Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lie Detector Company Threatens Critical Scientists With Suit

Posted by timothy on from the slapp-ing-them-around dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Swedish newspaper DN reports that the Israeli company Nemesysco has sent letters to researchers at the University of Stockholm, threatening legal action if they do not stop publishing findings (Google translation). An article called 'Charlatanry in forensic speech science: A problem to be taken seriously' was pulled by the publisher after threats of a libel lawsuit." Online translations can be a little wonky; if your Swedish is as bad as mine, this English-language article describes the situation well.

54 of 367 comments (clear)

  1. there are two enemies of science and progress by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. socially conservative politics

    2. intellectual property laws

    civilization is bettered in terms of happiness, health, and financial prosperity as long as the power of social conservatives and corporate oligarchy are held in check. certainly, there is now ay to ever completely defeat these forces, and they do actually do good some good in this world. but they must be eternally pruned, for in part sof the world where their power runs unchecked, corruption and classism, intolerance and tribalism take hold

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:there are two enemies of science and progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Text is here: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:4x3raI0CVjoJ:www.ling.gu.se/konferenser/iafpa2006/Abstracts/Eriksson_IAFPA%25202006.pdf+&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

      Contains:

      This is the html version of the file http://www.ling.gu.se/konferenser/iafpa2006/Abstracts/Eriksson_IAFPA%202006.pdf.
      Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
      Page 1
      Proceedings, IAFPA 2006, Department of Linguistics, Göteborg University
      Charlatanry and fraud - an increasing problem for forensic
      phonetics?
      Anders Eriksson
      Department of Linguistics, Göteborg University, Sweden
      anders.eriksson@ling.gu.se
      In my talk I will describe one case of charlatanry and one case of fraud in forensic phonetics.
      Charlatanry can take different forms. One type is when someone appears as an expert without
      having the necessary qualifications or no qualifications at all. Another form is when some kind of
      physical device is used or marketed which is based on principles for which there is no scientific
      support. This is nothing new. The use of voiceprints is a classical case of this type. Charlatans often
      exploit the fact that people are easily impressed by advanced technology. Today the methods are
      often claimed to have been made possible only because of recent advances in computer technology.
      The following two quotes may serve to illustrate my point: "enhanced by the rapid advancements in
      personal computer technology", "the worlds most advanced application of this core frequency
      based technology". This is how both products I will present here are described by those who market
      them although in reality they are very unsophisticated products from a technological point of view.
      By fraud I will refer to methods or devices based on principles which are so obviously false that
      there can be no doubt that the people who produce them or use them must be aware of it. The
      second example is of this kind.
      A lie detector which can reveal lie and deception in some automatic and perfectly reliable way is an
      old idea we have often met with in science fiction books and comic strips. This is all very well. It is
      when machines claimed to be lie detectors appear in the context of criminal investigations that we
      need to be concerned. Both examples presented here belong in this category. They are of particular
      interest for forensic phonetics because they are both said to be based on analysis of the human
      voice. The basic idea behind "lie detectors" based on voice analysis is that there are properties in
      the voice signal that may be reliably correlated with lie or deception.
      A gadget called Voice Stress Analyzer (VSA) or Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE) has a history
      that goes back to the seventies. In the sixties it was discovered that in larger muscles like the biceps
      there is involuntary tremor, called micro tremor, with a frequency in the 8 to 12 Hz range. This
      gave rise to speculations that the same phenomenon might be present in the larynx muscles and that
      it may affect the voice source frequency. In particular it was suggested that the tremor might vary
      as a function of stress in the speaker. Before anybody had a chance to investigate the possible
      occurrence of micro tremor in the voice, the first "lie detector" based micro tremor in the voice
      source appeared. (See. Rice, 1978). In the years to follow, many researchers tested voice stress
      analyzers based on these ideas, but with largely negative results. Hollien surveyed the literature in
      1987 and concluded that: "the ability of voice analyzers to detect stress from speech-or to identify
      spoken deception-have been negative or "mixed" in nature". He a

    2. Re:there are two enemies of science and progress by Toonol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some researchers published an article with an inflamatory title: "Charlatanry in forensic speech science: A problem to be taken seriously", and got sued for libel.

