
An Ex-Cop's War on Lie Detectors - new1234567
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-doug-williams-war-on-lie-detector/
======
JamesBarney
The most despicable use of lie detectors I've ever seen was on the Dr. Phil
show. Dr. Phil asked a man who cheated on his wife whether he diddled his kids
while he was hooked up to a lie detector. He answered no but obviously a
question that is as emotionally charged at that will appear as a lie. This
man's relationship with his family, friends and probably any future work
relationships were all ruined by a stupid magic trick. The man turned to Dr.
Phil and the the former FBI agent who administered the polygraph and start
pleading and begging for any reason why the lie detector would give a false
positive. Dr. Phil and the former FBI agent were smart enough to know why it
wasn't working but they continued be evasive as the man's past and future
relationships with his children, family, friend, and coworkers went up in
flames.

~~~
omginternets
I hate to say it, but that's what you get for seeking help from a TV
psychologist.

You're insane if you think a TV show is there to help you.

~~~
irishcoffee
Victim-blaming is cool, sometimes? Just not when its a PC issue.

What the actual fuck?

~~~
Karunamon
If by "victim blaming", you mean "criticizing someone for taking a stupid
action that a reasonable person could assume would end badly".

~~~
irishcoffee
> "criticizing someone for taking a stupid action that a reasonable person
> could assume would end badly".

Its her fault she got raped, she wore a SHORT SKIRT.

Edit: fuck you.

~~~
omginternets
People like you never seem to distinguish between (a) pointing out what is
unreasonable/imprudent, and (b) claiming that a given misfortune was deserved.

It would be comical if you weren't so unpleasant and rude.

~~~
irishcoffee
"distinguish"

The subjectivity of this word amuses me to no end. I can distinguish whatever
I want whenever I want, as long as facebook and twitter agree with me.

~~~
omginternets
So let me make sure I have this straight...

You don't believe there's a distinction to be made between "that was a bad
idea with predictable consequences" and "he/she deserved [insert misfortune
here]"?

~~~
irishcoffee
I'm saying that the line that separates <"that was a bad idea with predictable
consequences"> and <"he/she deserved [insert misfortune here]"> moves whenever
the internet twitter/facebook mob decides it does. The distinction is mob
mentality. Hence my amusement.

------
sandworm101
It seems to me that the intelligence communicate uses lie detectors less as
tests for nefarious activities and more as personality tests.

Let's assume that lie detectors actually work. To "pass" such a test you have
to be reasonably certain about your answers. Have you ever passed information
to the enemy: Yes/No? Is everything in your application truthful? Only some
people can be completely secure about there answers. The more knowledge and
experience a person has in an area, the more the likelihood that they cannot
give that yes/no answer. So what they get is a bunch of young, mostly male,
kids who are not the type to self examine. They are sure that they are
correct, that they have done no wrong. That infeed might explain much of the
direction that the community has taken in recent years.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Or perhaps they're just selecting people who are good at lying.

------
rl3
Since fMRIs are likely the future for this type of thing, this is probably the
most disturbing job posting I've ever seen:

[http://www.acfei.com/forensic_services/jobsearch/job-236170....](http://www.acfei.com/forensic_services/jobsearch/job-236170.xhtml)

-

 _Title: PhD COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGISTS

Date Posted: 05/03/2012 [...]

[...] seeking contract physiologists to provide technical expertise in central
nervous system (CNS) studies related to credibility assessment. [...]

Candidates will provide expertise in the use of CNS technologies such as
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), [...]

A Top Secret security clearance is highly desirable. Candidates without a
security clearance who possess superior qualifications may be processed for
the required USG security clearance before commencing work._

~~~
dewarrn1
There are already commercial operations using (or claiming to use) fMRI for
lie detection [0]. I can understand the potential appeal of similar positions
for applicants — there's a scarcity of academic jobs for even highly skilled
cognitive neuroscience PhDs.

As I've posted elsewhere in these comments, the best available evidence
suggests that fMRI is no more useful than polygraph for lie detection.
Unfortunately, the power of brain images to induce credulity in otherwise
intelligent people is well-known [e.g., 1].

[0] [http://noliemri.com/](http://noliemri.com/)

[1]
[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-007-9003-3](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-007-9003-3)

~~~
rl3
I wouldn't be so quick to discount the technology's potential. While the
commercial operation you cited is probably dubious at best, and while it may
be true that the current state of the technology is as unreliable as you say
for the purposes of credibility assessment, I still believe the future of fMRI
research holds incredible potential.

Keep in mind that as far back as 2011, researchers succeeded in reconstructing
images from the visual cortex[0].

Moreover, the intelligence community has far more resources and motivation to
perfect such a technology. It's possible they may already have advanced well
beyond what's currently known today. If not, then they certainly will in the
future, provided the technology continues to hold its promise.

