×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Thermal Imaging Lie Detector In Development

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the he-winked,-get-the-cuffs dept.

Science 183

beaverdownunder writes with this quote from the BBC: "A sophisticated new camera system can detect lies just by watching our faces as we talk, experts say. The computerized system uses a simple video camera, a high-resolution thermal imaging sensor and a suite of algorithms. ... It successfully discriminates between truth and lies in about two-thirds of cases, said lead researcher Professor Hassan Ugail from Bradford University. ... We give our emotions away in our eye movements, dilated pupils, biting or pressing together our lips, wrinkling our noses, breathing heavily, swallowing, blinking and facial asymmetry. And these are just the visible signs seen by the camera. Even swelling blood vessels around our eyes betray us, and the thermal sensor spots them too."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

183 comments

Let's get this out of the way (2)

paiute (550198) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393008)

You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down...

Re:Let's get this out of the way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393048)

which desert? why am I there?

Re:Let's get this out of the way (1)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393098)

It doesn't make any difference what desert, it's completely hypothetical.

Re:Let's get this out of the way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393150)

Well depending on the desert and the time of day as well as the season and year I could find any sort of object living or not at my feet.

Re:Let's get this out of the way (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393102)

Why are you letting that turtle die? Do you hate turtles?

Re:Let's get this out of the way (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393386)

sure it's not just some furry?

Re:Let's get this out of the way (1)

BluBrick (1924) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393816)

If you are suggesting I might not be able to tell the difference between a turtle and something furry, then yes, I'm sure. Now, I may not be quite so sure it's not a rock, but yes, I really am sure it's not just some furry.

Re:Let's get this out of the way (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393430)

It's a mutant turtle. It was only a teenager in the mid 80s. Its almost 30 now, and it lived in the newyork sewers in it's rat-like parent's basement, getting morbidly obeise on stale pizza crusts.

Since its acting career dried up shortly after the first motion picture, I am just trying to be merciful.

Death in the desert is far better for it than the unlife that is comic cons and newyork after dark.

I don't hate the turtle, I only want to ease its suffering!

Re:Let's get this out of the way (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393868)

LOL!

That is precisely what I thought of when I read this. Not just the test, the tortoise.

Re:Let's get this out of the way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393938)

at my boner?

YIKES!!! (1)

RyanCheeseman (1180119) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393010)

no more cheating the lie detector with a tac in the foot or flexing your sphincter.......

Re:YIKES!!! (1)

Ruke (857276) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393074)

I see no reason why these things wouldn't cause visible discomfort in your face, as opposed to whatever (skin conductivity/heart rate?) a traditional lie detector measures. The whole point is to mask truths and lies alike, so there is no way to tell them apart.

Re:YIKES!!! (3, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393250)

"no more cheating the lie detector with a tac in the foot or flexing your sphincter......."

Damn, I'll have to find another excuse for doing those things.

sounds like ... (4, Interesting)

recrudescence (1383489) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393016)

Tyrell: Is this to be an empathy test? Capillary dilation of the so-called blush response? Fluctuation of the pupil. Involuntary dilation of the iris...
Deckard: We call it Voight-Kampff for short.

2/3 is still not good enough. (4, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393018)

All this does is change the rules a bit. All of the things they've listed are things which one could train to do or not do on cue. And even without training if it's only good 2/3 of the time that's not good enough to justify deployment.

Re:2/3 is still not good enough. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393164)

Or the untrained like me might do when I'm not lying. I get nervous during interrogations even when I have nothing to lose. This is when I'm not lying. Tougher the question, more chance I'm going to be nervous while thinking about it. (what was I doing Wednesday night 3 weeks ago, beats the hell out of me but if I'm going to jail over it, I'll be breathing heavily, swallowing, etc).

Re:2/3 is still not good enough. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393874)

Same reason I'd never take a lie detector test -- except if I was guilty and hoped to clear myself.

I'm one of those who always gets asked lots of questions by US customs and gets my luggage searched when everyone else in my party is waved through after the cursory questions (why were you in X, how long were you there,...). I just don't like people asking me questions about stuff that's MY business and really none of theirs. My resulting body language apparently is interpreted as guilt. I'm not belligerent, I don't refuse to answer their questions or evade them so that doesn't explain it.

