Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
So... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
You fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Falls positives is what I am worried about. People being convicted because they were nervous and upset about being charged with something they didn't do.
Parent
Re:You fail (Score:4, Insightful)
Suspect A lies under polygraph implicating Suspect B - polygraph indicates he's telling the truth.
Suspect B is interviewed, shown 'proof' that he committed the crime, offered a deal..
False negatives can be just as dangerous if they are believed..
Parent
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently, 4% of the population constitutes "Almost no human being".
Re:So... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you aren't acused of a crime, consider that you can still lose your job because of a failed polygraph.
Polygraphs are bad science; They should not be used as the basis for making decisions.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:4, Interesting)
As anyone who works for a defense contractor or secure government facility can tell you, polys are the ONLY way you can get to levels of clearance above Top Secret (TS). In fact, there's TS, and there's TS-Poly above that, and then there's all the ones we can't tell you about above them.
The fact is, people beat polys and get into extremely high levels of clearance. I personally know people who have (mostly on the drug use questions). Now, these folks are my friends, and generally good people, so I don't really have a problem with them per se -- but claiming that polys are indestructible perpetuates the mindset of the higherups that polys don't lie. I'm not saying that the GAO and DOD don't perform good background checks -- they do -- but using polys as a check of last resort leaves a fairly large hole in our nation's security net.
Would you really want a bright young programmer to get a job in No Such Agency or DIA while having claimed his father was from Kuwait instead of Yemen, all on the strength of having beaten a polygraph?
Parent
Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
I know, isn't it weird? (Score:2)
ME... a foreign cartoon character.
I've got an upcoming briefing with Navy Intelligence brass about my upcoming Yankee White investigation.
Ha ha ha... Suckers.
Re:So... (Score:2)
BZZZZZ...
What is your favourite color? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What is your favourite color? (Score:2)
The problem is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Otherwise, I'd be good.
96% accurate? (Score:4, Informative)
"Overall," says Dr. Rovner, "we are confident that polygraph tests have a 96% accuracy rate when done properly."
If that is true, then if you have 1 spy and 49 honest people, this polygraph will likely falsely accuse two honest people as being spies.
Re:96% accurate? (Score:5, Interesting)
But while Dr. Rovner asserts that he is "confident that polygraph tests have a 96% accuracy rate when done properly," the scientific community has no such confidence in polygraphy. The National Academy of Sciences recently published a report titled The Polygraph and Lie Detection that concluded that the theoretical basis for polygraphy is quite weak and that that almost a century of research provides little basis for the expectation that the polygraph could have an extremely high rate of accuracy.
Parent
Re:96% accurate? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd just watched a show on Discovery about how to 'defeat' polygraph! Turns out it more or less is beatable with
Re:96% accurate? (Score:2)
On the other hand, George Maschke's inability to comprehend the distinction between "almost no" and "no" doesn't do him any favors either. I'd file
Re:96% accurate? (Score:2, Interesting)
When advocates of the polygraph make such dubious claims regarding polygraphy as Dr. Rovner did, I think it is important that they not go unchallenged.
Base Rate Fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Taking the claimed 96% accuracy rate as a given, suppose that 1/10K people are terrorists. If I randomly polygraph 10K peple, I'll on average turn up 1 terrorist and 400 false positives. I can only be 1/4 of one percent sure in my result.
On the other hand, suppose I know that 50% of the people working in an office are stealing supplies, but I don't know which. If I test 100 people, I'll get 4 false positives and 48 true positives. I can be 92% positive than any person who failed their polygraph steals office supplies.
The lesson is this: evidence can only be weighed in context. There will probably never be a single test that can determine the truth on its own.
Parent
Re:Base Rate Fallacy (Score:2)
And is the employer prepared to fire 52% of his employees, including the ones who didn't do anything wrong? I'd say you typically use a polygraph to identify a small fraction of your population. An exception may be a screening of job applicants.
Anyway, I agree with antipolygraph.org that it is all a bunch of p
My wife is better... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:96% accurate? (KNOW YOUR STATISTICS!) (Score:3, Informative)
to have what you suggested, the test would have a 96% "POWER" (or a 4% beta error for n=50).
