Talk:Fingerprint/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Needs peer reviewed studies

This article needs an expanded controversy section and expanded coverage of peer reviewed research on the error rate of fingerprint identification. There are many popular misconceptions on the accuracy of fingerprint identification which are wide spread in law enforcement and the public at large. I do not feel they are addressed enough by this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.182.249 (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC) --98.19.149.161 (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)seItalic textx

Children's fingerprints disappear after a few hours

I'd like to include this information, or someone else could include it if they feel like it. It's out of a chemistry textbook. The basic facts are that the fingerprints of children tend to disappear in only a few hours while those of adult's last longer due to the differences in skin secretions. Whoever is mainly in charge of this article please take a look.

link: http://books.google.com/books?id=v6cGPMRmPYYC&pg=PA589&lpg=PA589&source=web&ots=9MEYFlBKg0&sig=1_SQrnF-8FYU0SJ3kxdO-9itrHQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Snookumz (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Since no one has commented since I asked this question, I went ahead and added it. Snookumz (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

Hi everybody! Now let's talk about fingerprints! Fingerprint identification is the subject of some controversy in some courts (United Kingdom and US), I understand. And the UK and US (and other jurisdictions) vary in the standards for 'positive match'. The US (as I understand it) has no standard while Scotland Yard requires 12 matching points of identity or some such. It would be nice if both issues were addressed by someone who actually knows something about the subject. ww 14:52, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

It would be Greatly incaccurate to state that the US Has no standerds, First an examiner must be well qualified in order to come to a conclusion, then there are many steps that a examiner must take in order to make an identifaction, Ultimaltly it is up to the Judge to decide if a examiner has meet all the requirments to become a subject matter expert. While the UK and other countries might use a point system, that many times can be limiting the comparison since the examiner looks at more detail than just the tradition Galton points. On the other hand if i were on the Jury I would like to know how many galton points an examiner used in their comparison, If the number was real low, I would like to know what other detail he used to come to his/her conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.149.63.203 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 13 October 2006

I have explained my rationale for a major revision under that title at the end of this discussion page. I am attempting to incorporated those from the profession and their academic critics. Please, check out this discussion before making any deletions. I have included in the appropriate section an article by a respected member of the forensic fingerprinting profession who answers his most severe critics. I suggest using his article as a model of fairness for this wikipedia article.Arodb 23:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that there is an image in the article that shows a bunch of mountains and a moon overhead. The image is captioned as a detailed fingerprint image of sorts. Can someone please investigate? And why is there a moon overhead? 68.167.70.151 (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently that actually is a fingerprint, rendered in some insane magnification or something. It does seem unlikely, though. I'll look into the possibility that the image is a hoax. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 06:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone looked into whether the mountain/moon image is a hoax? 67.102.1.128 (talk)

There are many popular misconceptions about claims of the accuracy of fingerprint identification, misconceptions which are wide spread in law enforcement and the public at large. For example, many recent fingerprint critics claim that fingerprint experts have professed for a century that experts among their ranks do not make erroneous identifications. This is a misconception. The world's oldest and largest forensic organization is the International Association for Identification (IAI at www.theiai.org). For more than 30 years, US and international fingerprint experts in the IAI have pushed for certification and periodic proficiency testing specifically to (1) identify those with proficiency to work to a minimum competency standard (established by IAI proctored testing and other requirements) in the discipline, and (2) establish official protocols for decertifying those experts bringing the profession into disrepute, especially those making erroneous identifications. In any field of human endeavor there will always be oversights, be it mathematics (maybe the closest thing to a pure science), law, html editing, or any other field were humans are involved. There is zero error rate in adding 2 plus 2 in accordance with established mathematical protocols, but that does not mean that all CPAs will always get that math equation correct when attempting to apply correct protocols. The practitioner error rate has never been zero for fingerprint experts making fingerprint identifications, and the misconception (even among some law enforcement professionals) is that somehow fingerprint experts have always been claiming that no professionals among their ranks make errors. That is not the case. All one needs do is review the Latent Print Certification Program of the IAI to see that from day one (at adoption in 1977), they have recognized that fingerprint practitioner errors can and do occur, specifically erroneous identifications. Fortunately for society, the practitioner error rate for erroneous identifications among certified fingerprint experts is so low that it causes international headlines when it occurs. In 84 years of operations, the FBI Laboratory made one erroneous identification that resulted in someone being erroneous incarcerated for several weeks, and you would have thought the sky was falling. The over 70,000 fingerprint identifications of persons effected daily in America by DHS, the FBI and agencies in all 50 states seems to be discounted as unreliable witchcraft, ...after all, even the FBI made an error that caused someone to erroneously jailed once. I do not hear folks chanting that firearms should be taken away from law enforcement officers because some innocent victims are accidentally killed in police shootings yearly. The value of fingerprint identification to society outweighs the very low erroneous identification rate among certified experts. The NAS report from last year hit the nail on the head... mandatory certification of experts, mandatory routine proficiency testing, and mandatory accreditation of forensic laboratories is badly needed. Currently, any agency wanting to claim that they have fingerprint experts is free to do so, without adhering to any national or international standards. CLPEandFFS (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The first large scale randomized trial studying the reliability and accuracy of fingerprint identification as practiced by experts was published in 2011. The study used thousands of fingerprints and 146 practicing experts. False positives (i.e. the examiner erroneously concluded there was a match) were found at a rate of 0.1% (6 out of about 6000), while false negatives were found at a rate of 7.5%. There was very poor agreement between experts, e.g. when the latent and exemplary print actually matched, very frequently some examiners found a match, while others found they did not match, and others found that the latent print was not of sufficient quality to decide. Examiners making false positive errors included IAI certified experts.

This study should certainly be included in the controversy section, but as a nonconfirmed user I cannot do so.

The reference is :

 Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions
   1. Bradford T. Ulerya,
   2. R. Austin Hicklina,
   3. JoAnn Buscagliab,1, and
   4. Maria Antonia Roberts

PNAS May 10, 2011 vol. 108 no. 19 7733-7738

Davidh1901 (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Herbal fingerprinting?

What does it mean when a nutritional supplement claims to be "fingerprinted"? Does an article already exist that covers this? --LostLeviathan 19:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fingerprints of Twin

Twins have similar Fingerprint? Story on yahoo about transplant suggests otherwise please see [1] whether it is true or false we should mention it in the article.

Zain 22:03, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)Miami Fingerprinting

Well, how similar is similar? Even apes, chimpanzees, and orangutans have fingerprints, and primates in general have twins, so are there any studies that we can cite to make the main article more informative? 216.99.201.131 (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Real Use?

Please note that finger prints exist for other reasons than identification, LOL. There should be some mention of why organisms evolved finger prints, namely gripping things. Also, if you cut your print completely off will it regrow the same? If so that suggests it's encoded in DNA, if not then it's random. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.53.202 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 December 2004

Medical aspect

'fingerprint' also means the pattern on the finger itself: ... be differenciated from Helomas "Corns" by close observation of skin striations. Feet, like hands, are covered in skin stria which are more commonly called fingerprints. (from Plantar wart).

This article should either make mention of these on fingers and feet, or link to another artiucle that dicusses the anatomical aspect, eg skin stria. -- Tarquin 11:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unique fingerprints?

There has been some recent, serious, and important criticisms of forensic applications of finger prints (article in The New Yorker, etc.). This criticism should be covered in the article with NPOV. The following summary briefly addresses one concern about reliability of matching fingerprints. "Based on the current world population of 6.5 billion individuals pitted against the limited number of permutations of fingerprint patterns possible, given: a) the area of a fingerprint and scale of the grid employed (vis-a-vis the diameter of ridges), and b) the number of reference points utilized in the matching of prints, fingerprint identification cannot be entirely reliable. It's almost certain that two or more persons among the world's population have virtually identical prints. (And this doesn't include the "silent majority" who also left prints.) Given the global sharing and merging of record banks among law enforcement agencies, we should expect more incidents of "false positive" matches." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.23.26 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 9 June 2005

Quick note

Stratton Brothers case first people to be convicted of murder using fingerprint evidence in the United Kingdom. (DYK Nov. 11) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Friction Ridge Skin

Fingerprints have 3 levels of detail. Level 1 detail refers to the pattern itself (loop, arch, whorl). This is determined by the height of the volar pads (fetal swelling of mesenchymal tissue on the hands). The volar pad height is a genetic component and therefore is inherited. Level 2 detail refers to the minutia on/between the primary ridges which include dots, bifurcations, ridge endings, lakes, short ridges and crossovers. Level 2 detail is influenced by the stresses on the volar topography which is obviously different for every individual and is the reason that even identical twins do not have the same detail contained in their fingerprints. Level 3 detail refers to the structure of the pores contained on the ridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.129.66.248 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 29 November 2005

(Friction Ridge Skin) This information should be added to this article or have its own stub. Linked in Minutiae —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.109.121 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 9 June 2006

fingerprint errors

The William West case is listed as a one of the "noteworthy examples of fingerprint errors", but that's not true. See http://www.scafo.org/library/110105.html . pablop (comment added 02:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

It's noteworthy because it's probably an urban legend, which the section states clearly. The external links section already contains the link you described. Could the section be rephrased? Graham talk 09:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Fingerprint removal

What about methods used to alter or blank fingerprints, such as acid burns and laser dermal resurfacing? 71.162.141.213 22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many methods available to edit or remove friction ridges from any skin surface containing them. However, this editing of the friction ridges becomes unique and readily identifiable as much or more then if you did not edit your prints. An interesting find is the man who folded his arms across his chest, and surgically sewed his hands into his sides in an attempt to delete his fingerprints. I do not remember if he was successful and I will attempt to find out who he was, but regardless, if he was able to he just made himself a specific type of fingerprint, because he still deposits sweat and other foreign material.Bsspewer 18:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose one could theoretically edit his prints to make sure they don't match up with something in a past database. I had a wound on my index finger, and when it healed, the ridges in that spot aren't the same anymore; now that spot looks like a bowl of ramen noodles!M-hwang 02:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry editing your finger in that way wont help, Current modern day systems can match one tenth of a fingerprint in seconds.

