Fingerprint Test Tells Much More Than Identity

Mike sends in the story of a new fingerprint technology with interesting potential for both crime detection and rights violations; there are also intriguing possibilities in fighting cancer. "Using a variation of mass spectrometry called 'desorption electrospray ionization' or 'Desi,' a fingerprint can identify what the person has been touching — drugs, explosives, or poisons, for example. Writing in the Friday issue of the journal Science, R. Graham Cooks, a professor of chemistry at Purdue University, and his colleagues describe how the technique could find a wider application in crime investigations. As it becomes cheaper and more widely available, the Desi technology has potential ethical implications, Cooks said. Instead of drug tests, a company could surreptitiously check for illegal drug use of its employees by analyzing computer keyboards after the employees have gone home, for instance."

Privacy

[Ethanol-fueled]

Instead of drug tests, a company could surreptitiously check for illegal drug use of its employees by analyzing computer keyboards after the employees have gone home, for instance.

What would the company do after 75% of its keyboards test hot for dope? I don't think that any company(other than the military or any other organization which has to do with national security) is stupid enough to scare away much of their workforce.

Sure, most companies have pre-employment drug testing, but that's mainly about image -- If you're too fiendish to quit long enough for the drugs to leave your system or if you're not savvy enough to use a clean-test kit(I endorse Detoxify brand drinks ^_^) then you're undesireable for employment. Remember, in the U.S. Marijuana is still illegal and is a schedule I substance which officially has "a high potential for abuse" and "no accepted medical use" and is "lacking safety for use under medical supervision".

This type of test should only be used to solve crimes and diagnose illnesses -- not to invade privacy. Imagine your insurance rates going through the roof because the form you signed had traces of tobacco and who-knows-what-else. Surprise!

Re:Unlikely

[hiryuu]

There's always the issue of cross-contamination just from handling the singles in your wallet, since paper money is apparently rife with traces of cocaine [yahoo.com].

"pico-analyzers"

[peter303]

When you can routinely analyze for "parts per trillion" as these newer technology economically allow, you find nearly every chemical to some degree. I remember a scare a couple years ago when they found dioxin in nearly every agricultural product they looked at, but in parts per trillion. They would find ten thousand other poisons too if they look. Some legislation written without a significance-floor, so that puts some watchdogs intoa quandry.

The use is exaggerated. Investors wanted?

[Futurepower(R)]

Nah. It's science fraud, in my opinion. The technique seems real, but the use is exaggerated. Employees would just wash their hands in a solution of soap and chlorine bleach before they went to work. The soap and bleach tears the molecules of complex compounds apart.

Those who were especially careful would wear gloves when they handled an unusual substance.

That kind of exaggeration of the benefits of some new science is common now. Maybe Griffin Analytical Technologies [insideindi...siness.com] is looking for investors. Maybe it is an advertisement. Certainly any scientist knows about the effects of bleach.

My opinion: Too much P.R. to be completely honest.

Re:Privacy

[bughunter]

I've worked for NASA and DoD contractors for 20+ years, and starting sometime in the late 1908's / early 1990's, it became a requirement for companies holding federal contracts to implement some sort of drug screening. Most of the employers I've encountered use urinalysis during the pre-employment physical. However some require random screening for part or all of their workforce.

When I was working for Hughes in 1992 a memo circulated announcing their new random screening policy. Immediately one of my cow orkers headed straight for the cafeteria and bought five lemon poppy seed muffins. I found him sitting in the dining area, pounding his muffins, and said "Dude, what's with the muffins?"

He said he just wanted to yield a positive on their testing and make it as expensive as possible for them. Especially if they terminated him.

The expression on my face said, "Riiiiight..."

Re:Privacy

[Floritard]

I was thinking the same thing. Part of me hopes this gets implemented very widely, as it would only expose the fact that lots and lots of people get high. You'll find it in even the most unlikely people you've worked with or worked for. How awesome would it be if it backfired and companies had to backpeddle into some kind of don't-ask don't-tell policy after finding out just how many of their workforce likes to party.

Re:Privacy

[geekoid]

It's not. In fact it's better. No hang over to slow you down the next day.

Stupid Reagan. He couldn't get his war on porn going, so it was switched to a war on drugs.

The fact that Clinton didn't push to ahve it removed during his second term disappointed me a lot.

For the record I do not, nor have any desire to, use Marijuana. I'm not going to let that opinion impact everybody else from this relatively harmless drug.