Lie Detector Glasses Coming Soon 457
Zelphyr writes "The EE Times is reporting on a product soon to be released by an Israeli company that allows the wearer of special glasses to tell whether the person they are talking to is telling a lie. Not only that, they can tell you whether someone loves you! Apparently a PC version of the 'love detector' is in the works as well. Think my Windows box will be upset when it knows how much I hate it?"
Hard facts. (Score:5, Funny)
V Entertainment claims the love detector has demonstrated 96 percent accuracy.
Oh, good. I'm glad that they have tested this empirically and have hard numbers for us.Re:Hard facts. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hard facts. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone that accepts that the traditional polygraph has an 83% "accuracy" is obviously starting from a different viewpoint than the rest of us. Still with law-enforcement agencies being willing to hire psychics and dowsers we shouldn't be too surprised at seeing contra-rational thinking being employed by people that don't understand science.
Re:Hard facts. (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone that accepts that the traditional polygraph has an 83% "accuracy" is obviously starting from a different viewpoint than the rest of us. Still with law-enforcement agencies being willing to hire psychics and dowsers we shouldn't be too surprised at seeing contra-rational thinking being employed by people that don't understand science.
Indeed. There's a reason that polygraph tests aren't admissible as evidence - they are woefully inaccurate for the most part, and there are a lot of ways to fool the test as well. Personally, I wish they'd outlaw polygraph tests for the most part - the police use it as a way of squeezing confessions from people - even innocent ones.
Re:Hard facts. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hard facts. (Score:5, Funny)
I think it might well be! As revenge it could possible start deleting random files, crash just before you capture the flag in that clan game and keep resetting preferences to default.
Oh, wait...
Re:Hard facts. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hard facts. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hard facts. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hard facts. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing worse than a lie detector that doesn't work, is one that does .
Re:Hard facts. (Score:5, Funny)
Ladies, if you see one, there's a 96% chance that the guy's in love with you.
You don't need any special glasses.
Re:Hard facts. (Score:5, Funny)
I'll still respect you in the morning. (Score:3, Insightful)
... it wasn't me.... (Score:2, Funny)
Who farted?
Oh shit you got those new glasses
RUNNNNNNNNNN!
Problem With This (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Problem With This... they'll be illegal! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Problem With This... they'll be illegal! (Score:5, Funny)
A certain percentage of the population lies so comfortably and so easily that this sort of thing is useless for catching them in a lie. Guess which percentage of the population politicians are in?
Old Joke (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Problem With This (Score:5, Funny)
Even the rounds of applaus would trigger the glasses.
Re:Problem With This (Score:2)
Perfect! Have it run in real-time, with Isuzu Joe style commentary at the bottom of the screen:
"... and Saddam Hussein will stand a fair trial for his crimes against humanity..."
(He's lying)
"... and no matter how long it takes, justice will be served."
(As long as "justice" means that Hussein will be hanged sometime before the 2004 Election, upping Bush's approval ratings.)
Let Saddam explain to the world... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let him testify under oath about the whole story!
Think that will happen? Haha! Not a fuckin chance.
He's been jacked full of mind-screwing drugs since the day he was taken by the US, and is being brainwashed as we speak, by US 'intelligence' operatives.
"No! I never spoke to Cheney!"
"No! I never shook hands with Rumsfeld or George Bush Sr!"
"No! I never purchased
Better invention (Score:5, Funny)
I think they need to have these guys make glasses which detect if the person you are looking at has a bomb strapped to his waist.
Re:Better invention (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Problem With This (Score:5, Funny)
they ran preliminary tests this month in IOWA with the democratic nominees..
of the four subjects that tested the glasses, 3 of them screamed "My Eyes! I'm Blinded!" where as the fourth simply equated the experience with an acid trip he had in the late 70's.
Meetings might be useful! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Meetings might be useful! (Score:2, Funny)
That's nice and all.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's nice and all.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's nice and all.. (Score:5, Funny)
Those turned out to be a fraud, so I ordered the George Atlas body-building kit, stayed up all night lifting weights, and beat up the manufacturers of the glasses the next day.
