1. Charlie says

    Fascinating. And scary. I wonder how long before this is adapted to determine if people are telling the truth or not. Won’t it be interesting to look at old videos of people to see when our politicians are lying and when they are telling the truth? How long before the government applies this technology to interrogations of enemy combatants or the police in the criminal investigations?

  2. jpeckjr says

    @Charlie. I’d rather this technology be used in interrogations than some older ones, like, oh, waterboarding.

  3. Yeek says

    Frankly I welcome this discovery. A better “lie detector” could spare the world a lot of wasted money and terrible abuses. Truth serums (still used in some places) and polygraphs are both inadmissible as direct evidence, though information from these processes is still used to to locate OTHER evidence. They are painless processes, but can easily be biased because of the pressure on the technician giving the test to get a positive result: the interrogator is in the room with the technician and knows who they are and may have a long-term working relationship with them.

    Relying on a video could allow you to even strip out all the sound, and simply mark “question 1, question 2″ on the video strip. The anonymous technician could then analyze the responses days later, without having the interrogator present and without even knowing what question was asked or what type of crime is being investigated.

  4. Randy says

    While this device is certainly better at detecting physical changes in the body that are undetectable to (most) people, they suffer the same problem as lie detectors: these factors do NOT tell you someone is lying. They only tell you someone is stressed. The reason for that stress is ultimately a guess by the authorities, but they use the air of technology to pretend they know. Most of the actual “lie detecting” happens after the test, when the authorities try to convince the subject that they have failed the test.