Well, sort of. I'm assuming you are referring to IAFIS, a fingerprints database. What this system actually does is suggest possible matches, which then must be examined visually to confirm a match. This system has been enormously beneficial, but one-tenth of a fingerprint in seconds is overstating it just a bit. I may be adding more information about this to the article when I get the time. 24.131.12.228 08:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You can cause some kind of bodily harm to your finger that results in your fingerprint no longer being readily apparent. This doesn't mean it will alter nor destroy your fingerprint. For instance, you can get a bad cut in the middle of your finger that destroy's the core of the fingerprint and leaves a bad scar. That doesn't mean we can only identify you by that core (which you just destroyed). The delta is left untouched as well as the surrounding ridges. Any area of detail within the finger can be used to identify you. As stated, the scar also becomes a point of identification due to it's shape, size, and location. A good example is when you wreck a car. You can actually identify even better who's car it is because it now has a bad dent in it that is only on that car, not anyone elses. As for the database, it takes a few hours (4 or more) to return a search of a fingerprint, and it will only give you other prints that have similar characteristics, not a match on every part of the print. You have to sort through and compare the results till you find the one that is the match. Bsspewer 20:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC) i think they have done well i n this respect and is pretty good iformation

Reflecting the controversy of accuracy of the process

I made a major edit several months ago based on an article in the New York Times that showed the low level of professionalism and the excess false positive identifications caused by over certainty of identity of latent prints. Now this is gone, along with my reference to the New York Times article. There is a reference to something from the Times but it only goes to the article about the newpaper, not the challenging article.

This entire Wikipedia article is now a P.R.piece by the Fingerprint Professional Association, or others interested in ignoring the defects of the profession

There is mention of the certification process, but no link to the association where qualifications can be ascertained. The implication, by aluding to forensic "science" is that these individuals are trained to the standards of scientists, that includes some minimun understanding of quantitive analysis, which is not the case.

Fingerprint experts affect the lives of those accused of crimes. A distorted article like this means innocent people are imprisioned or worse. Jurors who read this article must be accurately informed.

I will attempt to reverse any return to this subtle NPOV breach. I have not done as careful a job as I should have in reconstructing an accurate balanced comprehensive article about fingerprinting, but I felt the need to make a first approximation towards accuracy, which must include the systemic defects of the profession.

I would ask those who have created this P.R. document, not to revert, rather research the article in the Times and restore it at the very least. And then rebuild an accurate article. J.Edgar Hoover is gone, and so is the phony image of infailability of his handiwork.Arodb 05:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A major rewrite based on news article(s)??? You must be kidding. You seem to be discounting the months of courtroom testimony cumulatively reviewed by courts throughout the US in the past seven years. There have been over 40 Daubert hearings since 1999, including testimony by many of the "expert" critics of the fingerprint discipline cited by the NY Times and other articles bashing fingerprint identification as baseless.

It is ridiculous to assert that all the judges were somehow perpetuating the desires of J.E. Hoover when they listened to all the evidence and ruled in favor of fingerprint identification as a valid science and approved expert testimony to identifications of defendants.

Over 20 years before the NY Times and recent critics of fingerprint identification pointed fingers and said, "fingerprints are not infallible," the fingerprint discipline established a professional certification program and began decertifying experts making erroneous identifications. Skewed reporting ignored that fact.

Critical examination of important forensic disciplines should continuously occur. It has in fingerprint identification for decades... but that's not newsworthy. Allegations of some giant conspiracy by worldwide fingerprint experts to hide the existence human fingerprint experts making erroneous identifications or the existence of duplicate fingerprints on different persons sells well, and the many US judges in varying jurisdictions must be part of the conspiracy too... and somehow all the retired police fingerprint experts are keeping mum about it. ^{The above was posted by CLPEandFFS on August 8, 2006 19:40.}

I don't know that it needs a major rewrite, but it sure as heck lacks citations ClairSamoht 01:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted to a more skeptical perspective on the certainty of forensic fingerprint I.D.

I included a quote, describing it a controversy, that lists some specifics. I do not want to have a revert battle on this subject. While undue skepticism by a juror can prevent punishing the guilty, undue gullibility can convict the innocent. This article will have an effect on jurors who use this resource seeking to understand this methodology.

My goal is accurately describing the state of the art and science of forensic fingerprinting. Read my quotation, and then indicate how the profession has resolved the points raised, or else acknowledge that it is a weakness. I do not consider the NY Times as "bashing" the profession. They cite statements by judges and research such as I quoted. Other media have also questioned the certainty that is expressed by forensic experts.

What is wrong with the profession indicating a statistical probability of a match. It would inherently be only approximate but it could allow the juror to weigh this information. This should be on your test for certification, along with some reqired statistical knowledge. A juror should know if there were 4 points of identity with a 80% probability, or 12 points with a 99.99% probability of identity. Right now I understand that the custom is to say it is either a certain identification, or it is not an identification.

If we can't reach a single meeting of the minds, let's at least indicate the nature of the controversy in the beginning of the section. Arodb 03:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Reflecting more accurate statements

The new changes show authoring by a person unfamiliar with fingerprints, especially forensic aspects of friction ridge impressions... such as the opening statement "A human fingerprint is an impression pattern left on any hard smooth surface by the ridged dermis (skin) (called friction ridges) of the fingertip" ..thus, a fingerprint cannot be deposited on a soft beach ball held in their hands because that is not a hard surface, and a fingerprint cannot be imopressed into soft and rough textured roofing tar because that is neither hard nor smooth. Reverting to an earlier version without such inaccuracies. [CLPEandFFS] 17 August 2006

Once again the PR representitives of the Fingerprinting experts refuse to acknowledge that there is a continuing controversy over this type of evidence. It is not that they refute the specifics, such as there being no standard in this country for the number of matching points, or that science and statistics are not required for certification, they simply want to have an article that implies that there is no controversy at all

I have never said that latent prints should not be used for forensic evidence. The question is what degree of scrutiny to bring to bear to this evidence. When a controversy exists over a given subject, it should be divulged, and that is what I am attempting to do. This article is not owned by the profession of forensic fingerprint experts. I will attempt to use the resources, arbitration, or whatever is available to create a balanced article. I suggest that those who are refusing to acknowledge a controversy are not following the spirit of WikipediaArodb 03:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are legitimate claims that fingerprinting is no absolute indication of a person being at a certain scene, although it does increase the probability that the person was there (in some cases when combined with other evidence, sometimes beyond a reasonable doubt). As such, I've marked the article NPOV. It should also be noted that little non-biased research of the reliability has ever been done. No fingerprint "expert" would ever risk discrediting is profession.M-hwang 02:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary "fact" templates

On August 9, 2006, ClairSamoht inserted loads of citation needed tags into this article. To my mind, this unnecessary tagging is nothing short of vandalism. I am therefore removing them all. The tagger will need to argue here – on this talk page – whether any of the tags can actually be justified.Phase4 22:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines, or by editors' consensus." -- Wikipedia:Verifiability.

ALL THAT IS NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY THAT TAG IS A LACK OF ANYTHING SHOWING THE INFORMATION COMES FROM A CREDIBLE SOURCE. That tag doesn't mean the statement is wrong. It means it is unsupported. If the statement is wrong, then the statement should be removed, "citation needed" tag and all. If the statement is correct, it should be replaced with a reference to a credible source. But simply removing the "citatio needed" tag on an unsupported tag IS vandalism. ClairSamoht 01:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, calm down dear! You will have to justify here why you wish to insert/reinsert these unnecessary tags.Phase4 21:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The justification for the "citation needed" tags is that CITATIONS ARE LACKING. Why are you trying to sabotage Wikipedia? ClairSamoht 02:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not even one justification has so far been made! All you have done is effectively to vandalise the article. Please explain here why each successive tag needs to be added.Phase4 22:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Official Wikipedia policy:

• 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
• 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
• 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

There are VERY few statements in this article that cite a reputable source. Either the citations get added, or the statements go. Seems to me that the former is MUCH superior to the latter.

Why are you SO opposed to WikiPedia policy? ClairSamoht 01:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is that the page is hard to read what with all the 's everywhere. Maybe just put one at the end of key sentences that don't have any citation? To have them in the middle of sentences, and plain EVERYWHERE is rather distracting. And, stating the Wikipedia policy is not justification. I can say the sky is blue, and that doesn't have any citation. But, we all know it is fact. Should I still put "The sky is blue." ? --Guitar freak 10 00:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you need. "The sky is blue" is not a fact, it is a classification of a certain wave-length interval, based on your cultural backgtound and a social consensus which is limited in space and in time. There are languages which do not even have a word for "blue", or which mix "blue" and "green" in the same word. So, ain't relativism great? You still do need to provide adequate citations and contextualization. <Loki> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.193.90.201 (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

May I remind you that the English language defines "blue" to be a range of electromagnetic wavelengths, and pointing a probe at the sky on a clear day (an eye counts as a probe) will show that the colour of the sky does indeed fall into the category of blue. I'm not sure what the whole thing about 'cultural backgtound (sic)... limited in space and time' has to do with anything other than confusing the sentence to make it looks like you know what you are talking about.