Seriously, though, this invention sounds like an absolute nightmare. Do you really want to know every time your wife fakes an orgasm? And trust me, if you're on Slashdot, she does.
Re:That's nice and all.. (Score:2, Informative)
For most Slashdotters... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:For most Slashdotters... (Score:2, Funny)
My question is will it distinguish between love and lust? Will girls be able to use this to determine that I just want to fuck them, and feel nothing else other than that urge, despite all the bullshit I've been telling them?
Re:For most Slashdotters... (Score:5, Insightful)
But in my life, there have been several instances where someone who initially bores me or totally annoys me eventually grows on me, so that we become friends -- something that wouldn't have happened if I'd been rude and just told them off; and I've been on the receiving end of that too. I had a good friend tell me that when he first met me, he thought I was just an arrogant American and had no interest in getting to know be better; eventually we became really good friends.
So with the "love glasses": even if they're 96% accurate as far as what's going on in the person's head right now, they're not necessarily that useful for what's going to happen in the future. The person who just thinks you're a nice guy, or even doesn't really care for you now, may get to know you better and begin to like you; and the person who is initially attracted to you and thinks your cute may realize you're not really her type.
So this may be useful if you're just looking for one-night-stands, but if you're looking for anything else, I'd say it's best to stick with the social cues. They developed for a reason.
Re:For most Slashdotters... (Score:4, Funny)
I can hear airport security now... (Score:5, Funny)
'No Joe, you're reading it wrong, he just wants to fuck you.'
These love detection glasses are broken! (Score:4, Funny)
Great! (Score:5, Informative)
Where do I sign up?
(Oh, sorry.. there is research that has PROVEN the polygraph to have 50% accuracy rate.. ranking it right up there with the 'other' lie detector: A coin with the word 'truth' on one side and 'lie' on the other!)
Re:Great! (Score:2)
Source, please. I've seen nothing that claims worse than 61%, and usually much better than that.
Can someone find real numbers? (Score:5, Informative)
Antipolygraph.org has a link here [antipolygraph.org]
and the American Polygraph Association has a link here [polygraph.org]
Re:Can someone find real numbers? (Score:5, Informative)
I'd say they're as objective as you get, unless of course you believe in some kind of "science-conspiracy"..
Re:Can someone find real numbers? (Score:4, Interesting)
(They do have this to say [ama-assn.org])
Something I feel compelled to point out, that is a common irritant in much I read (Yeah, I admit it. I try not to, but guilty of it too): You have a logical fallacy in your assertion that I'd say they're as objective as you get, unless of course you believe in some kind of "science-conspiracy".. (Check out Wikipedia logical fallacy [wikipedia.org]
You make the assumption that one needs to believe in a "science conspiracy" in order to presume that the magazine is not "as objective as you get."
Bollocks. I don't believe in science conspiracy, yet I don't know the credentials of a particular journalist, so I can't assume that that particular journalist is completely objective or knowledgeable enough to report fully and accurately.
Having said that, I personally dislike polygraphing, I think it is intrusive, like a mental form of body cavity search.
Unfortunately, we don't live in a nice world, and sometimes the polygraph is a tempting, and if it IS accurate, then a useful tool. A problem of polygraphing is potential abuse. I hear of abuse stories a good deal. How many are true, how many are fabricated? I don't know.
Power perceived is power achieved. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, but the psychological power of being hooked up to a machine that can tell if you are lying is huge. Sure, the system can be beaten, and that has been proven. But most people don't know that, and furthermore don't know how to beat it. So they might be willing to divulge the truth more readily if they believe that if they lie they will be caught. That is why the term "lie detector" is much more ominous than "polygraph".
Is there a way to programmatically tell if someone is lying? I think there are general "tells" that most people do when they lie, and a computer can be taught to recognize these. But I don't think it will generally be accurate enough to escape harsh (and well deserved) scrutiny from the scientific community.
