Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Protecting Our Brains From Datamining

Posted by Soulskill on from the we-all-know-what-your-brain-would-tell-us dept.

Jason Koebler writes: 'Brainwave-tracking is becoming increasingly common in the consumer market, with the gaming industry at the forefront of the trend. "Neurogames" use brain-computer interfaces and electroencephalographic (EEG) gadgets like the Emotiv headset to read brain signals and map them to in-game actions. EEG data is "high-dimensional," meaning a single signal can reveal a lot of information about you: if you have a mental illness, are prone to addiction, your emotions, mood, and taste. If that data from gaming was collected and mined, it could theoretically be matched with other datasets culled from online data mining to create a complete profile of an individual that goes far beyond what they divulge through social media posts and emails alone. That's led some to develop privacy systems that protect your thoughts from hackers.'

58 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. Q: Why did Apple buy Beats headphones? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Funny

    A: To get larger sensors closer to the brain.

    1. Re:Q: Why did Apple buy Beats headphones? by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Funny

      Beats buyers have brains now?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  2. Don't Worry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've got plenty of Tin foil hats to sell!

    1. Re:Don't Worry! by nullchar · · Score: 1

      Do I really need tin foil, or is aluminum foil good enough?

  3. Every time you do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... a google search you reveal a lot of thoughts. Same goes for email.

    Let's not forget all cellphones are tapped and conversations recorded. So it's not like they don't already have everything at this point. Technology has made it trivially easy to just harvest everything and you're not going to put the genie back in the bottle.

    1. Re:Every time you do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not the tech that's doing it... It's the idiots using the tech who have all the money that is.

      Employers who require you to use cell phones and pagers, who require you to post images of yourself on their company websites, who require you to haul around laptops... Classes who conduct classes online, the teachers of which force you to have Twitter accounts, Google Docs, etc. The companies who pay their employees via electronic bank account deposits instead of an old school paper check...

      All these things--the mandates, the fine prints, the "my ways or the high ways" of life--these things are what's leading to the horror stories.

      The people need changed. The tech is great--but we're not ready for all this crap; at least, not ready in the sense of knowing how to properly use it all. I wonder if we ever will be...

  4. Yeah well, by dale.furno · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just wait until data from people like me with ADHD and PTSD starts corrupting their Hey look a Squirrel!

  5. Increasingly common? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it really? Or is it a click-bait headline that really means here's a couple of companies who have a product which does it but nobody else does?

    1. Re:Increasingly common? by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      Or is it a click-bait headline that really means here's a couple of companies who have a product which does it but nobody else does?

      Definitely a click-bait headline. They have enough trouble getting the accuracy and resolution required to tell those sorts of things with medical grade EEGs, let alone a consumer grade headset.

    2. Re:Increasingly common? by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree, to an extent. These devices are hardly going to read minds in the sense of providing all of that detail.

      However, whatever they lose in quality (of resolution), they may make up for in quantity. A poor quality device may still be able to provide some useful data points when applied to a larger group of people. Put some branding or situations inside a game, monitor for coarse grained interest or emotion, and you might have something useful to marketers or game designers. Or not.

      When things like this start approaching mass markets, people start thinking of other uses for the data. Working in a field where people are spending good money trying to vacuum up all the data on the Internet, even shitty Facebook posts, I see first hand how people get excited over any new data point. Most of it is crap, but there's some gold in there, for sure.

      Click-bait, but still interesting to consider.

    3. Re:Increasingly common? by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Definitely a click-bait headline. They have enough trouble getting the accuracy and resolution required to tell those sorts of things with medical grade EEGs, let alone a consumer grade headset.

