Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Computers might be able to spot liars


Recommended Posts

Researching ways to read the visual cues individuals display when they are lying. arrow3.gifRead 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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 10
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • aquatus1


  • redhen


  • Oen Anderson


  • KnockoutMouse


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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Oh shoot... Now I got to search for electronics before lying! (Joking)

Anyways that looks like it would glitch a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.