What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
131 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2008, -3/+108Here comes thoughtcrime!
- Suits, on 10/13/2008, -2/+48I'm John McCain and I approve of this message.
- inactive, on 10/12/2008, -7/+48*****! This is NOT cool! This is NOT cool!
- thespanielator, on 10/12/2008, -3/+41War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength - Veriander, on 10/12/2008, -2/+36What if someone wrongly *believes* they have committed a crime?? I'm skeptical that this particular technology is foolproof, but it raises an interesting question: should people be required to testify against themselves via brain-scan? There rationale that one should not be put under duress or tortured to testify against oneself would not apply. So just as defendants today can be required to provide a DNA sample, should we require a defendant to submit to some form of foolproof 'mind reader' technology?
- Renork, on 10/12/2008, -1/+32As per my 300 level Forensic Psych class this past week. Science has yet to develop any method, including EEG, that has shown to be consistently more than 80% reliable in laboratory settings. Of course the guy who invented it is going to say it is 100% reliable, and the American Polygraph Association claims the polygraph is 99% reliable which is a horrible exaggeration considering how easy it is to manipulate the results. EEG is one of the more promising methods of detecting deception and may in the future be quite useful, but right now it is about as useful as Scientology's E-Meter
- TVarmy, on 10/13/2008, -2/+19Actually, that's my strategy if this becomes widespread. Develop enough odd fetishes that the police don't feel comfortable entering my head. That will allow me to become the greatest diamond thief ever.
- Myztry, on 10/13/2008, -1/+17Couple of problems.
How does it handle deja vu? That quirk where people recognize things they have never seen?
How does judgment by peers fit in. It's much easier to corrupt a program than a slew of independent jurors.
Introducing a single failure point is not a good idea. It would require the machine to be calibrated/certified/audited/interrogated for errors constantly. - col381, on 10/13/2008, -0/+15Actually that is exactly the problem with this type of technology and precisely why is should NEVER be admissible in court - the brain CAN AND DOES LIE, it does it all the time.
The brain lies whenever we see an optical illusion, or if someone is delusional, or has schizophrenia, or extreme paranoia, or any number of other circumstances.
Under no circumstances should this technology ever be relied on to determine whether someone is telling the truth. - cybrguy, on 10/13/2008, -1/+16Your brain cant lie, but the person interpreting your brain can.
- oldman, on 10/13/2008, -1/+12What, because this guy says the brain can't lie we're just supposed to believe it? What if the brain believes it it the truth? what if the subject is certifiably loony?
- ScottMcIntyre, on 10/12/2008, -2/+13An fascinating article about technology which detects and measures the brain's activity to assess whether someone is telling the truth. The implications for criminal trials are major as apparently the neuroscientist who developed it, claims it is 100% accurate. No more lying in court!
QFA:"It's technology Farwell says is fool proof. And unlike polygraphs, these can be admitted in court. He has even offered $100,000 to anyone who can fool the system, and so far nobody has." - DrTall, on 10/13/2008, -1/+10Or more likely, what if someone was an innocent bystander at a crime scene who would recognize everything? Of course they all say they didn't do it, but the brain scan will prove they were there.
- theskillwithin, on 10/13/2008, -1/+10Problem, people who murder can be mentally unstable.
problem#2 it leaves out why the police dont like it
problem#3 it detects brain recognition not truth, not lie, a little misleading, and very contextual.
Oh a bloody baseball bat, I have been worrying about that all night and have visualized it in every possible way subconsciously, I recognize it.
problem#4 Source Code Please
problem#5 hardware inspection please
problem#6 double check inspection by 3rd party
problem#7 why not EEG? they are already at hospitals around the country.
This should only be used to prove your innocence and not guilt.
IF THEY ELIMINATE ALL CRIME in the future, THAN ANYTHING THEY MAKE ILLEGAL ENSLAVES YOU. - renski13, on 10/13/2008, -3/+12Assuming this is technically foolproof I would debate its usefulness in certain cases. One scenario that comes to mind is if someone comes home to a murdered spouse. The police can't find any evidence to support an accusation of a third party so the husband become the main suspect. The police will show them the pictures and say he killed his wife. Won't his brain be having plenty of "ah ha" moments. I mean its his house and dead spouse. Just something to think about.
- Meocross, on 10/13/2008, -1/+9This has been tested on mythbusters, surprisingly one of them BYPASSED this system.
- GorfTron, on 10/13/2008, -0/+8Please come with us, sir.
- HikerShaq, on 10/12/2008, -0/+8so was it intentional to have the "testing subject" wearing red eyeliner? or is that just...accidental
don't get me wrong I am 100% opposed to brain fingerprinting but thats just frustrating - Bith8654, on 10/13/2008, -1/+9How about we only use them on politicians?
- TopherT, on 10/13/2008, -1/+8I'm much more interested in using this technology during presidential debates then on criminals. Just hook the ***** up to that when they're lying through their teeth.
- temujin2012, on 10/13/2008, -2/+9Psh.
And what happens if an innocent person has the "ah ha" moment the same as a guilty one? This still have the same flaws as the stuff we have now, if not being a bit more precise. - Myztry, on 10/13/2008, -1/+8You recognize a place. You have been there. But not at the time of the crime.
You recognize a dismembered pose. From it's striking similarity to an episode of CSI.
You win a million dollars at the Pokies, only to discover it's a fault in certified hardware.
No doubt the machine is nigh impossible to trick, but that does not by any means exclude false positives.
Even genuinely factual response can show apparent guilt in innocent people when deliberately put in the wrong context by lawyers trained to such means of deception.
I think too much faith is being put in the glossy brochure... By people trained to exaggerated faith in mere products. - fangor, on 10/13/2008, -1/+8Anyone who aids law enforcement in developing this technology should be hanged for crimes against humanity. Keep your ***** 'trodes away from my head!
- ZincSaucier, on 10/13/2008, -0/+7if you find someones brain print at the crime scene they are usually the crime VICTIM
- Niightwitch, on 10/13/2008, -0/+6We knew you were thinking that before you even spoke.
- TVarmy, on 10/13/2008, -1/+7What worries me is that juries will assume it's more accurate than it is, and ignore valid evidence showing the device was wrong.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 10/13/2008, -0/+6Yeah, who needs the 5th amendment?
We're already getting rid of the 1st, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th.
Just keep the 2nd so you don't stir up the crazies, and we'll figure out some way to spoil the 3rd amendment somehow. I'm sure there's some War on Terror excuse we can use.
Woo-Hoo! The full montey! - migshark, on 10/13/2008, -1/+7...the *****'re you on about?
- newbill123, on 10/13/2008, -0/+6"Wow! That looks just like the setting I imagined for the last Clive Barker horror short story I read!" == false positive.
"I wore my night vision goggles and did the deed in complete green and black darkness. I've clearly never seen these orange carpets and ochre walls in these pics they're showing me." == false negative.
This looks like a useless machine where the test administrator gets the power to decide guilt or innocence. - cfuse, on 10/13/2008, -2/+8How can this possibly be implemented without bias? This should be like a polygraph, ie. inadmissible as evidence.
- randumbusername, on 10/13/2008, -0/+6your brain may not lie but the interpretations do.
- Grym11, on 10/13/2008, -0/+6I don't care if you directly hook up electrodes to people's brains and use supercomputers from the distant future. Criminal lie detectors of any nature are NOT and WILL NOT ever be scientifically valid by virtue of the fact that it is not possible to ethically design a standardized experiment on the population of interest.
Volunteers at a research laboratory are different and non-representative of those suspected of a crime. They have nothing to hide. They are not trying to subvert the test. Fundamentally, they are thinking different thoughts than those suspected of a crime. Plus, the brain isn't a black box. If a person has advanced knowledge of what to expect and what the researcher is looking for, he can modify his thoughts accordingly. - potifar, on 10/13/2008, -1/+6I really, really don't hope they're going to start trusting this thing blindly.
- Slothapotamus, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5Why? Women have this instinct build in already. You think they do all that nagging for fun?
- matyrice08, on 10/13/2008, -1/+5brain "FINGER"printing? Consider my mind blown.
- kb29, on 10/13/2008, -2/+6*wraps head in tin foil*
- TVarmy, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4You know, they call 'em brain fingers, but I've never seen 'em brain fing...
- Metasquares, on 10/13/2008, -1/+5My group did this with fMRI not too long ago. EEG has better temporal resolution, so perhaps this may do somewhat better, but if the results are comparable, you have nothing to worry about.
- EserVerx, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4I'd like to know how I could take him up on that $100,000 challenge.
- apena89, on 10/13/2008, -2/+6as long as our political leaders are under the scope too, idgaf.
- annenk38, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4Noam Chomsky said that the best way to lie to people is to convince yourself that what you are saying is true, or that you are stretching the truth as a means to a better end. This is the very life of a "good" politician.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 10/13/2008, -1/+5I refuse to be afraid.
Fear is the death of freedom. - hate2digg, on 10/13/2008, -2/+6Good thing im too poor to afford a brain
- kholburn, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3Your new scanning overlords want you to believe this is infallible.
"And unlike polygraphs, these can be admitted in court."
"And unlike polygraphs, these have never been tested in court"
there fixed it. - moxley, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3Sounds like a real breakthrough...
*in repression and gestapo tactics
*and in making the prosecution of "thoughtcrime" even more of a reality than than it has already become in the past 7 years. - NewGTGuy, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4Let him know what you think: http://www.brainwavescience.com/contact-us.php
Personally, I think this is totally evil. What I think makes me a law breaker!?!?! - PopcornDave, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4They don't?
- lmf49, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3////shiver////
- zazzalicious, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3Interesting point...
Also, the perpetrator could post photos of the crime (non incriminating) on the web and then claim to have seen them there thus explaining his 'ahah' moment.
www.beatthebrainfingerprintingphotos.com - kyleandstan, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4Misleading, Misnomer, and just plain sad. This guy is such a media whore...Listen up folks: 1) there is no such thing as brain "fingerprinting", the device is just an EEG machine and measures anterior cingulate activity showing nothing more than recognition. 2) it can't distinguish between the criminal and anyone who recognizes the information...thus, you would all fail it if given the details of the 1st OJ trial. 3) It has been shown to be susceptible to "simple and effective countermeasures"...it's no better than any other measure of recognition. Old news and shame on him for beating a dead horse! I'll give him $500,000 if it can distinguish a person who committed a murder from a witness or any member of the police team that investigated the crime.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 133 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is