nav search
Data Center Software Security Transformation DevOps Business Personal Tech Science Emergent Tech Bootnotes BOFH

back to article
A Cambridge boffin told me YOU'RE A BIG, FAT LIAR

Anonymous Coward

We know you did it, you restless leg syndrome sonovabitch.

10
0
Anonymous Coward

Just more garbage

out of Cambridge University. Small wonder no one outside of the UK bothers with them anymore.

1
8
Silver badge

Yeah, so any hypearctive kid is also a pathologica liar

Err... Knowing how much some teens and pre-teens (and adults for that matter) fidget during even the smallest mental exertion... I have some doubts here...

This also means that the next gen polyugraph can now by bypassed using copious amounts of ritaline... Interesting...

8
0
Silver badge

As accurate as conventional polygraphs.

That's not exactly hard to do. Polygraph tests are so unreliable as to be near-useless. There's a reason they aren't admissible in court.

13
0

Re: As accurate as conventional polygraphs.

A targeted 82% success rate even after proposed improvements is barely good enough for "balance of probability" for civil cases, let alone the "beyond reasonable doubt" proof threshold required for criminal cases

3
0
Silver badge

Re: As accurate as conventional polygraphs.

Cant get to the link at the mo but search for

Penn and Teller Bull shit: lie detectors.

Its on youtube.

Watch how A: the results are easily mis-interperated and B: how easy it is to fool one.

PS, season 7 episodes 4 and / or 5 i believe..

6
0
Silver badge

Define lying

it might be quite hard to fidget deliberately at exactly the same level as you do when you’re not feeling guilty," Anderson writes.

People often believe what they themselves say and don't feel guilty. They don't think they're lying. For example:

Computer scientists at Cambridge University are confident that results can be improved

So, are these guys fidgeting at exactly the same level as they normally do?

8
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Define lying

Put one on the inventors and ask them how accurate their published results really are

1
0
Coat

Polygraphs are good enough for Jeremy Kyle!

I'll get my coat, I'm leaving.......

3
0
Silver badge

Yeah, about right for that Pond scum and his ilk.

By the shows own admission, the test was "upto" 90%, which was then redacted to "exhibits a high degree of accuracy". Either way, some poor saps have had the wrath of the womanising, gambling self righteouss cock-womble that is Kyle spout his vitroil at them because they "lied" when all along they were telling the truth.

There is no wonder that show is shown when most of us of working age/condition are doing that.

Put it on when the dole office opens and watch the viewing figure plummet.

The man is a cunt of royal order....

1
0
Silver badge
Trollface

"it might be quite hard to fidget deliberately"

So just fidget all the time and you're home free, right ?

1
0
WTF?

Reliable?

We found that total body motion was a reliable indicator of guilt, and works about 75 per cent of the time.

I have a car that works about 75% of the time, and I'm always telling everyone how reliable it is.

8
0

Re: Reliable?

Well, to be fair, a lot of software can only dream of 75% reliability. Glass houses and all that.

0
0
Silver badge

All in the numbers

It must be reasonable to assume guilt with a 75% reliability; if you can get a shit government or president with only 51%.

It just goes to show what a waste of time statistics are without applying common sense as well.

5
0
Bronze badge

to be hoped he's available as an expert witness for the 20-30% of people wrongly accused.

0
0
Silver badge

Properly tested

on a known psychopath ?

0
0
Holmes

"A guilty man can always just freeze, but that will rather give the game away"

And an innocent person would never freeze up under questioning, so they *must* be guilty...

0
0
Alien

Fidget training seminars coming soon

We suspect it might be quite hard to fidget deliberately at exactly the same level as you do when you’re not feeling guilty.

I suspect it might be quite easy to learn to fidget deliberately at a constant level regardless of whether or not you're feeling guilty.

For those unable to exercise such a demanding level of self-control, perhaps a packet of live crab lice dumped down the Y-fronts would do the trick.

0
0

Re: Fidget training seminars coming soon

No seminar needed - just use a 70's-style biofeedback approach. Get yourself a mo-cap rig and a copy of the software, and practice until you've developed the appropriate habits.

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Laboearory conditions don't equate to real life situations

I've been asked to take lie detector tests as part of job application processing as well as a couple of investigations. As a Canadian I can refuse.

I agreed to one but the examiner said 'The subject was unable to comply with conditions' (I took medication before the test). If a prospective subject doesn't co-operate with a test conditions, they will never work properly and therefore any 'results' will be inaccurate.

I still got the contract, I was the best candidate for the work involved.

Same with retina scans - they don't work unless you adhere to their demands when they acquire your scans. I don't have any scans, either.

The equipment isn't much better - look at the Apple fingerprint device - or the expose involving the German Defence Minister.

0
0

Re: Laboearory conditions don't equate to real life situations

Makes me wonder what medication (over the counter or prescription) would make lie detector tests invalid

I take 5 different types of medication daily (prescription), wonder if they would be in that list

0
0

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing