PowerSwitch

We are in a bad place when the government resorts to pseudo-science.

Mandatory polygraph testing for sex offenders is set to be rolled out across England and Wales following a successful pilot scheme, ministers say.

The pilot scheme found offenders using lie detectors made twice as many admissions to probation staff, for example admitting to contacting a victim or entering an exclusion zone.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18916405

So people tell the truth more often when attached to a polygraph. Doh! That's not because the polygraph works but because people believe it works and are fearful of getting found out.

We are sliding down another slope.

It always works in American crime dramas!

My favourite is Robocop's built-in lie detector. When he questions a career politician about his involvement in some nefarious business the result always came out at exactly 50%

biffvernon wrote:We are in a bad place when the government resorts to pseudo-science.

Mandatory polygraph testing for sex offenders is set to be rolled out across England and Wales following a successful pilot scheme, ministers say.

The pilot scheme found offenders using lie detectors made twice as many admissions to probation staff, for example admitting to contacting a victim or entering an exclusion zone.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18916405

So people tell the truth more often when attached to a polygraph. Doh! That's not because the polygraph works but because people believe it works and are fearful of getting found out.

We are sliding down another slope.

Yes.

Quite understandably, no-one has any sympathy for sex offenders.

Which is precisely why the vanguard of the attack on civil liberties is with such people. In other words, as more draconian infringements on liberties are implemented at the margins, no-one is likely to complain.

Until they come knocking on your door of course.

At which point too late.

They use the same tactic when telling us they want to spy on our online activity. If you are against such state spying you are deemed to be pro sex-offender. Infuriating.

extractorfan wrote:They use the same tactic when telling us they want to spy on our online activity. If you are against such state spying you are deemed to be pro sex-offender. Infuriating.

Exactly.

This precisely mirrors the point I was making on the other thread about UK population increase.

No. I think you are right with regards to polygraphs but population is very different sort of case.

biffvernon wrote:No. I think you are right with regards to polygraphs but population is very different sort of case.

I was not referring directly to the larger issue of population, but to the more specific issue of UK immigration policy and the way in which dissent is suppressed. The method of suppressing dissent in both cases is identical. Namely, construct or identify an easily agreed demon (paedophile/racist). Then, label anyone who dissents as being associated with that demon.

It's one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Good analysis, Steve.

When there is a war brewing, of course, the target country's regime is always demonised (inc. the leadership) often to the point of cartoon. Anyone who objects to the war finds themselves painted as sympathising with, or appeasing, brutal torturing monsters etc.

Well that's me stuffed. Irregular heartbeat: Tick. Damp hands: Tick. Five hundred years ago it was lefthandedness and having a squint (Ticks). Isn't progress marvellous ?

A polygraph isn't used to establish from the readings that someone is lying.
A polygraph is an interrogation device designed to add pressure to the interviewee so that they are less able to lie convincingly.

Sometimes just seeing a polygraph can be enough to get people to confess.

The actual squiggly lines mean not a lot.

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:

A polygraph isn't used to establish from the readings that someone is lying.
A polygraph is an interrogation device designed to add pressure to the interviewee so that they are less able to lie convincingly.

Sometimes just seeing a polygraph can be enough to get people to confess.

The actual squiggly lines mean not a lot.

No

A polygraph is designed to assign a probability to whether someone is lying. It measures skin conductivity as the indirect index of lying given that skin conductivity is associated with the heightened emotional state that accompanies lying.

A single measurement doesn't tell you if someone is lying. It tells you if they are possibly lying. However, multiple measurements including a variety of neutral question to establish a baseline skin conductivity level for the individual concerned, can indeed assign a very high or low probability as to whether or not someone is lying.

Despite the fact that a polygraph cannot be relied upon as the sole indicator of someone lying, it is still a significant indicator and, as such, should not be merely regarded as a placebo.

See, even somebody as sensible as Steve, believes they (kind of) work. Once people believe they work then they will work. But not in the way they are supposed to work. It's all fruitloopery and policemen should not be allowed near them.

biffvernon wrote:See, even somebody as sensible as Steve, believes they (kind of) work. Once people believe they work then they will work. But not in the way they are supposed to work. It's all fruitloopery and policemen should not be allowed near them.

They do work but not as CSI etc. would have you believe. The problem is that they only just work. With a bit of knowledge and training just about anybody can defeat them. Basically when you want to appear honest think strongly about something you like or love, when you want to appear a fibber think of something you hate.

Went to the Cheltenham science fair a few years ago and saw the above with my own eyes

Steve
They do not work.
What they are SUPPOSED to do and what they are capable of doing are simply not the same.

There are apparently lots of people who have two separate electricity meters with two separate "suppliers"
This is supposed to reduce the risk of power cuts, it does not.

"Measuring" "something" and calling it detecting lies aint science any more than E-Meters detect Thetans.

If your interested, its fairly easy to learn how to make yourself believe a lie.
Want George Bush to have been at your last birthday party?

DominicJ wrote:Steve
They do not work.
What they are SUPPOSED to do and what they are capable of doing are simply not the same.

There are apparently lots of people who have two separate electricity meters with two separate "suppliers"
This is supposed to reduce the risk of power cuts, it does not.

"Measuring" "something" and calling it detecting lies aint science any more than E-Meters detect Thetans.

If your interested, its fairly easy to learn how to make yourself believe a lie.
Want George Bush to have been at your last birthday party?

I didn't say they were a perfect measure of the absolute fact of someone lying. I said that they can provide a significant probability assignment to whether or not some is lying and only then if they are used by a fully trained and experienced operative. I also said that they shouldn't be seen as the sole indicator of lying. Finally, I made it clear they they do not provide a direct measurement of lying, but instead provide an indirect index of lying by measuring skin conductivity.

They are what they are, no more or less. Can they be beaten? Yes. Can they be beaten easily? No. Can they be beaten by certain people with enough training? Yes. Can they be beaten by everyone with enough training? No. Are they used grossly inappropriately, both in a technical as well as an ethical sense? God, yes.

And I do know what I am talking about. I studied their use extensively as part of my degree.

I say all of the above in the context of being utterly opposed to their increased use.