Slashdot Log In
Lie Detector Company Threatens Critical Scientists With Suit
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Jan 29, 2009 04:18 PM
from the slapp-ing-them-around dept.
from the slapp-ing-them-around dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Swedish newspaper DN reports that the Israeli company Nemesysco has sent letters to researchers at the University of Stockholm, threatening legal action if they do not stop publishing findings (Google translation). An article called 'Charlatanry in forensic speech science: A problem to be taken seriously' was pulled by the publisher after threats of a libel lawsuit." Online translations can be a little wonky; if your Swedish is as bad as mine, this English-language article describes the situation well.
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Brain Scans to Identify Liars? 324 comments
dotc writes "After a bunch of sci-fi stories and rumors, now it looks like the future has become a reality -- a reliable, unbiased test using functional MRI brain scan to detect lying. The article author details a first-person account of undergoing the MRI 'deception task'. And the test is available now - use it to prove your innocence." From the article: "Laken said he's aiming to offer the fMRI service for use in situations like libel, slander and fraud where it's one person's word against another, and perhaps in employee screening by government agencies. Attorneys suggest it would be more useful in civil than most criminal cases, he said."
[+]
Biometric Terrorist Detector 322 comments
neutralino writes "The Wall Street Journal has this story about a biometric airport security system which uses biometric responses — blood pressure, pulse and sweat levels — to series of questions ("Are you smuggling drugs?") to identify passengers with "hostile intent." According to the article, "In the latest Israeli trial, the system caught 85% of the role-acting terrorists, meaning that 15% got through, and incorrectly identified 8% of innocent travelers as potential threats, according to corporate marketing materials.""
[+]
Scientist Organizes Resistance To Polygraphs 405 comments
George Maschke writes "Brad Holian, a senior scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, is using a blog to organize resistance to plans for random polygraph and drug testing of Lab scientists. Holian writes: 'Polygraphy is an insulting affront to scientists, since a committee of the National Academy of Sciences has declared that, beyond being inadmissible in court, there is no scientific basis for polygraphs. In my opinion, by agreeing to be polygraphed, one thereby seriously jeopardizes his or her claim to being a scientist, which is presumably the principal reason for employment for many scientists at Los Alamos.'"
[+]
Ohio Court Admits Lie Detector Tests As Evidence 198 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Last month, an Ohio court set a new precedent by allowing polygraph test results to be entered as evidence in a criminal trial. Do lie detectors really belong in the court room? AntiPolygraph.org critiques the polygraph evidence from the this precedential case (Ohio v. Sharma)."
[+]
Homeland Security Department Testing "Pre-Crime" Detector 580 comments
holy_calamity writes "New Scientist reports that the Department of Homeland Security recently tested something called Future Attribute Screening Technologies (FAST) — a battery of sensors that determine whether someone is a security threat from a distance. Sensors look at facial expressions, body heat and can measure pulse and breathing rate from a distance. In trials using 140 volunteers those told to act suspicious were detected with 'about 78% accuracy on mal-intent detection, and 80% on deception,' says a DHS spokesman."
Submission: Lie detector company threatens critical scientists by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
there are two enemies of science and progress (Score:4, Insightful)
1. socially conservative politics
2. intellectual property laws
civilization is bettered in terms of happiness, health, and financial prosperity as long as the power of social conservatives and corporate oligarchy are held in check. certainly, there is now ay to ever completely defeat these forces, and they do actually do good some good in this world. but they must be eternally pruned, for in part sof the world where their power runs unchecked, corruption and classism, intolerance and tribalism take hold
Re:there are two enemies of science and progress (Score:5, Informative)
Text is here: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:4x3raI0CVjoJ:www.ling.gu.se/konferenser/iafpa2006/Abstracts/Eriksson_IAFPA%25202006.pdf+&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us [74.125.95.132]
Contains:
This is the html version of the file http://www.ling.gu.se/konferenser/iafpa2006/Abstracts/Eriksson_IAFPA%202006.pdf [ling.gu.se].