      While I agree that it's an inflammatory article now it may not always be that way and "not always" may be sooner rather than later. Using EEGs outside of medicine is in it's infancy but there is huge interest in it from a number of different fields from consumer products to defense. I have no doubt it's going to heat up in the next decade. The more adoption and the wider the markets, the faster it will evolve. So while it's not likely to be an issue today, it's probably best to start acting to head it off now.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    4. Re:Increasingly common? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      click bait headline.

      they can tell if you're squinting really hard though, but detecting that usually gets reported as reading your thoughts.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:Increasingly common? by umghhh · · Score: 1

      My thoughts too. I think it has quite good uses too - people with missing extremities can get a replacement that is controlled well by such devices. I think that Mr Hawking would appreciate development in this area very much. Judging on how many problems male-female interactions are causing I think that a bit more sophisticated device helping to distinguish between 'ooohhh no no no' meaning 'please continue' or 'f.off or I call the police'. This said I must admit that knowing that somebody can evaluate your feelings if not thoughts may be spooky and may also be not for your benefit - I am thinking here about greedy corporations, criminals - normal and those in government, spying agencies, insurance companies (which are already not insurance companies but another tax authority with some limited utility attached to it) etc.

      Maybe it is good that thought reading will not be very easy - Thinking processes are probably to dispersed and variable for the machines so that they would have to train even more and individually per brain. Development in this area gives us a little time to investigate the possible consequences for our society and what we think is beneficial. I am rather pessimistic on what will happen however. The hysteric 'think abut the children' crowd combined with 'cut his arm and perforate his anus - tough on crime' crowd together with general brainlessness of common folk will lead us there without preparation but with full speed - as the members of the dominating species do.

    6. Re:Increasingly common? by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      The problem is that there's only so much you can do to a signal to amplify it before there's no signal left.

      With a current gen headset, if you were to turn off the 60hz notch filter, the signal it would be picking up from the power lines would drown out the brain signals by several orders of magnitude. Even someone waving their hand over top of your head while you wear one will cause enough interference to blot out the sorts of signals the brain produces. On top of that, those signals that we can pick up are extremely broad, created by millions of neurons firing in sequence. Unless it becomes legal to plant wires in peoples heads that can detect the actions of single neurons, or we develop some kind of wearable FMRI, the kind of things that article is worried about are so far ahead as to be in the territory of asking how we should regulate flying cars.

      EEG technology is akin to telling what state a computer is on by opening up the case and pointing some IR thermometers at different components and measuring the temperature. I could tell if you're doing something graphically intensive vs CPU intensive vs memory intensive, and maybe make some inferences based on the time of day and previous states but that's it. It doesn't matter how much more sensitive you make an IR thermometer, it's not going to give me any more detailed information than a vague idea of what bits are being used more than others.

  6. Ridiculous by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here we propose an integration of a personal neuroinformatics system, Smartphone Brain Scanner, with a general privacy framework openPDS. We show how raw high-dimensionality data can be collected on a mobile device, uploaded to a server, and subsequently operated on and accessed by applications or researchers, without disclosing the raw signal. Those extracted features of the raw signal, called answers, are of significantly lower-dimensionality, and provide the full utility of the data in given context, without the risk of disclosing sensitive raw signal. Such architecture significantly mitigates a very serious privacy risk related to raw EEG recordings floating around and being used and reused for various purposes.

    So MIT pisses away cash on research that comes up with "Just anonymize the data, sorta, before shipping it off to advertisers and you'll be protected, sorta."? And of course it's peppered with meaningless shit like "personal neuroinformatics system", "smarthphone", and "privacy framework".
    Hey MIT, give me a research grant and I'll come up with an actual solution. Hint: Don't let people put EEG sensors on or around your head for a game, a video, etc. in the first place and you won't have the problem of them selling it to nefarious parties who would use it against you. Much more effective than the proposed equivalent of "Do Not Track" for brainwaves.

    1. Re:Ridiculous by s.petry · · Score: 2

      The paper, if you read it, also discusses the "Why" you need to do this (as most scientific papers tend to do). It is not just about building a method of giving the data anonymity, but telling people why it should be done. While a bit deep for some, I highly recommend reading the paper.

      Companies are already trying to figure out how to cash in on your EEG data. What's the big deal you ask? Well...

