Slashdot Mirror


DHS To Use Body Odor As a Lie Detector

The US Department of Homeland Security is studying lies, damned lies, and smells. They hope to prove that human body odor could be used to tell when people are lying. The department says they are already "conducting experiments in deceptive behavior and collecting human odor samples" and that the research it hopes to fund "will consist primarily of the analysis and study of the human odor samples collected to determine if a deception indicator can be found."

45 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Something stinks around here by sgbett · · Score: 4, Funny

    They could be lining this up as the replacement for UAC!

    --
    Invaders must die
  2. Fix the thumbnail, sam.. by Swift+Kick · · Score: 2, Informative

    It breaks the main page.
    C'mon, it's not that hard to resize it before posting.

    --
    "We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
  3. Hello, is that an armpit hoover? by Ronald+Dumsfeld · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hello, is that an armpit hoover? Or are you just pleased to see me?

    I always make an effort to shower or bathe before I have a flight, especially if it is long-haul.

    Now, I don't particularly care for the idea of a 'lie-sniffer', as it is just more tin-foil-hattery from leeches who can demand government funding to 'fight teh terrorists'. However, if they keep the guy that is a couple of hundred pounds overweight, and hasn't washed for a week, off the plane - I'll be happy.

    --
    Where's the Kaboom?
    There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
  4. Best reply by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I take the 5th amendment" or "I choose to remain silent"

    Don't give the government anything, else they will use it later to entrap you or jail you. The right to free speech also includes the right to be quiet.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:Best reply by howardd21 · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is great if you have time to be escorted to the security area for further questioning and investigation, but they are not going to let you get on a plane with that answer.

      --
      no comment
    2. Re:Best reply by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      Give me the freedom/comfort of a car any day.

      Be careful, some of our more extremist friends on the left want to take that freedom away from you too. We should tax gasoline until it's $5/gal and force everybody to ride mass transit that may or may not exist, don't you know?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Best reply by xelah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, okay, but here's the simple fact: DHS pulls aside for additional questioning or searches fewer than 10% of all passengers. If you don't want to be searched or questioned, simply don't give them a reason to do so.

      That may be OK individually, but generally (not just with smells and aeroplanes) it's a dangerous route to go down collectively. Only a few are questioned, so everyone tries to conform to what they think the authorities consider normal. So the authorities lower their thresholds and then everyone becomes even more conforming, etc. It leads to everyone 'self-censoring' their behaviour to some degree to please government and security guard's prejudices.....it's far better for people to feel secure against unreasonable harrassment. It's not that your suggestion is necessarily bad - but if you can be bothered with baking soda then you ought to also be bothered opposing it politically.

    4. Re:Best reply by xaxa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Going with Google Maps' predictions, he drove for about 12 hours straight, a distance of 785 miles.

      Land's End, Cornwall (the most south-westerly point of Great Britain) to Inverness (most northerly city in Scotland) is only 730 miles.

      Many people in the UK would fly that distance -- though it would be awkward, both places are very remote. But our alternative -- a train, with lots of legroom, space for luggage, a table, a power point for your laptop, a toilet etc -- doesn't really exist in the USA, outside a few locations.

      (A train from Land's End (Penzance) to Inverness takes 14 hours, or 16 hours if you take a sleeper train overnight.)

    5. Re:Best reply by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And that's one of the key reasons I don't fly (unless I'm going a long distance). It's too damned inconvenient. I'd rather just drive my own car, which gives me lots of legroom, lots of space for luggage, and my own personal stereo system for music or books-on-ipod listening.

      I'm so glad I"m not the only one who does this - co-workers look at me like I'm crazy when I say I'm driving instead of flying (up to 12-14 hours is my 'reasonable limit').

      Between the hassle of "security", the cramped seats designed for people 6 inches shorter than me, the noise, being treated like cattle and the hundred other little things that make flying absolutely detestable... it's worth an extra couple-few hours of my time to enjoy my travel in comfort. I do take a mid- to high-end rental though, instead of my car - that lets me justify it to the company as being cheaper than a plane ticket anyway.

  5. Consumer version, please ... by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny

    After all, it would be nice to be able to say that Office Depot's policy of lying to customers literally STINKS!

    So how are they going to calibrate this?

    Your Stink-o-Lie-Meter
    1. Kid with hand in cookie jar
    10. Madoff with hand in cookie jar
    66. Used car salesman
    666: Bush "They Have WMDs" salesman
    2. "No, the dress doesn't make you look fat."
    0. "It's not the dress."
    9. "It's not the dress, and I ENJOY sleeping on the couch!"
    4. It's a bug (it's not a "bug" - it didn't crawl in on its' own volition - fess up and admit you made a mistake).
    40. It's a feature.
    0. "They're real." (It's none of your business, Jack!)
    9. "I didn't forget your birthday."
    500. "We have a plan to deal with the current financial crisis" - ANY POLITICIAN - we KNOW you're just making this sh*t up as you go along.
    499. "Bankruptcy is not an option." - GM head honcho Ron Wagoner

    1. Re:Consumer version, please ... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      99999 - "*I* *did* *not* *have* sexual relations with *that* *woman*!"

