[lightbyte]

Considering fingerprint analysis is pseudoscience and almost entirely made up (along with most other "forensic science") [1] [2] we can assume LOTS AND LOTS of innocent people are caught with "fingerprint data"

[1] http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?rec...

[2] https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589/strengthening-forensic-sci...

>"There is some evidence that fingerprints are unique to each person, and it is plausible that careful analysis could accurately discern whether two prints have a common source, the report says. However, claims that these analyses have zero-error rates are not plausible; uniqueness does not guarantee that two individuals' prints are always sufficiently different that they could not be confused, for example. Studies should accumulate data on how much a person's fingerprints vary from impression to impression, as well as the degree to which fingerprints vary across a population. With this kind of research, examiners could begin to attach confidence limits to conclusions about whether a print is linked to a particular person."

[refurb]

However, claims that these analyses have zero-error rates are not plausible

That's an odd criticism since nothing has a zero error rate.

DNA analysis has a non-zero error rate and we routinely rely on it.

[navigatesol]

>Considering fingerprint analysis is pseudoscience and almost entirely made up

Quite the stretch to go from "non-zero-error rates" to "made up pseudoscience" isn't it?

It's a problem if people are being convicted on fingerprint analysis alone. But as a piece of the puzzle, when combined with other evidence, what is the issue?

[sodosopa]

I would still want to look at the rate. Is it 1 of 10 or 1 in a million? At what number are we comfortable for our safety?

[wtetzner]

How would you know? If an innocent person is convicted, then they’re assumed to be guilty.