      Using more direct attacks to reveal EEG information, Martinovic et al. investigated in [28] how the
      109 brain's response to a particular stimulus (so-called P300 paradigm) can be used to narrow down the space
      110 of possible values of sensitive information such as PIN numbers, date of birth, or known people. The
      111 tasks required the subject to follow the experimental procedure without explicitly revealing the goal of
      112 the experiment: for example thinking about birth date while watching ashing numbers. Although the
      113 presented attacks on the data may not be directly applicable to preexisting EEG data, as they require
      114 fairly specic malicious tasks, we can expect | as the subjects participate in multiple experiments |
      115 correlations violating privacy could be obtained from raw EEG signal. For example, when a large corpus
      116 of the user responses to a visual stimuli is collected, it could be used in P300-based Guilty-Knowledge
      117 Test, where the familiar items evoke different responses than similar but unfamiliar items [29].

      In other words, and without the formatting and line numbers, people could maliciously collect personal information simply by providing you visual stimuli. They can do so at such a fast rate that you would never know what happened, such as an a series of images or questions displayed for a whopping 13.3 milliseconds per frame.

      Yes, I'm cynical. That said, I also pay a lot of attention to privacy and how things are used. Because of those two things, my answer is easier. If you are worried about privacy don't use this type of product. At which point, there is no need to harvest data even anonymously. If doctors need to share data for diagnosis, there are secure protocols and methods of exchanging data which do not include having your EEG data on an internet facing computer. The best doctors in the world can't evaluate the results of an EEG in a split second, so taking a bit longer to share data is not going to change how long it takes you to get a diagnosis.

      If you want to share your EEG with the world and have all your Facebook friends try and diagnose you, go for it. Educate consumers to the dangers and I have no problem with it. Every EEG device sold to a consumer needs a big old warning label "WARNING! Use of this device may result in your personal life being completely destroyed, including the loss of all financial holdings and credit(E.G. Bank accounts, credit card, social security number, etc..) as well as pertinent personal information that would allow someone to assume your identity at will." This can be done without you having any knowledge of the theft, and can be done within a few minutes of using this device..

      Some may claim "Regulation", but I'll point to the TV regulations which ignores current subliminal inserts in video and audio. (You can question the results of those things all you like, but they do happen and get caught from time to time.)

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    2. Re:Ridiculous by GNious · · Score: 1

      We really shouldn't be discussing these things - if anyone at Facebook reads about it, they'll "upgrade" the Oculus Rift with EEG sensors (since it is already attached to your head..)

      Actually, eff that, Sony et al are just as likely to try and figure out how to get to your skull.

      *paranoid*

    3. Re:Ridiculous by umghhh · · Score: 1

      Quite frankly I am all for a VR simulation of lesbian act between Sandra Bullock and Jennifer Lopez changing roles on each try of course, but I know better to what this is going to be used first, once we reach any meaningful thought recognition (which is very far away yet). You see I am old enough to know a 'perfect' solution with all whistles and shinny buttons and displays even so appealing as it may be, is useless if some of its aspects are like massive red flags waving in front of me. Especially whenI think about thought police that is already very well established. If this thing is going to be reasonably effective it will be also very dangerous for what is left of our freedoms too. I am not convinced that all the shiny benefits are bigger than costs and losses endured on the way.

    4. Re:Ridiculous by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

      You are quite right, and I wish I had mod points. As I was reading your post, the mention of doctors' protocols sent off alarm bells.

      Without going too far off into Big Brother Paranoia Land, I wonder exactly how confidential this sort of ostensibly private diagnostic data is. Is data protected by professional protocols and HIPPAA somehow immune to MITW packet data-mining by Google, NSA, et al?

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    5. Re: Ridiculous by sexconker · · Score: 1

      curious wouldn't it be possible before connecting or uplinking the nural device you had a seperate software that simply maps the patterns that are found on command, In games we use directions for example say left turn left till the pathway is mapped. No storage for advertisers because the developers to the device simply program a pointer in the band look for left -brain command left device trigger left --In game turn left.

      This presumes you control the device's output and the software works (and works well) with the "less dimensional" output your privacy layer gives it, and that the privacy layer doesn't hinder the experience by introducing additional delays, removing too much data, etc.

      You won't get to control the device's output until the things become so commoditized that you're building your own with Arduino, then there's the whole issue of trusting the software.

    6. Re:Ridiculous by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I can answer some of this since I work in security and compliance as well as architecture of secure systems (software and hardware).

      Is data protected by professional protocols and HIPPAA somehow immune to MITW packet data-mining by Google, NSA, et al?