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
Page 1
Proceedings, IAFPA 2006, Department of Linguistics, Göteborg University
Charlatanry and fraud - an increasing problem for forensic
phonetics?
Anders Eriksson
Department of Linguistics, Göteborg University, Sweden
anders.eriksson@ling.gu.se
In my talk I will describe one case of charlatanry and one case of fraud in forensic phonetics.
Charlatanry can take different forms. One type is when someone appears as an expert without
having the necessary qualifications or no qualifications at all. Another form is when some kind of
physical device is used or marketed which is based on principles for which there is no scientific
support. This is nothing new. The use of voiceprints is a classical case of this type. Charlatans often
exploit the fact that people are easily impressed by advanced technology. Today the methods are
often claimed to have been made possible only because of recent advances in computer technology.
The following two quotes may serve to illustrate my point: "enhanced by the rapid advancements in
personal computer technology", "the worlds most advanced application of this core frequency
based technology". This is how both products I will present here are described by those who market
them although in reality they are very unsophisticated products from a technological point of view.
By fraud I will refer to methods or devices based on principles which are so obviously false that
there can be no doubt that the people who produce them or use them must be aware of it. The
second example is of this kind.
A lie detector which can reveal lie and deception in some automatic and perfectly reliable way is an
old idea we have often met with in science fiction books and comic strips. This is all very well. It is
when machines claimed to be lie detectors appear in the context of criminal investigations that we
need to be concerned. Both examples presented here belong in this category. They are of particular
interest for forensic phonetics because they are both said to be based on analysis of the human
voice. The basic idea behind "lie detectors" based on voice analysis is that there are properties in
the voice signal that may be reliably correlated with lie or deception.
A gadget called Voice Stress Analyzer (VSA) or Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE) has a history
that goes back to the seventies. In the sixties it was discovered that in larger muscles like the biceps
there is involuntary tremor, called micro tremor, with a frequency in the 8 to 12 Hz range. This
gave rise to speculations that the same phenomenon might be present in the larynx muscles and that
it may affect the voice source frequency. In particular it was suggested that the tremor might vary
as a function of stress in the speaker. Before anybody had a chance to investigate the possible
occurrence of micro tremor in the voice, the first "lie detector" based micro tremor in the voice
source appeared. (See. Rice, 1978). In the years to follow, many researchers tested voice stress
analyzers based on these ideas, but with largely negative results. Hollien surveyed the literature in
1987 and concluded that: "the ability of voice analyzers to detect stress from speech-or to identify
spoken deception-have been negative or "mixed" in nature". He a
Parent
Re:there are two enemies of science and progress (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing wrong with the title if they do indeed demonstrate that there is charlatanry in forensics speech science. It sounds like they did just that. There are times when an inflamatory-seeming word is still the correct word.
Parent
Re:there are two enemies of science and progress (Score:5, Informative)
Charlatary : a person who makes false claims.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Charlatanry [thefreedictionary.com]
Parent
Re:there are two enemies of science and progress (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
By fraud I will refer to methods or devices based on principles which are so obviously false that
there can be no doubt that the people who produce them or use them must be aware of it.
Seems reasonable to me.
Parent
Re:there are two enemies of science and progress (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about censorship or intellectual property laws, it's about a company protecting its image from mudslinging.
Truth is an absolute defense to libel. Also if it can't be shown one way or another to be fact or not it's not libel as libel only concerns factual matters not opinions. If the paper is even reasonably well written they have little to worry about. What happened is they published a paper that shows the "science" behind lie detectors to be questionable at best, and a company that makes lie detectors threatened to sue them because the paper shows their product to be useless. A better approach (read more effective) would have been if they used the money they paid those lawyers to instead commission their own study of the effectiveness of lie detectors. This of course assumes that they actually believe in their own product, and don't already know it to be a scam.
Parent
Re:there are two enemies of science and progress (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:there are two enemies of science and progress (Score:5, Interesting)
Truth is an absolute defense to libel.
Not everywhere. And you seem to be under the impression that people won't sue you if you're telling the truth. That simply doesn't matter: the more correct your accusations, the more money and lawyers they will throw at you. You may well be right ... but in the end, if what you are saying is sufficiently threatening to a litigious corporation, you'll be dead right.