      There's nothing wrong with the title if they do indeed demonstrate that there is charlatanry in forensics speech science. It sounds like they did just that. There are times when an inflamatory-seeming word is still the correct word.

    3. Re:there are two enemies of science and progress by orclevegam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't about censorship or intellectual property laws, it's about a company protecting its image from mudslinging.

      Truth is an absolute defense to libel. Also if it can't be shown one way or another to be fact or not it's not libel as libel only concerns factual matters not opinions. If the paper is even reasonably well written they have little to worry about. What happened is they published a paper that shows the "science" behind lie detectors to be questionable at best, and a company that makes lie detectors threatened to sue them because the paper shows their product to be useless. A better approach (read more effective) would have been if they used the money they paid those lawyers to instead commission their own study of the effectiveness of lie detectors. This of course assumes that they actually believe in their own product, and don't already know it to be a scam.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    4. Re:there are two enemies of science and progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IIRC, embryonic stem cells have a tendency to be cancerous ...

      Sure, that's why embryos always die of cancer. Oh, wait, they actually don't.

      Are you really so simple-minded that you think that every possible therapy that might be developed using embryonic stem cell research will always increase the risk of cancer? It wouldn't surprise me if there was a specific therapy or class of therapies that increased cancer risk - but how can you possibly go from that to the radical generalization that all possible therapies that might ever be developed will carry a risk of cancer? Is it the crystal ball, again?

    5. Re:there are two enemies of science and progress by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Informative

      Charlatary : a person who makes false claims.

      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Charlatanry

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    6. Re:there are two enemies of science and progress by Miseph · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "If you read your socialist sources, this is the well known Israeli way."

      It's also, incidentally, the well known fascist way. I'm still waiting for the general public to catch on to that and stop accepting everything Israel does no matter how obviously wrong or oppressive just because they're afraid of being called anti-Semitic.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    7. Re:there are two enemies of science and progress by dwarg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please don't try to bring rational thought to a debate with an "Educated" liberal. I really don't need the headache that will surely ensue.

      Is that because they are unwilling to listen to your rationale, or because you are unwilling to listen to theirs?

      Chances are it's both so I don't see any solution myself, but giving up on talking to one another seems like a poor third option.

    8. Re:there are two enemies of science and progress by lgw · · Score: 5, Informative

      From TFA:

      By fraud I will refer to methods or devices based on principles which are so obviously false that
      there can be no doubt that the people who produce them or use them must be aware of it.

      Seems reasonable to me.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:there are two enemies of science and progress by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not so absolute, unfortunately. In the United States and (most of) Canada, you're covered. Plenty of other countries, it's not.

    10. Re:there are two enemies of science and progress by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Truth is an absolute defense to libel.

      Not everywhere. And you seem to be under the impression that people won't sue you if you're telling the truth. That simply doesn't matter: the more correct your accusations, the more money and lawyers they will throw at you. You may well be right ... but in the end, if what you are saying is sufficiently threatening to a litigious corporation, you'll be dead right.

      This is pretty bad, but nowhere near as bad as Taser Corporation intimidating forensic scientists and coroners to change their findings, if it so happens that a Taser kills someone. I mean, it's one thing if you shoot someone with a gun: no firearm manufacturer claims that its products are non-lethal. Taser does make that claim, and even though it is often false, they're using their lawyers to keep up the pretense.

      Evil is as evil does.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    11. Re:there are two enemies of science and progress by davecb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just to clarify: these are so-called "voice stress analyzers", not polygraphs. The latter are capable of producing enough data that a trained person can catch many lies, and are the devices commonly used by police, but are generally not accepted by courts as evidence. Some people can beat them, others conversely always seem to be lying.

      Voice stress analyzers measure a single weak indicator, and are quite capable of both false positives and negatives, irrespective of the expertise of the user. They're also easy to use covertly, such as over a telephone line. Add that to inaccuracy and you have a recipe for a disaster.

