Jump to content

Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.

- - - - -

Computers might be able to spot liars

  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1    Karlis


  • Member
  • 8,614 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 10 March 2012 - 10:31 AM

www.activistpost.com said:

Researching ways to read the visual cues individuals display when they are lying. Posted Image Read more...
  Comment from the article:
In  reality, they are already being field tested by the DHS and perhaps  other federal agencies as well under the banner of “threat assessment”  and “malicious intent detection.”
While  it might be beneficial in some ways, I think that the risks are much  greater than the rewards, since the DHS seems to want to use this as a  kind of pre-crime technology.
They  seek to create a world where if a computer says you’re lying, you become  instantly criminalized, even if you are just darting your eyes around  or your skin temperature is raised because you are nervous. ...

This could result in wholly innocent  people being treated as potential criminals just because they’re  uncomfortable being questioned by police, ...

Is Big Brother closer than people think?

#2    questionmark


    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 34,038 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 10 March 2012 - 01:18 PM

Hmmm... and that add for "Privacy Crisis" on the same page did not make you suspicious?

There are many ways to tell a casual lie, from simple philosophical reasoning to eye movement. But if the liar is aware of them the whole nice machinery ceases to work. The most blatant example is that Israeli software that was capable of detecting lies in voice stress, they ran the test on Bill Clinton saying: I did not have sex with that woman and surprise, surprise, it showed that Clinton was saying the truth. Well, we know a little more about that now...

Data collecting leads to a lot of data trash, that is what will protect us from data collectors.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#3    FlyingAngel


    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,350 posts
  • Joined:29 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 March 2012 - 01:16 PM

Not reliable.

The polices could hijack the software and make anyone guilty from innocent.

#4    King Fluffs

King Fluffs

    The Resident Misanthrope

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

  • Shadows protect my angel in white...

Posted 12 March 2012 - 06:03 PM


#5    Junior Chubb

Junior Chubb


  • Member
  • 4,729 posts
  • Joined:28 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

  • I am Junior Chubb, son of the Chubb, father of Chubb III

Posted 12 March 2012 - 09:01 PM

Interesting but even if it was 99.99% accurate its not reliable enough, like lie detectors there will always be those that can fool the software.

#6    aquatus1


    Forum Divinity

  • 18,531 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 March 2012 - 11:08 PM

I would call it more reliable than people, but that is about it.  All the clauses that people have already mentioned still apply.

It does annoy me though, when people start using Hollywood concepts as foundations for real life paranoia.

#7    Oen Anderson

Oen Anderson

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montana

  • We are all individuals and we are all special in our own unique way which really makes us quite ordinary!

Posted 14 March 2012 - 05:59 AM

80% accuracy is a lie.  I challenge them to use it on me.  I'll bet it would say I was lying 100% of the time.

#8    redhen



  • Member
  • 2,749 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 14 March 2012 - 06:51 PM

There is no one facial or bodily expression that can be taken as evidence of deceit. However, when you get a cluster of these, well, if it walks like a duck ...

Here's an interesting TED video on liar spotting.


I guess, in this case, House is right, "everybody lies".

#9    redhen



  • Member
  • 2,749 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 14 March 2012 - 06:54 PM

View PostOen Anderson, on 14 March 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:

80% accuracy is a lie.  I challenge them to use it on me.  I'll bet it would say I was lying 100% of the time.

Challenge accepted! It is impossible to fake a genuine smile.


And that's the truth.

#10    KnockoutMouse


    Alien Embryo

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 54 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 March 2012 - 11:54 PM

A man can spot when a machine translates corrupted code.  I see only one reason the inverse shouldn't apply.  Second-order simulacra would prove problematic, to say the least.

It's a different story when you trade in secrets.  If anything should be so worth keeping, it needs must also be kept from you.

Veracity, for example.  It has nothing to do with honesty.  Your facial expressions cannot betray a certainty which escapes your grasp.

#11    UniqueWolf


    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 24 posts
  • Joined:27 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • If I offend you, I'm so sorry. I'm either just stating my opinion or just trying to make people laugh. I'm sure your awesome (:

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:18 PM

Oh shoot... Now I got to search for electronics before lying! (Joking)
Anyways that looks like it would glitch a lot.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users