Re:Maybe (Score:2)
this one relies on the color of the person's aurora,
Er, I think you meant aura there. An aurora is the northern/southern lights; if everyone had one of those, life would be like one large acid trip....
(Note: I don't think people have auras, either. Just B.O.)
But.. (Score:2)
Obligatory Simpsons Quote (Score:2)
Nathan
Re:Better ObSimpsons (Score:3, Funny)
As if Windows cared.... (Score:5, Funny)
Do you seriously think your Windows box cares if you love it or not? If it did, it'd be treating you much better.
Re:As if Windows cared.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, that *is* a fairly interesting proposition. Even if it were terribly inaccurate at reading the subtleties of emotional responses, maybe it could be used by machines as a source of additional input. Really now, imagine a kiosk at a retail clothing chain which offers you selections on what you might want, and gauges from its love-o-meter readings how strongly you hate the silk-sheen mauve stretch-fabric tee shirts and love the traditional white polo. At an even more granular level, such a kiosk would be able to gather tiny bits of information on what shades of which colors, what fabrics in what cuts, and such that you prefer. And all that with less interaction than would have been required otherwise.
If you think about it, this kind of technology, if moderately effective and economically manufacturable, could be applied to any expert-system-type application that guides users to recommendations. Just imagine: An interactive porn catalogue that requires NO hands to operate (now *both* hands can be free)! Okay, that isn't my ideal application of the technology, but it's worth consideration.
Everything I say is wrong. (Score:5, Funny)
I was going to make a joke about these glasses telling me that the Israeli CEO was lying about the usefulness of his product, but then I realized I'd fallen into a logic paradox. : (
--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor? [colingregorypalmer.net]
American Weblog in London [colingregorypalmer.net]
Vernor Vinge is an oracle. (Score:2)
"A Deepness in the Sky" which is a in the same universe as a "Fire Upon the Deep".
He gives a whole new meaning to the word "Focus".
And the dog critters are cute and an aurally distributed neural net.
Re:Vernor Vinge is an oracle. (Score:2)
We've heard this lie before (Score:5, Interesting)
It was crap. I think more than a few morning radio shows tried to use it on their callers with failure after failure. I tried a copy myself and found that not only was it horribly written, but even if you were able to get the subject to "train" it (by answering several questions that are known to be true) it gave inncorrect responses virtually half the time.
Come to think of it, the software might have been made by an Israeli company too. Maybe the same one, I don't know. Can't remember the name but it was horrid.
Do I think the FBI/CIA might have technology like this, to analyze voice stress or facial temperature and determine if you are lying? Sure, why not. But there's a reason why lie detection technology is not admissible in court. It just doesn't work. Too many experts can beat it and too many amateurs get nervous and give false positives.
-JoeShmoe
.
Re:We've heard this lie before (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:We've heard this lie before (Score:2)
Anyone remember that horrible TV show "Lie Detector" from the early 80s? If I recall, it was in an afternoon time slot, sandwiched somewhere between "The People's Court" and another afternoon show. What a scream!
Re:We've heard this lie before (Score:2, Insightful)
Amateurs... you mean, normal people?
Actually, Yes. Good Catch (Score:5, Informative)
Namesysco doesn't claim very high accuracy [nemesysco.com] for the Truster software. "The voice analyst achieved an overall accuracy rate of 78% for truthful subjects and 61% for deceptive subjects." In other words, only 10% more liars were caught than flipping a coin, while 22% of innocent subjects were considered lying.
The American Polygraph Society does not have a much rosier view [polygraph.org] of the situation. They have concluded that Computerized Voice Stress Analysis, and specifically the Truster software, has only a "chance-level detection of deception,"
And actually, the dead giveaway to the scam should be from the lion's mouth himself. "Our products were originally for law enforcement use ? we get all our technology from Nemesys-co ? but we need more development time [for that application]" In other words, "our products don't work and can't be sold unless you slap a 'for entertainment purposes only' label upon them. Our products are to 'entertain' airport security."
Good catch.
Disfunctional relationships (Score:3, Funny)
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Forget love... (Score:5, Funny)
Compatibility Issues (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me of a book I once read... (Score:3, Informative)
Sigh... if only.
