For your PC needsPaul Nutteing
23-11-2004, 05:53 AM
And the nonsense continues
http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11271~2551092,00.html
Quote
Article Last Updated: Monday, November 22, 2004 - 7:01:12 AM PST
Person's mind can be fingerprinted
New technology can be used for forensic services
By Francine Brevetti, BUSINESS WRITER
EVIDENCE AS TRUE to your body as fingerprints may be questioned in
convicting or exonerating you of a crime. DNA samples may not be available.
But there's one unassailable authority that can be relied on to tell for
sure whether an indicted person has committed a specific act. The
defendant's own brain.
Right now a Jimmy Slaughter is waiting to see whether the appellate court in
Oklahoma will rule on his guilt or innocence using among other evidence,
patterns of his brain waves subjected to a technology called brain
fingerprinting. Already, the state of Iowa accepts this technology as
evidence in court.
Meanwhile, Lawrence A. Farwell is diversifying the uses of his technology
into medical research and more commercial purposes. Farwell is the inventor
of brain fingerprinting technology.
The Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories in Seattle www.brainwavescience.com is
creating an alpha version that allows detection of Alzheimer's disease at a
very early stage. It's not ready to be tested yet on great numbers of
people.
"In 30 to 60 days we'll be ready to do some testing and will use labs in New
York City and New Jersey," said Ernie Robson, president of president of BFL.
"We will detect better and get distinct results to determine a diagnosis of
Alzheimer's disease faster than anybody else could."
Farwell, who received his doctorate in neuroscience at the University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, said he sees other commercial uses for the
technology.
"We're also doing a pilot on advertising recognition that ought to be very
lucrative," he said. "We are going to be selling to marketers the idea that
you can detect whether or not consumers remember their ads both in
recollection and in affect (feeling). We'll be doing this jointly with a
major advertising company."
The business of evaluating adver tising is a multibillion-dollar one, but
it's subjective and, despite the focus groups and telemarketers who
frequently call consumers to poll them for their opinions, has potential to
be inaccurate.
"We can provide actual data. People are notorious for not telling
objectively what they're thinking," Farwell said.
"We are also spinning off our medical business as a standalone and looking
for funding separately," he said. For this, we're talking to Bay Area firms
as well as others looking for investment. Generally investors are
knowledgeable about medicine but not about the forensic world at all."
Farwell and his colleagues have published the results of their studies in
the Journal of Forensic Sciences, in which they demonstrated with 100
percent accuracy that they could determine who among a study of FBI agents
participated in real-life events. Farwell also reported receiving 100
percent accuracy in three studies conducted under contract for three U.S.
counterintelligence agencies and one with the U.S. Navy.
The technology works by identifying unique patterns of brain stimuli.
When a person is presented with a stimulus she recognizes, her brain
involuntarily registers a measurable and distinctive signal. In other words,
the brain reacts in a definable way only to a stimulus it has already
experienced. So if the defendant has never seen a particular barn before or
the bloody wrench presented as evidence, the brain simply will not react
with the distinctive wave patterns.
"The brain doesn't lie," he said. It's important to remember, he added, that
the information is stored in the brain of the perpetrator only, not in that
of an innocence suspect or a victim.
Farwell charges $350 per hour for forensic services using the technology.
But what about false memories? In last few years the public has heard a lot
about people who have been convinced that they have suffered some trauma
early in life. How can the brain distinguish between authentic memories and
imagined ones? Farwell said the brain waves will not respond to a stimulus
they have not experienced.
In 2001 in Iowa, a district court ruled brain fingerprinting tests
admissible in court. Terry Harrington was serving a life sentence in Iowa
for a 1977 murder. The Farwell test demonstrated that the records stored in
the defendant's brain did not match the crime scene but did match his alibi.
Eventually his conviction was reversed.
There also has been an effort to introduce this technology in a California
case that has been unsuccessful, he said.
Asked if he thought this methodology could be an invasion of privacy,
Farwell countered that those who champion human rights also support freeing
innocents from jails. "The only people against this technology might be the
polygraph people," he said because they might see it as competition for
their own methodology.
Francine Brevetti can be reached at (510) 208-6416 or
fbrevetti@angnewspapers.com .
