Method For Fingerprint Identification
Fingerprint Working Parties IEEGFI'Interpol European Expert Group on Fingerprint Identification - IEEGFI'Method For Fingerprint Identification Interpol, 4 June 2006.Executive SummaryDefinitionsRecommendationsSecond part of the mandateInitiation and installation of the WorkingGroupHolistic approach to identification of thefriction ridge surfaceGeneral position of fingerprint evidenceEmpirical standard approachGeneral statementsConsideration regarding the systemsand their conclusionsThe expertAppendixReference to other working groupsIntroductionThis document outlines methods and procedures for use in the identification offingerprints. It has been composed as a result of close co-operation with veryexperienced and qualified fingerprint experts from several European countries and mayserve as a touchstone and recommendation for good practice.The primary goal is to protect the solidity of fingerprint evidence recognizing theresponsibility towards society. The described methods and procedures are developed withawareness of this responsibility and understanding of the risks of the profession.They serve as a guideline for a process that generates the most positive evidence uponidentity that is available. Those guidelines, however useful and important as they maybe, will only be effective if they are executed by well-trained and experienced expertsthat understand their meaning and are allowed to operate in a sound environment.It was an honor to be chairman of this group and a pleasure to participate in the debate.A debate of which the spirit did justice to the founders of fingerprints.A.J. ZeelenbergChairman of the IEEGFI,Head of the National Fingerprint Department, NetherlandsExecutive summaryThe Interpol European Expert Group on Fingerprint Identification (IEEGFI) was instigatedin 1998 following a proposal accepted at the 26th European Regional Conference held inSlovakia in May 1997. The proposal to assess the feasibility of formulating a EuropeanFingerprint Identification Standard was endorsed by the Interpol European Committee in
November 1997, which set the basis for the work to be undertaken by the IEEGFI in thefollowing statement:'Bearing in mind the methods and procedures for identification of fingerprints in use byInterpol European member countries, the Interpol European Expert Group on FingerprintIdentification is asked to explore the feasibility of determining a common Europeanmethod for fingerprint identification. This new method will include standard fingerprintidentification procedures and an agreed number of minutiae and other characteristics.'The countries which comprised the membership of the Group are representative of thevarious methods being utilized in Europe for the identification by means of fingerprints.From the discussions which have been held have emerged two main systems ofcomparison/identification and the presentation of such identifications as evidence. Thesetwo systems can be described as:a. the empirical standard approachb. the holistic quality approach.The Report of the IEEGFI provides guidelines for fingerprint bureaus operation systems.In doing so, it outlines the two different approaches to fingerprint identification andmakes recommendations on the manner in which the processes should be addressed andthe personnel should be assessed. The IEEGFI considers that whether Europeanfingerprint bureaus use either of the two approaches to fingerprint identification in themanner explained, providing they adopt the recommendations relating to process control,training and competency assessment, the results obtained and evidence provided shouldbe error-free and positive.The procedures which provide the safety factor in each of the systems incorporate thenecessity for:1. Fully documented processes which enable the actions taken to be audited.2. The persons undertaking the work have been thoroughly trained. Reference ismade to the Standardised Fingerprint Training Report by the Interpol EuropeanWorking Group on Fingerprint Training.3. The persons undertaking the work are formally tested as to their competency indecision making on identity on a regular basis.4. The appropriate environment is provided for the persons undertaking the work toobviate pressures and bias being brought to bear.The IEEGFI considered the aspect of results produced in one country being accepted inanother. The difficulties with different legislative requirements and the differentapproaches being taken in identification will necessitate any identification provided byone country to another being fully assessed by the recipient. Only the receiving countrycan or should decide on the validity of an identification for its own judicial process. Thisprocedure is in line with that articulated in the recommendations of the InterpolEuropean Working Group on Fingerprints which reported to the European Conference inMay 1997.The IEEGFI also has registered within the Report its concern with the increase in theoperational use of live scan systems. The move to a paperless environment has risks forfingerprint identification and evidence in so far as the images resulting from thesesystems are not true replicas of the 'prints that are taken'. The software compresses theimage which therefore loses detail which maybe crucial in the establishing of an
