By : U.

Suresh(01571A1251)
suri_276358@yahoo.com
&
M.Venkata Raghu(02575A1206)
raghu_220450@yahoo.co.in

Of : IV/IV IT

From : Sree Visvesvaraya Institute of Technology

And Science, Mahabubnagar.
 Brain Fingerprints
Abstraction:

Former CIA agent Aldrich Ames easily fooled lie-detector tests, concealing his work
as a Russian spy. But could he have duped a "brain fingerprinting'' exam, which probes what
people know by checking their electrical brain waves?
Nanny Louise Woodward passed a polygraph, denying that she killed a Newton
baby in her charge, though she was later convicted of the crime. Suppose she had put her head in
a brain-scanning machine that measures deceit in blood flow patterns?
Then there's John and Patsy Ramsey, who insist lie-detector tests clear them of any role in the
death of their 6-year-old girl. But what would happen if a computerized video machine taped
their facial expressions for signs of dishonesty? As polygraphs become increasingly
controversial, sparking a cottage industry on how to "beat" the test, scientists are hunting for new
high-tech ways of solving the most ancient of human dilemmas: How do you tell if someone is
lying? "I believe it's only a matter of time before we have much better lie-detectors," said
Stephen Kosslyn, a Harvard University psychology professor who is studying the brain scans of
liars. "The science of this is only going to get better."
Rather than measure signs of stress, such as blood pressure and heart rate, as polygraphs do,
many of the new techniques try to get inside the brain itself.
They measure things such as brain waves and cerebral blood flow, which people
cannot control—at least not yet. And they're making headway: A judge even admitted some
brain-testing results as evidence in an Iowa murder case last March while polygraph evidence is
still inadmissible. Beyond the courtroom, intelligence agencies have been quick to recognize the
value of a better truth-detector. The CIA, scandalized by discoveries of double-crossers within its
ranks, is funding much of the lab work, along with science foundations. The FBI and other law-
enforcement groups are hiring some of these scientists as consultants, and asking them to train
staff in new techniques.
Although these researchers are confident their technology may prove more accurate than today's
polygraphs, they are quick to point out there will never be a magic box that discerns truth with
100 percent accuracy, and all these devices should be seen as supplements to old-fashioned
gumshoe work. "There's no such thing as 100 percent certainty," said Paul Ekman, a psychology
professor from the University of California who pioneered the study of deceit-detection through
fleeting facial expressions. "That's why I'm not eager to see my work be used in criminal court
cases."

Advanced Lie-Detectors Within a Decade?

Kosslyn of Harvard shares these concerns. "More advanced lie-detectors could be

out within the next decade, but the big question is, how will they be used?" he said.
Iowa-based neuroscientist Lawrence Farwell, however, is eager to see his "brain fingerprinting"
work get into more courtrooms, convinced as he is that it has a near-perfect accuracy rate. His
method focuses on a specific electrical brain wave, called a P300, which activates when a person
sees a familiar object. The subject wears a headband of electrodes and faces a computer screen,
which flashes photos.
This technique provides a potential window into someone's past visual experience. If
a person looks at random pictures of weapons, without activating a P300 wave, these objects are
presumably unknown to him. But if the murder weapon is shown, and a P300 wave activates,
then the person clearly has some experience with that weapon.
"This technique is used to see if they have the information stored in their brain or not," said
Farwell, a Harvard graduate who now runs Brain Wave Science in Fairfield, Iowa. "All of this
relates indirectly to lie detection." Of course, for the P300 to be truly incriminating, the
prosecutor would have to show that the tested person didn't see that murder weapon in some
other innocent way, such as in media accounts or by being a bystander. His "brain fingerprinting"
helmet of electrodes is currently available within the CIA, Farwell said, though he doesn't know
if or how often it's used.
However, Farwell knows some strategies for using P300 to detect moles. A US
agent suspected of being a spy for Cuba, for instance, could be shown objects known only to
Cuban undercover agents, something as simple as a job-related paper form or the "contact"
person. Farwell's lie-detection technique won a modest legal victory this past March, when an
Iowa judge ruled there was enough scientific basis to admit "brain fingerprinting" results as
evidence in the case of Terry Harrington, a convicted murderer trying to win a new trial.Farwell
showed that Harrington did not have a P300 wave when showed key parts of the crime scene, but
did emit the P300 wave when shown scenes from his alibi, suggesting he was unfamiliar with the
crime. After reviewing evidence from all sides, however, the judge did not grant a new trial,
though Harrington is appealing. Harvard psychology professor Kosslyn also focuses on the brain
in his study of deception, but he uses brain-scanning equipment to see what areas receive intense
blood flow during questioning.
While his work has not yet been completed, preliminary results show that different
regions of the brain light up when people tell the truth or lie. Further, he believes different
regions are activated depending on the type of lie. His data so far, he said, show the anterior
cingulate, located near the front of the brain and associated with conflict resolution, is often
activated during lies. When lies are spontaneous—making it up on the spot, as opposed to a
fiction created over a period of time—the back part of the brain associated with visualization is
also lit up.Kosslyn said he believes that is related to the fact that the spontaneous liar has to
visualize whether quick fibs make sense or not.

