Brain Fingerprinting Technology

BRAIN FINGERPRINTING TECHNOLOGY Mandar Ghate Department Of Computers, Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Pratisthans College Of Engineering [email protected] com Abstract— Brain fingerprinting is a new computer-installed technology to confirm the maker of a wrong correspondently and or-lawsally by measuring brain-wave apologys to wrong-convenient opinion or pictures presented on a computer defend. Brain fingerprinting has proven 100% considerate in aggravate 120 proofs, including proofs on FBI agents, proofs for a US instruction exercise and for the US navy, and proofs on real-vivacity seats including misdemeanor wrongs. Brain fingerprinting was exposed and patented by Dr. Lawrence Farewell in 1995. Keywords— Perpetrator, MERMER methodology. INTRODUCTION Brain Fingerprinting is installed on the tenet that the brain is accessible to all ethnical acts. In a corrupt act, there may or may not be frequent kinds of peripheral illustration, but the brain is frequently there, planning, executing and proceedingsing the wrong. The indispensable dissimilarity among a maker and a possibly accused, lawful individual is that the maker, having committed the wrong, has the details of the wrong stored in his brain, and the lawful doubt does not. This is what Brain Fingerprinting discovers or-lawsally. THE SECRETS OF BRAIN FINGERPRINTING Matching illustration at the wrong profession after a while illustration in the brain: When a wrong is committed, a proceedings is stored in the brain of the maker. Brain Fingerprinting yields a resources to concretely and or-lawsally associate illustration from the wrong profession after a while illustration stored in the brain. (This is alike to the process of associateing DNA samples from the maker after a while biological illustration base at the profession of the wrong; merely the illustration valuated by Brain Fingerprinting is illustration stored in the brain. ) Brain Fingerprinting measures electrical brain distillation in apology to wrong-convenient opinion or pictures presented on a computer defend, and reveals a brain MERMER (remembrance and encoding cognate multifaceted electroencephaloforcible apology) when, and merely when, the illustration stored in the brain tallyes the illustration from the wrong profession. The MERMER includes P300 brain apology and so electrically privative constituent, after a while an onslaught latency of approximately 800-1200ms. Thus, the corrupt can be signed and the lawful can be cleared in an considerate, or-laws, concrete, non-invasive, non-stressful, and non-testimonial deportment. MERMER Methodology: The proceeding used is alike to the Corrupt Familiarity Test; a train of opinion, sounds or pictures are presented via computer to the theme for a fragment of remedy each. Each of these stimuli are organised by the proof-giver to be a “Target”, “Irrelevant”, or a “Probe”. The Target stimuli are clarified to be convenient instruction to the proofed theme, and are used to fir a baseline brain apology for instruction that is expressive to the theme entity proofed. The theme is instructed to imimpress on rush for targets, and another rush for all other stimuli. Most of the non-Target stimuli are Irrelevant, and are wholly uncognate to the seat that the theme is entity proofed for. The irconvenient stimuli do not express a MERMER, and so fir a baseline brain apology for instruction that is expressive to the theme in this treatment. Some of the non-target are convenient to the seat that the theme is entity proofed for. These stimuli, Probes, are convenient to the proof, and are expressive to the theme, and get express a MERMER, signifying that the theme has unexpressed that stimuli to be expressive. A theme scant this instruction in their brain, the apology to the Probe spur get be confused from the irconvenient spur. This apology does not express a MERMER, indicating that the instruction is listless from their desire. THE FANTASTIC FOUR!!!! The impure phases of Brain Fingerprinting: In Fingerprinting and DNA Fingerprinting, illustration stated and serene at the wrong profession, and sly appropriately until a doubt is apprehended, is or-lawsally compared after a while the illustration on the individual of the doubt to discover a tally that would fix the doubt at the wrong profession. Brain Fingerprinting works alikely, exclude that the illustration serene twain at the wrong profession and on the individual of the doubt (i. e. in the brain as inspired by electrical brain apology) is instructional illustration rather than substantial illustration. There are impure stages to Brain Fingerprinting, which are alike to the steps in Fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting: 1. Brain Fingerprinting Wrong Profession Illustration Collection; 2. Brain Fingerprinting Brain Illustration Collection; 3. Brain Fingerprinting Computer Illustration Analysis; and 4. Brain Fingerprinting Or-laws Result. In the Wrong Profession Illustration Collection, an apt in Brain Fingerprinting examines the wrong profession and other illustration associateed after a while the wrong to confirm details of the wrong that would be notorious merely to the maker. The apt then guides the Brain Illustration Collection in prescribe to mention or not the illustration from the wrong profession tallyes illustration stored in the brain of the doubt. In the Computer Illustration Analysis, the Brain Fingerprinting classification makes a sober enjoyment as to whether or not this restricted illustration is stored in the brain, and computes a statistical assurance for that enjoyment. This enjoyment and statistical assurance organize the Or-laws Result of Brain Fingerprinting: either “instruction present” (“guilty”)-the details of the wrong are stored in the brain of the doubt-or “instruction listless” (“innocent”)-the details of the wrong is not stored in the brain of the doubt. THE DEVICES USED IN BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BRAIN WAVES HOW IT WORKS A Doubt is proofed by looking at three kinds of instruction represented by incongruous coloured lines: -----Red: instruction the doubt is expected to perceive -----Green: instruction not notorious to doubt -----Blue: instruction of the wrong that merely maker would perceive. NOT GUILTY: Owing the bluish and exposed. Lines closely correlate, doubt does not possess fastidious perceiveledge of the wrong GUILTY: Owing the bluish and red Lines closely correlate, and doubt has ritical perceiveledge of the wrong. INSTRUMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. A individualal computer. 