
U.S. Judge Orders “Immediate Removal” of Website Critical of Voice Lie Detector - ap_org
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2019/05/19/federal-judge-orders-immediate-removal-of-website-critical-of-computer-voice-stress-analysis/
======
Someone1234
Title:

> U.S. Judge Orders “Immediate Removal” of Website Critical of Voice Lie
> Detector

It was a default judgement, the judge didn't "order" anything. If the other
side fails to answer the case at all ("Dektor has not timely responded to
either motion."[0]), the judge simply grants the claimant what they asked for.

You can apply to vacate a default judgement and get your day in court, but
that requires you to take part in proceedings. It should also be noted that
"Arthur Herring III" of Dektor has an interest history (just google it, I see
multiple unrelated news articles/lawsuits), and that both sides are selling
voice "lie detectors."

[0]
[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237...](https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237.95.0.pdf)

~~~
fludlight
Default judgements are not as simple as you disingenuously claim.

"Answering the case" = paying a lawyer at least a low five figure USD retainer
to write a ~20 page document, 15 of which is a template, and then show up in
court on your behalf.

No money, no justice, unless you successfully beg for probono work (ie: find a
lawyer willing to volunteer).

~~~
Someone1234
You didn't refute anything I posted, just posted an unrelated point while
calling my post "disingenuous" for no clear reason.

One of the sides didn't turn up at all, nor write a response, after having
been served. Lawsuits being expensive is a valid point, but it is an separate
point than what I posted about above.

~~~
fludlight
You didn't refute anything I said, either ;-)

The sad truth is that medium and large enterprises can use the crushing burden
of legal costs to impose their will upon the little guy. Said little guy has
to make a decision when they get sued: a.) get a second mortgage to pay the
lawyers; b.) grovel: "please sir, let me go, I'll stop saying mean things
about you, even if they are true"; or c.) pretend it doesn't exist. Default
judgements are generally people irrationally opting for option c.

This is just like an engineer saying "I could replicate this product in in a
weekend", knowing full well that it would take a team of 10 a year to do so at
a fully-loaded cost of a few million dollars.

IMHO this is a spat between two quacks (you devoted the last sentence of your
comment to this), one with slightly more money than the other (you failed to
mention this, and it's significance, which is why I brought it up). Guess
which quack will prevail.

~~~
Someone1234
> You didn't refute anything I said, either ;-)

I also didn't insult you, your post, or call it out. I actually said you made
a valid point, apples and oranges to what you did above.

~~~
fludlight
My whole point is that they are apples to apples. It is not possible, and dare
I repeat, disingenuous, to divorce legal outcomes from their monetary costs.

Update: IMHO, every legal case should publish, at every document submitted to
court, their billable costs to date so as to color the historical public
record.

------
crazygringo
> _On March 12, 2019, a Clerk’s default was entered against Dektor based upon
> its failure to appear, answer, or otherwise plead to NITV’s Complaint,
> despite having been duly served_ [1]

Yeah..... if you publish allegedly defamatory claims against a competitor, are
ordered to appear in court and don't even show up to defend yourself, then not
exactly surprising.

Not sure what's newsworthy about this. At a glance, the title almost suggests
the government is trying to suppress information critical of polygraphs, which
doesn't appear to be even remotely the case?

[1]
[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237...](https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237.95.0.pdf)

~~~
ap_org
The reason I think this is newsworthy is that the website whose "immediate
removal" has been ordered includes voluminous unflattering but apparently true
information about the "National Institute for Truth Verification," information
that is of public interest that is at risk of being suppressed.

------
stupidcar
Not clear there's any intent to censor here by the courts, so much as mediate
a dispute between two equally disreputable vendors of bogus lie detection
systems.

More concerning is the fact that so many large law enforcement institutions
continue to use these systems even after the fact of their ineffectiveness has
been established beyond a reasonable doubt. If such institutions cannot weigh
and respond to evidence correctly as it relates to their own investigatory
methods, why should we have any faith in their ability to handle evidence
correctly in the course of those investigations themselves?

------
apo
And here it is anyway:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20190518135724/http://www.nitvcv...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190518135724/http://www.nitvcvsaexposed.com/)

Looks like a link collection and a video (which doesn't play). That video may
hold the key to the judge's decision because ordering a takedown of a link
collection seems like overreach.

