Post #185,445
11/29/04 5:05:46 PM
|
Using MRI as a high powered lie detector
[link|http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041129/sc_nm/science_lying_dc|Yahoo News] Brain scans show that the brains of people who are lying look very different from those of people who are telling the truth, U.S. researchers said on Monday. Faro said the study was small and limited. Volunteers were not asked to try especially hard to deceive the equipment, he said -- noting that it has been documented that some people can fool a polygraph using various techniques.
Using fMRI as a lie detector is expensive, but it may be worthwhile in some cases -- such as trying to question a terrorism suspect, or in a high-profile corporate crime case, Faro said. If they can refine this to the point that we can put an MRI in every court room it would have a huge impact. It is one of those things that could have such a huge impact that it is impossible to accuratly predict what the consequences would be. But I can make some guesses. The entire court system as we know it would have to be revamped entirly. The whole idea behind the 5th admendment clause against self incrimination would not apply if a sufficently accurate lie detector can be built. Just imagine how fast things would be if a crimnal had to answer questions with such a device in court. "Did you kill her or not?" "No, I did not." BUZZZ. Off to the punishment phase. On the other hand there would have to be a whole new set of rights that strictly limit questions to the matter at hand. Lawyers would have to convince the judge that questions relate to the matter at hand before putting them to the witness. But more importantly, if it is that effective, I want to see them installed in Congress, the White House and major departments. Let's force the President, Congress and major figures to tell the truth. Lets force company executives to swear that their yearly reports are accurate and complete over a lie detector. Of course, what will really happen is that they will be installed in the HR department and low level peons will get hit with questions like this: "Have you ever had any thoughts contrary to company interests?" Jay
|
Post #185,446
11/29/04 5:16:49 PM
|
Bzzzt
It's easy to detect lies when you know what are lies
and what aren't like in that study
A
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]
|
Post #185,454
11/29/04 5:41:14 PM
|
And
you're not trying to deceive the machine, as the the test subjects were asked.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #185,522
11/30/04 12:36:28 AM
|
The test was just a proof of concept
You are correct, the test they gave it was just a proof of concept. It didn't prove that it could work in a real case, or that the device could be used on a practical scale. All it did was prove that there is enough validity to the idea that futher research is a good idea.
And showing that, along with the grant money that comes from showing that, was probably what they had in mind all along.
Jay
|
Post #185,455
11/29/04 5:42:41 PM
|
remove the 5th? I dont think so
I have the right to not incriminate myself, fuck you, you think I did it prove it without using me. The day they install that in the courthouse is the day I burn that fucker down. I am a free individual, you do not tread on that freedom lightly.
regards,
daemon
that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
clearwater highschool marching band [link|http://www.chstornadoband.org/|http://www.chstornadoband.org/]
|
Post #185,468
11/29/04 7:03:20 PM
|
Why not?
The whole bit about limiting the powers of the state is based on the theory that the US leadership (like all other human organizations), even with all its technology and all its power, is still fallible (i.e. potentially at odds with what obtains in the real world) in some politically relevant sense.
That theory has been losing support in very important places.
Giovanni
|
Post #185,523
11/30/04 12:43:37 AM
|
Reason for the 5th
I have the right to not incriminate myself, fuck you, you think I did it prove it without using me. The day they install that in the courthouse is the day I burn that fucker down. I am a free individual, you do not tread on that freedom lightly. I don't see what the problem is. If the device is accurate enough, then the motivation for the 5th admendment goes away. The 5th admendment is not based on some inherent human right, rather it is to block a legal abuse of the old British court systems. Under the colonial era British court system, a defendent could be forced to take the stand. If a defendent claimed innocence but was found guilty, a perjury charge was tacked onto whatever crime they where found guilty of. In many cases this perjury charge carried a bigger sentence then the original crime, and was used by the courts to abuse poor and powerless victems. If we had access to an accurate enough lie detector, this problem goes away, and with it, the reason for the 5th admendment. Jay
|
Post #185,543
11/30/04 9:31:32 AM
11/30/04 1:35:29 PM
|
Wrong
'inherent' doesn't enter into it
the Constitution says no one has to testify against themselves
that is a right
only changing the Bill of Rights changes that
not some device
A
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]
Edited by andread
Nov. 30, 2004, 01:35:29 PM EST
|
Post #185,546
11/30/04 10:22:57 AM
|
Re: Wrong
the Constitution says no one has to testify against themselves
that is a right But why does it say that? The right not to testify against yourself is not like the right of free speach or religion. Rather, it is like the right not to have soldiers stationed in your house. It exists to prevent an abusive practice that was common in that era. only changing the Bill of Rights cahnges that
not some device Obviously, removing the 5th admendment would require changing the Constitution. However, there does come a time when doing so is a good idea. And a sufficently accurate lie detector would be such a reason. Jay
|
Post #185,555
11/30/04 12:04:29 PM
|
Fishing expeditions.
Perhaps. If the use of such a device were entirely voluntary as a right. Evidence not pertinent to whatever legal action 'required' the use of such a device would have to be inadmissable and ineligible for followup - or law-enforcement fishing-trips would become commonplace. It would be worse than house-to house searches. Of course, as long as you have not done anything wrong, or embarrasing, as long no questions are asked like 'have you stopped beating your wife' where almost any answer is incriminating, it's OK to strip that right away from individuals, huh. In a world where no abuses occur, no rights are needed.
Good thing we already have a right against self-incrimination.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #185,558
11/30/04 12:22:21 PM
|
What else it would need
If we're going to say that the machine is good enough to convict, then it has to be good enough to exonerate.
What if you've got 40 people who saw someone beat a child to death. Then he takes the machine and passes. Do you let him go? If not, then I don't think you can use it to convict.
If you don't like that standard, than I don't want to take it. If you do like that standard, I'm going to start practicing lying now. I'll get real good at it, too. I've always wanted an excuse to study self-hypnosis.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #185,564
11/30/04 12:37:44 PM
|
Depends
It would depend on how accurate the machine actually is.
And being more accruate then eye witnesses isn't actually that high of a standard. A good percent of the cases overturned on DNA evidence arose because an eyewitness picked somebody out of a line up, and then police and DA's selectivly picked evidence to make the case.
Jay
|
Post #185,562
11/30/04 12:33:48 PM
|
Re: Fishing expeditions.
Evidence not pertinent to whatever legal action 'required' the use of such a device would have to be inadmissable and ineligible for followup - or law-enforcement fishing-trips would become commonplace. I mentioned that above, rules against fishing trips would have to be strengthened. Lawyers might have to explain to the judge how a question is related to the case at hand before posing it to the witness or suspect. But that is actually unrelated to the 5th admendment. Fishing questions are already illegal, but it isn't rigidly enforced. And if such a strong lie detector did exist, rules against fishing would have to apply to everybody taking the stand, not just the suspect. There would be an even bigger problem is such device where cheap enough that the police could use them. An investigation is often a fishing trip by nature, it is unavoidable. Laws that keep police investigations secret would have to be stronger, and police would have to narrow their investigations more sharply. Of course, with such a lie detector, many investigations would end after a few direct questions. Jay
|
Post #185,565
11/30/04 12:39:02 PM
|
Unrelated?
Fishing trips ARE self-incrimination in this context.
I don't see how it would work - or how it would make the 5th irrelevant. Indeed, I see such a device making the 5th FAR more necessary.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #185,624
11/30/04 5:45:23 PM
|
the 5th ammendment is a right
not to be trammeled by machinery. By forcing someone to take this test you ARE forcing them to incriminate themselves thus negating what the 5th ammendment represents, the right to not assist the authorities in their endevours. I may or may not have commited a crime, there is no inherent public interest to be served by forcing me to admit to any crimes. We are individuals who band together to be self governed not an appendage of the body politic.
regards,
daemon
that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
clearwater highschool marching band [link|http://www.chstornadoband.org/|http://www.chstornadoband.org/]
|
Post #185,629
11/30/04 5:53:57 PM
|
Re: the 5th ammendment is a right
But using two "m"s in "amendment" is not...
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #185,633
11/30/04 6:13:29 PM
|
mitpicker
that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
clearwater highschool marching band [link|http://www.chstornadoband.org/|http://www.chstornadoband.org/]
|
Post #185,632
11/30/04 6:12:36 PM
|
So many forget.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #185,568
11/30/04 1:42:56 PM
|
Amendments?
Aren't those like the Geneva Convention? I mean, haven't they "outlived their usefullness" as our AG says?
[image|/forums/images/warning.png|0|This is sarcasm...]
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #185,463
11/29/04 6:38:14 PM
|
Am I imagining...
...or do I remember something about an MRI giving a radiation dose roughly equivalent to an x-ray?
"Here at Ortillery Command we have at our disposal hundred megawatt laser beams, mach 20 titanium rods and guided thermonuclear bombs. Some people say we think that we're God. We're not God. We just borrowed his 'SMITE' button for our fire control system."
|
Post #185,478
11/29/04 7:43:14 PM
|
You might be thinking of a CAT scan.
MRI = Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Used to be called Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. You put something in a strong magnetic field, the nuclei in the material align their magnetic moments to the field. When you remove the magnetic field, the nuclei relax and give up some photons. The photons give information about the material.
There's no ionizing radiation in MRI scans. There's just a very big magnetic field (and that makes lots of people nervous).
In CAT scans (Computerized Axial Tomography), lots of X-ray slices are made and a computer assembles the information and gives cross-sectional information.
Google gives lots more information. :-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #185,570
11/30/04 1:52:00 PM
|
Ah.
Was hoping that could be a possible "excuse" for keeping people out of the chair.
"Here at Ortillery Command we have at our disposal hundred megawatt laser beams, mach 20 titanium rods and guided thermonuclear bombs. Some people say we think that we're God. We're not God. We just borrowed his 'SMITE' button for our fire control system."
|
Post #185,481
11/29/04 7:59:04 PM
|
What is the reliability?
There are two kinds of errors. False positives and false negatives. If the false positive rate was 1/100, would you feel comfortable using it as the whole trial? I wouldn't! In a complex case you can interview way more than 100 people, and you'd certainly wind up going down the wrong trail.
