Filmmakers Ask 'Pirate' to Take Polygraph, Backtrack When He Agrees (torrentfreak.com) 155
The makers of Dallas Buyers Club (a 2014 movie, which won three Academy awards) are going to great lengths to crackdown on BitTorrent pirates. According to a report on piracy news blog TorrentFreak, the filmmakers challenged an accused pirate to submit a polygraph test to prove that he didn't download a copyright infringing copy of their movie. The accused pirate, California resident Michael Amhari, insists that he did not download any pirated copy of the Dallas Buyers Club and agreed to take the polygraph test. Upon hearing this, the filmmakers, who had imposed a $100,000 fine on Amhari, retracted the offer. "When plaintiff's counsel then agreed to take such a test with the proviso that defense costs and attorney fees be covered, plaintiff then refused to pay costs and revoked his offer to conduct a polygraph," said Amhari's counsel Clay Renick. TorrentFreak reports: "After receiving exculpatory evidence and the sworn declaration of defendant, Mr. Davis then refused to file a dismissal and proceeded to demand that defendant appear in the action or he would file a default." The defendant's counsel added: âoeThis behavior is galling and it should not be permitted by the court.â Because of these dubious tactics the court should set aside the default that was entered earlier this month. According to Renick, Dallas Buyer's Club has nothing more than an IP-address to back up their infringement claims, which is not enough to prove guilt.
Subject made me think of sex move "Angry Pirate" (Score:1)
No scapegoats for you! (Score:3)
Busted. So busted.
Smart pirate (Score:5, Insightful)
As a bit of background, polygraphs don't work. They are glorified stress detectors so in some circumstances, they can detect the subject's fear of being caught in a lie. Much more often, they detect the stress of the interrogation with spikes every time the subject is pressed to answer immediately.
Knowing this, the prosecution thought to use the public misconception that polygraphs are actual "lie detectors" to bully the defendant into reacting in a way that they can use to support their case (probably "if he had nothing to hide, why did he refuse a lie detector?"). Not being a great fool, the defendant chose to accept the offer of a polygraph if the prosecution had something at risk as well. Knowing that the tech is worthless, that their intimidation tactic failed, and faced with the prospect of having to cover the defendant's legal fees, the prosecution retracted the "offer."
Teal Deer: defendant calls RIAA bluff.
Supplemental: Has anyone actually heard of this movie?
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, the only reason I would EVER agree to a polygraph is if the entire session could be recorded, and I get to walk out with a copy of the tape.... so I can truely cherish telling him to turn his worthless prop on so he can start scamming his pay.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I liked it because I can use it as an example of how investigational drugs touted as miracle cures don't work, and how the conspiracy theories of the FDA/pharmaceutical industry suppressing useful drugs are all wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
It seems like only two kinds of movies are made these days: "Blockbusters", which are fairly mindless, but usually fun, movies designed to make hundred of millions of dollars, but that the old farts who vote in the academy don't and never will like; and "oscar bait", movies which will get a limited release, have a low budget and may even still actually lose money, but are made specifically to cater to the academy members' pretentious tastes and sense of self-importance.
Every so often something like the LOT
Re: (Score:3)
This was the film behind the Australian "fishing" letters case. IIRC, the owners wanted the courts to allow a subpoena of ISP subscribers so they could send letters out to people they suspected/accused of pirating the film, and the court said "show us the letters first". When the judge saw what they were going to put in the letter (along the lines of "you're guilty, you owe us $bignum"), the judge said "no". I think they dropped the case - it didn't proceed, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Polygraphs work. They're just graphing multiple biological signals (heart rate, skin conductivity, breathing, etc), hence the name, "poly" and "graph".
The real leap in logic is that a polygraph can be used to dete
Re:Smart pirate (Score:4, Informative)
fMRI has not been proven to work as a lie detector. [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That article seems to describe the use of fMRI as a familiarity detector, not a lie detector. Furthermore, the fact that an Indian court accepts something as evidence doesn't mean it's scientifically valid. As the SciAm article points out, there are charlatans trying to sell fMRI for all sorts of legal and business purposes, and that is a bad thing.
Using an fMRI as evidence in court out to require very large scale studies and very high statistical confidence. That kind of proof simply doesn't exist for any
Re: (Score:2)
im sure the group can come up with a bunch of ways to defeat a Polygraph "test"
1 being enough of a Nutbar that you can lie and not twitch
2 having a chronic pain condition
3 being Just That Zen
4 having a serious injury
5 having somebody in your "Family" talk to the tech beforehand
what else??
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think your succinct dismissal of polygraphs is too hasty. Polygraphs work quite well in many circumstances. However, the misconception that they are a "lie detector" confuses a lot of people. They are an interrogation tool, not a lie detection tool. The tool "works" if the objectives of the interrogator are met.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you see his point? He's saying a Ouija board can work, if the person being interrogated thinks it works. We are talking about tools that an interrogator uses to (figuratively) give someone a wise, piercing look while saying "you're lying." It's not the the tool tells you a truth; it tells the person being interrogated that their lie is about to be exposed, so maybe they'll confess or improvise dumber lies to cover the original lie, or whatever.
It's a bluffin
Re: (Score:3)
As a bit of background, polygraphs don't work.
Polygraph tests have one ability. If suspects can be interrogated without a lawyer present, they could be subject to questions that a lawyer would never permit. They can ask, "Have you ever stolen anything from an employer?" They can ask, "Have you ever watched pirated movies?" They can use the Reid Technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] to get a false confession.
Re: (Score:3)
Knowing that the tech is worthless, that their intimidation tactic failed, and faced with the prospect of having to cover the defendant's legal fees, the prosecution retracted the "offer."
Technically, they didn't retract the offer, having never offered to pay the defendant's costs in the first place. The plaintiff asked the defendant to take a polygraph test. The defendant counter-offered that they would if the plaintiff would cover costs in the event of a negative result. The plaintiff refused the counter-offer. No polygraph test was taken. Nobody "retracted" any offer or backed off on their position.
Re: (Score:3)
If the plaintiffs REALLY believed that the polygraph had the ability to discern truth and lie and they REALLY believed the defendant was guilty, why wouldn't they jump on the offer?
Re: (Score:2)
Watch the "Bullshit" episode where they discuss polygraph use. Basically, the methodology is that, irrespective of what the machines "says", the subject will be told that the machine said he was lying (being "deceptive") and will be invited to confess what the person administering the test already "knows".
Lots of people confess. That's how the machine works.
Re: (Score:2)
You notice, by and large, it's the overpromoted crap films that seem to be the ones studios and producers pick to go after alleged file sharers for. I wonder whether the whole thing is a publicity stunt. "This movie is so good evil filesharing pirates want it! So buy it for legal for $9.99 and own your very own copy of Matthew Mconaughey being all thin and stuff..."
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, it was an excellent film. That said, I'm not sure I understand this particular witch hunt, as it is now 3 years old.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you say it's irrelevant, then it must be so.
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Filmmaker wanted to scare accused person with Voodoo, accused knows it's bullshit and calls bluff, Filmmaker realizes that someone who calls his Voodoo bluff will not be affected by the curse and rather folds than have the Voodoo fizzle because too many people believe in the Voodoo and would consider the person innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Filmmaker wanted to scare accused person with Voodoo, accused knows it's bullshit and calls bluff, Filmmaker realizes that someone who calls his Voodoo bluff will not be affected by the curse and rather folds than have the Voodoo fizzle because too many people believe in the Voodoo and would consider the person innocent.
Exactly. I'd bet the plaintiff's attorney, when the defendant took them up on it, said to their client "Don't do it" while pointing out the plaintiff would be on the hook for costs, including conceivably the defendant's own expert witness who would ensure the results were interpreted in the defendant's best interests. Now, the defendant can use their retraction against them; showing why the adage "never bluff unless you are willing to risk having your bluff called" is good advice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The defendant may have cause for a claim of Abuse of Process.
But has any defendant in this type of case successfully won a case by claiming Abuse of Process, since abusive process is a standard technique in civil trials?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I couldn't contact the spirits of the dead, there was an unbeliever nearby.
Polygraphs are easy to cheat on (Score:4, Insightful)
And their results cannot be used as evidence in court. The defendant didn't have much to lose by taking one. The plaintiff should have thought through his fear tactic before using it.
Re:Polygraphs are easy to cheat on (Score:5, Informative)
And their results cannot be used as evidence in court.
Criminal court. This is a civil case not a criminal one. It's very admissible.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Seriously, if you want me to take a poly test, plug me in! I have a hunch that I'll be the one demanding it to be permitted as evidence...
Voodoo only works if the person you want to curse believes in it. It can backfire badly if you have a lot of people standing around who believe in it but the one you want to convict doesn't. Because if the curse doesn't work on your victim, he must be innocent, at least in the eyes of the bystanders who believe in it.
Re: (Score:2)
American Psychological Association Says (Score:2, Informative)
"For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph."
Source: The Truth About Lie Detectors (aka Polygraph Tests) [apa.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's a rather mild rejection. I've seen other psychologists out and out call it pseudoscience, with absolutely no basis in fact.
Re: (Score:3)
the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph."
Gives polygraphs way too much credit. They're about as credible as e-meters. "Oh look, the needle moved. That means you need to give us money."
Re: (Score:2)
And then there are the numerous .us Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies that utterly believe polygraph exams.
Makes you wonder about their analysis of other things. . .
The accused pirate, Michael Amhari, (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyer sense tingling (Score:5, Interesting)
But.
Because of these dubious tactics the court should set aside the default that was entered earlier this month.
If the court has entered a default judgement [cornell.edu] you have already fucked up big time. Usually by failing to do something the court requires of you (like respond to plaintiff's complaint) in a timely manner.
And there is no legal mechanism I'm aware of by which a copyright holder can unilaterally "impose a $100,000 fine." They can offer to settle for $100K or threaten litigation. That'd be surprising, as the copyright shakedown MO is to offer settlement for 1-3 orders of magnitude less, in order to induce quick and quiet resolution. Or you can get a default judgment of $100K if you file suit and defendant does something inadvisable like completely ignore it.
I'm not saying that's what happened here, TFA doesn't give any details on how we got to where we are. We do know that he has an attorney now. And because of how much trouble you can get in for letting your client's case default (your inattention and subsequent harm to your client is actionable malpractice), I would be pretty surprised if he'd had an attorney this entire time and had been otherwise fighting this legal battle by the book, only now to be unfairly blindsided by a default judgment.
(This is all speculation, I'm not your attorney, this is not legal advice, refer to sig, if you experience an erection lasting more than four hours call your doctor, etc etc you get the point.)
Re: (Score:2)
There are many ways to get a default judgement one of them being the venue shopping these people do looking for a court that will not only be very favorable to them but that is likely out of the jurisdiction where the defendant lives. If the defendant wasn't served a subpoena, there is no possible way they could have answered it in a timely fashion. And like you say, the story doesn
Re:Lawyer sense tingling (Score:5, Informative)
If you read the defense's legal filing [torrentfreak.com], it sounds as if the plaintiff was negotiating with the defense's lawyer for the polygraphy, the defense asked for 14 days and only got 7. When the defense agreed to the polygraph on the condition the plantiff pays for it, plaintiff immediately files for entry of default judgement.
Plaintiff also is accused of making bad faith verbal promises that they reneged on that they would dismiss the case if he tool the polygraph. That is why further filings weren't made initially as timely as they could have been.
If you read the whole thing, previous case law would seem like the defendant likely will get the default judgement set aside. Courts rather get things right and hear a case rather than just give the case to one side without good cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a doctor?
No, but I play one on TV.
Some Comfort (Score:2)
Apart from everything else, it seems the realization is slowly taking hold among the general public that IP =| ID. This is heartening.
download vs. upload (Score:3)
When did downloading a file become a copyright violation? As I recall, copyright protects against redistribution without permission, which would apply to the uploaders but not the downloaders, no?
Re: (Score:3)
No, copyright restricts your rights to copy, as well as some other things, which include distribution, performance, etc. A lot of people get this wrong.
The relevant law in the US was enacted in 1947, so downloading a copyrighted file without the copyright holder granting the right would have been a copyright violat
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
When did downloading a file become a copyright violation?
The relevant law in the US was enacted in 1947, so downloading a copyrighted file without the copyright holder granting the right would have been a copyright violation as soon as downloading was invented.
Well, that's somewhat misleading. In practice, before the internet, it was very rare for corporations (or individual artists/authors/creators) to attempt a copyright lawsuit unless there was proof that the infringer had monetary gain, usually through commercial distribution or something like that.
Keep in mind that this was only subject to a civil action before 1997, so you'd have to hire a lawyer. And then you'd also have to convince a court that downloading a file (which, by your own argument, was "jus
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's not misleading at all. You're answering a different question. You're answering "What kind of trouble are you likely to get in for downloading a file?" Sure, that's complicated, and definitively outside my area of expertise, so I'm not going there. I'm answering "is downloading a file (without permission) a copyright violation?" Yes. And unless I misread, you agree.
I remember seeing a sign when I grew up warning people of a $1,000 fine for littering. That road often had lots of litter. This
Re: (Score:2)
Re:download vs. upload (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah?
"Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
That's the actual law in question.
So, like I said, copy right restricts your right to copy (#1 above), as well as some other things. Distribution (#3), performance (#4, #6).
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but in my understanding downloading *is* a copyright violation - it's just nearly impossible to prosecute. You'd have to sue individuals for one download at a time instead of suing one person for sharing a thousand files. Even if you somehow got the evidence, it becomes much harder to threaten the person into settling if they are facing a few thousand dollar fine versus a few million dollar fine. About the only time you'd actually be sued for "downloading" would be if your Bittorrent client automa
Re: (Score:3)
So if you wanted a copy of a book, so long as it wasn't YOU that photocopied it, but you just took a photocopy of the entire book from a pile (whether you pay or not complicates matters, let's assume not but with the permission of the person who photocopied), would you expect to not get into trouble?
What about if someone copied an artwork without permission and you just happened to buy a copy? Under the law, it's all the same. In art we call it a forgery. Even if you're not the forger, and even though it
Re: (Score:2)
So if you wanted a copy of a book, so long as it wasn't YOU that photocopied it, but you just took a photocopy of the entire book from a pile (whether you pay or not complicates matters, let's assume not but with the permission of the person who photocopied), would you expect to not get into trouble?
One can "get in trouble" for just about anything, much of it perfectly legal, but what could they possible charge you with? You didn't do anything to violate anyone's copyright. The one in serious trouble would be whoever who made the copies.
(If you disagree, please point out the precise U.S. law which would be violated merely by possessing an unauthorized copy.)
Nobody is "taking" the book from someone who owns it, but they are making unauthorised copies of the works under copyright. That's the actual offence.
Exactly. Making the copies is the offense, not possessing them.
As such, downloading a file - WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE THE SOURCE OF THAT FILE - that you know is a copy of copyright material that's been made without the permission of the copyright holder, is an offence.
This does not follow from your argument. The uploader made the copy. That is the par
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree with you on a few points. Yes fake Nikes and fake cigarettes are destroyed by customs. But this is aimed at profiteering from the import of these counterfeit goods. However if I go on holiday and buy a fake watch, fake Nike shoes, and counterfeit CDs on the street and bring them back with me, customs generally don't seize the goods.
If someone hands me a photocopied book, whoever made the copy violated the copyright, not me. I have no problem taking the copy and reading it, and even letting a
Re: (Score:2)
So if you wanted a copy of a book, so long as it wasn't YOU that photocopied it, but you just took a photocopy of the entire book from a pile (whether you pay or not complicates matters, let's assume not but with the permission of the person who photocopied), would you expect to not get into trouble?
Yes. Exactly. That is precisely how the legal definition of copyright infringement works. Thanks for putting it so simply for the rest of us.
Incidentally this is also why the courts have gone after people who UPLOAD content.
Re: (Score:2)
s/courts/copyright\ trolls
Re: (Score:2)
That's trademark law, not copyright. But what you have failed to show is that mere possession of the object that was made or imported in violation of trademark law opens you up to liability to the trademark owner. Yes, your "copy" may be destroyed, but only the importer, manufacturer might have to pay damages to
Re: (Score:2)
When they say "downloading", they really mean "uploading". They find IP addresses that are part of a bittorrent swarm and then go after the uploader, but describe it as a downloader.
submission theatre (Score:2)
If there was a procedure to determine guilt in which the defendant was required to stand for an hour in a busy, public place with his or her genitals exposed to see whether his or her naughty bits turned bright purple—which incriminates but never exculpates—do you think prosecutors would rush to drop the tactic just because everyone knows the test will demonstrate nothing?
It's no small feature of the polygraph test that it forces the person being tested to endure a submissive stress position. E
Surprised they withdrew (Score:2)
I'm legitimately suprised that the studio withdrew its offer on the polygraph test, given that polygraphs are a pseudoscience and that if they hired the right examiner they could easily get a result that the person is lying on every possible count.
There is a trick to beat them (Score:2)
http://watchcartoonsonline.eu/... [watchcartoonsonline.eu]
Re:Slashdot in twenty sixteen (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe don't post as an AC?
I'm not even running an adblocker on this computer and I don't see any adds on /.
Re: (Score:2)
Works as well even if you're logged in. With excellent Karma, no less.
Re:Slashdot in twenty sixteen (Score:4)
Maybe don't post as an AC?
I'm not even running an adblocker on this computer and I don't see any adds on /.
I see ads, but they're small, unobtrusive and sit nicely out of the way so you barely even notice them unless you look. They way it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe don't post as an AC?
I'm not even running an adblocker on this computer and I don't see any adds on /.
Ok one thing at a time. Firstly Slashdot most definitely has ads. 1 on the top and 2 on the right. My adblocker itself currently says 8 elements are blocked, 3 of them have adbanner in the name, the rest scripts to ad tracking companies and one to a script to cycle the ads.
Secondly just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I've seen this happen too but it only occurs during an auto-refresh, though not a full refresh. When content is added to the page it seems to add under the top a
Re: (Score:2)
More than likely, it's my work's proxy server filtering out the ads I'm not seeing on my end.
Even uBlock doesn't do this good of a job.
Re: Slashdot in twenty sixteen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With good enough Karma you don't get ads here
Of course you do. Just because they are small and unobtrusive and disguised as "announcements" (the actual title of the div block) doesn't make it any less of an advert.
I do agree though, as far as ads go these don't worry me. But bug, feature, or whatever it is that causes new articles to appear under the ad banner and cause the ad banner to expand to cover it requiring you to close it before you have access to the article doesn't seem to be a good model.
Re: (Score:3)
There was an ad covering this article when I looked at the frontpage, I had to go click on a red X to close it even with my adblocker. Why I still bother to go read yesterday's stories on Slashot when plenty of alternatives are much more convenient & faster is beyond me.
I stopped reading slashdot on my phone when the "ad-removal checkbox for good karma" went away. At least my desktop browsers still have script-blockers, adblockers, and cross-site blockers. It's reduced my slashdot reading by about 80% though. Probably more in the future. Ad networks are malware spewing traps for your readers. Way to drive a site into the ground. Posting non-anonymously partly to lend eyes to the parent (not that I witnessed it, but I believe it).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So let me get this straight, you're semi-boycotting Slashdot because they removed a feature that didn't work, that you don't need anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have ad-block plugins for my phone's browser
Because...? Don't Firefox and Chrome both have adblockers you can install in mobile versions?
So let me get this straight, you're semi-boycotting Slashdot because they removed a redundant feature, that you could easily have but are too lazy to install?
FT
Re: (Score:3)
Firefox for Android supports extensions, and the top 3 extensions are privacy related:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/ [mozilla.org]
Chrome for Android does NOT support extensions.
Does Chrome for Android support apps and extensions?
Chrome apps and extensions are currently not supported on Chrome for Android. We have no plans to announce at this time.
https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/faq [chrome.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
google "alternate web browsers on ios"
The very first link: http://www.macworld.co.uk/feat... [macworld.co.uk]
7 best iPhone web browser apps
- Dolphin
- Chrome
- Opera Mini
- Opera Coast
- Ghostery
- Atomic Browser
None of those have adblockers? Not even Opera?
Additionally, surely you're not implying that Apple doesn't know what's best for you in your walled ga
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then shut up and go somewhere else.
Why I still bother to waste the opportunity to moderate in favor of replying to ACs who are not contributing anything...
Re: (Score:2)
The comments suck, too.
Self-fulfilling prophecy?
Re: (Score:1)
Islam is not a race.
Re: (Score:2)
But it is a group, and while perhaps "racism" is not the right term, "bigotry" is the right term. Beyond even that, I suspect many of the Muslim haters around aren't thinking of a white guy praying in a mosque when they think "I really hate Muslims", so I think there's still some justification to the accusation of racism.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because other people are bigots doesn't really give other people permission to be bigots.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: I want to have the right to be an insufferable rude prick, but I don't want anyone to have the right to point it out to me.
You want to be a fucking asshole, go to town. But you won't ever stop me from calling you what you are.
Re:What's%20with%20spelling? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I hope we're just planning on Beta Testing it in 2032...with my experience in IT you don't want to rush out major changes like that without some robust testing first.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know what you all are talking about. I see everything perfectly fine.
--
Slashdot GOLD user. Subscribe now for great features like Unicode support!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, good! That means we'll have six years to enjoy commenting with emoji before the whole site falls over due to the 32-bit time_t rollover!
Re:Nothing but an IP address? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not even clear why a polygraph is even in the mix here. Frankly, I think the things should be outright outlawed, and it should lead to prison sentences for any officer of the court to try to use one. It's pseudo-scientific quackery whose only purpose is to bully the uninformed.
Leave the e-meters to the $cientologists.
Re:Nothing but an IP address? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not even clear why a polygraph is even in the mix here. Frankly, I think the things should be outright outlawed, and it should lead to prison sentences for any officer of the court to try to use one. It's pseudo-scientific quackery whose only purpose is to bully the uninformed.
Leave the e-meters to the $cientologists.
I had a discussion with an ex cop who ran polygraphs for the police (VPD) and asked him what good they were for since they couldn't be used in court.
My opinion of them is / was roughly in line with yours.
He made some really good points though.
For one thing, there are two "persons of interest" but they're having a hard time knowing which to focus on (works better for larger pools of suspects). After polygraphs, one stands out has having lied. Sure this isn't 100% accurate, and isn't evidence in court (than
Re:Nothing but an IP address? (Score:5, Informative)
As to your first point, it isn't reliable nine times out of ten. It's likely no more accurate than a placebo (i.e. having the suspect give testimony into a microphone hooked up to a computer and claiming the computer can determine whether he is lying or not).
As to the second point, it's just a prop.
As to the third point, yes, it has a psychological effect providing the suspect believes it is effective. But relying on the ignorance of suspects seems a pretty piss poor way to guarantee you're getting useful testimony.
The American Psychology Psychological Association has a pretty good writeup on it:
http://www.apa.org/research/ac... [apa.org]
In particular:
So we have is a machine built on a faulty set of assumptions about behavior that it is probably could never be verified, which utterly undermines your first point. It simply does not detect lies. Full stop.
Re: (Score:3)
They should just be plain outlawed for any investigative purposes. If I was in charge, right about now every polygraph in the possession of the state would be piled up and firebombed.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus told you to download it? So... with the Catholic Church being his legal successor... *watches lawyers drool*.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, no. . . I'm talking about Jesus, the guy who does my lawn work . . . (grin)
Re: (Score:2)
rimshot
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, those fuckin' bible thumpers... not only do they blame the poor immigrants for the shit they do, they can't even be assed to learn how to properly pronounce his name.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps they should have picked a cheaper actor than Matthew Mcconaughey. For a second tier film like this one, I don't think you can justify his paycheck in extra tickets sold.
But in reality, most of second tier films are little more than Producers-like ways of fleecing money from arrogant but naive people who want a "producer" credit for helping finance this thing. And that's likely where this comes from. The big blockbuster films that make a gazillion dollars are usually funded entirely by the studios, b