Slashdot Mirror


European Researchers Develop More Accurate Full-Body Polygraph

jfruh writes: Despite their widespread use in industry and law enforcement, traditional lie-detector polygraphs give accurate results only about 60% of the time, barely better than the 55% accuracy people can get just by following their gut instincts. Now researchers in the UK and the Netherlands are trying to improve that. They claim a full-body polygraph based on motion-capture suits used for movie special effects can detect lies with 75% accuracy.

106 comments

  1. It is powered by HOMEOPATHY!! by For+a+Free+Internet · · Score: 0

    Using all the homoerotic power of homoeopathy and toad lasers, you WILL tell us the truth or ELSE!!!!!!!!!

    --
    UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
  2. Accuracy by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

    75% of the time, it works all of the time!

    1. Re:Accuracy by Dorianny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      polygraphs are as much a science as astrology.

    2. Re:Accuracy by Jumunquo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. There's no reliable body response for a lie. All they are measuring is nervousness, which you could have for a variety of reasons. It's the same thing the border agent does.

      The purpose of the polygraph is to bully the victim into a confession. The unknowing victim thinks they are undergoing a scientific test, but they are actually being drilled by a skilled interrogator w/ no lawyer present to defuse the loaded questions.

    3. Re:Accuracy by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      The difference is that we don't as a society (generally) rely on astrology for anything of serious consequence. With polygraph tests though, they're used to screen for employment in critical defense and intelligence functions, and in legal proceedings. Even though it's not compulsory, the gross inaccuracy should rule them out for any serious consideration even when someone agrees to take it. Even 75% means a 1 in 4 failure rate, and regardless of how many of those are false positives vs false negatives, that's still way, way too high to be anywhere close to considered effective.

      And yet, so many people have the erroneous impression (from Hollywood or elsewhere) that these devices are 100% effective.

    4. Re:Accuracy by s.petry · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yup, the basics of the "classes" people give to beat a polygraph are summarized as relaxation techniques. (Oh noes, will I go to jail for revealing the "secret" that's all over the internet? Oh, I'm okay because I didn't charge for it.. *whew!*). Mask the nervousness and you can spin some wild tales while hooked up and look to be absolutely truthful. Don't get me wrong, it takes a bit of practice but has been proven to work repeatedly. Most often by former "experts" in polygraphs that want to prove what a sham they are.

      --

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

    5. Re:Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With polygraph tests though, they're used to screen for employment in critical defense and intelligence functions, and in legal proceedings.

      It's a form of mental enslavement. If you know that they have something on you, you will always live in fear of the government.

    6. Re:Accuracy by Jumunquo · · Score: 1

      I found this to be a great read on the subject:
      https://antipolygraph.org/lie-...
      They actually talk about specific cases concerning the trouble use of this for defense and intelligence, and why it's such a sham. You also see that they probably keep using it even though it's inaccurate because it beats some confessions out of some people, and I guess they don't mind the innocents that get screwed by it.

    7. Re:Accuracy by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Or, if you are a bad liar, be nervous for everything. When you "fail" all the true answers, the test will be rejected as "inconclusive" which isn't a pass, and isn't a fail.

      The smarter you are the harder it is to pass. The more sociopathic you are, the easier it is to pass. Why do smarter people fail?

      Did you eat pig last night? [thoughts] "Um, I ate a beef hotdog. I wonder if that had secret pork in it."[end thought] "no"
      The uncertainty in the thought process will trigger a nervous response, even if you tell the truth.

      Be bored and aggressive, and you'll never fail. Bored to help you pass, and aggressive to help you be inconclusive.

    8. Re:Accuracy by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      large swathes of the population believe in Astrology.It is reported that even recent powerful world leaders Charles de Gaulle, Boris Yeltsin and Ronald Reagan consulted astrologers. While the exact impact of astrology on swaying opinion and ultimately influencing events can't really be quantized it is in my opinion certainly not trivial.

    9. Re:Accuracy by Jumunquo · · Score: 2

      Well, that sort of illustrates why the test is wrong so often, but if you TRY to be bored and aggressive, you'll probably think too much ;)

      The way they teach you to beat it is pretty simple. Before they ask the hard questions, they need to calibrate. They will ask you something easy to get a base truth response. Likewise, they will get a base lie response. You want your base lie response to go sky high so that nothing can ever match that. Bite your tongue. Tighten you ass. Whatever you like. Once you're past that, then strain yourself a little and answer all the questions like that. Just remember that you're not in the clear yet because you've handled the problem with the junk science handing out false positives, but don't forget the person across from you is not a scientist but a skilled interrogator. They can still ask all sorts of loaded questions. For example, have you ever done something personal during work time? The interrogator is much better at this game than you are and probably has more mental stamina than you do. That's why they say if you have a choice, don't take a polygraph - tell them you know how it works, and that it's a sham.

    10. Re:Accuracy by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Even 75% means a 1 in 4 failure rate

      Ever been to Las Vegas? All those sparkling lights and tall buildings were paid for by winning 52% of the time.

    11. Re:Accuracy by donscarletti · · Score: 2

      Exactly. There's no reliable body response for a lie. All they are measuring is nervousness, which you could have for a variety of reasons.

      A polygraph measures nervousness on one axis and time on the other.

      The point is not to measure if the subject is generally nervous, it is to measure a nervous reaction to stimulus, usually a question posed by an interrogator.

      Polygraph results are not admissible in court, they do not override a suspect's right to not answer questions and unlike torture there is no real evidence that they lead to false confessions. A stupid but innocent suspect could only believe that the polygraph will exonerate them. It's not that judges, prosecutors, the police or anyone in power believes they are more than 60% accurate, what a jury believes about them is irrelevant since if they receive the outcome it's grounds for a mistrial.

      A polygraph test is like an IQ test, it does measure something that is very useful for some people in some cases, but what it does measure is very different to what the general public understands it to be measuring. If you however are one of the people who need the information that it actually does measure, it's extremely useful. It seems however that the same group of people have their panties in a knot about both things.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    12. Re: Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It helps if you're naturally bore...ah fuck this noise, and your little dog too.

    13. Re:Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      sure there is. when you clench your asshole, the polygraph detects a physical baseline change, AKA a "lie". lie detectors detect lies, therefore clenching your asshole is a reliable body response to a lie. QED

    14. Re:Accuracy by gnoshi · · Score: 1

      Sure, but that was winning 52% of the time where each individual loss or win were essentially irrelevant to the casino.

    15. Re:Accuracy by AK+Marc · · Score: 2
      And if you think too much, you'll "fail" every question. "fail" the baseline questions, like your name, and they give it to you a few times, then treat it like a pass. They have no other choice. Repeated "inconclusive" is a pass.

      They can still ask all sorts of loaded questions. For example, have you ever done something personal during work time?

      And they give you the questions ahead of time so you won't be confused/blindsided by them. Have you ever done something personal on work time? Yes. Everyone has. I peed today. Oh, and I stood around the water cooler and talked non-work things to my coworkers. I even took off 2 hours early once when school called to say the 6 year old fell and was in the hospital getting stitches. The manager said to make it up later.

      They ask the stupid questions to try to guess if you are lying.

      I applied for a minimum wage job at a video store (funny, I've applied to two in my life, didn't get either). They gave a personality profile test. They asked whether I've done drugs. I said no. They asked if I thought drugs should be legal. I said yes. I presume the results (wrongly) indicated I was a lying stoner. The other time, the manager who took my application was a douchebag. I let him know as much. The ironic thing is that I know more about movies than anyone else I know, and I've known quite a few movie buffs.

    16. Re:Accuracy by gweihir · · Score: 1

      As to movie store: They do not want employees that are good at it. If they wanted that, it would not be minimum wage. They want employees that do not cause problems.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    17. Re:Accuracy by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Especially now, there are enough applicants to minimum wage jobs that they can afford to be picky. If there were more jobs than people, the employers wouldn't care if an employee smoked a joint once a month outside work hours.

    18. Re:Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As scientology, rather. They too use fancy detectors that may or may not do something, but largely require belief for functioning.

      The big question is whether the FBI will require these newfangled spendy suits to put subjects in. Their organisation, much like scientology, requires polygraph tests to advance. What if their devices suddenly are "science-backed" instead of merely "proven"? Will their collective beliefs stand for it?

    19. Re:Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely! Assuming that it also detects truth with 75% accuracy as the absence of a lie and that there are on average 10 non-control questions asked and that lying in one of them means failure, we get a mind-boggling 6% accuracy of detecting an honest person! Isn't that great?

    20. Re:Accuracy by u38cg · · Score: 1
      So much kneejerk in this thread. Here is the paper and blogpost.

      Protip: this research is being done by some of the best people in inter-disciplinary security, so reading and understanding what they are saying is a good idea before you spout off about how whack polygraph testing is.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    21. Re: Accuracy by garryknight · · Score: 1

      No so-called 'lie detector' can be calibrated for the situation where the person undergoing the test has, in the past, been repeatedly threatened with death if he tells the truth.

      --
      Garry Knight
    22. Re:Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With polygraph tests though, they're used to screen for employment in critical defense and intelligence functions

      That is a bit of a problem since that increases the risk of psychopaths in those positions.

      Also, the truth is not the opposite of a lie. A misinformed person can give a false answer without lying.

    23. Re:Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone is a pathological liar, they can pass a polygraph easily. And that's no lie.

    24. Re:Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be a good argument to use for a negative income tax.

      Something like...
      (Poverty Level - Federal AGI) / 2 = Credit
      Must be 22+ years old
      If 18-21, must be living away from relatives.
      If 17 and under, must be living away from relatives and emancipated.
      If married, credit might go by the younger person's age since it goes by poverty level for the couple and any dependents in this idea.
      Must be a legal resident.

      Cut the DoD budget to help pay for it in part.
      Imagine how many homeless people would benefit.

    25. Re:Accuracy by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's more commonly called UBI (universal basic income).

    26. Re: Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? How exactly do homeless people benefit society? Cold hard fact: if you have no marketable skiÄls and no economic value you are a BURDEN and a resource hog that should be "written off".

    27. Re: Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, they "published" it on HICSS, the alhoa friendly conference in Haway... Nice place to go on holiday but very very far from being the top venue in either security or psychology.
      It just shows that Cambridge University press office is great and can transform stone into gold.

    28. Re:Accuracy by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      False negative v. false positive is very relevant here. I don't know what the rates are for a polygraph, but if there are no false positives (i.e. if it says you are lying then you are definitely lying) that would be extremely valuable even if it only works 75% of the time. When combined with other measures especially. Now if it says you are lying when you aren't that is a different story. An employer or gov agency might still be OK if the false negative is extremely low, since at worst you might reject a small percent of viable candidates. But I sure as heck would not want to take one as a criminal suspect if there was a significant chance of a false negative.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    29. Re:Accuracy by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      The last line should end in "false positive" there.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    30. Re:Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I am not talking about that as my idea wouldn't affect everyone.

      Those earning more than the poverty level don't get the credit. You'd have to me under the poverty level to qualify. Even then, the amount differs depending on your federal AGI.

      In the extreme, a single homeless person earning $0/year would be getting about $5.5k or so, half the poverty level for a single person.

      A family of six may have a poverty level around $30k, so if said family has a federal AGI of $20k, then $30k - $20k, then divided by 2, ends up being a $5k credit. Not much, but still quite a bit because that's $5k the family of six didn't have before. And this doesn't factor in EIC and other credits one may receive.