[0] [http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-
movies/](http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/)

~~~
dewarrn1
I wouldn't be in cognitive neuroscience if I thought our methods held no
promise, but there's a vast gap between reconstructing images from visual
cortex responses and accurately determining whether a person is lying. Farah
et al. [0] recently summarized the best available evidence and concluded as
follows (emphasis mine):

"... different policies should be considered for different applications of
fMRI-based lie detection. We do not join calls to ban fMRI-based lie detection
across the board. Despite the _enormous shortcomings of the current evidence_
... we suggest that restrictions should be proportional to the outcomes and
principles at stake. Risk reduction in dating calls for different standards of
certainty and different protections of individual rights than the
interrogation of terrorist suspects."

[0]
[http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v15/n2/abs/nrn3665.html](http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v15/n2/abs/nrn3665.html)

~~~
rl3
My apologies, I didn't check your profile prior to replying and thus was
unaware this was actually your field. Good to know. :)

On that note, aside from your assessment almost certainly being far more
accurate than my own, I would say yours is largely more desirable from a
societal point of view. Even if the technology advances at a most glacial
pace, society may still not be properly prepared for the implications upon its
arrival. The slower the better, perhaps.

------
e40
If it is true that it's no better than a coin flip, shame on everyone for
using it.

And, the idea that a good citizen with a conscience will give a "bad" response
easier than a hardened criminal certainly rings true.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Its not used for diagnostics, its used as an interrogation tool. The idea is
that you grill someone much easier if they're connected to a strange machine
that can seemingly read their thoughts. Decent article about this from 2000
here:

[http://www.salon.com/2000/03/02/polygraph/](http://www.salon.com/2000/03/02/polygraph/)

Polygraphs don’t have to work to be a deterrent. People just have to believe
that they work and can reveal whether they have committed crimes. The DOE
doesn’t have to believe they work, either.

More important, polygraphs are an immensely effective interrogation tool; they
need not detect lies. Lykken tells an anecdote of two cops interrogating a
suspect at a time when copy machines were not familiar objects. Lacking a lie
detector, the cops put a piece of paper in the copier that said “He’s lying!”
They made the suspect place his hand on the strange machine while they asked
him questions. When they didn’t like his answers, they’d hit a button on the
machine. It would groan, whir, stink and shoot out a piece of paper that read
“He’s lying!” Realizing that denial was useless, he confessed.

“If I was in the police business I would use [the] polygraph,” says Lykken.
“It’s a powerful inducer of confessions, and you don’t have to hit ’em with
any clubs. I can’t blame the police for using it; I only blame them for
believing it.”

A 1983 report from the Office of Technology Assessment says, “It appears that
the NSA [National Security Agency] (and possibly CIA) use the polygraph not to
determine deception or truthfulness per se, but as a technique of
interrogation to encourage admissions.”

edit: I am not advocating for this. Personally, I think they should be illegal
to use.

~~~
jessaustin
We've been led to believe that NSA/CIA hire _smart_ people. Smart people
probably know things that were common knowledge in _1983_ , so what is the use
of a polygraph administered to NSA/CIA staff thirty years later?

------
song
I really dislike entrapment based sting operations. The way they trapped him
with those two undercover agents and use that to show that he would have aided
a criminal stinks... It's not the actions of a just judicial system.

~~~
mikeash
Entrapment is when you're coerced into committing a crime you otherwise
wouldn't have committed. For example, if the police show up and say that
they're going to arrest your relative unless you rob a certain store, then you
rob the store and they arrest you for robbery, that would be entrapment. If
they merely pose as a person interested in your criminal activity and get you
to commit a crime, which you were happy to commit anyway, that's not
entrapment.

The problem here isn't the sting operation, it's that it's a crime to help
someone defeat a polygraph in the first place.

~~~
barking
>Entrapment is when you're coerced into committing a crime you otherwise
wouldn't have commit.

Coerced is the wrong word, induced is the correct one, and that's what
happened here.

~~~
mikeash
I'm not sure I see the difference. I also don't see how it applies here.
"Otherwise wouldn't have committed" is key. The guy did this stuff routinely,
even advertised it. This isn't a crime he otherwise wouldn't have committed.
It just shouldn't be illegal at all.

~~~
DugFin
"Coercion" is specifically the use of threats. "Inducement" is a broader
category that includes other methods like begging, badgering, and wheedling.

~~~
mikeash
So offering someone a million dollars to commit a crime would qualify as
inducement, but not coercion? Makes sense.

------
failbuffer
Wilson reminds me somewhat of right-to-die advocate Dr. Kevorkian, in that the
passion of his advocacy eventually led him to cross some bright red lines.
Kevorkian assisted several chronically-ill patients with their suicides, and
juries repeatedly let him off the hook because of the patients' videotaped
testimonials expressing their suffering and desire to control how they died.
Eventually, though, Jack took it to far and injected a patient himself
(instead of waiting for them to push the button), and got sent to prison at
age 70.

