3 ms·

One has to wonder when law enforcement will treat polygraphs with the same disdain, they're effectively the same thing as these 'Quadro' devices. Unfortunately

by ihsw 13y ago

One has to wonder when law enforcement will treat polygraphs with the same disdain, they're effectively the same thing as these 'Quadro' devices. Unfortunately polygraphs are convenient low-impact torture devices, and they're also useful for measuring someone's tenacity.

eksith 13y ago
That's an interesting perspective. I've never considered polygraphs to be beyond anything more than a fancy stress meter (cause be damned), but now that I think about it, it does function quite well as such an instrument. Goes so well as a corollary too: "If you've got nothing to hide, you wouldn't mind some mild torture to verify that fact".
- ihsw 13y ago
  I'm quite serious when I say torture, it's as much punitive as it is deterrence, both of which are irrelevant to conducting an investigation and gathering evidence of wrong-doing. It's not practical because it's impossible to deny polygraph test results, so law enforcement officers have no incentive to be truthful about the results.
yen223 13y ago
I am 78% sure polygraph tests are no longer admissible as evidence in court.
driverdan 13y ago
They are nothing alike. The polygraph is a useful interrogation device. These bomb "detectors" are an outright scam. Edit: For the downvoters, I'm well aware that polygraphs are much more art than science which is why they're inadmissible in court (in the US). They're not that useful for detecting lies. As I said, they're a useful tool in the interrogation toolbox.
- ihsw 13y ago
  In what way would the polygraph be superior to the Quadro device in the article? The polygraph's effectiveness is limited to the technician's ability to instill fear and doubt in the subject, which can just as easily be accomplished by the Quadro device. Polygraph test results may be inadmissible in court but confessions collected as a result of the polygraph examination process are perfectly admissible, despite test process being as intimidating and hostile as possible.

by ihsw 13y ago

eksith 13y ago

That's an interesting perspective. I've never considered polygraphs to be beyond anything more than a fancy stress meter (cause be damned), but now that I think about it, it does function quite well as such an instrument. Goes so well as a corollary too: "If you've got nothing to hide, you wouldn't mind some mild torture to verify that fact".

ihsw 13y ago
I'm quite serious when I say torture, it's as much punitive as it is deterrence, both of which are irrelevant to conducting an investigation and gathering evidence of wrong-doing. It's not practical because it's impossible to deny polygraph test results, so law enforcement officers have no incentive to be truthful about the results.

yen223 13y ago

I am 78% sure polygraph tests are no longer admissible as evidence in court.

driverdan 13y ago

They are nothing alike. The polygraph is a useful interrogation device. These bomb "detectors" are an outright scam. Edit: For the downvoters, I'm well aware that polygraphs are much more art than science which is why they're inadmissible in court (in the US). They're not that useful for detecting lies. As I said, they're a useful tool in the interrogation toolbox.

ihsw 13y ago
In what way would the polygraph be superior to the Quadro device in the article? The polygraph's effectiveness is limited to the technician's ability to instill fear and doubt in the subject, which can just as easily be accomplished by the Quadro device. Polygraph test results may be inadmissible in court but confessions collected as a result of the polygraph examination process are perfectly admissible, despite test process being as intimidating and hostile as possible.