      If the standards are followed the answer is "yes". Data must be encrypted at rest and again in transit, so when data is on a wire it's doubly encrypted.

      That said, there is no such thing as perfect software or hardware. The majority of errors are operator errors, but still count as errors. The only difference is that ISPs can be fined for server/software errors, and operators can be fined for human errors.

      Further, read the thoughts of Lavabit's founder when he closed up shop. Not only was he required to hand over data, but he was ordered to lie to people about any investigation (not just a gag order).

      In other words, "protected" should be changed to an additional question of "protected from whom?".

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  7. Re:That's why we should wear tinfoil hats by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Fuck that! I'm going to build a Faraday cage hat! Tinfoil hats are for poseurs.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  8. I'd love to have such datasets by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 2

    ... for all those that are placed above us to lead us,
    and of all those that suck up to same.

  9. Lets all take a step back to appreciate this: by crioca · · Score: 2

    This information is undoubtedly being caught up in the global surveillance dragnet, which means that government agents are literally spying on people's brainwaves. The most hackneyed conspiracy trope of all time is now a hilarious reality.

    1. Re:Lets all take a step back to appreciate this: by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Edward Snowden will shortly be releasing transcripts of this too. Here's one example:

      SUBJECT 1765467-2: K3yseRS0Z3 [[TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]]

      STRAFE
      STRAFE
      STRAFE
      STRAFE
      SCOPE
      FIRE
      FORWARD (RUN)
      TEABAG

      [[TRANSCRIPT ENDS]]

      I'm not worried. I'm already aware of what most 15 year old boys are thinking about, we don't need the NSA for that.

    2. Re:Lets all take a step back to appreciate this: by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Well done sir. And me with no mod points.

    3. Re:Lets all take a step back to appreciate this: by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      OK, so first we will have the government scanning people in sensitive positions. Then employers will insist as well. And then we will see things like a drivers license brain exam to find out if the person has moments when he drives drunk or on dope or has hidden medical issues. But the most fun will come when it is routine for courts to require lawyers and all parties giving evidence to also be scanned. And then daddy will insist on scanning his female children to make sure they are not playing nasty with others etc. etc.. I have always felt that the truth shall set us free. These days the truth might turn 90% of us into howling maniacs. Maybe we could have a TV show that featured past crimes detected by mind scans. And the IRS would just enjoy the heck out of such a device. Lawyers would leap out of windows all across the nation as would quite a few judges and probably all of the House and Senate would have to jump as well.

    4. Re:Lets all take a step back to appreciate this: by mrxak · · Score: 1

      You've got it backwards. It's the IRS who will want to use it first.

      --
      -mrxak
      Onions Will Kill You
  10. Re:That's why we should wear tinfoil hats by GenaTrius · · Score: 1

    Psh, everyone knows that the Sheriff's Secret Police can mind-scan you from their blue helicopters through five miles of solid lead. Tinfoil hats are just tacky.

  11. Re:That's the second most scary part. by Kuroji · · Score: 1

    You'd get a Nobel prize for medicine.

    You really do not understand how complex the human brain is, do you?

  12. EEG is not causation to Galileo by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    Yes, TFA is a total waste of time. The concepts are reductive and stultifying and the author's evaluation of EEG capabilities is straight from science fiction.

    **we don't now how the brain works**

    We know an EEG and fMRI and other E-M sensitive sensors can receive waves from our brain and represent that data on a chart.

    Beyond that, it's absolutely the Wild Wild West...it's academic anarchy

    It's so bad that now anyone will say "correlation is not causation" to any scientific claim purely as rhetoric to bolster their non-evidence based argument. I've heard creationists say "correlation is not causation"

    Correlation is not causation of course...but how helpful is that phrase now? Bayesian? also becoming co-opted by opportunists

    Just because a 16 sensor external EEG gives a certain reading when a human does a thing means nothing in and of itself...that data is to us like giving Galileo a raw data printout of data from a Gamma Ray Burst

    Galileo was a genius, but that data would be useless to him without any context....

