Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Files for Info on New Brain-Scan Tech
An anonymous reader writes "According to their website, the ACLU has filed a FOIA request seeking information on the new Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging service being made available to the government for use on suspected terrorists which can produce 'live, real-time images of people's brains as they answer questions, view images, listen to sounds, and respond to other stimuli. [...] These brain-scanning technologies are far from ready for forensic uses and if deployed will inevitably be misused and misunderstood," said Barry Steinhardt, Director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Project. "This technology must not be deployed until it is proven effective -- and we are a long way away from that point, according to scientists in the field,"'"
Pesky scientists! Won't let the government fry terrorists just because the proof isn't surefire. Imagine!
If you're not thinking anything ungood, you have nothing to hide.
Guess the tinfoil hat brigade may of been on to something.
Surely they know that the only scientific way of telling if someone is a terrorist or not is to measure the space between their eyes. Terrorists are scientifically proven to have eyes closer together the The Good Guys(TM)
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Look at lie detectors, we still don't understand those and they have proven time and time again to be faulty at best. Depending on this a sole source of information is foolish.
http://religiousfreaks.com/Why does ACLU hate America so much?
They are concerned about the use of brain image scans as an adjunct tool for interrogation of captured terrorists - and yet have seldom (if ever) lifted a finger to defend my rights under the 9th and 10th amendments, and NEVER defended the individual's rights under the 2nd amendment.
Come on ACLU - you have more important things to spend your resources on. Start with US Citizens first.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
... to foiling thought crime forever. By the way, oil production is up 20%, the Dow Jones is up 12 points, unemployment is down to 1%, North Korea has agreed to halt their missle testing, and the war in Iraq is over.
Monthly Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of candidate or elected politicians to find out what part of what they spew is intended to be deceptive.
Why would it need to be effective? If you could use this thing to trick the suspected terrorist into revealing information, isn't that an effective use of the system? The ACLU seems to want the world to know that the technology doesn't work. All that will do is make interrogation of suspects less effective.
My other first post is car post.
I, for one, welcome our truth detecting, brain-scanning overlords.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
I pulled this out of my scrabble bag. If those pan-dimensional beings would've had this technology, they wouldn't have wanted to disect Artur's brain.
Cool. Honest government with enforced altruism. It won't happen though. I think there's a great interest for lie detectors to be considered as not reliable enough for court use by our elected officials.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
I think your plan relies on incorrect assumptions.
Error: password can't contain reverse spelling of ancient Chinese emperor
of the brain, using fMRI to detect lies is a load of dung. Way slower to react than lie detectors, and a horrible image resolution. I'm not saying it's entirely impossible, I just severely doubt the possibility of determining guilt by brain lobe activation levels.
Thus, they can be a useful tool. Lie detectors aren't black or white type machines but they can give hints. For example, if someone is questioned about a large number of things, and he gets nervous when answering certain questions, that might be a good place to start investigating. And no one would ever use a single source of information for that kind of thing, so that isn't an issue.
My other first post is car post.
Unless you have something to hide, why should you care? After all, it will only catch the bad guys, right?
Additionally, research into decision making processes and incentives by psychologist and economists using fMRI is in its infancy. To believe that we could accurately detect lies with fMRI when we don't even know how people make decisions or react to incentives is impossibly optimistic. The promise of a reduced sentence for telling the truth could completely change the fMRI results. The fact that the Guantanamo guard that kicked the sh*t out of you last week is in the room could completely change the fMRI results. The color of the room may change the fMRI results. And so on . . .
We just don't have enough historical data to do this reliably.
No it just means that Bush is increasing his assault on anything Muslim. He's just branching out.
And if will filter out the purposefully deceptive ones, the only politicians we will have left are compulsive liars or sociopaths.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I don't know what they expect to find. fMRI is even easier to fool than a polygraph. All you have to do is NOT keep your head still and the data will be completely worthless.
"And no one would ever use a single source of information for that kind of thing, so that isn't an issue."
So optimistic. I like that. Stay gold Johnny!
welcome our new government overlords
oh crap......now they can tell I'm lying about that.
Error: Sig not found.
Announcer: "With us today is Al Gore, the star of the moving "An Inconvenient Truth". Welcome Al."
Al: "Thank you Bob. It's a pleasure to be here to discuss such an important topic."
Announcer: "Well Al. We have a surprise for you today. I'm not sure if you saw our earlier segment on brain scans but we have Dr. Fujimoto here with us today - the inventor of the device."
Al: "I've always been fascinated by technology. I think my record has shown that - with the internet and all."
Announcer: "Great! Now, if you'll just have a seat over here." *motions to chair that looks like a hair dryer in a hair salon*
Al: *taking a seat* "I think technology is also key in combating the global warming phenomenon. We need to exercise our intellectual assets and develop a new type of energy."
Announcer: *staring at panel of green lights* "So the AP today reported that the scientific evidence in your movie is backed by all of the top scientists?"
Al: "Yes, I truly believe we are on the edge of a catastrophe. All of the worlds top climate scientists are in agreement with the data presented in my movie. Hey - what do those red lights mean?"
Announcer: "Oh it just means you feel very passionate about your topic." *flashing on screen - He's lying his a$$ off*
Al: "Well, I could fix social security so I found a bigger problem that needed my attention. If we could put all of the polluting compounds in a LOCK...BOX, I think we could save the Earth."
*machine explodes* Al: "Heh, Bob - celebrating Independence Day early? You know the gun powder in those fireworks expels carbon dioxide which is a no-no. Kyoto would have outlawed all production of fireworks."
