This Robot Collects Fingerprints 188
Roland Piquepaille writes "When police officers found suspicious packages today in an airport or a train station, they destroyed them immediately, along with potential fingerprints on them. A new robotic device, dubbed RAFFE (short for "Robot Accessory for Fuming Fingerprint Evidence), developed by scientists from the University of Toronto (U of T) and the University of Calgary, offers a solution to this problem. Mounted on an ordinary robot, it will reveal fingerprints by releasing Super Glue on the object. Then it will take pictures of these fingerprints. The Calgary Police Service is already using RAFFE for field tests. This overview contains more details and extra references."
Yergblerghas (Score:5, Funny)
Mounted on an ordinary robot
Great, the T-1000 series try to extinguish humanity by smothering us with Super Glue fumes.
Christmas presents (Score:5, Funny)
Remote control vehicle - age 10
Camera - age 14
Dammit, I could have invented this thing 10 years ago!
Re:Christmas presents (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't there a (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Isn't there a (Score:4, Insightful)
California v. Greenwood (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure if you are joking, but if you are not you may want to look at the U.S. Supreme Court decision in California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) [cornell.edu]. The Court stated:
I understand that this is not directly on point in that it concerns garbage. However, in this age of terrorism I very much doubt that the Supreme Court is going to hold that the authorities cannot take fingerprints off of a package apparently abandoned at an airport, train station, etc.
Re:California v. Greenwood (Score:2)
Doesn't trash that is left outside become the property of the council or the collecting agency? I remember a big fuss being made about unscrupulous paper recyclers who were driving around the streets in the early morning and picking up bun
Re:California v. Greenwood (Score:3, Informative)
a piece of ground (as a yard or courtyard) within the fence surrounding a house
*from good ol' Merriam-Webster
Re:Isn't there a (Score:2)
But, if your package contains 10KG of plastique, then you can expect a long, undocumented, 'vacation' in Cuba [kwc.edu].
Cartoon in the making? (Score:5, Funny)
(Oh, admit it. You thought the same thing.)
Just what we need... (Score:5, Funny)
It's not a glue sniffing robot. (Score:5, Funny)
It's a glue dispensing robot, which means that it will be followed where-ever it goes by kids in Slipknot t-shirts pestering you for change.
On the plus side, it will make it rather easy for these rampant glue-junkies to be brought to justice, making the streets safer for us all.
Re:It's not a glue sniffing robot. (Score:3, Funny)
Proud Canadian (Score:4, Informative)
Always?! (Score:2)
I'm Canadian and I'm always really happy.
:)
Thank goodness! (Score:2)
Re:Proud Canadian (Score:3, Funny)
Well, you could just stop watching Fox News.
Re:Proud Canadian (Score:2)
You seem pretty quick to ascribe credit to your nation for this. Why? It's not like Canada is really a haven for terrorists, like all the right-wing American T.V. stations claim. Canada has nothing to prove to the States.
Re:Proud Canadian (Score:2)
Yes, of course I've heard of the Khadrs. Two points:
The fact that Abdul Karim Khadr was shot by Pakistanis does not convince me that he is or was intent on committing an act of terrorism, or even of shooting a gun
Re:Proud Canadian (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, do you really think the far-right in the US, the people who will say and do whatever they want to support their pet projects, care about facts (this'll make em see the light)? Of course they don't. They care about promoting xeno
Super (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Super (Score:2)
Super glue? (Score:2, Funny)
But.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But.. (Score:3, Funny)
A Russian military person was interested in the machines, until he found out that if the robot failed to defuse the bomb, they usually were broken beyond repair.
He said "We'll just stick to using soldiers. They're much cheaper"
Nice.
Re:But.. (Score:2)
Re:But.. (Score:2)
Will the evidence hold up in court? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it's a terrific idea, but the first time it's used, there's going to be a huge fight about the guarantee of authenticity of the prints.
Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? (Score:2)
Re:Are you kidding me? (Score:2)
Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? (Score:2, Insightful)
> Are digital photographs of the fingerprints... submittable as evidence in a court of law?
Under the PATRIOT act, a model of the fingerprints sculpted entirely out of CHEEZ-WHIZ would be admissable.
"...because if we can't use creamy, cheezy goodness to keep this nation safe, then the terrorists have already won." - John Ashcroft
Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um...no, the evidence found would be tossed (Score:2)
Um, no. If the search warrant was issued based on invalid evidence, the product of the search can be thrown out.
Re:Um...no, the evidence found would be tossed (Score:2)
If the evidence is "invalid," by which I'm assuming you mean that it is false or doctored in some way, you're right that the warrant might be invalidated -- BUT there's a world of difference between the police having to prove that a techni
Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? (Score:2)
Enemy of the State, anyone? Go 2-3 levels up: plant some "evidence" in the target's home, make him look like a mafia-man/drug-dealer/child-molester, then it doesn't really matter if the fingerprints were real - people will know he's lying even before he opens his mouth.