Focus on Smirks and Eye Flutters

Beyond the brain, tiny alterations in facial expressions, from smirks to eye flutters,
are the focus of work at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California.
Piggy-backing on the work of psychologist Eckman, neuroscientist Terry Sejnowski is convinced
that specific expressions suggest deception, though they are often imperceptible to the untrained
eye. He is trying to link computers with video cameras, which would be able to record someone's
face during testimony and see if it's truthful.
Not everyone is thrilled about this new generation of lie-detectors. Mark Zaid is a Washington
attorney representing 11 people who say they were unfairly rejected for federal law-enforcement
jobs when they failed a mandatory polygraph.
While some polygraph advocates put its accuracy rate at 90 percent, Zaid is among
those who say the polygraph, in use since the 1920s, is hardly better than a coin-toss. He says
future lie-detectors may be no different. "It's possible that new brainwave machines will say if
someone is lying or not, but now, I don't buy it," he said. Yet, even a Massachusetts plaintiff in
Zaid's case, who works in local law-enforcement, said he keeps an open mind that someday a
better lie-detector will come along. This man, who asked to remain anonymous, said he feels
today's polygraph is faulty and gave him a "false positive" when asked about past drug use. But
he knows from his own job that the mere presence of a polygraph can be useful in questioning.
Back in 1995, for instance, police had no evidence linking Susan Smith to the drowning of her
two young sons. While she claimed the boys were abducted by a carjacker, she had three
polygraphs showing signs of deception. Police kept the focus on her. Later, she admitted she let
the car roll into a South Carolina pond, and the bodies of her two boys were found in the water.

Brain Fingerprinting Testing and Memory Issues

In any situation involving human memory, questions can be raised regarding the
fallibility of human memory and factors that might influence memory. Such questions can in
principle be raised in the Harrington and Harris cases. The same issues can be raised in any
other forensic situation involving human memory – and this includes all situations involving
testimony by witnesses, victims, or perpetrators, alleged or actual.
In the Harrington and Harris cases, Brain Fingerprinting® testing proved that the two men who
had been convicted of murder did not have salient, significant facts regarding the respective
murders stored in their brains. Does this really prove they are innocent? What if they committed
the murders, and did not notice what they were doing, or forgot the important facts? What if
they had a physical or mental illness that impaired their memory? What if they were under the
influence of alcohol or drugs that tend to impair memory?
This document seeks to clarify the issues related to memory in the application of
Brain Fingerprinting, and to delineate what Brain Fingerprinting testing can prove scientifically,
and what must be decided not by science or scientific experts but by a judge or jury.
In both the Harrington and Harris cases, Brain Fingerprinting testing proved two
things:
1) that salient features of the crime were not stored in the suspect’s brain, and
2) that salient features of the alibi were stored in the suspect’s brain.