Re:Reminds me of a book I once read... (Score:2)
I'm sure.. (Score:2)
(Bad) Solution looking for a problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoa. (Score:5, Funny)
Our products were originally for law enforcement use -- we get all our technology from Nemesys-co...
Nemesys-co? What, are they a division of the E-Ville Group or something?
yaaaaay (Score:2)
we can fill out forms online that say "if female then i love you", and now we can meet them in real life and find out the exact opposite! the only people that make out on this are the people who make cars, sell gasoline, and run inet hookup sites. we can now expedite the pointless!
I'm getting a pair. (Score:5, Funny)
You wouldn't believe how often women lie when you ask them "Are you carrying pepper spray?"
Love detector? (Score:2)
Thanks a lot... jerks (Score:2)
Oh great, now girlfriends the world over can `prove' that their boyfriends don't love them enough.
Just don't give it to you girlfriend (Score:5, Funny)
Do I look fat in this?
Did you like the meal I made?
.
.
.
I can see disaster and a lot of broken relationships.
I already have a lie detector for politicians (Score:3, Funny)
You watch his mouth. If it's moving, he's lying.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
So... (Score:2, Funny)
My new quandary... (Score:3, Funny)
Damn all these fashion choices!
Proof that technology killed the Martians (Score:2)
With any luck, they won't work.
Do we really want to know when we're being lied to? This means the end of dating. The end of advertising.
Politicians, however have it made. You can't lie about that which you know nothing of.
I won't even start with the entire IT industry- suffice it to say that the phrase "this software will allow you to
Obligitory Simpsons (Score:2, Funny)
HomerYes
lie detector explodes
How to not sound Anti-Semetic (Score:2, Interesting)
Would you buy a detector from N.Korea (or S.Korea), Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Argentina, Turkey, Belarus, Angola, Guatamala, Uganda, Or The *n*t**d St**t*s.
Even the Best polygraph tools are only 50% accurate. It isn't anti-semetic to call a country which has never kept a treaty or accord in my entire life 'Isreal' but it is
90% accuracy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:90% accuracy? (Score:5, Funny)
Anybody up for a game of poker? (Score:2)
I'll take odds that Nevada outlaws these sorts of gadgets as soon as they become available to the general public, as does any other state where gambling is legal. Not that it'd help with games like blackjack, roulette, craps, etc. but it sure would help with various forms of poker - stud, hold'em, etc.
Good For Politicians (Score:4, Interesting)
Glasses for the Glasses? (Score:3, Funny)
And all this coming from V-Entertainment. Well entertainment is right...they probably just tested these things against 100 SCO employees and asked them if they had any evidence. The 4 that were marked inaccurate really did have evidence but to the contrary.
Love detector (Score:3, Funny)
Even if it works.... (Score:2)
Perhaps if these things
boolean fashion statement (Score:2)
Everything you read is true and is important. (Score:2)
My new Poker glasses (Score:2)
People missing a point (Score:2, Funny)
Calibration? (Score:2)
I didn't see any mention of having to calibrate the device or ask control questions. Are they really claiming to be able to extract all that information from so little input?
Just thinking about the example question, "Do you plan on hijacking this plane?"... Everyone is going to answer "Yes". One word. One syllable, even. Can they really take a bunch of single-syllable responses, from people with such diverse backgrounds as you would find at an international airport, and determine who's lying?
If t
This sounds very convincing (Score:4, Funny)
The law enforcement version achieved about 70 percent accuracy in laboratory trials, according to V Entertainment, and better than 90 percent accuracy against real criminal subjects at a beta test site at the U.S. Air Force's Rome Laboratories.
So ... more than 8000 algorithms. And it gets even better results in a field trial than it does in the laboratory. They didn't mention its secret, unbreakable encryption with the 10^6 bit key -- just slipped their mind, I suppose.
And, of course, this technology is so super-duper that they won't sell it to the government, but will market it to gulli^H^H^H^H^H ordinary consumers.
