Talk:Brain fingerprinting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. |
There's a photo of someone undergoing the technique at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/innovation/episode8.html Not sure about copyright status...
Added in the bulk of the criticisms subtopic - Chequers 14:07, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Which studies?
Could you identify which studies have shown it is possible to 'fool' this process? Thx Zardiw 03:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup tag
I started doing some basic cleanup to this article, but found it has some significant problems that require some domain knowledge that I don't currently have. First, it uses many terms that are neither explained nor linked to. Second, it references quite a few technical papers that it also fails to provide links for. Third, much of the material is repetitive and seems to be a hodgepodge of excerpts from various sources. Especially confusing are vague references like "some people believe" and "large proportion of the scientific community believe" that have no citations (a frequent sign of an unsourced personal opinion) and the mixture of supportive and critical statements in sections that are supposedly primarily supportive or critical (which might be addressed through reorganization). I don't mean to demean the efforts of the editors to date, but as a new reader of this topic, I don't feel I have any real understanding of the subject after reading the article, which must be the goal of an encyclopedia entry. Therefore, I've added a cleanup tag. Could concerned editors make an attempt to repair these deficiencies? Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] information present
How do you determine the difference between an FBI agent and someone who just knows a lot about the FBI? --Gbleem 20:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- You probably can't. If the suspect happens to be a rarity that knows a lot about that subject or the victim, then BF will fail. The subject should be asked if they know anything about the victim, just in case. It is in their own interest to say so as they might get wrongly convicted. Similarly, BF may not be useful for appeals and retrials, since the falsely-convicted man would have heard all the evidence and cannot pretend not to know key facts that "only" the real perpetrator can know. It helps if some key pieces of evidence is kept out of the public view, so that these facts remain untainted by use. Tabletop 06:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bias
This article lacks an objective discussion of the problems of the method. In my opinion, there is clearly a POV problem. 193.196.193.21 17:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
