Slashdot Mirror


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."

14 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It isn't exactly the super glue, it is the cyanoacrylate fumes released from heating the glue. It turns the finger prints white, then they can be photographed.

    The reason they don't have a human doing this work, is because it is a dangerous assignment, investigating a suspecious package. Normally the robot would just destroy the package, finger prints and all. Now they can make images of the prints before destroying the package.

  2. Remote Controlled Device not robot by RichMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do people keep calling remote controlled devices robots?

    A robot is an autonomous object responding to its environment.
    A remote controlled device is under direct control.

    We call them
    Remote Controlled Cars
    Remote Controlled Planes
    these are clearly not "ROBOTS".

    Why are the more esoteric remote controlled devices called robots?

    1. Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In Capeks "Rossum Universal Robots" 1920 play, the original use and coining of the word "robot" came from the Czech language word "robota" for "slave", "servitude". Factory robots used in every auto plants are generally not autonomous, nor used any kind of AI or even fuzzy logic. Just sequencers. This fits well with an RC robot. read a little..

    2. Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot by RichMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >> Just sequencers

      So traffic lights are now robots?
      A pinball machine is now a robot?
      An old mechanical telephone exchange is a robot?
      My car is now a robot? (the whole car as an electro mechincal system responding to inputs, does it matter if I sit, in it, on it, or 50' away and control it over wires.

      I would give it to assembly line robots as electro-mechanical systems responding to programmed code with little more than on/off and sensors for inputs.

      Putting humans directly in the control loop stops making it a robot. Having humans direct, a'la slave, would still meet the definition of a robot.

  3. Homer Simpson moment by poptones · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This is definitely one of those "Doh!" moments. As in "why didn't I think of that?"

    With all the crap patents we hear about in this forum, it's great to read about a simple, obvious invention that someone actually invented - an idea that's actually worth some real credit.

    But it still makes me wanna kick myself for not thinking of it first.

  4. Re:Isn't there a by Frnknstn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No. At the very least it is littering.

    --
    If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
  5. Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 2, Insightful


    > Are digital photographs of the fingerprints... submittable as evidence in a court of law?

    Under the PATRIOT act, a model of the fingerprints sculpted entirely out of CHEEZ-WHIZ would be admissable.

    "...because if we can't use creamy, cheezy goodness to keep this nation safe, then the terrorists have already won." - John Ashcroft

  6. Why? by teamhasnoi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Wouldn't any self-respecting bomb maker wear gloves, or superglue his/her own fingerprints to make them illegible?

    Or better yet, involve someone to handle the package for him/her, throwing the trail off?

    This is only going to catch the dummies, who most likely have already blown themselves up.

  7. Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? by Scrag · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why would the authenticity be questioned more than with current methods of taking prints? In the end it comes down to trusting that the police are not fabricating the evidence, and I don't think this system makes it any easier to fabricate fingerprints than it already is.

  8. Mounted on an ordinary robot by Wiseazz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's just vague enough to work.

    An ordinary "bomb disposal" robot would be better. I might also take exception to the term "robot", if I wanted to be a jerk about it.

    Good idea, though. I'm sure if they thought about it, they could add a whole swiss-army knife's worth of gadgets to the arms on those things.

    --
    My sig sucks.
  9. Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? by shystershep · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a good point, but probably moot. Just because it's not admissible in court doesn't mean that the police/FBI can't use it to investigate the crime. And find such fingerprints would be more than sufficient probable cause to issue a search warrant, where (if the suspect is in fact guilty) admissible evidence can be found. At that point, the authenticity of the fingerprints really doesn't matter too much.

    --
    The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
  10. Re:I smell sitcom! by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 2, Insightful

    better yet, I smell a reality TV show, hot semi nude chicks , competing against robots, to defuse live bombs. And to add, shocking surprising elements , make some bombs irreversible. kick a55.

    --
    for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
  11. Re:Counter-Robot by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Smart criminals

    that is an oxymoron.. or actually in reality is' exceedingly rare to find a smart criminal.

    and this, my friends, is a GOOD THING. imagine if the braindead-turds in a gang discovered what a 30-6 hunting rifle and a good scope can do. or the same rifle and some well welded together washers that you lightly machine just right can do to the sound of that rifle.

    Criminals are stupid to the extreme... that is why they are criminals.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  12. Re:Proud Canadian by ergo98 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a fellow Canadian, I find your post grovelling, pandering, and embarrasing. As another poster said: We have nothing to prove. This is just another academic advance from another of the world's research institutes, and it's rather pathetic to "see! We matter!" with it.

    In any case, do you really think the far-right in the US, the people who will say and do whatever they want to support their pet projects, care about facts (this'll make em see the light)? Of course they don't. They care about promoting xenophobia, paranoia, and the illusion of safety. All to get some funding for the local military base, or the local tech center that's developing a massive big brother database, or whatever other number of slush fund contributors they need to appease. If that means creating an illusion of a complacent Canada because we don't jump everytime their narrowsighted, politically charged so-called-intelligence agencies uncreatively imagine a threat (usually be imagining the prior threat repeating), then that's a price they're will to make someone else pay.