Slashdot Mirror


Identifying People By Odor As Effective As Fingerprinting

A study has found that everybody has a unique body odor, like their fingerprints, that could be used as an unique identifier. The study showed that a persons unique odor stayed the same even if they varied their diet with strong smelling foods such as garlic and spices. "These findings indicate that biologically-based odorprints, like fingerprints, could be a reliable way to identify individuals," said Monell chemist Jae Kwak. I would have thought that hundreds of years of dogs tracking people would have proved this, but it's nice to know that science has figured it out officially now.

28 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by Facegarden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is this even Idle? This is actually somewhat interesting.... I hate Idle, Btw.
    -Taylor

    --
    Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    1. Re:Why? by Dan541 · · Score: 4, Funny

      My dog already knew and understood this, that does not speak well for science.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    2. Re:Why? by lanswitch · · Score: 3, Funny

      awful.

    3. Re:Why? by sqldr · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hate Idle, Btw.

      Try running this then:

      #!/bin/sh

      while true; do
      fork
      done

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    4. Re:Why? by RulerOf · · Score: 2, Funny

      If they're your friends, at least you like those people.

      I've got co-workers.

      --
      Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
  2. What porn site did that picture come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    i need to know

    1. Re:What porn site did that picture come from? by wickerprints · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's from a National Geographic article from like 15 years ago, about the science of smell. The notable thing about this photo is that all the "smellers" are female--this is because in general, women tend to be more sensitive to smell, and besides, men probably don't want other men smelling their pits.

    2. Re:What porn site did that picture come from? by macraig · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Armpit odor isn't actually generated by the human body itself: it's caused by bacteria feeding on "exudates". That's also true of bad breath. One of the most effective deodorants you can find is a triple antibiotic.

      If that's true of the entire body in general, then simply eliminating - or substituting - the bacteria and other freeloaders might very well change this odor signature.

  3. farts by u4ya · · Score: 3, Funny

    each persons' fart has its own unique flavor too. although I don't envy the poor bastard who has to test this theory.

  4. Obviously... by Xenographic · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's on Idle because this idea was invented by Shampoo.

    1. Re:Obviously... by wclacy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Do identical twins put off the same odor?

    2. Re:Obviously... by theaveng · · Score: 3, Informative

      I agree.

      TRIVIA - Smelling people can also reveal your mate. A quick whiff allows the body to detect a person's genetic makeup, and we feel attracted to those with genes opposite to ours.

      The use of deodorants and birth control pills can disrupt this natural process (your mate's smell is masked or changed).

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    3. Re:Obviously... by Rycross · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wait, so the underpants gnomes are Nazis? I guess we figured out what the missing part of:

      1. Steal underpants
      2. ???
      3. Profit!

      was.

  5. finger prints arent that unique! by TheSovereign · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the idea that fingerprints are unique is stupid, especially for anyone who is actually in law enforcement or forensics. you need 12 count it TWELVE different points of matching to even get a fingerprint submitted for evidence. so if this odor is just as effective that means its pretty much a scare tactic as much as "we got your fingerprints at the scene!" is

    1. Re:finger prints arent that unique! by Y.A.A.P. · · Score: 5, Informative

      the idea that fingerprints are unique is stupid, especially for anyone who is actually in law enforcement or forensics. you need 12 count it TWELVE different points of matching to even get a fingerprint submitted for evidence. so if this odor is just as effective that means its pretty much a scare tactic as much as "we got your fingerprints at the scene!" is

      I wouldn't call it stupid, just incorrect when all possibilities are tried.

      Aside from genetically-identical twins, there are a rare few known cases where people do have matching fingerprints (it's been awhile since I read the article but I seem to recall a resolution of around a thousand comparison points in one such case). However, with the incredibly low occurrence rate for this duplication, fingerprints still reign as the current top method for human identity verification (DNA matching takes alot more time and still isn't 100% accurate).

