The Student Room Group

Brand of condom you use can be detected by your finger prints

New fingerprint technology has been develop by the team at Sheffield Hallam University and can show if a suspect has handled drugs, a condom or even the type of hair gel they use!

The technique uses a form of mass spectrometry and can show traces of food, alcohol and drugs, according to researchers.

The Home Office has said that this technology could be used in casework in a matter of months, so a big well done the team at SHU!

You can read more on the story here.

What do you make of this? Do you find this kind of technology exciting? What kind of things would they find on your finger prints? (Mine would be crisps)
Jokes on them I don't use condoms
Original post by Mathemagicien
...They already likely know all that (and much more) from suspects' digital fingerprint (although they here is the NSA/GCHQ rather than the police, so perhaps the police investigators don't have access to it).

Interesting nonetheless.


I see what you're saying but this feels like the added bonus "It has also successfully detected blood in a 30-year-old fingerprint meaning it could lead to a breakthrough in a long-closed case".

From what I've read it hasn't been used by police or the courts but now they're looking to integrate this into cases.
There is no proof that finger prints are unique, in fact the evidence is quite to the contrary. We need to stop investing money into a non-exact science and develop new investigative techniques.
Reply 4
I was just in a tutorial focusing on biometrics, fingerprints and DNA there now. :lol:

Aw, Britain does love its new technology for catching criminals.
Why would they even need to know what kind of condoms the perp's been using, have they been finding used condoms at the scenes of crimes?
Original post by (づ ̄ ³ ̄)づ
Why would they even need to know what kind of condoms the perp's been using, have they been finding used condoms at the scenes of crimes?


Relevant question, I haven't heard of many rapes where the rapist has rubbered up first.
Original post by SomeWelshGuy123
We need to stop investing money into a non-exact science and develop new investigative techniques.


You mean like extracting DNA and chemical samples from the fingerprint?
:rolleyes:
Original post by Good bloke
You mean like extracting DNA and chemical samples from the fingerprint?
:rolleyes:


DNA evidence is highly flawed too, eg a span of murders five years ago in the US, around 30 murder scenes had the same dna. Turns out it was a woman from the cotton swab factory who had contaminated the swabs.
Original post by SomeWelshGuy123
DNA evidence is highly flawed too,



Highly flawed, because you can name one problem, that did not lead to a false conviction, out of hundreds of thousands or even millions? Perhaps you prefer eyewitness testimony, the most notoriously unreliable type of evidence of all?
Reply 10
Original post by Mathemagicien
...They already likely know all that (and much more) from suspects' digital fingerprint (although they here is the NSA/GCHQ rather than the police, so perhaps the police investigators don't have access to it).

Interesting nonetheless.


Were you at the Binney/Arjen talk yesterday, by any chance...? :P
Reply 11
Original post by Mathemagicien
Nope, I was busy rediscovering how bad I am at badminton.

Sounds like it was a good talk though. Did you go?


I did, it was excellent. I hadn't realised how badly we're all screwed and how bad national security around the globe is.

Are you in Methods right now?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending