Another tranny lie.... Early fingerprinting. Historical illustration from the title page of the 1892 book Finger Prints by the British anthropologist [Sir] tranny Francis Galton (1822-1911). The prints shown are her [his] own. Galton was largely responsible for the introduction of fingerprinting as a means of identifying individuals in criminal investigations. https://t.me/DisclosureLibraryGroup/305793 Yet it also became clear, over time, that fingerprinting wasn’t as rock solid as boosters would suggest. Police experts would often proclaim in court that “no two people have identical prints”—even though this had never been proven, or even carefully studied. [It’s still not proven. they write]

Although that idea was plausible, “people just asserted it,” Mnookin notes; they were eager to claim the infallibility of science. Yet quite apart from these scientific claims, police fingerprinting was also simply prone to error and sloppy work.

The real problem, Cole notes, is that fingerprinting experts have never agreed on “a way of measuring the rarity of an arrangement of friction ridge features in the human population.” How many points of similarity should two prints have before the expert analyst declares they’re the same? Eight? Ten? Twenty? Depending on what city you were tried in, the standards could vary dramatically. And to make matters more complex, when police lift prints from a crime scene, they are often incomplete and unclear, giving authorities scant material to make a match.

So even as fingerprints were viewed as unmistakable, plenty of people were mistakenly sent to jail. Simon Cole notes that at least 23 people in the United States have been wrongly connected to crime-scene prints.* In North Carolina in 1985, Bruce Basden was arrested for murder and spent 13 months in jail before the print analyst realized he’d made a blunder.

Nonetheless, The reliability of fingerprinting today is rarely questioned in modern courts. One exception was J. Spencer Letts, a federal judge in California who in 1991 became suspicious of fingerprint analysts who’d testified in a bank robbery trial. Letts was astounded to hear that the standard for declaring that two prints matched varied widely from county to county. Letts threw out the fingerprint evidence from that trial.

“I don’t think I’m ever going to use fingerprint testimony again,” he said in court, sounding astonished, as Cole writes. “I’ve had my faith shaken.” But for other judges, the faith still holds.

How safe are biometric data?
Biometric data seems more secure than a password, but that is not always the case. They are stored digitally and are therefore as vulnerable to data breaches as other data. And when leaking that data, the damage is much greater. You replace a hacked password with a new one, but you will never lose a hacked fingerprint.

Biometrics can be abused. Ethical hacker Inti de Ceuckelaire has already shown that they can mimic facial and voice recognition with 3 D printed fingerprints or deepfake. The safety so it depends on how they are stored and processed digitally. [google answer] Yes, fingerprint scanners on computers are generally very reliable and safer than many traditional passwords, because they are fast, easy to use and your fingerprint is unique, but they are not 100% infallible; they are vulnerable to circumvention with, for example, 3D prints, can cause problems with damaged fingers, and the data is secure as long as it is stored encrypted locally and does not leak. Advantages:
Convenience and Speed: Much faster and easier than typing a password.
Unique: Your fingerprint is unique, which makes it difficult for others to imitate. Is it!?
Safe: Modern scanners store data encrypted and locally (in a 'Secure Enclave' at Apple) and not on servers, making it difficult to steal.
Disadvantages and Risks:
Vulnerable to Spoofing: Ethical hackers have shown that 3 D printed fingerprints can bypass scanners, especially older optical scanners.
Wear & Damage: Dry skin, cuts, or worn-out fingertips can make scanning difficult.
Biometric data is permanent: If your fingerprint data leaks, you cannot change it like a password, which increases the damage.
Conclusion:
For everyday use, they offer an excellent balance between safety and ease of use. However, it is advisable to always have a strong password or PIN code as a backup if the FINGERPRNT does NOT Work. Reliability depends greatly on the quality of the scanner and how the data is stored and secured on your device. If your fingerprint on your computer almost never works, it is often due to a dirty sensor, dry/dirty fingers, outdated drivers, or software problems; you can solve this by cleaning the sensor, moisturizing your fingers, re-registering the fingerprint, and updating drivers and Windows. If your fingerprint on your computer doesn't work then start with cleaning and reset (via Settings > Accounts > Login Options), check Windows Updates and new drivers via Device Manager, and restart your PC; often it also helps to re-register the fingerprint from different angles. O boy.... https://t.me/DisclosureLibraryGroup/305797 https://t.me/DisclosureLibraryGroup/305796 Fingerprint is unique [Is it!?], but they are NOT 100% infallible! - After research, I've come to the conclusion that absolutely everything is being implemented, but it's certainly not [working] adequate. It simply doesn't work reliably, Yet it's used and put in place/implemented worldwide so that people think and 'believe' it works 100%. When you enter a country like the US or New York, for example, you have to give a fingerprint. It's a state of mind that makes people believe it works. The power of the mind. As long as people believe it. How many people have been falsely accused because their fingerprints were faulty, didn't work, or were fake, yet were still used to imprison someone? Perhaps even receiving life sentences or the death penalty? How many people are now falsely imprisoned...