      Now, picture this. Three or four homeless people deciding to live together in order to pool their $5.5k/year/person credit together to rent a place.

    31. Re:Accuracy by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      That's a UBI, it's just so low that nobody talkind about UBI would consider it UBI. I understand your plan 100%. It's UBI. I could achieve the same results with UBI and taxes.

    32. Re: Accuracy by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Because it is an initial study, I would guess. Wait till they replicate it (if they do) with Kinect.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    33. Re:Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I strongly disagree with it being called universal basic income.

    34. Re:Accuracy by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It provides a minimum income level to all people. That is what UBI is.

    35. Re:Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will probably be my last reply.

      Mine is more in the form of a credit with certain requirements. Requirements including age restrictions. Mine would also require legal residency too. Mine wouldn't give money to children living with their parents. Although the parents would receive some money if those children are dependents. To complicate matters worse, mine would mean that if a 21 year old is living with family members, just like SNAP, no, that individual wouldn't qualify for the credit.

  3. so it can still be trained for by Friar_MJK · · Score: 3, Informative

    just add full body motion to the list of do's and don'ts when you're taking the test. ever notice how often joe biden scratches his nose when he's talking out of his ass? yea, that's called a tell. i remember hearing about an indiana guy that was arrested for training people to beat polygraphs.

    1. Re:so it can still be trained for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That sounds like the kind of thing that happens in militarized dictatorships. Which backwards-ass country was this?

    2. Re:so it can still be trained for by davester666 · · Score: 1

      that guy was arrested for claiming he would help people lie to the FBI. if he had just stuck with claim "I can help you beat a polygraph exam", he would have been fine. Once he said something along the lines of "I can help you beat an FBI polygraph exam", that became illegal.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:so it can still be trained for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds like the kind of thing that happens in militarized dictatorships. Which backwards-ass country was this?

      Amerika.

    4. Re:so it can still be trained for by meerling · · Score: 1

      I can train you on how to beat a Tarot reading. After all, Tarot done by a skilled "operator" is about as accurate as one with a polygraph, but you can't get arrested or denied employment for it.

  4. 50% accuracy is as good as blind guessing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A blind guess on a 50/50 question is 50% accurate.
    Correctly decoding a single random data bit with 50% accuracy conveys ZERO information. It is as good as random noise.
    ((if you know you get it right 10% of the time you get more information because you know you are likley to be wrong)).

    75% accuracy is fairly useless on a measure of information received.

    1. Re:50% accuracy is as good as blind guessing by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Even worse, they don't give the failure rate in a useful manner. 100% for pass (zero false negatives) and 0% for fail (100% of fails reported as a false positive) is easy. You just say "he passed" no matter what the results are. Or the reverse as well. But "75% accurate" is mostly meaningless.

  5. 75% Accuracy is touted on Slashdot by Bob_Who · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have a dowsing rod with better accuracy. My coin flip is 50% accurate. But lets convince everyone here that our standards for the truth are low enough to buy a bunch of polygraph apparatus that is 75% accurate, because technology is just not good enough to get to the truth. The truth is, this is totally stupid.

    1. Re:75% Accuracy is touted on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this is bullshit. They need to stop passing this crap off as a lie detector. It's just an interrogation device to trick people into talking.

    2. Re:75% Accuracy is touted on Slashdot by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter whether WE think it's inaccurate, it matters how much law enforcement and HR think it's ACCURATE.

    3. Re:75% Accuracy is touted on Slashdot by u38cg · · Score: 0

      For fuck's sake. Read the damned paper. This was written by a team led by Ross Anderson, who kind of knows what he's talking about.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    4. Re:75% Accuracy is touted on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a $1 coin that is 51% accurate. Anyone want to buy it?

      Speaking of which, I once flipped a nickle and it landed on it's edge! Never seen that happen before or since. If I hadn't done it myself, I would never have believed it.

  6. Great news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now we need to make it compulsory for all politicians to use these when discussing their political manifestos to get in power...