    2. Re:Consumer version, please ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      99999 - "*I* *did* *not* *have* sexual relations with *that* *woman*!"

      So you think that Clinton's lie about a blowjob was more than 150 times as bad as Bush's lie about WMDs?

      Dear God.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Consumer version, please ... by bdenton42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, yes it was. Clinton is smart and knew he was mincing words. Bush has never shown such adeptness and may have been completely clueless about it rather than deceptive.

  6. A pack of dogs by mc1138 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just looking to smell the fear on you. Will it be able to tell if someone is actually lying or just really nervous that they're being questioned by a federal agency?

    1. Re:A pack of dogs by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 3, Informative

      Will they care? The primary motivation is arrest statistics, and acting nervous infront of a federal agent is, by itself, probably enough for that.

    2. Re:A pack of dogs by yttrstein · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It won't be able to reliably tell anything about anyone, except perhaps that they were a little bit nervous about something, just *exactly* the same way current lie detectors do.

      The problem with lie detection, as quite a number of people have said endlessly over the years, is that the assumption is made that a lie is something that somehow the body has a physiological problem with. Clearly this is swan songs of morality, as amorphous and dynamic as they are, being applied directly to the human nervous system, and somehow people are surprised to discover that there hasn't been a lie detector in the world that's been proven unquestionably to work at all.

    3. Re:A pack of dogs by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      How can you doubt our national intelligence agencies when they have "intelligence" right in their name?!?!? I predict this will be their most effective law enforcement and intelligence tool since the U.S. government created the Stargate Project. It's tax dollars well spent!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  7. Re:Should be cheap! by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >>>All they need to collect the samples is already at hand.

    It just dawned on me. Collecting "scent samples" is the same thing the East German government did. For every citizen. Is Homeland Security taking us down that same road?

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  8. I thought the US had stopped French-bashing by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2, Funny
    This stuff about body odour is clearly an attack on the French.

    Since France is about to join NATO (which of course they call OTAN) this could lead to serious diplomatic incidents.

    "You, Sir, are a dirty liar! The machine says so!"

    "Sale espece de cochon, I have simply had snails in garlic with a bottle of Burgundy for lunch."

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  9. A little joke to make you think by fmachado · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Brazil and Argentina have historical disputes over who is the "best" on South America. Obviously it leads to some funny jokes on either side.

    One closely related to USA auto induced paranioa state of mind says that an "argentino" and a "brasileiro" found a lamp. The argentino rubbed the lamp first but the brasileiro hold the lamp for him to do it. A genius emerged and saw the problem immediately: he could not grant 3 wishes, one of them would get 2 wishes and other 1. So he granted 2 wishes, one for each of them. Since the argentino rubbed the lamp first, he wished a great wall would appear on all Argentina frontiers so they could be isolated from the bad interference of their neighbors, being Argentina the greatest nation of all. Wish granted, the genius made a wall one mile high around all Argentina. Next the genius asked the brazilian what was his wish. He asked the genius before anything if the Argentina's wall was really high and resistant. The genius answered that nothing could break that wall. The brasileiro asked immediately: fill it with water.

    USA is almost asking for problems when they think all the world want to attck them when USA is the most common attacker or influencer on all wars from World War II and later. They must take care with what they wish: it can be granted.

    Disclaimer: I'm brazilian, so the joke is biased.

    1. Re:A little joke to make you think by fmachado · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok, let me explain some things: yes, I used genius word wrongly, should be "genie" (in portuguese they are translated to the same word, sorry).

      Second: about USA position as being the bigger influencer and/or attacker since WWII. Can you just count WWI as 1 conflict and count all big conflicts that happened from WWII up to today? I was trying to say that almost every conflict from 1945 to now has USA deeply entrenched or playing behind curtains. Say Vietnan, Korea, Iraq (2 times), Israel, Lebanon (helping Israel), Afghanistan (2 times), Cold War (ok, not a conflict, just almost one, god bless), and whatever conflict you choose (with exception to some tribe conflicts on Africa). Are you sure any other nation, even old Soviet Union or new Russia or Israel can stand above USA in this infamous dispute?

      Ok, let's see: Vietnan started as a French conflict, but USA got there (objective: get mineral resources); Afghanistan started with Russia but USA got there to counter all the influence from Russia (Cold War) and got there again after some towers got down; Kuwait (I was forgetting it) got invaded by Iraq and USA (wanting to ensure oil would not get too expensive and to keep it available) got there; then, after some towers got down, USA decide it was time to fake some reports and go after Iraq again (to get all oil this time); Nicaragua, Panama and Grenada was there just to counter URSS. See, not even the Soviets could ever get close to USA. And I did not count all Israel backing on every conflict they got involved. Like I said, every major conflict known to us has USA in some "privileged" position or playing "World Police" (see North Korea, Libia and a lot of others).

      My intention was to show that a paranoid state is not a good response but an expected one from a country that made a lot of enemies and consider eveyone as potential enemy. The better response should not be "every stranger is a potential terrorist" but "let's try to smooth things out" with everyone you can. Good faith and a real demonstration of change can make wonders in destroying terrorist arguments that USA is the representative of Satan on earth (an argument used a lot by terrorists). People all over the world got on USA side cause they were the victims on 09/11 events. The terrorists got arguments of being victims (at least for the population they wanted to influence) when Iraq got attacked for nothing more than oil greed, for example.

      I'm not on the side of the terrorists in any way, they are wrong on every aspect, in my opinion. What I'm trying to show is that excluding all the world and making everyone suspicious of trying to destroy USA is not the answer. You can get your wish granted (by a GENIE or by everyone else) and people just exclude USA too. Bad for everyone, worse for USA.

      Sorry for any other language or expression error I did, english is NOT my main language (brazilian portuguese is, for reference).

  10. Beanz meanz fartz by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they want odour, let them have it, full throttle. Eat chilli beans with garlic and cream cheese (or whatever supercharges your afterburner) a few hours before boarding a flight.
    "I fart in your general direction! In fact, I fart uncontrollably in all directions!"

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:Beanz meanz fartz by jimicus · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can be denied entry onto a flight for any reason whatsoever - even "the security inspector x-raying your hand luggage didn't get laid last night".

  11. Same as always by aepervius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Polygraph, and other assorted gadget do NOT detect lie. Ever. What they possibly detect is stress, (fear and its little cousin nervousness for example) which in some case may or may not be correlated to a lie. It is all based on putting the idea that "it works" in the mind of people it tests, and indeed sometimes law enforcement get confession from people (they CAN use the confession but may not use any lie detector crap, and recently even that was put under fire). There isn't really a good scientific background on it The Lie behind the lie detector.

    Using odor instead of breathing heart beat and so on will not bring anymore science is this than pissing into a violin and expecting a concerto.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Same as always by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lie detectors of all types detect if you think you are lying and are stressed by this more than you were in the "control" part of the test ....

      So if a lie is detected you could be
          a) lying
          b) think you are lying, but mistaken
          c) more stressed for other reasons

      and if a lie is not detected you could be
          a) telling the truth
          b) think you are telling the truth, but mistaken
          c) as stressed for other reasons as in the control
          d) no worried that you are lying, and so not stressed
          e) using one of the anti-lie detector methods that have been shown to work ...

      Note an operator has to be trained to use a polygraph because they have to use subjective assessment to avoid false positives and negatives: i.e. the testing is a subjective opionion

      Most studies of lie detectors are done by lie detector manufacturers, and surprisingly they all seem to come to the conclusion they are reliable and foolproof

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    2. Re:Same as always by Hoplite3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's also worth noting that the lie detector has been involved in securing many FALSE confessions. DNA evidence later exhonerates the poor soul, but the lie detector was an important part of convincing him to sign the confession.

      It's not just that the like detector is unscientific, it's that it is used to railroad people into confessing, rather than finding the truth.

      --
      Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
    3. Re:Same as always by TheSpoom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The DHS doesn't care. They just want a pseudoscience that can be used to detain people who don't do what they want.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    4. Re:Same as always by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the suspect thinks it works, it mgiht be useful for that reason alone.

      Police put the words "He's lying" in a copy machine, and stuck a colander with some wires on a suspect's head, and pressed the copy button whenever they thought he was lying - and got him to confess!

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  12. Re:it might work in some situations.. by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Funny

    Welcome to the Gitmo halitosis holding area. In order to pass your odor testing, you'll be required to eat only TexMex food for the next 21 days. If after that time you still fail, you'll be given permanent quarters on the other side of the facility.

    You newcomers should take note. nobody likes terrorists. To show support of American, this holding area is sponsored by Scott bathroom tissue and The Fox news network. Please try to avoid shitting yourself stupid.

  13. DHS Emulates East Germany's Stasi by George+Maschke · · Score: 3, Informative

    As the co-founder of a website dedicated to exposing and ending waste, fraud, and abuse associated with supposed "lie detectors," I think this project stinks. It's redolent of the old East German secret police -- the Stasi -- who maintained a "smell register" of dissidents. For a short video commentary, see Smellograph.