About the citation needed things, I would suggest that they are best suited to places where the article states something without a citation that you feel is incorrect. The problem of too many citations happens when one asks for references that no one would question the validity of. Those things are usually extremely easily verified (and thus classified as common knowledge, and do not need citations) or are true by definition. Wertyu739 (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Fingerprint Locks Citation Comment

Mythbusters tried to break through fingerprints. While one of the fingerprint readers required them to make the effort of making a gel fingerprint, they beat the one that tested stuff like pulse, galvanic skin response, etc with a regular paper copy of a fingerprint, held on their hand. This still had pulse (it was held on their skin). They simulated sweat by licking the piece of paper. I think that episode is a decent citation for beating fingerprint readers with tricks like gel prints and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.107.54 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 24 August 2006

Super!

Wow this page is a real joy to read!!! --Deglr6328 07:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Extracting DNA from fingerprints

It may only be anecdotal, but I heard that researchers successfully extracted the DNA from the fingerprints of the Ancient Egyptian laborers responsible for building the pyramids. The fingerprints were found deep inside the pyramids, in places where no one has traveled for thousands of years.

Since fingerprints contain oils and fats (such as sebum), has there been much progress on mitochondrial DNA extractions from fingerprints? Don't oils and fats degrade with time, even in locations as arid as the Egyptian pyramids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.27.18 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 11 September 2006

Yes, fats and oils degrade with time. However, there's no DNA in fats and oils; DNA is protein.

If you've ever watched The Woodwright's Shop, you'll know that Roy Underhill never manages to build anything without cutting himself. Stone is a lot heavier than wood, and it's a lot sharper, so surely there were some bloody fingerprints deposited. There's DNA in blood - but it'd have to be sealed, somehow, to avoid oxidation.

Maybe it's possible. Most fingerprints, though, wouldn't have any usable DNA. Can you find anything about this with Google? I can't. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 09:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

DNA is not protein. It is a separate category, called nucleic acids. Also, blood is one of the very best sources for DNA. 24.131.12.228 08:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Straight from the horses mouth, a forensics guy at a nearby police academy where I used to work; sebum contains DNA depending on the amount left behind and time between deposit and extraction DNA can be harvested from a print. Jachin 09:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, from what I gleaned from the article on it, sebum is sweat. How did DNA get there?

And Mr. 24.131.12.228, cheek cells are the best source of DNA. Blood is used when one cannot get a hold of cheek cells.Wertyu739 (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Relative viscosity of oils in fingerprints

Has there been any research on the relative viscosity of oils in fingerprints, from individual to individual?

Can the age of a fingerprint be approximated by determining the degree to which the oils have oxidized? Would it be reasonable to say that a fingerprint from a year ago is likely to be somewhat more oxidized than a fingerprint from yesterday? Can the aging or oxidizing process sometimes depend on the ambient temperature (and temperature extremes) surrounding the print? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.27.27 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 12 September 2006

You'd have a hard time collecting enough fingerprints to get a sample of oil adequate for viscometry, so I doubt there would be any research. I suspect that fingerprints from the same individual would vary from hour to hour, depending on how long it's been since they last washed their hands, what they've been doing with their hands, whether you have recently applied Cornhusker's, etc. While oxidation is pretty much a one-way street - oils turn unrancid about as frequently as streams flow uphill, and for the same thermodynamic reason - the rate at which it oxidizes is dependent on a lot of conditions. All else the same, a fingerprint on a car outdoors is likely to oxidize faster than one in a dark garage, even if the temperature is the same, because the UV light speeds the reaction, and you will have more air movement outdoors. The problem is the "all else the same": it rarely is.

If you look at the imprint from a rubber stamp, you'll notice that it tends to be blurry, unlike the imprint you get from lead or steel type in a printing press. That's because the rubber deforms - and the rubber stamp is fairly rigid and it has a flat surface, both factors which don't apply to your fingertips.

Virtually all identification criteria are much more useful in ruling out than ruling in. If a cleanshaven man robs the bank this morning, and I have a full beard this afternoon, it's pretty obvious I didn't do it. If there's a arch fingerprint on the gun and all ten of my fingers are whorls, it's pretty obvious that it's not my fingerprint. Even DNA is a lot better at ruling out than ruling in; your DNA will have many markers in common with your parents and your siblings.

You've pointed out a limitation of fingerprints that's not likely to be resolved soon, if ever. Today, technology is stressing not just identification systems, but all security systems. In 1950, a birth certificate was considered excellent proof of age - but these days, someone may ask, "How do I know this is YOURS?" And if you've not been feeling yourself lately, you might want to ask yourself, "How do I know I'm really me? Maybe I was mixed up in the hospital nursery with someone else. Or I died at birth, and I'm really my twin brother, instead, just like Elvis." ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 15:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So, how much oil do you really need to make a negative identification? As opposed to a positive identification? I naturally assume that the oils are not analysed chemically (that is, by chemical reaction), but rather according to broadband spectral analysis. The fingerprint oils, being exposed to particular frequencies of light, ought to be more or less opaque than they would be to other frequencies of light. Digital recordings could be made of the responses. (The equipment you would use, ought to be low intensity lasers - like what you find in a DVD player, but with lower wattage.) Simply speaking, different oils ought to have different colors, and the older a fingerprint is, the more its constituent oils have changed. Naturally, dirt screws up the readings.

You're not going to make a negative identification based on oil analysis. They can produce low-cholesterol butter by feeding vegetable oil to cows, so I have to assume that the oils you exude are going to vary depending on your recent diet. Your fingers are just as likely to pick up oil from that orange you just peeled as from running your hands through your hair - and if you switch from Brylcreem to Wildroot, it's going to vary even more. Not useful for identification at all.

Oils aren't simple chemicals. Each molecule consists of three fatty acids attached to a glycerine. The order in which they are attached will matter - and so any oil will be a blend of many different trigylceride molecules. Identification needs to be both distinctive and consistent. You've got distinctive, but not consistency. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 18:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to distinguish between a print that is made on one day, from another print made a year ago? If one fingerprint is placed directly on top of another fingerprint, there ought to be a difference in ages of the fingerprints. Oils do not congeal uniformly, even if placed in direct contact with each other. Is there any possible way of figuring in the time factor?

Barring uncommon circumstances, no. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 18:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What about decades, if not months? Can one distinguish between two fingerprints that overlap, with one fingerprint being laid down fresh, and the other being deposited ten or twenty years ago? I'd think that the oils of the older fingerprints would be more seriously degraded than the recent ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.15 (talk • contribs) .

It is considered a minor breach of etiquette to fail to sign your posts on talk pages, and a serious violation of civility to edit others' posts, even if it's just to wikify them. (See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable)

And I already answered this one: Barring uncommon circumstances, no. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 02:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

(Say, would you like me to un-wikify your post back to the way it was?) But staying on topic, what laboratory conditions are necessary to test out the hypothesis that all individuals have a set of fats and oils in their fingerprints, unique unto themselves, and yet significantly controllable by diet? It appears to be self-evident that deposits will always degrade with time, at least to such a degree that fresh prints - in a laboratory setting - can always be distinguished from a particular old print, given a significant lapse of time between the prints being left on a piece of paper? I'll guess that room temperature and light are important factors in degrading the oils. But since very few humans have identical body fat to body weight ratios, and their diets necessarily vary, fingerprints probably contain different oils and fats in them, and the colors of the prints (as determined by exposure to low intensity lasers and ranked by charge-coupled detectors (?)) will usually vary.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.27.33 (talk • contribs)

If you assume that the lipid profile of sebum varies considerably with diet, and the average person is responsible for only 100 different lipid profiles, that means there would need to be a *trillion* different lipid profiles, at a minimum, in order to avoid two people having the same lipid profile. In fact, lipid profiles just aren't that complex, and there aren't very many possible answers. What you want for identification is something that is UNIQUE (and lipids aren't) and UNCHANGING (and lipids aren't).

The reason DNA is the darling of identification system is that each set of amino acids represents two binary digits, and DNA is thousands of sets long. That means you have MANY more possible strands of DNA than you have people, and it's quite possible that with the exception of identical twins, there are no duplicates. With fingerprints, we already have more fingers on this planet than there are theoretically-possible fingerprints. But when you match lipids, it's sorta like using names as unique identifiers. Take a look at your local phone book, and count the number of people named John Jackson. Both John and Jackson are pretty common names; even in pretty small towns, you're likely to have more than one. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 06:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, many drugs are fat soluble. Like tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana. If optical detection of mere traces of that chemical (properly excited with micro-lasers and logged) were possible, it might be enough to distinguish between a marijuana addict, and someone who does not use that drug at all. (I suppose there are many other kinds of fat soluble chemicals.) You indicated that a set of 100 different lipids could be associated with any given individual. I'm not sure where you got that number from. I guess a 100 lipid profile sounds like a good a working number as any. But whether or not multiplying two different sets of lipids against each other, really results in trillions of differences is another thing altogether. Could you clarify how that kind of math works? Isn't it enough to show that the majority of the lipids associated with one person are different from the majority of the lipids associated with another? I would think that the lipid profiles of two individuals in a laboratory setting might - as you suggest - be fairly indistinguishable, especially if you could control their diets very strictly, and keep them off their fat soluble drugs, but they ought to assume different (and therefore extremely distinct) profiles if they are left to their own devise in an otherwise unmonitored environment.

But I guess the long and the short of it is, there simply hasn't been any research along those lines. Not even in laboratory conditions. At least not yet.

