammy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 19:00:38 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
<> wrote:
A more critical reading of the article, than that of the original
poster, would indicate that perhaps two independent examiners be
required for all fingerprint identifications or some other safeguards.
The thread title makes you wonder how many sensible posters there are
on Usenet message boards.
Either you're new to usenet or you're the stupidest person in
history.
|
| |
| |
There are many old wive's tales still lingering in science. The idea that
"no two snowflakes can be identical" has been questioned, and I believe
disproven with samples to back it up. "Lightning never strikes twice" is
definately false.
I have a great deal of faith in DNA, but there are many questions.
The idea that no two fingerprints could be identical is certainly a
dubious
result of early forensics. I dont think the question has be addressed
formally in a satisfactory manner. I dont know if the question could
really
be answered - it's exceedingly complex even against today's science.
But remember, fingerprints have been shown over the years to be highly
individual; nobody has found two people with identical fingerprints yet. So
to get a false forensic match, you would need not only the incredible
coincidence of two people with matching fingerprints, but also the added
improbability of them both being in the same geographical area at the same
time at a time when one commits a crime and the other doesn't have a solid
alibi.
So, multiply one in millions with one in millions and get a chance very,
very statistically remote, assuming identical fingerprints exist but haven't
been detected.
|
| |
| |
In our last episode,
<vC1Ub.11471$F23.9530@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, the lovely
and talented Bo Raxo broadcast on alt.true-crime:
But remember, fingerprints have been shown over the years to be highly
individual; nobody has found two people with identical fingerprints yet. So
to get a false forensic match, you would need not only the incredible
coincidence of two people with matching fingerprints, but also the added
improbability of them both being in the same geographical area at the same
time at a time when one commits a crime and the other doesn't have a solid
alibi.
Sorry, but false forensic matches have been shown to occur with
disturbing frequency. The business of superimposing one finger print
on another and having them line up completely is science fiction --
promoted by some really cheap-ass detective fiction. In fact,
fingerprints are compared by people -- people who do not match the
whole print, but only a few points of similarity. The number of
points required for a "match" has never been examined scientifically.
In many places there is no standard whatsoever and declaring a
"match" is an entirely subjective process. That is not science;
it's voodoo.
So, multiply one in millions with one in millions and get a chance
very, very statistically remote, assuming identical fingerprints
exist but haven't been detected.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eighner@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Saving the part of the world worth saving
One beagle at a time
|
| |
| |
In article <vC1Ub.11471$F23.9530@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote:
But remember, fingerprints have been shown over the years to be highly
individual; nobody has found two people with identical fingerprints yet.
And how do you define "identical fingerprints"? Do the finger print
experts define it the same way? And remember to use the word "point" in
your definition, if you are to be at all credible.
--
"He that would exchange liberty for temporary safety
deserves neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin
"Those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for security
ultimately will lose both" - Abraham Lincoln
|
| |
| |
"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message news:<vC1Ub.11471$F23.9530@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
But remember, fingerprints have been shown over the years to be highly
individual; nobody has found two people with identical fingerprints yet. So
to get a false forensic match, you would need not only the incredible
coincidence of two people with matching fingerprints, but also the added
improbability of them both being in the same geographical area at the same
time at a time when one commits a crime and the other doesn't have a solid
alibi.
So, multiply one in millions with one in millions and get a chance very,
very statistically remote, assuming identical fingerprints exist but haven't
been detected.
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch and whoever controls Parliament
and Fleet Street don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine
e mail nutteing2@quickfindit.....com (just one dot)
|
| |
| |
In article <vC1Ub.11471$F23.9530@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote:
And how do you define "identical fingerprints"? Do the finger print
experts define it the same way? And remember to use the word "point" in
your definition, if you are to be at all credible.
You and Lars have both made an excellent point, I admit I wasn't thinking
about how the match process works when blithely talking about "identical"
prints.
But I know they can run a print against a database. How does this match
work? Is it pattern recognition software that examines the actual image for
points of comparison? That's what I suspect. In which case the subjectivity
of an examiner can be removed.
OTOH, if it's a set of description points of some kind entered by an
examiner, it is still completely subjective. Anybody know how, for
example, the NCIC fingerprint database works?
|
| |
| |
You and Lars have both made an excellent point, I admit I wasn't thinking
about how the match process works when blithely talking about "identical"
prints.
But I know they can run a print against a database. How does this match
work? Is it pattern recognition software that examines the actual image
for
points of comparison? That's what I suspect. In which case the
subjectivity
of an examiner can be removed.
OTOH, if it's a set of description points of some kind entered by an
examiner, it is still completely subjective. Anybody know how, for
example, the NCIC fingerprint database works?
My understanding is that they run points to get a "best match", but any
parts that don't match later can be used to challenge the match. Sort of -
it's enough to get you picked up, but if you can say "But I've got this scar
that doesn't show on the crime scene prints.", then they're back to looking.
|
| |
| |
In article <a2081b81.0402041051.7599027f@posting.google.com>,
nonarevers@yahoo.co.uk (nona revers) wrote:
|
| |
| |
In article <a2081b81.0402041051.7599027f@posting.google.com>,
nonarevers@yahoo.co.uk (nona revers) wrote:
|
| |
| |
Bo Raxo wrote:
Yes, but whether two prints are considered a match or not is completely
different from finding two fingerprints from two different people to be
identical.
Let's say I take a photograph of you. I can look at the photograph and say
it's a match for your face.
Now I start to blur the photograph. At some point, I can no longer say that
it is a match for your face.
Does that mean there is definately someone out there who has a face
identical to yours? Of course not.
A more appropriate analogy would be if the government had
a massive computer database of photographs of peoples' faces,
taken with varying degrees of clarity, but of generally OK
quality. Now we bring in a photograph of a specific individual,
who may or may not be in the database. It may be of highly
variable quality, and moreover may only show part of the
face. Then the question becomes, will the computer match it
to the correct individual, assuming he's in the database? If
he's not in the database, what is the chance the computer will
still find the next-nearest match, this time the wrong person?
Lastly, even if the person is in the database, what is the
chance the partial picture will be a closer match to someone
other than the correct individual?
|
| |
| |
In article <HAeVb.18597$uM2.4748@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote:
People have the "same" fingerprint all the time, you are ignorant of the
procedure to say otherwise.
Provide a citation for this claim.
Yes, but whether two prints are considered a match or not is completely
different from finding two fingerprints from two different people to be
identical.
We are in agreement. When I put same in quotation marks I meant a
fingerprint expert going on the stand and saying that the prints are the
"same". And in another state the same expert would say the prints are
NOT the "same".
--
"He that would exchange liberty for temporary safety
deserves neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin
"Those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for security
ultimately will lose both" - Abraham Lincoln
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:31:25 GMT, Bo Raxo
<invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote:
You and Lars have both made an excellent point, I admit I wasn't thinking
about how the match process works when blithely talking about "identical"
prints.
But I know they can run a print against a database. How does this match
work? Is it pattern recognition software that examines the actual image for
points of comparison? That's what I suspect. In which case the subjectivity
of an examiner can be removed.
Even an objective answer can be incorrect. Subjectivity is only one
issue.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
|
