All:
Both overt and clandestine:

Its been a long time since I was on this thread,  kinda light on the posts isn't it George?  Some seem to be missing, but I understand that. But thats not what I am here for. I came to post a most interesting and first hand article. It does appear that some gamer friends of mine have a very interesting toy and software. DEFCON was a most interesting place to be. Looks like someone else may have had the same idea. Tough to keep a good idea down.

link: http://venturebeat.com/2010/07/30/hackers-show-how-to-build-and-beat-a-lie-detec...

---- Text -----

Hackers show how to build and beat a lie detector:
July 30, 2010 | Dean Takahashi

Hackers at the Defcon security conference in Las Vegas showed they could build a lie detector and beat it.

In the presentation, hackers who went by the handles Rain (above) and Urban Monkey (below) said they built a lie detector based on a pre-existing design that cost about $50.

The talk is typical of the somewhat alarming sessions at the Defcon hacker conference in Las Vegas. Black Hat and Defcon are sister conferences. While Black Hat is more corporate, Defcon is the Wild West. You can pay for your Black Hat badge with a credit card; at Defcon, attendees pay with cash. Photos of the crowd are not allowed. Federal officers attend the show and have to endure “spot the fed” contests. The environment is meant to welcome those hackers who are on the gray side of the law, and it is considerably downscale from Black Hat.

The modern polygraph was developed in the 1920s and then moved into the private sector in the 1930s. They slowly spread through police departments during the latter decades. The use spread in the McCarthy era in the 1950s and continued during the Cold War. In the 1980s, lie detectors became inadmissible in court in some jurisdictions due to abuses and numerous challenges to accuracy. The private sector continued to use lie detectors, and after 9/11, the use of polygraphs began to rise.

Previous hackers (dubbed Neuronumerous) built $50 lie detectors that measured breathing and heart rates. The device measures galvanic skin resistance, which measures sweat. It used an Atmel microcontroller as its brains. It used the Maven 2.2.1 build system and the Java programming language. Source code is at this site. Some 16 people contributed to the work. The testing environment was modeled as closely on industry standards as possible. That means keeping as few people in the room as possible, and controlling the room temperature.

They had subjects deliberately lie to an examiner, saying they had not chosen a certain number between one and ten when in fact they had done so. Then they had them tell the truth. That established the biometrics for someone lying and someone telling the truth. Then they had the subjects use countermeasures to try to fool the machine. These included things like biting their tongues and flexing their anal spincter muscles — things that could change both breathing, sweat and heart rates. Their results showed they could alter the results of the test by altering their bodily reactions during tests.

They argued that over time, anyone could be trained to beat a biofeedback device.

--- End Text ----

It does appear that theory, has been put into practice.
Isn't this just way too Cool 

Best Regards

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 10^th, 2007 at 2:17am:


Boogereater 5 ?? planet buck-o would have sufficed...... two words GROW UP

The Planet Boogereater 5.

Yo Jup, what planet are you really from? 

NoNombre,

I can't send what no longer exists. 
It will stay that way. 
I have fought my fight. 
Point proven.
But honorable adversaries you are in deed. 

Regards ....

Eos,

Could you please send a copy of the CM trainer and the necessary key to:

4thetruth@swarmail.com

Thanks!

Nonombre...

EOS,

You sure didn't kick my ass! In fact, if you check my posts, you'll see I was pretty much calling you a Fruit Cake from the very moment you posted this garbage.

Enjoy your illness.

Regards,

MM

Paradiddle, MM,

Again we shall let the audience decide ....

Mind theatre ass kicking !!! Just another quality service I offer ....

Regards ....

EosJupiter wrote on Oct 9^th, 2007 at 4:21pm:


huh? I think the only proof you have demonstrated is that you my friend need Haldol.

EOS

You have lost it my friend. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Regards,

MM

To all concerned;

Action: Experiment Stopped

I wish to thank all those unsung players who helped so much to make this possible !!
And dragging Dr. Barland into this was more than I could have hoped for, it was
time to end the game. 

Question ?: How to  prove the polygraph technique is dangerous. 

Answer !:    Use all of the interrogators / polygraphers trick against them in a public forum.

Result:        Denial of fact is not possible as its fully documented.

3 proofs:

1 - The polygraph needs fear and anxiety to work.

This is the same concept I used that you use on your subjects, I needed fear and anxiety with just the right
touch of theatrics to make it work. I displayed the trainer GUI for all the world to see.  Next with the correct verbage to see what was biting.
With the obvious knowlege that all of my (444) posts would be analyzed. Watching the references to studies, and various 
other comments made by our new resident polygrapher watchdogs, to try and dig me out.  And of course my new best wanna be friends who needed help.The stage could not have been any more set. But again when you dragged Dr. Barland out, enough was gained to prove my concepts.

2 - Complete belief that the polygraph really can detect deception  

I accomplished this concept , with the toolkit and trainer that theoretically could beat the polygraph. I am sure that quite a few people
out there have not slept very well knowing that this thing had the possibility of existing. I had your complete belief & buy in. Making the puppets 
dance was easy from this point. I have saved all the references to piece together into a very nice expose. 

3- Consequences for failure

This one was the best, Polygraphers on the unemployment line, or complete destruction of the polygraph. Like that would happen. Those consequences I wouldn't let happen because it would affect the families of those polygraphers & a great many others. No collateral damage. Our resident watchdog polygraphers fighting tooth and nail to stop the "Crazies" on this board. Knowing full well the consequences of failure. Trying to deduce my true intention from new friends. If I was really this intent on polygraph armageddon, I sure wouldn't post it for all to know about. 


Summation:  I have laid bare for all the world to see just how the polygraphs methods are used. Using your own concepts and practices. 
                   The same way you posted the document about Dr. Drew Richardson. 

Lessons learned: Its always the little guy with an idea and a pad of paper to conceptualize it, that wins the day. The rest is for the followers
                        of this board and history to decide. I did say I had proof. 


Best Regards .....

Quote:


You sir, are engaging in misdirection, when you lose sight of the fact that tests are just tests, and focus only on the voices of the idiots.

Intelligence, like cholesterol, is a normally occurring phenomena (though amorphous). Telling lies is also a normal occurence for humans, as is telling the truth at times. The questions that tests seek to answer are things like how much is too much (high blood pressure, for example), and what is normal (both blood pressure and IQ). Other questions, of interest to things like mental health test measures, include more specific questions like what does the test protocol of a depressed person look like, or what does the protocol of a narcissistic person look like? Similarly, what does the test data of a deceptive or truthful person look like? It is the role of bayesian and inferential mathematics, and signal detection models, to provide probability estimates as answers to those questions.

Its just testing.

Ludovico wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 11:40pm:


And exactly what is the straw man that I'm arguing against? That polygraphers crow accuracy numbers that are misleading?

IQ and IQ testing are also one of the most controversial psychometric measures in science. Additionally, IQ is not a screen for presence or absence of a condition, intelligence is a construct that all people have so there is no base rate of intelligence. You've gotta compare apples to apples my friend, otherwise that's worse than straw men, it's misdirection...

Did you just make that up, or have been readin' the NRC report again?

Digit,

You must know that its not quite that simple, and that you do have some options about limiting ourselves to bayesian models. There are a lot of tests built on good 'ole inferentials. Take IQ tests, for example: is there a base rate for IQ?

The point is: when you limit things like this you are really engaging in a straw man argument, not a real discussion.

Certainly there is much to learn, we simply have to open the mind to do it.

and this

Quote:


OK, maybe not ad hominem, but certainly straw man - because anyone who would be a true believer is certainly a fool. Right?

Funny, I thought Kim English's data indicated polygraph does contribute to the containment process.

'till then

Ludovico wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 11:15pm:


Did you miss when I said this?

digithead wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 10:20pm:


As for calling her a true believer, it's not an ad hom given the fact that she ignores the evidence against the CQT. Ad hom is when you attack the person and not the argument. I'm not attacking her by calling her a true believer because she earnestly believes that the polygraph "works" as evidenced in her writing...

As for posting anonymously, we all have our reasons and I notice that very few of you pro-polygraph people also reveal who you are...

As for me, I've stated my opinions to Kim. Maybe next time when you're at one of her trainings, see if you can get her to out my identity because she certainly knows me...

Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 10:50pm:
 

Ah, thanks for bringing it back to my expertise...

As I pointed out in prior posts and to Kim several years ago, accuracy in diagnostic testing has 5 statistics that are needed to measure it. So these comparisons are incomplete and do not show the whole picture.

Once again, these are the five things needed to assess "accuracy":

1. Sensitivity, which is the probability that the test is positive given that the person has the underlying condition.
2. Specificity, which is the probability that the test is negative given that the person does not have the underlying condition.
3. Positive predictive value (PPV), which is the probability that the person has the condition given that the test is positive. Its complement is the false positive rate.
4. Negative predictive value (NPV), which is the probability that the person does not have the condition given that the test is negative. Its complement is the false negative rate.
5. Base rate, which is the prevalence of the condition in the population or the probability that you've got someone with the condition. This is also the "chance" of just guessing correctly whether the person has the condition or not.

Sensitive and specificity are usually measured in lab studies. 

The base rate, at least for diseases, is estimated from medical records. 

PPV and NPV are both functions of sensitivity, specificity, and the base rate. These measure how the diagnostic tests perform when the true status of the underlying condition is unknown, which is the case in screening applications. 

Basically, they are a measure of how well the test performs when compared against a gold standard. Any PPV or NPV less than 90% has no usefulness in my opinion. 

Additionally, when the base rate is low (deception in employment screening), your PPV goes down and your false positive rate goes up. Conversely, when your base rate is high (deception in sex offending), your NPV goes down and your false negative rate goes up.

And without showing PPV, NPV, and base rates of the conditions those test measure, the numbers above are incredibly misleading and completely without context...

Additionally, unlike like the polygraph, all of those medical listed tests can be run sequentially or in concert to reduce the probability of error. Once a person has been polygraphed, because of the nature of the test there is a high likelihood of prior tests affecting future tests...

Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 10:50pm:


I'll leave it up to others to determine the strength of your argument.

Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 10:50pm:

No need to ask, her study does use it...

Yeah, but if we ever meet by chance, at some conference somewhere, I'll recognize you instantly by the stained sweatpants.

but this

Quote:


I find it unfortunate you have to take cheap shots at respectable people, whom you know, with statements like "true believers." Its just more evidence that you are not interested in a real conversation about the merits, weakness, possibilities and limitations of the polygraph in sex offender treatment, and engage in straw-man arguments by suggesting that Kim English is "true believer" in some mystified form of polygraph.

If you were "truly" interested in a real conversation, you wouldn't post anonymously, and you wouldn't make ad hominem statements about Kim. Its not a nice way to treat a friend or colleague with whom you share the same professional and social concerns. You might do that with a real friend in a private conversation, but you certainly wouldn't say things like that publicly, where such statements sway the feeble and influential minds of those beneath you, by filling them with psuedo-intellectual gibberish. Unless, of course, that's what you want to do.

Be well.

Here is another one of her papers that explains how POLYGRAPHS are instrumental in the containment approach.

http://dcj.state.co.us/ors/pdf/docs/eoc51.pdf

Oh yeah, here is a snippet from her bio:
Ms. English has been the principal investigator on a number of studies funded by the National Institute of Justice, including two national surveys of probation and parole management practices pertaining to adult sexual offenders. One of the research products, “Managing Adult Sex Offenders in Community Settings: A Containment Approach,” was published in 1996 by the American Probation and Parole Association. Current research includes assessing the impact of sex crime disclosures by offenders participating in specialized post-conviction polygraph exams.

digithead wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 9:57pm:


Kim English has done studies and I have attended several of her presentations (I have spoken to her too).  One of her studies was from 1996-2001 'English, Pullen & Jones'  Percentage accuracy as follows:

Diagnostic Accuracy Assessment Tool
Acute Appendicitis CT 95%
Brain Tumor91%
Carotid Artery Disease 91%
Acute Appendicieis US 91%
Breast Cancer US 90%
Deception - Polygraph 88%
Multiple Sclerosis 83%
Xray 80%
Depression 74%

Also, 
Diagnostic Accuracy by Target Condition
Polygraph 88%
MRI 86-87%
Cat Scan 85-86%
Ultra Sound 85%
Xray 82%
CSM 70%
MMPI 67%

Also, Just because I say FU doesn't mean I am intellectually weak.  It means FU

I would believe that Kim English's study used the CQT.  (Kim English, Director, Office of Research & Statistics - a true beleiver)  But, hey, since you know her so well, why don't you ask.

Ludovico wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 10:05pm:


Only because some people don't seem to understand respectful discourse and reasoned debate...


Ludovico wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 10:05pm:


If that's your interpretation, fine...

Ludovico wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 10:05pm:


That's what reasoned debate is all about...

Ludovico wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 10:05pm:


Kim is a wonderful researcher, a great writer, and she has many good ideas. She's done an incredible job over her career and I respect her greatly. I happen to disagree with her over the use of the polygraph. I don't think that sabotages any of her other work...

Ludovico wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 10:05pm:


Nor do I know who any of you are. That's the beauty of anonymous boards...

Don't kid yourself. 

This site is not a real discussion. Its a circus.

Presently, we're at at a standoff... our version of:

my big sister is bigger than your big brother. (Kim English and digithead)

so who is right?

she's a published researcher and program evaluator in sex offender treatment, as you also claim to be. 

only we don't really know who you are.

Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 9:31pm:


I know Kim quite well and I've had many arguments with her about the polygraph but she is one of the true believers unfortunately. The containment method with the exception of the polygraph is a great tool because it emphasizes individualized treatment, cooperation across all levels of treatment and supervision staff, and supposedly has continuous quality improvement built in...

The problem is that there is no research that has been able to disentangle the effect of using CQT polygraph from the other treatment protocols so claiming that it is responsible for the decline in recidivism is foolhardy. And given the plethora of research outside of pro-polygraph circles that shows that CQT is not based on sound scientific principles and is inherently unreliable demonstrates to me that its use in the containment method undermines the containment methods effectiveness. Not to mention the problems of habituation and sensitization...

And if poor training is factor then God help us all...

Regardless of the fact that no polygrapher claims 100% accuracy, the bulk of the science shows that CQT polygraph cannot have any high degree of accuracy, especially in screening applications like sex offender treatment...
 
Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 9:31pm:


Throwing out barbs to point out illogic is one thing. It's another thing altogether to call someone a "d**k head" or accuse them of being a sex offender. That's just childish and I think it is a sign of intellectual weakness. Your first paragraph in this post was at least well reasoned and on point. In my opinion, the only dialogue worth engaging in is respectful discourse. We may have our differences in opinion but I'm not going to call you names just because I disagree with you...

So please stop with the name calling and ad hom; it distracts from the real issues we should be discussing...

digithead wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 8:04pm:


Kim English and her team were instrumental in developing the containment approach, WHICH, includes the polygraph.  CM's are ineffective to a trained polygraph examiner.  We all know there are some examiners out there that think they know all and are not properly trained.  Yeah the SO's may get past them by using CM's they get from you guys on this site.  Does that answer your question.  You too 1904.  The other day I said old 'untrained' examiners.   Not one of the examiners posting here has claimed 100% accuracy.

Talk about ad hom.... you guys (except EOS) throw out barbs regularly....   EOS is the type that can say FU to a person and they probably thank him for his advice and I have to say that GM is also pretty pleasant.   1904 things may be f-up where you are but we have EPPA in the US.  Grow up and stop trying to be a bullyboy...I mis-spelled a word BFD.  Should I write Pedophile 100 times so you know I know how to spell it.FU

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 7:15pm:


Thanks Eos, I almost missed this one...

Named me personally? Wow! And what exactly did this sex offender say that I said? That I think the containment method is useful except for its reliance on CQT polygraphy? That I think CQT polygraphy is pseudoscience? 

And to think, he actually named a person who posts under a anonymous pseudonym when he could have relied on the NAS, Lykken, Iacono, Furedy, Feinberg, Cross, Saxe, Seto, and other luminaries who have railed against CQT polygraph and its usage in real peer-reviewed research...

Somehow, it rings hollow...