Where does this notion that DNA is a protein/amino acid keep coming from? DNA is not protein and it is not composed of amino acids. 24.131.12.228 09:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Beats me. Apparently someone wishes to distinguish between the two, and she has succeeded at that. Rather, let's stick to the issue of lipids, oils, and fats. Waxes are as much lipids as fats are. There ought to be a way of distinguishing between sets of fingerprints superimposed upon one another. To illustrate this by way of analogy, if you take two candles made of waxes of different colors, and drip one over another's drips, you'll be able to distinguish between the earlier drippings on the basis of their colors alone. This allows researchers, using nothing more than the colors of the oils, to distinguish between two or more different sets of fingerprints laid over one another. Different oils and fats have different colors depending on the contaminants inside them. Marijuana addicts, for instance, exude THC in their sweat, and even in their fingerprints. Using lasers to excite the oils in a fingerprint, you should be able to get a very unique picture (spectrographically speaking) than you would without. 198.177.27.24 22:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

All oils have viscosity, just as all oils have colors, and as the beam of light changes (and as DVD technology continues so rapidly, the point of light can be focused very accurately), a unique color profile is created in the way the colors reflect. This color profile relates so closely to viscosity, it ought to be useful for identifying their sources. An individual who dips his fingers in brake fluid is going to produce different colors in his fingerprints than an individual who dips his fingers in shortening (or some other vegetable oil). Billions of changes, based upon trillions of samples, can be recorded for subsequent analysis. Positive identification, not just negative identification, ought to be possible. If the color of a fat molecule is different depending on the kinds of color it produces, fats can be distinguished from one another. 216.99.219.140 (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Article refers to Fingerprint Comparison, not Fingerprint

This article is badly flawed in the fact that it has turned into a debate between groups feeling like fingerprint comparison is infallable and the other group who wish to argue there are errors occuring daily. This article is meant to give information regarding FINGERPRINTS and how they are developed during birth, the presence of minutuea, what are the constituents in a latent fingerprint, the differance between a latent and a patent, etc etc... It should not be a topic discussing fingerprint comparison and the success/failure rate of that field. If you want a topic on that, start a new Wikipedia page entitled Fingerprint Comparison or Fingerprint Identification and discuss those problems there. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for arguments and discussions on topics. Bsspewer 18:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Has there been any research on the development of the fingerprints of non-human primates? I'd think that there would be a lot of research into foetal fingerprint development among the other primates.

I'm sure there has been, however, this page is about human fingerprints and states so at the top of the page. So if you want a page on fingerprints or dermal ridges found on the digits and appendiges of other mammals, I'm sure there are other pages for that. There is research into dermal ridges found on the tail of a monkey. I can provide referance to the book if you so desire though. And thank you if you were the one who reverted the biasness out of the first introduction of this page.Bsspewer 21:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the title of the page is Fingerprint. Not Human Fingerprint. Mokupo 01:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

To quote the sentence at the top "This article is about human fingerprints. See also Fingerprint (disambiguation). " So it is still correct to state that this article refers to human fingerprints. Bsspewer 00:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone left this comment in the René Ramón Sánchez section

(How come the above story is of fingerprint error. The error is actually made by the officer who misplaced fingerprints of Rene Ramon Sanches on the fingerprint card with the name and other details of Leo Rosario)

figured I should move it off the article page --Noonaj (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Fingerprinting good as Dna for identification?

What is more reliable dna or fingerprinting or are they both the same? And if they are what method should be used before and why? I mean would it really matter? Are they not just the same no matter what method you use because you can not go wrong with either of them ?

09:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't really compare the two in this manner, it's like apples to oranges. Both are very reliable identification methods of matching a person to a crime, however, it's usually one or the other for each scene. DNA is usually used only for some kind of secretion (semen, blood, urine, saliva). DNA methods have become so sensitive that it's very easy to get the DNA of other people who have come into contact with whatever item you are processing long before the crime, or even after the crime. The nice part of fingerprints is that it proves you had physical contact with the object. You can deposit someone's DNA much easier then faking a fingerprint. You can use both methods if you are looking for contact DNA, and you can do them in either order (DNA then prints or prints then DNA) because the chemicals used for fingerprints don't hinder the DNA processing completely. However, if you swab an item for DNA first, you might smear, smudge, or destroy the print present. Bsspewer 20:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. These are 2 separate fields which serve two entirely different functions. I really think the controversy aspect of this topic is way overstated in this article. There is extremely little (if any) controversy, at least among criminalists and others with knowledge of forensic science, regarding the reliability of fingerprint evidence, and this article should reflect that. The widespread consensus is, and has been for about a hundred years, that fingerprints are reliable. Emily K. 20 Nove 2006

Check this out: http://www.fcw.com/article83447

As you may see, fingerprints aren't very accurate at all.

I have a difficult time understanding how proponents can claim that no two individuals have the same prints, when the tools are so crude.

Baden 24.81.30.221 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Check this out: Page not found Anyway, no I do not see how fingerprints aren't very accurate at all. Among forensic scientists no one takes this stuff seriously at all. We just get annoyed by laypeople trying to jump on the CSI bandwagon. I mean I know it's the sexy career of this decade (ha ha ha, sigh) but really, stick to your fields, folks.71.63.15.156 (talk) 04:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Jan Evangelista Purkyně: fingerprint indentification?

Fingerprint - "1823: Jan Evangelista Purkyně, a professor of anatomy at the University of Breslau, published his thesis discussing 9 fingerprint patterns, but he did not mention the use of fingerprints to identify persons."

Jan Evangelista Purkyně - "...recognised fingerprints as a method of indentification in 1823." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.0.160 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 21 November 2006

Can someone's fingerprints be destroyed through injury?

I don't know the answer, but maybe this warrants a mention or a section. Do severe burns, for instance, destroy fingerprints for life? What about ripping the skin off - do fingerprints reform identically? Are there any cases of people doing this to escape identification? --128.12.78.109 11:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the most common questions asked in the forums at www.clpex.com, and generally is answered, by forensic print examiners, No. Whatever changes you can make are temporary or otherwise not worth it. Try here: http://onin.com/fp/wwwbd/165.176.123.2 15:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, in the film Smokin Aces, in the past one of the hitmen bites his fingerprints off to prevent him being identified after he was captured. Later on, his badly damaged fingers allow an FBI agent to realise who he is. How correct is this scene? --80.43.120.226 19:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Check up toward the top of this talk page to "Fingerprint Removal" discussion topic. This question has been asked and answered. Bsspewer 20:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to WSQ needed

In the article the compression technique WSQ is mentioned. Please provide a link to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelet_Scalar_Quantization for further information. Sev0r 08:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

'Identical fingerprints' statement inaccuracy

I believe it would be more accurate to state: 'No two fingerprints have ever been reported identical...' for obvious reasons. Furthermore, I must point out that the statement that there have been 'billions of comparisons' is misleading to the layman. In order to establish uniqueness amoungst a set of N members, it requires roughly the (square of N)/2 tests. It would take more than a billion comparisons to determine uniqueness amoungst 100,000 people. Second Look 19:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but wikipedia is not about accuracy, its about entertainment.IceHunter 16:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So we can enter as many factually inaccurate statements as we like so long as they are entertaining? Aamackie 15:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No no - IceHunter was being sarcastic. Graham87 13:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Digitized fingerprints

Can someone (more knowledgeable than me) add a section on digital ("Live Scan") fingerprinting? Maybe contrasted with traditional fingerprinting? I think that would be helpful to the casual reader like myself. Thanks. Cmcnicoll 07:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

finger printing is a way that police find crinammals or other wise bad people.police use speacal dust to say there was a bit of paper that was used in crime so police would put there speacal dust there and they would be able to see the prints and if police like me have big books that have every crinamls finger prints in there so if they find your finger print and its in the book look out the police will be after you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.151.76 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 3 April 2007

Talk page organization

This talk page hasn't been maintained in accordance with Wikipedia policies. The result is enormous unnecesary difficulty in following the conversation.

A few simple rules:

• Every comment should be signed and date-stamped. You can do that automatically by typing four tildes ( ~~~~) at the end of your comment.
• A new thread goes at the bottom of the page, with a heading.
• A new comment in an existing thread goes at the bottom of the thread, unless you're interpolating a comment to answer a comment that's not at the bottom of the thread.
• Whether you're interpolating or not, use colons to indent your comment to indicate its place in the ongoing discussion.

Thank you! JamesMLane t c 05:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Major revision

I have done a major revision of this article. While not in the legal or criminal justice profession, I have an M.Phil degree from Columbia University in Social Psychology, with graduate level statistic, epidemiology and research courses.

I have added a section "Controversy over the validity of fingerprinting as an identification method" describing briefly that such a controversy exists. My goal is to preserve a discussion of this controversy, the existence of which is irrefutable. I tried to do this in Aug. 2006, and it was consistently removed and replaced by an unrealistically positive description of the current forensic practice. This is blatantly in violation of NPOV. Most of what I added is based on a peer revued article by a respected mathematician, who did a rigorous study of forensic fingerprint analysis.

I have placed "Criticism of forensic Fingerprinting" in a separate section, followed by "Defense of forensic fingerprinting," which is entire previous section that was titled "Reliability of......"

I urge those who want to defend the practice of forensic fingerprinting NOT to do what was done last year. I suggest answering any points I make in the defense section, which I will not edit at this time, even if their are inaccuracies. And I suggest they verify the studies that I referenced. But any reversion or elimination of the controversy section or the criticism section will be referred to the the appropriate Wikipedia administrators. If that fails, I will publicize to the best of my ability this refusal to allow a full description of the controversy to appear in this article.

I have included a link to an article by a prominent member of the forensic fingerprint profession who answers many of the most extreme critics.

The scientific validity of evidence that will be used to imprison or possibly execute suspects is not a subject to be handled frivolously. We need every tool available to convict those who are guilty of crimes, but these tools must be subjected to the most rigorous evaluation. I would hope that all of the editors of this subject will work towards this goal.Arodb 00:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's all forensics?

It'd be nice if the article had something other than topics about forensics. Like... how fingerprints are formed, prints on other areas like hands and feet, theories about why fingerprints exist at all, etc...

• Additional info on fingerprint history missing from this article here.
• Listing of fingerprint matching algorithms missing from this article here.

