4 ms·

> fMRI was 21% more likely to detect a lie than the polygraph. 20% more likely than polygraph isn't very inspiring though. their success rate is abysmal.

by y4mi 7y ago

meowface 7y ago
It'll likely remain only marginally better than polygraphs for decades or longer, but it seems probable that eventually it's going to become so effective that law enforcement organizations will feel like they need to use it to keep up with other law enforcement organizations. Once one or two big organizations see high success rates with it, many will feel like they're letting a lot of criminals get off scot free because they're behind on technology, and most departments/agencies will have very strong incentives to jump on board as they start to see more and more of their peers adopting it (just like with DNA collection and testing). Even if consent is required, it'll just be like traffic stop no-win situations: if they ask you to consent to a search due to suspicion of drug possession and you say yes, they'll search, and if you say no, they'll wait until a drug dog comes, and then the dog will effectively conduct the search and/or will be used as a tool to permit a full search. Or if you refuse to take a breathalyzer test, they essentially presume guilt and treat you like you took the test and failed. Anyone who refuses to consent to the Truth-O-Matic test will probably suffer similar consequences. It's mostly an illusion of consent. I think this future is inevitable without some very serious legislation; perhaps a constitutional amendment. A counter-point is that one could imagine a potential distant future exigent circumstance where some sophisticated criminal might have information that could truly prevent an imminent attack that'll very likely kill millions of people, or something, and which could be discovered through such a detector. In those fanciful scenarios I honestly do find myself wanting to agree with Comey: fuck privacy, siphon those fucking thoughts. It's certainly a much more ethical and effective alternative to torture, at least, which is how the US government would currently handle such a scenario (if they could cover it up). Security and privacy/liberty are always a tradeoff, but even if you weigh privacy exponentially higher, there's always still some theoretical risk that would tip the scale back towards security, in my view. Nuclear armageddon, for example. The privacy hill to die on shouldn't be Mega-Corpse Mountain. This scenario is absurdly far-fetched in 2019, of course, but in 2079? 2119? Who knows? If Aum Shinrikyo and ISIS can do what they did and plan what they planned in the 1990s and 2010s, what about new incarnations of zealous death cults in a world that may have extremely intelligent AIs and/or DIY-potential for almost anything? Even a single instance of losing the final bastion of privacy is such an incredibly slippery slope that it's hard to imagine any safe way to allow its use in very extreme situations like these without setting up the conditions for horrific abuse and a Stasi/1984-esque kowtowing of all of society. But I think this aspect of the law enforcement perspective needs to be taken into consideration as well, even while simultaneously acknowledging that law enforcement will inevitably cry wolf and exaggerate the likelihood or impact of imminent threats. Of course this'll happen, but what happens if they do see an actual wolf one day?
- gruez 7y ago
  >[...] and if you say no, they'll wait until a drug dog comes, they can't do that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodriguez_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodriguez_v._United_States
  - meowface 7y ago
    I thought so, too, but I've watched a lot of Live PD clips from the past few years where this seems to happen, or at least seems to be portrayed, exactly as I described. Maybe it has something to do with the "reasonable suspicion" standard mentioned, but I have no idea.
- wolco 7y ago
  Terrorist attacks seen scary. Many will glady give away any freedoms to take the fear away. A terrorist attack is a result of pressure that has been building up finally erupting. If you want to stop attacks new outlets need to be created to channel that energy elsewhere. The country is a democracy but when dealing with other nations things are more of a dictatorship. That power inbalance makes the otherside powerless. Powerless people without hope do stupid things like blow themselves/friends/family up. Find ways to give them a voice. The number don't add up. Being scared of terrorist attacks is like being afraid of winning the lottery. Your chances are lower than you think.
  - meowface 7y ago
    Of course. I'm referring to a hypothetical distant future world where a random, moderately intelligent lone wolf, with any motive or no motive, could potentially inflict nightmarishly efficient and asymmetric damage given the resources, knowledge, and technology at their disposal. Let alone a group of such individuals. Right now, terrorism is a very minimal risk for an average individual. Even if every single US terrorist attack caused as much death and destruction as occurred on 9/11, it still would be. But what if, due to future circumstances we can't currently predict, every attack had the potential to be many orders of magnitude worse than 9/11, even if there's only a single perpetrator, or just a few? Of course, we'd cross that bridge if and when we get to it, but, in general, the cost of terrorism/mass murder will continue to decrease, and its force-multiplying potential will continue to increase. In this hypothetical case, it makes no difference if the terrorist is from a different country, or your own country, or motivated by ideology or just a Joker-esque mentality or because their girlfrienf broke up with them a month ago. If it really could take just one nut to cause more suffering in a day than Hitler or Stalin caused in their entire lives, we'll need to rethink the role of government and the boundaries of privacy. Right now, your description is accurate, and it probably will be for the next 40+ years, but the distant future is tricky to predict. Even if the odds of an attack occurring remain roughly the same, the overall "expected value" of terrorism could still skyrocket. I'm particularly worried about hypothetical new fringe, cult-ish elements like Aum Shinrikyo or even the Manson Family, rather than an organization akin to al-Qaeda or ISIS. I've long harbored a persistent fear that Aum Shinrikyo may be a prototype or inspiration for a future organization or movement which could thrust all of human civilization into darkness through relatively little effort, and before anyone fully realizes the risk (like the risk of planes as suicide bombs before 9/11). All of these copycat mass shootings - while not currently "scalable" (in the worst way possible) - don't inspire optimism on that front, either. Al-Qaeda has specific political goals and strategies, but what about people who sincerely just want to kill every or almost every person in existence? How do you deal with that? Those people scare me far more than any violent religious or political extremist, when considered in the long run. No matter how much you try to remediate disenfranchisement and discontent and mental illness, some number of people like that with violent urges will always exist. And some people will also perpetrate mass murders without sharing any of those charsct. Aum members didn't exactly seem to be the pressured underclass: >Aum Shinrikyo recruited approximately 300 scientists with degrees in medicine, biochemistry, biology, and genetic engineering. >Around 75 researchers were discovered who were working on radioactive materials and other nuclear related studies. [Materials] found in the raids indicated that Aum members measured radioactivity levels at a cult compound They had esteemed professors and scientists manufacturing biological, chemical, and nuclear WMDs to cause. These weren't powerless people without hope; these were powerful, well-off people with a fervent hope for a new world forged from the ashes of the one they attempted to annihilate. They may have been very close to killing tens of thousands of more people than they did, if not for a few mistakes, and happenstance of bystanders noticing their dispersion devices pre-activation on several occasions.

