Talk:Fingerprint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Fingerprint is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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


[edit] Reflecting the controversy of accuracy of the process

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)

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 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)


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 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)


Fingerprint identification is the subject of some controversy in some courts (UK 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.

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."

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

(Friction Ridge Skin) This information should be added to this article or have its own stub. Linked in Minutiae

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] patrol

[edit] 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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [citation needed]'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[citation needed]." ? --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).

[edit] 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.


[edit] Super!

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

[edit] 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?

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)

[edit] 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?

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.

—The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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."

[edit] 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)

[edit] '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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/i/n/Talk%7EFingerprint_508a.html"