Announcer: "Umm...right. Thank you for your time. Ladies and gentlemen, Al Gore."
English is easier said than done.
Now as for the issue at hand, it is certainly premature to use fMRI as a reliable lie detector or something like it. However, the article does not really specify how it is being used. If data is being collected to advance the reliabilty of this tool as a lie detector then it could be effective sooner rather than later.
if someone is questioned about a large number of things, and he gets nervous when answering certain questions, that might be a good place to start investigating.
Or they know that that question is the one you think they did. I had to be polygraphed for a job ("Of course it's voluntary. We're just not hiring you because we liked the other guy's hair better."). In the pre-interview, they ask if you've ever been questioned by police, so I said yes. Which is true. When I was a kid, I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Didn't do a damn thing, and the cops knew it, but this guy didn't ask them. He asked me about it 45 times in the machine, and obviously that question was important, and it made me nervous every time.
They don't actually tell you the results of those things, but for some reason, I went from being a lock with, "It's just a formality. Call when they're done, we'll get you set up," to not answering my calls for a week until they called to tell me they offered the job to someone else.
Obviously I can't be sure that's why. Maybe my fly was open. But the polygraph's the only reason I can think of.
What I particularly loved was at the end, the guy looks upset and says, "Were you controlling your breathing?" Yes! You strapped a frigging cable around my torso and told me to keep still! Stupid frigging *grumble* *grumble*...
I heard a lecture by an American professor researching this kind of systems about a year back. It was interesting, but I don't remember all the details. Here is what I remember from the lecture.
He got defence grants (DARPA?), but was rather open with what they were doing and what they could do. He was using MRI and CT and tried to figure out what people were thinking of. His goal was to construct a lie detector. He used neural networks that were trained information about activity in different parts of the brain. He had to retrain the networks for each test subject, but were developing more general networks.
He had bad resolution in both time and space (In time he couldn't measure things shorter than around 10 seconds). The MRI could give continuous information while the CT was more of a one shot deal due to the radioactive isotopes used.
He could tell if people were thinking about various things. He could tell the difference between somebody thinking of a saw, a house and a hammer. He could not tell the difference between a hammer and a sledge.
He could not tell the difference between somebody thinking of a man and a woman. But he could tell the difference in some cases between people thinking of grownups and children.
He could tell the difference between somebody thinking of different classes of words (substantives, verbs etc).
He had barely begun with lies, but mentioned that it was an exceptionally hard area to do research on. Back then there was more or less no research in the area. Just the problem with finding somebody that lies in the proper way while in the MRI machine was quite clearly a hard problem, not to mention checking when he was lying.
There was one of these late-night Open University* programs on a few years ago that covered something very similar (although I suspect a little less advanced).
Basicly people were sat infront of a screen and displayed keywords, pictures of people or places etc. and had the general level of electrical avtivity going on in their brains recorded. Later on the activity log was matched against the timeline of what they were looking at and you could very clearly see the difference between questions that had no relation to them and questions that did.
It's not a magic solution to interigation, but if you ask the right questions properly (which includes things that they know nothing about, or for example showing pictures of cute puppies or family members etc.) then it could really help as there's no known way to control these specific reactions (as it's possible with traditional lie detectors.
I'm sure the professor was an American, but I can't remember his name.. any help finding how this progressed and how it compares to what's discussed in the article would be cool.
* To you non-british people, the OU is a university in which you can study at home/abroad and shows educational material late at night on the 'public' TV channels.
The results, if any, will be presented in courts, with experts from defense and prosecution debating their merits in front of juries. This happens to fingerprints, DNA, speed radars, and all other technologies used in crime-fighting.
In short, I feel, my ACLU donation is being misused...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
They are concerned about the use of brain image scans as an adjunct tool for interrogation of suspected terrorists. You would almost certainly be singing a different tune about the ACLU if it were you, or someone in your family who was merely accused of somehow supporting terrorism and then "convicted" of it using evidence gained from questionable evidence.
As for your bullshit about the 2nd amendment, the ACLU doesn't need to defend it because the NRA does a great job already. OTOH, why is the NRA not involved in the fight to stop the Bush administration violating our 4th amendment rights? Does the NRA hate America?
And no one would ever use a single source of information for that kind of thing...
Such as depending on the testimony of 'Curveball' as proof of mobile chemical weapons factories in Iraq?
...just like our our justice system, which relies on lawyers who (if they want to make lots of money) train to craft a jury that will give the most beneficial verdict, despite the reasoning behind such decisions. It has become a game of manipulation, of distorting facts pertaining to the evidence and facts pertaining to reality. Common Example: someone who looks nervous, sounds nervous and acts nervous isn't necessarily a guilty criminal, despite the average american's (average americans helped put Bush in office) inability to pretend not to be a psychology expert, or put aside personal prejudice and jump on a 'clear sign of wrong-doing,' ha, which, again, is a useful tool for lawyers, if they happen to ask and leave out the right questions. A more scientific example: a child's emotional response to sexual abuse may be subdued if they were abused at a younger age (almost as if they grew up used to it - the damage is still there though, so don't assume this means it's undamaging if they're really young); however, juror's tend to believe a more emotional response. This is from a famous series of psychological experiments, but the name escapes me. Anyone remember?
Anyway, it's success will probably depend on how accurate the device is, which will best be known through vast amounts of experimentation, how it works, and who interprets the results. But it looks hopeful as you can't always hide what activity in the brain that you did not expect to be there. To clarify, we may know what part of the brain is activated when being visually creative (given the setting and circumstances), or not accessing specific types of memory, or if we ask well-crafted questions so they can think about something else and then say whatever helps them best, we may be able to very accurately determine the truth. If what gives away lying is an involuntary process, it will be hard to suppress. So, what's worse, having someone who is framed very well get convicted by a terrible jury, AND because they can't afford an incredible lawyer, or having them go free because a machine decides a case when it suggests their mental processes are not conducivce to lying. Of course, there will still be expert witnesses, but if we set up independent testing and interpretation, they will be less influential.
Above all else, I hope they perfect it quickly so we can use it on the Bush Regime (sorry, word association is one of THEIR tactics; maybe I should say "administration?"), DOD, CIA, and FBI officials so the blind and amorally content no longer have an excuse for destroying America, morality, and the rest of the world while they are at it.
Looks like this stuff is pretty accurate, but there appear to be several different types of deception:
Some visuals of the difference between "truth" and "deception" (page 2)
Another summary
Forget this. In memorial.
It seems to me that a use that would be as important or even more important than finding terrorists is weeding out corrupt politicians, or politicians who have nothing but contempt for the democratic process and government, but who still run for office and even gain powerful political positions, then abuse their posts.
My theory is that many politicians are drawn to politics because they actually have Narcissistic Personality Disorder, a mental disorder that leaves a person without a functioning conscience. People with NPD are compulsive liars, but they also hide it very well. They are responsible for a mindboggling amount of the Earth's woe. (Most mass murderers have NPD. I am sure that most terrorists do also.
They are often pretty obvious, the people who think that the whole world revolves around them. However, many others hide it very well, but its very hard to hide this flaw from one's close associates or family. They are the abusers among us.
Scientists recently discovered that they can use FMRI to identify these pathological liars - now we need to use this technology to prevent people with NPD from gaining political office.
Seems to me there are two possible uses:
1) Developing intelligence to interdict terrorist acts.
2) Developing evidence to be used in criminal prosecution against the person being scanned.
1 is fair game. Terrorism and actions to prevent it is war, while MRI doesn't cause pain or damage to the subject (unless he happens to have, say, shrapnel in his body to be yanked on by the magnet).
2 is a violation of the prohibitions against unreasonable search and compelling an accused to testify against himself.
Seems to me the government has a choice: They can use the device on the suspected terrorist if they decide it's worth letting him go later (rather than prosecuting him) for detecting and stopping the plot.
Once they've extracted info with it and used it in their further actions, it will be essentially impossible to show that evidence they collect later was in no way derived from the information they extracted using the machine. It becomes "fruit of the poisoned tree" and inadmissable.
(By the way: Don't bring up the Geneva Accords. They specifically exclude people who violate certain "rules of civilized warfare", such as fighting in uniform, correctly identifying themselves, targeting only war infrastructure rather than civilians, etc. Terrorists miss on many of these qualifications, and it only takes one. Such people are NOT SUPPOSED to get the convention-specified treatment of a prisoner of war. This was done deliberately in the original formulation of the accords, to create an incentive for fighters, armies, and the organizations that field them to obey the rules in turn.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
And no one would ever use a single source of information for that kind of thing, so that isn't an issue.
I see your brain has never been poisoned by an episode of "Maury". Good for you!
Just think what this device could do for politics!
Morbo: "Morbo demands an answer to the following question. If you saw a delicious candy in the hands of a small child. Would you seize and consume it?"
John Jackson: "Unthinkable."
Jack Johnson: "I wouldn't think of it."
Morbo: "What about you, Mr. Nixon? I remind you that you are under a truth-o-scope."
Nixon [sweating]: "The question is vague. You don't say what kind of candy and whether anyone is watching. And anyway I certainly wouldn't harm the child."
I for one welcome our new Republican Overloards and the Thought Police! Justice for all! +5 funny
Thanks to eating disorders most chicks are reasonably good looking these days.
A similar restriction applies to metal fragments, including those from welding (which is why they ask about this), especially in the eye. If the tech asks you about welding and/or metal frags and you're not sure, they give you an X-Ray first. Don't really want to wrong about this one - ouch!
Avoid the scan, get a tatoo and take up welding.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
well, if you expect that a sophisticated brain scanning device couldn't tell the difference between purposeful lies and the sociopath (isn't compulsive lieing a form of this?) who feels he's "right" so isn't lieing.
...
;)
I think your point is valid though for the delusional who would have no clue, or mental ciruitry, about things the rest of us considered lies or untruths. He'd think it was actually *true* that every black helicopter was recording his every thought.
hey. wait a minute....
---
Moderation replaced by this sig
I won't rehash posts about how far fMRI is away from being a useful measuring device in this regard, since deviations are generally small enough that measurements over many trials must be aggregated to achieve significant results in carefully controlled conditions. But even if fMRI's were much better, and we understood how the brain worked much more closely this would still be of limited to no usefulness as an actual scientific method (it would probably would better than the polygraph, but would still be pseudoscience).
The problem is that the polygraph works in this basic manner:
The examiner asks you a whole bunch of filler questions, claiming these are 'controls.' These results are all ignored. Questions in this phase are things like "Is today Tuesday?". Then the examiner intersperses the real controls (he's already lied to you about what they are), questions which they'll preface with ominous portents if you answer affirmatively, so the examiner assumes you're going to lie about them ("Have you ever cheated on a girlfriend? Have you ever used marijuana?).
