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 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