SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
There is growing interest in the potential for a technology known as brain fingerprinting to be used in the fight against crime and terrorism, but it's far from reliable.
Its use without consent violates human rights. And importantly, the technology (as it currently exists) can be tricked.
Brain fingerprinting seeks to detect deception by essentially reading thoughts. It works by using electroencephelography (EEG) to read the electrical activity of the brain, with the aim of trying to identify a phenomenon known as the P300 response [DOI: 10.1097/00004691-199210000-00002] [DX].
The P300 response is a noticeable spike in the brain's electrical activity, which usually occurs within one-third of a second of being shown a familiar stimulus. The idea is that our subconscious brain has an uncontrollable and measurable response to familiar stimuli that the machine can register.
Imagine, for example, that a particular knife was used in a murder, and police show an image of it to their lead suspect who denies the crime. If the suspect registers a P300 response and thus a positive recognition of the knife, this would seem to suggest he's lying. Alternatively, if the suspect doesn't register a positive recognition, maybe police have the wrong guy.
Could you escape culpability for your crimes by taking a roofie afterward?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @09:12AM (12 children)
So you just happen to own a very similar knife. As the police officer shows you the one that was used in the murder, you recognize it as similar to the one in your drawer. You got a spike. Bad luck.
On the other hand, the murderer had just grabbed the knife without actually having a closer look at it, therefore doesn't recognize it when shown. Therefore no peak, the murderer goes free. Good for the murderer, bad for everyone else.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by unauthorized on Wednesday September 27 2017, @09:31AM (3 children)
Or if you would like to give it a more sinister spin, you are just "prepped" by being exposed to the stimuli ahead of time.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 27 2017, @11:25AM (1 child)
Suspect: [shrugging] Nope.
Cop: Are you prepared to take a mind-reading test?
Suspect: [shrugging] Nope.
[Suspect getting wired up]
Cop: You do realise that if you have seen this knife before [shows photo of knife again], we will detect that, and it will imply your guilt?
Suspect: I have nothing to hide.
Cop: [flicks switch on recording aparatus] OK, let's begin.
Cop: [shows photo of knife] HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS KNIFE BEFORE?!
[needle blips, device beeps]
Suspect: [looking panicked] ahhh...
[company stares at suspect. discordant chord from the orchestra pit. curtains close]
Note - this same test can be performed with a photocopying machine and a collander.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @12:25PM
Suspect: Oh sure, I have, you just showed it to me. I can clearly recognize that it is the same knife again.
Cop: Damn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 28 2017, @10:06AM
In case when you really need accurate information, like when interrogating a captured member of a terrorist cell instead of setting up a patsy, this is a great disadvantage: you only have a single chance to properly acquire it. Pretty "quantum" property, eh?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday September 27 2017, @01:44PM (4 children)
Forget similarity. The police show you YOUR knife, that YOU own. With unique wear and age marks. Stained in the victim's blood. You would get an even higher indication of recognition.
But it doesn't mean you are guilty of the crime.
However, the overriding factor is that this would make police work much MUCH easier. And that is the most important thing. Sort of like how fingerprints are absolutely infallible evidence, while polygraphs are not.
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday September 27 2017, @10:03PM (1 child)
Sarcasm?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday September 28 2017, @04:43PM
Most definitely sarcasm. And also the bit about polygraph.
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday September 28 2017, @05:44AM (1 child)
I sure hope polygraphs are not admissable. Those things are stress indicators, not lie indicators, albeit most people do show more stress when lying.
While some are so good at lying that neither people nor machine can pick up on the tells.
But far more of us are under extreme stress knowing our fate is being determined by some guy making subjective decisions based on a machine that is monitoring our stress level, whether or not a lie is involved. Its like some of those "intelligence" tests that correlate your intelligence to derive a certain answer. You may just as well see another pattern and base your answer on that. And you fail. You did not see the same pattern the test-maker did. But in this case, the rest of your life is on the line.