    1. Re:Great news by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Now we need to make it compulsory for all politicians to use these when discussing their political manifestos to get in power...

      So, let me get this straight... it isn't bad enough most politicians are already sociopaths, you want to actually institute a formal litmus test that is inaccurate, but favors sociopaths?

    2. Re:Great news by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Now we need to make it compulsory for all politicians to use these when discussing their political manifestos to get in power...

      I figured they used politicians to train the device what a lie looks like.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  7. As if getting a polygraph isn't humiliating.. by mpthompson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...and stressful enough already. Now they'll tell you to strip and get into a silly motion capture suit. Next up is sticking a probe up our anus to measure the contraction of the sphincter muscles. After all, it's for our own good. How else will our overlords prevent another Snowden fiasco?

    1. Re:As if getting a polygraph isn't humiliating.. by wbr1 · · Score: 2

      Think that's invasive, try a plethysmograph. Required of sex offenders everywhere.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    2. Re:As if getting a polygraph isn't humiliating.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not required of sex offenders everywhere.

  8. They'll never catch by byrdfl3w · · Score: 1

    Stephen Hawking for all the things he did!

    1. Re:They'll never catch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You sir made my day :)

      For those of you who did not read the original article here is the relevant part:

      ... the sum of joint displacements was indicative of lying approximately 75 percent of the time.

    2. Re:They'll never catch by davester666 · · Score: 1

      surely they can match the tire marks his wheelchair left across my back...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  9. So, still useless... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    If the makers are claiming 75% and nobody is trained against these kinds of polygraphs, they probably won't be a bit different in the real world any further than 5 years from now.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:So, still useless... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      No, this one doesn't require tacks in the shoe and such stress inducements to beat it, you only have to practice good posture. So after a few years it might very well drop below 50/50.

  10. MRI by manu0601 · · Score: 2

    I wonder why they don't use MRI or some other brain activity visualization technique; Recalling memory and forging a new story must be more distinguishable there than on body movements.

    1. Re:MRI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't give the Gestapo any ideas, you SOB.

    2. Re:MRI by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Variability between people and expense. And they can still be beaten, just as the EEG (or other brain scan) is beaten.

    3. Re:MRI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... must be more distinguishable ...

      Probably, but even MythBusters proved 1 person in 3 can defeat it. As usual, the interrogator (let's not mince words; you have been denied legal representation) is making assumptions about your emotions, your thoughts, your transparency and ultimately, about your guilt.

    4. Re:MRI by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      I wonder why they don't use MRI or some other brain activity visualization technique; Recalling memory and forging a new story must be more distinguishable there than on body movements.

      Different than recalling your cover story?

    5. Re:MRI by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If you plan the lie in advance it becomes a memory.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  11. What about Brain Fingerprinting? by voxelman · · Score: 1

    Brain fingerprinting seems to be quit a bit better at detecting whether a person has knowledge of a crime.

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

    1. Re:What about Brain Fingerprinting? by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      People are obviously trying this sort of thing for truth detection. They're also using MRI. I believe it's still possible to fool these approaches, though (no reference, sorry, but I did read it somewhere).

  12. More accurate than what? by Revek · · Score: 1

    Tea leaves?

  13. Focus on the brain by righteousness · · Score: 2

    Instead broadening the area of interest, why not focus on where lies are actually formed, i.e. the brain? Put more effort in understanding the brain and on finding a way to detect changes to the brain when someone lies.

    --
    Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
    1. Re:Focus on the brain by fnj · · Score: 2

      I know what would be even better. Let's use mutant precogs to find people guilty of precrime. Apologies to Philip K. Dick.

    2. Re:Focus on the brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even in that case, if you practice a lie sufficiently, it just becomes memory recall.

  14. The Worst Liars Believe it 5 minutes later by retroworks · · Score: 1

    There are so many different types of lies, and so many different liars, I need some kind of control group to have confidence they don't just catch the ones who wet their pants (the 55% test). The worst ones I encounter are so goddam sure of themselves within minutes that I believe they could pass any garment.