Then the examiner takes the second controls and compares them to his test questions. If you're test questions exceed the response from the (presumed to be lying) controls, the examiner assumes you're lying. Thus, telling the truth throughout the entire procedure is liable to land you in hot water. (For more information, from an admittedley 'biased' site, but I think they're pretty clear can be found at http://www.antipolygraph.org/).
However, a true lie detector test would require a much more coherent defintion of what a lie is, which is very hard to create. Most people would agree that actively misleading somebody with no regard to your factual knowledge is lying. This also tends to be a useless type of lie in these situations because people get there stories mixed up, or they don't think through all the details. Much more common types of lies, are witholding useful information while truthfully relating aspects of the response, or changing the context of the answer, and other things which mislead but do not show complete disregard for the truth. The best lies in the intelligence useful/lessness sense are those that only minorly distort the truth, but in a particularly significant way.
Until you can metrize all these different types of not being truthful, or of avoiding certain facts etc, and until you can metrize their reponses for each individual (my guess is that this type of thing will have a high variance between people), you can't produce anything that can reasonably be called a scientific lie detector.
You submitted to it, voluntarily. (Yes, it was voluntary unless someone was forcing you to try for this particular job.) You pretty much forfeited your right to bitch about them using it. You can't argue about your convictions if you don't have the courage to uphold them.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Tomrrow we scan little billy in gradeschool, "just in case he has some tendencies"
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Maybe-- just maybe-- if I got one of these devices, I could understand my wife.
Well, remember that the machine doesn't tell anything. It's up to the analyst to determine what the results mean. If the analyst simply looks for deceit, they will miss sociopaths ( or maybe not, depending on the exact mechanism ) and compulsive liars. So all I'm saying is that they would have to look pretty thoroughly.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
So are polygraph tests, yet these are routinely used in a "forensic" capacity.
Since when has the unsuitability of polygraphs for forensic use ever stopped the government from using such technology to their own purposes?
Bravo to the ACLU for taking this on. Unfortunately, their actions will be minimalized over the government's assertion that this technology will catch more terrorists. And before you know it, you'll be submitting to brain scans during your next employment interview, or police interrogation.
I've given up on the ACLU as a bunch of leftist laywers bought and paid for by the union politicos after they refused to take on the Vincent Chin case in the 80's.
;^)
It was a clear, nationally covered hate crime case (a few days before his wedding, Mr. Chin was bludgened to death with a baseball bat in front of many onlooker in front of a bar by two layed-off detroit autoworkers who apparently hated japanese and mistook Mr Chin who is chinese for japanese and only recieved a $4000 fine for this crime), something that was well within the ACLU charter for being for racial bias in criminal justice. Because the offender was an out of work autoworker and the ACLU knows who butters their bread, they of course passed on the whole thing and have never appologized.
As many have mentioned, the ACLU is of course a private organization that can do whatever the hell they want. However, perhaps more realistically, the ACLU flock of lawyer do whatever their left leaning sugar daddies who pays their retainers want them to do. I wouldn't mistake this cauldren of lawyers for one that fights for principles (well maybe KKK principles). They certainly are selective
In WWII's 1945, America was facing at least several more months of massive deaths, even in victory over Japan. Perhaps a permanent counterinsurgency in occupied Japan. Or joint occupation of Japan/Pacific with Russia, as in Europe. The atomic bombs had already been tested to "work" (massive explosions, but still only "local" effects) in the American desert.
In other words, reliable enough, compared to the alternative.
However, not tested enough to protect ourselves from fallout and other contamination. And certainly not tested as "diplomacy" to avoid the next half-century nuclear Cold War, which stood only a single syllable away from extinction at least once.
Scientists usually don't insist on anything before the government (or anyone else) uses their discoveries - they're almost never in such a powerful position. Even in this case, a libertarian activist organization is trying to stop the government from (ab)using this technology before it's reliable.
Vast power brings vast responsibilities. Big decisions about giant risks like this need to be made by responsible, informed who understand the consequences, and are liable when they're wrong. We can't afford our $3.5TRILLION government, with its miniscule accountability, beta testing devices like this before the law is even ready, let alone the machines.
--
make install -not war
*** CLANK *** CLANK *** CLANK ***
Investigator: What were you doing on the 8th of June?
*** CLANK *** CLANK *** CLANK ***
Suspect: What?
*** CLANK *** CLANK *** CLANK ***
Investigator: What were you doing on the 8th of June?
*** CLANK *** CLANK *** CLANK ***
Suspect: WHAT?!
*** CLANK *** CLANK *** CLANK ***
Investigator: WHAT WHERE YOU DOING ON THE 8TH OF JUNE?!
*** CLANK *** CLANK *** CLANK ***
Suspect: WHAT?! I CANT HEAR YOU!!
*** CLANK *** CLANK *** CLANK ***
Investigator: WHAT WHERE YOU...
Investigator: Can you turn the noise on this thing down?
Technologist: Not really, but I'll see see what I can do.
*** THUNK *** THUNK *** THUNK ***
Investigator: What were you doing on the 8th of June?
*** THUNK *** THUNK *** THUNK ***
Suspect: WHAT?!
(those MRI scanners are *real* loud)
An that, in short, is why I don't support the ACLU.
It's not just an issue of cherrypicking, it's an issue of outright hypocrisy.
Okay, so they think that the 2nd Amendment is a "collective" right. I think that's stupid, and you'd have to be both biased and illiterate to think that, but fine. But somehow, I doubt they think that about the 1st Amendment, which uses the exact same language to confer it's (according to the ACLU) individual right.
