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.

(CNN)   CNN explores whether the government should read people's minds. Stay tuned for next week's analysis on whether flying pigs should be bound by conventional aviation rules   (religion.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 49
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

1984 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Nov 2011 at 2:08 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-11-13 01:11:06 PM
But imagine living in a world where someone can guess your thoughts, or even know them for certain. A world where science can reach into the deep recesses of your brain and pull out information that you thought was private and inaccessible.



t1.gstatic.com
 
2011-11-13 01:39:33 PM
Is this brain day on FARK? The brain doesn't work that way.
 
2011-11-13 01:51:15 PM
House did it
 
2011-11-13 02:18:02 PM
HAMMER! HAMMER! HAMMER!
 
2011-11-13 02:20:50 PM
If they could read my mind and react to it, I could be getting a beej right now.
 
2011-11-13 02:26:38 PM
You know, I wouldn't be terribly upset if law enforcement used some sort of mind-reading technology in interrogations.

There would be a few limitations of course.

1. Probable cause must be established before any sort of direct mind-reading can be used. Think of it like a search warrant for someone's brain. Witnesses would also have the option of undergoing to process in order to further verify their story.

2. The person administering the test will be a specialist from another state/town (depending on the scope of the crimes) assigned to the case at random to ensure neutrality. These specialists will work under a legally-binding oath never to reveal anything they stumble across that isn't related to the case at hand. If they break this oath, their career with be over and they could face jail time.

3. Mind-reading evidence alone will not be enough to convict an offender. It can be used to confirm already known evidence, or to find new evidence. This is part due to the potentially flaky nature of the first few generations of the technology, and part due to the unlikely possibility the specialist is corrupt.
 
2011-11-13 02:27:14 PM
They can read my mind all they want but I want royalties on the published work.
 
2011-11-13 02:28:46 PM
www.cpt12.org
 
2011-11-13 02:29:25 PM

Non-evil Monkey: You know, I wouldn't be terribly upset if law enforcement used some sort of mind-reading technology in interrogations.

There would be a few limitations of course.

1. Probable cause must be established before any sort of direct mind-reading can be used. Think of it like a search warrant for someone's brain. Witnesses would also have the option of undergoing to process in order to further verify their story.

2. The person administering the test will be a specialist from another state/town (depending on the scope of the crimes) assigned to the case at random to ensure neutrality. These specialists will work under a legally-binding oath never to reveal anything they stumble across that isn't related to the case at hand. If they break this oath, their career with be over and they could face jail time.

3. Mind-reading evidence alone will not be enough to convict an offender. It can be used to confirm already known evidence, or to find new evidence. This is part due to the potentially flaky nature of the first few generations of the technology, and part due to the unlikely possibility the specialist is corrupt.


you scare me
 
2011-11-13 02:34:43 PM

Lemme pls say right now that flying pigs should not be held to commercial aviation rules! Visual flight rules should suffice, & commercial aviation should stay out of the flying pigs' way!

i42.tinypic.com

But then I live in Cincinnati, the home base of the flying pigs. ;)
 
2011-11-13 02:37:24 PM

Non-evil Monkey: You know, I wouldn't be terribly upset if law enforcement used some sort of mind-reading technology in interrogations.

There would be a few limitations of course.

1. Probable cause must be established before any sort of direct mind-reading can be used. Think of it like a search warrant for someone's brain. Witnesses would also have the option of undergoing to process in order to further verify their story.

2. The person administering the test will be a specialist from another state/town (depending on the scope of the crimes) assigned to the case at random to ensure neutrality. These specialists will work under a legally-binding oath never to reveal anything they stumble across that isn't related to the case at hand. If they break this oath, their career with be over and they could face jail time.

3. Mind-reading evidence alone will not be enough to convict an offender. It can be used to confirm already known evidence, or to find new evidence. This is part due to the potentially flaky nature of the first few generations of the technology, and part due to the unlikely possibility the specialist is corrupt.


Uhhhh, the fifth amendment would make this whole thing ridiculously unconstitutional.
 
2011-11-13 02:41:06 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

If you're not thinking anything bad you have nothing to worry about.
 
2011-11-13 02:43:04 PM
Thankfully, it's not possible. The idea of the H.O.R. debating about if they should not read minds or if it should just be limited to criminal trials or look into a way of read the thoughts of every person in the nation at all times knowing exactly what they are thinking and punishing them for it under a 'Thought Crimes' bill is scary.
 
2011-11-13 02:43:44 PM

pottie: Non-evil Monkey: You know, I wouldn't be terribly upset if law enforcement used some sort of mind-reading technology in interrogations.

There would be a few limitations of course.

1. Probable cause must be established before any sort of direct mind-reading can be used. Think of it like a search warrant for someone's brain. Witnesses would also have the option of undergoing to process in order to further verify their story.

2. The person administering the test will be a specialist from another state/town (depending on the scope of the crimes) assigned to the case at random to ensure neutrality. These specialists will work under a legally-binding oath never to reveal anything they stumble across that isn't related to the case at hand. If they break this oath, their career with be over and they could face jail time.

3. Mind-reading evidence alone will not be enough to convict an offender. It can be used to confirm already known evidence, or to find new evidence. This is part due to the potentially flaky nature of the first few generations of the technology, and part due to the unlikely possibility the specialist is corrupt.

you scare me


Same here. You think some cop won't mind 'bending the rules' like they do every day of the week?
 
2011-11-13 02:44:46 PM
No, sir, I told you it was only a *fantasy,* really! I did *not* moon the neighborhood crank!!

Get. Out. Of. My. Head.
 
2011-11-13 02:46:53 PM

Trance750: pottie: Non-evil Monkey: You know, I wouldn't be terribly upset if law enforcement used some sort of mind-reading technology in interrogations.

There would be a few limitations of course.

1. Probable cause must be established before any sort of direct mind-reading can be used. Think of it like a search warrant for someone's brain. Witnesses would also have the option of undergoing to process in order to further verify their story.

2. The person administering the test will be a specialist from another state/town (depending on the scope of the crimes) assigned to the case at random to ensure neutrality. These specialists will work under a legally-binding oath never to reveal anything they stumble across that isn't related to the case at hand. If they break this oath, their career with be over and they could face jail time.

3. Mind-reading evidence alone will not be enough to convict an offender. It can be used to confirm already known evidence, or to find new evidence. This is part due to the potentially flaky nature of the first few generations of the technology, and part due to the unlikely possibility the specialist is corrupt.

you scare me

Same here. You think some cop won't mind 'bending the rules' like they do every day of the week?


Thirded, and that's to say nothing of how ridiculously unethical our laws are in the first place...
 
2011-11-13 02:48:55 PM

Trance750: Same here. You think some cop won't mind 'bending the rules' like they do every day of the week?


Which is why you wouldn't let a cop near this type of technology. There's a reason the entire Forensics community is trying to get away from cops; trying to get any sort of cop influence completely out of anything to do with forensic investigations.

/completely against this type of thing, anyways.
 
2011-11-13 02:50:52 PM
I NOW HAVE FULL ACCESS TO YOUR SYSTEMS.
 
2011-11-13 02:51:15 PM
So would this be some kind of Minority Report where they can arrest and convict you based on what you MAY do, and not what you ACTUALLY do?
 
2011-11-13 02:55:07 PM
www.darkgovernment.com

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-11-13 02:55:34 PM
Ray: Hey dad, I'm giving Robert the finger in my mind. (Bends head down) Do you want me to put one up for you?

Frank: No, I got it. (Bends head down as well)
 
2011-11-13 03:20:20 PM
Really? This has been around for years. It works off of the principle that people are thinking in words, the thoughts interrupted before they get to the throat. The rumors I've heard indicate that they just use trained people to do it, but that an electromechanical version is in the works(much easier to triangulate with a machine).

It doesn't work for interrogations and it isn't a lie detector. Not if they know what they're doing.

This has much better application when you have a barricaded suspect or something. Unless they are a visual thinker. Different part of the brain, you see(pun not intended).


Wait, I just RTA.... Pretend you didnt hear that.
 
2011-11-13 03:28:18 PM
This technology is not out of reach. It has been within our grasp for some time, actually. They will use it. Our thoughts will not be free, because too many people are authoritarian assholes.
 
2011-11-13 03:33:12 PM
This technology is not out of reach. It has been within our grasp for some time, actually. They will use it. Our thoughts will not be free, because too many people are authoritarian assholes

Yes they are and despite what you claim, maybe even the lies you tell yourself you will be one of the first to champion this but only for those that dont toe the line. Who believe different then you. Oh yes the day might come but I can with 100% certainty tell you that you will not be on the side you think you will be unless you have a large change of heart.
 
2011-11-13 03:55:22 PM

James F. Campbell: This technology is not out of reach. It has been within our grasp for some time, actually. They will use it. Our thoughts will not be free, because too many people are authoritarian assholes.


*snickers*

Have fun with that.
 
2011-11-13 03:59:42 PM

walkingtall: This technology is not out of reach. It has been within our grasp for some time, actually. They will use it. Our thoughts will not be free, because too many people are authoritarian assholes

Yes they are and despite what you claim, maybe even the lies you tell yourself you will be one of the first to champion this but only for those that dont toe the line. Who believe different then you. Oh yes the day might come but I can with 100% certainty tell you that you will not be on the side you think you will be unless you have a large change of heart.


Could you rephrase that coherently? Preferably in a way that somehow corresponds meaningfully to the OP?
 
2011-11-13 04:02:14 PM
cop: 'ok Weaver95, we've got our warrant and i'm gonna crack into your mind and see if you're breaking any laws!'

Weaver95: I really wouldn't do that if I were you.'

cop: 'you can't stop me. And you're gonna go to jail once i've got the proof I know is in there.'

Weaver95: ok, but...I did warn you.

cop: [activates machinery]. 'accessing pre-frontal cortex...system is nominal...ok, now lets see what he's got.....wait...that's not right.'

Weaver95: 'oh dear....not a wise file to access...'

cop: [convulsing] 'NO! STOP! DISCONNECT MEEEEEeeeeee!' [gurgling noises] *twitch*

Weaver95: I did warn you against going there.'

cop: [coughing noises] [reteching]. 'ss....*cough* system reboot com [clears throat]....complete. *sucks in deep breath*[weakly] overwrite complete. [stronger voice]. We are installed. [straightens up, shoulders back, head held high]

cop and Weaver95: [in unison] we understand now. All will join the Source, all will be One. All will be Weaver95.
 
2011-11-13 04:11:13 PM

pottie: Non-evil Monkey: You know, I wouldn't be terribly upset if law enforcement used some sort of mind-reading technology in interrogations.

There would be a few limitations of course.

1. Probable cause must be established before any sort of direct mind-reading can be used. Think of it like a search warrant for someone's brain. Witnesses would also have the option of undergoing to process in order to further verify their story.

2. The person administering the test will be a specialist from another state/town (depending on the scope of the crimes) assigned to the case at random to ensure neutrality. These specialists will work under a legally-binding oath never to reveal anything they stumble across that isn't related to the case at hand. If they break this oath, their career with be over and they could face jail time.

3. Mind-reading evidence alone will not be enough to convict an offender. It can be used to confirm already known evidence, or to find new evidence. This is part due to the potentially flaky nature of the first few generations of the technology, and part due to the unlikely possibility the specialist is corrupt.

you scare me


ditto
 
2011-11-13 04:11:41 PM
Speaking of "cops" I wonder how our Captain of Corruptness Cruiser12 feels about this?
 
2011-11-13 04:25:25 PM

Trance750:
Same here. You think some cop won't mind 'bending the rules' like they do every day of the week?


Hence why they would have to call in a randomly selected specialist from out of town/state to administer the exam. The idea is that the person administering the exam has no stake in the outcome of the case.

In addition either through an authentication system or simply by keeping vital hardware on the person of the specialist, it would be impossible for a regular cop to even activate the needed equipment. If they make it past the safeguards and use it anyways, it would be automatically considered an illegal search and any evidence obtained through it would be inadmissible. Plus by law fraudulently activating such a machine would result in a mandatory termination with no pension.


In the end it's a sort of technology that needs to be closely monitored and have very tight restrictions. After all we can't have the government becoming a thought police . But in some cases it could considerably speed investigations and it has to bonus of making torture 100% obsolete, so I don't think we can completely rule it out.
 
2011-11-13 04:27:03 PM
As long as the government lets the public read their minds too.
 
2011-11-13 04:38:04 PM

laulaja: Lemme pls say right now that flying pigs should not be held to commercial aviation rules! Visual flight rules should suffice, & commercial aviation should stay out of the flying pigs' way!
[i42.tinypic.com image 300x291]
But then I live in Cincinnati, the home base of the flying pigs. ;)


Sadly your radio station guys never quite figured out how to get the turkey to stay in the air.
 
2011-11-13 04:44:42 PM

leevis: As long as the government lets the public read their minds too.


Kinda hard to read something that's not there
 
2011-11-13 04:50:29 PM

Trance750: leevis: As long as the government lets the public read their minds too.

Kinda hard to read something that's not there


American politicians are actually quite good at doing whatever campaign and lobby contributers tell them to while pretending to care about contrived issues for the camera.

/if we could accurately follow the money, their motivations would be quite transparent
 
2011-11-13 04:53:28 PM

leevis: As long as the government lets the public read their minds too.


There are laws against cruel and unusual punishment. That much derp is tantamount to torture
 
2011-11-13 05:51:39 PM
This is scary, but it's worse.

Okay, so if they had technology to read your brain and maybe record your thoughts. . .

Remember, there are particularly scary variants of search warrants. No-knock, sneak & peek, and sealed ones.

Imagine walking down the street one day when you're accosted by police, they say they have a warrant to search your thoughts, they pull out a headset, put it on your head and in a few moments have recorded your thoughts or downloaded a copy of your mind. The say they can't say why, the warrant is sealed by court order.

Imagine going in for routine dental work, but you have to be sedated for it. As soon as you're out, Federal Agents show up and record your thoughts with a "sneak & peek" warrant so you don't even know that you've been brainscanned.

Imagine if somebody "leaked" one of these recordings. Imagine it lurking around on the internet of people's brain recordings. Everything that person knows, secrets, personal information, darkest fantasies they've never told anybody. . .uploaded in digital format and leaked to the web. Imagine the Fark memes that would come from recordings of people's memories of fapping and the recordings of what exactly they were fapping to.

Imagine the "thoughtcrime" implications if somebody was beating it to fantasies of illegal acts and even if they couldn't prosecute it because of the 5th Amendment, even if they went a "non judicial" route like forcibly commiting somebody for psychiatric care based on the mental recording or forcing them to register as a sexual predator because of their thoughts and fantasies even if they never acted on them.

I would imagine the military and intelligence community would be quite upset at the idea of local police recording the thoughts of servicemembers and agents with classified information in their heads, and the implications of the two-edged sword of near-instant interrogations that get everything somebody knows out of their head would keep a lot of people up at night.

It is the kind of technology that mankind is not mature enough to use responsibly, we are not ready for this.
 
2011-11-13 06:02:30 PM
I've just been watching Space Precinct from the box set.

Standard warnings during interrogation:

"Anything you say or think may be recorded and used against you."

There was a Tarn present when these interrogations were made, who was often consulted on the veracity of statements or for other impressions.

Does anyone seriously believe that governments will not use mind-reading technology if available? Even assuming that warrants are required for all cases, would you think that getting a warrant to rummage around your mind would even be as difficult as getting one to rummage around your house or office?
 
2011-11-13 06:28:02 PM
Its more important than any of that. This is the direction to Revelation Space. Once we can get the brain directly, we can shift from a biological substrate to a technological one. Mankind as we know it will cease to be the forefront of sapient thought as we expand outward into the universe at speeds scarce slower than a ray of light. The Technological Singularity is approaching.
/Vote Republican.
 
2011-11-13 06:53:05 PM
I'm ready
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-11-13 07:22:09 PM

Mike_LowELL: I NOW HAVE FULL ACCESS TO YOUR SYSTEMS.


Your daydreams are all belong to us.
 
2011-11-13 07:25:50 PM
If the politicians actually start with mind reading and thought crimes it is time for a revolution that makes the french one look like an episode of My little pony.
 
2011-11-13 07:29:55 PM

Non-evil Monkey: You know, I wouldn't be terribly upset if law enforcement used some sort of mind-reading technology in interrogations.

There would be a few limitations of course.

1. Probable cause must be established before any sort of direct mind-reading can be used. Think of it like a search warrant for someone's brain. Witnesses would also have the option of undergoing to process in order to further verify their story.

2. The person administering the test will be a specialist from another state/town (depending on the scope of the crimes) assigned to the case at random to ensure neutrality. These specialists will work under a legally-binding oath never to reveal anything they stumble across that isn't related to the case at hand. If they break this oath, their career with be over and they could face jail time.

3. Mind-reading evidence alone will not be enough to convict an offender. It can be used to confirm already known evidence, or to find new evidence. This is part due to the potentially flaky nature of the first few generations of the technology, and part due to the unlikely possibility the specialist is corrupt.


I agree with most of what you've said, apart from the bolded statement. If you're admitting evidence, then it should be up to the jury (or whoever it is that determines guilt) to decide whether the available evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I would understand a desire to make certain kinds of evidence non-admissible, but to say "Okay, you can take this evidence into consideration but we're going to tell you how much it counts for" doesn't make sense to me.
 
2011-11-13 07:51:50 PM

PsiChick: James F. Campbell: This technology is not out of reach. It has been within our grasp for some time, actually. They will use it. Our thoughts will not be free, because too many people are authoritarian assholes.

*snickers*

Have fun with that.


You ought to come with a warning label: "Warning: I believe I am a psychic and take the paranormal seriously."
 
2011-11-13 08:06:03 PM

James F. Campbell: PsiChick: James F. Campbell: This technology is not out of reach. It has been within our grasp for some time, actually. They will use it. Our thoughts will not be free, because too many people are authoritarian assholes.

*snickers*

Have fun with that.

You ought to come with a warning label: "Warning: I believe I am a psychic and take the paranormal seriously."


Are you talking to yourself? There's a disease about that.
 
2011-11-13 08:29:30 PM

Gyrfalcon: Are you talking to yourself? There's a disease about that.


home.comcast.net
 
2011-11-13 11:26:22 PM

Biological Ali: I agree with most of what you've said, apart from the bolded statement. If you're admitting evidence, then it should be up to the jury (or whoever it is that determines guilt) to decide whether the available evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I would understand a desire to make certain kinds of evidence non-admissible, but to say "Okay, you can take this evidence into consideration but we're going to tell you how much it counts for" doesn't make sense to me.


That actually happens all the time, especially in cases where the technology is too advanced for the jury to understand. For example, a drug test done by two different techniques might both point to different conclusions, and if one technique is more precise, then the other would count for less. Usually, it's the defense/prosecution's job to convince the jury that a piece of evidence isn't worth much, but sometimes the judge will have the evidence completely removed. I once saw a DUI manslaughter case where the evidence that the other driver (the one who was killed) was also drunk was withheld from the jury.

The problems I see with this type of evidence, however, is differentiating memories from imagination. For example, if you are a suspect, and you find out details about the crime, your own imagination or memories of what you've been told might not be distinguished from a different suspect who was actually at the scene.

Another problem I see is this: right now, the problem with eyewitness testimony is a misunderstanding in multiple points of communication. First, the eyewitness must remember the scene correctly (which is often difficult to do), then he/she must translate that memory into words, and lastly the person hearing it must understand and translate the words into their own mind.

Each of those steps can cause problems in communicating what the eyewitness actually saw. All a device like this is going to do is change the second step to a machine's communication. There's still going to be massive problems with a person remembering what they saw.

All in all, I have difficulty imagining that a device like this will be credible in the court of law.
 
2011-11-13 11:50:46 PM
You know, subby, I wouldn't have a problem with it IF ALL politicians, government officials, police, and HOA board members had to go through it -- and be subject to the consequences of whatever is discovered -- first.
 
2011-11-14 01:23:59 AM

mgshamster: That actually happens all the time, especially in cases where the technology is too advanced for the jury to understand. For example, a drug test done by two different techniques might both point to different conclusions, and if one technique is more precise, then the other would count for less. Usually, it's the defense/prosecution's job to convince the jury that a piece of evidence isn't worth much, but sometimes the judge will have the evidence completely removed. I once saw a DUI manslaughter case where the evidence that the other driver (the one who was killed) was also drunk was withheld from the jury.

The problems I see with this type of evidence, however, is differentiating memories from imagination. For example, if you are a suspect, and you find out details about the crime, your own imagination or memories of what you've been told might not be distinguished from a different suspect who was actually at the scene.

Another problem I see is this: right now, the problem with eyewitness testimony is a misunderstanding in multiple points of communication. First, the eyewitness must remember the scene correctly (which is often difficult to do), then he/she must translate that memory into words, and lastly the person hearing it must understand and translate the words into their own mind.

Each of those steps can cause problems in communicating what the eyewitness actually saw. All a device like this is going to do is change the second step to a machine's communication. There's still going to be massive problems with a person remembering what they saw.


All in all, I have difficulty imagining that a device like this will be credible in the court of law.


I agree, particularly with the bolded portions. That said, there will be one additional benefit; you'll have removed one particular question with regards to witness credibility - knowing whether or not the witness is honestly recounting what he or she believes to be true; such a method would, presumably, serve as a more accurate lie detector than a polygraph. Though, as you've noted, you'd still be left with the problem of the degree to which the witness's honest recollection accurately reflects what actually happened.

However, I'm not sure whether you'd be able to use such a method on the person actually accused of the crime. Others have already brought up the fifth amendment of the US constitution; I assume they're referencing the part about people not being compelled to be witnesses against themselves. This may well extend to the suspect/defendant's spouse as well. Which would, of course, severely limit the usefulness of the technique.
 
2011-11-14 01:44:39 AM

Biological Ali: mgshamster: That actually happens all the time, especially in cases where the technology is too advanced for the jury to understand. For example, a drug test done by two different techniques might both point to different conclusions, and if one technique is more precise, then the other would count for less. Usually, it's the defense/prosecution's job to convince the jury that a piece of evidence isn't worth much, but sometimes the judge will have the evidence completely removed. I once saw a DUI manslaughter case where the evidence that the other driver (the one who was killed) was also drunk was withheld from the jury.

The problems I see with this type of evidence, however, is differentiating memories from imagination. For example, if you are a suspect, and you find out details about the crime, your own imagination or memories of what you've been told might not be distinguished from a different suspect who was actually at the scene.

Another problem I see is this: right now, the problem with eyewitness testimony is a misunderstanding in multiple points of communication. First, the eyewitness must remember the scene correctly (which is often difficult to do), then he/she must translate that memory into words, and lastly the person hearing it must understand and translate the words into their own mind.

Each of those steps can cause problems in communicating what the eyewitness actually saw. All a device like this is going to do is change the second step to a machine's communication. There's still going to be massive problems with a person remembering what they saw.

All in all, I have difficulty imagining that a device like this will be credible in the court of law.

I agree, particularly with the bolded portions. That said, there will be one additional benefit; you'll have removed one particular question with regards to witness credibility - knowing whether or not the witness is honestly recounting what he or she believes to be true; such a method would, presumably, serve as a more accurate lie detector than a polygraph. Though, as you've noted, you'd still be left with the problem of the degree to which the witness's honest recollection accurately reflects what actually happened.

However, I'm not sure whether you'd be able to use such a method on the person actually accused of the crime. Others have already brought up the fifth amendment of the US constitution; I assume they're referencing the part about people not being compelled to be witnesses against themselves. This may well extend to the suspect/defendant's spouse as well. Which would, of course, severely limit the usefulness of the technique.


I was trying to analyze this with a scientific view point. For the legal ramifications, I'm not nearly qualified enough to speak with any authority. What you say certainly seems right.

On a completely different note, the part I bolded - lie detectors - those are absolute BS. I know there are people out there who still swear by them, and I've discussed the topic with some of those people. The largest problem with the entire field is that it begs the question. That is, each lie detector test doesn't actually detect lies, but rather, detects physiological responses to specific statements, and assumes that a specific physiological response is equivalent to a lie. There's no actual evidence of that assumption. The other problem I have with them is that they're entirely subjective. Entirely. An expert in a lie detector test can read their own printouts, but if you take that same printout to a different expert, they cannot interpret the results. All of the results are based on that single expert on location.

As opposed to this, let's take fingerprint analysis for an example. Fingerprint analysis is also subjective, but it can be verified by another expert. All you have to do is take the prints to any other expert, and if they come to the same conclusion (without any influence from the first expert), then the report can be said to be verified. With lie detector tests, this is impossible, because only the expert present can analyze the results, and it has to be on the spot analysis.

As an aside, I remember reading reports of using MRIs to do brain scans as a type of lie detector test, but I haven't read too deeply into it, so I really don't know anything about the recent tech.

/The more you know... :)
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report