    --
    Gently reply
  15. Accuracy of traditional lie-detector polygraphs? by lippydude · · Score: 2

    "Despite their widespread use in industry and law enforcement, traditional lie-detector polygraphs give accurate results only about 60% of the time"

    There is no verifiable scientific evidence that polygraphs actually work.

  16. just use fMRI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  17. Pseudoscientific nonsense by Required+Snark · · Score: 2
    Yes, fitting a random person into a full body rig will have zero impact on the false positive/false negative rates. No problem.

    They tested this on 75 volunteers. This is an example of the kind of bogus "proof" that is used to justify the utility of polygraphs in the first place.

    It's in the same territory as drug companies excluding tests that show problems with their drugs. I'm sure if they ran enough small groups that they could find one with better then 90% and report only that.

    Why do polygraph advocates lie so much?

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:Pseudoscientific nonsense by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      If you pay people to lie, they will.

    2. Re:Pseudoscientific nonsense by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Why do polygraph advocates lie so much?

      Because they use it as a tool to give an air of scientific legitimacy to otherwise shaky accusations. The truth often isn't their first priority, to say the least.

    3. Re:Pseudoscientific nonsense by u38cg · · Score: 1

      (1) This is not a polygraph. It is an alternate technique with a similar aim. (2) It is an initial study whose purpose is to show there is an effect worth investigating. (3) You clearly have no idea who the people involved actually are. Hint: Ross Anderson knows a lot more about snake oil than you do.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    4. Re:Pseudoscientific nonsense by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Why do polygraph advocates lie so much?

      Because they know we can't prove they're lying?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    5. Re:Pseudoscientific nonsense by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      let's see peer-reviewed, double blind studies.

      Or I'm calling it.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  18. But thats the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the point, they make it stressful so your body "confesses", it's not that the polygraph works, its that you confess because you believe it works, and for that it needs to be a full on show of sciency-like-stuff.

    So the more showman like and the more stressful, the better the result. Well until people get use to that, then they need to add more theatre to it. Perhaps inject you with 'nano-truth-bots' to ramp up the sciency stress a bit, or wrap you in a graphene cloak of honesty, or other such nonsense.

    1. Re:But thats the point by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      polygraph exams are designed not so much to stress you but to trip you up with a series of simple yes/no questions then all of a sudden, they hit you with one so loaded you can't answer it without incriminating yourself - but you HAVE to answer it to conform to the test conditions!

      When I say "loaded", I mean something like:

      "Have you stopped fucking your neighbour's dog?"

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    2. Re:But thats the point by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Well, did you?

  19. Here's the thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone lies. Catching someone in a lie isn't really a big deal and why interrogators (real ones, not the torture kind or those that use polygraphs as anything more than one tool in a kit) don't really worry about someone lying to them. It's the reasons or motives behind the lie that are potentially harmful and why it takes time and rigor to get at those motives. There is no magic bullet for getting truthful answers from someone that knows how to lie.

    Read some of this guy's stuff: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher

    1. Re:Here's the thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the reasons or motives behind the lie that are potentially harmful and why it takes time and rigor to get at those motives.

      It usually takes around 20-30 cross-referenced questions, although exceptional individuals can sometimes take over a hundred.

  20. Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    Actually, for most definitions of HR, it doesn't matter what they think about polygraph tests. In most cases, they aren't allowed to ask you to take one, and you can pretty much always refuse if they do.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    1. Re:Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) by swb · · Score: 1

      HR won't ask you to take one, HR will simply mention them in passing and nudge to the point where an eager applicant will volunteer. Those with negative attitudes towards them simply will be removed from the applicant pool.

  21. so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    goat's blood and chicken entrails effective?

