Difference between revisions of "Milestone-Proposal talk:AFIS NEC"
|Line 80:||Line 80:|
Thank all again.
Thank all again.
Revision as of 21:50, 27 April 2019
Advocate's comments (posted on advocate's behalf by -- Administrator4 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[edit | reply | new]
I have reviewed this proposal and have also done some in depth consultation discussions with image processing experts in the industry and academia that I had the opportunity to work with. And we agree that this effort deserves the recognition.
A few notes - this accomplishment is about building a high accuracy and a high utility system rather than a breakthrough invention of some fundamental technique or concept. So it is s little different from other milestones that typically recognize seminal efforts that later manifest into major fields of technology. The social impact of this milestone is huge - it enabled better crime solving and assisted in solving a few marqueee crime cases in the history such as LA’s Night Stalker.
Re: Advocate's comments (posted on advocate's behalf by -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[edit | reply | new]
As part of the Milestone process, please have two experts provide their reviews and approval of the Milestone in this forum. It is important that we have this documented.
Milestone Subcommittee Chair
I would suggest changing the word “criminals” to “suspects” in the last sentence and rephrasing to avoid vague passive voice: It enabled the world's police agencies to expedite searches for suspects, an efficiency that many public-safety experts valued.
Accuracy of fingerprint identification -- CSchlombs (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[edit | reply | new]
The accuracy of fingerprint identification has been called into question in recent years by studies of the National Academy of Sciences, the President's Councils of Advisors on Science and Technology, and others, for example:
Should this debate be taken into consideration in the formulation of the plaque citation, or at least be mentioned in the ETHW information?
Yes, I had the same concerns as Corinna, that there have been serious questions about the errors/careless use of fingerprints as evidence. Presumably, however, the plaque cannot get away with questioning this too much, both for word-length limits and what’s seen as acceptable. Moreover, one can say that the errors and abuses are in the human/social/institutional misinterpretation of the data (though then one can argue whether the technology itself promotes or facilitates such misinterpretation by giving an impression of perfect accuracy and making it so easy to search for “matches.” Anyway, it’s because I had the same concerns as Corinna that I suggested changing “criminals” to “suspects” and saying “many” public safety experts like this technology (leaving open the possibility that others may have reservations and that civil-liberties and privacy commenters may see things differently.
New Advocate for this Milestone Proposal -- John Vardalas (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[edit | reply | new]
I've been asked to be the new advocate for this proposal. I'm currently developing a list of external expert reviewers whom I will contact. Once these reviews are posted we can proceed with the evaluation of this proposal. In the meantime I am bringing myself up to speed on this proposal.
First external review of proposal -- John Vardalas (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[edit | reply | new]
Prof. Anil Jain, University Distinguished Professor, in the Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering, Michigan State University, has provided the first external review. He has had a distinguished career in Forensic Science. He was member of the United States Defense Science Board and Forensics Science Standards Board. He was Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence and is a Fellow of ACM, IEEE, AAAS, and SPIE. Jain is a Member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering. Below is his evaluation quoted without any changes.
"I have read the Milestone proposal that you sent me. Below are my comments.
1. I know that NEC is a leader in AFIS technology and I have no doubt that they indeed built and installed the first latent AFIS in the world.
2. However, it would be nice to see explicit documentation of the claim that NEC was the first company. Some of the links that have been provided in the proposal are either broken or do not have any dates.
For example, while I can read the NEC brochure
A3: NEC AFIS Brochure, NEC 1986, I could not locate any date printed on the brochure itself.
Similarly, I could not open the link
N3: TIME No. 41 October 14, 1985 (p53) (TIME1985Oct P53.pdf)
I would suggest that they copy the socue and create a separate file and provide the link.
I a few instances, the proposal provides a link to an entire book, rather than excerpting a few sentences from the book to make the point.
3. In the early 1980s, and even now, there were less than 5 companies selling AFIS. It would be useful if the proposal provides when these other companies built competing systems. That will further bolster NEC's claim.
4. If this supporting information can be documented, I am happy to approve the proposal. NEC deserved this recognition.
5. Wording of the Plaque Citation is accurate.
6. The proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement."
I appreciate Prof. Jain's review and his valuable suggestions.
As to the printed date of NEC AFIS Brochure is shown in the codes on the last page, bottom right. "8607300001" is supposed to mean that this Brochure is the 1st printing in July 30, 1986.
As to the absence of the supporting document, the copy of those document are now linked from the web page. Thank to Dr. Vardalas and the ETHW administrator for providing the link.
As to the date when the other companies built the competing systems, relevant information are provided in page 6-3 through page 6-9 of the Fingerprint Sourcebook (N2) and in page 5 of CAL-DOJ Status Report (N4). According to these document, Printrak's Latent AFIS systems installed in mid-1970's were not able to meet the large-scale operational requirements.
Thank all again.
Re: Re: First external review of proposal -- John Vardalas (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[edit | reply | new]
I've notified Prof. Jain that you have responded. I'm waiting for his reply. We are also waiting another external review to come in.