Thermal Imaging Lie Detector In Development

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Thermal Imaging Lie Detector In Development

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday September 13, 2011 @11:40AM from the he-winked,-get-the-cuffs dept.

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."

17 of 183 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

sounds like ... by recrudescence · 2011-09-13 11:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
2/3 is still not good enough. by hedwards · 2011-09-13 11:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... by blahplusplus · 2011-09-13 11:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

... 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.
1. Re:Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... by artor3 · 2011-09-13 12:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Great job weaving some bigotry and flame-baiting into an otherwise reasonable post.
2. Re:Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... by Black+Parrot · 2011-09-13 12:11 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  ... 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.
  From what I've read, you're supposed to randomly lie or tell the truth on the easy questions they ask at the start to gauge your response.
  
  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.
  But all my religious beliefs are true; it's only other people's religions that are unfounded.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
3. Re:Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... by A+beautiful+mind · 2011-09-13 12:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Saying religion is not some bronze age fairytale and coexisting with the scientific knowledge of the 21st century is something I find deeply offensive.
  
  It is time we stopped treating fairytales with undeserved respect or reservation.
  
  --
  It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
  Be yourself no matter what they say
4. Re:Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... by DRJlaw · 2011-09-13 13:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  ... 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.
  From what I've read, you're supposed to randomly lie or tell the truth on the easy questions they ask at the start to gauge your response.
  From what I've read, you're supposed to shut the hell up and invoke your right to be silent if you're being questioned about things you have done.
  Lying to public officials, especially federal officers, is in and of itself a crime. Lying gives officials facts which they can cross-check. Lying is something that ordinary people are generally bad at, and interrogators know how to get a suspect to move outside their pre-rehearsed alibis.
  Staying silent is not a crime. Staying silent does not allay an official's suspiscion, but cannot be used to convict you of a crime. Staying silent is something that oridinary people are generally bad at, but it's a hell of a lot easier to practice.
  Identify yourself, produce whatever ID you normally carry, and decline to speak about anything else unless you have carefully thought out what you are about to say, know that it is does not tend to indicate that you've committed some sort of crime, and know that it is the truth.
  The rules are quite different if you are being questioned about someone else or what they have done. But that's another story.
5. Re:Practiced lying can defeat lie detectors... by HornWumpus · 2011-09-13 13:31 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  All really good salesmen temporarily believe whatever bullshit they are selling at the time. It's kind of like method acting.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Quick! by olsmeister · 2011-09-13 11:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Get this ready in time for the Presidential debates.
1. Re:Quick! by gewalker · 2011-09-13 12:00 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Sad, but true. They tried this with an early prototype in 2008. Within 5 minutes it was engulfed in flames and set back the research by nearly 2 years.
So... by Black+Parrot · 2011-09-13 12:06 · Score: 5, Funny

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
Re:Of course... by Black+Parrot · 2011-09-13 12:07 · Score: 4, Funny

It will be illegal to use this on politicians.
We already have a visual lie detecting algorithm for politicians: "Their mouth is moving."

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:YIKES!!! by couchslug · 2011-09-13 12:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

"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."
Re:Pinocchio syndrome by PPH · 2011-09-13 12:34 · Score: 5, Funny

She sat on my face and asked me to lie to her. Honest.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Lie Detectors by royallthefourth · 2011-09-13 13:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:Lie Detectors by Eskarel · 2011-09-13 13:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
Needs more accuracy by tsotha · 2011-09-13 14:01 · Score: 3, Funny

Two thirds? Most women can do that without any fancy equipment.