      --dave

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    12. Re:there are two enemies of science and progress by terjeber · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's also, incidentally, the well known fascist way

      The traditional division of political views on a scale from left to right has been absurd for at least 50 years, but even more so since 1990 and the collapse of totalitarian communism in USSR.

      It is far more useful to look at the scale as having individualism on the one and and collectivism on the other. If you divide politics in that manner, socialism and fascism is only marginally different, while liberal democracy is the total opposite whether it is the relatively left-wing Scandinavian kind or the more traditionally right-leaning US kind.

    13. Re:there are two enemies of science and progress by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just to clarify: these are so-called "voice stress analyzers", not polygraphs. The latter are capable of producing enough data that a trained person can catch many lies

      Even the accuracy of polygraphs is highly questionable. The false positive rate is too high to genuinely say they "catch" anyone under any reasonable definition. I'd have a pretty good chance of catching the 10 liars in a group of 50 if I just selected all the people who looked uncomfortable during questioning. That wouldn't make my method valid. Polygraphy only works by scaring people into telling the truth. It's nothing more than theater.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  2. Presumably, all the Swedish researchers need by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 5, Funny

    to refute this libel claim, is a lie detector test :-)

    Oh wait...

    --
    If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
    1. Re:Presumably, all the Swedish researchers need by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Lie detectors don't really detect lies. This girl I know has accused me of stalking her again and again after I asked her out; somebody told her he saw me following her around for 2 days afterwards, and she bought into it. She's taken it so seriously, she actually believes her own bullshit, straight through. Put us both on any sort of polygraph or other 'lie detector' and it'll read normal, for two conflicting stories.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    2. Re:Presumably, all the Swedish researchers need by ender8282 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Don't know the law in the EU but in the US it looks like making a statement in good faith or making a true statement are both defenses. This means that if the scientist has done a reasonable amount of research and believes that the machine is bogus then he will pass the test and wouldn't be held liable for libel.

    3. Re:Presumably, all the Swedish researchers need by thetorpedodog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But in the UK, if I'm not mistaken, the burden of proof lies on the accusedâ"that is to say, you have to prove that you're not being libelous (search the page for "burden of proof"). Asinine? Absolutely.

      --
      This sig is certified free of self-referential humour!
    4. Re:Presumably, all the Swedish researchers need by GooberToo · · Score: 5, Informative

      He's right. Lie detectors do not detect lies. They detect stress levels while making a statement which, when measured and compared against a previously established baseline, allows on to *estimate* truthfulness.

      The problem is, if you believe what you are saying is true, you can unknowingly tell a lie and pass.

      The problem is, if you feel no remorse or guilt when lying, you can tell a lie and pass.

      If your normal rest state is one of extreme stress, the difference between your baseline and "lie state" may not indicate you are lying when you are.

      Many types of drugs interfere with lie detectors.

      Lie detectors are not very reliable. There are good reasons lie detectors are not admissible in court. They still make for good investigative tools. Many police detectives do not understand how flawed and easily fooled lie detectors truly are. They are a good tool, that's it.

  3. Streisand effect strikes again by Zironic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder when companies will realize that trying to silence people in this modern age will just lead to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

    1. Re:Streisand effect strikes again by Zironic · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was a British journal.

    2. Re:Streisand effect strikes again by JustinOpinion · · Score: 4, Informative

      I also find it funny, and sad, that a Swedish entity caved so easily to a legal threat from outside the country (and from outside the country's legal system).

      To be clear: the researchers are Swedish, but the publisher which caved to the legal threat was in the UK (Equinox). From TFA:

      In the autumn, Equinox, the British publisher of the magazine, were canvassed by the Israeli company Nemesysco Limited, a manufacturer of lie detectors. Following this the company demanded that the article be withdrawn, which the publishers duly did.

      Your point remains: it's sad that a UK publisher caved so easily to what appears to be a rather baseless accusation. (The article isn't libelous; merely factual.) Luckily the Swedish researchers are doing a good job distributing the information anyways.

  4. english article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.thelocal.se/17188/20090127/

  5. A Simple Solution by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Forget the lawsuits. Ask the researchers if they'd be willing to be connected to the lie detectors and to then testify that their research and conclusions were made in good faith.

