World's Most Accurate Lie Detector

An anonymous reader points to this "interesting article about the world's most accurate lie detector. It seems they are getting real close to Voigt-Kampff. Watch out fellow replicants."

Comments

Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

What's scary is that this test can be used without someone knowing. A regular lie detector is hard to sneak on someone.

Predictions

[Euphonious Coward]

If it turns out to work, it will be banned for use on TV during politicians' speeches. (The first amendment will be found not to apply.)

Expect to see software that can edit out the facial gestures, in real time. Politicians will only release footage that has been filtered by it in their own offices.

Software that detects that filtering will be banned.

Problem with all such devices:

[Ayanami Rei]

They often mistake nervousness (embarassment that you've been asked to step aside for an "interview" in the airport), vs. outright fibbing.

I have observed that many of the tests of these devices involve studies where the subjects are encouraged to fool or beat the machine and they base their results on that. However, the subjects are probably already familiar with the tests and are (I imagine) not in fear that something bad will happen to them if they fail.

In the case of the proposed settings (airports, police station), failing this lie detector test could lead to Bad Things. I wonder if these machines pick up the facial features that arise when "the subject is making an attempt to provide a satisfactory response" and THIS mental activity causes the facial feature changes the trained AI responds to.

I suspect the AI was created by evolving a neural net based on human trials (2-layered? -they even mention that it monitors 24 channels; this wouldn't take too long to evolve). Hence it is trained to the testing conditions, and these premises of what they are testing, and/or the methodology of the training may be incorrect.

Maybe the question really is: do we care that the device may be responding to mental stress vs. truth/lie telling? Some might consider it more useful that it just measures stress (which in a question and answer session can be caused by fabricating responses). It could indicate when someone should have a "bad feeling" about someone or their claims. At the same time I feel that if my allegations are true, this device also should (in addition to standard polygraphs) not be used to generate evidence for trial proceedings.

Anyone with more insight into this care to add?

Dangerous stuff

[MacAndrew]

The problem is that people tend to trust machines, for some bizarre reason. Just because the machine isn't subject to emotional bias doesn't mean it's output is worth anything. Polygraphs are barred from use in the courtroom -- because of their unreliability AND tendency to unduly influence the proceedings -- yet the government is using them with abandon as we get tough on terrorism by treating citizens like suspects.

Polygraph administration and analysis turns out to have huge subjective factors despite attempts to appear otherwise. Some people are especially accomplished liars; it doesn't hurt to be a sociopath who really doesn't have any emotional reaction.

Perhaps this system will have some use -- let's remember that even the standard Voight-Kampff got beat! (why did Deckard press on with 2x more Q's?) -- but I hope it and other techno-gadgets don't lessen emphasis on good old-fashioned security and common sense.

Re:Dangerous stuff

[Incongruity]

While I think that you raise a bunch of good points, I must raise one issue.

Polygraphs have not, in fact, been "barred" from the courtroom as evidence. Rather, they're not regarded as credible evidence, i.e., a polygraph examiner is not treated as an expert witness in regards to the matters of the diagnostics of truth telling. Interestingly, polygraphs can and often are used as evidence in grand jury considerations regarding possible indictments.

Where polygraphs truly have been barred is in the employee screening process for most industries/private firms. This was done by an act of congress in the late 1980's ( Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988). Of course, the government excluded itself from such prohibitions.

-tcp

Re:Now's the time to confess, while you still can!

[Simon Field]

No need for the premature capitulation.

Just get botox injections like poker players do.

I would bet that politicians will soon start to emulate aging soap stars and get them too.

How soon before a newspaper pays to have some footage analyzed? How soon before tabloids say they have had some footage analyzed?

I also would not be surprised if there popped up a service that taught you how to beat the new system, for the right fee. Look at all the effort used to defeat urine tests for drugs...

Re:Perfect

[schmink182]

I know it's a joke, but the problem with this is distinguishing falsehood from lying. A lie detector tries to figure out if what you're saying corresponds with what you believe to be true (subjective truth), while physics theories deal with correspondence between the theories and reality. So sorry, but it doesn't look like it'll work.

The Lie behind the Lie detector

[RedCard]

For an illuminating article on how lie detectors work, and how they can be used falsely, see this website.

Oh boy! More pseudo-science!

[edward.virtually@pob]

Just what the world needs, another "lie detector". The fact a bunch of college types couldn't keep their faces straight while lying is hardly proof of anything but how stupid they are. I have no doubt a REAL "professional liar" (i.e.: scummy corporate lawyer, CIA goon, etc.) would be able pass the new "lie detector". I also have no doubt this fact will do nothing to stop the sale of this new fraud, given its obvious potential role in harrassing airline passengers and the profit involved:

"Plans are being drawn up to test the machine as part of airport security. Dr Bandar says that by asking passengers simple questions on arrival, customs officers would be able to determine who to search for drugs or other items of contraband."

"The research team have secured a patent application for the system, which they say could bring in billions of pounds for the university and the scientists involved."

Pathetic.