Re:2/3 is still not good enough. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393186)

Errrr, 2/3rds is 66%, or 16% better than blind guessing. Amazing. I would imagine that more than 16% of people fart loudly when lying, so that would be a better test.

Re:2/3 is still not good enough. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393244)

Really? The way it works is, they "know" when you're lying, so (under pressure from a skilled administrator) you get scared and tell the truth. Same as a polygraph, but it's "new tech", you don't know your existing lie-detector fooling skills work, so it undermines your confidence and you lose.

Seems worth deploying in some cases (i.e. those where you expect reasonably trained subjects, but not professional operators who'll be up-to-date on it) to me.

Re:2/3 is still not good enough. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393340)

Professionals are the ones that you're looking for, the trained but not professionals are easily handled with traditional interrogation methods. Nobody in their right mind agrees to a polygraph test as they're notoriously inaccurate and ultimately even a clean test doesn't mean you're off the hook.

Re:2/3 is still not good enough. (2)

Zancarius (414244) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393808)

Not only that, but...

We give our emotions away in our eye movements, dilated pupils, biting or pressing together our lips, wrinkling our noses, breathing heavily, swallowing, blinking and facial asymmetry.

Most people who are nervous for whatever reason will do at least one or more of those things even when they're not necessarily lying. So, congratulations, you just pegged someone for being nervous!

Re:2/3 is still not good enough. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393854)

Pain avoidance does work on such responses and those can be automated. It works better with volunteers who want this skill. It's pretty brutal but no worse than training some special forces receive.

Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... (3, Interesting)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393020)

... all you have to do is memorize and rehearse lies in advance and imagine them and recall them as if they were memories. People get caught in lies because it's cognitively demanding to make it up on the spot unprepared.

If you don't believe this consider religious faith. Many people I'm sure believe those falsehoods genuinely because they are well ingrained in their imaginations.

Re:Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393140)

... all you have to do is memorize and rehearse lies in advance and imagine them and recall them as if they were memories. People get caught in lies because it's cognitively demanding to make it up on the spot unprepared.

If you don't believe this consider religious faith. Many people I'm sure believe those falsehoods genuinely because they are well ingrained in their imaginations.

In which case, it won't be lying anymore, because you genuinely believe it to be true.
In my humble opinion, lying is only useful when you yourself do not believe the falsehood which you're trying to communicate, resulting in a situation of asymmetrical information. It's called deception, and is widely used in counter-intelligence.

Re:Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393208)

"In which case, it won't be lying anymore"

You still know its a lie so technically it is lying. The point is to get your biology to your mind to adapt in such a way as if you are recalling a valid memory hence the imagination portion of it. Since for many of us we're not taught to lie professionally or practice it. We do it mostly on the spot and while we can dupe others with our 'on the spot lying' the average person doesn't have infinite resources to spend considering whether something is true or a lie. Where as the article is really trying to catch 'everyday lying' catching people unprepared and offhand. Most of us don't have to deal with having such resources thrown at our everyday fibs since they usually don't involve serious risks, as those risks go up then practicing and finding away around it become more important.

Re:Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... (4, Interesting)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393840)

All really good salesmen temporarily believe whatever bullshit they are selling at the time. It's kind of like method acting.

Re:Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... (3, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393180)

Great job weaving some bigotry and flame-baiting into an otherwise reasonable post.

Re:Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... (4, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393308)

Saying religion is not some bronze age fairytale and coexisting with the scientific knowledge of the 21st century is something I find deeply offensive.

It is time we stopped treating fairytales with undeserved respect or reservation.

Re:Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393578)

If only i had my mod points!

Re:Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393358)

Where's the bigotry? I'm not seeing it. Or is disagreeing with people now a form of bigotry?

Re:Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393614)

It's not bigotry, it's the truth.

Despite what your mommy told you, you have no "right" to not be made fun of for believing in an invisible sky-daddy.

Re:Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393238)

... all you have to do is memorize and rehearse lies in advance and imagine them and recall them as if they were memories. People get caught in lies because it's cognitively demanding to make it up on the spot unprepared.

From what I've read, you're supposed to randomly lie or tell the truth on the easy questions they ask at the start to gauge your response.