The latter finding shows that the suspect did not suffer from a failure of memory.
Brain Fingerprinting testing proved that both suspects’ brains contained a clear record of the
events of the evening of the crime. This record matched the respective accounts of the events of
the evening of the crime, as told by the alibi witnesses. The records stored in the brains of the
two suspects did not match the respective crime scenes.This illustrates one effective means to
scientifically eliminate the possibility that the lack of a record of a crime stored in a suspect’s
brain was due to some malfunction of memory, rather than due to innocence of the crime. When
Brain Fingerprinting testing proves not only that the record stored in the brain of the suspect does
not match the crime scene, but also that it does match the alibi, this provides strong scientific
evidence that the lack of a record of the crime stored in the brain is indeed due to non-
participation in the crime rather than to some malfunction of the memory.
 The more general question of the fallibility of human memory is indeed the
perennial problem of all legal proceedings that involve human beings. This is by no means
unique to Brain Fingerprinting. In fact, the questions and issues surrounding human memory
apply as much in every case involving testimony by humans regarding remembered events as
they do cases involving Brain Fingerprinting testing evidence. The human brain is an amazing
instrument, but it is not perfect. Every time a person participates in or witnesses an event, the
imperfections of the human faculties come into play. First of all, perception is not perfect. A
witness may see a man with a dark hat, mistake it for dark hair, and report seeing a dark-haired
man. Second, memory is not perfect. A person, whether he is a witness or a perpetrator, may
experience something and then forget. Third, a person may be under the influence of some
debilitating mental or physical illness or drug that compromises the system such that perception
and/or memory is less effective than usual.
What are the implications of the imperfections of human faculties for legal
proceedings? These issues are central to every legal proceeding that involves any kind of
testimony or evidence connected with human beings. Every time there is an alibi witness who
testifies that he was with the suspect the whole time, and saw no crime, there are three
possibilities:
1) His account is correct;
2) He was in fact with the accused, but the crime took place in his presence and he either did not
perceive it or forgot about it (either because of mental or physical illness, drugs, poor
perception or memory, or some other reason);
3) He knows the suspect committed the crime, and he is lying.
The same three possibilities are there every time a suspect testifies on his own
behalf.It is never possible, in principle, to be absolutely certain that any alibi witness (or any
other witness) is actually a reliable witness, even if we are convinced that the witness is not
lying. If a witness says that the suspect did not commit the crime, it is still possible that he
witnessed the suspect committing the crime, and just forgot about it. In principle, we can never
be absolutely sure that anyone in the area at the time did not commit a given crime. You and I
are quite sure that we did not commit the crimes that we read about in this morning's paper, but
in principle we must admit that there is a possibility that we did commit these crimes and then
forgot about it. We can never absolutely prove otherwise.
Fortunately, in this country, we do not have to absolutely prove that a suspect is
innocent. A person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge and
jury take all of the evidence into account, and make a decision as to whether the suspect is guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt, or not. (In some legal proceedings, another legal standard other than
reasonable doubt, e.g., preponderance of the evidence, is applied.) In evaluating scientific
evidence, the principal is the same. The judge or jury take into account the available scientific
evidence along with other evidence, and make the legal determination according to the
applicable legal standard.
When judges and juries hear an alibi witness state that he was with the suspect at the
time of the crime, and he is sure the suspect did not commit the crime -- that is, the witness says
he has no record of the suspect committing the crime stored in his brain -- judges and juries must
always evaluate this statement in the light of the fact that human perception and memory are
fallible. Again, it is always possible that the alibi witness saw the whole crime and just forgot
about it. Judges and juries must take this possibility -- and the likelihood of it actually happening
-- into account. The effect of the fallibility of human memory and perception on Brain
Fingerprinting testing is identical to the effect of these factors on the testimony of a witness.
Take, for example, the case of an alibi witness and a suspect who has been shown through Brain
Fingerprinting testing to have no record of the salient features of the crime stored in his brain.
The alibi witness says that he remembers being with the suspect at the time of the crime, and has
no memory of the suspect committing the crime. Brain Fingerprinting testing demonstrates that
the suspect also has no memory of the salient facts of the crime, and does have a memory of the
alibi.
One possible conclusion that the judge and jury may reach, upon considering this
evidence along with all of the other available evidence, is that the suspect is innocent. Another
possibility that must be considered in every case, whether Brain Fingerprinting testing is used or
not, is that the suspect committed the crime, the alibi witness witnessed the crime, and both of
them forgot about it -- either due to extremely poor memory, drugs, physical or mental illness, or
some other reason. With or without Brain Fingerprinting, this is a possibility that can in
principle never be entirely eliminated.
What Brain Fingerprinting testing can do is to provide extremely strong scientific
evidence that the record of the time of the crime stored in the suspect's brain does or does not
contain the salient facts about the crime, and does or does not contain the salient facts about the
alibi. Brain Fingerprinting testing can prove that the suspect's brain does not have the salient
details of the crime stored in it, that is, when the suspect does not remember or recognize the
salient details of the crime. It is up to a judge or jury to take this fact into account, along with all
the other available facts, in coming to a verdict of guilty or not guilty.
Neither Brain Fingerprinting testing nor any other scientific technique proves a
suspect innocent or guilty of a crime. The determination of guilt or innocence is a legal matter,
not a scientific one. All Brain Fingerprinting testing or any other scientific technology can do is
to provide a judge or jury with evidence, which they will take into account in their determination
of guilt or innocence. The specific evidence that Brain Fingerprinting testing provides is either
1) that salient facts about the crime, facts that the subject claims not to know and would have no
way of knowing other than committing the crime, are in fact stored in the suspect’s brain; or 2)
that these salient features of the crime, features that the suspect would have encountered if he
had committed the crime, are not stored in the suspect’s brain. Does this prove that the suspect is
guilty or innocent? No. That is up to a judge or jury to decide, taking into account the Brain
Fingerprinting testing evidence along with all of the other available evidence.
There is an extensive literature on what makes events memorable, and we take that
into account in structuring the stimuli for the Brain Fingerprinting testing tests in order to
maximize the memorability of the items tested for. Still, we can never be absolutely certain that
a suspect who has no memory of the salient facts of the crime is innocent, any more that we can
be absolutely certain that a truthful alibi witness didn't actually witness a crime and then forget
about it. The determination of innocence or guilt, however, is not a scientific determination.
That is a legal determination. Brain Fingerprinting testing detects the record of the crime stored
in the brain, or a lack of that record. The determination of Brain Fingerprinting testing is
"information present" or "information absent." This is science. The judge and jury take the
evidence provided by Brain Fingerprinting testing into account, along with all of the other
available evidence, to reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty. This is not science, but rather the
judicial process. Judges and juries know that human perception and memory are imperfect, and
that a witness or suspect may have been under the influence of some debilitating physical or
mental condition or drug that could make these faculties even more imperfect than usual.
Whenever witness testimony is heard, and whenever Brain Fingerprinting testing evidence or
any other evidence depending on human beings is presented, this imperfection must be taken into
account, along with any evidence that this is a circumstance in which perception or memory may
be more imperfect than usual.
This does not, however, mean that judges and juries should be disallowed to hear the
testimony of witnesses, just because the memory of the witnesses may be imperfect or impaired
for some reason. Nor does it mean that judges and juries should be deprived of the evidence
provided by Brain Fingerprinting, just because the memory of the suspect may also be imperfect
or impaired for some reason.Brain Fingerprinting testing objectively detects the presence or
absence of a record of the crime in the brain of the suspect, whatever the suspect says. Brain
Fingerprinting testing is non-assertive and non-testimonial. The suspect neither lies nor tells the
truth during the process. No questions are asked or answered. The question of the truth or
veracity of the subject is irrelevant, just as it is with a fingerprinting or DNA testing. The results
detect a match or no match between something on the person of the suspect and something from
the crime scene -- be it fingerprints, biological samples, or, in the case of Brain Fingerprinting,
information stored in the brain. This has nothing to do with what a person says about it, or
whether he speaks the truth or lies.
Neither Brain Fingerprinting testing nor any other scientific procedure, however, can
absolutely eliminate the possibility that a suspect committed a specific crime. When Brain
Fingerprinting testing proves that a suspect lacks knowledge of the salient aspects of a crime,
then, there are two possibilities:
1) he is innocent;
2) he committed the crime and either never knew it or forgot about it later. (The latter could be
due to defective memory, physical or mental illness, drugs, or some other factor.)
These same possibilities are present whenever there is an alibi witness. Neither
Brain Fingerprinting testing nor any other scientific technique can totally eliminate the
possibility that a witness or a suspect was present at a crime and failed to perceive or forgot the
salient facts about the crime. Does this mean that we disallow the judge and jury to hear any
testimony from witnesses? No. The judge and jury have a duty to take into account the available
facts, and to evaluate these facts in the light of the reality that human perception and memory are
imperfect. Does it mean that we should disallow the judge and jury to know the facts proven by
Brain Fingerprinting testing regarding the presence or absence of the record of the crime stored
in the brain? Again the answer is no. The judge and jury are entitled to have the evidence
provided by Brain Fingerprinting, along with all of the other available evidence. The judge and
jury have a duty to take into account all of the available evidence, and to make a determination
based on their best judgment in light of all the evidence.
Perception and memory are imperfect, and can never be totally relied upon to
provide an accurate representation of the facts. This limitation on the judicial system applied to
all testimony of witnesses long before Brain Fingerprinting testing was discovered, and will
always apply to all aspects of the judicial system that involve human beings.Granted, human
memory and perception are not infallible, and can be compromised by mental and physical
illness and drugs. This limitation applies to information that is or is not known as evidenced by
Brain Fingerprinting testing and it also applies equally to all information that is a part of any
testimony by a witness. With Brain Fingerprinting testing as with witness testimony, however,
this limitation affects the weight given to the evidence, and not the admissibility of the evidence.
The question of weight is one that can only be decided by the judge and jury, and not by a
scientific procedure or a scientific opinion. Brain Fingerprinting testing can determine
scientifically what information is stored in a brain, i.e., what a person does and does not know.
How these scientific facts are interpreted in relation to participation or non-participation in a
crime, and what weight is given to this scientific evidence, is a matter to be decided by a judge or
jury.
We must acknowledge, in principal, that any one of us might have committed the
murder we read about in today's paper, and then forgot about it. We must acknowledge that any
alleged alibi witness may have in fact witnessed the crime rather than the alibi, and then forgot
about it. Theoretically, a suspect who is proven through Brain Fingerprinting testing to lack
knowledge of the salient details of a crime could conceivably have committed the crime, and
then forgotten about it. This kind of thing is not what we find in reality, however. When one
reads the transcripts of court testimony for major crimes, the people who were present --
witnesses, perpetrators, and surviving victims alike -- do in fact remember the salient features of
the events that took place, as proven by the descriptions they offer in testimony. This includes
people who are of very high or very low intelligence. It includes people who are under the
influence of all kinds of different drugs, legal or illegal. It includes psychopaths and other
people with highly abnormal or pathological emotional responses and psychological conditions.
It includes people who have committed many crimes and people who have never committed a
crime. It includes people who are under severe stress, people who are calm and unemotional,
people who are violently angry, people who are terrified, and people who commit serious crimes
with no remorse.

