When a scientist proposes a new test, they include measurement techniques as well as a method of interpretation. If a medical test is used in a way that is frequently prone to misinterpretation, it would be fair to call that entire test useless.
And yet there are many examples of this with malpractice, unnecessary deaths, etc. Lyme tests are notorious for false negatives depending on the lab you use. It's also a widely held belief that you want tests done in the middle of the week instead of on a Friday or weekend because some techs just want to get out of there and are more prone to mistakes.
The reason I'm drawing a hard line is because of fact vs opinion. This same line gets drawn in court. They will ask experts if it's a fact or an opinion that they testified about (usually to attack a witness). Autopsies are full of facts, and then there are opinions on what those facts mean. If it's an opinion, it's possible to counter it with another professional opinion.
The only sort of opinion they should be sharing is included, excluded, or undetermined. Hair is not a "match", but it could include or exclude someone and maybe mathematical probabilities.
1. Was it he said statistics lie sometimes?
2. Or, questioned 90% efficacy of some Covid vaccines?
Given this history it is absolutely reasonable to reject most forensic evidence unless there actual good science supporting the reliability of expert interpretations.
It's basically impossible for someone who isn't pretty handy with Bayes to work out the significance for themselves.
The average jury member has no chance.
> The science is generally sound (procedures and theory). Usually it's the prosecutors that present the forensics in a way that misrepresents what the results actually mean.
Look at this damming quote - "ShotSpotter strongly insisted it had not improperly altered any data to favor the police's case". That shows they don't have a system in place to prevent data being altered or to prevent themselves knowing what the police want, so all their findings are suspect.
It's only supposed to be used to include or exclude someone, and based on the numbers/probabilities it's generally only useful for excluding someone. Of course that's not how most prosecutors use it...
Basically, the majority of forensics are based on sound theories and practices. The issues are when professionals and prosecutors try to "interpret" the facts.
I would be interested in any citations showing that forensics are generally unsound.
Do you have a link for the fingerprinting claim?
The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.
Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo...
https://www.crammlawfirm.com/fingerprint-match-jails-innocen...
This isn't the case I originally recalled, and doesn't say how many points were matched, but I remember a 5 point match being used to convict a person who was later proven innocent.
This is the case for many types of evidence; witness statements for example can also be notoriously unreliable. It's not bad to use this kind of evidence, but you do have a problem if you consider any witness statement to be absolute truth and never consider any "reasonable doubt" there may be, and this is how you end up convicting people based purely on "I saw the suspect commit the crime from 50 metres away in the dark and I'm sure it was him!" or some such.
If you have six independent witness statements like that, or a witness statement and fingerprints then the reasonable doubt starts becoming a lot less reasonable.
This is also the problem with the case in this article: a piece of evidence over which it seems like reasonable doubt should exists is the singular piece of evidence tying this person to the crime. The problem here isn't the evidence as such IMHO, but that juries and/or defenders (depends on the case) seem exceedingly bad at sceptically examining physical evidence.
Fingerprints are directly-recorded facts. What may be junk science is what expert witnesses present about the interpretation of fingerprints.
> The problem is that many juries, judges, prosecutors, and even defenders forget about this.
Juries as triers of fact, and judges insofar as they are ruling on the facts of the case, aren't, in any case, supposed to allow themselves fo be guided by extrinsic knowledge, they are supposed to act based on facts (both direct and the expert knowledge relating to the import of direct facts) provided as evidence, both testimony and exhibits, in the case.
That's not really how it works; false positives exist, especially if you consider that a lot of times you have incomplete or smudged fingerprints and there is actually some amount of subjectivity involved in determining a match. See e.g. [1]: "only two properly designed studies of latent fingerprint analysis had been conducted. These both found the rate of false matches (known as “false positives”) to be very high: 1 in 18 and 1 in 30."
Again: useful evidence for sure, but considering them undisputable facts is not wise.
[1]: https://theconversation.com/fingerprinting-to-solve-crimes-n...
Yes, it is.
