Slashdot Mirror
Thermal Imaging Lie Detector In Development
beaverdownunder writes with this quote from the BBC:
"A sophisticated new camera system can detect lies just by watching our faces as we talk, experts say. The computerized system uses a simple video camera, a high-resolution thermal imaging sensor and a suite of algorithms. ... It successfully discriminates between truth and lies in about two-thirds of cases, said lead researcher Professor Hassan Ugail from Bradford University. ... We give our emotions away in our eye movements, dilated pupils, biting or pressing together our lips, wrinkling our noses, breathing heavily, swallowing, blinking and facial asymmetry. And these are just the visible signs seen by the camera. Even swelling blood vessels around our eyes betray us, and the thermal sensor spots them too."
You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down...
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Tyrell: Is this to be an empathy test? Capillary dilation of the so-called blush response? Fluctuation of the pupil. Involuntary dilation of the iris...
Deckard: We call it Voight-Kampff for short.
All this does is change the rules a bit. All of the things they've listed are things which one could train to do or not do on cue. And even without training if it's only good 2/3 of the time that's not good enough to justify deployment.
... all you have to do is memorize and rehearse lies in advance and imagine them and recall them as if they were memories. People get caught in lies because it's cognitively demanding to make it up on the spot unprepared.
If you don't believe this consider religious faith. Many people I'm sure believe those falsehoods genuinely because they are well ingrained in their imaginations.
Slightly better than a coinflip. Just like normal lie detectors.
There is a character in that book who had his maid wake him up every morning by saying something like "time to get up you war criminal", so that when the authorities would question him about actually being a war criminal, he was so inured by the accusation that it caused no reaction in him at all - so he could happily deny being a war criminal.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Get this ready in time for the Presidential debates.
I see no reason why these things wouldn't cause visible discomfort in your face, as opposed to whatever (skin conductivity/heart rate?) a traditional lie detector measures. The whole point is to mask truths and lies alike, so there is no way to tell them apart.
but I guess they do not make those anymore, lets spend billons on developing a machine that does the same job as a illiterate con artist can do with zero training.
It will be illegal to use this on politicians.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
It successfully discriminates between truth and lies in about two-thirds of cases
Does that mean you might be found 2/3 guilty of a crime, or will they roll a die and send you to prison on 1-4 ?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"no more cheating the lie detector with a tac in the foot or flexing your sphincter......."
Damn, I'll have to find another excuse for doing those things.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
because we'll know when they are lying.. Oh wait! I've mistakenly suggested they tell the truth now and then. Silly me :D
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
I always wondered, how do lie detectors separate liars from awkward people? I know a lot of people with low confidence (including myself) that gets very nervous when talking to some people. I would assume even more nervous when being monitored or tested actively.
How do operators of such devices define the proper thresholds for every individual?
Control, true and false answers will all produce the same blushing response at random. Good luck with the rest of the population though!
It successfully discriminates between truth and lies in about two-thirds of cases
So it's even less effective than other "lie detectors" that don't work well enough to use for anything important.
We give our emotions away in our [...] wrinkling our noses
Let me guess: someone's been hitting The Adventures of Pinocchio too hard.
A "lie detector" of any mechanism relies on the assumption that there must be some physiologic or behavioral difference in a person telling a lie compared with a person telling the truth. Aside from how there has never been any data to support that assumption (despite how badly people want it to be true), the term "lie" is a human construction. For example, look at Presidents Clinton and Bush. Both were accused of lying. In the case of the former, the statement may have been technically true in a hyper-literal linguistic sense, but designed to deceive. In the case of the latter, the statement turned out to be false, but was believed to be completely true when it was spoken. (Note, I say these things for the sake of argument. I do not claim to know the objective truth for either of these situations, and there's still quibbling about both.)
There is a grain of truth in every lie and a measure of inaccuracy in every truth. The delineation between the two is poorly demarcated and even humans can't agree about specific fringe cases. As any programmer knows, machines are extremely literal, so how can one possibly define a lie well enough for one to detect? Heck, how does a person's own body tell the difference and why would it bother? Short of a mind-reading device, you can't determine intent, and even that fails for some variants of lies (e.g. stating something you think, but do not know, as true). And what of the delusional psychopath whose thoughts aren't reliable in the first place? Or con men who specialize in fooling 3.8 billion years of evolution to detect their kind?
You'd think they don't sit you on a pad and make you take off your shoes.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
They don't and that is their dirty little secret. Nervous? Well, the machine says you are a liar. Have a nice life, now that it has been confirmed by technology.
Go read up on how they work, its a fucking joke. The fact they are used by groups like the FBI is a national embarrassment.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Wake me up when it gets to 99%.
