Fingerprinting would be a good add-on to one of those places that does packing, shipping, copies, etc. You could just let people walk-in and get their fingerprints done. If your enrollers are good, then you can do a whole enrollment in less than five minutes.
However, remember that L-1, by law, has to charge less than $10. You aren't going to be able to make much off of this kind of work, especially after they take their cut.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL”
- Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:55 am
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
- Replies: 85
- Views: 10826
- Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:43 pm
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
- Replies: 85
- Views: 10826
Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
I've worked in biometrics (fingerprints, face, and iris) for the past seven years, and crossed paths with L-1 several times during my career. I've written programs that convert paper fingerprint cards to electronic records, and deployed the software to Iraq, Afghanistan, and several other countries, where it was used to digitize old fingerprint cards -- more variety than you can imagine. In one country, the fingerprint cards varied every couple of months because someone would just "freehand" a new template whenever they ran out. 
If you talk to forensic fingerprint examiners who deal with latent (crime scene) prints, they actually *prefer* ink to electronic. Ink is much higher resolution than electronic prints, which are only 500 dpi. With ink you can often make out individual sweat pores, which can be critical in the event of a latent match. However, ink takes a little more skill because you can't easily "do over" like you can with electronic systems. However, there is nothing magic about electronic systems; I have seen plenty of electronic fingerprint submissions that were essentially unusable because of poor operators.
When you are talking about a 10-print match, which the state/FBI uses, either electronic or paper will give you a very easy match, assuming the enrollment is not absolute garbage. I can understand the state/FBI only wanting electronic *submissions* because that makes their life a lot easier and lowers their labor. However, I don't really understand the requirement for electronic *collection*. There is absolutely no reason they should not take paper prints that have been converted to electronic records. Converting from paper to electronic is just not a big deal.
I'm actually working in a biometric start-up right now. I considered offering a service to allow CHL instructors to take paper fingerprints, mail them to us, and then have us digitize them and submit to the state. That would really help people in remote areas. However, after a little bit of research I learned that L-1 has a total lock on the process. In my opinion, this is totally ridiculous. The state should set the standard for what they will accept, and let anyone provide anything that meets those requirements.
If you talk to forensic fingerprint examiners who deal with latent (crime scene) prints, they actually *prefer* ink to electronic. Ink is much higher resolution than electronic prints, which are only 500 dpi. With ink you can often make out individual sweat pores, which can be critical in the event of a latent match. However, ink takes a little more skill because you can't easily "do over" like you can with electronic systems. However, there is nothing magic about electronic systems; I have seen plenty of electronic fingerprint submissions that were essentially unusable because of poor operators.
When you are talking about a 10-print match, which the state/FBI uses, either electronic or paper will give you a very easy match, assuming the enrollment is not absolute garbage. I can understand the state/FBI only wanting electronic *submissions* because that makes their life a lot easier and lowers their labor. However, I don't really understand the requirement for electronic *collection*. There is absolutely no reason they should not take paper prints that have been converted to electronic records. Converting from paper to electronic is just not a big deal.
I'm actually working in a biometric start-up right now. I considered offering a service to allow CHL instructors to take paper fingerprints, mail them to us, and then have us digitize them and submit to the state. That would really help people in remote areas. However, after a little bit of research I learned that L-1 has a total lock on the process. In my opinion, this is totally ridiculous. The state should set the standard for what they will accept, and let anyone provide anything that meets those requirements.