I'm looking specifically for some more developmental biology related to fingerprints, if I find more I'll add it here. But this article really seems to be missing some stuff... --67.186.4.82 00:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be good information to add to the article. It has been unprotected so you can add it if you want. If you need any help just ask - it is easier to communicate with you among many other benifits if you create an account though. Graham87 12:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree - This article would be much improved by adding the biological/evolutionary development/advantages of fingerprints. Without more strict biology in this article (as opposed to the strong forensic focus), this article doesn't seem like it should be the main article on fingerprints. Still a good read, though! :) Kerri Lynne (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Count me in!! Particularly since there are so many "redirects" to this article. If "friction ridge" redirects here, where there's barely a mention, we are never going to get an article with that heading. The medics have a long laundry list of projects and this is probably of minor importance, but it would be nice to have more info. I'd even vote to split it and leave this to the forensics and start new for the one actually on the fingers and toes. Lisa4edit 71.236.23.111 (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It would indeed be interesting if something about it were added. I came here from the convergent evolution article, which lists fingerprints as one example of convergent evolution. With quick googling I found a BBC article which says that fingerprints developed for better grip when climbing. Of course that article is not suitable for a citation, but its stating this as a fact suggests that it has been studied. My curiosity was satisfied though, so I'll leave it at that :-) -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Origin of use

I believe I recall reading that the origin of fingerprinting predates identification purposes and focuses on contractual obligations between colonialists and the colonised natives of ... is it Africa somewhere or India? Either way, I vaguely recall them making them sign the back of the contracts with a hand print in ink, giving them the mystical belief that they're figuratively and metaphysically bound to this contractual obligation by their own hand. Can ANYONE please find any reference to this? I've been digging around and I'm starting to go grey with old age, it's doing my head in because I remember it coming from a prima facie source but it's poof'd from my bookmarks.  :( Jachin 09:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The English first began using fingerprints in July of 1858, when Sir William Herschel, Chief Magistrate of the Hooghly district in Jungipoor, India, first used fingerprints on native contracts. On a whim, and with no thought toward personal identification, Herschel had Rajyadhar Konai, a local businessman, impress his hand print on the back of a contract.

The idea was merely ". . . to frighten [him] out of all thought of repudiating his signature." The native was suitably impressed, and Herschel made a habit of requiring palm prints--and later, simply the prints of the right Index and Middle fingers--on every contract made with the locals. Personal contact with the document, they believed, made the contract more binding than if they simply signed it. Thus, the first wide-scale, modern-day use of fingerprints was predicated, not upon scientific evidence, but upon superstitious beliefs.

As his fingerprint collection grew, however, Herschel began to note that the inked impressions could, indeed, prove or disprove identity. While his experience with fingerprinting was admittedly limited, Sir Herschel's private conviction that all fingerprints were unique to the individual, as well as permanent throughout that individual's life, inspired him to expand their use. - [2] Jachin 10:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A much more comprehensive source can be found here. Jachin 10:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

fingerprinting technique could potentially detect the diet, race and sex of a suspected criminal

“The combined operational advantages and benefits for forensic scientists of tape lifting prints and spectroscopic imaging really maximises the amount of information one can obtain from fingerprints. Our trials show that this technique could play a significant role in the fight against crime,” said Professor Kazarian [3] Brian Pearson 02:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"A new method of detecting fingerprints" Section should be mentioned here in brief and have its own article

The section entitled "A new method of detecting fingerprints" spends a great deal of space talking about a new, not widely adopted technique in a very dense field. By all means mention this, but it is inappropriate to go on at length - it is a tangent.70.18.255.224 18:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Circular reasoning

The first dot point in the defense of using fingerprints as a means of identification says:

• Has served all governments worldwide during the past 100 years to provide accurate identification of criminals. No two fingerprints have ever been found identical in many billions of human and automated computer comparisons. Fingerprints are the very basis for criminal history foundation at every police agency.

Doesn’t this use somewhat circular reasoning? If the assumption is that they’re all different, then of course the results will confirm the assumption. Take a scenario where Bill and Jack actually have identical fingerprints. They were both at the same crime scene and both left their fingerprints. Bill actually committed the crime but got away without leaving any other evidence he was there. Jack was nabbed and convicted of the crime based on what were assumed to be his fingerprints, when they were in fact Bill’s. The forensic scientists and lawyers would rest comfortably in their assumption that justice has been done. How many people have been wrongly executed or imprisoned because of this sort of thing? -- JackofOz 04:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I was about to post a rant about the entire "Defense" section, but you have beaten me to it. It consists entirely of irrelevant points that sound more like a lazy attempt at propaganda than an argument intended to convince a sceptic. I don't know how to start editing it, since it contains little that's worth keeping. --Heron (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. I also disagree with the formulation Has served all governments worldwide during the past 100 years to provide accurate identification of criminals. I'm sure there has been inaccurate use, and most importantly -- fingerprints are for identifying anyone and not just criminals. This part of the article feels like a PR piece. Take away "all", "accurately" and change "criminals" to individuals. 10:08, 5 April 2011 User:82.182.96.92

Wholly agree. Even with automatic comparison methods, I suspect that in most jurisidictions evidence presented in court relies finally on a human judgement. And as with all human activity, this judgement may be prone to error. Simply because certain trial outcomes have not been challenged does not provide any proof that the evidence presented in them was all correct. Better and more concrete arguments in defence, such as relative ease of collection, difficulty to fake and their persistence in adulthood, compared with other evidence, might be more convincing. Discussion of their relative importance alongside DNA might also be useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Classification

Interesting article but I didn't find what I wanted to know. It says: "Before computerization replaced manual filing systems in large fingerprint operations, manual fingerprint classification systems were used..."

That's fine, but what does the computer do? The modern detective obtains the prints by one of the mentioned techniques and then what? He or she presumably scans it and saves it as a digital computer file. What does the computer do to try to compare it with its data bank? Does it measure loops and whorls? How does it actually detect them? Does it compare the matrix of digitised points in some sort of factor analysis? Or what?

- Pepper 150.203.224.165 05:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the FBI's system stores fingerprints using a proprietary fractal compression algorithm. The algorithm identifies key points in the fingerprint which can be compared quickly to others. I read an article about it a couple of years ago. It was very impressive. Snookumz (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Murderers and rapists

The "Defense" section contains the following passage:

"Is claimed to outperform DNA and all other human identification systems to identify more murderers, rapists and other serious offenders (fingerprints are said to solve ten times more unknown suspect cases than DNA in most jurisdictions)."

Is there any reason for qualifying the claim with regard to murder, rape, and serious crime? Are fingerprints somehow better at identifying murderers than, for example, burglars or petty vandals? Is it because fingerprinting is used more often in serious crime cases? If the efficacy is not correlated to type of crime, then it's irrelevant information and sounds like it's being said to me by a FBI agent in a trenchcoat pointing his finger at me on TV public service announcement. -- Paul Richter 13:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actual worldwide fingerprint method of identification

It was developed by Juan Vucetich, [1858-1925] a Croatian born-Argentine anthropologist and police official, who toward 1890 improved previous methods used in Europe by Francis Galton and Alphonse Bertillon. →tana11.11.25.2007.

No Fingerprints?

I read in some magazine that it is possible to be born with no fingerprints... Can somebody look this up and add to article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.63.98 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

See website [4] re medical conditions that cause this problem. Amandajm (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Poor drafting

Is it just me, or is the standard of writing on wikipedia dropping through the floor? Here's an example:

'The purpose of taking children's fingerprints is to struggle against school skipping or/and to replace library cards or money for meals by fingerprint locks.'

Yes, I know that I could change it, but I come across stuff like this all the time and life is far too short!

Use of the word Fact

The scientific basis behind friction ridge analysis is the fact that friction ridges are persistent and unique

I was under the impression that science dealt with Theories rather than Facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.7.141 (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Consider gravity. There is the fact of gravity -- masses are attracted to masses, then there are theories of gravity -- masses are attracted to masses because masses alter the shape of space. Science creates therories to explain facts. --180.149.192.134 (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the mountie doing with those dividers?

I'm puzzled by the photo (about 1/3 of the way down the article) of the fingerprint being prodded with a pair of dividers. What is the mountie supposed to be doing? For a start, the instrument in his hand looks like dividers, not compasses as the caption says. And if he is actually measuring something, why is one point of the dividers placed on an arbitrarily located label? Is somebody about to be convicted on the basis of the distance of the number "12" from the centre of their fingerprint? I think a more accurate caption would be "Mountie pokes fingerprint with shiny instrument to make sciency-looking photo". Or maybe the photo is meant to be ironic and I'm missing the point. I'm going to amend the caption anyway. --Heron (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution/Biology?

