Detail Archives    Discuss This Issue    Subscribe to The Detail Fingerprint News Archive       Search Past Details

G o o d   M o r n i n g !
via THE WEEKLY DETAIL
 
Monday, January 28, 2008

 
The purpose of the Detail is to help keep you informed of the current state of affairs in the latent print community, to provide an avenue to circulate original fingerprint-related articles, and to announce important events as they happen in our field.
_________________________________________
__________________________________________
Breaking NEWz you can UzE...
compiled by Jon Stimac

Judge Approves Request to Gather More Fingerprints  DAILY TIMES, AL - Jan 26, 2008 ...a Circuit Court Judge honored a request by prosecutors to order a homicide suspect to submit to additional fingerprint testing...

Fingerprint Evidence Challenged HOWARD COUNTY TIMES, MD - Jan 24, 2008 - ...an attorney for a man who is charged with a murder wants evidence excluded from his client's upcoming trial...

Enhancing Latent Prints FORENSIC MAGAZINE - Jan, 2008 - ...old technique plus new technology equals more options for the development and enhancement of latent fingerprints...

MSNBC Misses Real Story in Forensic-failure Series CRIME LAB REPORT - Jan 16, 2008  ...we expected to tune-in to an unfair public excoriation of forensic scientists...other than its gratuitous promotional teasers, it's only significant flaw was its name...

__________________________________________
Recent CLPEX Posting Activity
Last Week's Board topics containing new posts
Moderated by Steve Everist

Announcement: Click link any time for recent, relevant fingerprint NEWS
clpexco 983 16 Dec 2007 03:36 pm

Calls for Inquiry to be scrapped
Daktari 7957 27 Jan 2008 08:15 pm

Sequential Processing
Heidi Fraser 65 27 Jan 2008 08:13 pm

Legal Misconduct
mdavis 476 27 Jan 2008 02:14 pm

Report Wording Interpretations
Carl Speckels 270 26 Jan 2008 10:11 pm

Improving techniques for postmortem prints...
nctindle 81 26 Jan 2008 10:29 am

They Walk Among Us
Charles Parker 4470 25 Jan 2008 07:49 pm

What is SCIENCE?
Thomas Taylor 222 25 Jan 2008 05:04 pm

Another Challenge on the Horizon in Maryland
Steve Everist 117 24 Jan 2008 11:03 pm

Evidence Fabrication in South Africa
Pat A. Wertheim 8089 24 Jan 2008 08:04 pm

Fingerprints and Liquid Nitrogen
starsplitter7 230 22 Jan 2008 03:38 pm

2006 Article from Judicature Journal - Improving Reliability
Steve Everist 615 22 Jan 2008 12:25 pm

(http://clpex.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=2)
 

 
UPDATES ON CLPEX.com


Updated the Fingerprint Interest Group web page with FIG # 30

Inserted KEPT (Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony) #4 - Verification - Why is it done?  Discuss this topic on CLPEX.com - a discussion has been created for KEPT.
_________________________________________

Last week

we caught up on the December IAI update.  In 2008, the IAI Update will appear in the IAI's new bi-monthly newsletter, Identification News.  This newsletter will contain other association information so that the main content of the Journal of Forensic Identification can remain professional articles.  IAI members will received both the JFI and Identification News, so if you are not an IAI member and wish to join, speak with an existing IAI member in your area to sponsor you for membership.

This week

we look at the Committee to Define an Extended Fingerprint Feature Set, or "CDEFFS".  Portions of the document are represented here via the Detail to give the reader the background information and a general idea of the content of the document.  Interested readers are encouraged to access the complete document available online from the NIST website at the link below and offer feedback if inclined to do so.
_________________________________________
The ANSI/NIST Committee to Define an Extended Fingerprint Feature Set (CDEFFS)
http://fingerprint.nist.gov/standard/cdeffs/index.html
(http://fingerprint.nist.gov/standard/cdeffs/index.html)
Last updated 18 January 2008

The purpose of CDEFFS is to define a quantifiable, repeatable, and clear method of characterizing the information content of a fingerprint or other friction ridge image.

CDEFFS is a committee tasked to define fingerprint features beyond minutiae, to be added to the ANSI/NIST ITL-1 2007 standard "Data Format for the Interchange of Fingerprint, Facial, & Scar Mark & Tattoo (SMT) Information". The ANSI/NIST ITL standards are the basis for the FBI's EFTS/EBTS and Interpol's INT-I, among others.

