6 ms·

U.S. Judge Orders “Immediate Removal” of Website Critical of Voice Lie Detector

77 points by ap_org 7y ago

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
apo 7y ago
And here it is anyway: https://web.archive.org/web/20190518135724/http://www.nitvcvsaexposed.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190518135724/http://www.nitvcv... Looks like a link collection and a video (which doesn't play). That video may hold the key to the judge's decision because ordering a takedown of a link collection seems like overreach. On the current version of the site it's just an ABC clip from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsufvxgLf0g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsufvxgLf0g From the video: ABC: "Has there been a single scientific study that shows that this works?" "Dr." Charles Humble: "I don't believe that there has been an independent scientific study that shows that this works." Yet it's been used by police around the country to elicit confessions and convictions, according to ABC. This case is more complicated than the article lets on: > This case involves two competing businesses that sell truth verification technology. NITV is a Florida limited liability company based in Palm Beach County whose members are all Florida citizens [DE 1 ¶ 1]. Dektor is a Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in Coopersburg, Pennsylvania [Id. ¶ 2]. Dektor’s President and sole shareholder is Defendant Arthur Herring III, who is a citizen and resident of Pennsylvania [Id. ¶¶ 3, 22]. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237.95.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237... Edit: Charles Humble was in fact lying, as the ABC clip shows. The Pentagon conducted an independent investigation and found the device to be no more accurate than flipping a coin.
- wl 7y ago
  > This character has all the hallmarks of a quack. The judge's decision is questionable at best. This is an adversarial system, not an inquisitorial one. It's not the judge's job to decide the truth of the matter without briefing from both sides. If one side doesn't show up, that side loses by default because otherwise it would be advantageous for a party being sued to just not show up to court.
- lozenge 7y ago
  "Yet it's been used by police around the country to elicit confessions and convictions, according to ABC." Well, getting somebody to confess by lying to them is legitimate in the US. In this case, the police tell you you're hooked up to an accurate lie detector, and the accused decides to tell (what the court will accept as) the truth. This seems reasonable.
- golem14 7y ago
  This same video link is is linked from the archived site.
Someone1234 7y ago
Title: > U.S. Judge Orders “Immediate Removal” of Website Critical of Voice Lie Detector It was a default judgement, the judge didn't "order" anything. If the other side fails to answer the case at all ("Dektor has not timely responded to either motion."[0]), the judge simply grants the claimant what they asked for. You can apply to vacate a default judgement and get your day in court, but that requires you to take part in proceedings. It should also be noted that "Arthur Herring III" of Dektor has an interest history (just google it, I see multiple unrelated news articles/lawsuits), and that both sides are selling voice "lie detectors." [0] https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237.95.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237...
- microwavecamera 7y ago
  The title is misleading but after reading the court order you posted, this still seems odd. I'm not defending anyone involved in this, honestly both Dektor and NITV seem sketchy but this is a civil judgement against a company in a different state. Maybe some HN legal wonks can weigh in on this and explain it but I don't see how a state civil court has the authority to remove a website that's clearly outside of state jurisdiction and not involved in a criminal proceeding. If it were a violation of the law it would fall under federal jurisdiction. If the civil judge determined that the website itself was in violation of the law then it should be referred to the relevant federal agencies for a criminal investigation.
- fludlight 7y ago
  Default judgements are not as simple as you disingenuously claim. "Answering the case" = paying a lawyer at least a low five figure USD retainer to write a ~20 page document, 15 of which is a template, and then show up in court on your behalf. No money, no justice, unless you successfully beg for probono work (ie: find a lawyer willing to volunteer).
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    You didn't refute anything I posted, just posted an unrelated point while calling my post "disingenuous" for no clear reason. One of the sides didn't turn up at all, nor write a response, after having been served. Lawsuits being expensive is a valid point, but it is an separate point than what I posted about above.
pizza 7y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20190519153139/https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2019/05/19/federal-judge-orders-immediate-removal-of-website-critical-of-computer-voice-stress-analysis/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190519153139/https://antipolyg...
seibelj 7y ago
I'm a huge fan of true crime, listening to thousands of hours of podcasts, endless TV shows and documentaries, I own at least 30 true crime nonfiction books, etc. But I don't have any formal credentials in criminology. After all my listening, I believe that if I was law enforcement I would appreciate the lie detector. It doesn't actually detect lies, and a trained person or a sociopath 100% in control of their emotions and heart rate can beat it. And many people have. However, the power in the lie detector comes from its name - "The Lie Detector" - and the common belief that it actually works. The interesting result of a lie detector isn't that it actually detects lies. No matter what the result is, if I was an investigator, I would tell the suspect that it said they lied and it is 100% accurate. The reaction to telling the suspect this, and what they do next, could very well result in a confession, or at least meaningful information. It's a psychological trick that is quite useful. The lie detector is such an absurd piece of theater, and most people have never seen one before let alone had one taken, that they cannot prepare for the result. If you interrogate 100 suspects, you can use their reaction to further your opinion of whether they are truly guilty by comparing to your past interrogations. Now, would I ever agree to take a lie detector test? Hell no! And they are also not admissible in court, as the law understands that they don't actually work. But in an interrogation process, where cops are lying and deceiving and tactically revealing information, it is a good arrow in the quiver.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  The media believes it works, so not agreeing to take one can be used in the court of public opinion to ruin a reputation. For example there's currently a women missing in Hawaii this week called Amanda Eller, her boyfriend was given a lie detector (which he "passed"), the police announced he wasn't a suspect and his test pass. Imagine if he had said "hell no!" as you yourself would. That's the problem. Police keep using something that doesn't work, but if you refuse they will take the refusal itself as suspicious and the media will find out. It may not hold up in a court of law, but good luck ever getting another job with google returning articles about how you MAY have killed someone.
- dghughes 7y ago
  The Forensic Brain Wave Analysis (FBWA)is supposedly nearly foolproof. Although anything that's declared to be infallible makes my BS detector go off.
crazygringo 7y ago
> On March 12, 2019, a Clerk’s default was entered against Dektor based upon its failure to appear, answer, or otherwise plead to NITV’s Complaint, despite having been duly served [1] Yeah..... if you publish allegedly defamatory claims against a competitor, are ordered to appear in court and don't even show up to defend yourself, then not exactly surprising. Not sure what's newsworthy about this. At a glance, the title almost suggests the government is trying to suppress information critical of polygraphs, which doesn't appear to be even remotely the case? [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237.95.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237...
- qrbLPHiKpiux 7y ago
  This is how I read that title. I am tired of this click bait Behavior. “Default judgement” should be somewhere in the title.
- ap_org 7y ago
  The reason I think this is newsworthy is that the website whose "immediate removal" has been ordered includes voluminous unflattering but apparently true information about the "National Institute for Truth Verification," information that is of public interest that is at risk of being suppressed.
stupidcar 7y ago
Not clear there's any intent to censor here by the courts, so much as mediate a dispute between two equally disreputable vendors of bogus lie detection systems. More concerning is the fact that so many large law enforcement institutions continue to use these systems even after the fact of their ineffectiveness has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. If such institutions cannot weigh and respond to evidence correctly as it relates to their own investigatory methods, why should we have any faith in their ability to handle evidence correctly in the course of those investigations themselves?
gridlockd 7y ago
As others have pointed out, a default judgement implies the defendant basically doing nothing, which is the worst possible "defense". This is what a lot of litigators bank on - send threatening letters (perhaps en-masse) to rake in the default judgements but then only proceed on appeal if it's worth the hassle.
mimsee 7y ago
Datproject mirror dat://0e7edf972270a5901dc434591f6bf865dc24d24823adfee277628a29b59fae98/

77 points by ap_org 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

apo 7y ago

And here it is anyway: https://web.archive.org/web/20190518135724/http://www.nitvcvsaexposed.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190518135724/http://www.nitvcv... Looks like a link collection and a video (which doesn't play). That video may hold the key to the judge's decision because ordering a takedown of a link collection seems like overreach. On the current version of the site it's just an ABC clip from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsufvxgLf0g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsufvxgLf0g From the video: ABC: "Has there been a single scientific study that shows that this works?" "Dr." Charles Humble: "I don't believe that there has been an independent scientific study that shows that this works." Yet it's been used by police around the country to elicit confessions and convictions, according to ABC. This case is more complicated than the article lets on: > This case involves two competing businesses that sell truth verification technology. NITV is a Florida limited liability company based in Palm Beach County whose members are all Florida citizens [DE 1 ¶ 1]. Dektor is a Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in Coopersburg, Pennsylvania [Id. ¶ 2]. Dektor’s President and sole shareholder is Defendant Arthur Herring III, who is a citizen and resident of Pennsylvania [Id. ¶¶ 3, 22]. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237.95.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237... Edit: Charles Humble was in fact lying, as the ABC clip shows. The Pentagon conducted an independent investigation and found the device to be no more accurate than flipping a coin.

wl 7y ago
> This character has all the hallmarks of a quack. The judge's decision is questionable at best. This is an adversarial system, not an inquisitorial one. It's not the judge's job to decide the truth of the matter without briefing from both sides. If one side doesn't show up, that side loses by default because otherwise it would be advantageous for a party being sued to just not show up to court.
lozenge 7y ago
"Yet it's been used by police around the country to elicit confessions and convictions, according to ABC." Well, getting somebody to confess by lying to them is legitimate in the US. In this case, the police tell you you're hooked up to an accurate lie detector, and the accused decides to tell (what the court will accept as) the truth. This seems reasonable.
golem14 7y ago
This same video link is is linked from the archived site.

Someone1234 7y ago

Title: > U.S. Judge Orders “Immediate Removal” of Website Critical of Voice Lie Detector It was a default judgement, the judge didn't "order" anything. If the other side fails to answer the case at all ("Dektor has not timely responded to either motion."[0]), the judge simply grants the claimant what they asked for. You can apply to vacate a default judgement and get your day in court, but that requires you to take part in proceedings. It should also be noted that "Arthur Herring III" of Dektor has an interest history (just google it, I see multiple unrelated news articles/lawsuits), and that both sides are selling voice "lie detectors." [0] https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237.95.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237...

microwavecamera 7y ago
The title is misleading but after reading the court order you posted, this still seems odd. I'm not defending anyone involved in this, honestly both Dektor and NITV seem sketchy but this is a civil judgement against a company in a different state. Maybe some HN legal wonks can weigh in on this and explain it but I don't see how a state civil court has the authority to remove a website that's clearly outside of state jurisdiction and not involved in a criminal proceeding. If it were a violation of the law it would fall under federal jurisdiction. If the civil judge determined that the website itself was in violation of the law then it should be referred to the relevant federal agencies for a criminal investigation.
fludlight 7y ago
Default judgements are not as simple as you disingenuously claim. "Answering the case" = paying a lawyer at least a low five figure USD retainer to write a ~20 page document, 15 of which is a template, and then show up in court on your behalf. No money, no justice, unless you successfully beg for probono work (ie: find a lawyer willing to volunteer).
- Someone1234 7y ago
  You didn't refute anything I posted, just posted an unrelated point while calling my post "disingenuous" for no clear reason. One of the sides didn't turn up at all, nor write a response, after having been served. Lawsuits being expensive is a valid point, but it is an separate point than what I posted about above.

pizza 7y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20190519153139/https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2019/05/19/federal-judge-orders-immediate-removal-of-website-critical-of-computer-voice-stress-analysis/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190519153139/https://antipolyg...

seibelj 7y ago

I'm a huge fan of true crime, listening to thousands of hours of podcasts, endless TV shows and documentaries, I own at least 30 true crime nonfiction books, etc. But I don't have any formal credentials in criminology. After all my listening, I believe that if I was law enforcement I would appreciate the lie detector. It doesn't actually detect lies, and a trained person or a sociopath 100% in control of their emotions and heart rate can beat it. And many people have. However, the power in the lie detector comes from its name - "The Lie Detector" - and the common belief that it actually works. The interesting result of a lie detector isn't that it actually detects lies. No matter what the result is, if I was an investigator, I would tell the suspect that it said they lied and it is 100% accurate. The reaction to telling the suspect this, and what they do next, could very well result in a confession, or at least meaningful information. It's a psychological trick that is quite useful. The lie detector is such an absurd piece of theater, and most people have never seen one before let alone had one taken, that they cannot prepare for the result. If you interrogate 100 suspects, you can use their reaction to further your opinion of whether they are truly guilty by comparing to your past interrogations. Now, would I ever agree to take a lie detector test? Hell no! And they are also not admissible in court, as the law understands that they don't actually work. But in an interrogation process, where cops are lying and deceiving and tactically revealing information, it is a good arrow in the quiver.

Someone1234 7y ago
The media believes it works, so not agreeing to take one can be used in the court of public opinion to ruin a reputation. For example there's currently a women missing in Hawaii this week called Amanda Eller, her boyfriend was given a lie detector (which he "passed"), the police announced he wasn't a suspect and his test pass. Imagine if he had said "hell no!" as you yourself would. That's the problem. Police keep using something that doesn't work, but if you refuse they will take the refusal itself as suspicious and the media will find out. It may not hold up in a court of law, but good luck ever getting another job with google returning articles about how you MAY have killed someone.
dghughes 7y ago
The Forensic Brain Wave Analysis (FBWA)is supposedly nearly foolproof. Although anything that's declared to be infallible makes my BS detector go off.

crazygringo 7y ago

> On March 12, 2019, a Clerk’s default was entered against Dektor based upon its failure to appear, answer, or otherwise plead to NITV’s Complaint, despite having been duly served [1] Yeah..... if you publish allegedly defamatory claims against a competitor, are ordered to appear in court and don't even show up to defend yourself, then not exactly surprising. Not sure what's newsworthy about this. At a glance, the title almost suggests the government is trying to suppress information critical of polygraphs, which doesn't appear to be even remotely the case? [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237.95.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237...

qrbLPHiKpiux 7y ago
This is how I read that title. I am tired of this click bait Behavior. “Default judgement” should be somewhere in the title.
ap_org 7y ago
The reason I think this is newsworthy is that the website whose "immediate removal" has been ordered includes voluminous unflattering but apparently true information about the "National Institute for Truth Verification," information that is of public interest that is at risk of being suppressed.

stupidcar 7y ago

Not clear there's any intent to censor here by the courts, so much as mediate a dispute between two equally disreputable vendors of bogus lie detection systems. More concerning is the fact that so many large law enforcement institutions continue to use these systems even after the fact of their ineffectiveness has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. If such institutions cannot weigh and respond to evidence correctly as it relates to their own investigatory methods, why should we have any faith in their ability to handle evidence correctly in the course of those investigations themselves?

gridlockd 7y ago

As others have pointed out, a default judgement implies the defendant basically doing nothing, which is the worst possible "defense". This is what a lot of litigators bank on - send threatening letters (perhaps en-masse) to rake in the default judgements but then only proceed on appeal if it's worth the hassle.

mimsee 7y ago

Datproject mirror dat://0e7edf972270a5901dc434591f6bf865dc24d24823adfee277628a29b59fae98/