 The Nemesysco lie detector – click pic for website |
If scientific research can be censored like happened in this article because it might hurt a business’ business, then by extension there is no way to protect the public from charlatans and scam artists whose business would be harmed by proving their wares are fake.
One year ago, Francisco Lacerda, a professor of linguistics at Stockholm University, and Anders Eriksson, professor of phonetics at the University of Gothenburg, published an article in the International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, a magazine for voice experts working for the police and security services. The article entitled “Charlatantry in forensic speech science” gave an overview of the last fifty years of research in the field of lie detectors. The article’s conclusion is that there is no scientific evidence to show that lie detectors actually work.
Article withdrawn
In the autumn, Equinox, the British publisher of the magazine, were canvassed by the Israeli company Nemesysco Limited, a manufacturer of lie detectors. Following this the company demanded that the article be withdrawn, which the publishers duly did. In the online version of the journal only an abstract of the article is now available, along with a clarification from the publisher.“It is incredibly serious that they are trying to silence us in this way. I have never heard of anything like it. We have apparently damaged their business,” says Francisco Lacerda to the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter.
The article was aimed directly at the company’s lie detector patent,” said Francisco Lacerda to Dagens Nyheter, “We showed that the invention cannot work. The article had a journalistic tone and was rather provocatively written. We wanted to prove that the technology behind the lie detector is a scam.”
Publisher faced with threat of prosecution
In a letter to the publisher Nemesysco’s lawyers wrote that the authors of the article could be sued for defamation if they wrote on the subject again. The publishers accepted the lawyers’ angle on the article, “We would like to warn the authors that they should not publish the article in another forum and that if they send in a similar article to another journal, they can be sued for defamation,” writes the publisher, cited by Dagens Nyheter.
>> Mr. Fusion said, on May 8th, 2009 at 8:24 am
>> #11, Greg,
>> Yes. But torture is also unreliable plus it has the downside of being illegal.
Torture is not a new technology.
Torture a barbaric, sadistic crime from the Middle Ages.
At least lie detectors are from the 19th century!
But c’mon. Science has advanced so much — isn’t there a more reliable technology or method to determine if someone is lying?
I’ve know “polygraphs” were the bunk, for years. And I’ve always wonder why the US government never subjected them to tests by Standards and Measures, the way they do so many other things the government uses. The FBI and CIA supposedly used them for years to check up on their agents. But of course, they completely missed out on finding some quite notorious (and really not that clever) traitorous agents. Proving they’re a complete waste of time and money. But by never subjecting these devices and their operating methods, to any scientific testing. They’ve preserved their sales of them, for years. Movie and Tv shows also keep showing them as effective. Especially some recent “reality” show. Which was totally staged “reality”. They edited out the times when things didn’t quite work. Just as all “reality” programs do, BTW.
Another similar bogus device is the dianetics e-meter. Which is just a fancy “galvanic response” device. That’s not even designed to measure anything in an accurate way. If you can keep the meter needle center, you’re brain is unaffected by the evil spirits, or whatever. But publish any criticism about it, and you know who will sue the pants off of you. Because, apparently, even the truth about something is a patentable commodity.
These clowns were so damn lazy, that they kept on selling the old “ink pens in a metal suitcase” model, for years. Even though laptop PC had become plentiful. And could have replaced the older model long ago. In fact you can probably still buy to old metal suitcase type. Though it has no software to do any “analyst” of the data. Relying strictly on the operator’s subject judgment on what’s a truthful reaction.
I was once offered a job, a shopping mall. But only if I took a polygraph first. I refused, so I didn’t get to sell stereos and Tv set there. Later, I found out it was a front for a drug dealer, who hope he filter out any undercover cops, with the test. But either this didn’t work, or one of his employees ratted him out. since then, the law was changed so employers couldn’t use such a tests. Unless of course, it’s the FBI. Dumb!
Supposedly we’re living in the 21th century. When everything is scientifically proven and effective. And there’s no more room for superstition and fakery. Haa! So why do we have Tv shows like “Medium” and “Ghost Whisperer”? And the number of fortunetellers has doubled in my town (or their homes have gotten bigger). Where’s the John Stossel report, exposing these fakes? Or these lie detectors?
I still remember one late even Tv magazine ran a test of them, a decade ago. And showed how their operators were, usually willing to bias the tests to meet the client’s expectations. But that late evening expose probably didn’t get much notice. And was never repeated. I don’t think it was 20/20. It might have been Dateline, or something else. It definitely wasn’t 60 Minutes. Cowards.
An eminent englishman (in the 19th century) said “The law is an ass” and he was right insofar as in England at least it can produce some pretty strange outcomes – of which this whole thing about lie detectors is one.
The worst part of the problem though is the sheer cost of defending oneself if anything goes to court. Even if one wins one can be bankrupted, and that is why a company with enough dosh can so easily scare any individual or smaller company, as happened in this case.
I don’t know if the situation in the USA is the same as in Britain, but I would be surprised if it is any different.
Innocent or not, Lie detectors are not your friend. You could be completely innocent, tell the truth and still fail the lie detector.
There is a larger issue involved here which transcends the issue of whether lie (or streSs/emotion) can be automatically detected in the voice or not, whether by Nemesysco or others. (And, BTW, there is already enough evidence that Nemesysco’s nose is getting longer and longer ..) The issue is: how can one evaluate the efficacy of ANY “gadget”, high-tech or not, offered for sale to accomplish some goal? The Memesysco case reminds me of the ADE 651, a high-tech device made by and sold by a British firm, ATSC, Ltd. (so much for targeting a specific Middle East country as a common source of worthless gadgetry!). ADE 651 is supposed to be able to detect bombs remotely. The Iraqi security forces use them; the American military equates them to a ouija board or dowsing stick … or a coin toss. See this New York Times piece on it.
One might say: well, “let the buyer beware”. Fair enough when it comes to Nemesysco’s ‘Love Detector’ because not much of importance hinges on its performance. But when it comes to important tasks like maintaining the security of airplanes and military establishments (Nemesysco wants to sell its device for airport passenger screening; ATSC Ltd. sells their device to the Iraqi security forces), then “caveat emptor’ is NOT the answer. Such vendors AND the people who buy their products need to show scientific evidence of their efficacy in respectable scientific journals that only publish peer-reviewed work. IOW: there IS a system for validating gadgets of this type; it JUST HAS TO BE USED. Taxpayers / ratepayers have to insist on this from the security forces (military, police, etc) that they are paying for.