Sir Francis Galton, the British man of science and mathematician who introduced the first fingerprint identification methodology in 1892, may have never imagined that, more than a century in the future, police investigators would utilize his watershed invention to help them – along with sophisticated imaging and computer technology – apprehend criminals. Galton, who had expertise in a wide range of topics, was fascinated by the uniqueness of fingerprints, and calculated the odds of two people having the same fingerprint to be at least 1 in 64 million, based on his findings and calculations using a relatively small sampling. Galton analyzed the possibilities for the minutiae, that is, the simple patterns of a fingerprint’s tiny ridge lines where they split, end, merge, etc. These minutiae are also called ridge characteristics, points of similarity, and now – suitably enough – “Galton details.”
Finding, identifying, and plotting the positions of the fingerprint minutiae enabled Galton and other early fingerprint experts to accurately orient and compare two similar fingerprints to determine if they, indeed, matched. Plotting and refining the analysis of the minutiae over decades would become necessary to the success of computerized automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS) that would come forth by the late 20th century.
Technological innovations in computing have made it feasible to transition fingerprint identification from its post-arrest role in the courtrooms to the police department precincts as an effective crime-solving tool. Policemen today can identify a suspect to target for investigation if he were fingerprinted in the course of the arrest processing or fingerprinted for certain types of security clearances for jobs, etc., known as civilian fingerprinting.
In the United States, the FBI maintains the biggest biometric database in the world with fingerprint files and criminal history files that can be accessed and searched all day, any day, by law enforcement agencies. According to the FBI, by 2010 there were records of more than 55 million subjects on file. Electronic scanning innovations have shortened the time it takes for a subject’s rolled and flat print images to be uploaded into the database, from several weeks to two hours for criminal records and 24 hours for civilian records.
Fans of TV crime series know what it means to be “in the system,” because the consequence of a match to a latent print found at a crime scene is the unavoidable interrogation of the suspected individual. Ironically, the enchantment with forensic science in books, movies, and television has produced a queer development in the real-world justice system, termed by some as “the CSI effect.” Jury members who are fans of fictional crime-solving may attribute more credibility and trustworthiness to the experts who appear in a real criminal trial than may be justified.
The general public watching these types of television dramas may see a fingerprint image on a computer screen in a show and may think that the computer does the analysis and that the resulting ID would be all that would need to be admitted as evidence. That might be appropriate if suspects left full, perfect prints at the scene, because the software operates with a high grade of accuracy. The truth, however, is this: latent prints are created by oils and residues on the fingertips or contact surfaces, they may only be a partial image, and they may be of poor quality due to smudging. In fact, fingerprint identification relies on an examiner to make an eyeball comparison and affirm or dispute any preliminary match identified by the database search software.
Despite the advanced technology that has helped invent and advance biometric ID systems, fingerprint identification has developed some blemish on its reputation. In 2004, shortly after a number of passenger train bombings in Spain, the FBI held Brandon Mayfield, a Portland, Oregon, lawyer, for two weeks after incorrect fingerprint recognition linked him to these overseas acts of terrorism. It intensified the spotlight on the factor of human fallibility in this field of forensic science. Academicians are frustrated to discover that practicing fingerprint examiners may not conduct their analyses dispassionately, and seem to be influenced by the context in which the prints are evaluated to a certain extent.
In one experiment, the subjects had, in the past, analyzed some latent fingerprints, and were then presented with the same prints again. The second time, however, the prints were accompanied by photos of graphic violence. Surprisingly, two-thirds of the examiners drew a conclusion about the match that was different from their first findings. The researcher, a British neuroscientist named Itiel Dror, concluded that people are susceptible to cognitive and psychological effects that clearly influenced the outcome.
Despite some evidence of human error in analyzing latent prints of irregular quality, the good news is that the automated fingerprint recognition technology that uses direct scanning for security ID functions is enjoying great success. Mainstream applications of it are used to secure the contents of valuable portable consumer electronics products such as laptops and wireless phones. If these devices are ripped off, the perpetrators will not be able to access their hard drives.
The pattern-matching programs that examine the minutiae of fingertip ridges for criminal investigations have paved the way for automated biometric ID software and systems that are even more sophisticated and more capable of protecting us and our valuables, such as hand geometry, iris scanning, and facial recognition.
This story was provided by InventHelp. For updates on the latest inventions and technologies, go to news.inventhelp.com.