Slashdot Mirror
Lie Detector Glasses Coming Soon
Zelphyr writes "The EE Times is reporting on a product soon to be released by an Israeli company that allows the wearer of special glasses to tell whether the person they are talking to is telling a lie. Not only that, they can tell you whether someone loves you! Apparently a PC version of the 'love detector' is in the works as well. Think my Windows box will be upset when it knows how much I hate it?"
Better keeps this away from any large group of politicians... it just might explode.
'No Joe, you're reading it wrong, he just wants to fuck you.'
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
Just what I've always wanted, the unscientific* and unreliable results of traditional polygraphy, only in portable form!!
Where do I sign up?
(Oh, sorry.. there is research that has PROVEN the polygraph to have 50% accuracy rate.. ranking it right up there with the 'other' lie detector: A coin with the word 'truth' on one side and 'lie' on the other!)
Israeli company that allows the wearer of special glasses to tell whether the person they are talking to is telling a lie. Not only that, they can tell you whether someone loves you!
I was going to make a joke about these glasses telling me that the Israeli CEO was lying about the usefulness of his product, but then I realized I'd fallen into a logic paradox. : (
--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor?
American Weblog in London
Remember back in 96-97 there was a big rage in "lie detection software" which supposedly would analyze audio input of someone speaking and then match their voice stress level to either "True" or "False" indicators?
It was crap. I think more than a few morning radio shows tried to use it on their callers with failure after failure. I tried a copy myself and found that not only was it horribly written, but even if you were able to get the subject to "train" it (by answering several questions that are known to be true) it gave inncorrect responses virtually half the time.
Come to think of it, the software might have been made by an Israeli company too. Maybe the same one, I don't know. Can't remember the name but it was horrid.
Do I think the FBI/CIA might have technology like this, to analyze voice stress or facial temperature and determine if you are lying? Sure, why not. But there's a reason why lie detection technology is not admissible in court. It just doesn't work. Too many experts can beat it and too many amateurs get nervous and give false positives.
-JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
How about the "open to one night stand" detector.
I bet they are not compatible with beer goggles.
If these work with at least 90% "accuracy" I say our elected politicians ban these, citing "national security!"
There are serious doubts as to whether polygraph machines actually work or are simply junk science... and that criticism is of using polygraphs in a controlled environment like an interrogation room used by law-enforcement types. Now this company wants us to believe that an under-paid & under-trained security screener working in a chaotic environment like a busy airport is going to be able to detect a lie using their unproven product? Ha!
Our products were originally for law enforcement use -- we get all our technology from Nemesys-co...
Nemesys-co? What, are they a division of the E-Ville Group or something?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
For the lysdexics out there, it's 96% accurate, not actuate at predicing a 69.
The Geek in Black
I know my BCD's (when I'm Sober)
They realized that the skeleton-fetishist market is too marginal.
You wouldn't believe how often women lie when you ask them "Are you carrying pepper spray?"
Trolling is a art,
So let's assume the 90% accuracy figure is not bullshit (which it probably is). That means 1 out of 10 innocent passengers will be harrassed as suspected terrorists and 1 out of 10 terrorists will be allowed through. Not especially comforting thoughts in either case.
Polygraphing is a given hot topic, there are zealots in both proponent and opponent camps. I find it diffucult to find an objective source of information on the topic and its accuracy.
Antipolygraph.org has a link here
and the American Polygraph Association has a link here
Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
Those turned out to be a fraud, so I ordered the George Atlas body-building kit, stayed up all night lifting weights, and beat up the manufacturers of the glasses the next day.
Seriously, though, this invention sounds like an absolute nightmare. Do you really want to know every time your wife fakes an orgasm? And trust me, if you're on Slashdot, she does.
Amir Lieberman, the developer of the system, is also responsible for the previous rash of questionable truth detector software, which happens to be still available. It did recommend training, and it was widely sold for its ability to work over the phone. It even has a sequal. (warning, Not compatible with Opera. Probably not Mozilla.)
Namesysco doesn't claim very high accuracy for the Truster software. "The voice analyst achieved an overall accuracy rate of 78% for truthful subjects and 61% for deceptive subjects." In other words, only 10% more liars were caught than flipping a coin, while 22% of innocent subjects were considered lying.
The American Polygraph Society does not have a much rosier view of the situation. They have concluded that Computerized Voice Stress Analysis, and specifically the Truster software, has only a "chance-level detection of deception,"
And actually, the dead giveaway to the scam should be from the lion's mouth himself. "Our products were originally for law enforcement use ? we get all our technology from Nemesys-co ? but we need more development time [for that application]" In other words, "our products don't work and can't be sold unless you slap a 'for entertainment purposes only' label upon them. Our products are to 'entertain' airport security."
Good catch.
The ______ Agenda
Well, maybe they do in some cases.