Amendement 1: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Amendment 2: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
If we take the ACLU's analysis of the Second Amendment (where "the people" refers only to a group of people collectively, and not to the individuals within that group), then the First Amendment means an entirely different thing than they're taking it to mean, particularly this bit: "...right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
If it's a collective right only, then in the ACLU's world, you don't have any right to petition the government yourself, you can only do it collectively -- via, perhaps, your elected representative, or an established political party. And it could also be taken to mean that people can't just assemble whenever they want, but only after going through proper channels -- if "people" can assemble, for some purpose defined by the government, then the right is satisfied; whether you can is immaterial.
In short, it's a dangerously limited reading, and wholly inconsistent with their own interpretation of the rest of the Constitution. They're engaging in the lowest form of doublespeak and hypocrisy, and even if they manage to do a good thing every once in a while, that's not the sort of thought process that I'm going to support.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Such as depending on the testimony of 'Curveball' as proof of mobile chemical weapons factories in Iraq?
..... and the trick then is to figure out how much you do trust the source, and what you consider the probabilities to be. Guess what? It's not foolproof .... sometimes, it's bang on - most times, it's somewhere in the middle ..... and sometimes, it's very out to lunch.
I have no idea who the hell curveball is. That being said - intelligence operations is NOT the same as a court of law. In intelligence, it is very, very, VERY rare that you get the equiv. of a smoking gun. 99.9999% of the time, the most you get is a balance of probabilities
That's just the nature of the beast.
Requiring to be polygraphed for a job is fucked up, but it is also not the point. What they did was illegal, the fact that they got away with it is unfortunate, but it does not reflect an error in the system.
It is a completely different situation when it comes to law enforcement. If you say no to a polygraph, there is not shit they can do about it. They can't use the fact that you said no to a polygraph as evidence, so it really has no consequence whether you said no or not. It might throw some suspicion your way, it might make their job a little harder, but if they wish to take you to court they need solid evidence. Solid evidence which, in all probability wont be there if you are innocent.
That's not too say that no innocent people ever gets convicted of a crime. Obviously they do, but people don't do time because of failed polygraphs, or their refusal to take one.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/forensics/polygraph/
I think the people worried about the potential for errors and misuse of the fMRI are missing the point. Any tool ever invented can be and probably has been misused. Using fMRI for lie-detection is unlikely to be an exception. Nor should we naively expect it to be 100% accurate. But it does show promise to be more accurate than its predecessor in lie-detection technology, the polygraph, which is still in use. In that respect shouldn't we absolutely be trying it out and hoping to replace an old technology with a more effective one?
I suppose one might have the legitimate concern that it would be abused in an Orwellian way because it could be more accurate. The idea of fascist states potentially using it to crush dissent, or misusing it in some other horrible way, is scary. But if that's the ACLU's concern, let's get that debate out in the open instead of using the "this device is should not use used until it's accuracy has been proven" argument (especially in light of the fact that exisiting lie-detection technology has been proven inaccurate).
Anyone else think of this?
Holden: You look down and you see a Terrorist, Leon, he's crawling toward you-
Leon: Terrorist, what's that?
Holden: Know what a Democrat is?
Leon: Of course.
Holden: Same thing.
Add in complete drug screens for all illegal and non-prescribed substances and we have a start. Mandatory personality inventories are in order as well. Then add in 100% completely transparent disclosure of any elected official's personal and entire family's financial records and you are getting closer.
With the assinine activities of the elected officials lately I am under the impression that they are all either singly or in combination:
a) on some seriously good drugs
b) totally batshit fucking nuts
c) being paid off by some ultra-discoridan secret society
SHIT! As fucked as they seem they might even be under the control of aliens. Time to bust out the anal probes...
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
We could just go back to an age old system. We just ask them a question, then throw them in the water. If they are lying, the water will reject them and they will float. If the water accepts them, and they stay down, we know they told the truth. Easy!
In intelligence, it is very, very, VERY rare that you get the equiv. of a smoking gun. 99.9999% of the time, the most you get is a balance of probabilities ...
I would recommend to anyone who is against lie-detector type machines to look at this bayesian reasoning introduction. The link does not discuss lie detectors in particular, but demonstrates how it is possible to scientifically use machines that are 60%/40% right/wrong etc..
In this actual case I feel the ACLU is preying on the fact that most people are ignorant of statistics and probabilities. Even if a lie detector works only 15% of the time, it can be sucessfully used to improve intelligence. It goes without saying that such a machine (with less than 90% correctness at least) could not be used to prove or disprove guilt officially (as the fear mongering would have you believe).
Of course they refer to it as a something else.
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
These guys have it all wrong. You can tell the terrorists, criminals, and other defectives by measuring the shape of thier skull. Forensic phrenology also has the advantage of requiring less expensive hardware leaving more of the budget to be spent on comely, scantily-clad lab assistants and an adequate supply of lab alcohol.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
I wasn't bitching about them using it. I was saying that a "nervous" reaction to a question doesn't necessarily mean anything.
It is a largely uninformative technique that is used to frighten prisoners with the belief that the interrogators can somehow see into and read their minds. Similar to the anti-matter bomb claim circulated some months ago.
In other words, it is bullshit.
You didn't want to work at a place like that anyway.
There's a difference between using a test with a moderate accuracy to indicate something is worth looking into further and using it as evidence. A medical test may not be perfectly accurate but the cost of an incorrect result may be lower than the cost of doing nothing. Also, part of a doctor's training includes exactly what a positive or negative from a particular test means. In intelligence a positive result might make it worth putting somebody on the ground to check it out (for instance).
