|
And the nonsense continues
http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11271~2551092,00.html
Quote
Article Last Updated: Monday, November 22, 2004 - 7:01:12 AM PST
Person's mind can be fingerprinted
New technology can be used for forensic services
By Francine Brevetti, BUSINESS WRITER
EVIDENCE AS TRUE to your body as fingerprints may be questioned in
convicting or exonerating you of a crime. DNA samples may not be available.
But there's one unassailable authority that can be relied on to tell for
sure whether an indicted person has committed a specific act. The
defendant's own brain.
Right now a Jimmy Slaughter is waiting to see whether the appellate court in
Oklahoma will rule on his guilt or innocence using among other evidence,
patterns of his brain waves subjected to a technology called brain
fingerprinting. Already, the state of Iowa accepts this technology as
evidence in court.
Meanwhile, Lawrence A. Farwell is diversifying the uses of his technology
into medical research and more commercial purposes. Farwell is the inventor
of brain fingerprinting technology.
The Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories in Seattle www.brainwavescience.com is
creating an alpha version that allows detection of Alzheimer's disease at a
very early stage. It's not ready to be tested yet on great numbers of
people.
"In 30 to 60 days we'll be ready to do some testing and will use labs in New
York City and New Jersey," said Ernie Robson, president of president of BFL.
"We will detect better and get distinct results to determine a diagnosis of
Alzheimer's disease faster than anybody else could."
Farwell, who received his doctorate in neuroscience at the University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, said he sees other commercial uses for the
technology.
"We're also doing a pilot on advertising recognition that ought to be very
lucrative," he said. "We are going to be selling to marketers the idea that
you can detect whether or not consumers remember their ads both in
recollection and in affect (feeling). We'll be doing this jointly with a
major advertising company."
The business of evaluating adver tising is a multibillion-dollar one, but
it's subjective and, despite the focus groups and telemarketers who
frequently call consumers to poll them for their opinions, has potential to
be inaccurate.
"We can provide actual data. People are notorious for not telling
objectively what they're thinking," Farwell said.
"We are also spinning off our medical business as a standalone and looking
for funding separately," he said. For this, we're talking to Bay Area firms
as well as others looking for investment. Generally investors are
knowledgeable about medicine but not about the forensic world at all."
Farwell and his colleagues have published the results of their studies in
the Journal of Forensic Sciences, in which they demonstrated with 100
percent accuracy that they could determine who among a study of FBI agents
participated in real-life events. Farwell also reported receiving 100
percent accuracy in three studies conducted under contract for three U.S.
counterintelligence agencies and one with the U.S. Navy.
The technology works by identifying unique patterns of brain stimuli.
When a person is presented with a stimulus she recognizes, her brain
involuntarily registers a measurable and distinctive signal. In other words,
the brain reacts in a definable way only to a stimulus it has already
experienced. So if the defendant has never seen a particular barn before or
the bloody wrench presented as evidence, the brain simply will not react
with the distinctive wave patterns.
"The brain doesn't lie," he said. It's important to remember, he added, that
the information is stored in the brain of the perpetrator only, not in that
of an innocence suspect or a victim.
Farwell charges $350 per hour for forensic services using the technology.
But what about false memories? In last few years the public has heard a lot
about people who have been convinced that they have suffered some trauma
early in life. How can the brain distinguish between authentic memories and
imagined ones? Farwell said the brain waves will not respond to a stimulus
they have not experienced.
In 2001 in Iowa, a district court ruled brain fingerprinting tests
admissible in court. Terry Harrington was serving a life sentence in Iowa
for a 1977 murder. The Farwell test demonstrated that the records stored in
the defendant's brain did not match the crime scene but did match his alibi.
Eventually his conviction was reversed.
There also has been an effort to introduce this technology in a California
case that has been unsuccessful, he said.
Asked if he thought this methodology could be an invasion of privacy,
Farwell countered that those who champion human rights also support freeing
innocents from jails. "The only people against this technology might be the
polygraph people," he said because they might see it as competition for
their own methodology.
Francine Brevetti can be reached at (510) 208-6416 or
fbrevetti@angnewspapers.com .
End Quote
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine
Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.
|
| |
| |
Paul Nutteing wrote:
And the nonsense continues
http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11271~2551092,00.html
Quote
Article Last Updated: Monday, November 22, 2004 - 7:01:12 AM PST
Person's mind can be fingerprinted
New technology can be used for forensic services
By Francine Brevetti, BUSINESS WRITER
EVIDENCE AS TRUE to your body as fingerprints may be questioned in
convicting or exonerating you of a crime. DNA samples may not be available.