Background:

At the ANSI/NIST ITL 1-2000 Standard Workshop I in April 2005, SWGFAST (Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study, and Technology) was tasked to identify, define and provide guidance on additional fingerprint features beyond the traditional ending ridges and bifurcations currently defined in the ANSI/NIST ITL-2000 standard (which is the basis for the FBI's EFTS, and Interpol's INT-I).
At their Fall 2005 meeting, SWGFAST drafted a memo to Mike McCabe at NIST in response, enumerating the features used by expert human latent examiners that are not currently addressed in fingerprint feature standards.

As a follow-on to this, at the ANSI/NIST ITL 1-2000 Standard Workshop II in December 2005, Steve Meagher (FBI) and Austin Hicklin (Mitretek) gave a presentation entitled “Extended Fingerprint Feature Set”, and proposed these next steps:

1) Convene a committee to define an Extended Fingerprint Feature Set
2) Plan for an Addendum to the ANSI/NIST ITL-2007
3) FBI will be providing data sets with marked up examples (similar to NIST SD27)

In response, the Workshop then chartered this committee. The committee currently includes representatives from various Federal Agencies, SWGFAST and the latent fingerprint community, and senior engineers from each of the major AFIS vendors.

American National Standard for Information Systems —
WORKING DRAFT Version 0.2

Data Format for the Interchange of Extended Fingerprint and Palmprint Features

An Addendum to ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2007 Data Format for the Interchange of Fingerprint, Facial, & Other Biometric Information

18 January 2008

Abstract:

The purpose of this document is to define a quantifiable, repeatable, and clear method of characterizing the information content of a fingerprint or other friction ridge image. This working draft addendum to the ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2007 standard, “Data Format for the Interchange of Fingerprint, Facial, & Other Biometric Information” defines a series of updated fields for that standard, creating a broader, more complete, and more detailed set of friction skin features than any other fingerprint features standard. Uses may include, but are not limited to, fully automated searches of fingerprint or palmprint systems, human-initiated searches of automated fingerprint or palmprint systems, information exchange between human examiners, or definitions of information content of fingerprints or palmprints. This document is the result of more than two years of detailed interactions among the members of CDEFFS (the ANSI/NIST Committee to Define an Extended Fingerprint Feature Set).

Foreword:

(This informational foreword is not part of the American National Standard ANSI/NIST ITL 1a-200X.)

At the ANSI/NIST ITL 1-2000 Standard Workshop I in April 2005, the Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study, and Technology (SWGFAST) was tasked to identify, define and provide guidance on additional fingerprint features beyond the traditional ending ridges and bifurcations currently defined in the ANSI/NIST ITL-2000 standard (which is the basis for the FBI's EFTS, and Interpol's INT-I). SWGFAST drafted a memo to NIST in response1, enumerating the features used by expert human latent examiners that are not currently addressed in fingerprint feature standards. SWGFAST stated its concern: “AFIS [Automated Fingerprint Identification System] technology, since its onset, has utilized a very limited amount of fingerprint detail. Latent print experts must rely on far more information in effecting individualizations/exclusions than just ending ridges and bifurcations, i.e., the Type-9 minutiae record. SWGFAST is attempting to educate and provide to the vendor community the additional features and how they are utilized by these experts.”

In response to SWGFAST, Steve Meagher (FBI) and Austin Hicklin (Mitretek, later renamed Noblis) gave a presentation at the ANSI/NIST ITL 1-2000 Standard Workshop II in December 2005, entitled “Extended Fingerprint Feature Set”, and proposed that a committee be convened to define an Extended Fingerprint Feature Set as an Addendum to the next ANSI/NIST ITL standard. The ANSI/NIST Committee to Define an Extended Fingerprint Feature Set (CDEFFS) was chartered for that purpose. The committee includes representatives from various Federal Agencies, SWGFAST and the latent fingerprint community, and engineers from a variety of AFIS vendors.

This addendum to the standard is the result of agreements reached among the members of CDEFFS during workshops held in April, May, and July 2006, and extensive electronic interactions and document reviews from December 2005 through December 2007.

Suggestions for the improvement of this standard are welcome. They should be sent to the attention of Austin Hicklin (CDEFFS Chair), Noblis, 3150 Fairview Park Drive South, Falls Church VA 22042, hicklin@noblis.org.

The following individuals were members of CDEFFS and worked on defining this standard. Inclusion in this list does not necessarily imply that the affiliated organizations concur with the submittal of the proposed standard to ANSI. Members who changed affiliations are listed with all affiliations.