> fMRI was 21% more likely to detect a lie than the polygraph. 20% more likely than polygraph isn't very inspiring though. their success rate is abysmal.

by y4mi 7y ago

> fMRI was 21% more likely to detect a lie than the polygraph. 20% more likely than polygraph isn't very inspiring though. their success rate is abysmal.

meowface 7y ago

It'll likely remain only marginally better than polygraphs for decades or longer, but it seems probable that eventually it's going to become so effective that law enforcement organizations will feel like they need to use it to keep up with other law enforcement organizations. Once one or two big organizations see high success rates with it, many will feel like they're letting a lot of criminals get off scot free because they're behind on technology, and most departments/agencies will have very strong incentives to jump on board as they start to see more and more of their peers adopting it (just like with DNA collection and testing). Even if consent is required, it'll just be like traffic stop no-win situations: if they ask you to consent to a search due to suspicion of drug possession and you say yes, they'll search, and if you say no, they'll wait until a drug dog comes, and then the dog will effectively conduct the search and/or will be used as a tool to permit a full search. Or if you refuse to take a breathalyzer test, they essentially presume guilt and treat you like you took the test and failed. Anyone who refuses to consent to the Truth-O-Matic test will probably suffer similar consequences. It's mostly an illusion of consent. I think this future is inevitable without some very serious legislation; perhaps a constitutional amendment. A counter-point is that one could imagine a potential distant future exigent circumstance where some sophisticated criminal might have information that could truly prevent an imminent attack that'll very likely kill millions of people, or something, and which could be discovered through such a detector. In those fanciful scenarios I honestly do find myself wanting to agree with Comey: fuck privacy, siphon those fucking thoughts. It's certainly a much more ethical and effective alternative to torture, at least, which is how the US government would currently handle such a scenario (if they could cover it up). Security and privacy/liberty are always a tradeoff, but even if you weigh privacy exponentially higher, there's always still some theoretical risk that would tip the scale back towards security, in my view. Nuclear armageddon, for example. The privacy hill to die on shouldn't be Mega-Corpse Mountain. This scenario is absurdly far-fetched in 2019, of course, but in 2079? 2119? Who knows? If Aum Shinrikyo and ISIS can do what they did and plan what they planned in the 1990s and 2010s, what about new incarnations of zealous death cults in a world that may have extremely intelligent AIs and/or DIY-potential for almost anything? Even a single instance of losing the final bastion of privacy is such an incredibly slippery slope that it's hard to imagine any safe way to allow its use in very extreme situations like these without setting up the conditions for horrific abuse and a Stasi/1984-esque kowtowing of all of society. But I think this aspect of the law enforcement perspective needs to be taken into consideration as well, even while simultaneously acknowledging that law enforcement will inevitably cry wolf and exaggerate the likelihood or impact of imminent threats. Of course this'll happen, but what happens if they do see an actual wolf one day?

