4 ms·
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
by 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 agoA 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 agoand 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 agoWhen 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.