Re: latent fingerprints

From: Ronald Crane <voting_at_lastland_dot_net>
Date: Fri Dec 08 2006 - 13:42:09 CST

I think you're probably correct that an attacker wouldn't get many usable
fingerprint images using existing COTS paper scanners. But scanner technology
will continue to improve both in terms of spatial resolution and (more
importantly for this purpose) usable bit depth. This implies that at some
point, perhaps not many years down the road, it will become relatively easy to
produce usable fingerprint images from paper.

-R

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 11:13:08 -0700 (GMT-07:00), charlie strauss wrote
> ...However taking it as a challenge to somehow scan fingerprints....
> First the kind of blunt instruments in use for oval scanners wont
> have the resolution. But since some folks want to replace those
> with high resolution scanners, then one approach might be to use a
> UV fluorescent light in the scanner. Finger prints exhibit some
> weak phosphorescence. Unfortunately most white paper also contains
> "whiteners" that are fluorescent as well so there's going to be a
> signal to noise issue. You might be able to boost that some if you
> had a way to pulse the illumination and time-gate the optical
> signal. But that would be one heck of piece of scanner hardware.
> If you selected the whitener carefully you might be abled to have it
> quenched by the finger print oil itself.... Or better yet, don't
> order ballots that are naturally fluorescent.
>
> perhaps a better approach would be to give the person a slighty
> leaky pen and assume they would get it on their fingers.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Jerry Lobdill <lobdillj@charter.net>
> >Sent: Dec 8, 2006 9:31 AM
> >To: ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> >Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] latent fingerprints
> >
> >I'm not confusing anything. The assertion was made that the
> >fingerprints on a ballot could be detected somehow when the scanned
> >image is viewed. I want to know how that would be done.
> >
> >At 09:33 AM 12/8/2006, you wrote:
> >
> >>From: "Edmund R. Kennedy" <ekennedyx@yahoo.com>
> >>
> >>
> >>Hello:
> >>
> >> I'm not sure but I believe you are confusing latent
> >> fingerprints with 'invisible' fingerprints. Latent prints are
> >> effectively invisible unless some sort of dye particles are added
> >> that stick to the residual finger oils and so forth to make them visible.
> >>
> >>--
> >>10777 Bendigo Cove
> >>San Diego, CA 92126-2510
> >>858-578-8842
> >>
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >OVC-discuss mailing list
> >OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> >http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> OVC-discuss mailing list
> OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Sun Dec 31 23:17:09 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 23:17:16 CST