Brain Fingerprinting Technology

BRAIN FINGERPRINTING TECHNOLOGY Mandar Ghate discussion section Of Computers, Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Pratisthans College Of Engineering emailprotected com Abstract header reproduce is a new reckoner-based technology to identify the perpetrator of a de try outation spotlessly and scientifically by measuring rod encephalon-wave resolutions to offense-relevant words or pictures inaugurateed on a electronic computer screen. drumhead fingerprinting has proven 100% accurate in over 120 mental tests, including tests on FBI agents, tests for a US in regulateigence agency and for the US navy, and tests on real-life office staffs including felony umbrages. creative thinker fingerprinting was developed and patented by Dr. Lawrence F atomic number 18well in 1995. Keywords Perpetrator, MERMER methodology. INTRODUCTION Brain reproduce is based on the principle that the head teacher is telephone exchange to all human acts. In a condemnable act, there may or may non be galore(postnominal) kinds of peripheral state, but the oral sex is always there, planning, executing and recording the crime. The fundamental rest between a perpetrator and a wrongly accused, transparent person is that the perpetrator, having committed the crime, has the expound of the crime stored in his idea, and the innocent comic does non.This is what Brain reproduce detects scientifically. THE SECRETS OF BRAIN FINGERPRINTING Matching indorse at the crime facet with march in the mastermind When a crime is committed, a record is stored in the sensation of the perpetrator. Brain fingerprint provides a promoter to objectively and scientifically connect leaven from the crime scene with evidence stored in the brain. (This is kindred to the transition of connecting DNA samples from the perpetrator with biological evidence ready at the scene of the crime only if the evidence valuated by Brain reproduce is evidence stored in the brain. ) Brain Fingerprinting measur es galvanizing brain natural action in response to crime-relevant words or pictures presented on a computer screen, and reveals a brain MERMER (memory and convert related multifaceted electroencephalo pictorial response) when, and only when, the evidence stored in the brain matches the evidence from the crime scene. The MERMER includes P300 brain response and also electrically negative component, with an attempt latency of approximately 800-1200ms.Thus, the guilt-ridden abide be identified and the innocent can be cleared in an accurate, scientific, objective, non-invasive, non-stressful, and non-testimonial manner. MERMER Methodology The procedure used is convertible to the Guilty Knowledge Test a serial publication of words, sounds or pictures are presented via computer to the egress for a fraction of second each. Each of these stimuli are unionised by the test-giver to be a Target, unconnected, or a Probe. The Target stimuli are chosen to be relevant teaching to the t ried subject, and are used to prepare a service line brain response for culture that is significant to the subject being tried.The subject is instructed to press on sack for targets, and an separate button for all other stimuli. most(prenominal) of the non-Target stimuli are Irrelevant, and are totally unrelated to the situation that the subject is being tested for. The irrelevant stimuli do non enkindle a MERMER, and so establish a baseline brain response for information that is significant to the subject in this context. Some of the non-target are relevant to the situation that the subject is being tested for.These stimuli, Probes, are relevant to the test, and are significant to the subject, and will elicit a MERMER, signifying that the subject has understood that stimuli to be significant. A subject lacking this information in their brain, the response to the Probe stimulus will be indistinguishable from the irrelevant stimulus. This response does non elicit a MERMER, in dicating that the information is absent from their mind. THE FANTASTIC four-spot The four phases of Brain Fingerprinting In Fingerprinting and DNA Fingerprinting, evidence recognized and collected at the crime scene, and reserved properly until a singular is apprehended, is scientifically compared with the evidence on the person of the untrusting to detect a match that would place the funny at the crime scene. Brain Fingerprinting deeds similarly, except that the evidence collected both at the crime scene and on the person of the defendant (i. e. in the brain as revealed by electrical brain response) is informational evidence rather than physical evidence. in that respect are four stages to Brain Fingerprinting, which are similar to the steps in Fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting 1.Brain Fingerprinting Crime Scene demonstrate Collection 2. Brain Fingerprinting Brain turn up Collection 3. Brain Fingerprinting Computer testify Analysis and 4. Brain Fingerprinting Scientifi c Result. In the Crime Scene Evidence Collection, an adept in Brain Fingerprinting examines the crime scene and other evidence connected with the crime to identify expatiate of the crime that would be get along only to the perpetrator. The expert thence conducts the Brain Evidence Collection in order to determine or not the evidence from the crime scene matches evidence stored in the brain of the pretend.In the Computer Evidence Analysis, the Brain Fingerprinting system makes a mathematical object as to whether or not this specific evidence is stored in the brain, and computes a statistical confidence for that ending. This use and statistical confidence constitute the Scientific Result of Brain Fingerprinting either information present (guilty)-the details of the crime are stored in the brain of the suspect-or information absent (innocent)-the details of the crime is not stored in the brain of the suspect.THE DEVICES USED IN BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BRAIN WAVES HOW IT WORKS A Sus pect is tested by looking at triple kinds of information represented by unlike coloured lines Red information the suspect is anticipate to know Green information not known to suspect Blue information of the crime that only perpetrator would know. NOT GUILTY Because the blue and green. Lines well-nigh correlate, suspect does not throw critical companionship of the crime GUILTY Because the blue and red Lines fast correlate, and suspect has ritical knowledge of the crime. INSTRUMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. A ad hominem computer. 