Maybe the lines weren't quite so bright red with Williams, but that pushing
and pushing to the point where you lose sight of the bigger picture seems
characteristic of many "solo" advocates (expanding the word "solo" to include
not just loners but maybe also founders of non-profits who don't give up the
leadership reigns, like Stallman at FSF).

By contrast, really great advocates can look beyond their cause and keep the
wider world in perspective. Nelson Mandela is a good example of this (since he
focused on uniting post-apartheid South Africa instead of seeking vengeance on
the White gentry like his wife and many others wanted to do).

------
JDeArte
Penn&Teller Bullshit episode on Polygraphs
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bScv6kfxRyE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bScv6kfxRyE)

------
mc32
Why don't agencies use fMRI instead of something as unreliable and
questionable and discredited as polygraphs?

I'm not sure you'd use fmri as widely as polygraphs are today, but maybe for
targeted investigation they'd be a useful tool?

There are claims of up to 90% accuracy[1] while not perfect, are better than
polys.

[1][http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-lie-
detector/](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-lie-detector/)

~~~
Balgair
Because they are no more or less useful. Here's a link to one of the best
headlines Wired ever ran:

[http://www.wired.com/2009/09/fmrisalmon/](http://www.wired.com/2009/09/fmrisalmon/)

Essentially, even a stinking dead fish will show positives in an fMRI. And
yes, these studies have really rocked the fMRI field and called into doubt
many experiments.

~~~
dewarrn1
fMRI as a method is not bankrupt or ill-founded. However, as the study you
linked shows, it is susceptible to statistical artifacts that must be
controlled to support rigorous conclusions.

~~~
JackFr
fMRI is not bankrupt or ill founded, but it shows what it shows, that is more
or less the geography of brain oxygen consumption.

The ill-founded and bankrupt part comes from all of weak and tenuous
interpretation that comes after that. fMRI can teach us much about brain
physiology, but when blood flow is linked to psychology we should exhibit
heightened skepticism.

------
glandium
_If you’re looking for something that only occurs one-tenth of 1 percent of
the time, running a test that’s 90 percent accurate doesn’t help you._

Also known as the false positive paradox.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_paradox)

------
arprocter
"a startup called Converus has developed an exam based on eye movement and
pupil dilation"

Philip K. Dick has the prior art

------
barking
They have no evidence the guy actually aided a criminal yet he's facing jail.

Is America the only first world country where such an extraordinary thing is
possible?

~~~
wil421
What do you mean? He knowingly helped two undercover agents lie who disclosed
crimes to him. One that supposedly smuggled drugs and another who touched a 14
year old. If he immediately severed contact when they confessed to these
crimes he would be free. If you are doing something in a gray area make sure
you dont make mistakes.

Here is the witness tampering law: "(c) Whoever corruptly—... (2) otherwise
obstructs, influences, or _impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do
so_ ,"[1]

[1][https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512)

I'm guessing a lie detector test is an Official Proceeding.

~~~
woof
"He knowingly helped two undercover agents lie who disclosed crimes to him."

What crimes?

~~~
wil421
Read the article. If you dont understand why then talk to a Lawyer or a Judge.

~~~
woof
Or you could just explain what you are talking about.

~~~
wil421
First Crime: "On Oct. 15, 2012, Williams got a call from a man named Javier
Domingo Castillo. He told Williams he was a Department of Homeland Security
inspector who’d helped a friend smuggle cocaine into the country."

He helped him beat a lie detector test knowing that he committed a crime. Now
I would assume being administering a lie detector test is a "preceding before
an executive department."

From wikipedia on witness tampering (this is what he was charged with): _"
Witness tampering is the act of attempting to alter or prevent the testimony
of witnesses within criminal or civil proceedings. Laws regarding witness
tampering also apply to proceedings before Congress, executive departments,
and administrative agencies."_

Police in the US are allowed to lie or use deception to get someone to get a
confession.

[http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/6909121-Case-law-
on-...](http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/6909121-Case-law-on-police-
deception/)

------
Sideloader
It seems they busted Williams based on the bogus stories provided by the DHS
guy and the deputy sheriff used to set him up. Both "admitted" they broke the
law and Williams, knowing this, continued to help them. Had he turned them
away could this have turned out differently I wonder?

Personally, I think polygraphs whether used as lie detectors or "personality
tests" should be illegal and have no place in a modern society except perhaps
in a museum.

------
tripzilch
I read that the data in the stolen OPM records also contains polygraph data.

I wonder that if, say the US would decide to retaliate and steal similar data
from China, they would find records with I-Ching readings? :-)

------
RA_Fisher
And soon it appears he'll be a political prisoner. :-(