The entire judicial system is built on the concept of reasonableness. Is it possible

that you or I committed the murder we read about in today's paper, and then forgot about it, and
we are going about our business falsely believing ourselves to be innocent? Yes. Is it a
reasonable scenario, with a reasonable likelihood of being accurate? No. Is it possible that an
alibi witness saw a violent murder, and never noticed it, or forgot about it? Yes. Is it a
reasonable, likely explanation? No, not often. It is possible that a suspect who demonstrably
does not know the salient facts about a major crime actually committed the crime, and never
noticed what he was doing, or forgot about it? Yes. Is it a reasonable, likely explanation of the
facts? No, not unless there is some highly unusual, reasonable explanation for why such an
extremely bizarre and unusual phenomenon would occur. Anything is possible, and it is indeed
possible that a person could commit a crime and not know the salient details of it, but is a judge
or jury likely to conclude that such a thing happened, beyond a reasonable doubt, and takes away
a person's freedom or his life on that basis? Not in a reasonable world, and not in a reasonable
criminal justice system.
Is it theoretically possible for a suspect to commit a crime, and for the scientific tests
to reveal that his fingerprints or DNA do not match the fingerprints or DNA at the crime scene?
Yes. Is it possible for Brain Fingerprinting testing to find that certain specific crime-relevant
information is not stored in his brain? Yes. All of these, however, are extremely unlikely
outcomes if the suspect is indeed guilty. If fingerprints, DNA, and/or Brain Fingerprinting
testing produce a negative result, then in the unlikely event that the prosecution elects to proceed
against the suspect in question anyway, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of specific circumstances and events that produced that
specific negative result even though the suspect committed the crime.
Under normal circumstances, one's memory for significant events (such as
committing a major crime) is intact, even long after the event. If the prosecution wants to prove
in court that a person committed a significant crime, and yet does not have memory of the
significant, salient details of that crime, then the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that specific events and neurophysiological malfunctions took place
that could produce such an extremely unlikely phenomenon. Also, under normal circumstances,
Brain Fingerprinting testing can be used not only to prove the absence in the brain of salient
information regarding the crime, but also the presence in the brain of a record of the events that
took place at the same time as the crime, i.e., the events of the alibi. Showing that the suspect
does indeed have a memory of the events that took place at the time of the crime – the alibi
events – serves to eliminate the alternative hypothesis that the suspect lacks a record of the crime
stored in the brain only due to some kind of memory malfunction.
In any case, it is up to a judge or jury, and not up to science, to make the
determination as to whether a suspect is guilty of a crime or not. Science never provides
absolute certainty regarding legal determinations. Science can only provide evidence that the
judge and jury must evaluate in a reasonable fashion in making that determination. A negative
result of a DNA, fingerprint, or Brain Fingerprinting testing test is not an absolute proof of
innocence. It is, however, relevant evidence that a judge and jury are entitled to have in making
their determination regarding guilt or innocence.
The evidence provided by Brain Fingerprinting, like all scientific evidence, is
weighed along with the other evidence. Like all evidence, it serves to tip the scale in one
direction or another. No scientific technology, Brain Fingerprinting testing included, eliminates
or replaces the scale of justice, or makes other evidence irrelevant or insignificant. It is
important to understand that all Brain Fingerprinting testing can determine, and all any expert
witness can testify to when a Brain Fingerprinting testing test has been conducted, is the
presence or absence of certain information stored in the brain matching the crime scene or the
alibi. This is like testifying that the fingerprints or DNA at the crime scene match (or do not
match) those on the person of the suspect. It is up to the judge or jury to decide what this
evidence means with respect to the guilt or innocence of the suspect, and to weigh this evidence
along with all of the other available evidence in arriving at their verdict.

Can 'brain fingerprints' protect us from terrorists?

I mention this because your first reaction to what I am about to discuss may be that
Steve is off the deep end. I don't think so, but will admit I haven't researched what I am about to
repeat to you. However, I do trust Steve.
Regular AnchorDesk readers will recognize Steve from my column of Sept. 14,
when he proposed a new autopilot system that could have prevented the terrorist attacks of Sept.
11. This column drew near-record comments from readers, so when Steve came back to me with
what he says is an even better idea--one that would potentially uncover 99.9 percent of all
terrorists--I had to take notice.For those who don't know Steve, here's a very short bio. He holds
bachelor's and master's degrees in EE and computer science from MIT, has started several
successful companies (InfoSeek is the best known), has given away millions of dollars, and is
trying very hard to use technology to prevent a repeat of the events of Sept. 11. I have had a
passing relationship with him for five or six years.
NOW FOR the idea. Brain fingerprinting--a simple computerized test that takes 10 minutes to
give and requires no human intervention--has, according to Steve, proven infallible in FBI and
U.S. Navy testing. It has been touted as being able to accurately identify trained terrorists before
they can board planes or even enter the country. This technique was developed by Dr. Lawrence
Farwell, a former faculty member of the Harvard Medical School, and has been profiled on
CBS's "60 Minutes."

Here's how it works.

Every few years, each person to be tested puts on a headset and watches video
images for 10 minutes. The person is attached to sensors that record brainwaves. The images are
yes/no questions, which the subject may be given in advance. They may be published in advance.

