Lie Detector Company Threatens Critical Scientists With Suit 367
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.
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
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.
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]
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.
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.
Re:there are two enemies of science and progress (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Hence the new term "less lethal", because given the right conditions, even pepper spray can be lethal. (severe asthma, for instance)
Which is still irrational ("slightly pregnant", etc.) because you can't be "less lethal." You can be "less frequently lethal", I suppose, which amounts to a game of Russian Roulette. That is pretty much what the widespread use of Tasers has become, since you can't know an individual's physical condition before you fire the thing at him. Pepper spray is generally used as a defensive weapon (if you have asthma and you try to rob someone and get sprayed, well, you got what you deserved.) Tasers are used by cop
Re:there are two enemies of science and progress (Score:4, 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, and are the devices commonly used by police, but are generally not accepted by courts as evidence. Some people can beat them, others conversely always seem to be lying.
Voice stress analyzers measure a single weak indicator, and are quite capable of both false positives and negatives, irrespective of the expertise of the user. They're also easy to use covertly, such as over a telephone line. Add that to inaccuracy and you have a recipe for a disaster.
--dave
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].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"If you read your socialist sources, this is the well known Israeli way."
It's also, incidentally, the well known fascist way. I'm still waiting for the general public to catch on to that and stop accepting everything Israel does no matter how obviously wrong or oppressive just because they're afraid of being called anti-Semitic.
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.
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well , there is an increased risk , because after all, you are screwing with the normal workings of the body's cell regeneration.
Even if there isn't a 100% certainty that it will cause cancer , it's still something that needs to be looked into .
Both conservatism and progressivism are needed, in a balanced amount. Sadly , with politics , it's usually completely one way or the other.
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.
How it works... (Score:2, Informative)
Nemesysco's Poly-Layered Voice Analysis measures 18 parameters of speech in real-time for interrogators at police, military and secret-services agencies. Its accuracy as a lie detector has proven to be less important than its ability to more quickly pinpoint for interrogators where there are problems in a subject's story. Officers then can zero in much more quickly with their traditional interrogation techniques.
The software measures voice for a variety of parameters including deception, excitement, stress,
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?
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. :) )
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." ?
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).
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.
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.
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It would show no stress whatsoever. If a politician is reading from a teleprompter, it is duckspeaking, and not actually thinking about the words it's reading.
If the politician isn't using a teleprompter, you'd get the same flat-line reading you'd get from any other sociopath. Some sincerely believe their lies, others can switch that belief on for just long enough to
Re: (Score:2)
I can imagine someone taking a politicians speech and running it through this sort of analysis, especially since it can use recorded audio.
All it would do is sort the politicians by skill level; really really skillfull politicians and administrators generally construct their positions in such a way so that they are completely honest when the promise nothing, but leave enough room for your gestalt psychlogoy to fill in the blanks and hear promises all over the place.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
Re:Oh yes that's lying! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're arguing for complete solipcism in language, and that people should be held responsible for what their listeners conclude. and not what they themselves say.
It's not about natural language. You're arguing that voters shouldn't be required to think critically about the things they hear, and that everybody gets to just sorta "decide" all subjectively what the speaker meant. I think you're giving voters an out clause to claim at any time that "politicians lie" because they weren't able to deliver the fruits of the voters' own self-delusion.
Just open your ears and listen to what people are actually saying. It isn't a lie if you can tease the meaning of a sentence by reading it on the page. Anything less and you just turn into a mob singing slogans, like "Drill Baby Drill!" or "Yes We Can!" That's when people really begin to act like robots (speaking of programming languages...)
Relatedly, good administrators, in government, business, the military are able to consolidate the will of many into aspirational goals, in such a way that everyone marches together, and no one starts the backbiting and recriminations when some arbitrary marker is not crossed. Letting people know what you want and getting them to help you regardless of the setbacks is kinda the heart of leadership. Not everything in the world is some quid-pro-quo where the leader says "obey me and you'll get a chicken," and then if you don't get the chicken you get to toss the leader over (viz. France thru the 19th century, or Germany between the wars). That's pretty shitty political theory, and it's not how a healthy political system works.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I admit the whole gitmo thing isn't an ideal example, how about this one, from when the man clinched the nomination:
More like a great example because it perfectly demonstrates how the raw literal meaning of words fails to capture the actual intended meaning. He meant what I and nearly everyone else thought he meant. We correctly interpreted his meaning, whether we believed that meaning or not. Your literal interpretation was wrong.
If you believe he is promising to reverse global warming, you're a sucker,
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Presumably, all the Swedish researchers need (Score:5, Funny)
Oh wait...
Re:Presumably, all the Swedish researchers need (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Presumably, all the Swedish researchers need (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism [wikipedia.org]
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
"It was hardly their intention. But since the article was withdrawn, I have received lots of mail and requests for copies of the article. The article would not have been read to this extent if the company had simply ignored it in silence," says Francisco Lacerda to the Dagens Nyheter.
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).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Streisand effect strikes again (Score:5, Informative)
It was a British journal.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism
Damn Yanks! (Score:3, Funny)
It's sad; the poor British always try so hard to be nice to every whinging minority. They feel guilty for their ancestors having a great empire that beat some sense into many backwards peoples.
That's no way to talk about the Americans. Oh, hang on... it is. Guess we didn't hold on to that one long enough to beat much sense into them ;)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
it's sad that a UK publisher caved so easily to what appears to be a rather baseless accusation
The sad part is not that they caved, they had no choice but to cave. British libel law is absurd in the extreme and tantamount to "accusation equals guilt". It is impossible for the publisher to defend itself.
Hopefully, some day, Britain and a number of other European countries will learn the meaning of free speech. As of now, most of them have no clue what that means.
When you allow people with appalling and disgusting opinions to hold them and express them, then, and only then do you have free speech. When
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, from an english version of the article:http [thelocal.se]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that once in a while you'll have a real victim trying to get libelous or whatnot information removed, and they'll be SOL. This isn't the case here of course.
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: (Score:2)
except that are flawed, so your flipping a coin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, ask the manufacturers if they would be willing to bet money (let's say equal to the value of the company) on a simple test: 100 people will be evaluated with your machine; 50 of them will be lying, 50 will not; your machine must score 95% or better.
Chances are they wouldn't take the bet because they know damn well that their machine is actually no better than random.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nah what you need is two scientists and two doors. One of the scientists always tells the truth, and the other always lies.
Of course, the answer is that you poison both the drinks, after spending the previous years building up an immunity to the poison.
At least I think that's how it worked.
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not on the lie detector company's side and I sympathize with the Swedish researchers too. However, you seemed to be taking things black-and-white...
In reality it is all about probabilistic correlation between "lie-o-meter" readings and subjects' honesty. This correlation may be strong or poor. Lie detectors may work or not. I don't know. But I think it's how this correlation is measured and interpreted that matters. If the instrument company fails to make the measurement and interpretation on science, a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that if the lie detector says the scientists are telling the truth, the company can either:
How do you know the lie detector will say the scientists are telling the truth? The scientists themselves say its results are the same as chance.
Your scenario only works if the lie detector works, in which case the scientists are wrong (though not necessarily lying, so we don't get into any paradoxes here).
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
That is true in the USA and most civilized countries, but not in the UK.
The UK is the easiest place to sue someone for libel and win.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It would if the case were tried in a U.S. court. Since this case involves Swedish scientists criticising an Israeli company in an English journal, I somehow doubt that U.S. rules apply.
Under English defamation law [wikipedia.org], defamatory statements are presumed false unless proven true, and the 'actual malice' standard from U.S. jurisprudence is applied quite a bit differently. The much lower bar of simple 'negligence
Suits suck (Score:2, Funny)
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...
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]
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.
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]
E-meter Alternatives (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the authors are in part responsible for the manufacturer's response. Words like "charlatanry" doesn't really belong in a scientific paper.
If the authors simply published their findings, that these machines do not work better compared to random guessing, and let the results stand for themselves, then regardless of how much the manufacturer disliked and disagreed with the researchers' findings, he would have had no grounds for a libel suit (and the journal/publisher would have seen that right away).
Sc
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.
To catch you lying about my lying machine (Score:2)
I'm goin with the Swedes on this...
Amazingly good online translation (Score:2)
Looks like Google's making some serious statistical-translation progress. Mindblowing.
Re: (Score:2)
Or that Swedish syntax and expressions are amazingly similar to English.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
yeah, it is getting pretty good (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about Swedish, but I use Google translate for Chinese and Arabic translations into English a lot ,and they've gotten notably better in some places over the past year.
MT system performance is often very dependent on language genre. They tend to be good at translating news because news text has been a big focus of NLP training corpus development. It's a pretty well controlled genre (you don't get a lot of random slang or neologisms, non-standard syntax, etc.) and there's a whole lot of it alrea
Nemesysco? (Score:2, Funny)
As in, Nemesys co, as in Nemesis Co? Man, I sure wouldn't work for my nemesis. These scientists should have seen it coming.
Underlying technology (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They have probably just put one of these on a microphone...
http://banderasnews.com/howto/bullshit.htm [banderasnews.com]
Who needs lie detectors?
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]
Easy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy solution: the scientists should agree to undergo an interview in which they would be asked if they have proof of what they are saying. A lie detector provided by this Nemesys Co. would then detect if they are lying or not.
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: (Score:2)
If they worked we could do away with trial by jury - just hook them up and ask "did you kill your wife?" and if the detector says they did then throw them in jail for 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
If they worked we could do away with trial by jury - just hook them up and ask "did you kill your wife?" and if the detector says they did then throw them in jail for 20 years.
Wouldn't work so well if the person being questioned believed at the time that they did not. (Now, if lie detectors were accurately named, they'd be called "stress detectors", but lies are not the only source of stress in a courtroom...)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Even if lie detectors worked, that wouldn't force the suspect to actually say anything.
And the Higgs boson will be swallowed by a micro black hole before the LHC has the chance to detect anything :)
Re:Lie detectors are ruining the Torture Industry! (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
The full quote was "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski." Which, if Bill were actually addressing Monica and referring to Hillary might have been true.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Not true! Seismographs give you useful information.
Anti-Semitism (Score:2, Funny)
It was extremely tasteless and irresponsible for the Swedes to publish this, especially considering the fact that two days ago was Holocaust day. Shame on them for insulting the victims, killing them a second time. Being a Holocaust fundamentalist, I ask everybody to join me in boycotting everything Swedish.
quick! (Score:3, Interesting)
Lie detectors are impossible to test and trust (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you test a lie detector? For it to work you have to have someone ACTUALLY LYING, not saying something contrary to the truth, but actually trying to be secretly untruthful. It is an impossible situation because you have to know 100% that they are lying and they have to be 100% concealing a secret. Otherwise, its all just guess work.
There is NO WAY to test a lie detector without the existence of a 100% accurate working lie detector. Short of that, there is no way to objectively or theoretically test any such device.
Own goal (again) due to Streisand effect (Score:3, Informative)
FTA:
'At the same time, Nemesysco's actions have led to even greater media attention for the two Swedish professors' research. "It was hardly their intention. But since the article was withdrawn, I have received lots of mail and requests for copies of the article. The article would not have been read to this extent if the company had simply ignored it in silence," says Francisco Lacerda to the Dagens Nyheter.'
So now, instead of the just the readers of some obscure journal, it's all over da Intertubes. Well done boys!
Re: (Score:2)
No one expects the Swedish Inquisition!
...mainly because there isn't one. That's why it's so unexpected, you see?