Being able to act calm and collected when telling a whopper of a lie may not be enough to get
defendants off in the near future, if a number of entrepreneurs have their way. Several developers are now exploring
the use of brain scans using MRI machines as lie detectors. And unlike polygraphs, which rely on emotional indicators
that can be masked, the MRI hones in on the source of the lie, in the brain itself. The machine can track the flow of
blood into certain areas of the brain, indicating increased activity consistent with lying. One company, Cephos Corp.,
is being advised by former O.J. Simpson lawyer Robert Shapiro, who says, "I'd use it tomorrow in virtually every
criminal and civil case on my desk." So far, however, the reliability of the tests has yet to be proven, and they
haven't been used in any court proceeding. And bioethicists worry about the potential of the new technology to
"change ... our ability ... to invade what has been the last untouchable sanctuary, the contents of your own
mind," in the words of Hank Greely of the Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences. That's okay with us; we've
got nothing to hide. But, just the same, let's test the machines on someone else's head, first. Okay?
[Via
Slashdot]
posted Jan 30th 2006 12:11PM
hmmm, does this mean no Judge Dredd in the future!?
I was looking forward to see cops yelling "I'm the LAW"
on the streets... I guess not.
Now, it's not a matter of whether or not you committed a crime, but whether or not someone can interpret an individual brain synapse, of which the average brain sends several million a second.
The cops can't even keep evidence straight around here, DNA is a million years in the future, and now they want to probe deep into my cranium to see whether or not what I have to say is worth half a cent. If they can't find any other evidence to prove a suspect guilty, then what they find with this is meaningless.
This should only be tested on politicians until they get all the kinks worked out. Definitely a lesson in abnormal psycology there.
Oh well jesus, a scumbag lawyer who's got a bit of an ambulance chaser (I think the only reason he doesnt is because he doesnt HAVE to at this point) vibe says its great, so, that's good enough for me.
I mean, one of the progenitors of "the glove debacle" couldn't possibly have no clue what he's talking about in regards to advanced biosciences...could he?
Hey, maybe Shapiro can have them test it out on Orenthal.
Didn't I see this same type of technology in an episode of "Alias" once?
The greater ethics issues aside, don't MRI's require the patient to lie perfectly still while undergoing the procedure? Could you cause imperfect results just by fidgeting a little?
Now is the time to bust out the foil hats.
So while answering any question I play a little song in my head and the activity monitor goes absolutely nuts. Good luck finding a non active pattern when someone does that
Personally, I would love to see lie detectors used in court. Let's keep the improvements in lie detector technology coming. I trust just about any lie detector more than I trust 12 random people to make a decision about whether or not someone is guilty.
#5: Yes you need a cooperative subject in the scanner who does not move. If you're innocent, why would you squirm around and try to hide something right? :)
This has the potential to nicely complement current lie detecting systems (polygraphs). My fears are twofold: 1) is having this technology allowed in courts as evidence, while polygraphs are not. Both technologies have a less then 100% hit rate, so it irks me that we'd rely on them in a court case. 2) having the feds get their hands on this technology for suspected terrorists. God forbid they start throwing people in the brig based solely on imperfect brain data.
Yeh, i agree something of this sort should be used in legal situations, but on if the suspect/witness is willing, they'll have to be to get proper results.
The problem is however, that atm, each scan costs around £500-700 per scan, not cheap.
This is actually really old. I saw a special on PBS about this over a year ago.
This reminds me of "The Truth Machine" by James Halpern, a sci-fi book written in 1991 that described how developing the perfect lie detector would change society. Clunky prose, but interesting idea now coming true.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345412885/102-8889392-5216114
This technology surely wont be employed on a general level of court cases. It would be reserved for the rich or government related.
MRI machines arent a dime a dozen, and I would bet that the average defense team is not going to pony up the cash to get a MRI unless the staple of a large case.
so, trials stop being about a quest to find out what actually happened and turn into experts dueling about the accuracy of the brain machine? even if you had a hypothetical machine that was 100% accurate, it is only as good as its operators. and anyone who thinks scientific testing is "objective" should google up some of the crime lab scandals that have come to light in the last few years in the US. the same thing would happen with the lie detector.
I saw this on TV in Japan a few months back. They tested it with a guest, it was quite effective.
"change ... our ability ... to invade what has been the last untouchable sanctuary, the contents of your own mind,"
So, basically he's saying "those who can lie should be able to get away with it, because those are some impressive skills." Ridiculous. These machines should be limited to murder, rape, theft, embezzlements, etc. I wouldn't suggest this for divorces or whatnot, then it might get nasty. Don't let Judge Judy get her hands on one of these, that's for sure.
The results of that kind of lie detector would probably be as interpretative as the results of a regular polygraphic test. You can cause various kind of interference to the results just by thinking stuff, remembering, concentrating on a itch and other kind of mental activity. And of course even with 100% acc. this doesn't still say that something is actually true or false but rather than the person sees it that way. Which brings up that you can probably fool the machine if you can make yourself believe in something...
I think that there is no way it could be 100 % effective. If you thought up a lie beforehand and ran it through your mind until it seemed like a memory, I don't see how this would be distinguishable from an actual memory.
Remember George Costanza from Seinfeld, "It's not a lie if you believe it."
You stole my line Tim.