      The article and summary are misleading, as well. This study was only performed on mice, not humans. There is additional doubt introduced from the lack of description of the experimental procedure. If the mice weren't separated long enough after the diet change, then a sufficient amount of the recognized scent may have remained for the other mice to make correct identifications.

      The comment about dogs in the summary may be incorrect as well, but I don't really know. I have never read about any studies that tried to have a dog track a person from a previous scent marker after they've undergone a radical diet change and sufficient time for the body to remove the chemical traces of the old diet. They usually give dogs an item that someone has used recently in order to track them by scent.

      I do know two things from my personal experiences as a person with a strong sense of smell:

      1. In favor of the results that the articles puts forward as 'fact' - without perfumes, colognes, other scented body products or even any noticeable sweat; a woman definitely smells different than a man.

      2. Disagreeing with the postulate from the results of the study - How best to put this delicately? The scent of certain subsets of people that stereotypically consume specific diets does indeed match scents from those diets when their scent becomes strong enough.

      Of course, I'm not a canine, so regardless of my personal experience, there may indeed be elements of a person's scent that are as unique as their DNA. Actually, if a dog's sense of smell is advanced enough, their olfactory processing could be doing on-the-fly DNA matching. Though, I've never seen someone even postulate a study that could confirm that little bit of information.

      I do agree with a couple of the other comments so far. This news has enough merit to be under a section other than Idle.

    2. Re:finger prints arent that unique! by Detritus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I sat through a trial in which the defense lawyer undertook a long cross-examination of the prosecution's finger print expert. I wasn't too impressed with the expert, who said that there were no standards for declaring a match. Her qualifications for the job was that she had been doing it for many years. She might be really good at her job, but the whole business struck me as slip-shod and lacking rigor.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  6. Re:Oh... by Skrapion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You people. First you complain that Idle isn't any good, and now you're complaining that it shouldn't be any good?

    --
    The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
  7. Dogs vs. Control groups by jonaskoelker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would have thought that hundreds of years of dogs tracking people would have proved this, but it's nice to know that science has figured it out officially now.

    .
    First of all, tracking is not identifying. Second of all, if two people have the same scent but non-overlapping movement paths, you can successfully track the one whose path you're on, so ability to track is not a very pure way of measuring smell-based distinguishability. Thirdly, dogs probably have vastly different ability levels for tracking by smell vs. tracking by fingerprint due to the two leaving different amounts of trail material. Fourthly throughout these years, have comparisons been made between smell-dogs and print-dogs? And fifthly, just because the market uses dogs to track on smell doesn't mean it's the best way to even track people: there may be market inertia factors and/or cost/benefit ratios that favor using smelling dogs.
    .
    Science has not figured out that hunting by smell works. They've found out that odors are better than fingerprints for identifying people. If it had gone the other way, should we all go and replace our dogs? No, they probably work best in practice, due to better hardware support for the odor-based tracking.

  8. What about vodka? by ShaunC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I drink a lot (a fifth of vodka every two days, on average). One of my coworkers, out of 12+, claims she can smell the hell out of it on me. I shower each morning and two different Axe products are part of my showering repertoire. While I don't doubt that I sweat out some portion of the previous night's alcohol during the course of the work day, I'm curious where the threshold is.

    I put back about 375ml of vodka per night - mixed with various other beverages, typically Diet Mt. Dew, a random Gatorade, or one of Ocean Spray's delicious juices. Some nights I have no vodka, but drink 6 to 12 beers instead, depending upon the brand. And from time to time, such as last night, I'll get to sleep simply by virtue of 100mg Diphenhydramine HCl without having a drop of alcohol. This coworker swears she can still smell it, even after I've gone 48 hours and 2 or more showers since my last drink.

    I suspect that certain people have unusually strong senses of smell. We know that dogs do. I hope that I don't have any offensive BO at work, and I'd doubly hope that if I did, someone would tell me about it. That only a single coworker has mentioned her ability to "smell the booze on me" makes me paranoid, but it also makes me wonder. Is she hypersensitive, or are all of my other coworkers picking up on it and just being too polite to say anything? Knowing most of my coworkers very fondly, I suspect the former.

