DHS To Use Body Odor As a Lie Detector 206
The US Department of Homeland Security is studying lies, damned lies, and smells. They hope to prove that human body odor could be used to tell when people are lying. The department says they are already "conducting experiments in deceptive behavior and collecting human odor samples" and that the research it hopes to fund "will consist primarily of the analysis and study of the human odor samples collected to determine if a deception indicator can be found."
Best reply (Score:5, Insightful)
"I take the 5th amendment" or "I choose to remain silent"
Don't give the government anything, else they will use it later to entrap you or jail you. The right to free speech also includes the right to be quiet.
A pack of dogs (Score:5, Insightful)
A little joke to make you think (Score:2, Insightful)
Brazil and Argentina have historical disputes over who is the "best" on South America. Obviously it leads to some funny jokes on either side.
One closely related to USA auto induced paranioa state of mind says that an "argentino" and a "brasileiro" found a lamp. The argentino rubbed the lamp first but the brasileiro hold the lamp for him to do it. A genius emerged and saw the problem immediately: he could not grant 3 wishes, one of them would get 2 wishes and other 1. So he granted 2 wishes, one for each of them. Since the argentino rubbed the lamp first, he wished a great wall would appear on all Argentina frontiers so they could be isolated from the bad interference of their neighbors, being Argentina the greatest nation of all. Wish granted, the genius made a wall one mile high around all Argentina. Next the genius asked the brazilian what was his wish. He asked the genius before anything if the Argentina's wall was really high and resistant. The genius answered that nothing could break that wall. The brasileiro asked immediately: fill it with water.
USA is almost asking for problems when they think all the world want to attck them when USA is the most common attacker or influencer on all wars from World War II and later. They must take care with what they wish: it can be granted.
Disclaimer: I'm brazilian, so the joke is biased.
Beanz meanz fartz (Score:5, Insightful)
"I fart in your general direction! In fact, I fart uncontrollably in all directions!"
Re:A pack of dogs (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with lie detection, as quite a number of people have said endlessly over the years, is that the assumption is made that a lie is something that somehow the body has a physiological problem with. Clearly this is swan songs of morality, as amorphous and dynamic as they are, being applied directly to the human nervous system, and somehow people are surprised to discover that there hasn't been a lie detector in the world that's been proven unquestionably to work at all.
Same as always (Score:5, Insightful)
Using odor instead of breathing heart beat and so on will not bring anymore science is this than pissing into a violin and expecting a concerto.
Re:detection speed (Score:2, Insightful)
Depending on the sort of molecule they're sniffing for, and the detection method, traces in the parts-per-billion range can be detected almost instantly. The limitation is often the speed at which you can get a billion bits of air through your nozzle - or the wind-speed your detection method can withstand. Honeybees, for example, make good detectors in some circumstances, but get miffed in moderate breezes and refuse to work at all if you blow their antennae off.
However, even if they have to parcel up the smells and post them to a lab in Wisconsin, it'll still be quicker and probably cheaper than six years in Cuba.
As for usefulness, I don't think that's the point. It's not meant to be useful, it's meant to give the government a justification for the presumption of guilt. Although the Bill of Rights and the Majesty of the Law are worthy of respect, they are historical throwbacks that aren't always appropriate for a fast-changing world. Any device that can improve the efficiency of justice, even indirectly, must be welcomed by hard-pressed taxpayers.
Re:Consumer version, please ... (Score:2, Insightful)
99999 - "*I* *did* *not* *have* sexual relations with *that* *woman*!"
Re:Should be cheap! (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, no. Every creature on earth has an unique scent. Scent will actually come out of a human being, or other "game" in cone shaped form. This is why search and rescue units will work a patch of land moving in the expected cone shape (based on what the dog picks up) when trailing a victim in a search. I have done search and rescue and that is the logic they use because it works. The first thing they do when a new volunteer comes on is show them how it works. Tracking, what you were referring to, also uses the same concept but, with the individual scent being left by brushing against the ground itself.
In a nutshell, this scares the hell out of me.
Re:Same as always (Score:3, Insightful)
Lie detectors of all types detect if you think you are lying and are stressed by this more than you were in the "control" part of the test ....
So if a lie is detected you could be
a) lying
b) think you are lying, but mistaken
c) more stressed for other reasons
and if a lie is not detected you could be ...
a) telling the truth
b) think you are telling the truth, but mistaken
c) as stressed for other reasons as in the control
d) no worried that you are lying, and so not stressed
e) using one of the anti-lie detector methods that have been shown to work
Note an operator has to be trained to use a polygraph because they have to use subjective assessment to avoid false positives and negatives: i.e. the testing is a subjective opionion
Most studies of lie detectors are done by lie detector manufacturers, and surprisingly they all seem to come to the conclusion they are reliable and foolproof
DHS has too much money (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Best reply (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, okay, but here's the simple fact: DHS pulls aside for additional questioning or searches fewer than 10% of all passengers. If you don't want to be searched or questioned, simply don't give them a reason to do so.
That may be OK individually, but generally (not just with smells and aeroplanes) it's a dangerous route to go down collectively. Only a few are questioned, so everyone tries to conform to what they think the authorities consider normal. So the authorities lower their thresholds and then everyone becomes even more conforming, etc. It leads to everyone 'self-censoring' their behaviour to some degree to please government and security guard's prejudices.....it's far better for people to feel secure against unreasonable harrassment. It's not that your suggestion is necessarily bad - but if you can be bothered with baking soda then you ought to also be bothered opposing it politically.
Re:Same as always (Score:3, Insightful)
The DHS doesn't care. They just want a pseudoscience that can be used to detain people who don't do what they want.
Re:Consumer version, please ... (Score:3, Insightful)
99999 - "*I* *did* *not* *have* sexual relations with *that* *woman*!"
So you think that Clinton's lie about a blowjob was more than 150 times as bad as Bush's lie about WMDs?
Dear God.
Re:Consumer version, please ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Same as always (Score:3, Insightful)
If the suspect thinks it works, it mgiht be useful for that reason alone.
Police put the words "He's lying" in a copy machine, and stuck a colander with some wires on a suspect's head, and pressed the copy button whenever they thought he was lying - and got him to confess!