gruez 7y ago
>[...] and if you say no, they'll wait until a drug dog comes, they can't do that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodriguez_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodriguez_v._United_States
- meowface 7y ago
  I thought so, too, but I've watched a lot of Live PD clips from the past few years where this seems to happen, or at least seems to be portrayed, exactly as I described. Maybe it has something to do with the "reasonable suspicion" standard mentioned, but I have no idea.
wolco 7y ago
Terrorist attacks seen scary. Many will glady give away any freedoms to take the fear away. A terrorist attack is a result of pressure that has been building up finally erupting. If you want to stop attacks new outlets need to be created to channel that energy elsewhere. The country is a democracy but when dealing with other nations things are more of a dictatorship. That power inbalance makes the otherside powerless. Powerless people without hope do stupid things like blow themselves/friends/family up. Find ways to give them a voice. The number don't add up. Being scared of terrorist attacks is like being afraid of winning the lottery. Your chances are lower than you think.
- meowface 7y ago
  Of course. I'm referring to a hypothetical distant future world where a random, moderately intelligent lone wolf, with any motive or no motive, could potentially inflict nightmarishly efficient and asymmetric damage given the resources, knowledge, and technology at their disposal. Let alone a group of such individuals. Right now, terrorism is a very minimal risk for an average individual. Even if every single US terrorist attack caused as much death and destruction as occurred on 9/11, it still would be. But what if, due to future circumstances we can't currently predict, every attack had the potential to be many orders of magnitude worse than 9/11, even if there's only a single perpetrator, or just a few? Of course, we'd cross that bridge if and when we get to it, but, in general, the cost of terrorism/mass murder will continue to decrease, and its force-multiplying potential will continue to increase. In this hypothetical case, it makes no difference if the terrorist is from a different country, or your own country, or motivated by ideology or just a Joker-esque mentality or because their girlfrienf broke up with them a month ago. If it really could take just one nut to cause more suffering in a day than Hitler or Stalin caused in their entire lives, we'll need to rethink the role of government and the boundaries of privacy. Right now, your description is accurate, and it probably will be for the next 40+ years, but the distant future is tricky to predict. Even if the odds of an attack occurring remain roughly the same, the overall "expected value" of terrorism could still skyrocket. I'm particularly worried about hypothetical new fringe, cult-ish elements like Aum Shinrikyo or even the Manson Family, rather than an organization akin to al-Qaeda or ISIS. I've long harbored a persistent fear that Aum Shinrikyo may be a prototype or inspiration for a future organization or movement which could thrust all of human civilization into darkness through relatively little effort, and before anyone fully realizes the risk (like the risk of planes as suicide bombs before 9/11). All of these copycat mass shootings - while not currently "scalable" (in the worst way possible) - don't inspire optimism on that front, either. Al-Qaeda has specific political goals and strategies, but what about people who sincerely just want to kill every or almost every person in existence? How do you deal with that? Those people scare me far more than any violent religious or political extremist, when considered in the long run. No matter how much you try to remediate disenfranchisement and discontent and mental illness, some number of people like that with violent urges will always exist. And some people will also perpetrate mass murders without sharing any of those charsct. Aum members didn't exactly seem to be the pressured underclass: >Aum Shinrikyo recruited approximately 300 scientists with degrees in medicine, biochemistry, biology, and genetic engineering. >Around 75 researchers were discovered who were working on radioactive materials and other nuclear related studies. [Materials] found in the raids indicated that Aum members measured radioactivity levels at a cult compound They had esteemed professors and scientists manufacturing biological, chemical, and nuclear WMDs to cause. These weren't powerless people without hope; these were powerful, well-off people with a fervent hope for a new world forged from the ashes of the one they attempted to annihilate. They may have been very close to killing tens of thousands of more people than they did, if not for a few mistakes, and happenstance of bystanders noticing their dispersion devices pre-activation on several occasions.