If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Computerized face-monitoring lie-detection camera sees what you did there   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 56
    More: Interesting, UK Border Agency, thermal imaging, immigration officers, security systems, lie detector, Bradford University  
•       •       •

4935 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Sep 2011 at 6:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-13 05:26:19 PM
this is so awesome
want to bring it on first dates

bwehahahahahahaha
 
2011-09-13 05:36:23 PM
I doubt that it would be admissible in court but then again, they've sent people to the chair based on testimony from so called experts who were proven not to know dick so you never know.
 
2011-09-13 05:53:19 PM
They're not lies if you believe them.
 
2011-09-13 05:54:49 PM

Mugato: I doubt that it would be admissible in court but then again, they've sent people to the chair based on testimony from so called experts who were proven not to know dick so you never know.


could you USE it at trial?
because that would be AWESOMENESS

even if you couldnt use the EVIDENCE that they are probably lying, you could certainly change your line of questioning as you went along.

/so officer, are you telling the truth or are you a lying sack of shiat?
/so officer, do you think it is ok to lie on the stand because you think he is guilty of something?
 
2011-09-13 06:02:06 PM
I wonder how it would do with people who've had a lot of botox.
 
2011-09-13 06:08:45 PM
news.bbcimg.co.uk

Did the guy in the illustration have to be shirtless?
 
2011-09-13 06:09:23 PM
Don't forget you need evidence to back it up...

img13.imageshack.us
 
2011-09-13 06:09:30 PM
I think we have a new Game Show on FOX. Coming summer 2012
 
2011-09-13 06:10:47 PM
Would having a lumberjack beard throw this thing off?
 
2011-09-13 06:11:09 PM
i've always wondered.... wouldn't taking some sort of mind altering substance prior to taking the test allow you to beat it? if i'm half in the bag, my blinking, head movements and blood flow are not going to match what the machine is looking for?
 
2011-09-13 06:12:30 PM
Isn't this less effective than the relatively lo-tech version that monitors your heart-rate, body temperature, and breathing, or whatever? I know those aren't that great, and I'm shocked they're even admissible in some courts. But aren't they even 72% accurate or something? I thought I heard there were going to be retinal scan ones that were like 98+% accurate. Whatever happened to those? I guess the main advantage to the video version is you can monitor someone's lying without them knowing, but that's pretty useless at 66% accuracy, unless it's mostly false negatives.
 
2011-09-13 06:17:14 PM
TFA claims the polygraph to be 90% accurate.

WTF?

I though that was debunked years ago!
 
2011-09-13 06:19:23 PM
DE-
t3.gstatic.com
FENSE!
 
2011-09-13 06:20:30 PM
Accurate 2/3rds of the time? That's really not all that much better than flipping a coin, assuming all the volunteers were telling the truth half the time...and they also didn't specify the percentage of false positives vs false negatives. So with that amount of information it can be slightly better than chance (if it was exactly a 50% chance of a statement being a lie) or really suck (if not). Hooray.
 
2011-09-13 06:23:36 PM

Rufus Lee King: [www.spookshows.com image 234x181]www.spookshows.com


Wow. I had that game when I was a kid. Totally forgot about it. Inherited from my mom and aunt.
 
2011-09-13 06:26:44 PM

Rezurok: Accurate 2/3rds of the time? That's really not all that much better than flipping a coin, assuming all the volunteers were telling the truth half the time...and they also didn't specify the percentage of false positives vs false negatives. So with that amount of information it can be slightly better than chance (if it was exactly a 50% chance of a statement being a lie) or really suck (if not). Hooray.


It knows that you're lying because science.
 
2011-09-13 06:26:53 PM
So it's still inaccurate 34% of the time? and it doesn't actually tell when a person is LYING, but only when they're displaying physical signs we typically associate with nervousness, unease, or discomfort?

I can beat that in court.
 
2011-09-13 06:29:25 PM
If you ask me if I killed Mr Smith, and I say no because I didn't, but I was fond of Mr Smith and am very emotional that he was killed (or I am scared shiatless that I may be blamed for the death) I am going to have many physical symptoms. Increased heartrate, blood rushing to the face, rapid breathing, blinking...

A sociopath, meanwhile, could lie like the livingroom rug and have few if any tells.

And a crazy person will believe the lies, and pass.
 
2011-09-13 06:30:03 PM
www.balloon-juice.com
 
2011-09-13 06:30:34 PM
 
2011-09-13 06:30:47 PM

jtown: Rufus Lee King: [www.spookshows.com image 234x181][www.spookshows.com image 234x181]

Wow. I had that game when I was a kid. Totally forgot about it. Inherited from my mom and aunt.


Batman borrowed mine and never returned it...goddam Batman!
 
2011-09-13 06:32:52 PM
images2.wikia.nocookie.net

Unimpressed

/hot
 
2011-09-13 06:34:41 PM

Not a liar:


www.chartstats.com
/Hahahaha, suckers...
 
2011-09-13 06:36:00 PM
Cal Lightman unavailable for comment.
 
2011-09-13 06:37:40 PM
www.imfdb.org

/not amused
 
2011-09-13 06:39:46 PM

namegoeshere: If you ask me if I killed Mr Smith, and I say no because I didn't, but I was fond of Mr Smith and am very emotional that he was killed (or I am scared shiatless that I may be blamed for the death) I am going to have many physical symptoms. Increased heartrate, blood rushing to the face, rapid breathing, blinking...

A sociopath, meanwhile, could lie like the livingroom rug and have few if any tells.

And a crazy person will believe the lies, and pass.


Therein lies the problem with polygraphs. The results have to be properly interpreted by someone that actually paid attention in class and can take possible false positives and negatives into account based on their interviews with the subject and additional documentation provided by experts in other areas.

Sitting down and taking a polygraph is a crapshoot otherwise.

I seriously doubt this technology is any different. Lots of room for both machine and human error.
 
2011-09-13 06:43:17 PM
www.damonchernavsky.com

I see what you did there.
 
2011-09-13 06:44:20 PM
danbrennan.org

Reminds me of my wife getting radiated.....

danbrennan.org
 
2011-09-13 06:44:26 PM
news.bbcimg.co.uk

sees four lights.
 
2011-09-13 06:48:17 PM
Is this testing whether I'm in contempt of court or a lesbian, Mr. Deckard?
 
2011-09-13 06:51:23 PM
It would be nice if teahadists had one for the gop debates
 
2011-09-13 06:51:34 PM
ICDedPpl
Reminds me of my wife getting radiated.....

Dude, that looks awful. Just looking at that makes my nose itch, and makes me claustrophobic.
 
2011-09-13 06:53:03 PM
Too bad it will explode if you say "I'm lying".
 
2011-09-13 06:53:09 PM

ProfessorOhki: [images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 160x160]

Unimpressed

/hot


Perceive is the best ability any attorney could have.

Meanwhile this software is good in concept-- after a ton of serious work it might be as useful as a magician's bracelet.

/but will never be as stylish
 
2011-09-13 06:55:53 PM

Rufus Lee King: [www.spookshows.com image 234x181]


You always show up with the oddest things.

I like odd.
 
2011-09-13 06:58:53 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: They're not lies if you believe them.


You're an architect, aren't you?
 
2011-09-13 07:01:48 PM
Still nowhere near as reliable as a Secret Service agent.
 
2011-09-13 07:03:33 PM
It will able to tell if something is wrong by reading the emotion behind it but not understand the actual reason for the emotion.

This could either be used by someone who understands facial kinetics and how to create emotions to move a case forward. Alternatively it could be used by police to abuse a weak subject if allowed.

The emotions described are rather limited in scope.

/I wonder if Paul Ekman is behind this or consulated on this?
 
2011-09-13 07:05:53 PM

ICDedPpl: [danbrennan.org image 304x405]

Reminds me of my wife getting radiated.....

[danbrennan.org image 640x480]


You took pictures of your wife getting radiated?
 
MrT
2011-09-13 07:06:20 PM
I love crappy tech journalism. This article is so full of fail I don't know where to begin.

So far, the team has only tested its lie detector on willing volunteers rather than in a real-life, high stakes situation. Later this year, though, they plan to deploy it in a UK airport, probably running alongside experienced immigration officers as they conduct security interviews. The algorithms can then be tested against the verdicts of these officers.

What the hell is the point of that? Either you start with the supposition that the "experienced immigration officers" are infallible, in which case the technology is pointless. Alternatively, if you think the officers are not completely accurate the test tells you practically nothing. So the machine gave a different result: was it the machine that's wrong or the immigration officer?

Professor Ugail, who believes he'll eventually be able to detect around 90% of those who are lying ...

I can give you a computer program that will detect 100% of people who are lying. The pseudocode is as follows:

function isLiar(person) returns boolean
    return True


I can guarantee that if the person is lying, this function will correctly return true. Of course, it has quite a high false positive rate, but why would the article need to report on such a trivial matter as false positive rate, when the true positive rate is all that matters?

... which is similar to the performance of the polygraph.

Wow, I think such a remarkable result as this needs a citation. You know, like the American Psychological Association which says that "Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies."
 
2011-09-13 07:06:50 PM
geekorner.files.wordpress.com
 
2011-09-13 07:17:54 PM
ggecko:

You took pictures of your wife getting radiated?


Not during, of course. This was just before her first treatment. Had to do this 30 times over 6 weeks.

On a good note, we just found out today that she she still cancer free. It's been 19 months since her surgery.
 
2011-09-13 07:19:59 PM
Can it tell I want to shag the woman running the camera?

Now I need a new appointment with my urologist.
 
2011-09-13 07:23:13 PM

MrT: Wow, I think such a remarkable result as this needs a citation. You know, like the American Psychological Association which says that "Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies."


um
are psychologists experts at polygraph tests?
or is "Most psychologists" just another 9 out of 10 dentists prefer free toothpaste ?
 
2011-09-13 07:26:26 PM
Why does it not surprise me that the Limey's came up with this?

/paranoid bunch
 
2011-09-13 07:32:40 PM
namatad, MrT: Wow, I think such a remarkable result as this needs a citation. You know, like the American Psychological Association which says that "Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies."
um
are psychologists experts at polygraph tests?
or is "Most psychologists" just another 9 out of 10 dentists prefer free toothpaste ?


I am thinking it is a question of approach, brute force or a nuanced careful approace.

And of course the LEO affiated agent administering the polygraph disagrees with the psychologist.

The facial recognition software in the article seems more focused to look for identifying people freaking out because they are keisting a condom full of coke at the airport vs LEO use of the lie detector.

\I would prefer Wonderwoman's magic lasso of truth to a polygraph any day.
 
2011-09-13 07:45:12 PM

DeRosso: [news.bbcimg.co.uk image 304x405]

Did the guy in the illustration have to be shirtless?


He's too sexy for his shirt, and that's the truth
 
2011-09-13 08:00:14 PM
Ain't afraid:

knowyourmeme.com
 
2011-09-13 08:04:34 PM
You look down and you see a tortoise. It's crawling towards you
 
2011-09-13 08:22:56 PM

Enemabag Jones: The facial recognition software in the article seems more focused to look for identifying people freaking out because they are keisting a condom full of coke at the airport vs LEO use of the lie detector.


I doubt it'd take long for those drug suppliers to figure out just the right combo of drugs to pump their mules full off to hide such symptoms. Easier than trying to outwit actual people even since you can just keep testing mixes against the actual system right in your third world hellhole (after the appropriate bribes to get a copy of the system).
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report