But there's one unassailable authority that can be relied on to tell for
sure whether an indicted person has committed a specific act. The
defendant's own brain.
Right now a Jimmy Slaughter is waiting to see whether the appellate court in
Oklahoma will rule on his guilt or innocence using among other evidence,
patterns of his brain waves subjected to a technology called brain
fingerprinting. Already, the state of Iowa accepts this technology as
evidence in court.
Not if they're following the general rules of evidence. Polygraph
tests are inadmissible, not because they are unreliable, but because
of the self-incrimination clause. Hence this "testimony" would
also be inadmissible.
|
| |
| |
In article <41A23B99.41FCB00E@sprintmail.com>,
Arthur L. Rubin <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Paul Nutteing wrote:
Not if they're following the general rules of evidence. Polygraph
tests are inadmissible, not because they are unreliable, but because
of the self-incrimination clause. Hence this "testimony" would
also be inadmissible.
Wrong!
Why are polygraph tests given to witnesses inadmissable? (Hint: because
they're unreliable.)
|
| |
| |
The technology works by identifying unique patterns of brain stimuli.
When a person is presented with a stimulus she recognizes, her brain
involuntarily registers a measurable and distinctive signal. In other words,
the brain reacts in a definable way only to a stimulus it has already
experienced. So if the defendant has never seen a particular barn before or
the bloody wrench presented as evidence, the brain simply will not react
with the distinctive wave patterns.
Ok, how close does the brain require the image to be to call it "a
particular barn"? To a lot of people, especially those who don't
see barns very often, barns look pretty much alike. Is this test
going to generate false positives because the barn I am shown a
photo of looks a lot like the barn my uncle had 30 years ago (and
I recognize it as such)? Or, is the test going to generate false
negatives because the picture of the barn is in warm weather, but
the crime was committed when it was covered with snow?
Oh, yes, there's also the problem that even if I deny remembering
ever having seen this particular barn, I might have driven by it
20 years ago once when I got lost one and have no (conscious) idea
it was the same barn. So how do I defend myself?
"The brain doesn't lie," he said. It's important to remember, he added, that
the information is stored in the brain of the perpetrator only, not in that
of an innocence suspect or a victim.
Well, a picture of one wrench looks pretty much like a picture of
another wrench of the same model, and plenty of people have seen
wrenches of that model. Will my brain notice the difference that
the wrench in the picture I am shown has distinctive scratches while
my father's wrench (which I remember using) doesn't? Perhaps I
remember having to put down a favorite dog (although a wrench would
be an unlikely tool to use) and seeing it (the wrench) bloody
afterwards? Or maybe I just wounded myself with the wrench trying
to unhook a particularly stubborn pipe, and bled all over it?
Farwell charges $350 per hour for forensic services using the technology.
But what about false memories? In last few years the public has heard a lot
about people who have been convinced that they have suffered some trauma
early in life. How can the brain distinguish between authentic memories and
imagined ones? Farwell said the brain waves will not respond to a stimulus
they have not experienced.
Do people "experience" dreams? How do you test that they don't
react to what they dreamt? Since YOU don't know exactly what someone
dreamt, you will have trouble coming up with something to show them
that matches the dream.
Gordon L. Burditt
|
| |
| |
Why are polygraph tests given to witnesses inadmissable? (Hint: because
they're unreliable.)
Another thing that is notoriously unreliable: The testimony of a
full-fledged, wide awake and fully conscious, competent, reputable human
being, especially about things that happened some years in the past.
|
| |
| |
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in=20
Polygraph tests are inadmissible, not because they are unreliable, but =
because
of the self-incrimination clause. =20
I think lie detectors are not considered to be reliable enough =
indicators of truth or falsehood for their evidence to be admitted . On =
the other hand camera evidence is acceptable.
=20
Yours faithfully,
John Aidiniantz
www.funbus.org - The Campaign for Battery-Operated Buses
www.homepage-link.to/justice/bailiffs=20
message news:41A23B99.41FCB00E@sprintmail.com...
Paul Nutteing wrote:
=20
Not if they're following the general rules of evidence. Polygraph
tests are inadmissible, not because they are unreliable, but because
of the self-incrimination clause. Hence this "testimony" would
also be inadmissible.
|
| |
| |
|
