Brain Scans to Identify Liars? 324
dotc writes "After a bunch of sci-fi stories and rumors, now it looks like the future has become a reality -- a reliable, unbiased test using functional MRI brain scan to detect lying. The article author details a first-person account of undergoing the MRI 'deception task'. And the test is available now - use it to prove your innocence." From the article: "Laken said he's aiming to offer the fMRI service for use in situations like libel, slander and fraud where it's one person's word against another, and perhaps in employee screening by government agencies. Attorneys suggest it would be more useful in civil than most criminal cases, he said."
Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:5, Insightful)
This is completely bogus. Look, if one can lie (and is good at it), it is going to be much more difficult to figure out whether they are telling the truth or not. To someone who knows what they are doing, polygraphs can be fooled and I would suspect that interpretation of fMRIs can also be confused by someone who "knows" how to lie. The trick is to avoid delivering "tells" that are physiologic manifestations of deception. The truth is that there is no foundation in physiology that mandates that one has to reveal anything when stating something that is not in fact, the truth. A good liar will be able to deceive the device and more importantly, the interpreter of the device because they are able to LIVE the lie.
Now, I am not saying that all means of determining lies by technology are doomed to fail. Rather, I believe that relying on any one (particularly trendy) method for determining lies will work. And the use of fMRI is simply a massively expensive and trendy polygraph, particularly because there are so many differences in cortical anatomy and regional differences between individuals. I would be much more comfortable with a derivative of cortical function such as the p300 cortical recognition waveform used as part of a more complete determination of truth using interview, cross checking of facts, polygraph and p300. Perhaps if the fMRI proves accurate to some degree, it could be integrated, but it should not be used exclusively.
And yes, I do know a little something about neurophysiologic monitoring as I teach neurophysiology labs to medical students.
To quote the genius that is George Constanza (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the MRI gonna tell you then?
I'm not sure I buy it (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't buy it. I'll believe that they have a more accurate method of telling when you experience psychological stress from lying, but the actual act of lying is such an indistinct thing that I can't believe that you have a portion of your brain that says "turn this on when you lie".
The fact that they want to make this admissable in a court of law is just plain scary.
accuracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Detecting lies is not at all the same thing. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
What's more, they admit it doesn't actually detect lies, because people beat it; and that's under idealized lab conditions.
Do not go directly to jail.
KFG
Claimed validity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:2, Insightful)
George and Jerry talking about how to fool the polygraph test (to prove that Jerry doesn't watch Melroe's place)
George (to Jerry): "You if believe it, it's not a lie."
I too wonder about the cost and practicality of this. Most of the examples they provided can simply be solved with a regular (cheap) polygraph test - only one who is REALLY good at lying can fool this. I imagine it would be hard to get a warrant for $*00,000 to get some guy tested on the fMRI.
however, the very concept of the 100% accurate lie detector is scary. It would have a huge impact on politics, crime, and even personal issues. "Did you cheat on me? Do you look at porn a lot? Do you think I'm fat?"
I'd rather live in the current world, where at least we have some small amounts of privacy left.
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:2, Insightful)
If patterns in the brain could be measured which would unerringly detect the presence or absence of just such a conspiracy, we would have as foolproof a lie-detector as I think may be at all within the realm of physical possibility.
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly true.
I imagine it would be hard to get a warrant for $*00,000 to get some guy tested on the fMRI.
MRIs are not quite that expensive. We (our family business) charge on average about $2000 with all the costs considered of operating them (electricity, cryogenic liquids, trained personnel, depreciation). fMRI is going to be a bit more expensive than that, but certainly not in the five to six figure range.
however, the very concept of the 100% accurate lie detector is scary. It would have a huge impact on politics, crime, and even personal issues. "Did you cheat on me? Do you look at porn a lot? Do you think I'm fat?"
What is more scary is the level of science education of those individuals who will be wanting to use these measures of veracity to determine truth. People are always looking for the quick answer and they are not always willing to put the time or effort into determining what is truth.
Re:Detecting lies is not at all the same thing. . (Score:3, Insightful)
Foucault spoke of this in Discipline and Punish, where just the placing of a subject under observation was a form of power parading as science.
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Detecting lies is not at all the same thing. . (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is how the polygraph "works." It's just a dowsing device, but useful for interrogations, in a very limited sense, to the extent that the subject believes in the power.
