This Robot Collects Fingerprints

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."

Proud Canadian

[dolo666]

I'm Canadian and I'm always really happy when I hear of advances in science from our great nation. I'm tired of hearing Canada being labled as a safe-haven for terrorists, and it makes me proud to know that our universities are continuing to contribute to the capture and conviction of terrorists all over the world. By securing the lives of law enforcement officials everywhere, Canada has contributed to making everyone safer, and in turn, improving the quality of life in America. I also can't wait to see an episode of CSI (or CSI Miami) with this little techno-wonder in action!

Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too!

[kewsh]

the fumes adhere to the oils from the skin left by the finger print. it's also a much better method than "dusting"

Re:Super Glue

[grub]

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.

Not to nitpick but...

[GillBates0]

When police officers found suspicious packages today in an airport or a train station, they destroyed them immediately, along with potential fingerprints on them.

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:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this?

[damiangerous]

Who knew, all these years, that super glue *does* pick up fingerprints?!

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:Beverly Hillls Cop, too!

[Uber Banker]

Fingerprinting an exploded bomb is commonly done though, and I wouldn't doubt DNA testing also being done. Whatever it is - the casing, schrapnel, components... discrete parts usually remain allowing fingerprinting, even on 1000lb bombs.

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.

California v. Greenwood

[David Hume]

Isn't there a right to privately leave unmarked packages in an airport?

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:

The issue here is whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home. We conclude, in accordance with the vast majority of lower courts that have addressed the issue, that it does not.

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:Remote Controlled Device not robot

[flying_monkies]

dictionary.com: robot ( P ) A mechanical device that sometimes resembles a human and is capable of performing a variety of often complex human tasks on command or by being programmed in advance. A machine or device that operates automatically or by remote control. A person who works mechanically without original thought, especially one who responds automatically to the commands of others. +4 Insightful because he can't use a dictionary? Please.

Re:California v. Greenwood

[Ra5pu7in]

Nope, "curtilage" is the correct term as quoted and means:

a piece of ground (as a yard or courtyard) within the fence surrounding a house

*from good ol' Merriam-Webster

I am nitpicking....

[hopemafia]

Never before have I seen a Grammar Nazi with worse grammar.

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 "..". If this was supposed to be a sentence it should end ". " or it could be linked to the following sentence with an "..." or a ":" could also be used.

First part is "When police officeres found sucpicious pakes today",

This is the worst, since it is a quote. Why not just copy and paste? Officers, suspicious, and packages are all misspelled. And the sentence should be started with "The", and end with a period since the comma make it a run-on sentence.

this means the author is talking about a perticular incident , that took place sometime today.

In this sentence "This" should be capitalized, "that" is needed after "means", particular should be spelled with an "a", and there should be no space before the comma that shouldn't be there in the first place.

But then he goes on to say "in an Airport OR a train station", This does not make gramatical sence.

Beginning a sentence with "But", while technically legal, is redundant in this case since "then" implies the continuation of the previous thought. This is also two sentences, not one, thus the comma should be a period, and sense does not have a "c".

If the author is speaking of a perticular incident, then there should be no ambiguity about where it took place. So the correct use should indeed be as the parent pointed out, in present tense.

This is pretty good, aside from the aforementioned misspelling of particular, and the need for a "the" in front of "present tense".

Please stop tarnishing the noble profession of Grammar Nazi with your drivel.

(It's funny...so laugh already...and feel free to pick apart my grammar because I'm sure I messed something up in all that.)

Re:Not to nitpick but...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Like this one [bbc.co.uk], you mean?