Can some one tell me if SWGFAST have abolished levels of detail? I read somewhere that it no longer plausible to talk about fingerprints in terms of levels of detail, that any detail is of the same importance and so comes under the same grouping.
I'm sorry I can't remember where I read it but I have since looked at the SWGFAST website but there is no mention of it.
If anyone can point to me where I might find the article or an article stating the opposite then I would be grateful.
Thanks
SWGFAST
-
g.
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:27 pm
- Location: St. Paul, MN
Hi Emma.
To directly answer your question, no SWGFAST has not proposed to do away with Levels of Detail. It is currently in the Glossary and commonly used in discussions and other documents.
However, I wonder, seeing that you are in the U.K. if you are not confusing a recent decision in the U.K. to stop using the term: 3rd level detail.
Here is where my memory is fuzzy, and I have scoured the websites and previous posts to find the info. 2 years ago I attend a Fingerprint Society lecture conference in Brighton. I distinctly recall Martin Leadbetter discussing a committee (that he served on) whose task was, among other things, evaluate the holistic approach and a move to a non-numeric standard. All I can recall regarding 3rd level detail is they decided to "do away with the term". There were several posts on clpex about it at the time (but it may have been on the old clpex site).
I apologize in advance to Martin or any other UK folks if I have it wrong, and I would sincerely appreciate a more in depth relating of the facts and events!
Martin and his colleagues do visit this board, so I would appreciate their input, rationale, etc. That would be a good discussion thread for this board and also a good update on how this is being taught in the national training centres.
Ernie Hamm also presented last year at the FPS a paper entitled "Levels of Detail, Bane or Boon" which provides some excellent pros and cons on both sides of the issue. I am sure Ernie will provide a copy if requested.
And recently a fellow student at Lausanne, Alexandre, did a study to see how consistent examiners were at identifying and classifying L3D. I do not know if he has published the data yet, so I won't speak for him, but suffice to say the results showed less than convincing evidence that we are all using and defining L3D similarly.
That's all the help I can provide Emma. Hopefully someone else can fill in some of my memory gaps.
Oh and PLEASE PROVIDE a LINK if possible or reference so I can note it for the future!
g.
To directly answer your question, no SWGFAST has not proposed to do away with Levels of Detail. It is currently in the Glossary and commonly used in discussions and other documents.
However, I wonder, seeing that you are in the U.K. if you are not confusing a recent decision in the U.K. to stop using the term: 3rd level detail.
Here is where my memory is fuzzy, and I have scoured the websites and previous posts to find the info. 2 years ago I attend a Fingerprint Society lecture conference in Brighton. I distinctly recall Martin Leadbetter discussing a committee (that he served on) whose task was, among other things, evaluate the holistic approach and a move to a non-numeric standard. All I can recall regarding 3rd level detail is they decided to "do away with the term". There were several posts on clpex about it at the time (but it may have been on the old clpex site).
I apologize in advance to Martin or any other UK folks if I have it wrong, and I would sincerely appreciate a more in depth relating of the facts and events!
Martin and his colleagues do visit this board, so I would appreciate their input, rationale, etc. That would be a good discussion thread for this board and also a good update on how this is being taught in the national training centres.
Ernie Hamm also presented last year at the FPS a paper entitled "Levels of Detail, Bane or Boon" which provides some excellent pros and cons on both sides of the issue. I am sure Ernie will provide a copy if requested.
And recently a fellow student at Lausanne, Alexandre, did a study to see how consistent examiners were at identifying and classifying L3D. I do not know if he has published the data yet, so I won't speak for him, but suffice to say the results showed less than convincing evidence that we are all using and defining L3D similarly.
That's all the help I can provide Emma. Hopefully someone else can fill in some of my memory gaps.
Oh and PLEASE PROVIDE a LINK if possible or reference so I can note it for the future!
g.
-
Michele
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:40 am
Emma,
During Dec. 2004 I must have read something about this (Maybe in Fingerprint Whorld??) because I have an email that I sent to Martin Leadbetter during this time and he gave me information about this for the Fingerprint Terminology link. It's posted as a definition for 'Features' and under all the different levels of details. Here's what he said (which is more than what's posted under the definitions).