If you don't believe this consider religious faith. Many people I'm sure believe those falsehoods genuinely because they are well ingrained in their imaginations.

But all my religious beliefs are true; it's only other people's religions that are unfounded.

Re:Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393580)

>From what I've read, you're supposed to randomly lie or tell the truth on the easy questions they ask at the start to gauge your response.

Which is not calibrating the machine for what you think it is..

It's not actually a lie detector so much as a fear detector.

You don't fear being caught telling the lies you're telling at their request. They're not looking for a range, there. They're baselining the machine, and you.

Later, when you really do start lying about the things they're going to nail you for, the needles will jump.

Re:Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393612)

... all you have to do is memorize and rehearse lies in advance and imagine them and recall them as if they were memories. People get caught in lies because it's cognitively demanding to make it up on the spot unprepared.

From what I've read, you're supposed to randomly lie or tell the truth on the easy questions they ask at the start to gauge your response.

From what I've heard, you're supposed to clench your asshole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bScv6kfxRyE [youtube.com]

Re:Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... (4, Informative)

DRJlaw (946416) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393688)

... all you have to do is memorize and rehearse lies in advance and imagine them and recall them as if they were memories. People get caught in lies because it's cognitively demanding to make it up on the spot unprepared.

From what I've read, you're supposed to randomly lie or tell the truth on the easy questions they ask at the start to gauge your response.

From what I've read, you're supposed to shut the hell up and invoke your right to be silent if you're being questioned about things you have done.

Lying to public officials, especially federal officers, is in and of itself a crime. Lying gives officials facts which they can cross-check. Lying is something that ordinary people are generally bad at, and interrogators know how to get a suspect to move outside their pre-rehearsed alibis.

Staying silent is not a crime. Staying silent does not allay an official's suspiscion, but cannot be used to convict you of a crime. Staying silent is something that oridinary people are generally bad at, but it's a hell of a lot easier to practice.

Identify yourself, produce whatever ID you normally carry, and decline to speak about anything else unless you have carefully thought out what you are about to say, know that it is does not tend to indicate that you've committed some sort of crime, and know that it is the truth.

The rules are quite different if you are being questioned about someone else or what they have done. But that's another story.

Re:Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393500)

Doesn't really work if you don't know what the questions are ahead of time.

Test it on Derren Brown. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393022)

2/3 of the time? That means 1/3 of the time its wrong.

Correct about 2/3 of the case? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393024)

Even my wife can do better.

Re:Correct about 2/3 of the case? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393794)

that's what SHE said.

67% accuracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393030)

Anyone know how that compares to a polygraph?

Re:67% accuracy? (1)

ewibble (1655195) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393742)

according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph [wikipedia.org] "90-95% validity by polygraph advocates" but it is disputed "psychologists estimated the test's average accuracy at about 61%"

Anyway I think the advantage of this is not that it is more accurate its probably that you can set one up without hooking it up or even asking the person being questioned

Coinflip (2)

tuomasb (981596) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393032)

It successfully discriminates between truth and lies in about two-thirds of cases

Slightly better than a coinflip. Just like normal lie detectors.

Re:Coinflip (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393878)

It successfully discriminates between truth and lies in about two-thirds of cases

Slightly better than a coinflip. Just like normal lie detectors.

A coinflip does better than a polygraph........ which is just an interrogation device that can't detect lies.

Graham Greenes "Travels with my Aunt" (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393044)

There is a character in that book who had his maid wake him up every morning by saying something like "time to get up you war criminal", so that when the authorities would question him about actually being a war criminal, he was so inured by the accusation that it caused no reaction in him at all - so he could happily deny being a war criminal.

Re:Graham Greenes "Travels with my Aunt" (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393210)

There is a character in that book who had his maid wake him up every morning by saying something like "time to get up you war criminal", so that when the authorities would question him about actually being a war criminal, he was so inured by the accusation that it caused no reaction in him at all - so he could happily deny being a war criminal.

So maybe that's why Mom used to always say, "Get up, you slacker!"

Re:Graham Greenes "Travels with my Aunt" (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393588)

The author did not understand psychopaths at all.

Re:Graham Greenes "Travels with my Aunt" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393856)

Exactly, there are a lot of people, who actually believe their own lies. Then there are even more who lie daily about a lot of things, minor or major, day and night. For those people it won't work, or at best you'll get mixed results.

