CLPEX Chat Board

Did anyone listen to the OSAC Public Status Reports and Open Discussions?

Thoughts?

Overall, it seemed like there's much more administration to be had which makes me think that getting anything implemented is going to be a tough road. It also seems like the 'enforcement through accreditation' angle may compromise the integrity of accreditation more than anything.

Also, I was curious why they were going about process mapping ACE when that seems to have already been done in the Human Factors Report

A couple people have asked me offline what I meant by the 'integrity of accreditation' in my previous post. I'll just point to this now defunct blog (it will take a minute to open because it's going through the internet archive), which chronicles some of the less transparent aspects of previous accreditation players and policies.

Boyd Baumgartner wrote:I was curious why they were going about process mapping ACE ...

So I got to wondering where we are going. I mean, mapping ACE-V is obviously an evolving process. So I did what all good people do, I got the Ouija board from the top shelf of the closet, turned the lights down low and asked Ouija. The answer was astonishing!

I phoned my friend Sammy and asked him to throw the bones and tell me what they said about the future of ACE. I did not tell him my premonition. That makes Sammy's results "blind verification." But his conclusion was bang on with mine.

I then called Benny, figuring double verification makes the results more reliable. Benny read his tea leaves and came up with the same prognostication.

Here is the future of ACE.

New latent print examiner hires must have a BS (minimum) or an MS (better) or a PhD (Best!!!) in statistics. They will enter a latent into an AFIS app on their cell phone and the app will automatically calculate a likelihood ratio for both "association" and "exclusion."

A friend using a different app on a different make of cell phone will also search the latent through her app. That will make the association blind.

Neither will know how to look at a fingerprint under a magnifier, much less know what ridge counters are for. They may have read about old-fashioned identifications in history, but they know that process was not science. In court, they will testify to the computer algorithms and use their print outs as court charts. Since they will agree that nothing is absolute, they will only present in court the numbers derived on their apps. They will never actually look at the print themselves.

Five years? Ten? the Ouija and the bones and tea leaves were hard to read on the exact time frame, but definitely under ten years.

Time for me to go fishing.

Dr Borracho

I find your insight interesting.

Are you a practitioner in the field? I share your sense of humor in observing the politics of our path forward.