2. A postulates compensation consultation. 3. A forcible card for driving two computers from one PC. 4. A impure utensil EEG amplifier classification. 5. Software exposed by Brain Fingerprinting lab. CASE STUDIES TERRY HARRINGTON: [->0] Dr. Lawrence Farewell guides a Brain Fingerprinting proof on Terry Harrington. For the proof on Schweer’s slay at U. S in 2001, the enjoyment of Brain Fingerprinting was “instruction listless”, after a while a statistical assurance of 99. 99%. The instruction stored in Harrington’s brain did not tally the scenario in which Harrington went to the wrong profession and committed the slay. The enjoyment of the Brain Fingerprinting proof for alibi-convenient instruction was “instruction present”, after a while a assurance of 99. 99%. The instruction stored in Harrington’s brain did tally the scenario in which Harrington was elsewhere (at a association and after a while friends) at the duration of the wrong. JB GRINDER: [->1] Brain Fingerprinting proofing was so “instrumental in obtaining a articles and corrupt plea” from serial killer James B. Grinder. In August 1999, Dr. Farewell guideed a Brain Fingerprinting proof on Grinder, professioning that instruction stored in his brain tallyed the details of the slay of Julie Helton. Faced after a while a undoubtful assurance and approximately undoubtful dissolution passage, Grinder then pled corrupt to the ravish and slay of Julie Helton in change for a vivacity passage after a whileout word. He is currently serving that passage and has so confessed to the slays of three other women. LIMITATIONS OF BRAIN FINGERPRINTING If, so-far, the doubt perceives everything that the investigators perceive encircling the wrong for some real conclude, then the proof cannot be applied. There are sundry requisite in which this may be the instance. If the doubt acknowledges entity at the profession of the wrong, but claims to be a spectator and not maker, then the reality that he perceives details encircling the wrong would not be incriminating. There would be no conclude to guide a proof, owing the resulting “instruction present” apology would barely profession that the doubt knew the details of the wrong-familiarity which he already admits and which he gained at the wrong profession whether he was a spectator or a maker. Another instance where Brain Fingerprinting is not convenient would be one wherein a doubt and an alleged victim-say, of an alleged sexual assault-agree on the details what was said and performed, but dissociate on the fixed of the parties. Brain Fingerprinting discovers merely instruction, and not the fixed. The reality that the doubt perceives the uncontested realitys of the requisite does not authority us which party’s rendering of the fixed is reform. Obviously, in structuring a Brain Fingerprinting proof, a disciple must forsake including instruction that has been made national. Detecting that a doubt perceives instruction he obtained by lection a newspaper would not be of use in a corrupt study, and gauge Brain Fingerprinting proceedings elucidate all such instruction from the structuring of a proof. Even in extremely nationalized instances, there are approximately frequent details that are notorious to the investigators but not released to the national and these can be used as stimuli to proof the theme for perceiveledge that he would possess no way to perceive exclude by committing the wrong. Brain Fingerprinting does not discover lies. It barely discovers instruction. No questions are asked or answered during a Brain Fingerprinting proof. The theme neither lies nor authoritys the fidelity during a Brain Fingerprinting proof, and the development of the proof is unchanged by whether he has lied or told the fidelity at any other duration. The development of “instruction present” or “instruction listless” depends on whether the convenient instruction is stored in the brain, and not on what the theme says encircling it. Brain Fingerprinting does not mention whether a doubt is corrupt or lawful of a wrong. This is a allowable enjoyment to be made by a authority or jury, not a or-laws enjoyment to be made by a computer or a disciple. Brain Fingerprinting can yield or-laws illustration that the authority and jury can search parallel after a while the other illustration in reaching their decisions respecting the wrong. CONCLUSIONS Brain Fingerprinting is a revolutionary new or-laws technology for solving wrongs, confirming makers, and exonerating lawful doubts, after a while a proceedings of 100% truthfulness in elaboration after a while US legislation agencies, express corrupt instances, and other applications. The technology fulfills an forcible deficiency for legislations, law enforcement agencies, corporations, investigators, wrong victims, and possibly accused lawful doubts. Additionally, if elaboration mentions that brain MERMER proofing is genuine abundance that it could be introduced as illustration in the court; it may be the corrupt investigative utensil of the coming. REFERENCES [1]www. google. com[->2]. [2]www. brainfingerprint. org[->3]. [3]www. brainfingerprint. pbwiki. com[->4]. [->0] - http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/File:BrainFingerprintingFarwellHarringtonTest2. jpg [->1] - http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/File:BrainFingerprintingFarwellGrinder. jpg [->2] - http://www. google. com [->3] - http://www. brainfingerprint. org [->4] - http://www. brainfingerprint. pbwiki. com