identification. There is additionally the 'legal acceptance' of such information. There are,as a result, dangers which can militate against positivity in fingerprint identifications.RecommendationsThe IEEGFI takes the view that, whichever of the two methods of fingerprintidentification is used within a country, there are fundamental quality aspects whichshould be applied in order to achieve accuracy and consistency of performance. Thereforethe following recommendations/guidelines are provided to assist bureaus to fulfill theirobjectives in a professional manner.Operation procedures for a fingerprint bureau1. It is recommended that every fingerprint bureau should document all of itsprocedures fully detailing all of the processes undertaken to accomplish its work.2. It is recommended that changes to procedure should be thoroughly consideredand documented as to reason before being implemented.3. It is recommended that the identification procedure adopted within a fingerprintbureau is based on:a. The initial assessment and conclusion of a comparison.b. The verification-assessment and conclusion of a comparison.(Two different experts operating independently is a minimum requirement,most countries have three independent assessments)Each expert in reaching a decision would follow the process outlined in this report.(i.e. the Information Phase, the Comparison Phase, the Evaluation Phase, theConclusion Phase).4. It is recommended that the work of a fingerprint bureau is independently auditedon a regular basis to ensure that the work undertaken is in accordance with thedocumented procedures.Competency assessment of fingerprint experts1. It is recommended that each fingerprint expert is regularly tested on a formalbasis on his ability to make fingerprint identity decisions.2. It is recommended that, in conjunction with the testing process, procedures areadopted for dealing with the fingerprint expert who 'fails' the test.Working environment1. It is recommended that the environment in which a fingerprint expert works isone which excludes the possibility of outside influences and pressures.2. It is recommended that each fingerprint expert is provided with, or has access to,appropriate technological aids to assist in the 'comparison/identification' process(e.g. magnifiers, light sources, enlarging comparators, photographic enlarging,etc.)3. It is recommended that fingerprint experts are not time-constrained inundertaking a comparison.
Standards of behavior1. It is recommended that fingerprint experts should:a. Abide by a code of ethics. An example of an ethical code of conduct from'The Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners in the UnitedKingdom' is attached as Appendix 2.b. Operate in a professional manner and be accountable for actions taken.Inter-country procedure1. It is recommended that only the receiving country can or should decide on thevalidity of an identification for its own judicial process.2. Identifications established by another country should be confirmed by thereceiving country.Further recommendations beyond the mandate1. The Interpol European Expert Group on Fingerprint Identification has fulfilled itsmandate as far as possible and has, in the present report, detailed a number ofimportant recommendations related to the methodology and the procedures of thefingerprint identification process. It is the overall opinion of the members of theWorking Group that it is also important to detail the practice of the comparisonprocess and develop definitions and guidelines that can be recommended in orderto encourage further uniformity and quality assurance in Europe.Therefore, the Group would recommend that consideration be given by theEuropean Regional Conference for a further extension of the mandate of theIEEGFI with new terms of reference which details are given in Appendix 3.2. With the discussions of the IEEGFI-II, to be, a wide variety of topics ranging fromthe validation of quality to the application of psychology will be covered.Delegates should therefore be able to contribute with observations, feelings andopinions that are found to be difficult to address already in the mother tongue.Furthermore, the task will cover typical language-dependent issues such as thedesign of terminology and definitions that will function as the 'grammar' of thejob. This nomenclature of identification will facilitate and promote cross-borderdiscussions in future. In order to guarantee full and equal participation, it is ofvital importance that interpretation is supplied. In the light of the presentcomposition of the Working Group, this would mean that French interpretationshould be granted.3. The fingerprint business covers a large variety of specific disciplines ranging fromcourt presentations to particular archiving, from managing the chain of evidenceto managing large computer systems, from detection techniques to training staff,etc. Furthermore, as there is virtually no support from universities or privatecompanies that deal with the same subjects, fingerprints experts have to build upand maintain their knowledge independently. In the light of this, the members ofthe Working Group feel that experts and managers from the national fingerprintbureaux could learn a lot from each other in exchanging experiences, concerns,ideas, problems and solutions. It is therefore recommended that the EuropeanRegional Conference initiates an International Conference on Fingerprints in 2001with the aim to exchange information on a basic level. Additionally, theachievements of the various Interpol working groups since the last international
