Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Technology

Lie Detector Glasses Coming Soon 457

Posted by michael from the horn-rimmed dept.
Zelphyr writes "The EE Times is reporting on a product soon to be released by an Israeli company that allows the wearer of special glasses to tell whether the person they are talking to is telling a lie. Not only that, they can tell you whether someone loves you! Apparently a PC version of the 'love detector' is in the works as well. Think my Windows box will be upset when it knows how much I hate it?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lie Detector Glasses Coming Soon More

Lie Detector Glasses Coming Soon

Comments Filter:

  • Hard facts. (Score:5, Funny)

    by shystershep ( 643874 ) * <.moc.liamg. .ta. .drehpehsdb.> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:51PM (#8035650) Homepage Journal

    V Entertainment claims the love detector has demonstrated 96 percent accuracy.

    Oh, good. I'm glad that they have tested this empirically and have hard numbers for us.
  • *sniff sniff*
    Who farted?
    Oh shit you got those new glasses
    RUNNNNNNNNNN!

  • Problem With This (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:52PM (#8035661)
    Better keeps this away from any large group of politicians... it just might explode.

    • Re:Problem With This... they'll be illegal! (Score:5, Funny)

      by rajafarian ( 49150 ) * on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:58PM (#8035762)
      If these work with at least 90% "accuracy" I say our elected politicians ban these, citing "national security!"

    • Re:Problem With This (Score:5, Funny)

      by happyfrogcow ( 708359 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:05PM (#8035866)
      just in time for the State of the Union address tonight!

      Even the rounds of applaus would trigger the glasses.
      • just in time for the State of the Union address tonight!

        Perfect! Have it run in real-time, with Isuzu Joe style commentary at the bottom of the screen:

        "... and Saddam Hussein will stand a fair trial for his crimes against humanity..."

        (He's lying)

        "... and no matter how long it takes, justice will be served."

        (As long as "justice" means that Hussein will be hanged sometime before the 2004 Election, upping Bush's approval ratings.)

    • Better invention (Score:5, Funny)

      by t0ny ( 590331 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:20PM (#8036057)
      a product soon to be released by an Israeli company that allows the wearer of special glasses to tell whether the person they are talking to is telling a lie.

      I think they need to have these guys make glasses which detect if the person you are looking at has a bomb strapped to his waist.

      • Re:Better invention (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 1984 ( 56406 )
        And they need to do it without tipping that person off. A problem with suicide bombers is that rumbling them away from the intended target can just cause them to improvise. Security checkpoints are nice and busy, and so are buses and shopping streets. It doesn't tip the balance if someone just blows himself up somewhere else that's still packed with people.

    • Re:Problem With This (Score:5, Funny)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:21PM (#8036070) Homepage
      Better keeps this away from any large group of politicians... it just might explode.

      they ran preliminary tests this month in IOWA with the democratic nominees..

      of the four subjects that tested the glasses, 3 of them screamed "My Eyes! I'm Blinded!" where as the fourth simply equated the experience with an acid trip he had in the late 70's.

  • Meetings might be useful! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ericspinder ( 146776 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:52PM (#8035662) Journal
    Ultimately, the company plans to offer versions of its detectors for cell phones, dating services, teaching aids, toys and games.
    I can imagine it now, a wristwatch which will vibrate when it hears bullshit or better yet one that screams "BULLSHIT". That whould be a lot of fun in meetings! Also, it would be nice to get truthful answers to these questions:
    • Are you going to over-charge me. (at the dealership for service and purchase)
    • Are you cheating on me (for your spouse)
    • Are you selling your vote to special interests (for your congressman)
    • Did you, George start a war to (at least in part) supply oil contract for your buddies?

  • That's nice and all.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by RailGunner ( 554645 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:52PM (#8035667) Journal
    ... but where are the X-Ray glasses promised to us in the throngs of comic books of our youth? Hmmm?

    • Re:That's nice and all.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rune Berge ( 663292 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:01PM (#8035810)
      They realized that the skeleton-fetishist market is too marginal.

    • Re:That's nice and all.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Picard42 ( 741924 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:17PM (#8036023)
      ... but where are the X-Ray glasses promised to us in the throngs of comic books of our youth? Hmmm?

