4 ms·
> What, in itself, would be wrong with that, as long as the police were catching people who were actually guilty? You do know that argument could be used for g
by darkarmani 13y ago
> What, in itself, would be wrong with that, as long as the police were catching people who were actually guilty?
You do know that argument could be used for giving lie detector tests on every citizen every day, right? Other than tracking the movements and associations of every citizen, there isn't much more wrong with it.
- rayiner 13y agoLie detector tests are: 1) invasive; 2) highly unreliable.
- darkarmani 13y agoMore unreliable than the hypothetical DNA vacuum cleaner? I'm sure if they can do that, they can come up with a more accurate lie detector test as well. I find check swabs invasive as well. If they can get the DNA in other ways that aren't invasive, I'm not sure why they have to be cleared to do it in this manner.
- tptacek 13y agoYes, much, much less reliable; this is like comparing blood chemical tests to phrenology.
- darkarmani 13y agoWhich one is like phrenology? ;) The DNA vacuum doesn't exist. I'm assuming if we had the ability to go around vacuuming people's DNA and testing all of it, we could have a more reliable lie detector test. And what do you mean unreliable? Maury Povich uses them all the time on his show! ;)
- rmc 13y agoNot the same thing. Lie detectors don't actually work, and take up people's time. Following people around reveals anything a person is embarassed to reveal publically. DNA analysis doesn't take up the target's time, works better than lie detectors, and reveals much less embarassing facts about the target.
- darkarmani 13y ago> Lie detectors don't actually work, and take up people's time. We are talking about a DNA "vacuum cleaner" that hasn't been invented yet and you have a problem with the accuracy of lie detector tests?