The Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) is implementing an Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) in collaboration with the Zimbabwe Centre for High-Performance Computing (ZCHPC).
This should enhance “smart policing” by streamlining the process of tracking and identifying criminals through digital fingerprint analysis.
The AFIS will enable the ZRP to electronically classify and vet fingerprints, maintaining a comprehensive database of criminal records.
This system is expected to improve the efficiency and accuracy of criminal investigations, allowing for quicker identification of suspects and resolution of cases.
Magnifying glasses?
I have to be honest. I knew that the ZRP did not have an automated fingerprint identification system but I never sat down to think about what they did to identify them.
Police Commissioner-General Steven Mutamba explained:
We have been doing this manually, and you can imagine looking at the fingerprint lines manually, producing a magnifying glass. It takes time.
My goodness. They were whipping out magnifying glasses. No wonder I’ve never heard of fingerprint evidence leading to prosecution. Maybe it’s happened but it’s been rare, I imagine.
All good but..
With a centralized digital database, the ZRP can identify repeat offenders and solve cold cases more efficiently, contributing to justice. If they are so inclined, that is.
The perception that the police have advanced tools may discourage criminal activity. Or at the very least, force criminals to up their game too.
It shouldn’t be too hard but implementation and training for officers to effectively use the system may take time and resources.
However, how will the ZRP ensure that sensitive biometric data is stored securely and not misused?
I’m sure I’m not the only one concerned about abuse of the system for purposes beyond criminal investigations. They could be used to target journalists, opposition politicians etc.
How? – you ask. Fingerprints are unique identifiers tied to an individual, and are stored alongside personal information like names, addresses, etc. in centralized databases.
If a government has access to such a database, they could:
• Identify individuals from fingerprints left at specific locations (e.g., meetings, protests, or events).
• Cross-reference fingerprints to link individuals to activities or associations, even if those activities are not criminal.
I would not put this past our government. I believe the only reason they weren’t doing this, at scale at least, is that magnifying glasses were a right old chore.
See, that’s the thing the new Police boss will have to contend with. Public trust of the police could not get any lower. We just don’t trust that even positive stuff like this will exclusively be used to benefit the masses.
Will this technology will truly benefit citizens or primarily serve government interests? We are justified in asking this question.
It turns out fingerprint analysis isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
Studies have shown that fingerprint evidence really shouldn’t be relied upon in court, because it’s just so difficult to match two prints to each other with perfect accuracy. Worse still, we collectively realized that no one’s ever even proven that fingerprints are unique. If these things can’t be done perfectly under controlled conditions in a lab, how will that analysis fare on a tail light that’s been exposed to the elements?
Fingerprint Source Identity Lacks Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. (2009). United Kingdom: National Academies Press.
Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach
Published February 17, 2012
PCAST Releases Report on Forensic Science in Criminal Courts
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT
Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods
You better hire your own forensic expert on fingerprint to cross-check the competence of the police and their automatic system if you a criminal suspect
from Wikipedia
Validity
Latent fingerprint analysis process
Fingerprints collected at a crime scene, or on items of evidence from a crime, have been used in forensic science to identify suspects, victims and other persons who touched a surface. Fingerprint identification emerged as an important system within police agencies in the late 19th century, when it replaced anthropometric measurements as a more reliable method for identifying persons having a prior record, often under a false name, in a criminal record repository.[30] Fingerprinting has served all governments worldwide during the past 100 years or so to provide identification of criminals. Fingerprints are the fundamental tool in every police agency for the identification of people with a criminal history.[30]
The validity of forensic fingerprint evidence has been challenged by academics, judges and the media. In the United States fingerprint examiners have not developed uniform standards for the identification of an individual based on matching fingerprints. In some countries where fingerprints are also used in criminal investigations, fingerprint examiners are required to match a number of identification points before a match is accepted. In England 16 identification points are required and in France 12, to match two fingerprints and identify an individual. Point-counting methods have been challenged by some fingerprint examiners because they focus solely on the location of particular characteristics in fingerprints that are to be matched. Fingerprint examiners may also uphold the one dissimilarity doctrine, which holds that if there is one dissimilarity between two fingerprints, the fingerprints are not from the same finger. Furthermore, academics have argued that the error rate in matching fingerprints has not been adequately studied and it has even been argued that fingerprint evidence has no secure statistical foundation.[1] Research has been conducted into whether experts can objectively focus on feature information in fingerprints without being misled by extraneous information, such as context.[2]
Fingerprints can theoretically be forged and planted at crime scenes.[57]