Apparently the market for lunar green cheese flavored with snake oil is thriving (see: P.T. Barnum's Law of Applied Economics).
Saved by the Bell (Score:2, Funny)
I'm skeptical (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose you went up to a girl and asked her when the last time she gave a blow job was, and she answers you (hypothetically, she'd probably slap you in reality). You'd probably register a raise in blood pressure and heart rate. Are you to conclude that she lied to you? No, that's simply absurd. You asked her a personal question, out of the blue. Of course she'd be surprised. Furthermore, are you going to act normally and cooly when someone with glasses that can supposedly tell whether you're lying or not is asking you questions? Probably not. If you're an innocent man being polygraphed to see if you've committed a relatively serious crime, you're not exactly going to be acting normally, either.
Polygraph results are inadmissible in court for a good reason. I have a very hard time buying their "96% accurate" figure.
JUNK! (Score:5, Informative)
Both require interpretation. That requires training. Both can be bamboozled by anyone who can control their physio responses. That requires training too; yoga is good, but biofeedback is very simple and nearly subconscious.
Anyone can learn to fool them. And I am not about to place my personal safety in the hands of some previously underemployed and undereducated, and presently overworked and undertrained glorified rent-a-cop. I mean, my respect and sympathy to the hardworking TSA people at the airports, but they are not EVER going to receive adequate training to be able to correctly interperate physiological response measures in context. I would rather trust a Scientologist with their "clearing" device (a simple electrodermal activity meter) because at least they have experience in interperating their results in the context of a structured interview. A polygraph is not a structured interview, and some security guard spouting random accusations in the form of questions definitely is not.
I sincerely hope this is just another bogus device that is being publicized as part of the general anti-terrorism psyops, to keep the bad guys guessing as to what can really be done. Let them spend a few million on more high tech Dunsels. But if they deploy these for regular use, everyone who had too much coffee that morning and just rushed in late from a traffic jam to the airport is going to be targeted.
BTW, the sign on my office (room 9-151, VA Hospital, West Haven CT) says "Electrophysiology Lab". I know whereof I rant.
A few Better Uses (Score:4, Insightful)
"Mr. Sontag, this is all really just a load of crap, right?"
"What's the lowest price you can give me on this car?"
"Are you employed by any law enforcement organization?"
"Are those real?"
"Do you solemnly swear to defend and protect the constitution of the United States of America, and to execute the duties of the office of the Presidency to the best of your ability, so help you God?"
P300 Wave (Score:3, Interesting)
I, of course, make no claims as to the veracity or accuracy of this material. But this wave is not pure pseudoscience -- the NYT has an article showing how weak P300's correspond to weak signal recognition. [nytimes.com] And BWS isn't the only group looking into P300 and deception.
There are other approaches -- blood flow and PET scans come to mind -- but this has the advantage of involving just a few electrodes.
So -- we may yet see a lie detector functional in our lifetime. Of course, it won't always be trusted, for reasons similar to the legalistic need for occasional exceptions to the rule of unique suspect DNA identifiers. But it'll be there.
--Dan
Re:Stop your whining. (Score:2)
But otherwise, good points.
Re:Stop your whining. (Score:2)
Plenty of people hate their job, but most of them keep doing it.
Re:Stop your whining. (Score:2)
Because all operating systems suck [ehlke.net]?
Seriously, there are plenty of people who hate all popular operating systems and use them only because they have to use one to get some things done. Hating Windows doesn't mean that you would love Mac, Linux, or something else.
Re:not cool (Score:2)
At most of the jobs I've ever had, I've been forced to use Windows to some extent. I'm a Mac programmer. So, you can't say that people aren't forced to use Windows. That's exactly why most people do use Windows, in fact.
At one company it was because they setup the bug database in MS Access. At another it was the kind of source code repository they choose to use. (Both of these were arbitrary and rather stupid choices.) At another company it was because the economy went
Re:not cool (Score:2)
Yes I am sure that's why most people use windows, because we force them too, must be the same reason most people buy any popular product.
Re:Airports? (Score:4, Insightful)