    If the detectors indicate a lie, the situation doesn't really change. But if the detectors do not indicate a lie, the manufacturer is pretty well cornered.

    1. Re:A Simple Solution by Asmor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that if the lie detector says the scientists are telling the truth, the company can either:

      1. Publicly admit that the scientists are telling the truth.

      2. Publicly claim that the scientists are lying and, thus, also publicly admit that their own lie detectors are faulty.

    2. Re:A Simple Solution by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Keep in mind that the company is not merely disputing the results of the research. They are claiming libel, which requires maliciousness or deception on the part of the researchers.

    3. Re:A Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Keep in mind that the company is not merely disputing the results of the research. They are claiming libel, which requires maliciousness or deception on the part of the researchers.

      That is true in the USA and most civilized countries, but not in the UK.

      The UK is the easiest place to sue someone for libel and win.

  6. Clench your toes and hold your breath. by Cathoderoytube · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's apparently fairly easy to fool a lie detector, and it's gotten to the point now where lie detector tests can't be submitted as evidence in court because they're so unreliable. Mind you, they still have a use on Maury to determine who's been cheating on who. That's always entertaining.

    --
    I have nothing compelling to say
    1. Re:Clench your toes and hold your breath. by dk90406 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are thinking about the normal sweat and heart rate measuring detectors. The article is about voice stress analysis detectors.
      Insurance companies are using your voice over the phone, to test if your are lying. Strangely the companies claim that most of their customers are.
      Go figure...

    2. Re:Clench your toes and hold your breath. by gandhi_2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      gotten to the point now where

      It got that point sometime in the 1920's in almost all states, since polygraphs didn't meet the Frye Standard for evidence. Basically, in the scientific community at-large thinks you are full of shit, you are de-fact full of shit.

      Now we use the Daubert Standard, that looks at relevance and peer-reviewed reliability.

      --
      THL phish sticks
    3. Re:Clench your toes and hold your breath. by gandhi_2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I am sort of paraphrasing the Frye standard...not talking about my beliefs. I'm not saying anything.

      I take the Frye standard's meaning to agree with you and the researchers. Scientists always doubted ploygraphic evidence...that's why it was inadmissible in so many courts.

      general consensus among the scientific community at large agrees on the dangers of the literally mind boggling self-prevailing power of dominating discourses

      You just said that the general consensus is that general consensuses are dangerous.

      --
      THL phish sticks
  7. E-meter by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess it's back to using an E-meter or flipping a coin to see who is telling the truth. :)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter

  8. I have some software for you. by professorguy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    My poly-layered ectoplasmic analysis software measures 22 parameters of ESP in real-time for psychics. It's accuracy is not proven, but it lets psychics more quickly pinpoint where there are problems in psychic emanations. Officiating psychics can zero in much more quickly with their traditional testing techniques.

    .

    Hey, look! I can blast buzzwords and pretend my software works too!

    So how much would you pay? Wait, don't answer because this can flash the overall value for each parameter in a separate window! Now how much would you pay?

    ...boneheads...

  9. Abstract... by BigGar' · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the abstract of the article from http://www.equinoxjournals.com/ojs/index.php/IJSLL/article/view/3775

    ABSTRACT

    A lie detector which can reveal lie and deception in some automatic and perfectly reliable way is an old idea we have often met with in science fiction books and comic strips. This is all very well. It is when machines claimed to be lie detectors appear in the context of criminal investigations or security applications that we need to be concerned. In the present paper we will describe two types of âoedeceptionâ or âoestress detectors" (euphemisms to refer to what quite clearly is known as âoelie detectorsâ). Both types of detection are claimed to be based on voice analysis but we found no scientific evidence to support the manufacturersâ(TM) claims. Indeed, our review of scientific studies will show that these machines perform at chance level when tested for reliability. Given such results and the absence of scientific support for the underlying principles it is justified to view the use of these machines as charlatanry and we argue that there are serious ethical and security reasons to demand that responsible authorities and institutions should not get involved in such practices.

    I wasn't able to find a copy of the paper itself.