    --

    George W. Maschke
    AntiPolygraph.org

    1. Re:DHS Emulates East Germany's Stasi by dargaud · · Score: 2, Informative

      the Stasi who maintained a "smell register" of dissidents

      It's visible in use in the excellent and highly recommended film The lives of others.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
  14. DHS should pay a visit to the US congress... by dogganos · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... There's the smell they are looking for.

  15. Re:detection speed by rabbitfood · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Depending on the sort of molecule they're sniffing for, and the detection method, traces in the parts-per-billion range can be detected almost instantly. The limitation is often the speed at which you can get a billion bits of air through your nozzle - or the wind-speed your detection method can withstand. Honeybees, for example, make good detectors in some circumstances, but get miffed in moderate breezes and refuse to work at all if you blow their antennae off.

    However, even if they have to parcel up the smells and post them to a lab in Wisconsin, it'll still be quicker and probably cheaper than six years in Cuba.

    As for usefulness, I don't think that's the point. It's not meant to be useful, it's meant to give the government a justification for the presumption of guilt. Although the Bill of Rights and the Majesty of the Law are worthy of respect, they are historical throwbacks that aren't always appropriate for a fast-changing world. Any device that can improve the efficiency of justice, even indirectly, must be welcomed by hard-pressed taxpayers.

  16. Re:Should be cheap! by silentsteel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Um, no. Every creature on earth has an unique scent. Scent will actually come out of a human being, or other "game" in cone shaped form. This is why search and rescue units will work a patch of land moving in the expected cone shape (based on what the dog picks up) when trailing a victim in a search. I have done search and rescue and that is the logic they use because it works. The first thing they do when a new volunteer comes on is show them how it works. Tracking, what you were referring to, also uses the same concept but, with the individual scent being left by brushing against the ground itself.

    In a nutshell, this scares the hell out of me.

    --
    I cut it three times, and it's still too short.
  17. Re:Something stinks around here by Chyeld · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it sad that even after all these years and having actually been forced to upgrade to Vista, I still think of this UAC when people talk about it?

  18. Life imitating... er... life? by MrNemesis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is just precious - the Stasi in the GDR (east germany to most) did exactly the same thing with their suspects.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,484561,00.html
    http://scent-lab.blogspot.com/2008/07/body-odor-preserved-and-exhibited-at.html

    People being interrogated would frequently be asked to sit with their palms face down on a piece of cloth, usually stuck to the chair. After the interrogation, the cloth would be removed and placed in a jar for later analysis. I don't believe it's ever been admissible as evidence in any western court, but that's obviously what the whole DHS "proof" is all about.

    Quite why one would invest so many resources in this when fingerprints and DNA are already reliable forms of identification I don't know, and I strongly suspect that the "indicator" of deception will be flawed for much the same reasons the results of a polygraph are flawed - I can understand how someone who's stressed might well emit a different sort of sweat than someone who's just hot, but trying to define a "liars sweat" reeks (hohoho) of pseudoscience to me.

    Who knows, maybe there's something in it, maybe the article is making too much of things, maybe I've got my paranoid hat on. But it still seems worryingly like the whole "this man is the serial killer cos his writing is all weird" argument to me.

    --
    Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
  19. Truth by bartoku · · Score: 4, Funny

    The new fragrance by Calvin Klein.

  20. DHS has too much money by Intron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they have enough money to do this project, why haven't we cut their budget yet?

    --
    Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
  21. Re:it might work in some situations.. by Comboman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Lawyer: I refer you to the case of Smelt It vs Dealt It.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  22. Re:Should be cheap! by silentsteel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For those that are wondering why this would scare me, coming from the perspective of search and rescue: Well-trained dogs who get the scent from something that the person they are searching for was physically touching at some point recent to the search, will hit on that person 999 times out of 1000. The prospect of a scent being put into a database to be pulled out by an algorithm leaves the possibility that there could be massive error before a dog ever gets to scent off of the sample. Or they could use a machine, and I for one do not trust a machine to be right 99.9 percent of the time, in a situation like this.

    --
    I cut it three times, and it's still too short.
  23. Re:Something stinks around here by stewbacca · · Score: 4, Funny

    I went to a Magic, the Gathering regional tournament. The place was packed with liars! Same goes for the local comic book store, evidently.

  24. Re:Something stinks around here by Ackmo · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am allergic to every deodorant/antiperspirant I've ever tried that actually worked.

    Liar.

  25. Re:it might work in some situations.. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Funny

    Objection! I move for immediate dismissal on the grounds of He Who Said the Rhyme Did the Crime!

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  26. Oh Bugger, thats the end of /. then by Barsteward · · Score: 2, Funny

    everyone will be found to be lying....

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  27. To paraphrase Buckaroo Banzai: by ClosedSource · · Score: 2, Funny

    You can check your anatomy all you want, and even though there may be normal variation, when it comes right down to it, this far inside pseudoscience it all looks the same.