On the current version of the site it's just an ABC clip from YouTube:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsufvxgLf0g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsufvxgLf0g)

From the video:

ABC: "Has there been a single scientific study that shows that this works?"

"Dr." Charles Humble: "I don't believe that there has been an independent
scientific study that shows that this works."

Yet it's been used by police around the country to elicit confessions and
convictions, according to ABC.

This case is more complicated than the article lets on:

> This case involves two competing businesses that sell truth verification
> technology. NITV is a Florida limited liability company based in Palm Beach
> County whose members are all Florida citizens [DE 1 ¶ 1]. Dektor is a
> Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in Coopersburg, Pennsylvania [Id. ¶
> 2]. Dektor’s President and sole shareholder is Defendant Arthur Herring III,
> who is a citizen and resident of Pennsylvania [Id. ¶¶ 3, 22].

[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237...](https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237.95.0.pdf)

Edit: Charles Humble was in fact lying, as the ABC clip shows. The Pentagon
conducted an independent investigation and found the device to be no more
accurate than flipping a coin.

~~~
wl
> This character has all the hallmarks of a quack. The judge's decision is
> questionable at best.

This is an adversarial system, not an inquisitorial one. It's not the judge's
job to decide the truth of the matter without briefing from both sides. If one
side doesn't show up, that side loses by default because otherwise it would be
advantageous for a party being sued to just not show up to court.

------
pizza
[https://web.archive.org/web/20190519153139/https://antipolyg...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190519153139/https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2019/05/19/federal-
judge-orders-immediate-removal-of-website-critical-of-computer-voice-stress-
analysis/)

------
gridlockd
As others have pointed out, a default judgement implies the defendant
basically doing nothing, which is the worst possible "defense".

This is what a lot of litigators bank on - send threatening letters (perhaps
en-masse) to rake in the default judgements but then only proceed on appeal if
it's worth the hassle.

------
mimsee
Datproject mirror

dat://0e7edf972270a5901dc434591f6bf865dc24d24823adfee277628a29b59fae98/

------
seibelj
I'm a huge fan of true crime, listening to thousands of hours of podcasts,
endless TV shows and documentaries, I own at least 30 true crime nonfiction
books, etc. But I don't have any formal credentials in criminology.

After all my listening, I believe that if I was law enforcement I would
appreciate the lie detector. It doesn't actually detect lies, and a trained
person or a sociopath 100% in control of their emotions and heart rate can
beat it. And many people have.

However, the power in the lie detector comes from its name - "The Lie
Detector" \- and the common belief that it actually works.

The interesting result of a lie detector isn't that it actually detects lies.
No matter what the result is, if I was an investigator, I would tell the
suspect that it said they lied and it is 100% accurate. The reaction to
telling the suspect this, and what they do next, could very well result in a
confession, or at least meaningful information. It's a psychological trick
that is quite useful. The lie detector is such an absurd piece of theater, and
most people have never seen one before let alone had one taken, that they
cannot prepare for the result. If you interrogate 100 suspects, you can use
their reaction to further your opinion of whether they are truly guilty by
comparing to your past interrogations.

Now, would I ever agree to take a lie detector test? Hell no! And they are
also not admissible in court, as the law understands that they don't actually
work.

But in an interrogation process, where cops are lying and deceiving and
tactically revealing information, it is a good arrow in the quiver.

~~~
stupidcar
Firstly, who has more reason to research lie detectors and realise they don't
work, a criminal or an innocent person? Clearly, it's the former, so you're
using a "trick" that is weighted _against_ innocent people.

Secondly, most criminal justice systems reward early confession with reduced
sentences and plea bargaining. In such systems, presenting a suspect with
fabricated evidence—which is what a "positive" lie detection report is—seems
just as likely to induce a false confession as a real one.

If we allowed cops to plant evidence and falsify statements, we could probably
get a lot more confessions. If we eliminated the "innocent" verdict at trial,
or reintroduced trial by ordeal, we could do the same. But we don't do this
because these are fundamentally unjust, and so is allowing law enforcement to
claim they know people are guilty due to magic.