BUT, most western countries have decided that the cost of a false guilty result is MUCH higher than the cost of a false innocent (thus innocent until proven guilty). That's why people are opposed to lie detectors. It's better to let a few guilty people go for lack of hard evidence than to put an innocent person in jail (or worse) because of a lie detector's false positives.
Lie detectors might be very useful for intelligence gathering, so long as that's ALL they're used for. Clearly the ALCU doesn't think that's all they'll be used for. The guy who didn't get a job after taking a polygraph might also have his doubts.
Used to do government contracting for one of the 3-letter-acronym agencies. Happened to work with the group that performed polys for this agency.
You should see the friggin' knuckleheads that adminster the polys!!! YIKES! And they are some strange, wacky individuals... not the types I would expect to be doing polygraphs.
http://www.noliemri.com/
http://www.cephoscorp.com/
claimed 95% accurate....
Markets Served:
Federal Government
Director of National Intelligence
Defense Department (Army, Navy, Air Force, Defense Intelligence Agency)
Homeland Security Department (Immigration, Airport Security)
Justice Department (National Institutes of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration)
Department of Energy (National Laboratories)
Treasury Department (Secret Service)
Central Intelligence Agency
National Security Agency
International
State Governments (State and Local Police Departments, Security Agencies)
Law Firms
Accounting Firms
Investment Firms
Corporations
General Public
>Saying the ACLU is 'libertarian' is an insult to every libertarian. The ACLU is Socialist/Marxist/Communist on a good day and since 9/11 is pro terrorist. Saying the ACLU is pro-terrorist is like saying defense lawyers are pro-crime. The ACLU makes sure that the terrorists are treated humanely and morally. If we violate the civil (inalienable?) rights of terrorists, we are no better than them. If anything the ACLU is an advocate of a smaller, less powerful government. That's far more aligned with the political ideals of Libertarians than those of Communists. If you'd like a great example of a system where'd you see nothing like the ACLU, you need not look further than the USSR under Stalin. >They are elected and accountable, the ACLU is neither. The ACLU is neither elected nor accountable, that's why they don't make laws. The ACLU is comprised mostly of lawyers, not judges, legislators, or governors. Without groups like the ACLU holding the government accountable, the government would not be such. If Saddam had been held accountable, there would not have been torture. Our legal system puts the burden on the state, and we all enjoy freedom because of that.
Cause it's the Al-Qaeda Civil Liberties Union
> If we violate the civil (inalienable?) rights of terrorists, we are no better than them.
Terrorists don't have many rights. They usually aren't US Citizens or resident aliens so the US Courts are rightly closed to them. Being irregulars/spies/etc instead of regular military units with established uniforms and chains of command they aren't subject to very many of the protections outlined in the Geneva Conventions. People get hurt in War, that is why they are bad things. The ACLU and their fellow terorist enablers are solely interested in filing suits such as this one to throw sand in the US war machine, or bluntly, to lend aid and comfort to declared enemies in time of War.
But to date the ACLU has yet to commit an overt act of treason, unlike say the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. Those morons need to be safely removed to a POW camp for the duration. Although going for broke and actually charging them with treason would have the nice potential of decades from now, after all the endless appeals settled, of actually sticking a needle in Pinch Sulzburger and Bill Keller's arms.
> Without groups like the ACLU holding the government accountable, the government would not be such..
No, We The People hold the government accountable, in the case of the US Federal Governent every two years. You guys are just unhappy at the judgement your fellow citizens rendered and looking at getting sympathetic judges to give do overs.
Democrat delenda est
I also believe dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was worth the cost, as I believe my detailed description some of the costs of a continued war spelled out. To anyone not walking around with a fascist stick up their ass, that is.
That still doesn't mean we understood the cost of the fallout to protect ourselves, as is also obviously true. To anyone without a fascist stick up their ass.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is most certainly libertarian, committed to nothing but defending our liberties. From fascists with terrorist sticks up their ass.
As any fool could guess, and anyone with a brain doesn't have to guess, no one should be waving around these ridiculous devices as if they worked to "extract truth". Any more than that Star Wars "missile defense shield" works to protect us, or Bush's FEMA protected New Orleans, or anything else shiny and expensive that you fascists worship when so ordered by a waving flag.
But of course, since you vote for Bush as often as possible, need thousands of random "ignorant goat herders" tortured in concentration camps like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, you demand we attack someone, no matter how effective or just. Because you're a sadist - that's what makes fascism so appealing to you. And that stick up your ass.
You people are the answer to Osama's prayers: such scared pussies that seeing terrorism on TV immediately makes you burn any liberties that make our country worth living for. Disgusting cowards projecting their fear onto every strong patriot available, who must be Communists when they protect the people from government tyranny.
Oooh, calling it "the G" makes you sound like such an insider. As if you had any power, any more than a single termite devouring the Constitution with the rest of its mindless brood. I require you to immediately report to one of "the G's" test centers to tweak this sexy Mystery Machine into working order. It's your patriotic duty... there, that always works with you zombies. I won't have to deal with you anymore on Slashdot, because you'll be able to fax your posts directly to Cheney after the tests are completed. If you need to keep posting anyway, just stick it up your ass. It's your best feature.
--
make install -not war
Well, considering that they have never been anti-Christian and on many occasions have defended the right of Christians, I'd have to say you're full of shit. Stop listening to Limbaugh, not only is he the most full of shit, the ACLU has defended him in court before, so by your rules he's eivl.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
After 48~60 hours, mild auditory and visual hallucinations begin.