Close counts for nukes and grenades, not 20 to life or death row.

Quick! (3, Insightful)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393072)

Get this ready in time for the Presidential debates.

Re:Quick! (4, Funny)

gewalker (57809) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393134)

Sad, but true. They tried this with an early prototype in 2008. Within 5 minutes it was engulfed in flames and set back the research by nearly 2 years.

Re:Quick! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393184)

We've already covered Blade Runner, but that's OK. I was actually thinking more along the lines of 1984:

"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself, anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face, was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime"

Get this ready in time for the Presidential debates.

Why bother? It would show nothing. Sociopaths can trivially pass these kinds of tests.

Indeed, the greatest con men not only make their marks believe the lies - they believe the lies themselves, at least while they're being spoken. How do you think you get to become part of the Inner Party in the first place? Unsufficient to be doubleplusgood duckspeaker, must be doubleplusgood doublethinker.

People used to do that (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393082)

but I guess they do not make those anymore, lets spend billons on developing a machine that does the same job as a illiterate con artist can do with zero training.

Of course... (2)

stox (131684) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393160)

It will be illegal to use this on politicians.

Re:Of course... (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393194)

It will be illegal to use this on politicians.

We already have a visual lie detecting algorithm for politicians: "Their mouth is moving."

So... (5, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393182)

It successfully discriminates between truth and lies in about two-thirds of cases

Does that mean you might be found 2/3 guilty of a crime, or will they roll a die and send you to prison on 1-4 ?

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393450)

Option 2 of course.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393846)

only if you roll a natural 1s on two 20 sided dice, then you get the max sentence. :(

Now the Politicians will tremble (1)

u-235-sentinel (594077) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393298)

because we'll know when they are lying.. Oh wait! I've mistakenly suggested they tell the truth now and then. Silly me :D

Lie detectors (1)

Windwraith (932426) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393310)

I always wondered, how do lie detectors separate liars from awkward people? I know a lot of people with low confidence (including myself) that gets very nervous when talking to some people. I would assume even more nervous when being monitored or tested actively.

How do operators of such devices define the proper thresholds for every individual?

Re:Lie detectors (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393400)

I've always wondered how lie detectors separate truthful people from sociopaths.

Lie detectors are a lie (1)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393408)

They don't and that is their dirty little secret. Nervous? Well, the machine says you are a liar. Have a nice life, now that it has been confirmed by technology.

Go read up on how they work, its a fucking joke. The fact they are used by groups like the FBI is a national embarrassment.

Re:Lie detectors are a lie (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393454)

>> The fact they are used by groups like the FBI is a national embarrassment.

Is it?

Take it from a guy who sat in a little room at NSA for several hours hooked up to one: that process is damn effective.... the fact that the machine is a prop matters not a wit. The real lie detector is sitting behind the desk and isn't a lie detector at all: they simply get you to spill your guts.

Re:Lie detectors are a lie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393502)

>> The fact they are used by groups like the FBI is a national embarrassment.

Is it?

Take it from a guy who sat in a little room at NSA for several hours hooked up to one: that process is damn effective.... the fact that the machine is a prop matters not a wit. The real lie detector is sitting behind the desk and isn't a lie detector at all: they simply get you to spill your guts.

And what if you don't, then you're not a liar?

Re:Lie detectors are a lie (2)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393540)

You will.

If you don't, the test is "inconclusive" and you are retested until you do. Your song of past sin is then adjudicated and you are either passed or failed. After test number 5 or so they just reject you if you haven't sung.

Plenty of applicants, especially in this economy.

Re:Lie detectors are a lie (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393912)

Sure you confess to something, duh. 'I failed to report the gain I made buying and selling an old car in 2004, it's been on my mind for years. Sob, I feel so much better with this off my chest.'

But that night in college when you did all that cocaine with those improbably good looking (to be partying with you) Russian girls? You just leave that out.

The pot garden in your yard and all the associated unreported income? I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, can't prove anything.

All that free cable and satellite TV you've enjoyed? No need to mention that.

That time you and your coworkers took all the fractional pennies from the interest calculations? You leave that out too.

Your time on 4chan\b? Needless to say.

