It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists pick sex and eating habits from a drop of sweat and fingerprint

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Scientists pick sex and eating habits from a drop of sweat and fingerprint


www.dailymail.co.uk

is the stuff crime novels are made of - the ability to tell a suspect's sex, diet and smoking habits, all from a single drop of sweat
Soon, police could have such technology at their fingertips, with the development of a technique that allows them to build up a profile of a suspect from nothing more than a fingerprint.
Scientists at Imperial College London have shown that fingerprints contain vital information about a person's habits.
(visit the link for the full news article)

www.dailymail.co.uk...

[edit on 4-8-2007 by highfreq]

[edit on 4-8-2007 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
It seems they can now tell if someone is male of female, what your diet is and can even tell how long it's been since that person was at the crime scene.

The traditional method of powder, Chemicals and tape are going to be a thing of the past.

This method could have a huge effect on the way evidence is collected . This could possibly have the effect as DNA evidence has to implicate criminals.


[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=472717&in_page_id=1965&in_a_source=]www.dailymail.co.uk[/ url]
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
What do people say about profiling. Just what info can they not get from from anyone, probably nothing.

[edit on 8/4/2007 by andy1033]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
What do people say about profiling. Just what info cannot get from you, probably nothing.


I am by no way being rude


I don't understand . What are you saying?



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by highfreq

Originally posted by andy1033
What do people say about profiling. Just what info cannot get from you, probably nothing.


I am by no way being rude


I don't understand . What are you saying?


If you knew a case i know of in uk, you can see what i mean, by they can get any info they want about you. If you are blind to that fact, thats your business.

What info they get from these things, goes into profiling.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   


If you knew a case i know of in uk, you can see what i mean, by they can get any info they want about you. If you are blind to that fact, thats your business.


I understand that. But this is dealing with the investigation procedures and collecting evidence. at this stage in the investigation usualy they don't know "who done it". This is simply a better way of preserving evidence .

It's not profiling if ones fingerprint is at the scene of a crime scene already.
Even if it's a partial and they can't identify "who" it is , they have other evidence to go such as, chemicals, GSR, explosive residue ect....
Lets say they find a full print that has traces of GSR or explosive compound. They find the person a few days later after washing up thuroughly erasing any evicence. Now they have the ability to preserve the evidence .

How is this considered profiling?

And could you tell me about the case in the UK?



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
When they collect evidence on a case, they have to build a profile of a suspect. Innocent people because they fit that profile, can be found guilty in the real world.

Is that not profiling in your book.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
When they collect evidence on a case, they have to build a profile of a suspect. Innocent people because they fit that profile, can be found guilty in the real world.

Is that not profiling in your book.


If there innocent as you stated then they are not guilty. Usualy you have to be proven guilty.


Offender profiling, or more scientifically, psychological profiling, is a behavioral and investigative tool that helps investigators to profile an unknown subject ("unsub") or offender(s). Offender profiling is also known as criminal profiling, criminal personality profiling, criminological profiling, behavioral profiling or criminal investigative analysis. There are so many different names because of the multiple television shows such as Profiler in the 1990s and The Silence of the Lambs that have changed what the FBI refers to as "criminal investigative analysis." In modern criminology, it is generally considered the "third wave" of investigative science: the first wave was the study of clues, pioneered by Scotland Yard in the 19th century; the second wave the study of crime itself (frequency studies and the like); this third and final wave is the study of the abnormal psyche of the criminal.
en.wikipedia.org...

I think you are refering to racial profiling which I believe IS illegal.


Racial profiling, also known as ethnic profiling, is the inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is considered likely to commit a particular type of crime (see Offender Profiling). Towards the end of the 20th century in the United States, the practice became controversial among the general public as the potential for abuse by law enforcement came to light.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by highfreq

Originally posted by andy1033
When they collect evidence on a case, they have to build a profile of a suspect. Innocent people because they fit that profile, can be found guilty in the real world.

Is that not profiling in your book.


If there innocent as you stated then they are not guilty. Usualy you have to be proven guilty.


yep how many cases through the years are there of innocent people being sent to jail for stuff they never did. these cases had profiling and forensics and still the wrong person got convicted.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   


Originaly posted by andy1033

yep how many cases through the years are there of innocent people being sent to jail for stuff they never did. these cases had profiling and forensics and still the wrong person got convicted.


I can't argue with you there.


So is it safe to say you just don't have any faith in the system? I suppose I don't blame you if you don't



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join