3D Fingerprinting — Touchless, More Accurate, and Faster 103
kkleiner writes "For all the glory it gets, the fingerprint has evolved very little in the last 60 years. They’re still two dimensional. The US Department of Homeland Security and the National Institute of Justice are hoping to change that. They've given grants to dozens of companies to perfect touchless 3D fingerprinting. Two universities (University of Kentucky and Carnegie Mellon) and their two respective start-up companies (Flashscan 3D and TBS Holdings) have succeeded. Fingerprints have reached the third dimension and they are faster, more accurate, and touchless."
Re:Cost (Score:3, Insightful)
False positives are worse; it is better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer.
Re:Great! Now I can be fingerprinted passively! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:fingerprinting (Score:3, Insightful)
There is probably no scientific evidence relied upon unquestionably, that has such serious issues regarding accuracy as fingerprinting.
If we were dealing with finger prints most of these issues would not arise. However, when we deal with a set of numbers in a computer file that only have to match to a certain level of precision there are way too many points for error.
TFA lauds discusses 3D scanning and casts aspersions on pressing inked finger to card.
I consider 3D just another source of error.
After all, leaving a finger print involves pressure and leaves a 2D print. What would be a better comparison than another 2D print made with typical pressure?
Mapping a 3D image to a 2D latent print opens the door for, and requires yet another layer of unproven technology. Conviction by mathematicians is not the standard to which we adhere.
Re:Cost (Score:3, Insightful)
> The article did not say the price, unless I missed it, but I can say its
> going to be a hell of alot more than a bit of ink and a piece of paper. And
> what is the point? Fingerprints on stuff are already 2D, why do we need to
> check 2D against 3D?
Speed and accuracy. The market is biometrics, not CSI.
Re:Not that useful for forensics? (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, but the software won't flatten the print quite the way pressing the finger against an object would.
The fact that they state that their flattened prints are able to integrate with the FBI database clearly means that this isn't a problem. Hell, real-life fingerprints flatten differently against different objects, so it's not like this is some new constraint, and at least the flattening process of the 3D scanner is predictable and repeatable. In short, I don't think this will be an issue.
Re:fingerprinting (Score:3, Insightful)
No, not irrelevant.
We all know that fingerprint identification is accurate at SOME LEVEL. The exact level has never been scientifically determined.
Adding another process to introduce error can't be good regardless of the error rate of the underlying process.
Fingerprints are at best exculpatory. Gross differences between two quality prints are easily detected. Even to the untrained eye.
Close matches are difficult, and significant disagreement can ensue between professionally trained experts, even in the absence of bias.
Somewhere between, there is a cohort of prints where mapping will induce greater error.
Re:Great! Now I can be fingerprinted passively! (Score:1, Insightful)
Unless John Q. Public has a concealed carry permit or has ever worked for a bank or other institution governed by the SEC or any other number of things. There's many non-criminal reasons for John Q. Public to end up with his fingerprints in a big government database and anyone concerned about it has a damn good reason imo.
Gummi fingers? (Score:3, Insightful)
The real question for me is, are these things less susceptible to gummi / jello fingers than 2D scanners? Seems like they would be equally susceptible, and therefore equally weak as a door lock.