From that point on, it's downhill.
Between 72~100 hours, hallucinations & paranoia take over.
After 100 hours, you can induce hallucinations through suggestion.
I suggest you try it sometime.
See how well you take it.
You don't have to be a US citizen to be a human being, and all human beings have the same "unalienable" rights. It doesn't matter what a piece of paper says. Hell, even if your government doesn't recognize your rights, you've still got them.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
My problem with these things are that they immediately begin putting me on my guard to prove my innocence. Think about it. This machine is trying to discern truth from chemical processes and electrical pulses on my skin. There are too many stupid people who don't understand how it works, and therefore think it is failsafe (sort of like the person that doesn't understand a digital lock and therefore thinks it is somehow more secure. Nevermind that pressing buttons 4 and 8 together while pressing "Enter" always unlocks the door). I know I would fail one of these the moment they put me on it. I get incredibly nervous whenever I'm questioned about things, mainly because I often got in trouble for the smallest offences as a child (rolling a pebble across the room after a kid threw it at me in 4th grade...stupid stuff like that...private school garbage). Taking notes home to mom had to be the most inhumane punishment ever. Talk to ME about it, don't leave me in the dark for hours on end worrying if I'm gonna get spanked when I get home.
I can see it happening right now, I get interrogated because I'm a suspect who was near a crime scene I don't know about. They hook me up to a lie detector/FMRI, then the big question comes along, "did you murder [person]?" I would freak regardless of whether or not I'd done it, simply because of the weight of the situation. Possibility of prison for life, even if I hadn't done a thing. I have a feeling people are too interested in their own agenda (which in this case would be convicting _someone_ like me, even if I didn't do it and they don't think I did) to worry about looking at all the evidence. They can't even fight for their own rights, why should they give a hoot about mine? Lie detector says I broke out in sweat and my pulse quicked when they asked me if I was the murderer. There's no way that thing could ever know my history and interpret the results objectively in light of the evidence. I'd be the 20% that lie detectors incorrectly fail.
But, seriously, taking LSD after not sleeping for almost a week is even better. Although probably best done under competent supervision.
I agree that foreigners don't have many rights in our system. The Bible teaches an absolute morality, independent of race, creed, gender, and prior crimes. The ACLU promotes these rights.
>But to date the ACLU has yet to commit an overt act of treason, unlike say the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.
Neither the NYT or LAT have been convicted of treason.
>You guys are just unhappy at the judgement your fellow citizens rendered and looking at getting sympathetic judges to give do overs.
I don't know who "you guys" are. The process of "getting sympathetic judges to give do overs" is called judicial review, and is a hallmark of our government's legislative process.
It's cool! We'll just call it beta and don't charge the alleged Terrorists for the interrogation.
Just what this proto-police state needs, another device to manufacture psuedo-scientific "evidence" with. As informed people are aware, the old "Lie Detector" does not detect lies and is as scientific as Scientology's "e-meter". Likewise, informed people will be aware the new one doesn't either. But since most of the public is ignorant of this and the government couldn't care less, they will continue to be used anyway.
And the unalienable right not to incriminate yourself?
Or that our rights don't come from government, but from the Creator, and that means that all people, not just Americans, have them? What are they teaching in Civics classes these days???
If you are ruled out as a war-fighter and are not supposed to be covered by geneva convention, then you ARE A FREAKING CIVILIAN and have to be judged for your misdeed under civilian law. There is no such things as being neither civilian nor war-fighter. It is a pure invention of US to indulge themselves into doing whatever they want with those people instead of respecting US law or international convention.
Wake up you have here a governement which says "I can do whatever please me, and if I am not allowed to do X on Y people, then I will rename Y people into Z, and since Z people are not defined by convention or law I can do whatever please me inclusive forever imprisonning without due process".
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Personally I oppose this on the grounds of privacy. The government shouldn't be able to look into my brain, period. Sure I can think of movie-plot scenarios where this would be a good idea, but I think it'd be hard to set firm limits if it gets used at all.
I think I can tell you that without FRMI.
All of it
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
They were probably testing to see if you were a replicant. It had nothing to do with the job you were applying for.
When they asked you about coming across a tortoise in the desert, did you tell the interviewer that you would flip it back onto its feet?
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I say bond them and throw them into water. If they float they are terrorist, if they drown they are not. This test was used before and gave reliable result every time.
They already covered this one about 40 years ago with the psychic who could read minds. He was absolutely certain that a guy there was going to rob the bank. In the end, the suspect thought about it every single day, but would never actually do it.
There's a distinction that people forget about between thoughts and actions. I doubt this technology is able to distinguish between the sort of response that comes from an actual intent, and an actual thought that will never be acted on.
Though, they'll probably prove Professor Keating wrong one of these days, and man won't even be free in his dreams anymore.
Has anyone thought of using this for meditation?
To answer the question - does anything happen?
To improve technique through biofeedback?
It would be really interesting to try meditation with one of these to see what happens and whether it looks any different to normal activity or sleeping activity or whatever.
- Richard
Sorry, I don't liked to that ole top 40 carnival barker. Just pointing to the numerous anti Christian stances the ACLU have taken. Sure, they do actually read their charter occasionally and do defend a small Christian church being foced out of it's localtion every year or two. But when the record is like 100 to 1 against, you can't point to the one and say they are being even handed.
Well, YOU can, but I'm talking about logical people.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
This is the thing that scares me most about having to take a lie-detector test (which I thankfully have not had to do, though not having a security clearance no doubt hurts my employability somewhat). What if you don't lie to the control questions?
