6 ms·

An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors

144 points by new1234567 11y ago

e40 11y ago
If it is true that it's no better than a coin flip, shame on everyone for using it. And, the idea that a good citizen with a conscience will give a "bad" response easier than a hardened criminal certainly rings true.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  Its not used for diagnostics, its used as an interrogation tool. The idea is that you grill someone much easier if they're connected to a strange machine that can seemingly read their thoughts. Decent article about this from 2000 here: http://www.salon.com/2000/03/02/polygraph/ http://www.salon.com/2000/03/02/polygraph/ Polygraphs don’t have to work to be a deterrent. People just have to believe that they work and can reveal whether they have committed crimes. The DOE doesn’t have to believe they work, either. More important, polygraphs are an immensely effective interrogation tool; they need not detect lies. Lykken tells an anecdote of two cops interrogating a suspect at a time when copy machines were not familiar objects. Lacking a lie detector, the cops put a piece of paper in the copier that said “He’s lying!” They made the suspect place his hand on the strange machine while they asked him questions. When they didn’t like his answers, they’d hit a button on the machine. It would groan, whir, stink and shoot out a piece of paper that read “He’s lying!” Realizing that denial was useless, he confessed. “If I was in the police business I would use [the] polygraph,” says Lykken. “It’s a powerful inducer of confessions, and you don’t have to hit ’em with any clubs. I can’t blame the police for using it; I only blame them for believing it.” A 1983 report from the Office of Technology Assessment says, “It appears that the NSA [National Security Agency] (and possibly CIA) use the polygraph not to determine deception or truthfulness per se, but as a technique of interrogation to encourage admissions.” edit: I am not advocating for this. Personally, I think they should be illegal to use.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    We've been led to believe that NSA/CIA hire smart people. Smart people probably know things that were common knowledge in 1983, so what is the use of a polygraph administered to NSA/CIA staff thirty years later?
  - tehwebguy 11y ago
    > Realizing that denial was useless, he confessed. Is this a win or a loss for society?
  - rpedroso 11y ago
    As the article mentions, the polygraph results are still occasionally used in court. Regardless of its utility as an interrogation tool, there are serious concerns about the scientific validity of its output. The use of polygraph output to bar people from jobs and as evidence in court deserves scrutiny.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    Is that a good excuse to maintain a pseudo-science complete with "professional organizations" and "journals" and other publications? It pollutes a space that should be for the pursuit of truth.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
barking 11y ago
They have no evidence the guy actually aided a criminal yet he's facing jail. Is America the only first world country where such an extraordinary thing is possible?
- justwannasing 11y ago
  No. A prosecutor must present evidence to a judge that a trial is warranted. If a judge OKs it, then the attorney(s) will have to present that evidence, and possibly more, to a jury. Any prosecutor trying to do this without evidence of any kind wouldn't get anywhere. Now, I haven't read the article, but you have to careful that such information is present and stated and not ignore. News services all too often, nowadays, leave facts out of stories and, to be honest, I don't view Bloomberg as a source for these types of crime stories.
- SixSigma 11y ago
  No. You will be charged with "possession of a controlled substance" in the UK even if the substance was not a controlled substance just so long as they can demonstrate you thought it was. E.g. the cops can set up a "drug deal" to sell you cocaine, sell you talcum powder and then arrest you for buying it, so long as they can demonstrate you think it is cocaine - such as saying "here's that cocaine you wanted".
  - wil421 11y ago
    Same is US, if you sell fake drugs you will be prosecuted as if you sold those drugs.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      This seems fair, especially if we want the opposite to be true: if you buy what you legitimately think is talcum powder, and it ends up actually being cocaine, that shouldn't be a crime!
- wil421 11y ago
  What do you mean? He knowingly helped two undercover agents lie who disclosed crimes to him. One that supposedly smuggled drugs and another who touched a 14 year old. If he immediately severed contact when they confessed to these crimes he would be free. If you are doing something in a gray area make sure you dont make mistakes. Here is the witness tampering law: "(c) Whoever corruptly—... (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,"[1] [1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 I'm guessing a lie detector test is an Official Proceeding.
song 11y ago
I really dislike entrapment based sting operations. The way they trapped him with those two undercover agents and use that to show that he would have aided a criminal stinks... It's not the actions of a just judicial system.
- barking 11y ago
  If cleverly designed almost anyone could be entrapped for something.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Entrapment is when you're coerced into committing a crime you otherwise wouldn't have committed. For example, if the police show up and say that they're going to arrest your relative unless you rob a certain store, then you rob the store and they arrest you for robbery, that would be entrapment. If they merely pose as a person interested in your criminal activity and get you to commit a crime, which you were happy to commit anyway, that's not entrapment. The problem here isn't the sting operation, it's that it's a crime to help someone defeat a polygraph in the first place.
  - barking 11y ago
    >Entrapment is when you're coerced into committing a crime you otherwise wouldn't have commit. Coerced is the wrong word, induced is the correct one, and that's what happened here.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I'm not sure I see the difference. I also don't see how it applies here. "Otherwise wouldn't have committed" is key. The guy did this stuff routinely, even advertised it. This isn't a crime he otherwise wouldn't have committed. It just shouldn't be illegal at all.
      - DugFin 11y ago
        "Coercion" is specifically the use of threats. "Inducement" is a broader category that includes other methods like begging, badgering, and wheedling.
JDeArte 11y ago
Penn&Teller Bullshit episode on Polygraphs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bScv6kfxRyE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bScv6kfxRyE
mc32 11y ago
Why don't agencies use fMRI instead of something as unreliable and questionable and discredited as polygraphs? I'm not sure you'd use fmri as widely as polygraphs are today, but maybe for targeted investigation they'd be a useful tool? There are claims of up to 90% accuracy[1] while not perfect, are better than polys. [1]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-lie-detector/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-lie-detector/
- Balgair 11y ago
  Because they are no more or less useful. Here's a link to one of the best headlines Wired ever ran: http://www.wired.com/2009/09/fmrisalmon/ http://www.wired.com/2009/09/fmrisalmon/ Essentially, even a stinking dead fish will show positives in an fMRI. And yes, these studies have really rocked the fMRI field and called into doubt many experiments.
  - dewarrn1 11y ago
    fMRI as a method is not bankrupt or ill-founded. However, as the study you linked shows, it is susceptible to statistical artifacts that must be controlled to support rigorous conclusions.
    - JackFr 11y ago
      fMRI is not bankrupt or ill founded, but it shows what it shows, that is more or less the geography of brain oxygen consumption. The ill-founded and bankrupt part comes from all of weak and tenuous interpretation that comes after that. fMRI can teach us much about brain physiology, but when blood flow is linked to psychology we should exhibit heightened skepticism.
- dewarrn1 11y ago
  Don't believe the hype. Applying fMRI methods to lie detection is at least as problematic as the polygraph. Here's a good review: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15265160701842007 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15265160701842007
- deleted 11y ago
RA_Fisher 11y ago
And soon it appears he'll be a political prisoner. :-(
failbuffer 11y ago
Wilson reminds me somewhat of right-to-die advocate Dr. Kevorkian, in that the passion of his advocacy eventually led him to cross some bright red lines. Kevorkian assisted several chronically-ill patients with their suicides, and juries repeatedly let him off the hook because of the patients' videotaped testimonials expressing their suffering and desire to control how they died. Eventually, though, Jack took it to far and injected a patient himself (instead of waiting for them to push the button), and got sent to prison at age 70. Maybe the lines weren't quite so bright red with Williams, but that pushing and pushing to the point where you lose sight of the bigger picture seems characteristic of many "solo" advocates (expanding the word "solo" to include not just loners but maybe also founders of non-profits who don't give up the leadership reigns, like Stallman at FSF). By contrast, really great advocates can look beyond their cause and keep the wider world in perspective. Nelson Mandela is a good example of this (since he focused on uniting post-apartheid South Africa instead of seeking vengeance on the White gentry like his wife and many others wanted to do).
JamesBarney 11y ago
The most despicable use of lie detectors I've ever seen was on the Dr. Phil show. Dr. Phil asked a man who cheated on his wife whether he diddled his kids while he was hooked up to a lie detector. He answered no but obviously a question that is as emotionally charged at that will appear as a lie. This man's relationship with his family, friends and probably any future work relationships were all ruined by a stupid magic trick. The man turned to Dr. Phil and the the former FBI agent who administered the polygraph and start pleading and begging for any reason why the lie detector would give a false positive. Dr. Phil and the former FBI agent were smart enough to know why it wasn't working but they continued be evasive as the man's past and future relationships with his children, family, friend, and coworkers went up in flames.
- omginternets 11y ago
  I hate to say it, but that's what you get for seeking help from a TV psychologist. You're insane if you think a TV show is there to help you.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - woof 11y ago
    Or just plain stupid.
  - kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
    He's not a Psychologist or any sort of a doctor at all. Just another modern day Jerry Springer act. In a real polygraph exam a baseline is established and you review all the questions "before" the test is run so that there is no surprise when they are asked the second time. Even then the nature of the questions can elicit a measurable response. The best advice I ever got from a polygraph examiner was to never voluntarily take one. Advice given while I was strapped to his machine. Never could be sure if he was being sincere or just manipulating me.
    - jdmichal 11y ago
rl3 11y ago
Since fMRIs are likely the future for this type of thing, this is probably the most disturbing job posting I've ever seen: http://www.acfei.com/forensic_services/jobsearch/job-236170.xhtml http://www.acfei.com/forensic_services/jobsearch/job-236170.... - Title: PhD COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGISTS Date Posted: 05/03/2012 [...] [...] seeking contract physiologists to provide technical expertise in central nervous system (CNS) studies related to credibility assessment. [...] Candidates will provide expertise in the use of CNS technologies such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), [...] A Top Secret security clearance is highly desirable. Candidates without a security clearance who possess superior qualifications may be processed for the required USG security clearance before commencing work.
- dewarrn1 11y ago
  There are already commercial operations using (or claiming to use) fMRI for lie detection [0]. I can understand the potential appeal of similar positions for applicants — there's a scarcity of academic jobs for even highly skilled cognitive neuroscience PhDs. As I've posted elsewhere in these comments, the best available evidence suggests that fMRI is no more useful than polygraph for lie detection. Unfortunately, the power of brain images to induce credulity in otherwise intelligent people is well-known [e.g., 1]. [0] http://noliemri.com/ http://noliemri.com/ [1] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-007-9003-3 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-007-9003-3
  - rl3 11y ago
    I wouldn't be so quick to discount the technology's potential. While the commercial operation you cited is probably dubious at best, and while it may be true that the current state of the technology is as unreliable as you say for the purposes of credibility assessment, I still believe the future of fMRI research holds incredible potential. Keep in mind that as far back as 2011, researchers succeeded in reconstructing images from the visual cortex[0]. Moreover, the intelligence community has far more resources and motivation to perfect such a technology. It's possible they may already have advanced well beyond what's currently known today. If not, then they certainly will in the future, provided the technology continues to hold its promise. [0] http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/ http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/
sandworm101 11y ago
It seems to me that the intelligence communicate uses lie detectors less as tests for nefarious activities and more as personality tests. Let's assume that lie detectors actually work. To "pass" such a test you have to be reasonably certain about your answers. Have you ever passed information to the enemy: Yes/No? Is everything in your application truthful? Only some people can be completely secure about there answers. The more knowledge and experience a person has in an area, the more the likelihood that they cannot give that yes/no answer. So what they get is a bunch of young, mostly male, kids who are not the type to self examine. They are sure that they are correct, that they have done no wrong. That infeed might explain much of the direction that the community has taken in recent years.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  Or perhaps they're just selecting people who are good at lying.
arprocter 11y ago
"a startup called Converus has developed an exam based on eye movement and pupil dilation" Philip K. Dick has the prior art
Sideloader 11y ago
It seems they busted Williams based on the bogus stories provided by the DHS guy and the deputy sheriff used to set him up. Both "admitted" they broke the law and Williams, knowing this, continued to help them. Had he turned them away could this have turned out differently I wonder? Personally, I think polygraphs whether used as lie detectors or "personality tests" should be illegal and have no place in a modern society except perhaps in a museum.
glandium 11y ago
If you’re looking for something that only occurs one-tenth of 1 percent of the time, running a test that’s 90 percent accurate doesn’t help you. Also known as the false positive paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_paradox
tripzilch 11y ago
I read that the data in the stolen OPM records also contains polygraph data. I wonder that if, say the US would decide to retaliate and steal similar data from China, they would find records with I-Ching readings? :-)

144 points by new1234567 11y ago

e40 11y ago

If it is true that it's no better than a coin flip, shame on everyone for using it. And, the idea that a good citizen with a conscience will give a "bad" response easier than a hardened criminal certainly rings true.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Its not used for diagnostics, its used as an interrogation tool. The idea is that you grill someone much easier if they're connected to a strange machine that can seemingly read their thoughts. Decent article about this from 2000 here: http://www.salon.com/2000/03/02/polygraph/ http://www.salon.com/2000/03/02/polygraph/ Polygraphs don’t have to work to be a deterrent. People just have to believe that they work and can reveal whether they have committed crimes. The DOE doesn’t have to believe they work, either. More important, polygraphs are an immensely effective interrogation tool; they need not detect lies. Lykken tells an anecdote of two cops interrogating a suspect at a time when copy machines were not familiar objects. Lacking a lie detector, the cops put a piece of paper in the copier that said “He’s lying!” They made the suspect place his hand on the strange machine while they asked him questions. When they didn’t like his answers, they’d hit a button on the machine. It would groan, whir, stink and shoot out a piece of paper that read “He’s lying!” Realizing that denial was useless, he confessed. “If I was in the police business I would use [the] polygraph,” says Lykken. “It’s a powerful inducer of confessions, and you don’t have to hit ’em with any clubs. I can’t blame the police for using it; I only blame them for believing it.” A 1983 report from the Office of Technology Assessment says, “It appears that the NSA [National Security Agency] (and possibly CIA) use the polygraph not to determine deception or truthfulness per se, but as a technique of interrogation to encourage admissions.” edit: I am not advocating for this. Personally, I think they should be illegal to use.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  We've been led to believe that NSA/CIA hire smart people. Smart people probably know things that were common knowledge in 1983, so what is the use of a polygraph administered to NSA/CIA staff thirty years later?
- tehwebguy 11y ago
  > Realizing that denial was useless, he confessed. Is this a win or a loss for society?
- rpedroso 11y ago
  As the article mentions, the polygraph results are still occasionally used in court. Regardless of its utility as an interrogation tool, there are serious concerns about the scientific validity of its output. The use of polygraph output to bar people from jobs and as evidence in court deserves scrutiny.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  Is that a good excuse to maintain a pseudo-science complete with "professional organizations" and "journals" and other publications? It pollutes a space that should be for the pursuit of truth.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

barking 11y ago

They have no evidence the guy actually aided a criminal yet he's facing jail. Is America the only first world country where such an extraordinary thing is possible?

justwannasing 11y ago
No. A prosecutor must present evidence to a judge that a trial is warranted. If a judge OKs it, then the attorney(s) will have to present that evidence, and possibly more, to a jury. Any prosecutor trying to do this without evidence of any kind wouldn't get anywhere. Now, I haven't read the article, but you have to careful that such information is present and stated and not ignore. News services all too often, nowadays, leave facts out of stories and, to be honest, I don't view Bloomberg as a source for these types of crime stories.
SixSigma 11y ago
No. You will be charged with "possession of a controlled substance" in the UK even if the substance was not a controlled substance just so long as they can demonstrate you thought it was. E.g. the cops can set up a "drug deal" to sell you cocaine, sell you talcum powder and then arrest you for buying it, so long as they can demonstrate you think it is cocaine - such as saying "here's that cocaine you wanted".
- wil421 11y ago
  Same is US, if you sell fake drugs you will be prosecuted as if you sold those drugs.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    This seems fair, especially if we want the opposite to be true: if you buy what you legitimately think is talcum powder, and it ends up actually being cocaine, that shouldn't be a crime!
wil421 11y ago
What do you mean? He knowingly helped two undercover agents lie who disclosed crimes to him. One that supposedly smuggled drugs and another who touched a 14 year old. If he immediately severed contact when they confessed to these crimes he would be free. If you are doing something in a gray area make sure you dont make mistakes. Here is the witness tampering law: "(c) Whoever corruptly—... (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,"[1] [1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 I'm guessing a lie detector test is an Official Proceeding.

song 11y ago

I really dislike entrapment based sting operations. The way they trapped him with those two undercover agents and use that to show that he would have aided a criminal stinks... It's not the actions of a just judicial system.

barking 11y ago
If cleverly designed almost anyone could be entrapped for something.
mikeash 11y ago
Entrapment is when you're coerced into committing a crime you otherwise wouldn't have committed. For example, if the police show up and say that they're going to arrest your relative unless you rob a certain store, then you rob the store and they arrest you for robbery, that would be entrapment. If they merely pose as a person interested in your criminal activity and get you to commit a crime, which you were happy to commit anyway, that's not entrapment. The problem here isn't the sting operation, it's that it's a crime to help someone defeat a polygraph in the first place.
- barking 11y ago
  >Entrapment is when you're coerced into committing a crime you otherwise wouldn't have commit. Coerced is the wrong word, induced is the correct one, and that's what happened here.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I'm not sure I see the difference. I also don't see how it applies here. "Otherwise wouldn't have committed" is key. The guy did this stuff routinely, even advertised it. This isn't a crime he otherwise wouldn't have committed. It just shouldn't be illegal at all.
    - DugFin 11y ago
      "Coercion" is specifically the use of threats. "Inducement" is a broader category that includes other methods like begging, badgering, and wheedling.

JDeArte 11y ago

Penn&Teller Bullshit episode on Polygraphs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bScv6kfxRyE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bScv6kfxRyE

mc32 11y ago

Why don't agencies use fMRI instead of something as unreliable and questionable and discredited as polygraphs? I'm not sure you'd use fmri as widely as polygraphs are today, but maybe for targeted investigation they'd be a useful tool? There are claims of up to 90% accuracy[1] while not perfect, are better than polys. [1]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-lie-detector/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-lie-detector/

Balgair 11y ago
Because they are no more or less useful. Here's a link to one of the best headlines Wired ever ran: http://www.wired.com/2009/09/fmrisalmon/ http://www.wired.com/2009/09/fmrisalmon/ Essentially, even a stinking dead fish will show positives in an fMRI. And yes, these studies have really rocked the fMRI field and called into doubt many experiments.
- dewarrn1 11y ago
  fMRI as a method is not bankrupt or ill-founded. However, as the study you linked shows, it is susceptible to statistical artifacts that must be controlled to support rigorous conclusions.
  - JackFr 11y ago
    fMRI is not bankrupt or ill founded, but it shows what it shows, that is more or less the geography of brain oxygen consumption. The ill-founded and bankrupt part comes from all of weak and tenuous interpretation that comes after that. fMRI can teach us much about brain physiology, but when blood flow is linked to psychology we should exhibit heightened skepticism.
dewarrn1 11y ago
Don't believe the hype. Applying fMRI methods to lie detection is at least as problematic as the polygraph. Here's a good review: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15265160701842007 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15265160701842007
deleted 11y ago

RA_Fisher 11y ago

And soon it appears he'll be a political prisoner. :-(

failbuffer 11y ago

Wilson reminds me somewhat of right-to-die advocate Dr. Kevorkian, in that the passion of his advocacy eventually led him to cross some bright red lines. Kevorkian assisted several chronically-ill patients with their suicides, and juries repeatedly let him off the hook because of the patients' videotaped testimonials expressing their suffering and desire to control how they died. Eventually, though, Jack took it to far and injected a patient himself (instead of waiting for them to push the button), and got sent to prison at age 70. Maybe the lines weren't quite so bright red with Williams, but that pushing and pushing to the point where you lose sight of the bigger picture seems characteristic of many "solo" advocates (expanding the word "solo" to include not just loners but maybe also founders of non-profits who don't give up the leadership reigns, like Stallman at FSF). By contrast, really great advocates can look beyond their cause and keep the wider world in perspective. Nelson Mandela is a good example of this (since he focused on uniting post-apartheid South Africa instead of seeking vengeance on the White gentry like his wife and many others wanted to do).

JamesBarney 11y ago

The most despicable use of lie detectors I've ever seen was on the Dr. Phil show. Dr. Phil asked a man who cheated on his wife whether he diddled his kids while he was hooked up to a lie detector. He answered no but obviously a question that is as emotionally charged at that will appear as a lie. This man's relationship with his family, friends and probably any future work relationships were all ruined by a stupid magic trick. The man turned to Dr. Phil and the the former FBI agent who administered the polygraph and start pleading and begging for any reason why the lie detector would give a false positive. Dr. Phil and the former FBI agent were smart enough to know why it wasn't working but they continued be evasive as the man's past and future relationships with his children, family, friend, and coworkers went up in flames.

omginternets 11y ago
I hate to say it, but that's what you get for seeking help from a TV psychologist. You're insane if you think a TV show is there to help you.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- woof 11y ago
  Or just plain stupid.
- kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
  He's not a Psychologist or any sort of a doctor at all. Just another modern day Jerry Springer act. In a real polygraph exam a baseline is established and you review all the questions "before" the test is run so that there is no surprise when they are asked the second time. Even then the nature of the questions can elicit a measurable response. The best advice I ever got from a polygraph examiner was to never voluntarily take one. Advice given while I was strapped to his machine. Never could be sure if he was being sincere or just manipulating me.
  - jdmichal 11y ago

rl3 11y ago

Since fMRIs are likely the future for this type of thing, this is probably the most disturbing job posting I've ever seen: http://www.acfei.com/forensic_services/jobsearch/job-236170.xhtml http://www.acfei.com/forensic_services/jobsearch/job-236170.... - Title: PhD COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGISTS Date Posted: 05/03/2012 [...] [...] seeking contract physiologists to provide technical expertise in central nervous system (CNS) studies related to credibility assessment. [...] Candidates will provide expertise in the use of CNS technologies such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), [...] A Top Secret security clearance is highly desirable. Candidates without a security clearance who possess superior qualifications may be processed for the required USG security clearance before commencing work.

dewarrn1 11y ago
There are already commercial operations using (or claiming to use) fMRI for lie detection [0]. I can understand the potential appeal of similar positions for applicants — there's a scarcity of academic jobs for even highly skilled cognitive neuroscience PhDs. As I've posted elsewhere in these comments, the best available evidence suggests that fMRI is no more useful than polygraph for lie detection. Unfortunately, the power of brain images to induce credulity in otherwise intelligent people is well-known [e.g., 1]. [0] http://noliemri.com/ http://noliemri.com/ [1] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-007-9003-3 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-007-9003-3
- rl3 11y ago
  I wouldn't be so quick to discount the technology's potential. While the commercial operation you cited is probably dubious at best, and while it may be true that the current state of the technology is as unreliable as you say for the purposes of credibility assessment, I still believe the future of fMRI research holds incredible potential. Keep in mind that as far back as 2011, researchers succeeded in reconstructing images from the visual cortex[0]. Moreover, the intelligence community has far more resources and motivation to perfect such a technology. It's possible they may already have advanced well beyond what's currently known today. If not, then they certainly will in the future, provided the technology continues to hold its promise. [0] http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/ http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/

sandworm101 11y ago

It seems to me that the intelligence communicate uses lie detectors less as tests for nefarious activities and more as personality tests. Let's assume that lie detectors actually work. To "pass" such a test you have to be reasonably certain about your answers. Have you ever passed information to the enemy: Yes/No? Is everything in your application truthful? Only some people can be completely secure about there answers. The more knowledge and experience a person has in an area, the more the likelihood that they cannot give that yes/no answer. So what they get is a bunch of young, mostly male, kids who are not the type to self examine. They are sure that they are correct, that they have done no wrong. That infeed might explain much of the direction that the community has taken in recent years.

pavel_lishin 11y ago
Or perhaps they're just selecting people who are good at lying.

arprocter 11y ago

"a startup called Converus has developed an exam based on eye movement and pupil dilation" Philip K. Dick has the prior art

Sideloader 11y ago

It seems they busted Williams based on the bogus stories provided by the DHS guy and the deputy sheriff used to set him up. Both "admitted" they broke the law and Williams, knowing this, continued to help them. Had he turned them away could this have turned out differently I wonder? Personally, I think polygraphs whether used as lie detectors or "personality tests" should be illegal and have no place in a modern society except perhaps in a museum.

glandium 11y ago

If you’re looking for something that only occurs one-tenth of 1 percent of the time, running a test that’s 90 percent accurate doesn’t help you. Also known as the false positive paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_paradox

tripzilch 11y ago

I read that the data in the stolen OPM records also contains polygraph data. I wonder that if, say the US would decide to retaliate and steal similar data from China, they would find records with I-Ching readings? :-)