3 ms·

Fingerprints were exposed as bogus?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Spivak 3y ago
They don't stand up to the claims that prosecutors make about them and get treated as far far more reliable evidence than they actually are. There is some signal in there but analysis of only a few prints or partial prints should be treated as extremely suspect if that's all you got. The place where the limited data is at its strongest is when you know there were only say 3 people who could have made that print because you can reliably rule the others out if they physically couldn't have made the print you lifted. But if you're going fishing and all you have is some prints matched against a database the idea of a "match" meaning anything other than "is part of a cohort of unknown size that could have made that print" should be thrown out.
Etheryte 3y ago
Quoting from [0], but there are many other sources with similar stats: > One study of FBI fingerprint analysis found that false-positive errors in which a fingerprint was incorrectly matched with a suspect occurred in one out of every 306 cases. A study of a Florida police crime lab was even more troubling, finding that false-positive errors occurred in one out of 18 cases. [0] https://www.connecticutcriminallawyer.com/personal-injury-attorney-blog/how-reliable-is-fingerprint-evidence-in-criminal-cases https://www.connecticutcriminallawyer.com/personal-injury-at...
- kspacewalk2 3y ago
  That is certainly very far from bogus, unless you use bogus language like "it's a match". If instead you reasonably estimate the probability of error, updating your prior by a test with 1/18 error rate is very valuable.
  - zik 3y ago
    A one in eighteen chance of error isn't really good enough to convict someone on in the absence of other evidence. [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/myth-fingerprints-180971640/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/myth-fingerpri... [2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240110120225.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240110120225.h...
    - Tagbert 3y ago
      and that would be the point. Any single piece of evidence, particularly something with a noticable error rate, should not be enough to convict someone. It might be enough to investigate someone, but there should be corroborating evidence.
  - resoluteteeth 3y ago
    When people say "fingerprints are bogus" they aren't saying that fingerprints literally don't exist, they are saying that the claims law enforcement/forensics people have made about their usefulness in uniquely identifying people are bogus. If there is enough error to discredit those claims, it's reasonable to say that the claims are bogus even if fingerprints do still have some value in identifying people.
foxyv 3y ago
There is some controversy because they are definitely fallible. Much more fallible than was believed before 2005. https://www.bu.edu/sjmag/scimag2005/opinion/fingerprints.htm https://www.bu.edu/sjmag/scimag2005/opinion/fingerprints.htm

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

They don't stand up to the claims that prosecutors make about them and get treated as far far more reliable evidence than they actually are. There is some signal in there but analysis of only a few prints or partial prints should be treated as extremely suspect if that's all you got. The place where the limited data is at its strongest is when you know there were only say 3 people who could have made that print because you can reliably rule the others out if they physically couldn't have made the print you lifted. But if you're going fishing and all you have is some prints matched against a database the idea of a "match" meaning anything other than "is part of a cohort of unknown size that could have made that print" should be thrown out.

Etheryte 3y ago

Quoting from [0], but there are many other sources with similar stats: > One study of FBI fingerprint analysis found that false-positive errors in which a fingerprint was incorrectly matched with a suspect occurred in one out of every 306 cases. A study of a Florida police crime lab was even more troubling, finding that false-positive errors occurred in one out of 18 cases. [0] https://www.connecticutcriminallawyer.com/personal-injury-attorney-blog/how-reliable-is-fingerprint-evidence-in-criminal-cases https://www.connecticutcriminallawyer.com/personal-injury-at...

kspacewalk2 3y ago
That is certainly very far from bogus, unless you use bogus language like "it's a match". If instead you reasonably estimate the probability of error, updating your prior by a test with 1/18 error rate is very valuable.
- zik 3y ago
  A one in eighteen chance of error isn't really good enough to convict someone on in the absence of other evidence. [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/myth-fingerprints-180971640/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/myth-fingerpri... [2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240110120225.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240110120225.h...
  - Tagbert 3y ago
    and that would be the point. Any single piece of evidence, particularly something with a noticable error rate, should not be enough to convict someone. It might be enough to investigate someone, but there should be corroborating evidence.
- resoluteteeth 3y ago
  When people say "fingerprints are bogus" they aren't saying that fingerprints literally don't exist, they are saying that the claims law enforcement/forensics people have made about their usefulness in uniquely identifying people are bogus. If there is enough error to discredit those claims, it's reasonable to say that the claims are bogus even if fingerprints do still have some value in identifying people.

foxyv 3y ago

There is some controversy because they are definitely fallible. Much more fallible than was believed before 2005. https://www.bu.edu/sjmag/scimag2005/opinion/fingerprints.htm https://www.bu.edu/sjmag/scimag2005/opinion/fingerprints.htm