Behnam Bavarian (Motorola/ABC)
Vincent Bouatou (Sagem Morpho)
John Burt (NEC)
Christophe Champod (University of Lausanne)
Yi Chen (Michigan State University)
Vladimir Dvornychenko (NIST)
Jeri Eaton (King County WA/Eaton Group)
Brian Finegold (BAE)
Jean-Christophe Fondeur (Sagem Morpho)
Mike Garris (NIST)
Ed German
Mike Gilchrist (FBI-CJIS)
Paul Griffin
Masanori Hara (NEC)
Austin Hicklin, Chair and Editor (Noblis)
Peter Higgins (HHB Group)
Tom Hopper (FBI-CJIS)
Anil Jain (Michigan State University)
Creed Jones (Sagem Morpho)
Artour Karaguiozian (Motorola)
Peter Komarinski (IAI)
Debbie Leben (US Secret Service)
Bill Long (TBS)
Davide Maltoni (University of Bologna)
Dana Marohn (IBG)
Brian Martin (L-1 Identity Solutions)
Mike McCabe (NIST/IDTP)
Glen McNeil (Sagem Morpho)
Steve Meagher (FBI-LPU/retired)
Dmitry Mikhailov (Jobin Yvon/SPEX)
Elaine Newton (NIST)
Afzel Noore (West Virginia University)
Shahram Orandi (NIST)
Geppy Parziale (TBS/Cogent)
Wade Petroka (King County WA Sheriff's Office)
Ann Punter (Cogent)
Richa Singh (West Virginia University)
Greg Soltis (DEA/FBI Lab)
John Mayer-Splain (Noblis)
Scott Swann (FBI-CJIS)
Elham Tabassi (NIST)
Cedric Thuillier (Sagem Morpho)
Anne Wang (Cogent)
Phillip Wasserman (NIST)
Kasey Wertheim (NGIC/Harding)
Brian Wong (IBG)
Stephen Wood (NIST)

1 Introduction

The Data Format for the Interchange of Fingerprint, Facial, & Other Biometric Information (ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2007) is the most recent revision of a series of standards that began in 1983. These ANSI/NIST standards have been extensively used as the primary method of communicating biometric information for law enforcement and other large-scale identification purposes.

In the 2005 ANSI/NIST workshops, various participants noted that the fingerprint feature definitions in the ANSI/NIST standards (and extended by the FBI’s Electronic Fingerprint Transmission Specification (EFTS)) are oversimplifications of the more extensive set of features used by human fingerprint experts.

Use of the feature definitions in ANSI/NIST Type-9 records limits the performance of automated fingerprint matching systems, and limits the value of ANSI/NIST files as a format for communication between human fingerprint examiners. In response, the ANSI/NIST Committee to Define an Extended Fingerprint Feature Set (CDEFFS) was chartered, consisting of representatives from various Federal Agencies, SWGFAST and the latent fingerprint community, and engineers from a variety of AFIS vendors. This addendum is the result of more than a year of detailed interactions among the members of CDEFFS. This is an addendum to the ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2007 standard. This addendum defines a series of updated fields for the Type-9 record that includes a broader, more complete, and more detailed set of friction skin features than any other fingerprint features standard.

2.1 Scope

This addendum defines the content, format, and units of measurement for the exchange of friction ridge feature information that may be used in the identification of a subject based on fingerprint or palmprint image information. This information is intended for interchange between criminal justice administrations or organizations that use fingerprints or palmprints for identification purposes.

2.2 Purpose

The purpose of this addendum is to define a quantifiable, repeatable, and clear method of characterizing the information content of a fingerprint or other friction ridge image.

This addendum defines a broader and more complete set of friction ridge features than has previously been defined in the ANSI/NIST standards or any other fingerprint standard. The features defined in this addendum are used to define the information content or features of latent or exemplar images from fingerprints, palmprints, or other friction ridge skin.

Uses may include, but are not limited to, fully automated searches of fingerprint or palmprint systems, human-initiated searches of automated fingerprint or palmprint systems, information exchange between human examiners, or definitions of information content of fingerprints or palmprints. Note that different uses will require different subsets of the features defined in this addendum. It should also be noted that automated algorithms can use the extended features defined for a latent search without explicitly computing them for the exemplar image, and thus it must be emphasized that automated extraction of the extended features on the exemplar is not necessarily the only nor the best way to use this information.


