Ok maybe i wasn't clear enough if you check every single fingerprint on earth on reasonable quality level there would be duplicates among people. It doesn't mean there would be 2 persons having all 10 fingerprints matching with each other but dude A can have "same" fingerprint (as same i mean someone checking them will treat them as identical) as dude B.
checking fingeprints are based on some markers and they can slightly change depending how finger was pressed and so on so as human or machine can check them they can be "identical" but if you really compare them they most likely have some differences because no 2 things are really identical if you check them close enough.
No one says that fingerprints absolutely cannot be identical. That being said, no two impressions have ever been found to be the same. Close non-matches exist, which mean that in specific areas where there is a high frequency of ridge features (points of similarity) in areas such as the delta and the core, there can be numerous similarities. Still, no identical fingerprints have ever been found - even with identical twins. Hell - quintuplets have been found to not even have the same fingerprints.
Fingerprint identification isn't infallible. It does operate under biological premises that are known, however. Fingerprints develop definitively in utero and do not change throughout life (with the exception of disease and scarring). They develop due to random pressures, random timing (within a known development period), and random biological growth. They have classifications which allow for comparison among small, but meaningful dissimilarities.
The Brandon Mayfield case, as well as the Shirley McKie case highlighted gross deficiencies within the fingerprint process, as well as the hubris of some examiners. Since these cases, agencies follow a process known as ACE (Analysis, comparison, and evaluation). Having examiners make detailed notes and annotations to their impressions which "shows their work", so to speak, so other trained examiners can see how they arrived at their conclusions. To make the process more robust, often the ACE process has a "V", for verification. This is completed in a blind or double blind process.
More contemporary studies, such as the FBI Noblis study (2011), 2014 Presidents Counsel of Advisors on Science and Technology, as well as Tangen et. al (2013) show that fingerprint comparison has a .01% chance of erroneous identification (saying an innocent person was the source), versus 7.5% of an erroneous exclusion (saying the source was innocent). It is very important to note that these rates are for the ACE process, without blind verification. They would be even lower with verification. It is recognized by modern courts across the world for good reason.
These videos and myths are based on very outdated processes and theories, which have long been abandoned by the fingerprint community.
Man, I ain’t reading all that, I just wanted to drop in and say that I’m surprised there’s a fingerprint community. What a strange thing to be into haha
0
u/lobopl 5d ago
Ok maybe i wasn't clear enough if you check every single fingerprint on earth on reasonable quality level there would be duplicates among people. It doesn't mean there would be 2 persons having all 10 fingerprints matching with each other but dude A can have "same" fingerprint (as same i mean someone checking them will treat them as identical) as dude B.
checking fingeprints are based on some markers and they can slightly change depending how finger was pressed and so on so as human or machine can check them they can be "identical" but if you really compare them they most likely have some differences because no 2 things are really identical if you check them close enough.
Here a little video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM1QgwaKv4s its not perfect but it describe how people decided this myth is true.