6 ms·
I stopped going when they introduced fingerprinting. This is not just a point of principle. While it is not known whether fingerprints are unique (as is often c
by tengwar2 2y ago
I stopped going when they introduced fingerprinting. This is not just a point of principle. While it is not known whether fingerprints are unique (as is often claimed), it is known that the information that is stored about fingerprints and which is used as the basis for matching records is not unique. The equivalent of hash collisions exist. Fingerprints are great as corroborative evidence, but if they are used as the means to find a suspect, you don't want your fingerprints in the system when Cletus Thugfester (the actual perpetrator) has matching prints that are not in the system. Far too likely that you'd get hauled across the Atlantic on this basis, then have to deal with the "justice" system over there.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y agoFingerprints are known to not be unique. Matches have been found between two people.
- fhdkweig 2y agoHere is one example https://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/06/mayfield.report/ https://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/06/mayfield.report/ regarding the Madrid train bombing.
- tengwar2 2y agoNo, that's the distinction I am drawing. That match was on the basis of the information recorded for computer comparison. Basically it records certain features such as the ends of lines. It does not record the whole fingerprint. It is know that these records are not unique. We don't know the same for the full fingerprint.