I have messed with those machines. They may be a helpful tool for psychological warfare, but from what I know of them, they are good for show, but there are so many other things besides the lie that they will pick up on, that I would consider the testimony of such a machine useless.
The only thing it tells me is someone scared the shit out of someone else. Most likely the fright of knowing his life dangled on the mercy of some machine he has no idea of what its operator is looking for.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday September 28 2017, @04:47PM
Yes. And bite mark analysis.
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday September 27 2017, @03:55PM (2 children)
And you might happen to be a similar height to the suspect, and have a similar hat.
Most evidence is circumstantial in one way or another. That's why we have trials, to present facts and allow a jury to make up its mind on the balance of probabilities.
If the suspect owns a similar knife, the defence can point this out.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @07:20PM (1 child)
He was 5 foot 9 inches, 180lbs, brown hair, brown eyes, in blue jeans, and a t-shirt... what is that half the men in the US.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday September 27 2017, @10:01PM
And that's just what a defence lawyer can say to the jury.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lgsoynews on Wednesday September 27 2017, @09:12AM (8 children)
Let's take a barely understood phenomenon (see the linked abstract for an example), and let's apply it to blindly accuse people.
No risk for errors, nope...
Of course, since it's "science" (which really means "magic/scam" in that type of situation), nobody shall have the right to protest the results! Because sccciiennnnnnncee!!!! Who cares if it's as "efficient" as the polygraph?
And don't get me started on the ethical aspects.
BTW, do you really think that a knife is a rare and uniquely identifiable object? I have a kitchen knife 2 meters away, if someone showed me a picture of another kinfe of that same model, how could I know if it's mine, or not? And on a picture? LOL.
Honestly, this type of search for the "ultimate silver bullet" crime-solving tool (because that's what it is) is worrying. especially given how much crap is passed as scientific, and that even with reliable technology, police/courts conveniently forget to mention the limits, margins of errors, etc. (look at the misuse of statistics, or ADN tests). And don't get me started about human error (in labs)!
A couple of days ago, I read a question on Quora that illustrated perfectly that problem: the author asked why the death penalty was not reinstated "given our available technology". It's stunning! The author thought that the current technology is 100% reliable and fool-proof. (What a joke!) That type of wrong perception is frightening in its ramifications! People like that are people that will sentence you on a wrong ADN test even when everybody acknowledges that the lab made a mistake. Because science/technology is magic to them, they take its results as truth without any question.
That makes me shudder. Because you can be sure that people would be sentenced because of of that stupid blind faith in the "infallibility" of science/technology.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @09:20AM
The results of your brain scan are in. It says here that you like young girls. Report immediately for your mandatory castration and sewage worker career assignment.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday September 27 2017, @10:55AM (4 children)
I'm fairly certain we can with 100% reliability induce death in someone. No doubt in my mind about that. It might not be painless and nice but I'm 100% certain we know how to kill people. That said I'm not certain that by itself is enough or a good idea to base or reinstate the death penalty on. Not that I'm against capital punishment but my belief in that regard is not based on technological prowess or know-how.
Anyhow on towards the article at hand. I do agree. This seems very odd. As noted it would have to be a very unique item then and not some standard gun or knife. What if the person doesn't feel guilt about what he did? Will the response be the same? Lots of people probably fantasies about murdering or killing or claim to want to kill other people all the time but doesn't go thru with it for one reason or another. Will said fantasies be as good as realities? Can the machine tell them apart?
This will probably be just like polygraph machines. Nice to have, it might fool crooks to admit guilt but the evidence value or admissibility in court is next to nil.
Won't this collide with the right not to self incriminate or the right to silence? If a machine is just going to "rip the thoughts from your brain" or whatever we are going to use as a description.
(Score: 2) by lgsoynews on Wednesday September 27 2017, @01:20PM (3 children)
The guy was not talking about a reliable way to give death.
He was writing about the "certainty" of proving the guilt, because of DNA tests, etc. Which is obviously wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @05:17PM (2 children)
Look, we can't be certain that you won't suddenly teleport to the moon. Quantum uncertainty you know... it COULD happen. Heck, you could be living in The Matrix, or maybe predestination means God is at fault. Nothing is ever certain, but that is a poor excuse to give up.
The current jury system does have issues. It could be improved. The same goes for sentencing.
For example, some fixes: We make the death penalty apply to many more crimes, but we frequently suspend it indeterminately pending additional evidence. The jury gets 30 people, it takes 22 for suspended death (effectively life in prison, pending additional evidence) and it takes 28 to carry out death. All 30 means death by torture.
Alternate fixes: We make the death penalty apply to many more crimes, but we frequently suspend it indeterminately pending additional evidence. There are two juries, kept from speaking to each other. The first jury sees all the evidence, and 12 of 15 is enough to impose life in prison. For the second jury, the defense lawyer gets to exclude any one piece of evidence, and then 13 of 15 means death -- but this jury only votes if the other jury convicted.
(Score: 2) by lgsoynews on Wednesday September 27 2017, @08:57PM
You missed my point.
That guy was saying that technology is never wrong (which is clearly false). That's a very dangerous point of view!
It's easy to find examples where the labs made a mistake or were malicious (see the quite recent huge scandal of the lab person who faked the results for years).
We also know that DNA testing is not a perfect, magical, thing, the tests have some serious limitations.
Don't get me started on fingerprints!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Thursday September 28 2017, @01:30AM
How about death sentences only given when judge, jury, and prosecutor agree to die themselves if the defendant is later cleared?
After all, they say they're sure enough that it's OK for someone to die...
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 27 2017, @11:30AM
"Wouldn't everyone working on the case also be likely to signal recognition of the knife?"
"Wouldn't people who watch crime dramas on TV that have involved stabbings also signal recognition of the knife?"
"In fact, can you name *anyone* here who you can guarantee wouldn't signal recognition of the knife?"
*Objection! badgering the witness*
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday September 27 2017, @04:00PM
The right to protest the results is called a trial.
No, that's what it's being written up as in popular science articles.
So you just tell the jury you have a similar knife, just as could say you just happen to have a similar hat or shirt to someone caught on CCTV.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @09:20AM
Brain has this horrifying and wonderful complexity. This thing is.. reducing that huge yet finite complexity to something "manageable". So is phrenology.
Maybe the brain reacts to the smell of the interrogator, the shirt he wears, the material the knifes handle in made of, that looks like the suspects favourite toy from when he was 8...
How can they say that this specific stimulus is representing *that* and not *this*? What about non-neurotypical people?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday September 27 2017, @10:11AM (4 children)
Watch out: Psi cop masturbating somewhere!
"P300? Oh yeah, read my mind, baby. READ IT! Now, SPANK it! YEAH!!!"
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday September 27 2017, @01:47PM (3 children)
Jason Ironheart probably no longer needs to masturbate. P300 indeed.
The Psi Corps is your friend. Trust the corps.
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday September 27 2017, @03:32PM (2 children)
Instead of saying Psi cop, i was going to say Alfred Bester but figured no one would get the link.
Yeah, Jason already blew his goo BIG TIME! ;)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @03:57PM (1 child)
You should have. This isn't Facebook, B5 and things older than 3 years exist.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday September 27 2017, @11:49PM
Heh... I always have to think to make the Alfred Bester - B5 link when I hear that name. For me Alfred Bester wrote the Demolished Man etc. (And yeah the B5 character is named for the author.)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday September 27 2017, @02:45PM
All the pseudoscience is being closed off for prosecutors. How do you expect an honest DA (forgive the oxymoron) to make a living? Bite marks, lie detectors, mind reading, throwing the bones - you want to take away all of the good tools!! Ooops, I didn't mean to mention throwing the bones. Don't want you folk to catch on that we employ voodoo witches to decide who is guilty!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @03:46PM
Great idea since 1948.