4 ms·
What's really sad about this is that all of these federal agencies, the journalists reporting on them, and the public at large, continue to take it as a given t
by nullymcnull 13y ago
What's really sad about this is that all of these federal agencies, the journalists reporting on them, and the public at large, continue to take it as a given that the polygraph is a useful and reliable tool that does what it says on the tin. Yet there remains precious little credible science to support that.
It's downright absurd that people are having their info passed around these agencies, and being treated as inherently suspect, simply for investigating methods of 'fooling' what is ultimately a glorified stage prop.
- ihsw 13y agoThere doesn't need to be science to support it -- its effectiveness at eliciting confessions is evidence enough. The name 'lie detector' is horseshit but it's still useful.
- rsync 13y ago"What's really sad about this..." What's really sad is that a lot of people, either through job/economic pressures or lack of self respect take lie detector tests at all - regardless of effectiveness. The poor effectiveness and/or technical problems with the test are not the issue. We as humans - as peers - should demand to not suffer the indignity of a "truth test".
- res0nat0r 13y agoIsn't this a fundamental piece of the US court system? You take the stand and swear to tell the truth. If there were no consequences of lying in court then we'd have much bigger problems with the justice system than we do now.
- coldtea 13y ago>Isn't this a fundamental piece of the US court system? You take the stand and swear to tell the truth. That's totally different than a polygraph test.
- res0nat0r 13y agoI guess I was interpreting: We as humans - as peers - should demand to not suffer the indignity of a "truth test", to mean any type of "truth test", and not just a polygraph.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- 3pt14159 13y agoThe "lie detector" test that the CIA has is far more capable than the 50 year old tech you see in the movies.
- epoxyhockey 13y agoCare to back that statement up with any facts, sources or references? Please don't perpetuate a pseudo-science.
- 3pt14159 13y agoIn Valery Plame's book Fair Game she talks about how the machines that they use during polygraphs are more accurate. The question of whether or not humanity has access to that technology can be answered here: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/08/more_brain_scan.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/08/more_brain_sc... http://www.economist.com/node/21534748 http://www.economist.com/node/21534748 http://www.economist.com/node/21534780 http://www.economist.com/node/21534780