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.
Get this ready in time for the Presidential debates.
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."
She sat on my face and asked me to lie to her. Honest.
Have gnu, will travel.
You will.
If you don't, the test is "inconclusive" and you are retested until you do. Your song of past sin is then adjudicated and you are either passed or failed. After test number 5 or so they just reject you if you haven't sung.
Plenty of applicants, especially in this economy.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Which, of course, raises plenty of important epistemological concerns: chiefly, what is a lie? Perhaps we could say it is speaking with the intent to deceive. But in what way is the speaker attempting to deceive, which pieces of information does he actually wish to conceal and which bits of misinformation are merely the detritus of a twisted story?
Even if an actual lie detector were to exist, it would be up to the operator to decide what it means. Nobody is really prepared to deal with that sort of weighty thinking on a consistently sound basis, especially not a policeman or a judge.
I suppose it depends on what questions you ask.
It would certainly be open for abuse, but so is a pipe wrench. You could use a 100% accurate lie detector to invade someone's privacy for sure, but if you stuck to questions like "Are you planning on killing anyone today?" or "Did you kill that person?" you'd probably be fine. Especially since you wouldn't actually need to have a person in the room if you had a 100% accurate lie detector. You need a person now because interrogation requires instinct, but with a machine that could actually detect truth or lies and the right questions you could put someone in a room, have the machine ask them a preselected list of questions and then let them out if they're fine.
You couldn't take people out of the equation entirely of course as you'd need them for answering "Why did you kill that person?".
You'd definitely have to be careful about fishing expeditions, and with a much higher solve rate people would be a lot more careful about what they allowed to become law in the first place, but there's nothing inherently unethical about asking someone if they committed or are planning on committing a specific crime and being able to rely on the answer.
Two thirds? Most women can do that without any fancy equipment.
I always wondered, how do lie detectors separate liars from awkward people?
They don't. They are designed to detect "reactions" which may be due to feeling guilty about something.
I took a lie detector test once when I was in High School. I was taking a "Behavioral Science" class and, one day, the police showed up to talk to us about "lie detectors" and how they work. One of the things he explained was that it doesn't really detect lies. It detects a reaction to a question. A skilled officer can use this information to consider areas of questioning that may lead to information.
After the end of the talk, the officer asked, "Does anyone want to take a lie detector test?" I raised my hand, as did about half the kids in the auditorium. The officer said, "Okay, how many of you have driver's licenses." A bunch of hands went down. "How many of you have driver's licenses with you?" And I was the last man standing.
So I went up on stage in the auditorium and they hooked up various things to measure my breathing and heart rate and such. He told me to tell the truth. And then he started in with his questions. "Is it true your name is John Smith?" "No," I replied. He makes a few marks on the paper showing my heart rate and breathing and such. "Is it true you're 17 years old?" "Yes" and a few more marks. He asks a few innocuous questions and I answer them, each time him making little marks on the paper coming out of the machine. Then he asks the big question:
"Have you ever driven over the speed of 55 miles per hour?"
Flashback! The previous night I had been out with some friends. I had an 11 o'clock curfew but had lost track of time. It was a little before 11 o'clock when I realized the time. I called my folks and told them that I was running late and they told me I had to get my butt home before 11. The race was on.
I jumped in the car and started off. I hit I-91 and punched the gas, hitting about 80 MPH. When I got off the highway, I was doing about 60 down rural roads where the speed limit was about 40 MPH. I made it home right around 11 o'clock, meaning I wouldn't be grounded or anything. But I knew I'd done a stupid thing and could have gotten in to worse trouble if a cop had caught me. Fortunately, I hadn't gotten caught.
So, as we return the present, here is a law enforcement officer asking me if I had ever driven above the speed limit. Do I lie? Do I tell the truth!? He told me to tell the truth! It's not like he could give me a ticket, could he?!
"Yes."
Okay, I told the truth. What's his next question going to be? Is he going to ask if I've ever driven over the speed of 75 MPH?! What do I do, what do I do?!?
He asked a few more innocuous questions and then said, "Let's look at the results. Here's where I asked you about your name, here's where I asked you about your age. Here's where I asked you abou speeding. Your heart rate went way up! And, look, you stopped breathing! You didn't really start breathing normally for another 30 or 40 seconds after that question. This is the best reaction I've seen a long time!"
Now, does the reaction show that I was lying? No, because I didn't lie. But my reaction could have been due to other reasons. Perhaps I lost a loved one to an accident due to a speeder and I'm incensed that the police could be asking me such a question. Now, again, a skilled officer would ask more questions in order to try to figure out what provoked such a reaction as the one I gave versus just asking a few more innocuous questions and calling it quits.
So, no, the lie detector doesn't show lies. It shows reactions to questions. These reactions could be due to a number of factors, not the least of which is the idea that you might end up in jail for a crime you didn't commit.
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.