This is pretty bad, but nowhere near as bad as Taser Corporation intimidating forensic scientists and coroners to change their findings, if it so happens that a Taser kills someone. I mean, it's one thing if you shoot someone with a gun: no firearm manufacturer claims that its products are non-lethal. Taser does make that claim, and even though it is often false, they're using their lawyers to keep up the pretense.
Evil is as evil does.
Parent
Re:there are two enemies of science and progress (Score:5, Informative)
Just to clarify: these are so-called "voice stress analyzers", not polygraphs. The latter are capable of producing enough data that a trained person can catch many lies
Even the accuracy of polygraphs is highly questionable. The false positive rate is too high to genuinely say they "catch" anyone under any reasonable definition. I'd have a pretty good chance of catching the 10 liars in a group of 50 if I just selected all the people who looked uncomfortable during questioning. That wouldn't make my method valid. Polygraphy only works by scaring people into telling the truth. It's nothing more than theater [antipolygraph.org].
Parent
Re:there are two enemies of science and progress (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also, incidentally, the well known fascist way
The traditional division of political views on a scale from left to right has been absurd for at least 50 years, but even more so since 1990 and the collapse of totalitarian communism in USSR.
It is far more useful to look at the scale as having individualism on the one and and collectivism on the other. If you divide politics in that manner, socialism and fascism is only marginally different, while liberal democracy is the total opposite whether it is the relatively left-wing Scandinavian kind or the more traditionally right-leaning US kind.
Parent
Re:there are two enemies of science and progress (Score:5, Insightful)
IIRC, embryonic stem cells have a tendency to be cancerous ...
Sure, that's why embryos always die of cancer. Oh, wait, they actually don't.
Are you really so simple-minded that you think that every possible therapy that might be developed using embryonic stem cell research will always increase the risk of cancer? It wouldn't surprise me if there was a specific therapy or class of therapies that increased cancer risk - but how can you possibly go from that to the radical generalization that all possible therapies that might ever be developed will carry a risk of cancer? Is it the crystal ball, again?
Parent
Re:there are two enemies of science and progress (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't try to bring rational thought to a debate with an "Educated" liberal. I really don't need the headache that will surely ensue.
Is that because they are unwilling to listen to your rationale, or because you are unwilling to listen to theirs?
Chances are it's both so I don't see any solution myself, but giving up on talking to one another seems like a poor third option.
Parent
Presumably, all the Swedish researchers need (Score:5, Funny)
Oh wait...
Re:Presumably, all the Swedish researchers need (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Presumably, all the Swedish researchers need (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Presumably, all the Swedish researchers need (Score:5, Interesting)
But in the UK, if I'm not mistaken, the burden of proof lies on the accused [nybooks.com]â"that is to say, you have to prove that you're not being libelous (search the page for "burden of proof"). Asinine? Absolutely.
Parent
Re:Presumably, all the Swedish researchers need (Score:5, Informative)
He's right. Lie detectors do not detect lies. They detect stress levels while making a statement which, when measured and compared against a previously established baseline, allows on to *estimate* truthfulness.
The problem is, if you believe what you are saying is true, you can unknowingly tell a lie and pass.
The problem is, if you feel no remorse or guilt when lying, you can tell a lie and pass.
If your normal rest state is one of extreme stress, the difference between your baseline and "lie state" may not indicate you are lying when you are.
Many types of drugs interfere with lie detectors.
Lie detectors are not very reliable. There are good reasons lie detectors are not admissible in court. They still make for good investigative tools. Many police detectives do not understand how flawed and easily fooled lie detectors truly are. They are a good tool, that's it.
Parent
Streisand effect strikes again (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder when companies will realize that trying to silence people in this modern age will just lead to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect [wikipedia.org]
Re:Streisand effect strikes again (Score:5, Informative)
It was a British journal.
Parent
Re:Streisand effect strikes again (Score:5, Informative)
I also find it funny, and sad, that a Swedish entity caved so easily to a legal threat from outside the country (and from outside the country's legal system).