conference in 1995 could be one of the subjects of discussion at such aconference.Initiation and installation of the working group1. Based on the decision made by the 26th European Regional Conference held inPiestany, Slovakia in May 1997 and a survey by the European Liaison Bureau, theInterpol European Committee decided at its 18th meeting in November 1997 toset up the Interpol European Expert Group on Fingerprint Identification (IEEGFI).Specific triggers for the initiative were:oThe wish to set up standardised training for fingerprint experts in Europe(The Working Party on Fingerprint Standards (WPFS)/The ImplementationGroup on Standardised Fingerprint Training).oThe growing number of cases in which evidence between membercountries is exchanged.oThe likelihood of experts giving evidence across the borders in the nearfuture will generate the chance of opposing opinions in court and, as aresult, cause damage to fingerprint evidence.oA proposal for a working group from the Dutch delegation at the 26thEuropean Regional Conference.To ensure that fingerprint evidence is solid and that conclusions of oneexpert can be supported by another, regardless of his/her origin, it was feltthat a common method, with procedures and standards, would be highlypreferable.2. The mandate subsequently formulated by the Interpol European Committee inNovember 1997 reads as follows:'Bearing in mind the methods and procedures for identification of fingerprintscurrently in use by Interpol European member countries, the Interpol EuropeanExpert Group on Fingerprint Identification is asked to explore the feasibility ofdefining a common European method for fingerprint identification. This newmethod will include standard fingerprint identification procedures and an agreednumber of minutiae and other characteristics'.3. The meetings of the IEEFGI were arranged by the Interpol General Secretariatwho invited the predetermined delegations from France, Germany, Hungary,Latvia, Moldova, Norway, Netherlands and United Kingdom. The GeneralSecretariat participated as well. Netherlands were invited to take the chair whichthey did after support of the first meeting. The General Secretariat took up thetask of taking the minutes of the meetings.For practical reasons, the delegation of Netherlands also agreed to do thepaperwork related to the chair and to compose a draft report. The UK delegationoffered to perform correction services.4. Latvia and Moldova both communicated that they were unable to attend. From the
subsequently selected countries by the Working Group, Ukraine also made knownthat they were unable to participate. It was decided that Greece and Poland wouldbe invited. They both gladly accepted the invitation and have participated since.5. The United Kingdom was represented by two members; one from New ScotlandYard representing the Association of Chief Police Officers (England, Wales andNorthern Ireland) and the other from the Scottish Criminal Record Office,representing the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland).6. Finally the Working Group comprised the following erlands (chair, secretariat)NorwayPolandUnited Kingdomplus Interpol General Secretariat (organisation, minutes)7. With the initiative of the Working Group, it was recognised that the matters to bediscussed were delicate and would be difficult to voice. Although absence ofsimultaneous interpretation had been explicitly conveyed to participatingcountries, it has however, hampered the discussions with delegation holding backmomentarily from full participation.8. Meetings were held at the Interpol General Secretariat in Lyons on:o24th and 25th February 1998,o27th and 28th October 1998,o24th and 25th February 1999,o17th and 18th November 1999o15th and 16th February 2000.9. Presentations were given by all delegations on their procedures and viewsexpressed on the subject of a common standard.A brainstorming session was held in February 1998. The results were used laterfor further discussions and implemented in the report.Delegations provided papers on their procedures and standards. These papers willbe made available to Interpol member countries on the Internet Web Site ofInterpol General Secretariat.At the second meeting, general concern in relation to the spread of live scantechnology was identified.The Working Group adopted the proposal to send a letter expressing this concernabout live scan to the 21st meeting of the Interpol European Committee held inNovember 1998. The Committee took note of this letter (Appendix 1). A copy of it
will also be available on the Interpol Web site.General position of fingerprint evidence1. Fingerprints have a long history as a tool for identification both for civil andforensic purposes. Their reliability are proverbial and are often used as a yardstickand a reference model for other (new) forensic techniques mainly to profit fromtheir widespread image. Identification by fingerprints has enabled recognition ofindividuals on a large scale by police and civil authorities for decades and oftenfunctions as the cornerstone of their registrations. Swift and reliable detection ofattempts to deceit with false identities serves the integrity of records and policeinvestigation. Fingerprints will remain to fulfil this function for a long time tocome. The properties of fingerprints guarantee this. The ease of taking,transmitting, coding and filing prints in (automated) systems has facilitated accessto immense files all over the world.A rough estimation is that between 5 and 15 % of the world population isfingerprinted and has its prints on files. Computers all over the world constantlymatch millions of records per second penetrating collections in depth even withfragments of prints and generate fast results. The axiom that not two personshave the same fingerprints is already firmly based. With the comparison of billionsof prints per day, the opposite is never found, so the uniqueness is constantlyconfirmed in an unprecedented way.2. In the investigation of crime, fingerprints