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
Related Stories
The US Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not prohibit police officers from forcing a suspect to unlock a phone with a thumbprint scan, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. The ruling does not apply to all cases in which biometrics are used to unlock an electronic device but is a significant decision in an unsettled area of the law.
The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had to grapple with the question of "whether the compelled use of Payne's thumb to unlock his phone was testimonial," the ruling in United States v. Jeremy Travis Payne said. "To date, neither the Supreme Court nor any of our sister circuits have addressed whether the compelled use of a biometric to unlock an electronic device is testimonial."
A three-judge panel at the 9th Circuit ruled unanimously against Payne, affirming a US District Court's denial of Payne's motion to suppress evidence. Payne was a California parolee who was arrested by California Highway Patrol (CHP) after a 2021 traffic stop and charged with possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, fluorofentanyl, and cocaine.
[...] US District Courts applying Doe and Hubbell have reached different conclusions on biometric unlocking. The 9th Circuit decided that the compelled use of Payne's thumb "required no cognitive exertion" because it "merely provided CHP with access to a source of potential information, much like the consent directive in Doe. The considerations regarding existence, control, and authentication that were present in Hubbell are absent or, at a minimum, significantly less compelling in this case. Accordingly, under the current binding Supreme Court framework, the use of Payne's thumb to unlock his phone was not a testimonial act and the Fifth Amendment does not apply."
[...] Yesterday's ruling from the 9th Circuit also rejected Payne's argument that California Highway Patrol violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment dispute involved a special search condition in Payne's parole "requiring him to surrender any electronic device and provide a pass key or code, but not requiring him to provide a biometric identifier to unlock the device," the ruling said.
Despite that parole condition, "the search was authorized under a general search condition, mandated by California law, allowing the suspicionless search of any property under Payne's control," the ruling said.
"Moreover, we hold that any ambiguity created by the inclusion of the special condition, when factored into the totality of the circumstances, did not increase Payne's expectation of privacy in his cell phone to render the search unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment," the panel wrote.
Previously on SoylentNews:
It's Unconstitutional for Cops to Force Phone Unlocking, Court Rules - 20200625
Fingerprint Analysis Could Finally Get Scientific, Thanks to a New Tool - 20180519
Search Warrant for Your Fingerprint - 20160503
Police can Compel Fingerprint Unlocking of Phones - in Virginia - 20141104
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @07:22PM (6 children)
I'd like to see them conclusively prove that no two people share the same fingerprints in the first instance, all this does by the looks of it (paywalled paper) is to put a statistical gloss on potentially flawed [telegraph.co.uk] 'science' in the hopes of bullshitting juries with evidence tagged with 'scientifically proven'.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @09:10PM (3 children)
That's forensic "science" in a nutshell. It's all a load of horse shit, always has been a load of horse shit, and always will be a load of horse shit. Anyone who says otherwise is a retard or a prosecutor.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday May 20 2018, @09:26PM (2 children)
Be careful what you wish for.
Forensic science, such as it is, exonerates FAR more people than it convicts.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @10:07PM
It also provides the illusion of certainty. In theory, it's great, but in practice, many labs have trouble with cross contamination and so on. People need to be made aware of this limitation, or else innocent people could be convicted.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @12:52AM
Oh, look, more frojack derp.
First, you have those figures backwards, but I've grown to expect that from fact-phobic people such as yourself. If forensics points away from a person, that person usually isn't prosecuted, simple as that. (There are exceptions to this rule, but they are few and far between.) Except for incredibly rare cases, the only time forensics exonerates someone is AFTER they have been falsely convicted. In the real world (as opposed to post-factual frojack-land) forensics convicts FAR, FAR, FAR more people than it exonerates. By a ratio of around 5,000,000:1.
Second, I'm sure that's a comforting thought for the innocent people sitting in prison right now convicted of a crime they didn't commit based on a bunch of pseudo-scientific horse shit fed to a judge and/or jury by the courtroom equivalent of a sleazy used car salesman. I hope you never end up with a false conviction based on a bunch of bullshit. Nobody should have to go through that.
Remember, in the American "justice" system, the prosecutor only cares that someone goes to prison or is otherwise punished for any crime that is committed. They couldn't care less if the person they're prosecuting is the person that actually broke the law. So long as their conviction rate stays high they couldn't give two shits about the person sitting across the courtroom from them. If they didn't commit this crime there's something else they did and got away with, so it all balances out in the end.
Before you call me out on that last paragraph, read this: https://www.channel3000.com/news/crime/case-dismissed-for-man-who-spent-27-years-in-prison-for-violent-sexual-assault-conviction/743390876 [channel3000.com] and read the last line of that article twice:
Case dismissed, but he stays on the sex offender registry. Justice, indeed.
I rest my case, as it were.
(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.