To be clear: the researchers are Swedish, but the publisher which caved to the legal threat was in the UK (Equinox [equinoxpub.com]). From TFA:
Your point remains: it's sad that a UK publisher caved so easily to what appears to be a rather baseless accusation. (The article isn't libelous; merely factual.) Luckily the Swedish researchers are doing a good job distributing the information anyways.
Parent
english article (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.thelocal.se/17188/20090127/ [thelocal.se]
A Simple Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Forget the lawsuits. Ask the researchers if they'd be willing to be connected to the lie detectors and to then testify that their research and conclusions were made in good faith.
If the detectors indicate a lie, the situation doesn't really change. But if the detectors do not indicate a lie, the manufacturer is pretty well cornered.
Re:A Simple Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that if the lie detector says the scientists are telling the truth, the company can either:
1. Publicly admit that the scientists are telling the truth.
2. Publicly claim that the scientists are lying and, thus, also publicly admit that their own lie detectors are faulty.
Parent
Re:A Simple Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Keep in mind that the company is not merely disputing the results of the research. They are claiming libel, which requires maliciousness or deception on the part of the researchers.
Parent
Clench your toes and hold your breath. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Clench your toes and hold your breath. (Score:5, Interesting)
Insurance companies are using your voice over the phone, to test if your are lying. Strangely the companies claim that most of their customers are.
Go figure...
Parent
Re:Clench your toes and hold your breath. (Score:5, Informative)
gotten to the point now where
It got that point sometime in the 1920's in almost all states, since polygraphs didn't meet the Frye Standard [wikipedia.org] for evidence. Basically, in the scientific community at-large thinks you are full of shit, you are de-fact full of shit.
Now we use the Daubert Standard, that looks at relevance and peer-reviewed reliability. [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Clench your toes and hold your breath. (Score:5, Funny)
I am sort of paraphrasing the Frye standard...not talking about my beliefs. I'm not saying anything.
I take the Frye standard's meaning to agree with you and the researchers. Scientists always doubted ploygraphic evidence...that's why it was inadmissible in so many courts.
general consensus among the scientific community at large agrees on the dangers of the literally mind boggling self-prevailing power of dominating discourses
You just said that the general consensus is that general consensuses are dangerous.
Parent
E-meter (Score:5, Funny)
I guess it's back to using an E-meter or flipping a coin to see who is telling the truth. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter [wikipedia.org]
Abstract... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the abstract of the article from http://www.equinoxjournals.com/ojs/index.php/IJSLL/article/view/3775 [equinoxjournals.com]
ABSTRACT
A lie detector which can reveal lie and deception in some automatic and perfectly reliable way is an old idea we have often met with in science fiction books and comic strips. This is all very well. It is when machines claimed to be lie detectors appear in the context of criminal investigations or security applications that we need to be concerned. In the present paper we will describe two types of âoedeceptionâ or âoestress detectors" (euphemisms to refer to what quite clearly is known as âoelie detectorsâ). Both types of detection are claimed to be based on voice analysis but we found no scientific evidence to support the manufacturersâ(TM) claims. Indeed, our review of scientific studies will show that these machines perform at chance level when tested for reliability. Given such results and the absence of scientific support for the underlying principles it is justified to view the use of these machines as charlatanry and we argue that there are serious ethical and security reasons to demand that responsible authorities and institutions should not get involved in such practices.
I wasn't able to find a copy of the paper itself.
Re:Abstract... (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't moral judgement. It's a normal conclusion based on their research. Things like this happen all the time in science - it would not be at all out of place in the conclusions part of their paper.
Parent
Underlying technology (Score:5, Funny)
Should be pulled off the market.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know lie detectors have only been more of toys or threats than really useful tools. A trained questioner doesn't need a lie detector. A lie detector is more for them to let you know that they are almost positive that you've lied on the subject.
There are folks that want lie detectors to work like in the movies or have it on their cell phones so that they know when the other person is lying. They'd hate to have it used on them though. I have news for you.