    --


    Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
    1. Re:Abstract... by Improv · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This isn't moral judgement. It's a normal conclusion based on their research. Things like this happen all the time in science - it would not be at all out of place in the conclusions part of their paper.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  10. Underlying technology by RDW · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's probably because the scientists' bullshit detector infringed on Nemesysco's patents.

  11. Should be pulled off the market.. by kabocox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know lie detectors have only been more of toys or threats than really useful tools. A trained questioner doesn't need a lie detector. A lie detector is more for them to let you know that they are almost positive that you've lied on the subject.

    There are folks that want lie detectors to work like in the movies or have it on their cell phones so that they know when the other person is lying. They'd hate to have it used on them though. I have news for you.

    Everyone has a built-in lie detector. It's just how well that it's been trained to work. How would the world be different if we gave elementary school kids the same questioning for lies tools that are usually taught to police detectives? Short answer; not too different. They'd just know faster when the teachers are lost and clueless, and any attempts to bring new information that you know the teacher doesn't have would just be punished faster. We would get politicians that are even better at lying though.

  12. Re:How it works... by powerlord · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nemesysco's Poly-Layered Voice Analysis measures 18 parameters of speech in real-time for interrogators at police, military and secret-services agencies. Its accuracy as a lie detector has proven to be less important than its ability to more quickly pinpoint for interrogators where there are problems in a subject's story. Officers then can zero in much more quickly with their traditional interrogation techniques.

    The software measures voice for a variety of parameters including deception, excitement, stress, mental effort, concentration, hesitation, anger, love and lust. It works prerecorded, over the phone and live, the company said. V Entertainment recommends it for screening phone calls, checking the truthfulness of people with whom you deal or gauging romantic interest.

    The display can show each measured parameter in a separate window, with real-time traces of instantaneous measurements while flashing the overall for each parameter, such as "false probable," "high stress" and "SOS." Ultimately, the company plans to offer versions of its detectors for cell phones, dating services, teaching aids, toys and games.

    Interesting. I wonder how it measures up to method acting. ... and politicians.

    I can imagine someone taking a politicians speech and running it through this sort of analysis, especially since it can use recorded audio.

    Heck, start by computing a baseline and run through recordings of previous Presidents, working your way toward the current administration.

    I expect it would make for a very interesting paper (and I expect a footnote, you can contact me for proper attribution. No grant money kickback necessary, but if you need a data-cruncher, I'd be happy to help. :) )

    --
    This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  13. Ever take one of these? by scotts13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ever take a lie detector test? Years back, a prospective employer sent me for one. Unlike most people, I actually read the release they asked me to sign, and discovered: 1. I'd be giving up the right to challenge the results of the test, by any manner, and 2. The testing agency reserved the right to sell the results of the test, good or bad, to ANYONE, in perpetuity. Does this sound ethical, or as though they trust their own test? I told them to stuff the test, and the job. The next day, I was called about the position, and explained I could not, in conscience, acquiesce to the polygraph test. They said, "Oh, don't worry about that, we get it if we can, but it doesn't mean anything. Welcome aboard!"

    1. Re:Ever take one of these? by unixluv · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are exceptions in the Federal Government (including DOD) that allows it.

      Evidently, former President George "Stalin" Bush thought it was a good idea to expand the program.

      http://antipolygraph.org/blog/?p=212

      --
      Overrated, Troll, and Flamebait mod points are not to be used towards posts you disagree with. That IS censorship.
  14. Re:How it works... by Silentknyght · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nemesysco's Poly-Layered Voice Analysis... measures voice for a variety of parameters including deception, excitement, stress, mental effort, concentration, hesitation, anger, love and lust. It works prerecorded... Ultimately, the company plans to offer versions of its detectors for cell phones, dating services, teaching aids, toys and games.

    Interesting. I wonder how it measures up to method acting.

    Screw that, you're really just curious if that phone sex girl is into you or not.

    Am I the only one who was expecting a statement from Nemesysco advertising "Our products are for entertainment purposes only." ?

  15. Lie detectors are ruining the Torture Industry! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

    If lie detectors *really* worked, we wouldn't have to torture so many people, would we? We'd just hook them up to the lie detector, and ask them questions, like, "Will the LHC discover the Higgs boson?", and then we would know if they were guilty or not.

