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!
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/It's more than that. You shouldn't even know that you have nothing to hide. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.
Why does ACLU hate America so much?
There are plenty of other organizations willing to defend your 2nd amendment rights. The ACLU is a private association, it can defend rights however it sees fit.
... 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.
because there's no possibility a US citizen would be charged with terrorism.
or is there?
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
welcome our new government overlords
oh crap......now they can tell I'm lying about that.
Error: Sig not found.
My scanner says no, you dont.
Prepare...
emt 377 emt 4
would you rather have some of your rights defended or none?
t ml
Yes, the ACLU won't touch gun rights, because they don't believe they exist:
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.h
I think they're wrong, but that that doesn't mean I think the ACLU are doing wrong by defending my other rights. Interestingly enough, it appears possible for people to disagree on one subject while agreeing on a different one!
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
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.
The ACLU claims to defend "civil liberties." The 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments should be included in that, regardless of what other organizations do!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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*...
There are plenty of other organizations willing to defend your 2nd amendment rights. The ACLU is a private association, it can defend rights however it sees fit.
Planned Parenthood and NARAL do a good job of defending the Abortion Amendment, yet this doesn't stop the ACLU from devoting resources to abortion rights.
The ACLU also duplicates the work of the NAACP, etc.
Yet when someone points out that the ACLU refused to defend the Second Amendment, somebody always points out that "The ACLU doesn't need to do that, because other organizations do," as though it was some great insight.
Can we just stop pretending that the ACLU cares about Constitutional rights, even if they are occasionally on the right side of some issues?
"Putting all that aside, I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty."
-Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU
"Life, Liberty, and the ACLU" (Reason, October 1994)
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.
Paraphrasing, the 10th amendment covers state's rights. The ACLU doesn't really come on my radar screen as staunch defenders of state's rights, but then again, most of what I know about them comes from the ranting of their detrtactors. That the ACLU wouldn't do much work about the 10th amendment makes sense if they construe themselves to be interested in *personal* liberties, but I digress.
Also paraphrasing, the 9th amendment protects rights not specifically enumerated in the constitution. Can you point out some glaring examples where the ACLU has been silent on a purportedly 9th amendment issue?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Reno v. ACLU:Communication Decency Act
Just remember that not all those that oppose the Neo-Con-Republicans are super liberals. Normal people seem to enjoy freedom as well.
There are plenty of other organizations willing to defend your 2nd amendment rights. The ACLU is a private association, it can defend rights however it sees fit.
And they're even welcome to print their poster on the bill of rights that leaves off the second (and a couple of others) entirely. (Even if it is as revolting as flag burning, it IS free speech.)
But IMHO they crossed a line when they provided a lawyer for the shooting victim of a crook to sue for damages the person from whose locked safe the gun had been stolen.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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
The 9th amendments is about implied rights not specifically otherwise mentioned in the constitution. The ACLU certainly can't be accused of not defending implied rights, such as those of privacy, death, etc.
and 10th amendments,
Look into Gonzales v. Raich.
and NEVER defended the individual's rights under the 2nd amendment.
ACLU: "The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns... The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."
It ain't their bag, baby. The NRA is pretty good at that one though.
Come on ACLU - you have more important things to spend your resources on. Start with US Citizens first.
1. Suspected terrorists aren't necessarily, or even generally, foreign nationals.
2. The ACLU's concern is that this type of interrogation will be used on US citizens.
3. The ACLU is a private organization that can choose to take on the battles it finds to be important.
As a final point, your subject says "some people's rights but not others", but your argument seems to focus on "some rights and not others". There's a big difference.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
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
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 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 ----
"Baldwin's pro-Communist leanings lasted until 1939 when he was disillusioned by the Nazi-Soviet pact and broke off all radical ties"
Yes, that's what I said.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
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.
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)
Do you have any?
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.
that's ridiculous. The collectivity notion stems directly from the interpretation of 'militia.' The right to petition has no such clause.
Calling them hypocrites for not supporting gun rights, when they've come out and said "we don't believe gun control is unconstitutional" is sort of dumb. You're just being mad at them because they're named badly. You might as well be angry with Grape-Nuts cereal, which contains neither grapes nor nuts.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
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.
That's silly. First, the first phrase in the 2nd Amendment is merely informative -- it doesn't convey any rights, it merely outlines their reason for granting the right they're about to. Discussing the militia in the first part of the sentence doesn't modify the meaning of "the people" in the second part.
Otherwise, why wouldn't the writer just have said 'the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'? Or just shortened the whole thing and said "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, their right to bear arms shall not be infringed"?
No, it's pretty obvious that "the people" were introduced intentionally, and it's silly to assume that "the people" in the context of the 2nd Amendment refers to such a fundamentally different concept than the same word does when used in the 1st (and in all the other Amendments).
It's a two-part phrase; really it's not that complicated. The form is "[justification], [directive]." The whole bit about the militia doesn't change the essential fact that the Authors said "the right of the people...". If you want to change the meaning of that use of "people," then you necessarily have to be open to varying its meaning based on context elsewhere, and for reasons I've already pointed out, that's not something that most people want to do. In fact, it would be rather dangerous.
And while you may think my accusation of hypocrisy at the ACLU is merely sour grapes, I think it's far from it: the ACLU purports to defend 'civil liberties,' but in picking and choosing how they want to interpret the very documents that define civil liberties in this country in order to fit their preferences, it undermines their accountability as far as I'm concerned. If you can twist the meaning of a line so straightforward as the Second Amendment, then certainly you can't be trusted on other, far more complex issues.
Therefore I have no problem in using one's interpretation of the Second Amendment as a sort of litmus test for one's understanding of the Constitution, and of civil liberties generally. If you manage to fuck something that basic up, I don't even want to know what sort of a mess you're going to make of some of the higher-digit Amendments.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
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 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
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.
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.