Unless I'm mistaken, 66% accuracy is ridiculously shitty.
Unclear what 2/3 success rate means. Need to know false positive and false negative rates. Does 2/3 mean of those I said were lying? In which case how many liars did I miss? If there are 1000 liars in the sample, and I say 100 are lying, of which 66 are liars that is 2/3 correct. However, I missed 900 liars and called 34 truth tellers liars. Or does 2/3 mean of those actually lying? In which case how many truth tellers did I include to find the 2/3 of the liars? If there are 1000 liars and 1000 truth tellers in a total sample of 2000 and I say 1666 are liars of which only 666 are liars that is 2/3 666/1000 liars correct and 1000 truth tellers are called liars and 334 liars are missed. Or If I say 999 out of the 2000 are liars and only 666 are liars that is 2/3 666/999 correct with 334 liars missed and 333 truth tellers called liars..
Having been through US immigration recently, I can attest that "Fear can sometimes be the fear of not being believed rather than the fear of being caught." is putting it mildly. The TSA goon managed to misinterpret me so many times that I started to doubt my own story. He was either a genius, or a tard, but either way he didn't seem even remotely human, so if we can replace him with a very small shell script, go to it.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Even if we were able to create a 100% accurate lie detector, would using it be moral?
I'm not sure, but I have doubts.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
You should refuse to give statements to police and prosecutors. Your words will be twisted in order to convict you. They are much more interested in winning a case than finding the truth.
If George Costanza has taught us anything, it's not a lie if you honestly believe it, well at least to polygraph...
according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph "90-95% validity by polygraph advocates" but it is disputed "psychologists estimated the test's average accuracy at about 61%"
Anyway I think the advantage of this is not that it is more accurate its probably that you can set one up without hooking it up or even asking the person being questioned
Two thirds? Most women can do that without any fancy equipment.
It successfully discriminates between truth and lies in about two-thirds of cases
Yeah, it only detects when normal people are lying and it doesn't work at all when sociopaths, psychopaths and habitual liars are lying - because these people feel no shame when they lie or might even believe their lie to be true and thus don't have a vasomotor response. But sure, feel free to re-invent the polygraph. Only you are not addressing the basic flaw in designing the "lie detector machine": the people who are really good at lying are most likely the ones you want to catch, and by definition they are also the people you are not going to catch.
Academics can be so brilliant and so dumb at the same time. But hey I hear that if you measure people's skulls and classify their shapes into groups, you can also tell who the liars are. Give it a shot!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
No - the way society seems to be headed you will be thrown in jail for not complying with your mandatory test. After all causing a scene like that means that you must have something to hide. All they need to do is hold you on "suspicion of terrorism" and you're gone indefinitely. Is it 1984 yet?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
0 = false 1 = false There now its a hundred percent accurate. Just in time for the elections.
If you're still reading AC, how exactly did you deduce that he's ruining it for others?
I personally grew up in a house where I was guilty until proven innocent and proving myself innocent was considered to be mouthing off.
In my subconscious I believe that it doesn't matter what I say, I'll be considered guilty no matter what. As a result, I've taken on a superior attitude towards the interviewers in these circumstances. I have real skills, a real education and a real job. I don't have to work as a rent-a-cop in an airport to support my habits. Yes, it's being an asshole, but I refuse to let people who are working a power trip career that was a result of being a bully and a dick throughout their youth to bully and be a dick to me now that I've worked to get to where I am at. Oddly enough, this seems to keep them from being a dick to me since bullies only bully people when they believe they can win without real resistance. There are thousands of "whimps" waiting in line... why bother with a difficult one.
And thus ended remakes of Monty Python's Dead Parrot Sketch.
Gently reply
'Classify as terrrorist / terrorist supporter.'
The world's most perfect lie detector will fail to detect the world's most perfect liars.
Worse, the machine will assure us that those who are not liars, are good and honest men and women.
And we're supposed to trust this machine?
-kgj
Had a Lie Detector, that measured your brain waves. It was used routinely in court. It is no longer under copyright, so it is free (or should be) on most of the e-readers or on the web.
Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
So they finally invented a device for detecting those tricky replicants.
Will the system be able to determine if someone acts guilty on purpose by following a laundry list of nervous behaviours. I'd love to subjected to a controlled test and take it for a ride.
Mild sedatives like Xanax? Beta blockers? Anti-depressants? Anything to make the emotional dynamic range lower?
I.R. lie detecting camera of death must answer me these questions three, or a full body cavity search ye shall receive!
They didn't when I took a polygraph to work for the police department. But that was also 20 years ago.
The thing that's scary is people are going to think these things are infallible when they say only 2/3rds of the time. This thing is garbage, they've discovered a casual relationship.
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.