    The US could close down Guantanamo in a fortnight.

    But then the Torture Industry would need a bailout.

    Or maybe the Torture Industry should just get a cut of every lie detector sold?

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Lie detectors are ruining the Torture Industry! by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Torture doesn't work either except as a tool to get somebody to admit to things you've already decided you want them to admit to or as a tool of terror. That is why the KGB used it. One classic is the guy that admitted to blowing up more trains than the USSR had at the time. Another classic is the "evidence" of Saddams involvement in 911 being the ravings of a drowning man and getting presented to the UN to show the world that the US administration no longer cared about truth or the rule of law.

  16. There is no such thing as a "Lie Detector" by jeko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Polygraphs, voice stress analyzers, coin flips, sticking your hand in the statue's mouth and Scientology's "E-Meters" all share the same validity in catching lies -- basically none. It's all pretend "science" with cool moving needles and wires, but you might as well be watching a seismograph for all the good it does you. It simply gives government agencies and insurance companies an excuse to call you a liar. "Hey, don't look at me, the MACHINE says you're lying..."

    Now FOX has this propaganda puff piece for the TSA called "Lie to Me" going where an actor I like is helping spread nonsense I can't stand.

    Can you imagine the revolution society would undergo if "voice stress analyzers" actually worked? "I did not have sex with that woman!" BZZZ! "Saddam Hussein is building nuclear weapons!" BZZZ! "The 700 billion will be wisely spent!" BZZZZ! "I was misquoted!" BZZZ!

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
    1. Re:There is no such thing as a "Lie Detector" by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Polygraphs, voice stress analyzers, coin flips, sticking your hand in the statue's mouth and Scientology's "E-Meters" all share the same validity in catching lies -- basically none. It's all pretend "science" with cool moving needles and wires, but you might as well be watching a seismograph for all the good it does you. It simply gives government agencies and insurance companies an excuse to call you a liar. "Hey, don't look at me, the MACHINE says you're lying..."

      Oh, all those things (including the seismograph) can have quite a bit of validity at catching lies... if the person being interrogated believes they are valid lie-catchers. As a psychological tool in the hands of an interrogator skilled in the 'old fashioned' method of detecting lies, they can be quite handy.

      That's about the only use a polygraph has. Enough people don't know what crocks they are that they may be convinced that their lies have been or will be discovered by the machine and spill the truth. I've even heard of a detective faking it by using a non-functional box, with a concealed switch that made red and green lights come on. He made it flash red when he thought the suspect was lying, and well he was right enough that the suspect panicked and confessed.

      Of course, if an empty box and a hand switch work equally well as the 'real thing', that kinda defeats the need for polygraph vendors and their expensive toys. Thus this kind of lawsuit.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:There is no such thing as a "Lie Detector" by greg_barton · · Score: 4, Informative

      Now FOX has this propaganda puff piece for the TSA called "Lie to Me" going...

      Have you actually watched the show? If anything there's constant disdain for lie detectors and other mechanical lie detection techniques, favoring microexpression interpretation. I'd hardly call it propaganda, just a cross between "The Mentalist" type shows and CSI.

  17. Re:How it works... by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My point is that this isn't lying, it's the listener lying to himself about what he heard... When Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down this Wall!" he wasn't lying about his unwillingness to tear down the wall himself, he was just phrasing his position in such a way the made everyone hear "OMG Reagan promises to defeat teh sovs!" when in fact Reagan was taking responsibility for no action on his part.

    Just the same, when Obama says "Yes we can close Guantanamo!" he isn't promising to do a goddamn thing, he's just phrasing his aspirations for what America could do in such a way that people hear "OMG Barack is gonna close gitmo!"

    This is not lying, and treating it like it is is just victimology of the voter against eeeeeeevil politicians.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  18. Re:How it works... by orclevegam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Am I the only one who was expecting a statement from Nemesysco advertising "Our products are for entertainment purposes only." ?