Alpha error (Type I error) = Probability(X returns false | X is actually true) => false negative
Beta error (Type II error) = Prob(X returns true | X is actually false) => false positive
The actu
remorse (Score:3, Interesting)
Thus, when polygraphs are used, it's important it _not_ be the only tool used. For instance, when the USGov't investigates someone applying for a security clearance, they check everything in addition to using the poly. Credit history, school records, school/military diciplinary records, tax records, medical history, family medical history, they perform various psychological exams, they talk to the guy's friends and co-workers and supervisors, and so on. They ask questions about international travels, friends who are non-US citizens, etc.
This way, when someone "passes" a poly, there's evidence to back that up or refute that result. If the investigate report backs up a positive polygraph result and nothing negative is found (or the negatives are manageable), then the guy can probably be given that clearance. Otherwise - the red denied stamp gets pulled out. Indeed, someone can pass the poly and still be denied the clearance - such as a black eye on the credit report (espionage risk - if the guy falls behind on mortgage payments, he could sell secrets to whomever wants them) or a history of alcoholism (clumsiness with classified material risk - if the guy gets drunk while acting as a courier, he risks losing it).
Re:remorse (Score:3, Informative)
A polygraph works based on relative stress. Usually it goes as follows:
First they ask some "control" questions. These are questions they already know the answers to. From that they determine your baseline responses. Then they start asking the real questions. They will usually introduce more control questions during this process so they can make sure the baseline is still working (you won't know which are the control questions during this phase).
Do beat the machine all you
Re:remorse (Score:2)
There was a very short-lived TV series on FOX in 1996 called Profit [tvtome.com]. There was one episode where the main character took a polygraph test. Before the test, he put a tack in his shoe and stomped it into his foot. They showed him bearing down on that foot for certain questions of the test. He lied his ass off, but he passed. :)
I
Re:remorse (Score:3, Informative)
Sort of. This is how they work:
There are null questions, 'control' questions, and pertinant questions which are asked by a tester who also attempts to spook/convince the victim that their 'high tech' equipment actually gives them the ability to tell if someone is lying. No equipment can tell if you are lying short of a PET scan which they can't afford to give you. Even a PE
Polygraphs and plants. (Score:4, Funny)
So a few weeks ago, I was driving back to school late at night and was listening to Art Bell (yes, its full of wackos but it's entertaining. Been listening since 7th grade)
Anyway, there was this guest on about polygraphs and plants, yogurt bacteria, eggs, food, etc.
Basically the guest said that if you hook up a polygraph to various "living" things, you can get some sort of reading off of them. If you put stress on/around the thing being monitored, it will react.
For example, if you hook up a polygraph to an egg, and have a dozen other eggs around it. If you take one of the eggs and put it in boiling water, the egg hooked up to the polygraph machine will go crazy.
With plants and yogurt. If you hook up a polygraph to a plant, and have a cup of "live" yogurt beside it. If the yogurt is disturbed (such as stirring up the fruit in the yogurt). This will kill the live bacteria in the yogurt and the plant would react.
Lastly, the guest said that you can't (for the most part) beat a polygraph with anything mjaor (such as if you murdered someone). Why? Because you conscience would get the best of you. The one exception is if you life was in danger. (he didn't elaborate much on what that meant)
And lastly, a link to the show [coasttocoastam.com]
Re:Polygraphs and plants. (Score:4, Informative)
http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?b
Parent
Re:Polygraphs and plants. (Score:2, Interesting)
If you are the type of person who can murder someone, isn't there a higher probability that you don't have much of a conscience? Yes, I know, it's still the case that most murderers will have done it for a stupid reason and feel wr
Re:Polygraphs and plants. (Score:2)
In other words, not only is
Re:Polygraphs and plants. (Score:2)
Art Bell is "etnertainment" for a darn good reason.
Don't forget human polygraphs (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Don't forget human polygraphs (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with such a skill, is it is going to be damned well inadmissable in court.
You will never (I hope) see a day where someone can simply say This person is lying, and I offer my level two wizard to prove it.
At least with a polygraph they can holt up charts and the like and say "This is why we think this man is lying", and som
How about paradoxes? (Score:3, Funny)
"I am lying." or "This sentence is a lie."
It's not true or false. ...maybe it would break...
Polygraphs are bunk (Score:5, Informative)
Afterward, the guy puts his arm around me and tells me I passed and that one lie that I told about the pot wouldn't be held against me. He patted me on the back and sent me on my may.