But it gets scarier when you consider how it works and therefore how it could scale.
A traditional polygraph detects the stress of lying. It can be fooled in many ways, ranging from the liar not being stressed about lying to being stressed by the questions to not having the baseline stress level properly measured to..
This one seems to detect brain activity associated with lying. Which seems a lot better. But suppose that it is picking up "thinking creatively" and I'm answering your question while I'm thinking about how I could have answered your previous one. I'm lying and the test will show that. But I'm not lying about what you think I'm lying about. You may well convict me for that misunderstanding though...
Alternately suppose that over the time between the event and the trial I have convinced myself of a lie. See false memory syndrome. Many of those "abuse victims" would have passed any test for whether they were lying. They were telling things as they remember them. There is no discernable difference between a false memory and a real one. (Other than the fact that one didn't really happen.)
Both are realistic cases in which innocent people could get convicted of things that they did not do.
This test, while interesting, at best should be another piece of evidence, and not convincing proof of anything.
Cheers,
Ben
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #185,521
11/30/04 12:33:50 AM
|
Re: What is the reliability?
There are two kinds of errors. False positives and false negatives. If the false positive rate was 1/100, would you feel comfortable using it as the whole trial? I wouldn't! In a complex case you can interview way more than 100 people, and you'd certainly wind up going down the wrong trail. 1 error in a hundred is ground for an warrant, not material for trial. I would tolerate error rates in the 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 10,000 for minor crimes where the only penalty is a fine. I would want something on the order of 1 in 100,000 before it was considered evidence in a criminal case, and something more then 1 in 1,000,000 before I would consider convicting on any one peice of evidence. But there are a lot of subtle factors, such as how many errors are false positives and false negatives. Can the device give us any indication of how sure it is a particular statement is true? How does asking the same question again effect things? How does self deception register on the device? How do unclear memories register? Can it pick up on technicly correct but intentionally evasive answers? Alternately suppose that over the time between the event and the trial I have convinced myself of a lie. See false memory syndrome. Many of those "abuse victims" would have passed any test for whether they were lying. They were telling things as they remember them. There is no discernable difference between a false memory and a real one. (Other than the fact that one didn't really happen.) You are correct, this would not stop all cases. But clearing the backlog of cases where the guilty party can be forced to admit it, would let the courts concentrate on the cases where guilt isn't so clear. If the device is reliable enough, it's existance would be enough to keep a lot of cases out of court. The vast majority of all guilty parties are well aware of it, and would admit guilt or take a plea rather then go to court. Just think what such a device would do to SCO's suit. They wouldn't dare bring such a suit if there was a risk the CEO could be put on the stand and forced to admit the goal was to extort money out of companies. And what about things like the OJ case, where the wealthy can buy a huge advantage in court. Jay
|
Post #185,636
11/30/04 6:39:16 PM
|
The point - again - since you missed it
It is nice to talk about 1/100,000 odds from this technique, but that isn't realistic. About 1% of the population has schizophrenia, about 1/3 of those do not respond to treatment. Schizophrenia is far from the only disorder striking people that renders people's understanding of reality suspect at best. Go on a fishing expedition and you'll get some..interesting..accusations backed up by your lie detector.
I already mentioned false memory syndrome. There are about 300 million people in the USA. If we estimate that about a million people "recovered" memories of abuse, that is about the same order of magnitude as untreatable schizophrenia. But this time you have normal people with no discernable disorder (other than exposure to bad therapists) who will sincerely say that what didn't happen, did. They'll say that they remember it - and they do! Furthermore there is nothing vague or wishy-washy about the memories. They are perfectly vivid.
Furthermore if you go through the traditional problems with eyewitness reports, most of them show up with this technique. Lying is only one of many serious problems with eyewitness reports. Most of the issues have to do with how memory is laid down, resulting in people being honestly convinced of an incorrect version of events.
This has already put an upper limit on the reliability of this technique which is orders of magnitude away from what you were hoping for.
And finally the original motivation for the 5'th amendment is not eliminated by tools like this. There are many laws on the books which lots of people are not in compliance with. Take something as minor as traffic tickets. "What was your drive yesterday, how many streets did you go above the speed limit on? What would those tickets total? Shall we retroactively ticket you for the day before yesterday as well?" When it comes to something like illegal drugs, well I'd wager that most of us either have violated those laws or could name someone else who has.
The ability to intimidate virtually anyone you want with selective enforcement of existing laws is more than bad enough to justify the existence of the fifth in my books. And I think that most here and in the general public would agree. In the end it really doesn't matter whether you are threatening someone with trumped up charges or with a whole series of real charges. Either way you're handing the government a potent threat that can be used to intimidate whoever they want.
If this technology works fairly well and becomes a substitute for our court system, as far as I'm concerned we'll have just taken a big step towards totalitarianism. Furthermore I have serious doubts about how well this technology can work.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #185,701
12/1/04 11:18:46 AM
|
Bravo! Very well said
Have whatever values you have. That's what America is for.
You don't need George Bush for that.
|