2. A data acquisition board. 3. A graphic card for driving two computers from one PC. 4. A four channel EEG amplifier system. 5. Software developed by Brain Fingerprinting lab. CASE STUDIES terrycloth HARRINGTON -0 Dr. Lawrence Farewell conducts a Brain Fingerprinting test on Terry Harrington. For the test on Schweers murder at U. S in 2001, the determination of Brain Fingerprinting was information absent, with a statistical confidence of 99. 99%.The informat ion stored in Harringtons brain did not match the scenario in which Harrington went to the crime scene and committed the murder. The determination of the Brain Fingerprinting test for alibi-relevant information was information present, with a confidence of 99. 99%. The information stored in Harringtons brain did match the scenario in which Harrington was elsewhere (at a concert and with friends) at the time of the crime. JB manu situationuring plant -1 Brain Fingerprinting testing was also implemental in obtaining a confession and guilty acknowledgment from serial killer James B. manu factory. In marvelous 1999, Dr.Farewell conducted a Brain Fingerprinting test on Grinder, showing that information stored in his brain matched the details of the murder of Julie Helton. Faced with a trusted conviction and almost certain death sentence, Grinder then pled guilty to the rape and murder of Julie Helton in exchange for a life sentence without parole. He is currently serving that sente nce and has also confessed to the murders of three other women. LIMITATIONS OF BRAIN FINGERPRINTING If, however, the suspect knows everything that the investigators know about the crime for some legitimate designer, then the test cannot be applied.There are several(prenominal) circumstances in which this may be the case. If the suspect acknowledges being at the scene of the crime, but claims to be a witness and not perpetrator, then the fact that he knows details about the crime would not be incriminating. There would be no reason to conduct a test, because the resulting information present response would scarce show that the suspect knew the details of the crime-knowledge which he already admits and which he gained at the crime scene whether he was a witness or a perpetrator.Another case where Brain Fingerprinting is not applicable would be one wherein a suspect and an alleged victim-say, of an alleged sexual assault-agree on the details what was said and done, but disagree on th e flavour of the parties. Brain Fingerprinting detects only information, and not the sprightliness. The fact that the suspect knows the uncontested facts of the circumstances does not tell us which partys version of the intent is correct. Obviously, in structuring a Brain Fingerprinting test, a scientist must avoid including information that has been made public. espial that a suspect knows information he obtained by reading a newspaper would not be of use in a criminal investigation, and regulation Brain Fingerprinting procedures eliminate all such(prenominal) information from the structuring of a test. Even in extremely publicized cases, there are almost many details that are known to the investigators but not released to the public and these can be used as stimuli to test the subject for knowledge that he would have no way to know except by committing the crime. Brain Fingerprinting does not detect lies. It simply detects information. No questions are asked or answered during a Brain Fingerprinting test.The subject neither lies nor tells the truth during a Brain Fingerprinting test, and the outcome of the test is superior(predicate) by whether he has lied or told the truth at any other time. The outcome of information present or information absent depends on whether the relevant information is stored in the brain, and not on what the subject says about it. Brain Fingerprinting does not determine whether a suspect is guilty or innocent of a crime. This is a legal determination to be made by a figure or jury, not a scientific determination to be made by a computer or a scientist.Brain Fingerprinting can provide scientific evidence that the judge and jury can weigh along with the other evidence in reaching their decisions regarding the crime. CONCLUSIONS Brain Fingerprinting is a revolutionary new scientific technology for resolving power crimes, identifying perpetrators, and exonerating innocent suspects, with a record of 100% the true in research w ith US government agencies, existent criminal cases, and other applications. The technology fulfills an urgent hold for governments, law enforcement agencies, corporations, investigators, crime victims, and falsely accused innocent suspects.Additionally, if research determines that brain MERMER testing is reliable luxuriant that it could be introduced as evidence in the flirt it may be the criminal investigative shaft of the future. REFERENCES 1www. google. com-2. 2www. brainfingerprint. org-3. 3www. brainfingerprint. pbwiki. com-4. -0 http//en. wikipedia. org/wiki/FileBrainFingerprintingFarwellHarringtonTest2. jpg -1 http//en. wikipedia. org/wiki/FileBrainFingerprintingFarwellGrinder. jpg -2 http//www. google. com -3 http//www. brainfingerprint. org -4 http//www. brainfingerprint. pbwiki. com