> false positives exist
Matches (positive or negative) are not the same thing as fingerprints. Fingerprints are directly recorded facts. Matches are matters of interpretation (the fact of a match reported by a particular system is a distinct direct fact from the fingerprint itself, but again the significance is...what expert testimony exists to establish or challenge.)
No evidence is foolproof. My entire point is that the issue isn't with “fingerprints” or the knowledge that juries and judges bring extrinsically (which was the explicit claim made upthread), but with the expert testimony that contextualizes fingerprints.
(This was even more clearly the problem with fiber evidence when the FBI crime lab was presenting pure bunk expert testimony in virtually every case.)
You pedantism is wholey off base here.
How then do you explain the success of Touch ID on Apple devices and the equivalent systems on other phones and tablets?
Random people can't just walk up and unlock a Touch ID device with their fingerprint, which suggests that fingerprints are in fact a very good way to tell people apart.
Yes, it is possible to make a fake fingerprint that Touch ID will not be able to distinguish from my fingerprint. But that fake fingerprint will only unlock my device, not your device, so it is still correctly distinguishing our fingerprints.
Because on those devices the fingerprint is only used as a second factor (the first factor being physical possession of a particular device).
If Apple used fingerprints like law enforcement do, that is running a fingerprint against the big DB of all prints, then they would certainly get some arbitrary matches.
late edit: how often do people try to unlock your unattended apple device?
Another way fingerprints are used is to compare fingerprints found at a crime scene to people who have been identified using other methods that have nothing to do with fingerprints.
E.g., if you have someone murdered in his office when working late at night, and security cameras show that five other people were in the building at the time of the murder, and you are able to get a good set of fingerprints off the murder weapon you don't need a database. You take the fingerprints from all five of those other people, and if one is a very good match and four do not match, you concentrate most of your effort on the one that matched.
It's actually quite similar to how DNA evidence has been used and misused. I don't know how they compare DNA nowadays, but when DNA evidence was first making waves getting people convicted they only compared two DNA samples at a few points. For a given sample there would likely be several people in the country that matched.
That's fine if used right, like fingerprints in the earlier murder hypothetical. Narrow it down to only 5 people who could have committed the crime, get a DNA sample from the crime scene that must be from the criminal, and if that matches exactly one of those 5 suspects it is strong evidence they are the criminal.
Have no suspects yet, run that same sample through a database, get exactly one match, and conclude that must be the criminal. Totally bogus. A lot of people were convicted in the early days of DNA matching that way.
The database method can be made sound, but only if the database includes everybody. Match against a database that includes everyone, only get one hit, and you've probably got your criminal. But if the database includes everyone you are likely to get several matches.
As I said, that was how it used to be. I know DNA sequencing has gotten faster and cheaper over the years, but I have no idea if routine forensic DNA matching now matches enough to make matches unique except in the case of identical siblings.
Do you think the forensic prints would meet the standard required by Touch ID?
Given how much R&D goes into making better fingerprint scanners, it seems odd to then claim that a fingerprint taken off of a victim has anything near that level of detail. I guess its sound to say that it may be used as a piece of evidence to further narrow down the target, but its completely disingenuous to claim that it's sound evidence.
Like are you joking?
Saying TouchID validates fingerprinting is like saying MRI machines validate psychics.
It seems you two have a different idea of what is being discussed. The underlying fundamentals of finger prints are solid. The part that can make them ineffective is when they are using insufficiently tested tools or matching on too few points. And of course misrepresentating what a match actually means and how it pertains to the case.
What exactly are these underlying 'fundamentals'? Nobody even knows if everybody has unique fingerprints, it's just an assumption.
Beyond that, it's not all that relevant since as you mentioned how the matching is done is largely subjective, and it depends a lot on the number of "points" used and who does the matching, and that should really bring the accuracy even more into question. What exactly is the statistical probability of an incorrect match based on the number of points used? Good luck answering that question.
IMO the situation is made a lot worse by the fact that the public generally assumes fingerprinting to be extremely accurate (or 100% accurate).