found on the scenes lead to moresuspects and generate more evidence in court than all other forensic techniquescombined.Results over the years, expressed both in numbers and reliability, have led to ahigh level of acceptance of fingerprint evidence which is seldom challenged.3. Specific aspects of fingerprint evidenceFingerprint services are often located within police services or closely connected tothem, contrary to other services investigating forensic evidence that are oftensituated in separate forensic laboratories. The investigators are often policeofficers or civilians trained specifically in fingerprints whilst in laboratoriesscientists encompass a variety of forensic disciplines. The conclusions offingerprint identifications are the most positive possible even in instances wherelatents from a scene of crime are deemed 'borderline'. Fingerprints connect asuspect with certainty to a scene of crime excluding at the same time all otherpossible donors for the print.A fingerprint technician may have a dualistic function. In searching latents at thescene of crime and searching files, his prime objective and motivation are findingthe donor. Once a likely hit has been found, he has to perform a metamorphosisand become an independent and unbiased forensic investigator.There are few techniques where the processes of selection and proof are sointerwoven.4. Concerns
1. The setting of fingerprint expertise as outlined in the previous sectionscontains a number of potential risks. Blind acceptance, dualism in thefunction, positioning in the organisation and non-scientific origin of itsinvestigators generate a 'field of force' that in itself is not ideal forindependent and unbiased investigation.2. Reported mistaken identifications are likely to find their origin in anunhealthy culture, grown in an environment in which those forces do nothave a quality controlled process. Mistakes in fingerprint identification canbe avoided but they do occur nevertheless. Their occurrence damages theimage of the reliability of fingerprints as an institution.3. The exchange of evidential conclusions between countries using differentstandards could, in particular cases, show that opinions differ on thequestion whether identification is beyond any doubt. The same differencesmay occur with experts delivering second opinions in another country orsystem. Both systems/organisations involved may generate perfectly safeand sound evidence but may have different opinions coming from theirstandards and their application. Even if none of the conclusions is wrongper se, it will be exploited by the defence. They could refer to the generalrequirement for scientific practice that repetition/replication of theprocesses and their outcomes are proving validity.5. Methods and procedures - General purpose1. The main mission of the fingerprint expert is to deliver reliable conclusions.The expert's task is to translate the naked i
It is recommended that the identification procedure adopted within a fingerprint bureau is based on: a. The initial assessment and conclusion of a comparison. . 'Bearing in mind the methods and procedures for identification of fingerprints currently in use by Interpol European member countries, the Interpol European .
Bruksanvisning för bilstereo . Bruksanvisning for bilstereo . Instrukcja obsługi samochodowego odtwarzacza stereo . Operating Instructions for Car Stereo . 610-104 . SV . Bruksanvisning i original
10 tips och tricks för att lyckas med ert sap-projekt 20 SAPSANYTT 2/2015 De flesta projektledare känner säkert till Cobb’s paradox. Martin Cobb verkade som CIO för sekretariatet för Treasury Board of Canada 1995 då han ställde frågan
service i Norge och Finland drivs inom ramen för ett enskilt företag (NRK. 1 och Yleisradio), fin ns det i Sverige tre: Ett för tv (Sveriges Television , SVT ), ett för radio (Sveriges Radio , SR ) och ett för utbildnings program (Sveriges Utbildningsradio, UR, vilket till följd av sin begränsade storlek inte återfinns bland de 25 största
Hotell För hotell anges de tre klasserna A/B, C och D. Det betyder att den "normala" standarden C är acceptabel men att motiven för en högre standard är starka. Ljudklass C motsvarar de tidigare normkraven för hotell, ljudklass A/B motsvarar kraven för moderna hotell med hög standard och ljudklass D kan användas vid
LÄS NOGGRANT FÖLJANDE VILLKOR FÖR APPLE DEVELOPER PROGRAM LICENCE . Apple Developer Program License Agreement Syfte Du vill använda Apple-mjukvara (enligt definitionen nedan) för att utveckla en eller flera Applikationer (enligt definitionen nedan) för Apple-märkta produkter. . Applikationer som utvecklas för iOS-produkter, Apple .
fingerprint verification and fingerprint identification. While the goal of fingerprint verification is to verify the identity of a person, the goal of fingerprint IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, Vol. 10, Issue 4, No 1, July 2013 ISSN (Print): 1694-0814 ISSN (Online): 1694-0784 www.IJCSI.org 192
EPA Test Method 1: EPA Test Method 2 EPA Test Method 3A. EPA Test Method 4 . Method 3A Oxygen & Carbon Dioxide . EPA Test Method 3A. Method 6C SO. 2. EPA Test Method 6C . Method 7E NOx . EPA Test Method 7E. Method 10 CO . EPA Test Method 10 . Method 25A Hydrocarbons (THC) EPA Test Method 25A. Method 30B Mercury (sorbent trap) EPA Test Method .
2 Unlock according to the specified lock method. 3 From the fingerprint list, tap a fingerprint to rename it. To delete it, tap . Unlocking the screen with a fingerprint You can unlock the screen or view locked content by using your fingerprint. 1 On the home screen, tap Settings Lock screen & security Fingerprints. 2 3