      Those turned out to be a fraud, so I ordered the George Atlas body-building kit, stayed up all night lifting weights, and beat up the manufacturers of the glasses the next day.

      Seriously, though, this invention sounds like an absolute nightmare. Do you really want to know every time your wife fakes an orgasm? And trust me, if you're on Slashdot, she does.

  • For most Slashdotters... (Score:4, Funny)

    by digital_milo ( 212475 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:53PM (#8035676)
    It will end up being a 'just wanna be friends' detector.
    • It will end up being a 'just wanna be friends' detector.

      My question is will it distinguish between love and lust? Will girls be able to use this to determine that I just want to fuck them, and feel nothing else other than that urge, despite all the bullshit I've been telling them?

    • Re:For most Slashdotters... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by martyros ( 588782 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @07:34PM (#8038237)
      You know, I'm by nature an honest person, and for a long time I wondered why we had the whole "politeness" bit: why are the hints so subtle, and why is it that those who can't / chose not to read them are just supposed to be endured, and not told straight out, "You know, I don't really want to hang out with you tonight" or "That's really boring. If you want me to listen you you, you'll have to talk about something else" or "You know, I really don't think you have a chance, and I don't want to waste my time or yours."

      But in my life, there have been several instances where someone who initially bores me or totally annoys me eventually grows on me, so that we become friends -- something that wouldn't have happened if I'd been rude and just told them off; and I've been on the receiving end of that too. I had a good friend tell me that when he first met me, he thought I was just an arrogant American and had no interest in getting to know be better; eventually we became really good friends.

      So with the "love glasses": even if they're 96% accurate as far as what's going on in the person's head right now, they're not necessarily that useful for what's going to happen in the future. The person who just thinks you're a nice guy, or even doesn't really care for you now, may get to know you better and begin to like you; and the person who is initially attracted to you and thinks your cute may realize you're not really her type.

      So this may be useful if you're just looking for one-night-stands, but if you're looking for anything else, I'd say it's best to stick with the social cues. They developed for a reason.

  • I can hear airport security now... (Score:5, Funny)

    by GoNINzo ( 32266 ) <<moc.oohay> <ta> <ozNINoG>> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:54PM (#8035687) Journal
    'Hey Bob, take a look at this. I think this guy is lying about packing his own bag!'

    'No Joe, you're reading it wrong, he just wants to fuck you.'

  • These love detection glasses are broken! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Bender Unit 22 ( 216955 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:54PM (#8035691) Journal
    These love detection glasses are broken, I have never seen anything. I think I will stick to ye olde love tester [amazon.com]

  • Great! (Score:5, Informative)

    by k98sven ( 324383 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:54PM (#8035692) Journal
    Just what I've always wanted, the unscientific* and unreliable results of traditional polygraphy, only in portable form!!

    Where do I sign up?

    (Oh, sorry.. there is research that has PROVEN the polygraph to have 50% accuracy rate.. ranking it right up there with the 'other' lie detector: A coin with the word 'truth' on one side and 'lie' on the other!)
    • Oh, sorry.. there is research that has PROVEN the polygraph to have 50% accuracy rate.. ranking it right up there with the 'other' lie detector: A coin with the word 'truth' on one side and 'lie' on the other!

      Source, please. I've seen nothing that claims worse than 61%, and usually much better than that.

    • Can someone find real numbers? (Score:5, Informative)

      by UrgleHoth ( 50415 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:10PM (#8035937) Homepage
      Polygraphing is a given hot topic, there are zealots in both proponent and opponent camps. I find it diffucult to find an objective source of information on the topic and its accuracy.

      Antipolygraph.org has a link here [antipolygraph.org]

      and the American Polygraph Association has a link here [polygraph.org]

      • Re:Can someone find real numbers? (Score:5, Informative)

        by k98sven ( 324383 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:18PM (#8036044) Journal
        How about Scientific American? [sciam.com]

        I'd say they're as objective as you get, unless of course you believe in some kind of "science-conspiracy"..