Everyone has a built-in lie detector. It's just how well that it's been trained to work. How would the world be different if we gave elementary school kids the same questioning for lies tools that are usually taught to police detectives? Short answer; not too different. They'd just know faster when the teachers are lost and clueless, and any attempts to bring new information that you know the teacher doesn't have would just be punished faster. We would get politicians that are even better at lying though.
Ever take one of these? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ever take one of these? (Score:5, Informative)
There are exceptions in the Federal Government (including DOD) that allows it.
Evidently, former President George "Stalin" Bush thought it was a good idea to expand the program.
http://antipolygraph.org/blog/?p=212 [antipolygraph.org]
Parent
Lie detectors are ruining the Torture Industry! (Score:5, Funny)
If lie detectors *really* worked, we wouldn't have to torture so many people, would we? We'd just hook them up to the lie detector, and ask them questions, like, "Will the LHC discover the Higgs boson?", and then we would know if they were guilty or not.
The US could close down Guantanamo in a fortnight.
But then the Torture Industry would need a bailout.
Or maybe the Torture Industry should just get a cut of every lie detector sold?
Re:Lie detectors are ruining the Torture Industry! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
There is no such thing as a "Lie Detector" (Score:5, Insightful)
Polygraphs, voice stress analyzers, coin flips, sticking your hand in the statue's mouth and Scientology's "E-Meters" all share the same validity in catching lies -- basically none. It's all pretend "science" with cool moving needles and wires, but you might as well be watching a seismograph for all the good it does you. It simply gives government agencies and insurance companies an excuse to call you a liar. "Hey, don't look at me, the MACHINE says you're lying..."
Now FOX has this propaganda puff piece for the TSA called "Lie to Me" going where an actor I like is helping spread nonsense I can't stand.
Can you imagine the revolution society would undergo if "voice stress analyzers" actually worked? "I did not have sex with that woman!" BZZZ! "Saddam Hussein is building nuclear weapons!" BZZZ! "The 700 billion will be wisely spent!" BZZZZ! "I was misquoted!" BZZZ!
Re:There is no such thing as a "Lie Detector" (Score:5, Interesting)
Polygraphs, voice stress analyzers, coin flips, sticking your hand in the statue's mouth and Scientology's "E-Meters" all share the same validity in catching lies -- basically none. It's all pretend "science" with cool moving needles and wires, but you might as well be watching a seismograph for all the good it does you. It simply gives government agencies and insurance companies an excuse to call you a liar. "Hey, don't look at me, the MACHINE says you're lying..."
Oh, all those things (including the seismograph) can have quite a bit of validity at catching lies... if the person being interrogated believes they are valid lie-catchers. As a psychological tool in the hands of an interrogator skilled in the 'old fashioned' method of detecting lies, they can be quite handy.
That's about the only use a polygraph has. Enough people don't know what crocks they are that they may be convinced that their lies have been or will be discovered by the machine and spill the truth. I've even heard of a detective faking it by using a non-functional box, with a concealed switch that made red and green lights come on. He made it flash red when he thought the suspect was lying, and well he was right enough that the suspect panicked and confessed.
Of course, if an empty box and a hand switch work equally well as the 'real thing', that kinda defeats the need for polygraph vendors and their expensive toys. Thus this kind of lawsuit.
Parent
Re:There is no such thing as a "Lie Detector" (Score:5, Informative)
Have you actually watched the show? If anything there's constant disdain for lie detectors and other mechanical lie detection techniques, favoring microexpression interpretation. I'd hardly call it propaganda, just a cross between "The Mentalist" type shows and CSI.
Parent
I have some software for you. (Score:5, Insightful)
.
Hey, look! I can blast buzzwords and pretend my software works too!
So how much would you pay? Wait, don't answer because this can flash the overall value for each parameter in a separate window! Now how much would you pay?
Parent
Re:How it works... (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting. I wonder how it measures up to method acting. ... and politicians.
I can imagine someone taking a politicians speech and running it through this sort of analysis, especially since it can use recorded audio.
Heck, start by computing a baseline and run through recordings of previous Presidents, working your way toward the current administration.