End Quote
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine
Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.
http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11271~2551092,00.html
Quote
Article Last Updated: Monday, November 22, 2004 - 7:01:12 AM PST
Person's mind can be fingerprinted
New technology can be used for forensic services
By Francine Brevetti, BUSINESS WRITER
EVIDENCE AS TRUE to your body as fingerprints may be questioned in
convicting or exonerating you of a crime. DNA samples may not be available.
But there's one unassailable authority that can be relied on to tell for
sure whether an indicted person has committed a specific act. The
defendant's own brain.
Right now a Jimmy Slaughter is waiting to see whether the appellate court in
Oklahoma will rule on his guilt or innocence using among other evidence,
patterns of his brain waves subjected to a technology called brain
fingerprinting. Already, the state of Iowa accepts this technology as
evidence in court.
Meanwhile, Lawrence A. Farwell is diversifying the uses of his technology
into medical research and more commercial purposes. Farwell is the inventor
of brain fingerprinting technology.
The Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories in Seattle www.brainwavescience.com is
creating an alpha version that allows detection of Alzheimer's disease at a
very early stage. It's not ready to be tested yet on great numbers of
people.
"In 30 to 60 days we'll be ready to do some testing and will use labs in New
York City and New Jersey," said Ernie Robson, president of president of BFL.
"We will detect better and get distinct results to determine a diagnosis of
Alzheimer's disease faster than anybody else could."
Farwell, who received his doctorate in neuroscience at the University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, said he sees other commercial uses for the
technology.
"We're also doing a pilot on advertising recognition that ought to be very
lucrative," he said. "We are going to be selling to marketers the idea that
you can detect whether or not consumers remember their ads both in
recollection and in affect (feeling). We'll be doing this jointly with a
major advertising company."
The business of evaluating adver tising is a multibillion-dollar one, but
it's subjective and, despite the focus groups and telemarketers who
frequently call consumers to poll them for their opinions, has potential to
be inaccurate.
"We can provide actual data. People are notorious for not telling
objectively what they're thinking," Farwell said.
"We are also spinning off our medical business as a standalone and looking
for funding separately," he said. For this, we're talking to Bay Area firms
as well as others looking for investment. Generally investors are
knowledgeable about medicine but not about the forensic world at all."
Farwell and his colleagues have published the results of their studies in
the Journal of Forensic Sciences, in which they demonstrated with 100
percent accuracy that they could determine who among a study of FBI agents
participated in real-life events. Farwell also reported receiving 100
percent accuracy in three studies conducted under contract for three U.S.
counterintelligence agencies and one with the U.S. Navy.
The technology works by identifying unique patterns of brain stimuli.
When a person is presented with a stimulus she recognizes, her brain
involuntarily registers a measurable and distinctive signal. In other words,
the brain reacts in a definable way only to a stimulus it has already
experienced. So if the defendant has never seen a particular barn before or
the bloody wrench presented as evidence, the brain simply will not react
with the distinctive wave patterns.
"The brain doesn't lie," he said. It's important to remember, he added, that
the information is stored in the brain of the perpetrator only, not in that
of an innocence suspect or a victim.
Farwell charges $350 per hour for forensic services using the technology.
But what about false memories? In last few years the public has heard a lot
about people who have been convinced that they have suffered some trauma
early in life. How can the brain distinguish between authentic memories and
imagined ones? Farwell said the brain waves will not respond to a stimulus
they have not experienced.
In 2001 in Iowa, a district court ruled brain fingerprinting tests
admissible in court. Terry Harrington was serving a life sentence in Iowa
for a 1977 murder. The Farwell test demonstrated that the records stored in
the defendant's brain did not match the crime scene but did match his alibi.
Eventually his conviction was reversed.
There also has been an effort to introduce this technology in a California
case that has been unsuccessful, he said.
Asked if he thought this methodology could be an invasion of privacy,
Farwell countered that those who champion human rights also support freeing
innocents from jails. "The only people against this technology might be the
polygraph people," he said because they might see it as competition for
their own methodology.
Francine Brevetti can be reached at (510) 208-6416 or
fbrevetti@angnewspapers.com .
End Quote
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine
Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.