Slashdot Mirror
An Eye-Scanning Lie Detector Is Forging a Dystopian Future (wired.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Sitting in front of a Converus EyeDetect station, it's impossible not to think of Blade Runner. In the 1982 sci-fi classic, Harrison Ford's rumpled detective identifies artificial humans using a steam-punk Voight-Kampff device that watches their eyes while they answer surreal questions. EyeDetect's questions are less philosophical, and the penalty for failure is less fatal (Ford's character would whip out a gun and shoot). But the basic idea is the same: By capturing imperceptible changes in a participant's eyes -- measuring things like pupil dilation and reaction time -- the device aims to sort deceptive humanoids from genuine ones.
It claims to be, in short, a next-generation lie detector. Polygraph tests are a $2 billion industry in the US and, despite their inaccuracy, are widely used to screen candidates for government jobs. Released in 2014 by Converus, a Mark Cuban-funded startup, EyeDetect is pitched by its makers as a faster, cheaper, and more accurate alternative to the notoriously unreliable polygraph. By many measures, EyeDetect appears to be the future of lie detection -- and it's already being used by local and federal agencies to screen job applicants.
It claims to be, in short, a next-generation lie detector. Polygraph tests are a $2 billion industry in the US and, despite their inaccuracy, are widely used to screen candidates for government jobs. Released in 2014 by Converus, a Mark Cuban-funded startup, EyeDetect is pitched by its makers as a faster, cheaper, and more accurate alternative to the notoriously unreliable polygraph. By many measures, EyeDetect appears to be the future of lie detection -- and it's already being used by local and federal agencies to screen job applicants.
You can beat a polygraph by clenching your sphincter when answering questions, it causes a slight skin flush and rise in blood pleasure which is how the polygraph measures "lies", but they have to establish a baseline so if you do it every single time you answer a question the detection system can't see deception.
Polygraphs are pseudo-science bullshit, and it astounds me to this day that they are still given any weight at all. Europe realized they were pseudo-science and barred their use for any reason, private or public, at all because they DON'T WORK.And best case is they just point you in the wrong direction.
From noted experts on lie detectors and their weaknesses: Yes, they are measuring your current emotional/visceral response. Pathological liars do very well on these as they are acting out their stories (true or not); as they experience the universe of the story, it becomes their reality and their bodies react accordingly.
Okay, you aren't a pathological liar. Can you focus on images, at least? You want a positive emotional response? Focus your mind on sex while answering a question. You'll inhale, your pupils will dilate, skin thermal and electrical properties will change. For an opposite reaction, focus on maggots on an open wound on your arm.
This. It's been a while since I last watched the movie, but IIRC we only saw Deckard perform a single Voight-Kampf test - on Rachel, and he most definitely did NOT shoot her. There's also a relevant fan theory that he may have done a verbal version of the test on Zhora (the woman with the snake) with his questions about holes, and while he did shoot her that was only after she attacked him and in doing so confirmed that she was the replicant he thought he was.
Maybe the author of TFS was thinking of Han Solo and Greedo?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Lie "detectors" always have been, are today, and will always be snake oil.
Not true. They work and they are useful... if the subject being interrogated believes they work.
It's almost like the placebo effect, except that placebo effectiveness is around 20 percent, whereas lie detector effectiveness is over 50 percent (and sometimes approaches 80 percent). Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert comics) explained this on his blog. He is a trained hypnotist and studies mental persuasion.
Yes you can easily beat any polygraph if you receive training. But how many people in the general population actually get such training? And btw it's not enough to hear or read about how polygraphs don't work, you actually have to have some first-hand experience on how they operate... you need to see for yourself that you can manipulate the readings by doing various things (thinking different thoughts, feeling discomfort and pain by deliberately doing things like stepping on a nail hidden in your shoe, etc)
Case in point: when you join a spy agency, they don't just tell you that polygraphs aren't scientific and they don't work, so don't worry about it. They give you actual live training on how to beat it. Because just tellling you about it isn't enough.
Unless they are comfortable with lying.
In the 1980's Southland corporation gave up using lie detection as a pre-screening tool in selecting employees. They were actually selecting better liars, not excluding the dishonest.
Back then the majority of minimum wage jobs were performed by teenagers (like I was at the time). Funny thing about teens is that they aren't grown up yet. Teens don't have a great deal of life experience. That includes failure, and having their integrity questioned. When you question the integrity of a confident, experienced adult, they can handle it. Question a kid, and you make them uncomfortable, nervous, twitchy. They don't have the experience and confidence to handle it.
Unless they are already accomplished liars and are comfortable and experienced at having their integrity and motives questioned.
TL;DR, southland actually had an increase in employee theft thanks to their use of lie detectors as a employment tool. https://newsok.com/article/203... https://www.cia.gov/library/re...