Does anyone know about the evolution of fingerprints? At what time in the human ancestral record did they come about? If there was more known about this, the section called "Fingerprints in other species" could be modified and renamed to include it. Spettro9 (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Chimpanzee Fingerprints

In the section on 'Fingerprints in other species' the claim is made, without a source given, that chimpanzees do not have fingerprints. A quick Google search on 'chimpanzee fingerprints' appears to reveal otherwise. 198.5.223.122 (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, speaking of which, have there been any double blind experiments on sorting chimpanzee fingerprint databases from human fingerprint databases? The main article says it is sometimes difficult distinguishing between the two. This sort of thing can be quantified by actual testing. Surely someone has already done just that. 216.99.201.131 (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Opossum Fingerprints

Does anyone know if opossums have fingerprints? 216.99.219.101 (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This book may help you in that regard (it seems as if they do). From the article, I quote "Friction ridges or fingerprints are present on the plantar (under) surfaces of both the forefeet and hind feet that aid in providing a firmer grip." --Nadzter (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Bibliographical information for the book mentioned in my previous comment:

Title: "The Opossum: Its Amazing Story"

Author:: Willliam J. Krause

Publisher: William Krause, 2006

ISBN: 097859990X, 9780978599904

--Nadzter (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Defense section

I don't want to remove the entire section without some kind of discussion on it, but what's there right now is pretty bad. The entire section basically states "fingerprinting is widely used and the most common forensic test", but that doesn't have anything to do with the two specific criticisms: that it can't be ruled out that two persons to have the same or very similar prints, and that the evaluation standards are so subjective that we can't be sure that two prints match. None of the material there addresses that, and if something better isn't written soon, I'll remove it. PaulGS (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was reading this article looking for some actual defense and all I got was a bunch of circular statements saying that it is widely used! I think it is time to remove this section of rename it to "Usage" or something along those lines. I will check back in a week and remove it if no one improves it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.99.237 (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems as if this section never actually got removed. Is there any reason as to why? I think the content itself is useful insofar as it explains why it is still being used, but, as you previously mentioned, it does not seem to provide any real "defense" of the method. --Nadzter (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Biological facts

I searched "fingerprints" looking for biological facts, types of fingerprints, etc, but there is virtually nothing relating to that in this entire article! This article should not be called "fingerprints" but rather "fingerprintING" since that's all it talks about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.111.249.42 (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking fingerprints

In the episode "Smoke get in your CSI's" of CSI Miami, a DIY set-up is shown on how fingerprints can be taken. It included iodine cristals, gauze, another component and a breathing tube .See CSI miami episode Include info in article

also in Bones, in a specific episode (see http://www.theinsider.com/news/1362328__Bones_Murder_on_an_Airplane ), it is shown how to make a UV lamp for detecting blood and I guess there were some other useful techniques (latter can be added in appropriate articles at wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.85.122 (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Fingerprint grip theory rejected

Scientists say they have disproved the theory that fingerprints improve grip by increasing friction between people's hands and the surface they are holding. -- MyrddinEmrys (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Fingerprint grip theory NOT rejected

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8093134.stm - While the science behind the cited research study is important and informative, grabbing the sensational sound/word bites from a news article is not appropriate for Wiki content. For many decades, scientists have theorized that friction ridges on hands and feet evolved to help improve the ability to grip/grasp objects and to improve friction when running/walking/climbing. Walk into any natural environment (e.g., forest) and it is obvious that the surfaces encountered in nature are rough, and seldom smooth like the glass used in the experiments explained in the cited article. Instead of debunking the notion that friction ridges developed to improve grip, the article supports the idea that friction ridges improve grip in the natural (not smooth glass) environment where the article states "Dr Ennos believes that fingerprints may have evolved to help us grip on to rough surfaces..." Some of the smoothest (most slippery) surfaces encountered in nature are rock surfaces on stream/river banks, especially wet and smooth rock surfaces. Instead of debunking that friction ridges of toes and feet improve friction in such natural environments, the article admits that friction ridges "may allow water trapped between our finger pads and the surface to drain away and improve surface contact in wet conditions." The ability to improve wet surface friction with ridges is the same reason that bald tires have inferior friction with smooth, wet surfaces versus tires with ridges. Without friction ridges, a smooth drinking glass containing a pint of your favorite cold liquid (with droplets of water condensation on the exterior of the glass) would more easily slip from your hand. - CLPEandFFS (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Could a Laboratory do it?

Can new fingerprints be created under laboratory conditions using fingers removed from corpses at the time of death? If the topmost layers of the epidermis are cut off, is there a way to grow new fingerprints in a carefully controlled environment? There have been lots of cases of skin being grown in a petri dish, or "cultured," so I was wondering if fingerprints could be grown the same way. If fingerprints can be created in vitro, then it should be possible to induce the creation of categories of fingerprints, from the way mechanical pressure is imposed on them as they grow. 216.99.219.140 (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd think that somebody somewhere would have consented to the removal of his fingers for this very purpose. The main article would be improved with a reference or two to in vitro culturing of fingerprints. Similarly with cutting and rearranging fingerprints, and then transplanting them back onto the original donor. 216.99.198.209 (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

fingerprints are very interesting thing to no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.129.85 (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

History section is a mess

Should it be at least arranged in a ascending order? The time appeared in that section is totally messy. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyedited

Richard asr (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Great work :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Errant. Very interesting article. I hope the rearranged sections are OK but I thought the general reader would welcome the explanation of whirls, loops and arches nearer to the beginning. Fascinating research section. I have Wikified the references to the research at Swansea University a little. Also removed all the bulleted lists where they occur and arranged the facts into readable text. I hope the 'History' section flows a little better now, as pointed out recently on this discussion page.

Two important points: I expanded the explanation in the section 'Classifying fingerprints' because it seemed to imply dividing by zero, the way it was expressed. I hope it is alright now. There was also a typo – two instances of Rt in the equation and no Rr, whose presence was implied by the example that followed, and by the logic of the situation really, so I have changed one of the Rts to an Rr so that the numerical example now makes sense and conforms. Perhaps someone could check that I haven't scrambled anything.

Also, the lengthy quote in the section 'Criticism' is incompletely cited. Given its importance in the section I think it should be properly referenced. I tried to track it down, but the paper itself in pdf format does not give enough info, and a half-hour delve into google came up with a blank for me. Probably needs an expert, which I am not. Richard asr (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, well for this article I am a regular reader :) (all I did was update the Forensic Science infobox) but I saw you working hard and it lookes much neater now. :) From my brief reading through and marginal knowledge of the topic it looks fine --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

the finger prints taken off of car oil can be altered because of the chemical compounds in the oil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.138.143 (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

bad article

This article is poorly written; it doesn't even mention how to perform a ridge count nor does it mention delta, which is important when performing a ridge count. This article needs to be updates by a fingerprint expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.141.90 (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and not a manual for freshmen in foresic sciences. Encyclopedia's usually only describe things superficially, without details and without any instructions on how to perform something. 2001:5C0:1501:0:801E:7F9E:FFF1:D915 (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger

I propose that ulnar loop be merged to this article, with a redirect, because the current article on the ulnar loop is an unsourced stub that may not be worthy of its own article. Its additional length will probably not affect this article's length in a meaningful way. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Having read the ulnar loop article - the whole of ten lines that it is - I would say it'd fit quite nicely into this article, probably in section 1.2 "Classifying Fingerprints". Opinions? Crashdown13 (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I did this, and I also merged and redirected radial loop; there were no references on either article and really very little to actually merge. --John (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Error in formula for Henry System?

Please help because something is amiss. The article states: "the second an 8, the third a 4, the fourth a 2, and 0 to the last fraction". I understand that this uses the binary system i.e. a pattern of 2^4, 2^3, 2^2, 2^1, 2^0 but that means the very last entry is 1 not 0. This means that the article should state "1 to the last function" instead of "0 to the last function". This means that no matter what is on your pinky, there is no effect on the resulting fraction. Clearly this is wrong! TonyMath (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the reference by Conklin: the description is exactly the same as in the wikipedia article but it must be wrong. TonyMath (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

DEVELOPERS DESTROY DNA????

In a recent study by the Forensic Scvience Laboratories of the South Afriocan Police it was shown that only one chemical have a detrimental effect on DNA deposited with fingerprints i.e. Physical Developer. They have tested the full range of powders and chemicals used in the developing of latent prints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.210.249 (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Uniqueness

A naive question:

I don't see any reference in this article to research substantiating the uniqueness of fingerprints. Is there such research?

baxrob (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested in this, too. I believe citation 60 references Penn & Teller's show "Bullshit"... but I'm not sure whether we can use that as a credible source... Ideas?

--Nadzter (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

After further inquiry, I believe there are some articles here which suggest the uniqueness of fingerprints is not empirically founded, as yet. It would seem, as per the article we're talking about, that our attribution of their uniqueness is merely based on their track record so far. There are ongoing arguments in the forensic evidence field as to what constitutes evidence that deserves certain degrees of confidence. In my opinion, the confidence entrusted in fingerprint analysis is slightly unwarranted.

--Nadzter (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

History

Needs to state when fingerprinting became commonly used in first world countries. For example, fingerprints were ignored in the Leo Frank case in 1913.

Edit Request

In the "Instances of Error" section, there appears the abbreviation for the IAFIS, along with it's disambiguation. While IAFIS is linked, and so is the disambiguation, the link for the latter is wrong. Moreover, it says that the page hasn't been created. It would be nice if someone could fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.56.226 (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Reference for Zabell, 2005

I was wanting to add the volume and Issue information for this reference, but just realised it is a semi-protected page. I don't know if this information is needed, but I thought it would be useful to put in the page. Reference information: Journal of Law and Policy, Vol. 13, Issue 1 (2005), pp. 143-180 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadzter (talk • contribs) 13:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A serious problem with interwiki links.

There are two groups of interwikis: Q178022 and Q1435618, which is misleading.

For example Polish [daktyloskopia] is forensic science concerned with the study of fingerprints. There is no separate article about a fingerprint in the Polish Wikipedia, so the current article should link there. Unfortunately the Polish article has a different ID. Can't we join these two IDs into one? It will solve the same problem with other interwikis too. 85.193.197.246 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy of Fingerprint Examiners

Unbeknownst to some people, finger prints are not actually matched by just throwing them into a computer system and waiting for the system to search through thousands of different finger prints until a match is found. Unlike what is shown on several criminal shows such as CSI, Law and Order and Criminal Minds, finger prints are actually examined by real people, by professional finger print examiners. When finger prints are found at a crime scene they are analyzed by expert examiners until the examiners feel enough marker are found in the print pairs, that they report them as being a match. How do we know how accurate these examiners truly are? How do we know their professional accuracy rate? Have they ever been wrong?