        • Re:Can someone find real numbers? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by UrgleHoth ( 50415 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:57PM (#8036524) Homepage
          Sciam is a nice science enthusiast magazine. As is the nature of the publication, the article is light on details. The magazine a good tool to be introduced to new information, but I would prefer to read about some hard studies, such as in JAMA [slashdot.org]

          (They do have this to say [ama-assn.org])

          Something I feel compelled to point out, that is a common irritant in much I read (Yeah, I admit it. I try not to, but guilty of it too): You have a logical fallacy in your assertion that I'd say they're as objective as you get, unless of course you believe in some kind of "science-conspiracy".. (Check out Wikipedia logical fallacy [wikipedia.org]

          You make the assumption that one needs to believe in a "science conspiracy" in order to presume that the magazine is not "as objective as you get."
          Bollocks. I don't believe in science conspiracy, yet I don't know the credentials of a particular journalist, so I can't assume that that particular journalist is completely objective or knowledgeable enough to report fully and accurately.

          Having said that, I personally dislike polygraphing, I think it is intrusive, like a mental form of body cavity search.
          Unfortunately, we don't live in a nice world, and sometimes the polygraph is a tempting, and if it IS accurate, then a useful tool. A problem of polygraphing is potential abuse. I hear of abuse stories a good deal. How many are true, how many are fabricated? I don't know.

    • Power perceived is power achieved. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gosand ( 234100 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:12PM (#8035969)
      (Oh, sorry.. there is research that has PROVEN the polygraph to have 50% accuracy rate.. ranking it right up there with the 'other' lie detector: A coin with the word 'truth' on one side and 'lie' on the other!)

      Yeah, but the psychological power of being hooked up to a machine that can tell if you are lying is huge. Sure, the system can be beaten, and that has been proven. But most people don't know that, and furthermore don't know how to beat it. So they might be willing to divulge the truth more readily if they believe that if they lie they will be caught. That is why the term "lie detector" is much more ominous than "polygraph".

      Is there a way to programmatically tell if someone is lying? I think there are general "tells" that most people do when they lie, and a computer can be taught to recognize these. But I don't think it will generally be accurate enough to escape harsh (and well deserved) scrutiny from the scientific community.

  • Still no word on the x-ray vision glasses. I don't about you, but I can't wait for that release.
  • "AHHHHH!!! My eyes!!! Ze goggles, ze do nothink!"

    Nathan
    • Interrigator: Checks out sir, you're ok sir, you're free to go. Moe: Good, cause I got a hot date tonight. (Lie detector buzz) Moe: Odd date (Lie detector buzz) Moe: Dinner with friend (Lie detector buzz) Moe: Dinner alone (Lie detector buzz) Moe: Watching TV alone (Lie detector buzz) Moe: All right! I'm gonna sit at home and ogle the ladies in the Victoria Secret catalog! (Lie detector buzz) Moe: Sears catalog (Lie detector ding) Moe: Would you unhook this already, please?! I don't deserve this kind of sap

  • As if Windows cared.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by eschasi ( 252157 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:55PM (#8035708)
    The poster writes:
    Think my Windows box will be upset when it knows how much I hate it?

    Do you seriously think your Windows box cares if you love it or not? If it did, it'd be treating you much better.

    • Re:As if Windows cared.... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by LiberalApplication ( 570878 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:37PM (#8036228)
      The poster writes:

      Think my Windows box will be upset when it knows how much I hate it?

      Do you seriously think your Windows box cares if you love it or not? If it did, it'd be treating you much better.

      Actually, that *is* a fairly interesting proposition. Even if it were terribly inaccurate at reading the subtleties of emotional responses, maybe it could be used by machines as a source of additional input. Really now, imagine a kiosk at a retail clothing chain which offers you selections on what you might want, and gauges from its love-o-meter readings how strongly you hate the silk-sheen mauve stretch-fabric tee shirts and love the traditional white polo. At an even more granular level, such a kiosk would be able to gather tiny bits of information on what shades of which colors, what fabrics in what cuts, and such that you prefer. And all that with less interaction than would have been required otherwise.

      If you think about it, this kind of technology, if moderately effective and economically manufacturable, could be applied to any expert-system-type application that guides users to recommendations. Just imagine: An interactive porn catalogue that requires NO hands to operate (now *both* hands can be free)! Okay, that isn't my ideal application of the technology, but it's worth consideration.

