2 ms·

I’m always shocked at how many people will argue that torture is always ineffective. I’m 100% sure I’d cave under torture, providing a mix of everything I know

by dahdum 7y ago

I’m always shocked at how many people will argue that torture is always ineffective. I’m 100% sure I’d cave under torture, providing a mix of everything I know and what I think they want to hear. They just need to look for falsifiable statements. Rubber-hose cryptanalysis comes up as a topic here often and is a perfect example. It may be an immoral human rights violation, and not the best first line interrogation tactic, but I see it as undeniably effective. It seems like wishful thinking to believe otherwise.

foreigner 7y ago
When people say it doesn't "work" they don't mean that the victims don't "cave", they mean that the information the torturer gets isn't useful because as you say the victim will tell the torturer anything they want to hear. Also in movies usually the purpose of torture is to make the victim divulge something we already know they know, like where they hid the treasure we saw them steal in an earlier scene. In real life we don't know if the victim knows anything in the first place - they may be guilty or they may be totally innocent.
naasking 7y ago
> I’m always shocked at how many people will argue that torture is always ineffective. It's effective at getting the victim to say whatever they think will make the torture stop. People aren't stupid though, they know the truth won't necessarily achieve that goal. Sometimes the truth will simply encourage more torture. Falsfiable statements then require verification, presumably against a more reliable source of information. But if you have a more reliable source of information, what additional confidence did the torture provide? And if you don't have a more reliable source of info for verification, then the torture still provided no confidence in the information. The best interrogators know that befriending your captives provides considerably better information, and it doesn't produce more enemies or escalate the conflict. Imagine if torture had been routine during the Cold War.
- dahdum 7y ago
  Verification can be as simple as decrypting a drive, identifying collaborators, revealing new crimes, new investigatory pathways (bank accounts, travel movements, etc.. These can be impractical or impossible to discover without additional information. Befriending captives is no doubt a better first line interrogation tactic for all the reasons you state. Torture can still be effective yet not worthwhile due to negative externalities. I’m not a proponent of using it, I just think the argument against should acknowledge why it’s still being used around the world.
- Supermancho 7y ago
  > It's effective at getting the victim to say whatever they think will make the torture stop. Having been awake during some particularly excrutiating medical procedures, my mind was not creative or clear or able to access memories in any meaningful context (being in a panic state). If I was being tortured and what they wanted to hear was the truth, I can be assured to tell it to them in broken english under the right duress. So this "be friendly" approach is typical social engineering. Ok, thats nice.
  - naasking 7y ago
    > If I was being tortured and what they wanted to hear was the truth, I can be assured to tell it to them in broken english under the right duress. Except you also just said that you weren't able to access memories in any meaningful context, so how are certain you would or even could be truthful? And even if you were truthful, they would then torture you more to "be sure" you were being honest, which they can never be sure of, so where does it end? And then your information might conflict with information they obtianed elsewhere, so they torture you some more to ascertain the truth, but there's no end point at which uncertainty disappears. Ultimately, your panic-addled brain realizes that the truth isn't actually useful in this context and grasps at any straws thus diluting the signal to noise ratio. This progression is simply inevitable. The confidence in anything the victim says is basically nil. "We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.

by dahdum 7y ago

foreigner 7y ago

When people say it doesn't "work" they don't mean that the victims don't "cave", they mean that the information the torturer gets isn't useful because as you say the victim will tell the torturer anything they want to hear. Also in movies usually the purpose of torture is to make the victim divulge something we already know they know, like where they hid the treasure we saw them steal in an earlier scene. In real life we don't know if the victim knows anything in the first place - they may be guilty or they may be totally innocent.

naasking 7y ago

> I’m always shocked at how many people will argue that torture is always ineffective. It's effective at getting the victim to say whatever they think will make the torture stop. People aren't stupid though, they know the truth won't necessarily achieve that goal. Sometimes the truth will simply encourage more torture. Falsfiable statements then require verification, presumably against a more reliable source of information. But if you have a more reliable source of information, what additional confidence did the torture provide? And if you don't have a more reliable source of info for verification, then the torture still provided no confidence in the information. The best interrogators know that befriending your captives provides considerably better information, and it doesn't produce more enemies or escalate the conflict. Imagine if torture had been routine during the Cold War.

dahdum 7y ago
Verification can be as simple as decrypting a drive, identifying collaborators, revealing new crimes, new investigatory pathways (bank accounts, travel movements, etc.. These can be impractical or impossible to discover without additional information. Befriending captives is no doubt a better first line interrogation tactic for all the reasons you state. Torture can still be effective yet not worthwhile due to negative externalities. I’m not a proponent of using it, I just think the argument against should acknowledge why it’s still being used around the world.
Supermancho 7y ago
> It's effective at getting the victim to say whatever they think will make the torture stop. Having been awake during some particularly excrutiating medical procedures, my mind was not creative or clear or able to access memories in any meaningful context (being in a panic state). If I was being tortured and what they wanted to hear was the truth, I can be assured to tell it to them in broken english under the right duress. So this "be friendly" approach is typical social engineering. Ok, thats nice.
- naasking 7y ago
  > If I was being tortured and what they wanted to hear was the truth, I can be assured to tell it to them in broken english under the right duress. Except you also just said that you weren't able to access memories in any meaningful context, so how are certain you would or even could be truthful? And even if you were truthful, they would then torture you more to "be sure" you were being honest, which they can never be sure of, so where does it end? And then your information might conflict with information they obtianed elsewhere, so they torture you some more to ascertain the truth, but there's no end point at which uncertainty disappears. Ultimately, your panic-addled brain realizes that the truth isn't actually useful in this context and grasps at any straws thus diluting the signal to noise ratio. This progression is simply inevitable. The confidence in anything the victim says is basically nil. "We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.