The Eyes Have It

Feelgood writes: "Yahoo is carrying a Reuters report that thermal imaging may be used in airports to detect liars. Shouldn't be a problem that 1 out of 4 liars will get away and 1 in 10 innocents will be incorrectly nailed." There's a UPI story about the lie detector possibilities and a blurb in Nature. From the UPI article, the inventor has a good appreciation of the ethical considerations. Will anyone else care?

Comments

This is frightening...

[Bagheera]

Considering the absolutley abysimal record of the polygraph in controlled testing (references are extensive) this is just something else we don't need. Relying on an "automatic" system is just asking for more "false faith" in a security system that doesn't work.

The article states that it's proven as effective as the existing polygraph - which is to say its reliability sucks.

Just what the world needs. Another knee-jerk deployment of a technology "to make us feel better." I suspect it'll be as effective as the National Guardsmen standing on the end of the big bridges - only far more intrusive if you happen to be one of those 10% false positives.

Will anyone else care?

[Raetsel]

Yes, they will... but how?

• Jon Katz will love it for all the material it'll generate -- just think, a whole new "Hellmouth" series!
• The (FBI | CIA | NSA) will love it because it'll allow them to assemble a biometric database of iris/cornea patterns.
• The average "Joe Citizen" will accept it because it's for protecting him from those nasty, evil terrorists.
• The (Taliban | Hezbolah | someotherfoamingidiot) will practice so they can defeat it.

• and...

• Everyone reading this comment will worry about the consequences of a false positive happening to them.

This comment has been a knee-jerk reaction. We now return you to your normal thread.

Alone it might not be worth much...

[Greyfox]

But combine it with microexpression detection and voice stress analysis (Which your financial institution may already use) and you might just have a winner.