Slashdot Mirror
Technology and the End of Lying
HughPickens.com writes: The Washington Post reports that lying may soon become a lost art as our digital, data-hoarding culture means that more and more evidence is piling up to undermine our lies. "The research shows the way lies are really uncovered is by comparing what someone is saying to the evidence," says Tim Levine,"and with all these news analytics that can be done, it's going to enable lie detection in a way that was previously impossible." For example in Pennsylvania, police are prosecuting a woman who claimed she was sexually assaulted earlier this year after data from her Fitbit didn't match up with her story, Just like you can Google a fact to end an argument, instant messaging programs that archive digital conversations make it easy to look back and see exactly who said what — and if it matches up with what a person is saying now. "Lying online can be very dangerous," says Jeff Hancock. "Not only are you leaving a record for yourself on your machine, but you're leaving a record on the person that you were lying to."
Even more alarming for liars is the incorporation of lie detector technology into the facial recognition technology. Researchers claim video-analysis software can analyze eye movement successfully to identify whether or not a subject is fibbing 82.5 percent of the time. The new technology heightens surveillance capabilities—from monitoring actions to assessing emotions—in ways that make an individual ever more vulnerable to government authorities, marketers, employers, and to any and every person with whom we interact. "We must understand that—at the individual level and with regard to interpersonal relations—too much truth and transparency can be harmful," says Norberto Andrade. "The permanent confrontation with a verifiable truth will turn us into overly cautious, calculating, and suspicious people."
Even more alarming for liars is the incorporation of lie detector technology into the facial recognition technology. Researchers claim video-analysis software can analyze eye movement successfully to identify whether or not a subject is fibbing 82.5 percent of the time. The new technology heightens surveillance capabilities—from monitoring actions to assessing emotions—in ways that make an individual ever more vulnerable to government authorities, marketers, employers, and to any and every person with whom we interact. "We must understand that—at the individual level and with regard to interpersonal relations—too much truth and transparency can be harmful," says Norberto Andrade. "The permanent confrontation with a verifiable truth will turn us into overly cautious, calculating, and suspicious people."
You're not original. Deuteronomy 19:19
False rape accusations are rare.
Rare? I'd hardly call 8% of accusations in the US rare. Even the lowest estimates are between 1-2% of cases. While it can be difficult to prosecute he-said/she-said cases and (too) many rape cases never come to trial, false accusations of rape are anything but rare.
You seem to like picking people up on spelling. Thats generally done by people who, in lieu actually having anything resembling a coherent point to contribute to the argument, feel they need to be noticed and admired for their - in their eyes - incredible intellect. Narcissists in other words.
Got anything else or is that it?
There are a few of them, actually. This could be a straw man, but since it's in the rebuttal it's more like a red herring. And there's an ad hominem on top of it, because the implication is that the concern of fake rapes would be invalidated if the claimant wasn't as concerned about unprosecuted rapes.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
You bring up one good point... when it comes to politicians, you can spot a lie from them from 10 miles off.
Example? In CNN's recent interview of Hillary Clinton, she claimed that she never got a subpoena for her private mail server... took less than 30 seconds to discover otherwise. Opposing ideology groups were broadcasting her false statement -- with evidence proving that she spoke falsely -- across social media even before the interview ended.
However... it means approximately nothing. Why? Because the public at large is afflicted with three social diseases: a hard balkanized group of ideologies, a nasty case of civic ADHD, and the collective attention span of a fruit fly. Claim otherwise all you like, but as a general rule, do some research... you'll not only find it, but you will find it occurring at a distressing frequency.
QED: Politicians can take comfort in the knowledge that they can continue to blatantly lie their asses off, and their political base will still love them unconditionally in spite of it.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The technology enables us to lie more effectively. We can find whatever truth we desire:
"The anti-vaccine agitators can always find a renegade researcher or random “study” to back them up. This is erudition in the age of cyberspace: You surf until you reach the conclusion you’re after. You click your way to validation, confusing the presence of a website with the plausibility of an argument.
Although the Internet could be making all of us smarter, it makes many of us stupider, because it’s not just a magnet for the curious. It’s a sinkhole for the gullible. - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07...