    Dogs have never liked me - or conversely, they've always liked me too much. To me, canines exhibit excessive hyperactivity. That's why I have a cat instead. She might be the boss of my house, but the only time she freaks out is when I drop some fresh catnip somewhere nearby.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    1. Re:What about vodka? by digitalchinky · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Having never had a sense of smell myself, at all, and not knowing that body odour actually even existed until I hit about 20 years of age, I'm going to have to put this down to the latter. People are far more likely to say nothing than to speak up. This includes family, close friends, acquaintances, and total strangers.

      Sometimes I forget to slap on deodorant so I'll quite literally ask anyone close by if I smell bad. Trust me, nobody wants to answer that question, let alone have someone ask it. It's a loaded question in social terms. Even after letting them know my olfactory system is completely dead in the water they still stall and look confused. People simply have a hard time believing life could exist without smell, you lose your arm and it's obvious to the world, you lose your sight and this is pretty clear to nearby observers that this is the case, but smell. It's invisible.

      On the dog side, I don't like them either, seems they all like me though, maybe it's body language they are picking up on.

  9. Re:Oh... by Facegarden · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You people. First you complain that Idle isn't any good, and now you're complaining that it shouldn't be any good?

    No, I'm complaining that there is already a section for this article, it's called "Science", and that i feel people are artificially putting this in the wrong category to make it seem more legitimate.

    The idea behind the idle section is to have articles that are sort of pointless - that's just the point, i'm not ragging on it. Thing is, i don't like that idea, i think it's stupid.
    -Taylor

    --
    Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
  10. Re:Oh... by Skrapion · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They've also been using the section for "oddball" stories, of which this clearly fits.

    In fact, with the exception of a few YouTube videos that showed up early in the life of Idle, most of the stuff posted in Idle that's made it to the front page is stuff that would have been posted on Slashdot anyway, but under a different category.

    --
    The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
  11. Not sure about uniquely identifying by 2Bits · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm not sure about odor on men (as I'm not interested in men, thank you), but odor on each woman is quite distinctive if you have intimate contact with her. That's only from personal experience (anecdote), and by no means a scientific study.

    The five women I have (or had) intimate relationship with, I can distinguish each one of them with my eyes blind-folded. A woman's distinctive smell are usually from the cheek, on the neck, from behind the ear, on the lips, etc. It's definitely distinctive, but can it be used as a unique identifier, I'm not sure.

    Thinking about it, each woman having a distinctive oder is quite natural, as this is the same thing as on other animals. After all these years of evolution, humans do not rely on smell anymore to mate or to find a mate, therefore, it has become less important and less obvious. But I think it's still there, if you pay attention to it.

  12. Alien 4 - Resurrection by wlt · · Score: 2, Funny

    Didn't the 4th Alien movie (the one with winona ryder) kinda show one of the problems with this?

  13. Idle submission process by JavaTHut · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does idle base its story submissions solely by how well the content matches up to whatever pictures they happen have lying around?

  14. Stasi "police" of the Soviets by Decomas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In Berlin, Germany during the cold war era, the Stasi (Big Brother Police) knew this! They could track individuals with smell. In fact they have a room FILLED with little jars of every citizens' personal smell! I've been there and seen the rooms. They had special dogs trained for this too. They would open the jar and let the dog smell some... then go out into the city and find this person, they had a good success rate too which is kind of surprising. They would even track people by spraying different pheromones on their target.

  15. Reliable like fingerprints? by irexe · · Score: 2, Informative

    "These findings indicate that biologically-based odorprints, like fingerprints, could be a reliable way to identify individuals"

    Slightly off-topic, but since when do fingerprints qualify as a reliable way to identify a person? They can easily be faked, and once they are, there's no way to revoke them. It's like having a really bad passport...

  16. Re:Oh... by RulerOf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While this article may be misplaced, I'd say that while regular /. stories are "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters," Idle /. could be considered "News for Nerds, Stuff that Doesn't Matter," but that you still might find interesting.

    --
    Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.