Scary stuff (and best-of-what-I-remember-now quote)
.
Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? (Score:2)
Of course, it's the same method used to take fingerprints today. The only difference is the "robot".
Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? (Score:2)
the lawyers tend to question the fingerprint examiner's ability more than the chain of evidence in these cases.
Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Who knew, all these years, that super glue *does* pick up fingerprints?!
Re:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? (Score:3, Informative)
Every forensic scientist, crime scene investigator and police officer? This is an old technique known as "cyanoacrylate fuming" and was invented in, I believe, the late 70's. It was in pretty common use by the time Eddie Murphy was making cop movies, that's for certain.
Re:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? (Score:2)
And don't open the container unless you have more than adequate ventilation.
You can kill yourself with the fumes if you're not careful.
Re:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? (Score:2)
And seeing as how I'm neither a forensic scientist, crime scene investigator or police officer, it was news to me.
Re:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? (Score:2)
You mean other than anyone who watches CSI?
Damn, (Score:2)
Damn you sir...
Re:Damn, (Score:2)
Re:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? (Score:2)
Not to nitpick but... (Score:4, Informative)
This introductory sentence makes it sound like there was some *specific* event today at the airport or bus station involving suspicious packages and police officers.
Though gramatically correct, it is a matter of practice in written/spoken English to use the present tense when generalizing as in: "When police officers find suspicious packages today in an airport or a train station, they destroy them immediately, along with potential fingerprints on them."
I wouldn't even have bothered pointing this out, but that blurb made me scurry over to http://news.google.com for a look-see. Good story though.
Re:Not to nitpick but... (Score:2)
The reason it is not gramatically correct, is because of the the OR clause.
Lets analize in detail..First part is "When police officeres found sucpicious pakes today", this means the author is talking about a perticular incident , that took place sometime today. But then he goes on to say "in an Airport OR a train station", This does not make gramatical sence. If the author is speaking of a perticular incident, then there should be no a
I am nitpicking.... (Score:2, Informative)
It not gramatically correct, and that is why it is confusing as hell.
Is is a small word, but it is necessary after "It" in this case.
The reason it is not gramatically correct, is because of the the OR clause.
No comma is needed in this sentence and "the" is repeated.
Lets analize in detail..
I think you must mean analyse...I don't even want to think about detailed analizing. It's also a sentence fragment (no subject) and is followed by ".."
Remote Controlled Device not robot (Score:5, Insightful)
A robot is an autonomous object responding to its environment.
A remote controlled device is under direct control.
We call them
Remote Controlled Cars
Remote Controlled Planes
these are clearly not "ROBOTS".
Why are the more esoteric remote controlled devices called robots?
Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot (Score:5, Funny)
Why are the more esoteric remote controlled devices called robots?
I call my RealDoll "Becky".
Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot (Score:2)
Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot (Score:2)
Remote Controlled Cars
Remote Controlled Planes
these are clearly not "ROBOTS".
This is because, clearly we have drifted away from the strict definition of a robot as an autonomous machine. Instead what we do, as soon as you've given a machine the facility to pick something up and manipulate that something, that defines it as a robot. Take an RC car for example, and mount a, um, robot arm (what else can we call it?) on top. Voila, you have a robot car. It's not technically correct,
Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot (Score:3, Insightful)
So traffic lights are now robots?
A pinball machine is now a robot?
An old mechanical telephone exchange is a robot?
My car is now a robot? (the whole car as an electro mechincal system responding to inputs, does it matter if I sit, in it, on it, or 50' away and control it over wires.
I would give it to assembly line robots as electro-mechanical systems responding to programmed code with little more than on/off and sensors for inputs.
Putting humans directly in the control loop stops m
Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot (Score:2)
If you want any more ambiguities cleared up, just let me know.
I can just see it... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I can just see it... (Score:2)
(from this [mweb.co.za] article)
Homer Simpson moment (Score:4, Insightful)
With all the crap patents we hear about in this forum, it's great to read about a simple, obvious invention that someone actually invented - an idea that's actually worth some real credit.
But it still makes me wanna kick myself for not thinking of it first.
I think that's the hallmark of a good invention (Score:2)
That's how you know it's a really good idea. I think there's a hierarchy, from good to bad:
Initial reactions to new inventions:
1) How the hell did someone come up with that? It's brilliant!
2) Why didn't I think of that?
3) I don't get it.
4) Who thought that was a good idea?
-Mark
I smell sitcom! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I smell sitcom! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I smell sitcom! (Score:2)
How about the movie "Runaway" with Tom Sellick?
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0088024/
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Also, loss of life doesn't seem to be an issue here... apparently being on the bomb squad gets you laid almost as much as being a post-9/11 fireman.
