Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Type the third word in this sentence: 'The quick brown fox jumps.' (answer in lowercase):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Marty
 - Nov 09, 2003, 02:35 AM
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Nov 08, 2003, 04:53 AMMarty,

A working lie detector would raise a host of ethical and civic questions regarding the scope of its application, as well as the extent to which it should be relied upon (as opposed to other evidence).

Aside from providing the mechanisms for a true "big brother" state,  a lie detector that worked would be friend of the innocent and enemy of the guilty. It would substantially cut the cost of policing and judicial processes.

Right now we occasionally imprison the innocent and release the guilty. A working lie detector would eliminate these miscarriages.

Of course it would then be possible to enforce activities that currently have low probablility of detection (illegal gambling, etc). And off we would go into a brave new world.

It would be interesting.....

-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Nov 08, 2003, 04:53 AM
Marty,

A working lie detector would raise a host of ethical and civic questions regarding the scope of its application, as well as the extent to which it should be relied upon (as opposed to other evidence).
Posted by Marty
 - Nov 06, 2003, 02:41 PM
Isn't this odd?
Quote
If a device such as Chance's were to become the standard, a range of ethical and legal questions would pop up over how it should be used.

For now, government examiners continue to rely on the old device.

I'm confused. How would an actual working lie detector raise ethical questions as opposed to using the current, unreliable lie detector?

-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Nov 06, 2003, 05:34 AM
As Saul Bellow observed, "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

To "intelligence," Bellow might have added "taxpayer dollars." Various agencies of the U.S. Government perceive a need to maintain the illusion that they can detect deception (in effect, a form of mind-reading). The polygraph is increasingly ineffective as more and more people discover that it is a fraud. Hence, the need for a new "lie detector." For those of us concerned about polygraph policy, I think it is important that we be vigilant against a new fraud being foisted upon us.

That said, I think that research into the physiology of the brain is a worthwhile endeavor. But, to paraphrase Dr. Drew Richardson, having the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute in charge of such research is like having a research institute connected with the tobacco industry in charge of cancer research -- a concern echoed by the National Academy of Sciences at page 230 of its report, The Polygraph and Lie Detection.
Posted by Human Subject
 - Nov 05, 2003, 08:06 PM
Terrorism lends urgency to hunt for better lie detector

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2003-11-04-lie-detect-tech_x.htm

Question is, why do we need it?  As we all know, the tech we have now works perfectly well.  Just a waste of time and resources.