Content Outline:

7 Guidance in the Definition of Extended Friction Ridge Features

7.1 Region of Interest

7.2 Orientation

7.3 Comparison Features

7.4 Skeletonized Image

7.5 Virtual Features

8 Extended friction ridge feature set fields

8.1 Notes on Representations

8.1.1 Coordinate system

8.1.2 Angles

8.1.3 Polygons

8.1.4 Unknown, omitted, or non-applicable values

8.2 Extended friction ridge feature set fields

8.2.1 ANSI/NIST Legacy Fields

8.2.2 Location and Orientation Fields

8.2.3 Overall Image Characteristics

8.2.4 Reference Points

8.2.5 Minutiae

8.2.6 Secondary Features

8.2.7 Annotations

8.2.8 Corresponding Features

8.2.9 Skeletonized Image

8.3 Additional extended friction ridge feature set records

Figures

Figure A - 1: Fingerprint image with Region of Interest rectangle and polygon

Figure A - 2: Examples of areas and points of correspondence in rolled exemplar, latent, and plain

exemplar images

Figure A - 3: Examples of fingerprint, skeletonized representation, and overlay of original / skeleton /

quality map

Figure A - 4: Example of interrelationships between minutiae represented in a skeletonized image

Figure A - 5: Measurement of angles

Figure A - 6: Example of orientation: -25 ± 20 degrees

Figure A - 7: Palm and finger segment positions

Figure A - 8: Use of bounding boxes to mark multiple finger segments

Figure A - 9: Placement of the core at the focus of the innermost recurving ridgeline

Figure A - 10: Examples of core locations for a double loop whorl, plain whorl, tented arch, and central

pocket loop whorl

Figure A - 11: Uppermost point of the ridge with greatest curvature. Measurements are angles (degrees)

Figure A - 12: Overall fingerprint focal point

Figure A - 13: Locations of major flexion creases

Figure A - 14: Examples of the use of IDC references in Areas of Correspondence for more than 2

images

Tables

Table A - 1: Logical record types

Table A - 2: Registered feature blocks

Table A - 3: Record layout for extended friction ridge feature fields

Table A - 4: Finger and palm impression types

Table A - 5: Position codes for friction ridge skin

Table A - 6: Finger segment positions

Table A - 7: Pattern classification codes

Table A - 8: Local ridge quality codes

Table A - 9: Ridge quality map data representation format options

Table A - 10: Ridge flow map data representation format options

Table A - 11: Negative image codes

Table A - 12: Degree of distortion codes

Table A - 13: Number of cores and deltas by pattern class

Table A - 14: Methods of determining center point of reference locations

Table A - 15: Types of distinctive features

Table A - 16: Minutia types

Table A - 17: Minutiae ridge count algorithms

Table A - 18: Major flexion creases

Table A - 19: Methods of feature detection

Table A - 20: Skeletonized image format codes


_________________________________________

KEPT - Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony - #4
by Michele Triplett, King County Sheriff's Office

Question – Verification – Why is it done?:

Why is your work verified?

 

Possible Answers:

a)      It’s our office policy.

b)      It’s required as a part of the ACE-V methodology.

c)      SWGFAST recommends verifying all individualizations and my office follows this recommendation.

d)     Leaving all conclusions open for review is a standard scientific control measure to insure the best possible results.  Instead of just leaving conclusions open for review our office takes the additional step of reviewing all individualizations.

e)      Leaving all conclusions open for review is a standard scientific control measure to insure the best possible results.  Instead of just leaving conclusions open for review our office takes the additional step of reviewing all conclusions prior to reporting any conclusions.

 

Discussion:

Answer a:  “It’s our office policy” is never a good answer.  People should know why policies exist and be able to communicate the reasons to other people.

Answer b:  This is a true statement but it doesn’t say why a verification is done.

Answer c:  Following the recommendation of others without knowing why is never a good quality assurance measure.

Answers d and e:  Either of these answers are good (whichever applies to your agency).

Disclaimer:  The intent of this is to provide thought provoking discussion.  No claims of accuracy exist. 
_________________________________________

Feel free to pass The Detail along to other examiners.  This is a free newsletter FOR latent print examiners, BY latent print examiners. With the exception of weeks such as this week, there are no copyrights on The Detail content.  As always, the website is open for all to visit!

If you have not yet signed up to receive the Weekly Detail in YOUR e-mail inbox, go ahead and join the list now so you don't miss out!  (To join this free e-mail newsletter, enter your name and e-mail address on the following page: http://www.clpex.com/Subscribe.htm  You will be sent a Confirmation e-mail... just click on the link in that e-mail, or paste it into an Internet Explorer address bar, and you are signed up!)  If you have problems receiving the Detail from a work e-mail address, there have been past issues with department e-mail filters considering the Detail as potential unsolicited e-mail.  Try subscribing from a home e-mail address or contact your IT department to allow e-mails from Topica.  Members may unsubscribe at any time.  If you have difficulties with the sign-up process or have been inadvertently removed from the list, e-mail me personally at kaseywertheim@aol.com and I will try to work things out.

Until next Monday morning, don't work too hard or too little.

Have a GREAT week!