In previous year’s people always assumed, or more importantly, to their knowledge fingerprinting evidence was 100% accurate and reliable (Lawson, 2003). When fingerprinting evidence was brought to court, no questions were asked and no challenges were made to argue against it (Lawson, 2003). If a fingerprint was found at a crime scene and a match was made with the suspect then that was all that was needed to determine their sentencing (Lawson, 2003). However, a study conducted on identifying how accurate fingerprint expertise are and found that they are indeed not 100% accurate, and are instead, 99.32% accurate (Thompson, Tangen, & McCarthy, 2013). Though this is a very high accuracy rate it is still not 100% and thus still leaves room for error. Another study also compared the accuracy and reliability of the decisions made by latent fingerprint examiners’ (Ulery, Hicklin, Buscaglia, & Roberts, 2011). From a sample of 169 latent print examiners, the researchers found that 5 examiners made false positive errors, meaning they incorrectly determined a match when there was no match (Ulery et al., 2011). Where 85% of the examiners made false negative errors, meaning they incorrectly said there was no match when there was (Ulery et al., 2011).

Due to this inconsistency in accuracy of finger print examiners, and due to the amount of power theses examiners hold when making a decision of fingerprint matching. It is clear that the court system should not put all of their trust into this form of evidence when deciding on a person’s future, but instead be more inclined to challenge the evidence and focus on other methods of evidence to ensure the right thing is being done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvw022 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2017

Under "Footprints" heading Remove "When recovered at crime scenes or on items of evidence, sole and toe impressions can be used in the same manner as finger and palm prints to effect identifications. Footprint (toe and sole friction ridge skin) evidence has been admitted in courts in the United States since 1934."

The source has no mention of footprints used as evidence. The reference number is 19. The case refers to the use of footprints for "identifying new-born babies in the obstetrical wards of hospitals". Footprint evidence is not mentioned in court. The use of footprints was to support the use of prints in general through the demonstration of identification of prints in history. The source I used was "https://casetext.com/case/people-v-les" People v. Les, 267 Michigan 648, 255 NW 407. DISKFIGHTER2 (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@DISKFIGHTER2: I've edited the article as your requested. I've left the first sentence in as I think it's likely that foot and toe prints can be uniquely identifiable just as palm and fingerprints, but I've added a {{citation needed}} tag. Please correct me if I'm wrong here. Daß Wölf 23:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2018

"In 1892, after studying Galton's pattern types, Vucetich set up the world's first fingerprint bureau."

"A Fingerprint Bureau was established in Calcutta (Kolkata), India, in 1897 [...] Working in the Calcutta Anthropometric Bureau, before it became the first Fingerprint Bureau in the world, were Azizul Haque and Hem Chandra Bose."

There is a clear discrepancy here. The Argentinian fingerprint bureau established by Vucetich in 1892 would logically be the first fingerprinting bureau in the world, yet the article also cites the Kolkata bureau, established five years later, as the first in the world.

There is another discrepency in regards to world firsts in this article as well that I would like clarified:

"In that same year [1892], Francisca Rojas of Necochea, was found in a house with neck injuries, whilst her two sons were found dead with their throats cut. [...] Inspector Alvarez, a colleague of Vucetich, went to the scene and found a bloody thumb mark on a door. When it was compared with Rojas' prints, it was found to be identical with her right thumb. She then confessed to the murder of her sons."

"The Scheffer case of 1902 is the first case of the identification, arrest and conviction of a murderer based upon fingerprint evidence."

Does the arrest of Rojas not satisfy the three conditions the Scheffer case is noted as being the "first" of? It seems as though the bloody fingerprint identified, and lead to the arrest and conviction of Rojas, though I would understand if it was invalidated due to Rojas' confession being the final source of conviction. Either way, it seems to me to deserve clarification. Tadpoleon (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Electronic Fingerprint ID

Electronic ID is so ubiquitous these days it seems strange to have an article just for Apple's Touch ID but have electronic fingerprint recognition as a subset of this page, with no real information on how it works, the different technologies, security issues (as of 2018 rather than 2002). I came looking for such information, so I'm not the one to add it, sadly.

Not unusually, Simple English Wikipedia has a better coverage of the topic: [[5]]. Is there a simple way to copy an entire page over? Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I have noticed the new article and have participated to clean it up a bit. It is still an orphan however. I was about to initiate a merge request discussion (to merge it in this article), but now that I am reading this I'll leave it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2018

105.112.106.209 (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Broken external link

Remove

• Fingerprints and Human Identification

The link is broken Halfwit Genius, The (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed the inappropriate link to bleaching-dental.com, some herbal products company. I think other links in the "External links" section can go too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2018

In the HISTORY section, next to MODERN ERA is a picture captioned "Fingerprints taken by William Herschel 1859/60" falsely linked to the astronomer William Herschel. Please change it to the 2nd Baronet Sir William James Herschel! 85.212.209.177 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of Leading Subheadings

Hi there,

I find some of the subheadings that are used in this Wikipedia article, specifically those pertaining to the forensic uses of fingerprint analysis, to be very leading.

Given the role Wikipedia plays in informing the general public on controversial topics such as the use of fingerprint analysis in criminal cases, there should be more effort made to ensure the information provided on this website is not only objective, but is also presented in an objective way. After reviewing the information on this page about the forensic use of fingerprint analysis, I noticed that although there is information given about the various criticisms of this method, they are presented in a downplayed way, while arguments in favour of its use are emphasized.

To give an example, why exactly is there a "Defense" and a "Track Record" section after the criticisms of fingerprint analysis? Within the preamble that precedes the "Criticism" section, everything relevant from these two sections has already been alluded to. Also, one of the claims made in the "Track Record" section (i.e. about the increasing popularity of the use of this method compared to other forensic methodologies) is not even cited. How did this make it onto the page? I would also argue that the popularity of fingerprint analysis has nothing to do with its "Track Record".

I also believe that the "Errors" section that follows the "Track Record" section is problematic. Dismissing the examples in which fingerprint analysis was proven to be fallible, and put innocent peoples' lives at stake, as errors, is undoubtedly leading. It is even more leading because it follows this "Track Record" section. Why are these "errors" not part of finger print analysis' track record?

I think this page needs to be reorganized in a less biased way. The "Defense" subheading and the information provided in this section should be deleted, and the examples given in the "Errors" section should be included under the "Track Record" subheading instead. Also, the information that is currently included in this section should be properly cited, if not completely reconsidered. The information provided in this section is vague, leading, and has little to do with fingerprint analysis' "Track Record".

Fern1959 (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

lede

"Human fingerprints are detailed, nearly unique, difficult to alter, and durable over the life of an individual, making them suitable as long-term markers of human identity." the whole of the article deals with fingerprints as a personal identification marker. i think it is a tad one-sided and out of ballance. if the article's aim is to deal with identification by fingertips instead of the fingertip patterns per se, then the article title should probably reflect this.

theres some relevant info on fingerprints not included in this article that i found in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin#Genetic_and_epigenetic_similarity: "the fetuses touch different parts of their environment, giving rise to small variations in their corresponding prints and thus making them unique." -that would be a useful addition to this article.

also the article should explain in more details the "nearly! unique" nature of fingerprints as opposed to common belief that they are completely unique.

on the other hand, the lede saying that fingerprints are detailed seems unnecessary. it is a kind of weasel wording (what is the definition of a detailed object??) if it means that the digital or printed REPRODUCTION of the pattern on the fingertips can be detailed, that would be another thing (but still unnecessary verbouseness, as it epends entirely on the resolution used by the capturing technology and thus is describing the imagery technology as opposed to the fingerprints themselves). actually the article should make a distinction whether it means by fingerprint the physical pattern on the fingers or the printed image left by these on objects.

89.134.199.32 (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC).

citation sourse for the phrase in "Biology" paragraph

Hi, there is a citation sourse for the phrase in "Biology" paragraph: http://ispub.com/IJBA/2/2/9413 Pio8181 (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a predatory open access journal, and as such its use is discouraged. We should be able to find a better source. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Biology lead-in

> A fingerprint is formed on any opaque surface and is the impression of the friction ridges on the finger of a human.[1]

I know I've cleaned fingerprints from windows which are not opaque. It is also quite difficult to get usable fingerprints from a textured surface despite its level of transparency. This statement needs to be corrected or removed. 192.31.209.190 (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree, this is strange, although it is what the cited source says. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This article wildly misinforms the public

It states:

Human fingerprints are detailed, nearly unique, difficult to alter, and durable over the life of an individual, making them suitable as long-term markers of human identity.

"Nearly unique" must be like being a little pregnant. "Detailed"? Both "durable" and "difficult to alter"? This is a shameful collection of weasel words and the conclusion simply does not follow and despite being an extraordinary statement remains completely uncited.

But more to the point the lede fails to mention the remarkable fact that supposed uniqueness of fingerprints has NEVER been scientifically proven and that the process of fingerprint identification is an entirely subjective art in which two equally trained experts may have differing findings given the same fingerprints. It also ignores the fact that widespread misconceptions about fingerprints are common in the public and are constantly being spread by police procedural television fiction.

https://clant.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Graham_paper.pdf

fingerprint evidence has been afforded a near magical quality in our culture. In essence, we have adopted a cultural assumption that a government representative's assertion that a defendant's fingerprint was found at a crime scene is an infallible fact, and not merely the examiner's opinion. As a consequence, fingerprint evidence is often all that is needed to convict a defendant, even in the absence of any other evidence of guilt. Unfortunately, our societal acceptance of the infallibility of examiners' opinions appears to be misplaced

But don't believe me or the above paper. Believe the American Assocation for the Advancement of Science which has gone to the extraordinary step of releasing a report on latent fingerprint examination.

https://www.aaas.org/resources/latent-fingerprint-examination

https://www.aaas.org/news/fingerprint-source-identity-lacks-scientific-basis-legal-certainty

Courtroom testimony and reports stating or even those implying that fingerprints collected from a crime scene belong to a single person are indefensible and lack scientific foundation, a new AAAS working group report on the quality of latent fingerprint analysis says.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/myth-fingerprints-180971640/

Yet it also became clear, over time, that fingerprinting wasn’t as rock solid as boosters would suggest. Police experts would often proclaim in court that “no two people have identical prints”—even though this had never been proven, or even carefully studied. (It’s still not proven.)

