@balthaboy @ZenaMOBrien2 https://t.co/Ex3FwPOsjL If fingerprints are precise enough... Those have only a 0.1% false positive rate and 7.5% false negative. That's pretty bad. It means that 7 or 8 in 100 print matches get overlooked and 1 in 1000 print iden
@bildoperationen Zur Erinnerung: Auch der Fingerabdruck hält als Mittel der Identifikation strengen (wissenschaftlichen) Kriterien nicht unbedingt stand. Vgl. z.B. https://t.co/b4a9GPD2eI
RT @blvns: @MegGardiner1 @StephenKing Fingerprints are not the definitive evidence we’ve been led to believe. https://t.co/XfvyMYqiHX
RT @blvns: @MegGardiner1 @StephenKing Fingerprints are not the definitive evidence we’ve been led to believe. https://t.co/XfvyMYqiHX
@MegGardiner1 @StephenKing Fingerprints are not the definitive evidence we’ve been led to believe. https://t.co/XfvyMYqiHX
Fingerprint examiners make false positive errors (saying 2 prints match when they don't) in about 1 in 1000 cases. They make false negative errors (saying 2 prints don't match when they do) in 1 in 20 cases. That's a huge amount.. https://t.co/6NvVUp
@BrandyLJensen @GeeDee215 Don’t forget fingerprint analysis! https://t.co/SjEVJ2TQCp
RT @Sahelanth: Same approach as Kobach’s Crosscheck. “Check” using a procedure with a very high rate of false negatives, then deny rights t…
Same approach as Kobach’s Crosscheck. “Check” using a procedure with a very high rate of false negatives, then deny rights to everyone who comes up negative. https://t.co/xex6sE2LBk https://t.co/j8v9c0qiBY
@ginakolata Re "DNA, as individual as fingerprints." DNA data is several orders of magnitude >> than a 10 point fingerprint match. Most importantly, the subjectivity, and errors, of the FP examiner, are removed. https://t.co/HRZMIy8HGc
@th_alys Eντωμετάξυ τα δαχτυλικά αποτυπώματα έχουν εξαιρετικά μεγαλύτερο false-positive rate από τέτοια dna matches αλλά δεν θυμάμαι να έχω ακούσει από καμία υπεράσπιση κάτι περί αυτού... https://t.co/I4gYE7m5jb
@AANaseer Finger print IDs that are rejected may be 7.5% wrong according to this study: http://t.co/7gq1y8XXSa.
@AANaseer Finger print IDs that are rejected may be 7.5% wrong according to this study: http://t.co/7gq1y8XXSa.
@AANaseer Finger print IDs that are rejected may be 7.5% wrong according to this study: http://t.co/7gq1y8XXSa.
@Velezinee trained fingerprint experts make 7.5% false negatives ie 5325/71000 Maldivians would be denied their vote http://t.co/1PtffMz9yO
How accurate is forensic analysis? http://t.co/lwZ1pCQZC0 [see Ulery on fingerprints overall fn of 7.5% http://t.co/8bz7z33uT4 ]
http://t.co/cP0Atk6M Accuracy and reliability of #forensic latent fingerprint decisions
RT @bmj_latest: Should we use total mortality rather than cancer specific mortality to judge cancer screening programmes? Vote at http://t.co/t1JN31fz
Moblies claimed to be safe, but why omit children, under 30s & business users from study? http://t.co/v52eBtbW @uniofeastanglia #students
Moblies claimed to be safe, but why omit children, under 30s & business users from study? http://t.co/v52eBtbW @stephenfry #mobiles @BMJ
RT @e3intel: India's #healthcare system is inequitable http://t.co/AXyO0FL4 Now moving towards #NHS style universal coverage http://t.co/YHTuPP1I #hcsmin
Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions - http://t.co/Avmr8N6k