- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by EosJupiter
- Aug 01, 2010, 02:10 AMAll:
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-detector/
---- 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
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-detector/
---- 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
Posted by Paradiddle
- Oct 09, 2007, 10:30 PM
Posted by tbld
- Oct 09, 2007, 10:24 PMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 09, 2007, 10:17 PMThe Planet Boogereater 5.
Boogereater 5 ?? planet buck-o would have sufficed...... two words GROW UP
Posted by Paradiddle
- Oct 09, 2007, 10:17 PMThe Planet Boogereater 5.
Posted by Wonder_Woman
- Oct 09, 2007, 09:33 PMYo Jup, what planet are you really from? 
Posted by EosJupiter
- Oct 09, 2007, 07:39 PMNoNombre,
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 ....
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 ....
Posted by nonombre
- Oct 09, 2007, 07:20 PMEos,
Could you please send a copy of the CM trainer and the necessary key to:
4thetruth@swarmail.com
Thanks!
Nonombre... 8-)
Could you please send a copy of the CM trainer and the necessary key to:
4thetruth@swarmail.com
Thanks!
Nonombre... 8-)
Posted by Mysterymeat
- Oct 09, 2007, 01:31 PMEOS,
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
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
Posted by EosJupiter
- Oct 09, 2007, 01:23 PMParadiddle, MM,
Again we shall let the audience decide ....
Mind theatre ass kicking !!! Just another quality service I offer ....
Regards ....
Again we shall let the audience decide ....
Mind theatre ass kicking !!! Just another quality service I offer ....
Regards ....
Posted by Paradiddle
- Oct 09, 2007, 01:12 PMQuote from: EosJupiter on Oct 09, 2007, 12:21 PMTo 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 .....
huh? I think the only proof you have demonstrated is that you my friend need Haldol.
Posted by Mysterymeat
- Oct 09, 2007, 12:34 PMEOS
You have lost it my friend. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
Regards,
MM
You have lost it my friend. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
Regards,
MM
Posted by EosJupiter
- Oct 09, 2007, 12:21 PMTo 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 .....
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 .....
Posted by Ludovico
- Oct 04, 2007, 08:28 PMQuoteQ 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...
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.
Posted by digithead
- Oct 04, 2007, 07:54 PMQuote from: Ludovico on Oct 04, 2007, 07:40 PMDid 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.
'till then
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...
Posted by Ludovico
- Oct 04, 2007, 07:40 PMDid 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
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
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
QuoteAs 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...
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