A known, but large, question pool allows exclusion of "objectionable" questions that don't relate
to the issue at hand: have you cheated on your spouse or your taxes, that sort of thing. Although
people lie--which is why "lie detector tests" remain so controversial--brainwaves don't. Your
brain reacts to the question regardless of the answer you verbalize.At the same time, biometric
data (iris scans, fingerprints, face recognition, etc.) is gathered to positively link the person with
the profile. At this point, it is not even necessary to know who the person is; the risk profile
would not have to be linked to a person's actual identity. You could take the test without
presenting any sort of personal identification. Perhaps a court order would be required to
associate a real person with a specific profile.Properly done--and this can be a very public
process--there would be no false positives and no false negatives. Some people, even good guys
like Navy Seals or FBI agents, might test positive, but adding additional questions would clear
them.
Steve has created a Web site that discusses this, and it includes much more detail
than is possible here. In it he addresses most of the privacy and "Big Brother" issues that
immediately come to mind. There are also some interesting other uses for this technology--and it
has been accepted as evidence by U.S. courts. One of the best might be offering the test to O.J.
Simpson. If he passes, he gets his normal life back and doesn't have to pay the huge civil
judgment against him. That, of course, would be outside the purview of this column, but I hope it
gets you thinking about the uses of brain fingerprinting, both good and bad. IF WE WANT to
test this, I have an idea, which I have already shared with Steve. Let's not test it on U.S. citizens,
but on people who want to travel to the U.S. Make brain fingerprinting (yes, it is a really bad
name) a part of the visa application process. Require resident aliens to come in for testing, if you
like. Since these people are asking to be our guests, this doesn't seem like too much to ask, does
it?
Based on that experience, we could then see what, if any, uses the technology has, as
well as how potential abuse is best dealt with. There are ways around most of the obstacles, yet
the idea is so science fiction-y that it may not get a fair hearing. For the sake of our nation's
security, I hope it does. David will be discussing brain fingerprinting on his radio show this
Friday at noon Pacific Time on CNET radio. Is brain fingerprinting a bad sci-fi idea, or would it
help with national security? .

Conclusion:
In summary, then, Brain Fingerprinting testing only proves whether or not certain
information is stored in a person's brain. Brain Fingerprinting testing does not prove absolutely
whether a suspect is innocent or guilty of a crime. The latter is not a scientific question, but
rather a legal question that is decided by a judge or jury. Brain Fingerprinting testing determines
objectively what information is stored in a suspect's brain, that is, whether or not a suspect has
knowledge of salient facts about a crime that only the perpetrator and investigators would know.
That is as far as science can go. A judge and jury have the duty to evaluate this evidence, along
with all of the other evidence, in arriving at their verdict. If the record of the crime is not stored
in the brain, the judge and jury must take into account the imperfections in human memory and
perception -- and the possibility of myriad factors affecting memory -- just as they must do in
every case in evaluating the testimony of every witness who testifies to events he remembers or
does not remember. When Brain Fingerprinting testing provides an "information absent" result,
then it is up to a judge or jury to decide whether or not they think that the absence of salient
details of the crime stored in the brain of the perpetrator, along with the other available evidence,
introduce a reasonable doubt about his guilt. If so, then they must find him not guilty.

References:

Forensic-Evidence.com: Brain Fingerprinting Fails First Court Test in Iowa - http://www.forensic-

evidence.com/site/Behv_Evid/brainfp_Iowa.html

Forensic-Evidence.com: "Brain Fingerprinting" - Is It a Reliable Tool? - http://www.forensic-

evidence.com/site/Behv_Evid/BeE00005_1.html

Farwell Brain Fingerprinting - http://www.brainwavescience.com/

National Geographic: "Brain Fingerprints" May Offer Better Way to Detect Lying -
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/07/0705_wirelies.html

Identifying Terrorists Before They Strike - http://www.skirsch.com/politics/plane/ultimate.htm

Register: Brain-scans Can Defeat Terrorism, InfoSeek Founder Claims -
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/22020.html

Center for an Informed America: Would You Mind If We Fingerprint Your Brain? -
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/brainfingerprinting.htm

ZDNet: Can 'Brain Fingerprints' Protect Us from Terrorists? - http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/4520-

6033_16-4206471.html

InFairfield: The Truth Detector - http://fairfield.freehosting.net/98nov/brainwaves.html

Case of John Doe: Brain Fingerprinting - http://ice.prohosting.com/lwhaley/brainfingerprinting.html

S90tv - http://www.smart90.com/s90tv

Neur-Sci Archives: Brain Fingerprinting: Science or Quackery? -

http://www.bio.net/hypermail/NEUROSCIENCE/neur-sci.200012/0052.html

DesMoines Register: Brain-print Test Rejected; Murder Conviction Stands -

http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4788993/13992070.html

Skeptic News: Brain Fingerprinting - http://www.skepticnews.com/articles/00/12/07/2354201.shtml