One anomalous response was interpreted as a lie. A faulty technology had convinced a total stranger that I smoked pot when I never had. The report of that session went to my new employer who didn't fire me but did make the report available to another employee who happened to be my sister. To this day, she thinks I've experimented with drugs when I haven't. After all, what's my word balanced against a neat-o cool technology with all those scribbling pens and sensors and stuff, right?
Polygraphs are bunk. People who make their living in that industry are, by my definition, liars and should be shunned.
Yes, I know I'm only one data point. But sometimes it only takes one data point to know when a technology has failed and is not trustworthy in broad application.
What might have happened (Score:3, Insightful)
Polygraphs pick up body reaction. Sadly to few are used and humans are to complex to truly be able to tell why a person reacts.
A simple test is a pedophile image. Both a pedo and a normal person would react with an increased heart rate. The pedo because he is excited, the normal person because of revulsion.
Only when you would start to measure things like blood chemistry
Re:Polygraphs are bunk (Score:3, Informative)
A polygraph test needs is composed of four parts:
1. Reaction when no question is being asked.
2. Reaction to a question where you have no reason to lie.
3. Reaction to a question that where the true answer is embarrasing. For this question, the polygraph is detecting an emotional response rather than a lie (e.g. Have you ever
Re:Polygraphs are bunk (Score:2)
I knew the job market was a bit on the slow side these days.. but sheesh!
Re:Polygraphs are bunk (Score:2)
Now, I'm just a crotchety old fart.
Re:Polygraphs are bunk (Score:2)
Re:Polygraphs are bunk (Score:3, Interesting)
While it's true that the new techniques are better for detecting lies made up on the spot, they still fail against someone who has thought up, "visualized", and/or gone over their story before.
The brain is complicated, but one thing that's becoming clear is that it's not good at differentiating input sources. Without extensive training, it can be unreliable. That's where all the "false memory" stuff comes from and where the pre-visualization "success!" techniques come from. If you visuali
The Effectiveness of the Polygraph (Score:5, Insightful)
From Skepdic [skepdic.com]:
'It doesn't appease me that many defenders of the polygraph know it is junk science but defend its use because many people confess to crimes during interviews done before or after being given the test. The machine may not be able to detect lies accurately but, as Richard Nixon said, "it scares the hell out of people." The end justifies the means.'
The largest bank of proof (Score:4, Insightful)
is in Scientology. Those individuals train for years to defeat a lie detector, even if they're not ready for it. The e-meter basically is a lie detector (it's a little hyper-sensitive on any reaction, as is shown from their "rock slam" of the needle bouncing like mad since they don't use the reduced bounce meters) that they train against for years to get to where nothing they say or do will carry a reaction (i.e. "floating").
Naturally, as was said before, you can defeat most polygraph tests with 30 minutes of training, or using the ability to answer the "wrong" question with the right answer for what they're asking you.
Re:false positives (Score:4, Informative)
Other agencies that administer lifestlye polygraph examinations, such as the CIA and NSA, do not make their polygraph failure rates public, though I suspect that they are somewhat lower than the FBI's.
In the Department of Defense (which uses a counterintelligence-scope polygraph), virtually everyone passes: the only ones who "fail" seem to be those who make what DoD terms "substantive admissions."
For information on what you might expect during your polygraph examination, and tips on how you might protect yourself against the risk of a false positive outcome, see Chapters 3 & 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector [antipolygraph.org] (1 mb PDF).
Parent
Re:false positives (Score:5, Interesting)
The second time, I was told that I was telling the truth about not committing a serious crime. Well, I gave exactly the same answer as I had during the first polygraph. Did I uncommitt a serious crime? Did I forget I had committed it since my first polygraph?
It seems, however, according to the polygraph at least, that I was stupid enough to experiment with drugs or to sell drugs sometime between my first and second polygraph. For, during the second polygraph, I was 'lying' when I said I had not.
During the third polygraph, where I was told I am very lucky (for it is apparently very rare for someone to be seen a second time, let alone a third; I assure you it is not rare), I was not lying about not using or selling drugs, but the serious crime problem popped up again.
As an experiment during the third polygraph, I lied when I answered one of the questions about all of the information on my form being correct. I took a trip to Canada (my first time leaving the USA) after my second polygraph, but I never amended my form to include it, because I didn't want to have to go through the hassle. The polygrapher wasn't really interested in my answer to this question, apparently.
It was an interesting experience, and gave me some good anecdotes to share with others, but it didn't help anyone figure out if I was telling the truth or not.
Parent