Essay Topic: Trust and Technology - Lie Detection Rhetoric - How are the techniques used and why are they deceitful? Counterargument? Flashcards
1
Q
SCAN
Localization
A
- Uses technology to analyse words and structures of statement
- Specifies speech pattern and content of speech as area of deception
- “Analysing the words people use”
LSI homepage 2018
2
Q
SCAN
Amplification of results
A
- “Scan will solve every case for you quickly and easily”
- “Gives you maximum information every time”
LSI site 2018
3
Q
SCAN
Dissimilation
A
- Tested more effective than polygraph
- “Scientific and consistent formula”
- “No guessing…answer not based on confusing signals of body language” (Hint at work of Ekman on reading body language)
- Looks at concrete data rather than easily misinterpreted facial cues
4
Q
SCAN
Technicalization
A
- Scientific in company name and technology name
- Rhetoric central to “science” (Heffer forthcoming)
- Consistently referred to as scientific on website
- Facade of science to uphold validity
5
Q
SCAN
Concealment
A
- Continually refers to scientific technique but not actual scientific evidence on website
6
Q
SCAN
Commercial and media dissemination
A
- List of high profile customers on website such as FBI and US department of justice
- Testimonials on site are all positive “best interrogation technique”
- 6 artcile links on website; all positive and highlight benefits of SCAN
7
Q
Brain Fingerprinting
Localization
A
- BF attributes location of deception to the P300 brainwave (MERMER)
8
Q
Brain Fingerprinting
Dissimilation
A
- Technology heading: claims BF is “noteworthy advancement from polygraph)
- Association with fingerprinting rather than outdated methods of polygraph
Brainwave Science 2018
9
Q
Brain Fingerprinting
Amplification of results
A
- BF claims 1-2% of cases can use DNA/fingerprints but 85% have access to Brain Fingerprinting
(NOT COMPARABLE SOURCES OF EVIDENCE) - Over 99% accurate (Brainwave Science website)
- Mark Liberman 2004: Must be careful with percentages as indications of performance - context of result?
10
Q
Brain Fingerprinting
Technicalization
A
- Use of ‘fingerprint’ to assert scientific authority
- Likeness to DNA mentioned on website
- P300 MERMER
11
Q
Brain Fingerprinting
Commercial and media dissemination
A
- Positive testimonials on website eg. from respected Australian Homicide sergeant
- Only 3 testimonials; highlights lack of positive feedback and effort to build rhetorical context?
12
Q
LVA
Technicalization
A
- Marketed as ‘DNA of thought’
- ‘Detects intonation information’
- Liberman 2003
- Not actually intonation but thorns and plateaus that aren’t accurately recorded or meaningful
- Eriksson and Lacerda 2007
13
Q
LVA
Amplification of results
A
- LVA is 98% accurate (Namesysco website, Beaver 2004)
- Actually only 21% of deceptive subjects identified, 13% more than traditional CVSA (discredited old version) (Damphousse et al. 2007)
14
Q
LVA
Concealment
A
- Namesysco only include critique of their work that is ‘in good faith’ (website)
- All research publications are positive or constructively critical
- Namesysco threatended to sue publisher of journal written by Eriksson and Lacerda 2007
- Eriksson and Lacerda heavily criticised work of Namesysco
- Hiding scientific critique to maintain facade
15
Q
LVA
Commercial and media dissemination
A
- Namesysco posting favourable research papers on website
- Positive testimonials and media links
