This is pure
Philip K. Dick: in June a judge in India found a woman guilty of murdering her former fiancé and sentenced her to life in prison. The smoking gun? Test results obtained using the Brain Electrical Oscillations Signature test (BEOS) developed by Indian neuroscientist Champadi Raman Mukundan. The BEOS software uses an EEG to determine whether the subject is recalling specific details of a crime as they are being read aloud. BEOS "works" because as the crime's details are recited to a subject, their brain lights up in specific regions -- the areas that (in theory) show measurable changes when experiences are relived. According to Mukundan, the system can distinguish between peoples' memories of events they witnessed and deeds they committed. Gee, now that we have the technology to read criminal's
minds and predict crimes we'll be expecting a crime-free society any minute now.
Update: The headline error in the post has been fixed -- thanks commenters!
[Via
Slashdot]
posted September 15th 2008 9:34PM
Sounds like the truth detector in HB Pipers Fuzzy books, the only way NOT to tell a lie in court is just to plead the fifth, though I am not sure if the 5th was allowed in the book
This new BEOS better be backwards compatible with the old BeOS!
While I disagree with the use of this technology in a criminal trial,
the general principles behind it, as far as I am aware, are
scientifically valid.
See:
Farwell, L. A. (1993) Brain MERMERs: Detection of FBI Agents and
Crime-Relevant Information with the Farwell MERA System. Proceedings
of the International Security Systems Symposium, Washington, D.C.
Farwell, L. A. and Smith, S. S. (2001). Using Brain MERMER Testing to
Detect Concealed Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal Journal of
Forensic Sciences 46,1:1-9
Also you can search on Wikipedia for 'P300.'
Correction: This is pure Alfred Bester
ever read The Demolished Man?
Question: Do I have to remove my tin foil hat before the scan?
Was it murder or self defense?
If I only recite the details of the actions done by one person to another, then of course the memories would be activated, but does it also include the points where no memory was activated?
This would require massively substantiated evidence, and psychological analysis, before referring to this technique, for all we know she could be very susceptible to suggestion, and the wording used in questioning would activate memories from dreams, and not reality.
There is really no way to know what someone is actually thinking, unless they want to tell you.
For an example, try to think about a certain object for a long period of time, how long does it take before your brain starts to wander, how long before you are describing that object in your thoughts, by referring to other memories, it's not easy because our thoughts are not linear.
VERY SCARY - NEVER let this type of thing be introduced in your own country.. it will be instantly abused..
Use it on OJ!!!
Very scary. There is a difference between fantasizing a criminal deed than to commit one. Such a system will take issue on differentiating the two. Such a system can find us all quilty.
It says more about the value of women in India than about this new technology used to convict one...
This is very sad and somewhat scary. While I live in the UK and think it is unlikely it would come here, similar ideas are floated in the US. Specifically using MRI technology, which is currently equally inappropriate (I'm a neuroimager). @ Reneer, just because there are some journal articles, does not in any way mean that the general ideas are sound. There are many crazy journal articles (look for the one reporting an association between the use of high-heeled shoes and schizophrenia.
As has been said: do not let this come to your country. Do just about anything to stop it. And give some money to Amnesty International to help the stop this kind of bullshit in countries that don't know better.
Again @ Reener, Just to add:
'Using Brain MERMER Testing to Detect Concealed Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal' comes from the Journal of Forsensic Sciences which has an impact factor of about 1. Not very impressive (although does not necessarily mean the article is bad). Add to this: n=6 subjects. Add to this, the fact that the author is chairman and chief scientist at a company selling such techniques. Now let us add this: Dr Quackwell 'discovered that the P300 was one aspect of a larger brain-wave response that he named and patented'. He has patented a brain wave response!
Oh and there is more: 'Dr. Farwell conducted a Brain Fingerprinting test on Terry Harrington, who is serving a life sentence in Iowa for a 1977 murder. The test showed that the record stored in Harrington's brain did not match the crime scene and did match the alibi.' The RECORD STORED IN HARRINGTONS brain!! Has someone possibly missed the last few decades of memory research.
'The article concludes with a discussion of areas of future research and the potential for using this new technology as an investigative tool in criminal cases.' This is exactly what such methods could POSSIBLY be useful for. As long as it's a tool of investigation and not a tool of lawyers, we might be safe.
Never quote scientific sources before you've had time to read and critique them (I say despite only reading the abstract)!