Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System Research Articles

FBI NGI goes live with new biometric capabilities

The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division has announced the ‘full operational capability’ of the Next Generation Identification (NGI) System. The NGI System was developed to expand the FBI's biometric identification capabilities, ultimately to replace the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) in addition to adding new capabilities.

Biometrics Marches Forward in US Government

Representatives of various US Government agencies trumpeted the benefits of biometric identification at the Biometrics 2001 Conference held in Arlington, Virginia. The conference was cosponsored by AFCEA International and the Department of Defense (DoD) Biometrics Management Office (DBMO). The DBMO’s director, Phillip Loranger, announced his desire for the Pentagon’s new Biometrics Fusion Center in Bridgeport, West Virginia to become a “repository for all DoD biometric databases.” Loranger’s boss, Army lieutenant general Peter Cuviello, the Army’s director of information systems for Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I), said that although he did not see the Biometric Fusion Center growing in size to compete with the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) — which is also located in West Virginia — he could see data being fused into his centre from non-DoD players like the FBI.

Police administration: Structures, processes, and behavior : By Charles R. Swanson and Leonard Territo. Macmillan publishing co., Inc. (College Division, 866 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022), 1983, 455 pp., hardcover—$20.95

The chapter starts with a study of the case of Brandon Mayfield. Mayfield illustrates how a fingerprint identification can go absolutely wrong and cause injustice, even when the best and most highly trusted practitioners in the field conduct the analysis. Next, a review of the case against Lana Canen exemplifies what happens when an unqualified fingerprint “expert” gives evidence, the injustice that follows, and how this injustice could have been prevented. The discussion of the Canen case is followed by an examination of fingerprint protocols and guidelines, including a primer on ACE-V (Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification) methodology, absolute conclusions and error rates, the one unexplainable dissimilarity rule, the benefits and concerns related to Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) matches, training trends, the use of fingerprint analysis in the past, and the possible future advances in fingerprint analysis technology.