Re:Lie detectors are a lie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393508)

When the institution, the "operator" and the subject know the machine is bullshit it truly is an embarrassment.

Re:Lie detectors are a lie (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393638)

Well. Then I would suggest that you give it a whirl, and we'll see how smug you are afterwards.

Re:Lie detectors (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393892)

How do operators of such devices define the proper thresholds for every individual?

Fabricated on the spot based on the operator's whim because they are running a scam, of course.

I have Rosacea (1)

Y-Crate (540566) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393318)

Control, true and false answers will all produce the same blushing response at random. Good luck with the rest of the population though!

Another pipe dream (1)

taustin (171655) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393328)

It successfully discriminates between truth and lies in about two-thirds of cases

So it's even less effective than other "lie detectors" that don't work well enough to use for anything important.

Re:Another pipe dream (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393348)

So it's even less effective than other "lie detectors" that don't work well enough to use for anything important.

No, actually, two-thirds is considerably more effective than a polygraph.

Pinocchio syndrome (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393346)

We give our emotions away in our [...] wrinkling our noses

Let me guess: someone's been hitting The Adventures of Pinocchio too hard.

Truth is rarely binary (1)

izomiac (815208) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393376)

A "lie detector" of any mechanism relies on the assumption that there must be some physiologic or behavioral difference in a person telling a lie compared with a person telling the truth. Aside from how there has never been any data to support that assumption (despite how badly people want it to be true), the term "lie" is a human construction. For example, look at Presidents Clinton and Bush. Both were accused of lying. In the case of the former, the statement may have been technically true in a hyper-literal linguistic sense, but designed to deceive. In the case of the latter, the statement turned out to be false, but was believed to be completely true when it was spoken. (Note, I say these things for the sake of argument. I do not claim to know the objective truth for either of these situations, and there's still quibbling about both.)

There is a grain of truth in every lie and a measure of inaccuracy in every truth. The delineation between the two is poorly demarcated and even humans can't agree about specific fringe cases. As any programmer knows, machines are extremely literal, so how can one possibly define a lie well enough for one to detect? Heck, how does a person's own body tell the difference and why would it bother? Short of a mind-reading device, you can't determine intent, and even that fails for some variants of lies (e.g. stating something you think, but do not know, as true). And what of the delusional psychopath whose thoughts aren't reliable in the first place? Or con men who specialize in fooling 3.8 billion years of evolution to detect their kind?

Self Reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393410)

Did the good Doctor say all this facing his invention?

Oh, Two thirds of the time huh? (1)

gozu (541069) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393418)

Wake me up when it gets to 99%.

Unless I'm mistaken, 66% accuracy is ridiculously shitty.

Re:Oh, Two thirds of the time huh? (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393428)

The fact that it is better than chance is quite remarkable, actually.

If it actually performs as stated that is.

Re:Oh, Two thirds of the time huh? (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393736)

I think that by chance a precise 50.0000000000% success rate would be more strange than a 66% one.

If I flip a coin thirty times and get twenty heads, would you presume that the coin is unfair? Would that really be so statistically bizarre? No. A precise 15 out of 30 would be much more bizarre, despite that there is a 50% chance of receiving a head on each flip.

I'm not saying that this device isn't measuring real physical reactions in some way, I'm just saying that they seem to correlate with truth/lies no better than chance guesses would. Basically, it's useless.

Re:Oh, Two thirds of the time huh? (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393992)

Hey it's better than TSA's record. Let them ask the questions "are you a terrorist?", "do you intend to perform acts against the interests of the United States?", etc. while being monitored by this system. It surely beats the voyeurism, and sexual molestation. If they really have to behave as sexual predators let them, but only on those individuals that have first failed the Q&A session.

God says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393484)

C:\TEXT\BIBLE.TXT

t faith.

5:13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to
house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking
things which they ought not.

5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children,
guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak
reproachfully.

5:15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.

