Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

antipolygraph.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 196 posts

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#111

Post by Imnimo »

jacquesm wrote: post #84

The polygraph is pseudoscience. Of course it can be beaten, it doesn't work to begin with. Why the US still puts so much weight on them when they know they don't work is a mystery to me. Just get rid of the damn things and do your homework better.

I think its a way to get people to admit to things. Like even knowing they don't work, it's stressful to be strapped into that chair, and even knowing the technician is probably lying when they say they're detecting deception on a particular question, it's stressful when they accuse you of lying. I bet a lot of people crack and admit to things they were hoping to hide.

The trouble comes from the fact that in order for all of this to work, you need to say the polygraph works. If you admit it's fake, or even if your procedures imply it's fake, it loses its magic. And so you naturally develop procedures that put a lot of stock in the polygraph. People start to believe in it. You build up a culture that relies on the magic of the polygraph. And then things like this happen.

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#112

Post by pmachinery »

petre wrote: post #63
formerly_proven wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Panetta review (CIA-internal) and the SSCI torture report (one of those "S"'s are for United States Senate) concluded that torture is largely inefficient at extracting information from extremists. You can torture someone for years on end with them still keeping the things you ask from you. Someone who doesn't know anything, will tell you anything, while someone with deep faith will feed you shit.

It's true, however that didn't matter much in the USSR. What mattered is that somebody got punished, paperwork was taken care of and the agents were doing their jobs . All of this is nicely illustrated in the Citizen X movie, although in a different context.

Citizen X is an American drama. If it depicts what you're saying (I've seen it but can't remember it) then it's just another Western dramatization depicting post-Stalin Soviet Union in cliches from the 1930s.

In the real life case Citizen X is inspired by[0], nobody was tortured for a conviction, even the guilty man, who was simply put into a cell with a police informer to gather information and questioned normally by investigators who only had ten days under Soviet law to release or charge him.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Chikatilo

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#113

Post by brandall10 »

jacquesm wrote: post #84

The polygraph is pseudoscience. Of course it can be beaten, it doesn't work to begin with. Why the US still puts so much weight on them when they know they don't work is a mystery to me. Just get rid of the damn things and do your homework better.

Esp. w/ someone who has the constitution of a secret agent, who is literally trained to lead a secret life. If they can't fool a device like this how can they be expected to fool high-level operatives in their adversary's intelligence agencies for decades on end?

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#114

Post by unishark »

jacquesm wrote: post #108
unishark wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is accuracy. In terms of being able to infer lies from skin response, this is an effect that actually exists for many people. The net scientific conclusion is that can work but poorly, not that is is complete nonsense like ESP or something. Being pseudoscience or not is not quite the same question. People claim acupuncture works for them (California is now forcing insurance to pay for it), but it is clearly…

What are the chances of an actual spy being able to beat a lie detector? I'd put those at about 100%. So you will end up with nervous people who will increase the size of the haystack with zero chance of identifying the needles, which is a net negative.

I'm not advocating their use. Just arguing for a less politically-motivated description of a technology's accuracy.

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#115

Post by JamesSwift »

Imnimo wrote: post #111
jacquesm wrote: post #84

The polygraph is pseudoscience. Of course it can be beaten, it doesn't work to begin with. Why the US still puts so much weight on them when they know they don't work is a mystery to me. Just get rid of the damn things and do your homework better.

I think its a way to get people to admit to things. Like even knowing they don't work, it's stressful to be strapped into that chair, and even knowing the technician is probably lying when they say they're detecting deception on a particular question, it's stressful when they accuse you of lying. I bet a lot of people crack and admit to things they were hoping to hide. The trouble comes from the fact that in order fo…

This is pretty accurate. There are a couple more interesting elements to it as well (at least in the security clearance side of things, and not "criminal proceedings" side):

1. there is a lot of stress around the fact that if you don't pass the poly, you don't have a clearance and so you don't have a career

2. you will "fail" at least one poly in each cycle so the stakes are raised in subsequent interviews RE: #1

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#117

Post by Shoreleave »

donw wrote: post #90
jacquesm wrote: post #84

The polygraph is pseudoscience. Of course it can be beaten, it doesn't work to begin with. Why the US still puts so much weight on them when they know they don't work is a mystery to me. Just get rid of the damn things and do your homework better.

While I totally agree with you, I... have a theory. It might be psychological warfare. I would wager that a surprisingly large number of people think that polygraphs detect lies. An even larger number are probably open to the possibility. If you hook up somebody in that group to a polygraph, you probably rocket their stress levels through the ceiling, which might push them to crack. Behavior under stress is a fascina…

I thought this was quite well accepted. I can't speak to the FBI, but for CSIS, the Canadian Equivalent, the "polygraph tech" who pretends to just be working the machine, is actually a psychologist watching your responses.

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#118

Post by unishark »

throw1234651234 wrote: post #83
vslira wrote: post #74

I know we all know that polygraphs don't work, but: is that true in practice or in principle? I mean, there are papers out there about methods capable of extracting complete words from brainwaves. Does it really seem impossible for a machine with current tech to detect signals of lying with high certainty?

"I mean, there are papers out there about methods capable of extracting complete words from brainwaves" As far as I know, this is complete fiction right now. Same with images. There are people currently working with AI interpreting brain signals to be reproducible, to say, move left and right in a game. It's far from working on "left" / "right", let alone anything more sophisticated than that.

There are researchers using functional MRI (and machine learning presumably) to try and detect lies. There may even be some trying to use it commercially.

I imagine it's about as reproducible as most fmri research, as in not.

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#119

Post by someguydave »

whatshisface wrote: post #104
donw wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Polygraphs are a $2 billion industry, and Upton Sinclair said it best: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Sure, but what about the people buying polygraphs?

Their jobs depend on the polygraph existing as a credible institution

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#120

Post by astine »

roel_v wrote: post #103
astine wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a guess, but I wonder if a polygraph is useful as an intimidation tactic? Maybe you can't detect lies with any sort of accuracy but you can intimidate people into making more mistake when answering questions and that can be used to figure out if someone is lying? OR perhaps they can pressure some people into revealing more information than they otherwise would?

Yes that's how it's used. That depends on people believing polygraphs work though, which is why polygraph companies for decades have been litigating against people who question polygraphs. Sometimes just the idea that there will be a polygraph test is enough to get people to be more truthful. It's like placebo drugs - if it works somehow, should we care about whether it actually works? By that reasoning, should we al…

"That depends on people believing polygraphs work though"

Are you sure that's true? In medicine, apparently placebos have an effect even if you know that it's a placebo. I imagine that even if you know that it's theoretically useless, being hooked up to a machine that can read your vitals while lying would still be nerve wracking.

Post reply on HN