  • Everything I say is wrong. (Score:5, Funny)

    by CGP314 ( 672613 ) <CGP@NOSpAM.ColinGregoryPalmer.net> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:55PM (#8035709) Homepage
    Israeli company that allows the wearer of special glasses to tell whether the person they are talking to is telling a lie. Not only that, they can tell you whether someone loves you!

    I was going to make a joke about these glasses telling me that the Israeli CEO was lying about the usefulness of his product, but then I realized I'd fallen into a logic paradox. : (


    --
    In London? Need a Physics Tutor? [colingregorypalmer.net]

    American Weblog in London [colingregorypalmer.net]
  • He predicted this in his most excellent book
    "A Deepness in the Sky" which is a in the same universe as a "Fire Upon the Deep".

    He gives a whole new meaning to the word "Focus".

    And the dog critters are cute and an aurally distributed neural net.

  • We've heard this lie before (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JoeShmoe ( 90109 ) <askjoeshmoe@hotmail.com> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:56PM (#8035727)
    Remember back in 96-97 there was a big rage in "lie detection software" which supposedly would analyze audio input of someone speaking and then match their voice stress level to either "True" or "False" indicators?

    It was crap. I think more than a few morning radio shows tried to use it on their callers with failure after failure. I tried a copy myself and found that not only was it horribly written, but even if you were able to get the subject to "train" it (by answering several questions that are known to be true) it gave inncorrect responses virtually half the time.

    Come to think of it, the software might have been made by an Israeli company too. Maybe the same one, I don't know. Can't remember the name but it was horrid.

    Do I think the FBI/CIA might have technology like this, to analyze voice stress or facial temperature and determine if you are lying? Sure, why not. But there's a reason why lie detection technology is not admissible in court. It just doesn't work. Too many experts can beat it and too many amateurs get nervous and give false positives.

    -JoeShmoe
    .
    • Not to troll, but maybe technology has changed since '96-'97. It's entirely possible (and likely) that they've done more (and better?) research since then.
    • Remember back in 96-97 there was a big rage in "lie detection software" which supposedly would analyze audio input of someone speaking and then match their voice stress level to either "True" or "False" indicators?

      Anyone remember that horrible TV show "Lie Detector" from the early 80s? If I recall, it was in an afternoon time slot, sandwiched somewhere between "The People's Court" and another afternoon show. What a scream!

    • Too many experts can beat it and too many amateurs get nervous and give false positives.

      Amateurs... you mean, normal people?

    • Actually, Yes. Good Catch (Score:5, Informative)

      by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:04PM (#8036610) Homepage
      Amir Lieberman, the developer of the system, is also responsible for the previous rash [jpost.com] of questionable truth detector [csmonitor.com] software, which happens to be still available [pimall.com]. It did recommend training, and it was widely sold for its ability to work over the phone. It even has a sequal [ex-sense.com]. (warning, Not compatible with Opera. Probably not Mozilla.)

      Namesysco doesn't claim very high accuracy [nemesysco.com] for the Truster software. "The voice analyst achieved an overall accuracy rate of 78% for truthful subjects and 61% for deceptive subjects." In other words, only 10% more liars were caught than flipping a coin, while 22% of innocent subjects were considered lying.

      The American Polygraph Society does not have a much rosier view [polygraph.org] of the situation. They have concluded that Computerized Voice Stress Analysis, and specifically the Truster software, has only a "chance-level detection of deception,"

      And actually, the dead giveaway to the scam should be from the lion's mouth himself. "Our products were originally for law enforcement use ? we get all our technology from Nemesys-co ? but we need more development time [for that application]" In other words, "our products don't work and can't be sold unless you slap a 'for entertainment purposes only' label upon them. Our products are to 'entertain' airport security."

      Good catch.

  • Disfunctional relationships (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rupert ( 28001 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:57PM (#8035738) Homepage Journal
    It is bad for you and for the Windows box to be living in the same house if you hate it. Obviously the Windows box isn't going anywhere, so it is up to you to take the initiative and move out. It'll be best for both of you.

  • In other news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by NeoGeo64 ( 672698 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:57PM (#8035741) Homepage Journal
    Darl McBride has protested against the possibility of jurors wearing lie-detection glasses.

  • Forget love... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mobiux ( 118006 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:58PM (#8035755)
    How about the "open to one night stand" detector.

