SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Fnord666
[...] A landmark report published in 2009 by the National Academy of Sciences highlighted the lack of scientific foundation for fingerprint evidence, as well as other commonly used metrics in forensic science, like bite marks and bloodstain patterns. This isn't to say that fingerprints aren't useful in the justice system. But they aren't entirely reliable, and in the current practice of print analysis, there's no place to signal that uncertainty to an attorney, judge, or jury.
Using statistics and probabilities to help bolster fingerprint results and signal the weight of the evidence isn't a new idea, but this is the first time a tool has actually been put in the hands of fingerprint examiners. FRStat was developed by Henry Swofford, chief of the latent print branch at the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory at the Department of Defense. "We're the first lab in the United States to report fingerprint evidence using a statistical foundation," Swofford said.
[...] Adding a element of quantitative analysis to fingerprint identification is positive progress for forensic science, which struggles, overall, to live up to the "science" side of its name. Implementing the program, though, requires a significant culture change for a field that's remained largely the same for decades, if not a century—posing additional challenges for people like Swofford who pushing for progress.
Source: Fingerprint Analysis Could Finally Get Scientific, Thanks to a New Tool
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday May 20 2018, @09:22PM (1 child)
You ask the impossible. You can never prove a negative in such cases.
And the closer we get to cloning humans the more true that will be.
Everyone already admits there is no proof that finger prints are unique. You're late to the party.
The current computerized match system simply pulls out candidates, which already had built in Numbers of Matching features reliability estimates built in. Such matches were NEVER allowed in court, and ALWAYS served as a selection process for MANUAL evaluation by living breathing examiners.
The problem is that any Two Examiners could give opposing determinations while looking at the exact same set exemplars selected by the computer. (This is to say nothing about built in examiner bias or malfeasance).
When that happens its not clear that the courts or lawyers ever hear about the dissenting opinions.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by HiThere on Sunday May 20 2018, @10:31PM
Not really. Fingerprints are not entirely genetically determined. It's partial genetic determinism, and partial ?? (probably environmental, but also possibly quantum indeterminacy).
That said, the claim that two fingerprints are identical is never true even if they're from the same individual within an hour under controlled circumstances. So what they really mean is that the fingerprints are sufficiently close that an expert believes they came from the same individual. And the expert is claimed to be impartial.
That said, fingerprints validly allow a bunch of people to be excluded from consideration. This is more than some of their forensic tests can say.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.