--
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Re: finger prints (Score:5, Funny)
(Yeah, I RTFA. It's a joke :-)
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or better yet, involve someone to handle the package for him/her, throwing the trail off?
This is only going to catch the dummies, who most likely have already blown themselves up.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
You're assuming the fingerprints would be by the people involved with the bomb. The packaging may have the finger prints by someone who sold the goods in question, or shopped at the store. While they may not be a suspect, they might be able to ID the person who bought the stuff.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
If at first you don't succeed, maybe bombmaking isn't for you.
I had always heard it as 'Skydiving' but it kinda works.
--
Mounted on an ordinary robot... (Score:2, Funny)
What is an "ordinary" robot? It's not like I can go to the local robot dealer and look at base model "ordinary" robots vs the sports package or "pleasure model" AWESOM-O 4000.
Please define "ordinary robot". Most of the robots I see in cartoons or movies are quite extraordinary. Thanks in advance, bitches.
Re:Mounted on an ordinary robot... (Score:2)
Mounted on an ordinary robot (Score:3, Insightful)
An ordinary "bomb disposal" robot would be better. I might also take exception to the term "robot", if I wanted to be a jerk about it.
Good idea, though. I'm sure if they thought about it, they could add a whole swiss-army knife's worth of gadgets to the arms on those things.
Re:Mounted on an ordinary robot (Score:2)
It's been done. The Andros Wolverine [remotec-andros.com] has an intechangeable tool set. It has a generic gripper and this link [sandia.gov] documents it using stuff like wire cutters, laser targeting and a shotgun.
Oh no! My $250,000 finger print robot (Score:5, Funny)
New challange for bomb makers (Score:2)
I always wondered why bombers leave these things behind in rather conspicious places for long periods of time. Its almost as if they want the bombs to be found before they detonate...seems like a short fuse and a decent hiding place would serve them better.
Psychology of Bombers (Score:2)
From what I understand, bombers are a criminal class unto themselves - Theodore Kaczynski (the Unabomber) actually fit the "profile" quite closely. They are generally very timid and afraid of confrontation (which is why they leave bombs)
An anecdote... (Score:3, Funny)
Fortunately, it wasn't me that had to explain what had happened to the shiny new company car.
Ordinary Robot (Score:2, Funny)
Summation (Score:2)
oh yeah? (Score:2)
a traveller's delight... (Score:2)
This only underlines the importance... (Score:2, Funny)
Canadian robot eh? (Score:3, Funny)
I was really excited.... (Score:2)
Sometime in the future... (Score:3, Funny)
As the fumes adhere to the drop of oil on the small light sensor in the dot of the exlamation point, covering it in an opaque white coating, there's a faint click deep inside the bomb.
"Damnit, that robot was expensive!" the squad captain says to his lieutenant, as they huddle behind their van, debris raining down around them.
Re:Super Glue (Score:4, Informative)
The glue is heated up and the fumes adhere to the skin oils in the fingerprint. They don't dunk the object in a tank of glue.
Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason they don't have a human doing this work, is because it is a dangerous assignment, investigating a suspecious package. Normally the robot would just destroy the package, finger prints and all. Now they can make images of the prints before destroying the package.
Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (Score:2)
The reason they don't have a human doing this work, is because it is a dangerous assignment, investigating a suspecious package. Normally the robot would just destroy the package, finger prints and all. Now they can make images of the prints before destroying the package.
I suspect that the other reason is that cyanoacrylate fumes aren't exactly hea
Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (Score:2)
besides, there's more than one way to get fingerprints, each different way being appropriate to various possible situations, surfaces, etc.
you also have to consider how you are going to present the fingerprint evidence in court, should you catch the culprit.
so I'm betting that yes, this robot will be useful, but not in 100% of all situations.
Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (Score:2)
Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (Score:5, Informative)
Of course figerprinting a live bomb it is great (easier to find parts that may have prints, and reduces the uncertainty 'just in case'), but fingerprinting exploded bombs is done and is very successful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Counter-Robot (Score:5, Funny)
Smart criminals don't assemble packages/leave home without them.
Re:Counter-Robot (Score:3, Insightful)
that is an oxymoron.. or actually in reality is' exceedingly rare to find a smart criminal.
and this, my friends, is a GOOD THING. imagine if the braindead-turds in a gang discovered what a 30-6 hunting rifle and a good scope can do. or the same rifle and some well welded together washers that you lightly machine just right can do to the sound of that rifle.
Criminals are stupid to the extreme... that is why they are criminals.
Re:Counter-Robot (Score:2)
Funny, I always say that, and people ask me if I believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny...
Re:Counter-Robot (Score:2)
That's not an oxymoron.
If they were easy to find, they wouldn't be smart criminals. You don't hear / find / see many smart criminals because they don't brag about it, have careful planning, and often don't get cought.
Re:Counter-Robot (Score:2)
Re:Counter-Robot (Score:2)