5:16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve
them, and let not the church be charged; that it may

Press and Statistics (1)

rechtco (516272) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393520)

Unclear what 2/3 success rate means. Need to know false positive and false negative rates. Does 2/3 mean of those I said were lying? In which case how many liars did I miss? If there are 1000 liars in the sample, and I say 100 are lying, of which 66 are liars that is 2/3 correct. However, I missed 900 liars and called 34 truth tellers liars. Or does 2/3 mean of those actually lying? In which case how many truth tellers did I include to find the 2/3 of the liars? If there are 1000 liars and 1000 truth tellers in a total sample of 2000 and I say 1666 are liars of which only 666 are liars that is 2/3 666/1000 liars correct and 1000 truth tellers are called liars and 334 liars are missed. Or If I say 999 out of the 2000 are liars and only 666 are liars that is 2/3 666/999 correct with 334 liars missed and 333 truth tellers called liars..

Oh, immigration, of course (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393548)

Having been through US immigration recently, I can attest that "Fear can sometimes be the fear of not being believed rather than the fear of being caught." is putting it mildly. The TSA goon managed to misinterpret me so many times that I started to doubt my own story. He was either a genius, or a tard, but either way he didn't seem even remotely human, so if we can replace him with a very small shell script, go to it.

66% accurate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393594)

OMG, Flipping a coin will be 50% accurate. That tool only costs 25 cents (actually it is only a deposit, becsue you can spend the quarter after you use it to prove someone's guilt). This new system is only 16% better at determining a truth than my quarter. I wonder how much do you have to pay to get that 16% improvement?

I sincerely hope NSA switches to this system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393624)

Because if they do, I am reapplying. If by slim chance I get to be screened with this thing, I will tell the truth.... again.... and when I pass I will scream at those motherfuckers "I TOLD YOU I WASN'T LYING YOU GODDAMN ASSHOLES!"

Then I will go back to my job at NASA Goddard, feeling much better that I got that off my chest.

Lie Detectors (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393634)

Even if we were able to create a 100% accurate lie detector, would using it be moral?

I'm not sure, but I have doubts.

Re:Lie Detectors (3, Insightful)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393918)

Which, of course, raises plenty of important epistemological concerns: chiefly, what is a lie? Perhaps we could say it is speaking with the intent to deceive. But in what way is the speaker attempting to deceive, which pieces of information does he actually wish to conceal and which bits of misinformation are merely the detritus of a twisted story?

Even if an actual lie detector were to exist, it would be up to the operator to decide what it means. Nobody is really prepared to deal with that sort of weighty thinking on a consistently sound basis, especially not a policeman or a judge.

Re:Lie Detectors (3, Interesting)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393924)

I suppose it depends on what questions you ask.

It would certainly be open for abuse, but so is a pipe wrench. You could use a 100% accurate lie detector to invade someone's privacy for sure, but if you stuck to questions like "Are you planning on killing anyone today?" or "Did you kill that person?" you'd probably be fine. Especially since you wouldn't actually need to have a person in the room if you had a 100% accurate lie detector. You need a person now because interrogation requires instinct, but with a machine that could actually detect truth or lies and the right questions you could put someone in a room, have the machine ask them a preselected list of questions and then let them out if they're fine.

You couldn't take people out of the equation entirely of course as you'd need them for answering "Why did you kill that person?".

You'd definitely have to be careful about fishing expeditions, and with a much higher solve rate people would be a lot more careful about what they allowed to become law in the first place, but there's nothing inherently unethical about asking someone if they committed or are planning on committing a specific crime and being able to rely on the answer.

Disorders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393674)

I would imagine that individuals with anxiety, social or other disorders or insecurities would skew results so, where's the test to determine who is the best candidates? I know if I felt I was being accused, assessed or examined for truthfulness, I would more than likely have a subtle guilty responses all over, it's just the way I am and I'm sure others who are hyper sensitive and perceptive, may have a similar reaction.

That said though, 66% accuracy is a joke. Unless it's close to perfect, it's only maybe relevant enough to determine who may have taken that candy bar.

Even if you're innocent (1)

ronmon (95471) | more than 2 years ago | (#37393696)

You should refuse to give statements to police and prosecutors. Your words will be twisted in order to convict you. They are much more interested in winning a case than finding the truth.

Re:Even if you're innocent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393902)

It's because they've convinced themselves you did it. Anything that leads to others believing what they already do is good for them.

Lie Detectors easly defeated by old scam (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37393716)

If George Costanza has taught us anything, it's not a lie if you honestly believe it, well at least to polygraph...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...