The real problem, Cole notes, is that fingerprinting experts have never agreed on “a way of measuring the rarity of an arrangement of friction ridge features in the human population.” How many points of similarity should two prints have before the expert analyst declares they’re the same? Eight? Ten? Twenty? Depending on what city you were tried in, the standards could vary dramatically. And to make matters more complex, when police lift prints from a crime scene, they are often incomplete and unclear, giving authorities scant material to make a match.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8011-how-far-should-fingerprints-be-trusted/

But evidence from qualified fingerprint examiners suggests a higher error rate. These are the results of proficiency tests cited by Cole in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology (vol 93, p 985). From these he estimates that false matches occurred at a rate of 0.8 per cent on average, and in one year were as high as 4.4 per cent. Even if the lower figure is correct, this would equate to 1900 mistaken fingerprint matches in the US in 2002 alone.

Fingerprint examiners can be heavily influenced by external factors when making judgements, according to research in which examiners were duped into thinking matching prints actually came from different people.

http://www.criminaljusticenetwork.eu/en/post/the-reliability-of-fingerprint-evidence

The reliability of a method like fingerprinting depends on the skill, experience, and the work done by the examiner. The Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) 2016 report concluded that while “foundationally valid,” fingerprint analysis should never be presented in court without evidence of its error rates and of the proficiency or reliability of not just the method, but the particular examiner using the method. Fingerprint analysis depends on the experience and skill of the person doing the analysis. For that reason, the factfinder must know how reliable the person’s work is.

https://psmag.com/news/why-fingerprints-arent-proof-47079

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8144044/Fingerprint-identification-evidence-questioned-by-senior-judge.html

A senior judge has raised concerns over fingerprint evidence used in criminal trials, warning that it rests on “assumptions” that have never been scientifically proven.

The validity of forensic fingerprint evidence has been challenged by academics, judges and the media.

"Academics" do not challenge the validity of fingerprint evidence; the results of their scientific studies do.

Since the 2009 National Research Council report on the scientific failing and lack of objective evidence for much forensic science - with particular regard to fingerprints - the pro-fingerprint community has had a decade to respond with scientific proof of statistical evidence in forensics but has failed to do so and in fact the amount of legitimate findings against fingerprints and the fingerprint expert industry has only increased. The fact that Wikipedia has not updated this article to reflect these changes and the views of the wider scientific community and instead maintains it as pro-fingerprinting propaganda is shameful.

I predict any changes I make to this article will be swiftly reverted, since fingerprint experts rely on a public perception of the infallibility of fingerprint evidence for their income, just as other forensic 'experts' have defended the prestige of the own domains despite a lack of any objective scientific evidence and the thousands of innocent people who have been imprisoned or worse due to their testimony. There's a great deal of money tied up in ensuring that the public perception of forensic science is not put at risk by things like scientific objectivity. As a side note I just corrected the **lede** of the DNA profiling article which falsely equates the (statistically proven) uniqueness of DNA to that of (entirely unproven) fingerprints. A categorically false statement which has never been accepted as true by science whatsoever but has remained in the lede since at least 2016.

This changes that need to be made to this article are so wide-ranging that I am loathe to do it all myself but I hope there are others who want to improve this article so as to reflect the current broader *scientific* consensus regarding fingerprint examination and identification by citing the numerous scientific studies by disinterested practitioners of the scientific method rather than uncritically repeating the opinions of forensic "experts" whose views on the validity of fingerprint analysis are compromised by what can only be described as an _obvious_ - dazzlingly so - conflict of interest.

I think the lede should resemble something more like this rather than it's current state, but of course I'm open to opinion.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00737/full

...fingerprint examiners have testified in court for over one hundred years, but there have been few experiments directly investigating the extent to which experts can correctly match fingerprints to one another, how competent and proficient fingerprint experts are, how examiners make their decisions, or the factors that affect performance (Loftus and Cole, 2004; Saks and Koehler, 2005; Vokey et al., 2009; Spinney, 2010b; Thompson et al., 2013a). Indeed, many examiners have even claimed that fingerprint identification is infallible (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1984). Academics, judges, scientists, and US Senators have reported on the absence of solid scientific practices in the forensic sciences. They highlight the absence of experiments on human expertise in forensic pattern matching, suggesting that faulty analyses may be contributing to wrongful convictions of innocent people (Edwards, 2009; National Research Council, 2009; Campbell, 2011; Carle, 2011; Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis, 2012; Maxmen, 2012), and they lament the lack of a research culture in the forensic sciences (Mnookin et al., 2011). The field of forensics is, however, beginning to acknowledge the central role that fallible humans play in the identification process (Tangen, 2013).

What concerns me most about this article is that - given Wikipedia's influence on the public - it may be responsible for misinforming potential future jurors about the reliability of fingerprint evidence thus resulting in yet more convictions of innocent people. Surely Wikipedia has a responsibility if not to inform at least not to deliberately misinform?

Stemdude (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

We should probably differentiate between "fingerprints are probably unique" (which they probably are) and "they can be reliably identified by the methods used by forensic scientists" (which they cannot). – Thjarkur (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

In the Fingerprint Verification section, there are three pictures of different Minutiae patterns. What I suggest is that we substitute those three pictures with one picture that contains all the minutiae patterns mentioned in the article. I've created that picture and it is already submitted to Wikimedia Commons, we would just have to replace the three pictures with this one. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fingerprints_Minutiae_Patterns_Representation.jpg This is the link to the picture (I forgot to attach it in the first request). Inaki Rom (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, thank you Inaki Rom. If you're able to export your drawing to .svg instead of .jpg, that would improve the quality of the picture. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

Fingerprint Comparison Eiondale (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

Fingerprint Comparison

Eiondale (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fingerprint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112224002/http://www.articesbase.com/business-articles/history-of-fingerprinting-for-identification-1328238.html to http://www.articesbase.com/business-articles/history-of-fingerprinting-for-identification-1328238.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051120033237/http://www.fpsociety.org.uk/ to http://www.fpsociety.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Chinese site = "domain name for sale". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2021

This entire paragrah under the Crime Scene Investigations headings is self-evidently false:

“Another problem for the early twenty-first century is that during crime scene investigations, a decision has to be made at an early stage whether to attempt to retrieve fingerprints through the use of developers or whether to swab surfaces in an attempt to salvage material for DNA profiling. The two processes are mutually incompatible, as fingerprint developers destroy material that could potentially be used for DNA analysis, and swabbing is likely to make fingerprint identification impossible.”

This link here: https://www.guardian-forensics.org/effect-of-fingerprint-processing-on-dna-analysis.html and hundreds like it found with a quick internet search show that DNA collection before fingerprinting likely destroys the fingerprints, but NOT necessarily the other way around. Crime Labs all over the country (including the one I've worked for over the past 12 years) have protocols in place for processing items for fingerprints and then successfully recovering DNA from the item in the exact same areas of the item. Some fingerprint processes can damage or destroy DNA, others may dilute DNA, while still others have shown to have no deleterious effects at all. Saying the two processes are mutually incompatible is a 100% false statement.

I would suggest the following instead:

“Another problem for the early twenty-first century is that during crime scene investigations, attempting to retrieve fingerprints through the use of developers or swabbing surfaces in an attempt to salvage material for DNA profiling can sometimes interfere with each other. Some fingerprint developers have the potential to destroy material that could potentially be used for DNA analysis, and swabbing is likely to make fingerprint identification impossible.” 148.167.148.100 (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Your argument seems sound and is supported by The Guardian guardian-forensics.org. Your suggested text looks ok, although the source actually explicitly says: "Fingerprint processing actually helps the DNA analyst, as it tells them where the cells are." There is no reason to doubt your personal claim of working in a crime lab for 12 years, but that's not a WP:RS. I wonder could you offer any other source(s) to bolster The Guardian guardian-forensics.org one? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: @Martinevans123: The source they give (obvious from the bare url) is not The Guardian (theguardian.com) but some random blog-like website. It looks like WP:SPS and it is not a reliable source since the authors seem like relative nobodies, not like subject-matter experts. The sources the website itself cites could be investigated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for spotting that, RandomCanadian. It must be obvious to most people. I must have assumed the authors were somebodies. I agree those other source might be useful. I suspect the IP's argument is still correct, so I've commented out the disputed text for now. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Studies on the use of fingerprints not mentioned in the article

Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions, Fingerprint Source Identity Lacks Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty. @RandomCanadian: these interest you. I've tagged Forensic science for NPOV after noticing very little criticism of the methods used. I got here from a Skeptoid article.[6] Doug Weller talk 14:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: you edit this talk page. I should have mentioned User:Martinevans123 as well. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't blame me. It wasn't my fault. You can't prove it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the final 2017 AAAS report is here. I'd say those were important publications that should be summarised in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2022

external link Fingerprinting.com has moved to FingerprintZone.com so please change Fingerprinting.com to FingerprintZone.com 2601:645:4301:3CB0:D9A8:5B6D:5433:7512 (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I just trimmed the whole section down significantly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Finger mark

I am currently watching the Canadian mystery series "Murdoc Mysteries", where the eponymous character refers to "finger marks". Was this term at one time in use, or is this merely artist license to emphasize the time period of the series? Wschart (talk), —Preceding undated comment added 16:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Finger mark is commonly used to mean fingerprint in the UK, but fingerprint is by far the preferred term in English worldwide, as can be seen at the website of the world’s oldest and largest forensic science organization, the International Association for Identification (IAI) at https://theiai.org CLPEandFFS (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)