  • Compatibility Issues (Score:5, Funny)

    by Shut the fuck up! ( 572058 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:58PM (#8035758)
    I bet they are not compatible with beer goggles.

  • Reminds me of a book I once read... (Score:3, Informative)

    by bennomatic ( 691188 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:58PM (#8035764) Homepage
    Wouldn't that be wonderful if it worked? At least James Halperin thought so when he wrote The Truth Machine [dimspace.com] a few years back. It's a fanciful novel the central concept of which is that enforcing honesty changes the world and brings on a wonderful Utopian society.

    Sigh... if only.

  • that these glasses will work every bit as well as a true polygraph - which is to say, not at all.

  • (Bad) Solution looking for a problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nadamsieee ( 708934 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:59PM (#8035775)
    There are serious doubts [antipolygraph.org] as to whether polygraph machines [howstuffworks.com] actually work or are simply junk science... and that criticism is of using polygraphs in a controlled environment like an interrogation room used by law-enforcement types. Now this company wants us to believe that an under-paid & under-trained security screener working in a chaotic environment like a busy airport is going to be able to detect a lie using their unproven product? Ha!

  • Whoa. (Score:5, Funny)

    by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:59PM (#8035779) Homepage
    From the article:

    Our products were originally for law enforcement use -- we get all our technology from Nemesys-co...

    Nemesys-co? What, are they a division of the E-Ville Group or something?

  • the future is now!

    we can fill out forms online that say "if female then i love you", and now we can meet them in real life and find out the exact opposite! the only people that make out on this are the people who make cars, sell gasoline, and run inet hookup sites. we can now expedite the pointless!

  • I'm getting a pair. (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:02PM (#8035818) Homepage Journal

    You wouldn't believe how often women lie when you ask them "Are you carrying pepper spray?"

  • They've already got these things in airports and malls. You put in a quarter, and you each hold the handles, and boom, five seconds later the little LEDs show you if she loves you.
  • Instead of color-coded LEDs, a bar graph on the display indicates how much the caller to whom you are speaking "loves" you.

    Oh great, now girlfriends the world over can `prove' that their boyfriends don't love them enough.

  • Just don't give it to you girlfriend (Score:5, Funny)

    by KingJoshi ( 615691 ) <slashdot@joshi.tk> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:03PM (#8035835) Homepage
    I know, that's not a problem for most slashdotters, but..

    Do I look fat in this?
    Did you like the meal I made?
    .
    .
    .

    I can see disaster and a lot of broken relationships.
  • How can you tell if a politician is lying?

    You watch his mouth. If it's moving, he's lying.
    John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)

  • So... (Score:2, Funny)

    by tayjo ( 673861 )
    In other news, divorce rates sky rocketed to 98% following the release of these glasses.

  • My new quandary... (Score:3, Funny)

    by pair-a-noyd ( 594371 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:04PM (#8035858)
    Hmmm, do I wear my X-Ray glasses today or my Lie Detector glasses..
    Damn all these fashion choices!
  • Great. Just what we need. The only people who could profit from this one are lawyers. In fact, If I were a divorce lawyer, I'd be giving the damn things away.

    With any luck, they won't work.

    Do we really want to know when we're being lied to? This means the end of dating. The end of advertising.

    Politicians, however have it made. You can't lie about that which you know nothing of.

    I won't even start with the entire IT industry- suffice it to say that the phrase "this software will allow you to ..." will lea
  • obligitory simpsons [office-humour.co.uk] ScullyThis is a simple lie detector, i'll ask you a few yes or no questions and you just answer truthfully, do you understand?
    HomerYes
    lie detector explodes
  • I Mean it is hard, but what if ANY other country with such a horrible Human Rights record as Isreal came up with a lie detector 'prototype' and claimed to market it.

    Would you buy a detector from N.Korea (or S.Korea), Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Argentina, Turkey, Belarus, Angola, Guatamala, Uganda, Or The *n*t**d St**t*s.

    Even the Best polygraph tools are only 50% accurate. It isn't anti-semetic to call a country which has never kept a treaty or accord in my entire life 'Isreal' but it is

  • 90% accuracy? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by igaborf ( 69869 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:08PM (#8035904)
    So let's assume the 90% accuracy figure is not bullshit (which it probably is). That means 1 out of 10 innocent passengers will be harrassed as suspected terrorists and 1 out of 10 terrorists will be allowed through. Not especially comforting thoughts in either case.
  • Now where did I leave my glasses...

    I'll take odds that Nevada outlaws these sorts of gadgets as soon as they become available to the general public, as does any other state where gambling is legal. Not that it'd help with games like blackjack, roulette, craps, etc. but it sure would help with various forms of poker - stud, hold'em, etc.

  • Good For Politicians (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheNarrator ( 200498 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:09PM (#8035921)
    Want to learn how to lie well? Just practice your campaign speech in front of this thing.

  • Glasses for the Glasses? (Score:3, Funny)

    by FerretFrottage ( 714136 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:09PM (#8035926)
    96% accurate huh? Well, I'll just point my lie detector glasses at your lie detector glasses and see if your glasses are really telling the truth.
    And all this coming from V-Entertainment. Well entertainment is right...they probably just tested these things against 100 SCO employees and asked them if they had any evidence. The 4 that were marked inaccurate really did have evidence but to the contrary.

  • Love detector (Score:3, Funny)

    by Deanasc ( 201050 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:11PM (#8035948) Homepage Journal
    Dammit! It's going to make it harder for us to marry for money. Oh well. Maybe if I convince her I love her money. No... That's not right.
  • what good will it actually do anyone. Knowing someone is lying(unless you can ask them a question with only one answer and even then not necessarily(you could ask a SO if he/she is cheating on you and they could be doing something which they don't consider cheating but you do or vice versa)) doesn't really do you any good. When we go to a car dealership or listen to a politicion we already assume they're lying most of the time, it doesn't actually tell you what the truth actually is.

    Perhaps if these things

  • In related news, Spring fashion shows are featuring the veil!
  • Bah, who needs these glasses when you can have immortality rings for the low low price of 25 bucks? Alexchiu.com [alexchiu.com].
  • If they actually worked, what it would do to poker games across the world. "I See that your bluffing".
  • Regardless of the fact that the technology probably isn't accurate, if such a device is ever perfected and put into widespread use, it would be the end of normal social interactions (which maybe the slashdot crowd desires.) But no longer could someone tell a white-lie to protect a friends feeling, or let someone down gently, or tell their kids half-truths to protect them until they are older. Bluffing in poker would be obsolete. Millions of people would lose their jobs as their skills in marketing and sa

  • I didn't see any mention of having to calibrate the device or ask control questions. Are they really claiming to be able to extract all that information from so little input?

    Just thinking about the example question, "Do you plan on hijacking this plane?"... Everyone is going to answer "Yes". One word. One syllable, even. Can they really take a bunch of single-syllable responses, from people with such diverse backgrounds as you would find at an international airport, and determine who's lying?

    If t

  • This sounds very convincing (Score:4, Funny)

    by richg74 ( 650636 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:15PM (#8035992) Homepage
    The heart of Nemesysco's security-oriented technology is a signal-processing engine that is said to use more than 8,000 algorithms each time it analyzes an incoming voice waveform. ...
    The law enforcement version achieved about 70 percent accuracy in laboratory trials, according to V Entertainment, and better than 90 percent accuracy against real criminal subjects at a beta test site at the U.S. Air Force's Rome Laboratories.

    So ... more than 8000 algorithms. And it gets even better results in a field trial than it does in the laboratory. They didn't mention its secret, unbreakable encryption with the 10^6 bit key -- just slipped their mind, I suppose.

    And, of course, this technology is so super-duper that they won't sell it to the government, but will market it to gulli^H^H^H^H^H ordinary consumers.

    Apparently the market for lunar green cheese flavored with snake oil is thriving (see: P.T. Barnum's Law of Applied Economics).

  • Screech made a love detector over a decade ago. He even proved that peanut butter and jelly aren't very affectionate toward each other.

  • I'm skeptical (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Durandal64 ( 658649 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:17PM (#8036030)
    Polygraph tests, and probably these glasses, too, make far too many assumptions about certain physiological responses which occur when someone is not being truthful. Firstly, they assume that a raise in heart rate or pulse can only mean that the person is lying, which is simply untrue. Secondly, unlike polygraphs, there's no way for these glasses to perform a control on the person being examined (meaning that you measure what a person's "normal" physiological patterns are like). And even those controls performed are dubious, at best, because there are simply too many variables to consider. Even in basic psychology classes, they go into the problems with polygraphs in detail, and it's not hard to deconstruct the test's assumptions, even for first-year university students.

    Suppose you went up to a girl and asked her when the last time she gave a blow job was, and she answers you (hypothetically, she'd probably slap you in reality). You'd probably register a raise in blood pressure and heart rate. Are you to conclude that she lied to you? No, that's simply absurd. You asked her a personal question, out of the blue. Of course she'd be surprised. Furthermore, are you going to act normally and cooly when someone with glasses that can supposedly tell whether you're lying or not is asking you questions? Probably not. If you're an innocent man being polygraphed to see if you've committed a relatively serious crime, you're not exactly going to be acting normally, either.

    Polygraph results are inadmissible in court for a good reason. I have a very hard time buying their "96% accurate" figure.

  • JUNK! (Score:5, Informative)

    by DynaSoar ( 714234 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:42PM (#8037006) Journal
    The only thing this device can measure is physiological arousal level, and it can't tell one kind of arousal from another. This is precisely the same problem with polygraph.

    Both require interpretation. That requires training. Both can be bamboozled by anyone who can control their physio responses. That requires training too; yoga is good, but biofeedback is very simple and nearly subconscious.

    Anyone can learn to fool them. And I am not about to place my personal safety in the hands of some previously underemployed and undereducated, and presently overworked and undertrained glorified rent-a-cop. I mean, my respect and sympathy to the hardworking TSA people at the airports, but they are not EVER going to receive adequate training to be able to correctly interperate physiological response measures in context. I would rather trust a Scientologist with their "clearing" device (a simple electrodermal activity meter) because at least they have experience in interperating their results in the context of a structured interview. A polygraph is not a structured interview, and some security guard spouting random accusations in the form of questions definitely is not.

    I sincerely hope this is just another bogus device that is being publicized as part of the general anti-terrorism psyops, to keep the bad guys guessing as to what can really be done. Let them spend a few million on more high tech Dunsels. But if they deploy these for regular use, everyone who had too much coffee that morning and just rushed in late from a traffic jam to the airport is going to be targeted.

    BTW, the sign on my office (room 9-151, VA Hospital, West Haven CT) says "Electrophysiology Lab". I know whereof I rant.

  • A few Better Uses (Score:4, Insightful)

    by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdougNO@SPAMgeekazon.com> on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @01:24AM (#8040701) Homepage
    "Honey, do you still love me?"

    "Mr. Sontag, this is all really just a load of crap, right?"

    "What's the lowest price you can give me on this car?"

    "Are you employed by any law enforcement organization?"

    "Are those real?"

    "Do you solemnly swear to defend and protect the constitution of the United States of America, and to execute the duties of the office of the Presidency to the best of your ability, so help you God?"

  • P300 Wave (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Effugas ( 2378 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @10:57AM (#8043445) Homepage
    Metafilter [metafilter.com] pointed me towards a really interesting model for managing deception: Recognition detection. The idea is, rather than find out if someone is lying or not, simply find out if they recognize an object or scene they could only recognize if they were guilty. A certain brainwave, coined the P300 Wave, is emitted within a certain number of milliseconds of seeing an item one recognizes. One study, done by a group called Brain Wave Science, was able to reliably (and perfectly) separate FBI agents from average civilians by showing pictures of items from FBI training courses and operations. Detailed information may be found here [brainwavescience.com].

    I, of course, make no claims as to the veracity or accuracy of this material. But this wave is not pure pseudoscience -- the NYT has an article showing how weak P300's correspond to weak signal recognition. [nytimes.com] And BWS isn't the only group looking into P300 and deception.

    There are other approaches -- blood flow and PET scans come to mind -- but this has the advantage of involving just a few electrodes.

    So -- we may yet see a lie detector functional in our lifetime. Of course, it won't always be trusted, for reasons similar to the legalistic need for occasional exceptions to the rule of unique suspect DNA identifiers. But it'll be there.

    --Dan

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close