In 2001, the National Fingerprint Board (NFB), which is an adjunct of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), put together a Third Level Detail Sub-Group. This was done after the removal of the 16 point standard. Since they were no longer using the 16 point standard they were looking into different issues regarding 3rd level detail. This was for England and Wales. In Nov. 2004 it was decided:
1. The Third Level Detail Working Group acknowledges that within the
international fingerprint community, the terminologies 1st, 2nd and 3rd
Level detail is used. This group recommends that because of the holistic
nature of fingerprint identification, there is no need for the use of these
terms within the comparison process. ALL information assisting with
establishing the identification of an area of friction ridge detail will be
termed, 'features'.
2. ALL visible features employed within the identification process may be
used without regard to the information falling within any particular
category.
3. Consequently, there is no justification for treating any type, or group
of features seperately and no requirement for a Third Level Detail Working
group as such, and this group recommends that the national Fingerprint
Board considers retaining the existing members as the 'Identification
Working Group.' (In fact, we have been re-named as the, 'Bureaux
Practitioners' Group).
Hope that helps,
During Dec. 2004 I must have read something about this (Maybe in Fingerprint Whorld??) because I have an email that I sent to Martin Leadbetter during this time and he gave me information about this for the Fingerprint Terminology link. It's posted as a definition for 'Features' and under all the different levels of details. Here's what he said (which is more than what's posted under the definitions).
In 2001, the National Fingerprint Board (NFB), which is an adjunct of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), put together a Third Level Detail Sub-Group. This was done after the removal of the 16 point standard. Since they were no longer using the 16 point standard they were looking into different issues regarding 3rd level detail. This was for England and Wales. In Nov. 2004 it was decided:
1. The Third Level Detail Working Group acknowledges that within the
international fingerprint community, the terminologies 1st, 2nd and 3rd
Level detail is used. This group recommends that because of the holistic
nature of fingerprint identification, there is no need for the use of these
terms within the comparison process. ALL information assisting with
establishing the identification of an area of friction ridge detail will be
termed, 'features'.
2. ALL visible features employed within the identification process may be
used without regard to the information falling within any particular
category.
3. Consequently, there is no justification for treating any type, or group
of features seperately and no requirement for a Third Level Detail Working
group as such, and this group recommends that the national Fingerprint
Board considers retaining the existing members as the 'Identification
Working Group.' (In fact, we have been re-named as the, 'Bureaux
Practitioners' Group).
Hope that helps,
Michele
The best way to escape from a problem is to solve it. Alan Saporta
There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. Peter Drucker
(Applies to a full A prior to C and blind verification)
The best way to escape from a problem is to solve it. Alan Saporta
There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. Peter Drucker
(Applies to a full A prior to C and blind verification)
-
g.
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:27 pm
- Location: St. Paul, MN
Michelle,
Yep, that's what I was referring to....do you (or any readers) have those links or documents to share (for citation purposes) as opposed to your posting (which I DO appreciate you taking the time to respond to and retype all that!).
Emma,
Is that what you were referring to?
Thanks, in advance,
g.
Yep, that's what I was referring to....do you (or any readers) have those links or documents to share (for citation purposes) as opposed to your posting (which I DO appreciate you taking the time to respond to and retype all that!).
Emma,
Is that what you were referring to?
Thanks, in advance,
g.
-
EmmaC
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 1:17 am
- Location: Wolverhampton, UK
- Contact:
-
Michele
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:40 am
I saw a few articles in "Fingerprint Whorld" from that year but I was just at my desk for a minute. I won't be able to look again until Monday, but if nobody posts the names of the articles before then, then I'll post the information. I think there was a long article on 3rd level detail in the April 2004 issue (may have been April 2005).
Michele
The best way to escape from a problem is to solve it. Alan Saporta
There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. Peter Drucker
(Applies to a full A prior to C and blind verification)
The best way to escape from a problem is to solve it. Alan Saporta
There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. Peter Drucker
(Applies to a full A prior to C and blind verification)