    They couldn't do that as their major contracts are with military, intelligence, and police organizations. Labeling their product as an entertainment device would be to more or less admit that the paper is correct and most likely cost them all of their contracts (and future sales).

    --
    Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  19. Re:How it works... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    V Entertainment recommends it for ... gauging romantic interest.

    Because a relationship built on a situation where you knowingly or surreptitiously subject your partner's speech to a voice analysis to determine if they like or love you is bound for success, right?

  20. Re:How it works... by h4rm0ny · · Score: 3, Informative


    Hey now! I had a friend who used to work as a phone sex operator (genuinely). She was not unattractive. She did, however, read clothing catalogues whilst conducting phone sessions. Presumably a let down to know she was choosing cardigans whilst you got off.

    --

    Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  21. Oh yes that's lying! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just the same, when Obama says "Yes we can close Guantanamo!" he isn't promising to do a goddamn thing, he's just phrasing his aspirations for what America could do in such a way that people hear "OMG Barack is gonna close gitmo!"

    This is not lying, and treating it like it is is just victimology of the voter against eeeeeeevil politicians.

    That is absolutely lying! We're talking about natural language communication here, not a programming language. Words and phrases have meaning that are not necessarily the sum of their individual parts, there is context involved that guides the necessary interpretation of both sides. As in, pedantic literal interpretation is not, and has never been, the sole judge of the meaning of a sentence.

    When the words spoken by a speaker are designed to convey a certain meaning to the listeners, and the listeners receive that meaning, then we call that successful communication. When that correctly conveyed meaning is deliberately false, that's a fucking lie!

    When the speaker also designs their words to leave themselves a semantic escape valve so they can claim to have meant something else later, that doesn't mean they weren't lying, it means they knew they were lying and thus needed the out!

    When Obama said "Yes we can close Gitmo", everyone correctly interpreted that to mean that if he were elected, he would close Gitmo. That is the meaning he obviously intended to convey. If he doesn't close it, then that's a lie*. And if he defended himself by saying that all he had meant was he thought it was something America could do hypothetically, then that makes him a double liar because that obviously is not the message he intended to convey when he spoke!

    The only people who think that isn't lying are:
    1) People who've sacrificed reason itself on the Altar of Pedantry.
    2) Liars who are lying about it not being lying and just like being able to use semantics to escape from obvious lies.

    I refuse to sacrifice my ability to detect lies covered with such a thin ruse to either group of people.

    * So far so good on this count, but of course I won't be happy until the thing is really truly closed.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:Oh yes that's lying! by iluvcapra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you're arguing for complete solipcism in language, and that people should be held responsible for what their listeners conclude. and not what they themselves say.

      It's not about natural language. You're arguing that voters shouldn't be required to think critically about the things they hear, and that everybody gets to just sorta "decide" all subjectively what the speaker meant. I think you're giving voters an out clause to claim at any time that "politicians lie" because they weren't able to deliver the fruits of the voters' own self-delusion.

      Just open your ears and listen to what people are actually saying. It isn't a lie if you can tease the meaning of a sentence by reading it on the page. Anything less and you just turn into a mob singing slogans, like "Drill Baby Drill!" or "Yes We Can!" That's when people really begin to act like robots (speaking of programming languages...)

      Relatedly, good administrators, in government, business, the military are able to consolidate the will of many into aspirational goals, in such a way that everyone marches together, and no one starts the backbiting and recriminations when some arbitrary marker is not crossed. Letting people know what you want and getting them to help you regardless of the setbacks is kinda the heart of leadership. Not everything in the world is some quid-pro-quo where the leader says "obey me and you'll get a chicken," and then if you don't get the chicken you get to toss the leader over (viz. France thru the 19th century, or Germany between the wars). That's pretty shitty political theory, and it's not how a healthy political system works.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  22. Re:How it works... by sremick · · Score: 5, Funny

    Presumably a let down to know she was choosing cardigans whilst you got off.

    That's ok, I was on the other end reading Slashdot. So we're even.

  23. Re:How it works... by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Funny

    Presumably a let down to know she was choosing cardigans whilst you got off.

    That's ok, I was on the other end reading Slashdot. So we're even.

    Not really. You're out 3.95/min