I expect it would make for a very interesting paper (and I expect a footnote, you can contact me for proper attribution. No grant money kickback necessary, but if you need a data-cruncher, I'd be happy to help. :) )
Parent
Re:How it works... (Score:4, Funny)
Interesting. I wonder how it measures up to method acting.
Screw that, you're really just curious if that phone sex girl is into you or not.
Am I the only one who was expecting a statement from Nemesysco advertising "Our products are for entertainment purposes only." ?
Parent
Re:How it works... (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one who was expecting a statement from Nemesysco advertising "Our products are for entertainment purposes only." ?
They couldn't do that as their major contracts are with military, intelligence, and police organizations. Labeling their product as an entertainment device would be to more or less admit that the paper is correct and most likely cost them all of their contracts (and future sales).
Parent
Re:How it works... (Score:4, Informative)
Hey now! I had a friend who used to work as a phone sex operator (genuinely). She was not unattractive. She did, however, read clothing catalogues whilst conducting phone sessions. Presumably a let down to know she was choosing cardigans whilst you got off.
Parent
Re:How it works... (Score:5, Funny)
Presumably a let down to know she was choosing cardigans whilst you got off.
That's ok, I was on the other end reading Slashdot. So we're even.
Parent
Re:How it works... (Score:5, Funny)
Presumably a let down to know she was choosing cardigans whilst you got off.
That's ok, I was on the other end reading Slashdot. So we're even.
Not really. You're out 3.95/min
Parent
Re:How it works... (Score:5, Insightful)
My point is that this isn't lying, it's the listener lying to himself about what he heard... When Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down this Wall!" he wasn't lying about his unwillingness to tear down the wall himself, he was just phrasing his position in such a way the made everyone hear "OMG Reagan promises to defeat teh sovs!" when in fact Reagan was taking responsibility for no action on his part.
Just the same, when Obama says "Yes we can close Guantanamo!" he isn't promising to do a goddamn thing, he's just phrasing his aspirations for what America could do in such a way that people hear "OMG Barack is gonna close gitmo!"
This is not lying, and treating it like it is is just victimology of the voter against eeeeeeevil politicians.
Parent
Oh yes that's lying! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just the same, when Obama says "Yes we can close Guantanamo!" he isn't promising to do a goddamn thing, he's just phrasing his aspirations for what America could do in such a way that people hear "OMG Barack is gonna close gitmo!"
This is not lying, and treating it like it is is just victimology of the voter against eeeeeeevil politicians.
That is absolutely lying! We're talking about natural language communication here, not a programming language. Words and phrases have meaning that are not necessarily the sum of their individual parts, there is context involved that guides the necessary interpretation of both sides. As in, pedantic literal interpretation is not, and has never been, the sole judge of the meaning of a sentence.
When the words spoken by a speaker are designed to convey a certain meaning to the listeners, and the listeners receive that meaning, then we call that successful communication. When that correctly conveyed meaning is deliberately false, that's a fucking lie!
When the speaker also designs their words to leave themselves a semantic escape valve so they can claim to have meant something else later, that doesn't mean they weren't lying, it means they knew they were lying and thus needed the out!
When Obama said "Yes we can close Gitmo", everyone correctly interpreted that to mean that if he were elected, he would close Gitmo. That is the meaning he obviously intended to convey. If he doesn't close it, then that's a lie*. And if he defended himself by saying that all he had meant was he thought it was something America could do hypothetically, then that makes him a double liar because that obviously is not the message he intended to convey when he spoke!
The only people who think that isn't lying are:
1) People who've sacrificed reason itself on the Altar of Pedantry.
2) Liars who are lying about it not being lying and just like being able to use semantics to escape from obvious lies.
I refuse to sacrifice my ability to detect lies covered with such a thin ruse to either group of people.
* So far so good on this count, but of course I won't be happy until the thing is really truly closed.
Parent
Re:How it works... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because a relationship built on a situation where you knowingly or surreptitiously subject your partner's speech to a voice analysis to determine if they like or love you is bound for success, right?
Parent