Suppose you actually haven't cheated on a girlfriend or used marijuana, to use the above example. Suppose they ask about fetishes and you say "Yep, I enjoy watching scantily clad Asian grandmothers drive heavy construction equimpent", or whatever happens to be true in your case. Then, their controls are messed up.
Hopefully the results in such cases would be reported as "inconclusive" rather than interpreting essentially random fluctuations.
Really, if we ever get to a point where Muslims are the majority and are running the show, all the Christians who whined about anti-Christian bias in the ACLU will be pounding on the ACLU's door for protection, and I have a strong suspicion that the ACLU will answer.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
This should be used on the ACLU. If anyone is protecting terrorists its them more then anyone else. We can find out using this.
Those devices have been around for years. http://phun.physics.virginia.edu/demos/nail_bed.ht ml
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Ahhh now I get it. The rights of those who happen to share the same faith as those in power are worthless to the ACLU.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Yeah, really. Nothing like building a relationship with your employer that is built on a solid foundation of trust.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Nothing like working for someone who thinks he has the right to invade your privacy and police you even outside work too.
"Monthly Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of candidate or elected politicians to find out what part of what they spew is intended to be deceptive."
Wait I think I know that one, ALL OF IT.
Matthew
Even tho I am a card carrying tin foil hat memeber - I really really really believe creating a multi-pronged lie detection protocol IS in the best interest of ALL mankind.
Think about it - Govt's already have all the power to surveil you that they need - legal or not. Therefore you - as a citizen - cannot hide anything you do and are subject to any and all laws no matter how rediculous.
That is why the US Gov. has never pushed lie detection tech - they don't need it - and they sure as heck Don't Want It!
The governments of the world have a tremendous ammount to lose if the people were to mandate lie detection sessions for their representatives - like when in the US we have people like Karl Rove testify before congress.
Think 9/11 was an inside job - well then have the 9/11 comittee hook up Cheney and ask him about his orders for Norad to stand down.
Think Bush a constitution hating facist - then ask him and see the results.
Think NASA is covering up UFO information - then ask them in front of congress.
Excellent multi-pronged lie detection technology will set us free from these arrogant elitists who have forgot the PEOPLE pay their salary.
I agree - polygraphs are horrible for truth detection - but don't be fooled - we've come a long way since then - and the Govt. sure as heck doesn't want us to take advantage of this.
And if we really put a concerted effort in to fine tuning these new technologies - no "trained" agaent in the world will be able to fool them.
Let's take the power back into our hands - I mean - if the Government isn't doing anything wrong - well they've got nothing to fear - do they?
"Works just as it used to over here... What distopia land are you posting from?"
It is interesting that you you use the label "Dystopian land" in your reply, at least I guess that is what you meant with "distopia land". This is exactly what the USA is devolving into and exactly what the ACLU is confronting on issues like this. I do not believe in the possibility of a Utopian society at this stage of mankinds evolution, if ever. However, this does not mean I intend to sit and quietly watch as our liberty is stolen by a bunch of neo-fascists. Try the following Google link for a few examples of where the separation of powers is an issue with the current government.
http://www.google.com/search?hs=0zW&hl=en&lr=&clie nt=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q= Bush+separation+of+powers&btnG=Search
"I don't see a contradiction, frankly. Nor does ACLU, apparently, because they are not using this argument..."
One more time. "Amendment V (1791) of the constitution says otherwise in regard to the collection and presentation of evidence against a citizen. "No person may be compelled to testify against himself." I don't see how it could be stated with any greater clarity. Are you operating under the mistaken assumption that this only to be used on foreign terrorist suspects? Have you read the FOIA? http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/privacy/fmrifoia20060628. pdf Besides even if it is only used on non US citizens the use of this technology to obtain evidence used to detain citizens of another nation does not seem to be an ethically sound practice. What's next, Bolton removing the US as a signatory of the UN charter on human rights?
That's just ridiculous. 20 years is not enough for you? Cell-phones have existed for shorter time...
The 20 years is actually the rough useful history for MRI as a medical diagnostic device. fMRI has not been around as long and there is very little data in the public space on the use of it for the methods of thought detection, let alone critical evaluation. A good read on the brain/mind that has some information on fMRI is "Conversations with Neil's Brain(1994)". I don't like what is happening with the monitoring of cell networks either :).
"Reading comprehension problems (in addition to writing)?.. Or just choking on your tofu? I'll try one more time: How the government spends money -- whether you approve of it or not -- is not a civil liberties concern, hence not one, I gave ACLU money to address..."
This is simple, accountability of government officials is at the core of what protection of civil liberty's are about. Where were you in primary school civics or US history classes? When the government spends money on things that directly threaten my constitutional rights and freedoms it becomes an even more critical civil liberty's issue. I don't always like the position the ACLU takes on some issues either. For instance I wish they would take a different stand on the second amendment, they are dead wrong in the interpretation they currently stand by. This does not mean that I withhold my support, moral or fiducial as on the whole their efforts are worthwhile for our liberty. Ouch, I must have hit a nerve somewhere. You don't like reading my writing, don't. If you think that by making derogatory statements about my missing a word or imperfections of grammar at 2:00AM, my reading comprehension of your illogical and non nonsensical diversions and digressions or my personal dietary habits you are going to annoy me, go ahead. What this actually tells me is that I somehow managed to annoy you. Got any more labels you wish apply or imply, abilities or skills you wish to denigr