    Of course, Galileo could take the data and pretend to divine anything he wanted from it...if he hyped it enough and got enough sites to post his predictions people just might be presuaded to act on them

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:EEG is not causation to Galileo by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You are making it sound like the only person that could possibly correlate data from an EEG is a dude that is dead, instead of looking at the reality that the paper points out. Which is that much of EEG reading is fully automatic in many types of software. Sure, we have more to learn and the paper makes that clear. That aside, the portions we are sure of are very accurate. Things such as memory mapping (gauging yes/no responses by thought pattern), detecting certain disorders, detecting specific behaviors, and quite a bit more.

      The only thing you could possibly claim is "wild wild west" is by looking at the lack of any regulations or controls over software that could potentially use the interface for malicious purposes, and possibly add in No possible methods for a user to know what just happened.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  13. Johnny Mnemonic? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Johnny Mnemonic

  14. Re:Mind reading radar and mind altering radar by mrxak · · Score: 1

    It's too bad they can't use this technology to stop the conspiracy theorists from revealing all of their conspiracies.

    --
    -mrxak
    Onions Will Kill You
  15. Phrenology much? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    People. Please. Be reasonable.

    I've been doing a bit of research in that matter (because, well, the idea of controlling a computer with your brain IS kinda cool), and we're FAR, FAR away from a mind reading device. If such a device is possible at all.

    Every kind of "mind tracking" technology in existence not only needs a LOT of training (on both sides, the device AND the user), but most of all it needs cooperation to the extreme. Actually, it is pretty HARD to make that device actually "understand you", and that's if you WANT it to understand you.

    Now going and trying to pick up subconscious thoughts is at best akin to phrenology, where you have some sort of brainwave patterns of known people and try to pretend that the ones you read on another person that resemble them have any kind of correlation. The whole shit smells like good ol' phrenology.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re: Phrenology much? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Again: For it to work out, you need the FULL cooperation of the person you are trying to "read". No cooperation and you just get a lot of garbage out of it.

      But if it makes you feel better, keep that tinfoil hat on.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re: Phrenology much? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Let's, just for fun, assume for just a moment that you're right. That immediately requires one question: Why the effort? Control? C'mon.

      To control people, you don't need that whole shit. It's far cheaper to keep them busy with petty shit and TV. And, lo and behold, it's not only done, it also works. Why bother with highly sophisticated mind control mumbo jumbo when you can accomplish the same with a few shitty reality shows?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. as scientific as a lie detector by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    the portions we are sure of are very accurate. Things such as memory mapping (gauging yes/no responses by thought pattern), detecting certain disorders, detecting specific behaviors, and quite a bit more.

    only if you use some kind of Schrodinger's Cat definition of "sure" and "accurate"

    you cannot use an EEG to detect what you claim at all

    you're in polygraph territory...that's a more precise analogy...

    TFA = polygraphy

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:as scientific as a lie detector by umghhh · · Score: 1

      Even a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

      Nobody with a healthy brain can claim that currently used techniques can recognize our thoughts. They can recognize some of our feelings or rather general state of mind and we also have techniques that after some training allow some people that lost their limbs to control the devices that replaced them. These are not very accurate but getting better if one is to believe the media. We started this journey and if that is possible (why should it not be) then we will get there some day. The question is - will this be a shinny day for all of humanity or only for the chosen ones.

    2. Re:as scientific as a lie detector by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You either failed to read the article and it's references, or you are trying to deny science with statements that equate to "nuh uh!".

      Polygraphs fail for numerous reasons, but most notably are the external influences such as strapping a bunch of cables to someone after stuffing them into a foreign location and being directly interviewed by people that are unknown.

      EEGs in private devices used in private locations are not subject to any of those stresses. EEGs are scientifically proven to be very accurate (80-100%), and proven to be able to gather information at a subconscious level (no need to interrogate verbally). It's nothing at all like a polygraph.

      If you want to argue the science with science, fine. Show me science to back your statements, not your opinion. If you are correct, you should easily be able to provide scientific studies which counter the material provided in TFA.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  17. "You are having a seizure. ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    ... Would you like a recommendation for a neurologist and anti-seizure medication?"

    Ugh.

    1. Re:"You are having a seizure. ... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      ... Would you like a recommendation for a neurologist and anti-seizure medication?"

      Response: GAAHHHHERRRGGGHHHHHHHH........