  22. Voodoo/2.0 by J'raxis · · Score: 2

    In other news, the same research group has improved the accuracy of entrail reading by including other internal organs, doubled the accuracy of palm reading by using both hands, and are now hard at work devising ever-larger crystal balls in the hopes of refining their accuracy beyond "total bullshit."

  23. Polygraph is less effective than Ouija board by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    98% of spirits tell the truth when questioned about matters of the material world.

  24. polygraph=bullshit by ihtoit · · Score: 2

    File it with "Scientology bunkum".

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  25. Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    They claim a full-body polygraph based on motion-capture suits used for movie special effects can detect lies with 75% accuracy.

    I don't believe them.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  26. Irony by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 1

    Ironically, the claim that it is possible to detect lies has always been a con. Polygraph detectors are made by con artists.

    They can detect nervousness, nothing more. And of course if you lie to people that you can detect lies, that will make it a self fulfilling prophesy to the less intelligent.

    Of course a normal level of neurosis and intelligence will make you nervous when they as you an incriminating question. But since when did authorities care what happens to intelligent people rather than to gullible employees or controllable masses?

    1. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem is that lie detectors are often admissible as court evidence.

  27. Re:Accuracy of traditional lie-detector polygraphs by Cochonou · · Score: 2

    I would also like to know if there is really a "widespread use" of polygraphs. I understood they were almost exclusively used in the US, and that most other countries actually forbade its use as evidence in courts - which would make the use of polygraph a local idiosyncracy rather than a widespread practice.

  28. Still biased in favor of psychopaths by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    This device is still flawed: it measure nervousness, which means that any psychopath will pass the test without any problem. It also means that people who get emotional easily will fail even if they tell the truth.

    IOW: garbage.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  29. Re:Accuracy of traditional lie-detector polygraphs by Carewolf · · Score: 3, Informative

    I would also like to know if there is really a "widespread use" of polygraphs. I understood they were almost exclusively used in the US, and that most other countries actually forbade its use as evidence in courts - which would make the use of polygraph a local idiosyncracy rather than a widespread practice.

    I think even in the US they are not allowed as evidence. They are used as interogation, but yes, I have never heard of any use outside of the US, at least they fell out of favor around the same time as phrenology.

  30. Even Toph was fooled. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    The blind earth bender Toph is the best lie detector on record. She detects the tiniest of the vibrations on earth and uses it to detect lies, even though she is totally blind. Her earth bending skills are so good she can fight many fire and water benders without even seeing them. But, despite all that, despite becoming the earth bending guru to Aang, she was fooled by the Fire nation circus performers. Shows there is no way to reliably detect a lie.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Even Toph was fooled. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe a fictional character with an ability that has no basis in science is used as evidence. That's almost as bad as believing polygraphs have scientific validity!

    2. Re:Even Toph was fooled. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Buddy, you are taking about Toph Beifong. Look at all the references and citations provided. Are you claiming internet is lying?

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  31. Widespread use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Despite their widespread use in industry and law enforcement

    By whom? I only know them from American films.

  32. There is no such thing as a "lie detector". by jcr · · Score: 1

    Polygraphs are voodoo.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  33. Re:Accuracy of traditional lie-detector polygraphs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet they are still used when investigating people for the highest of clearances in the US. LOL.

  34. Fools! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you are going to open yourself up to a 25% error rate? DO NOT take a polygraph test. The corrupt cops of the world just want to be able to tell you that you failed it. It makes me sick every time I see someone agree to submit to this fraud on crime shows. Get a brain people!

  35. Bullshit. by timothy · · Score: 1

    All you really need to know is the claim that it "can detect lies with 75% accuracy."

    Nope; sorry, that's just *not* what polygraphs do; conflating "is stressed" or "showing a marked difference in measured body responses" with "is lying" is exactly the problem, no matter how accurate are the sensors.

    Everyone should read (it's free!) The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Subtract agenda as necessary, but don't ignore the meat of it: https://antipolygraph.org/lie-...

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5