posted 02-11-2009 04:57 PM            

I am proposing that out position is that it doesn't work and to license anyone to operate one in the state would be perceived as the state saying that VSA works if you use a licensed examiner. Our board only covers private examiner not law enforcement or government so the LE issue is moot. I think we should make the case that if they allow it to be used, the examiners of VSA will be testing police applicants and doing sex offender testing using this garbage. I want to propose that the board drop both the PSE and Polygraph License law term in favor of a "Detection of Deception Examiner" with the following definitions:

"No device or instrument may be used, nor any license issued, for the detection of deception through the recording and analysis of psycho-physiological data or measures unless said device and its underling theory or operation has been shown in peer reviewed published research acceptable to the Board, as capable of detecting deception at levels of validity well above chance probability.

Additionally, no person may conduct detection of deception tests using any instrument or device unless the testing procedures and the instrument or device utilized to conduct such testing procedures possess nationally published minimum standards for operator training; instrumentation, sensor and/or operating software; instrument calibration, ethical operation standards and minimum operator continuing education requirements. Published standards shall be by through a body, nationally recognized for publication of industry standards for forensic tests and examinations such as those maintained by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or another standards publishing body acceptable to the Board.

I think this wording would encompass polygraph, VSA FMRI and anything else that comes along and hold all "feet to the same fire".

posted 02-11-2009 05:26 PM            

I think you have covered it well. What would be helpful is to identify states that prohibit CVSA because of said lack of science. That may make the state stand back and think.

------------------
Ben

posted 02-11-2009 10:35 PM            

Maybe considre some language about a documented standardized and published decision model, with known and published rates/estimates of sensitivity to deception, specificity to trtuthfulness and INCs (from which error rates/estimates can also be calculated.

It's a lot, but it adds up to an accountable science.

R

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-11-2009 11:14 PM            

Accepting a single index technology will require substantial proof and substantial description of the normative distributions for truthful and deceptive persons. To put it simply, the calculation of probability values and error estimates for truth and deception, using a single physiological index, requires a documented description of the location and shape and dispertion (variance) of normative data. Because it is not possible to test or survey every member of the population, this normally requires numerous samples from which a distribution of sample distribution is constructed.

Two things: 1 there is no logistic or discriminate function describing PSE/VSA data disributions because they pretend to have found a single unique physiological indice for deception. 2 there is a sustantial absence of published descriptions of normative data for the single-index PSE/VSA models.

.02

Sorry for thumb typos on handheld.

R

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-12-2009 08:59 AM            

Ray: Your statement - "a documented standardized and published decision model, with known and published rates/estimates of sensitivity to deception, specificity to trtuthfulness and inconclusive results from which error rates/estimates can also be calculated." is good and could be included.

NITV, according to their website is in the process of developing an algorythm which is probably a bunch of hype and would appear to be impossible, considering the single param,eter and the fact it woesn't work at chance probability but they could try to use it to "wow" the board which is comprised of a bunch of lay people with no forensic/scientific background.

I'm afraid that what we offer must be no more than a couple of paragraphs to be accepted. Thier current wording in the board requirements are "two sentence" explanations such as:

"PSE examinations must be capable of measuring and recording voice reactions on a graph. This graph recording must be in a form suitable for examination by another PSE examiner. The instrument must be given maintenance, cleaning, adjustment periodically as recommended by the manufacturer."

posted 02-17-2009 07:52 PM            

One of the students in my class was from Korea. He works for the Korean military. They use the polygraph and are also doing research in brain imaging for truth verification. My classmate told me the head of his department had come to the United States and trained with the “Doctor” in the above video. He returned and used the system. Their findings were that it was no better then flipping a coin.

This reminds me of the cop that takes short cuts to complete an investigation. They often get by for a time, but it always comes back around. It usually occurs on a big case. The case falls apart and the bad guy walks. Then the administrators and the courts revamp our policies (which usually involves more hoops to jump through) to correct the problem officer’s inadequacies, instead of dealing with the officer from the start.

So as the new guy here, I’ll pose the question to the seasoned veterans; what can be done now before the government strokes laws to cover “lie detection”? Just like the cop taking short cuts, VSA is going to cause legal problems. Unfortunately, the government “fixes” problems with a broad brush.

[This message has been edited by apb739 (edited 02-17-2009).]

posted 02-19-2009 05:07 PM            

The APA has re-established an ad-hoc committee relating to the Alternative Detection of Deception. If states are faces with pending issues regarding voice stress, please let us know so we can try to help out. The APA can only help if we know that someone needs the help. We generally don;t hear about some type of pending issues until it is too late.

I am also looking for some volunteers like, Skip Webb, to serve on this committee so if you are interested, please contact me.

I would like to thank Skip for the work that he has already done regarding the pending issues in North Carolina and Virginia.

Thanks

posted 02-19-2009 05:22 PM            

"No device or instrument may be used, nor any license issued, for the detection of deception through the recording and analysis of psycho-physiological data or measures unless said device and its underling theory of operation has been shown in peer reviewed published research acceptable to the Board, as capable of detecting deception at levels of validity well above chance probability.

Additionally, no person may conduct detection of deception tests using any instrument or device unless the testing procedures and the instrument or device utilized to conduct such testing possesses nationally published minimum standards for operator training; instrumentation, sensor and/or operating software; instrument calibration, ethical operation standards and minimum operator continuing education requirements. Published standards shall be by a body, nationally recognized for publication of industry standards for forensic tests and examinations such as those maintained by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or another standards publishing body acceptable to the Board."

This approach did not look like a trade war or an attempt at restraint of trade. It was not perceived as restrictive to any other device or technique but effectively rules out the PSE/CVSA/VSA folks who can't rise to the definition.

We were successful in getting them to stop license issuance and they established a sub-committee on detection of deception to re-write the regulation. We will be working with them in that endeavor.

We are guardedly encouraged by our results. I will publish the remarks to the board at
http://voicestress.org/NC-remarks.htm

It will be available under that url but not listed on the web site.

[This message has been edited by skipwebb (edited 02-19-2009).]

posted 03-28-2009 02:42 PM            

HB 1613, SB1374

"Pursuant to Article V, Section 6, of the Constitution of Virginia, I veto House Bill 1613 and Senate Bill 1374, which would allow unlicensed law enforcement officers to operate new, unregulated lie detection devices.

"I proposed an amendment to HB 1613 that would have allowed additional devices, but regulate them in a way similar to the existing rules for polygraph machines. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated by the House.