It's basically a "civilized" form of waterboarding.
Speaking of methodology, the test described in the article was not only not done double blind, it wasn't even done blind and there was no control. Everyone involved knew the subject had stolen something a priori, and everyone, including the subject, knew that everyone knew.
If I had been a subject I might well have been inclined to "beat" the system buy fucking with what everyone knew, i.e,, not following directions and taking neither the ring or the watch.
KFG
Re:IANALDTE (Lie Detector Test Expert) but... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the subject truly believes the response to a question regardless of it's validity, there's much you can do in the way of physical monitoring.
If the subject is telling you what they believe to be true, then they aren't lying. They may be incorrect, but that's not the same thing. This device is useful for detecting when someone is knowingly giving untrue responses. Seems to me it would be highly useful. I'd like to see the Enron execs hooked up to this thing for a little Q&A.
Nonsense. Cannot see through belief. (Score:3, Insightful)
Other people have commented on how this is bogus, but I want to offer an additional perspective. You absolutely cannot detect when someone is lying with absolute certainty and faith in such a technology is misguided. Which brings me to the point. Consider this example: people will tell you they know for a fact that a god or other divine figure is real and constitutes a genuine presence in their lives. Yet of all the people who say this, how many of them could prove it? How many have actually had an experience where they have spoken with some otherworldy being? (The answer is, of course, none.) But these same people have been conditioned to believe that what they are saying is the truth and nothing but the truth. They are absolutely convinced. So let me (attempt) to put this in general terms.
A lie is a false statement due largely to the context and circumstances—not simply physical factors within the entity which may be lying. For lie detection to be absolutely effective, it must take into consideration factors which are not measured when an individual is measured. That is, to determine if someone is lying, you have to determine if there are factors which might cause the person believes the lie is true.
I suppose we can make it more difficult, but people are trained to overcome polygraphs and VSA. I am sure people can be trained to believe a lie prior to a given test in order to pass as the test gets more sophisticated.
Implanted memories (Score:4, Insightful)
It's an article talking about how easy it is to implant memories that never existed into peoples minds. In fact, not only do people end up remembering things they've never seen, but they also end up adding additional information to the stories. It's a bit scary actually, but it's a good thought on how one might "break" the system.
Quoting the article:
"It's one thing when implanting false memories is a laboratory experiment, but it's quite another when the accused wrongly end up in jail..."
hmm... 500 MRI per question or... (Score:2, Insightful)
Prove your innocence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone remember the time when you were considered innocent until proven guilty?
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:2, Insightful)
The question becomes can I force myself to become delusional. If I have a reliable method to make myself delusional then I can lie successfully with premedatated ideas and get past the test.
Re:How soon before FBI trains to defeat it? (Score:1, Insightful)
in such cases, it doesn't really matter whether or not a poly or a brain scan are accurate or not. the average person will get caught lying under any of these techniques because the average person is not a spy or a sociopath - just a meek joe trying to maintain some privacy.
but polygraphs and brain scans ultimately are part of the intimidation that is used to get people to break down under interrogation. i'm sure that brain scan will be extremely effective in that regard.
Re:Airports? (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone has something to hide.
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, you make the assumption that the interviewer can know the questions to ask. If someone kills their spouse and there are no witnesses, it's any ones guess as to what REALLY happened. Sure, clues can give some indication (or even a good indication), but if the person didn't leave that much evidence, it's not certain that there will be lots of useful questions to ask.
Secondly, lots of what you remember IS "made up". You brain only remembers things it deems statistically significant, the rest you remember as "stuff that usually happens". So you can't really ask a bunch of general question and determine it to be true, whether the person is trying telling the truth or not.
Also, you need to be able to tell what a particular person's brain looks like when it's actually lying. Asking them to state something that is untrue does not necessarily give an accurate profile of how they are when they are really trying to be deceitful.
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still dubious. If the subject has worked out his lie ahead of time, as any good liar will, then there is no creativity involved at the time of the scan.
There is no "part of the brain for lying," just as there is no part of the brain for making an omlette. There are parts of the brain that activate when a lie is told, but a good liar knowing he's going up against such a machine will go so far as to practice visualizing the lie.
Also, don't forget: creativity is part of telling the truth, too. Our memories are a lot more sketchy than we notice, and we often internally reconstruct events that are not explictly recorded. The human brain is not a VCR.
Re:Prefrontal Cortex damage might interfer (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a rare genetic disorder where the goal-seeking centers in the brain are wired up backwards. (Argh. Google is no help at all finding the disorder's name.) Kids with it ask for the opposite of what they want, and when they get it are immensely frustrated and angry. At first glance the symptom appears to be antisocial rage to nearly any stimulus. However what they have is not a rage disorder, but an expressiveness disorder. Once the people around them understand it, progress can be made.
Likewise with psychopaths: the antisocial symptoms are fundamentally irrelevant. This is critical because your first encounter with a given psychopath will probably be at a moment when they appear to be functioning well. This is not because they understand the encounter like a normal person, but because they just happen to be neither angry nor euphoric, and are replaying simple behavior patterns from memory (and their memory is often good). Worse, the encounter will only last a few minutes, so you won't have much to go on. It's like playing ten moves into a game of chess. Can you tell that the opponent is only looking one move ahead? Well you had better, or you will be sucked into the psychopath's reality distortion field.
100% honesty (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with a purely 100% accurate 'truth telling' system is that it's too easy to neglect to measure intent or look at grey areas, especially when one freely admits to a minor infringement of the law or policy which put them inadvertently in a worst position. For example, in my younger days, from 1992 to 1996 I used to smoke marijuana on a pretty regular basis. I don't think it's a bad thing, and even though I don't do it anymore (I just don't feel like it) I have no issues with telling anyone who asks about it. Despite it being against the law, I don't see it any more dangerous then exceeding the speed limit by 10 mph or jaywalking.
However, nearly 7 years ago I returned to my apartment one night from a particularly difficult day at work. One of my neighbors offered me a pipe of what I assumed was marijuana, which I accepted. I took a long draw on it, and noticed it didn't taste anything like what I was used to (and for that matter, didn't look right burning in the bowl). I said to my neighbor 'this is some really weird weed', to which he replied 'It's not weed, it's crack'. I don't even know if it got me 'high', I was so pissed off. I spent the next 4 or 5 hours in a fit of rage walking around the block. I never spoke to that neighbor again. To me, this was a big deal.
And now, if somebody put me through any 'truth' machine, and asked me about drug use, I'd have to say that I have, in fact, smoked crack. A device like this combined with specifically directed questions could easily paint me as a real junky, even though I'm not and I have some pretty strong feelings about the harder, more dangerous drugs like cocaine or heroin, and even though I haven't smoked (nor have desired to smoke) marijuana in over two years.
I would hope, though suspect that it won't come to pass, that certain measures would be put in place that would look at intent or degree before reaching a conclusion. If I was asked 'have you ever stolen anything', the answer would be yes. 26 years ago, when I was 5 years old, I took a matchbox car from a local supermarket without paying for it. I still feel guilty about it, and haven't stolen anything since. If absolutes were used and I was obliged to be completely honest, I'd end up being thief in addition to being a junky.
No man or woman is compleatly without sin, and without looking at intent a machine like this could be used to make anyone look like a monster.
Re:Do not rely completely on fMRI (Score:3, Insightful)
Polygraphs are worthless. Hell, scientologists use a bastardized version of the original polygraph as their testing tool, the "e-meter".
As for the fMRI, I saw this coming for the last couple of years. Welcome to hell; they think they have another way to read our minds.
I fear the day when they really do find a way to watch what we're thinking. No Mars mission, no energy program will have the resources committed to it that the endgame machine, a true mind monitor, will receive. It's the holy grail of this line of research. It's only a matter of time before IT and the understanding of the physiology of the brain intersect, and they have the ultimate tool for... whatever they want. It will happen. They'll want it too badly. (And god knows if it would really work -- like the polygraph and the fMRI, they'll assume it works because they need it to.)
We should have laws and treaties in place NOW that forbid such devices, but with the Terror of Everything being fanned in the West and the rise of Godly Government in the Islamic world, there'll be too much demand for it.
And what will really break my heart is that people will line up to be tested to keep their jobs, their kids, their "safety".
Re:Detecting lies is not at all the same thing. . (Score:2, Insightful)
Was the methodology really so bad that they determined the answer in advance?
It's a damned sight easier to dowse for water if you already know exactly where to find it, innit?
KFG