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  18. Wait a minute... by HnT · · Score: 1

    So if I actually buy and wear some overpriced "headset" that has built-in brainwave receptors then companies could be mining my brainwaves? Well hold the presses everyone! Next thing you know there are people who will "hack" into my bank account because I decided to print my login information on a tshirt!!

    The main article is a farce. There is no "remote" reading going on against your will, you actually have to wear some useless "headset" and then be exposed to pretty obvious material ("flashing" straight or gay couples or candidates, really??) so "they" can gather all that information. This is akin to monitoring someone's heart rate and pupil response which also requires you to be strapped to certain machinery.

    --
    "Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Wait a minute... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Google, Facebook, et al, don't force you to submit data to them, or take it without your knowledge, but when you do they'll mine it for all its worth. Are concerns about that not legitimate either?

      you actually have to wear some useless "headset" and then be exposed to pretty obvious material ("flashing" straight or gay couples or candidates, really??)

      Like, say, an Occulus Rift that shows you ads between game levels, and monitors which ones you find particularly captivating? That doesn't sound so ridiculous.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  19. Before activating iBrain... by JonathanHart · · Score: 1

    Please agree to our EULA. "... Section 3.a.213.yx - Through the use of gaming software and a nuerointerface, the user may be trained, by the Company, to vote for specific candidates in public elections, and/or to rebel against the government in favor of rule by the Company, if it is determined necessary by the Company to enhance the user's gaming experience. Section 3.a.213.yy - ..."

  20. Re:That's the second most scary part. by umghhh · · Score: 1

    but they are trying.

  21. Overheard .... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... between data miners:

    "With this PPH guy, we seem to be stuck in a perpetual game of Leisure Suit Larry."

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  22. s.petry is right or wrong 80-100% by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    If you want to argue the science with science, fine.

    yes...show me some science to argue with (didn't see any in TFA)

    Polygraphs fail for numerous reasons, but most notably are the external influences such as strapping a bunch of cables to someone after stuffing them into a foreign location

    polygraphs fail b/c they are not what they claim to be...and their failings are so well documented it's an insult to provide them for you...

    they are completely subjective....so is the science in TFA

    TFA and you are making the situation worse by projecting plot lines from science fiction onto reality

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:s.petry is right or wrong 80-100% by s.petry · · Score: 1

      yes...show me some science to argue with (didn't see any in TFA)

      If you truly read The PDF that TFA points to, then you don't know how to read. The referenced sources are all available. Skimming the summary of TFA is not doing the work and is not science. Part of my original quoted statement gave the name of one of numerous studies referenced.

      polygraphs fail b/c they are not what they claim to be...and their failings are so well documented it's an insult to provide them for you...

      We agree that polygraphs don't work, I have read thousands of papers and opinions on various points of failure, naming several commonly related points of failure.

      At the same time, you are claiming that the use of EEGs are the same, and they are NOT the same. Read the paper and referenced scientific studies.

      TFA and you are making the situation worse by projecting plot lines from science fiction onto reality

      Contrary to your fabrication, scientific data is not plot line from fiction. If you wish to show proof that the science included in the paper is wrong feel free. Until you have science, you are still arguing with "nuh uh!" nonsense. It would be an insult for me to quote the scientific method to you. It would further be an insult to re-reference material from a scientific paper you claim to have read and claiming is wrong bases solely on an uneducated/unsubstantiated/unfounded opinion.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  23. your rigor on your ideas by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    Until you have science, you are still arguing with "nuh uh!" nonsense.

    don't pull this crap w/ me...you've posted exactly zero evidence yourself...

    your'e trying to make this into an 'evolution vs creation' style discussion and it's obnoxious

    you're a **scientist** right? "Senior System Engineer/Architect"....so glad you put your specific job title in your sig so we all know you're a **scientist**

    here's what you do...

    put the claims of TFA through the same rigor you are using for my claims...

    also, show me some research that shows EEG's doing the extreme things TFA claims (as if it just accepted science!)

    i'll admit this: unscrupulous scientists, since the Nazis and before up through Reagan to today, will bombard the human body with anything that they think will help control us...that is true...what is ***ridiculous*** is the way you take conjecture and experiment to be fact and theory

    so put your rigor to work on your own ideas, and post some evidence or GTFO

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:your rigor on your ideas by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You obviously think that reading what I responded to you is the only possible response I could have made in the thread, which is foolish.

      Link to the reference comment here.

      Link to PDF here.

      I refuse to link to all of the studies referenced in the link above because you refuse to look for answers and continue to argue from ignorance (intentionally or otherwise).

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  24. citing yourself = intellectual fapping by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    right...you have advanced to posting links...

    now...post links **that support your contention**

    you can't link to your own comment then TFA and call it "evidence" of your contention...

    you can't cite yourself

    the P-300 wave exists...we are experimenting to see how it works in the brain...that I agree with...

    what is wrong and foolish is to say that b/c we see P-300 light up on a screen that means we can "read emotions"

    I know the science...the problem is people like you have built careers around an unscientific approach

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  25. more on P-300 by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    I want to explain exactly why you're full of shit

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

    that's the P-300 wave

    we can define it and observe it repeatedly to verify that it exists

    the problem comes with ***connecting that data to human behavior***

    define emotions...go ahead...

    it's impossible to define "human emotion" in a way that is testable with p-300 data

    it's like trying to read War & Peace when you can only see one letter at a time...it's ridiculous

    however, researchers need hype to stay funded, so they (TFA) ****MAKE A REDUCTIVE DEFINITION OF "EMOTIONS"****

    so for the researchers, since we can't quantify a definition of emotion, we can just call w/e we see on the EEG "emotions"

    emotions happen in the brain, the EEG measures waves in the brain....science!

    you're conjuring, not researching...

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:more on P-300 by s.petry · · Score: 1

      And here is why you are full of shit.

      what is wrong and foolish is to say that b/c we see P-300 light up on a screen that means we can "read emotions"

      Claiming that you have to be able to read emotions to gauge true/false narrative is astoundingly idiotic. I can't critique you any further, your idiocy speaks for itself.

      And wholly fuck, nothing like cherry picking a sentence to make your argument.

      123 Frank et al. explored in [31] feasibility of subliminal attacks, where the reaction to a short-lasting
      124 information of 13.3 milliseconds was measured. Such stimuli, in theory below conscious perception,
      125 could potentially be embedded multiple times in a standard, consciously perceived, stimuli and remain
      126 undetected. Authors showed promising results of recovering whether participants were familiar with a
      127 face, analyzing the response evoked by short-lasting stimuli hidden in the video frames.

      Since you appear to be mentally retarded when it comes to reading, the reference number is in the first line of the paragraph. 680 31. Frank M, Hwu T, Jain S, Knight R, Martinovic I, et al. (2013) Subliminal probing for private 681 information via eeg-based bci devices. arXiv preprint arXiv:13126052 . Do you really need me to provide a LMGTFY link so that you can find that?

      No, it's not 100% perfect but to claim it needs to be 100% perfect to be abused is pure ans simple bullshit. Computer Malware is not 100% effective, yet it yields many many millions of dollars to people harvesting data illegally.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  26. can't quantify "emotion" by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    You're avoiding your problem & your data doesn't apply:

    We cannot quantify the human experience of "emotions" in a way that is scientifically comparable and consistent

    You're dead in the water on this one...

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:can't quantify "emotion" by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I have provided scientific papers to back my opinion, and you have provided nothing except your opinion.

      If you truly think your non-fact based opinion is more valuable, you are truly a moron. Grats either way, because your argument is not an argument but a deranged rant no matter how it's perceived. Go troll someone else.

      No more of your idiocy, good day.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  27. lie detection is a farce by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    what are you even defending now?

    you've dropped your main contention...now you're trying to say P-300 waves can be used for lie detection?

    you must be a polygrapher or on the MIT team or Ray Kurzweil himself

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  28. avoiding the question by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    No more of your idiocy, good day.

    you smug bastard

    your "evidence" was a link to your own comment and info from TFA

    I asked for studies or some kind of proof that ****emotions can be scientifically quantified****

    YOU ARE AVOIDING THE QUESTION B/C YOU KNOW YOU'RE CONJURING FACTS

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett