An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors • Hacker News Board

Re: An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors

#21

Post by justwannasing » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 4:41 PM UTC

barking wrote: post #3

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?

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.

Re: An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors

#22

Post by dewarrn1 » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 4:58 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #12

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/

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

Re: An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors

#23

Post by dewarrn1 » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 5:01 PM UTC

Balgair wrote: post #13

mc32 wrote: post #12

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/

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.

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.

Re: An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors

#24

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 5:23 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #12

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/

[deleted]

Re: An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors

#25

Post by failbuffer » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 5:45 PM UTC

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).

Re: An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors

#26

Post by SixSigma » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 5:47 PM UTC

barking wrote: post #3

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?

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".

Re: An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors

#27

Post by wil421 » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 5:48 PM UTC

barking wrote: post #3

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?

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

I'm guessing a lie detector test is an Official Proceeding.

Re: An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors

#28

Post by wil421 » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 5:52 PM UTC

SixSigma wrote: post #26

barking wrote: post #3

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?

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".

Same is US, if you sell fake drugs you will be prosecuted as if you sold those drugs.

Re: An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors

#29

Post by JackFr » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 6:01 PM UTC

barking wrote: post #7

mikeash wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

What makes this fascinating to me is , since the undercover agents hadn't actually committed the crimes they told him, he wasn't, in fact, helping them lie to federal agents.

As the purported 'lie' was actually the truth, where is the crime?

Re: An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors

#30

Post by JackFr » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 6:08 PM UTC

dewarrn1 wrote: post #23

Balgair wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.