Penn&Teller Bullshit episode on Polygraphs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bScv6kfxRyE
An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors
11–20 of 70 posts
Re: An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors
#12Why 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/
Re: An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors
#13Why 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/
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/
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.
Re: An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors
#14If 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.
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/
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.
Re: An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors
#15If 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.
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/ 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…
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?
Re: An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors
#16If 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.
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/ 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…
> Realizing that denial was useless, he confessed.
Is this a win or a loss for society?
Re: An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors
#17If 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.
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/ 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…
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.
Re: An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
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.
"Coercion" is specifically the use of threats. "Inducement" is a broader category that includes other methods like begging, badgering, and wheedling.
Re: An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors
#19If 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.
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/ 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…
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.
Re: An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors
#20And soon it appears he'll be a political prisoner. :-(