INTERPOL survey of the use of speaker identification by law enforcement agencies.

A survey was conducted of the use of speaker identification by law enforcement agencies around the world. A questionnaire was circulated to law enforcement agencies in the 190 member countries of INTERPOL. 91 responses were received from 69 countries. 44 respondents reported that they had speaker identification capabilities in house or via external laboratories. Half of these came from Europe. 28 respondents reported that they had databases of audio recordings of speakers. The clearest pattern in the responses was that of diversity. A variety of different approaches to speaker identification were used: The human-supervised-automatic approach was the most popular in North America, the auditory-acoustic-phonetic approach was the most popular in Europe, and the spectrographic/auditory-spectrographic approach was the most popular in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and South and Central America. Globally, and in Europe, the most popular framework for reporting conclusions was identification/exclusion/inconclusive. In Europe, the second most popular framework was the use of verbal likelihood ratio scales.

[1]  Peter French,et al.  Position Statement concerning use of impressionistic likelihood terms in forensic speaker comparison cases, with a foreword by Peter French & Philip Harrison , 2007 .

[2]  Harry Hollien,et al.  Forensic Voice Identification , 2001 .

[3]  Harry Hollien,et al.  An Approach to Speaker Identification , 2016, Journal of forensic sciences.

[4]  Philip Harrison,et al.  The UK position statement on forensic speaker comparison; a rejoinder to Rose and Morrison , 2010 .

[5]  Peter French,et al.  International practices in forensic speaker comparison , 2011 .

[6]  Geoffrey Stewart Morrison,et al.  A demonstration of the application of the new paradigm for the evaluation of forensic evidence under conditions reflecting those of a real forensic-voice-comparison case. , 2016, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[7]  John Buckleton.  A Framework for Interpreting Evidence , 2004 .

[8]  D. Balding.  Weight-of-Evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles , 2005 .

[9]  Daniel Ramos Castro.  Extended Abstract for Best Ph.D. Thesis Award: Forensic Evaluation of the Evidence Using Automatic Speaker Recognition Systems , 2007 .

[10]  Philip Rose.  Forensic Speaker Identification , 2002 .

[11]  Oscar Tosi,et al.  Voice identification: Theory and legal applications , 1979 .

[12]  Geoffrey Stewart Morrison,et al.  Forensic Voice Comparison , 2015 .

[13]  Anil Alexander,et al.  Forensic automatic speaker recognition using Bayesian interpretation and statistical compensation for mismatched conditions , 2007 .

[14]  Haizhou Li,et al.  An overview of text-independent speaker recognition: From features to supervectors , 2010, Speech Commun..

[15]  John H. L. Hansen,et al.  Speaker Recognition by Machines and Humans: A tutorial review , 2015, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine.