End the Lie

Study shows that computers might be able to spot liars better than human experts

Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

By End the Lie

Similar to the so-called “threat assessment” technology being researched, funded and field tested by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), computer scientists are researching ways to read the visual cues individuals display when they are lying.

In a small-scale study of forty videotaped conversations, researchers at the University of Buffalo’s Center for Unified Biometrics and Sensors (CUBS) were able to correctly identify whether subjects were telling the truth or lying a whopping 82.5 percent of the time.

Keep in mind that even the most expert of human interrogators average around 65 percent accuracy according to Ifeoma Nwogu, a research scientist at CUBS quoted by the UB Reporter, the University of Buffalo’s newspaper.

“What we wanted to understand was whether there are signal changes emitted by people when they are lying, and can machines detect them? The answer was yes, and yes,” Nwogu said.

Others involved with the CUBS research were Nisha Bhaskaran, Venu Govindaraju and Professor Mark G. Frank, a professor of communications as well as a behavioral scientist who focuses his research on human facial expressions and deception.

Previously the attempts to computerize detection of deceit leveraged sensors which analyzed involuntary physiological signals like body heat and facial expressions.

The new CUBS system utilizes the tracking of eye movement, which is one of the many factors analyzed by the Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) system that the DHS has been heavily researching.

By leveraging a statistical model of how human eyes move during non-deceitful, regular conversation as well as when someone is lying, the system can reportedly detect lies with surprising accuracy.

When someone’s eye movement pattern differed between the two situations, the system assumes that the individual is lying. Those who displayed consistent eye movement between both scenarios are believed to be telling the truth.

Previous research which used human observers to code facial movements documented a marked difference in the amount of eye contact an individual made when they were making what was considered to be a high-stakes lie.

Nwogu and her colleagues built upon this earlier research by creating an automated system that could both verify and improve upon the data human coders used to successfully detect deceit and differentiate it from truthful statements.

In March of last year, the IEEE held the 2011 International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition, during which Nwogu and others presented their research ranging from “Beyond simple features: A large-scale feature search approach to unconstrained face recognition” to Bhaskaran, Nwogu, Frank and Govindaraju’s “Lie to Me: Deceit detection via online behavioral learning” to “Real-time face recognition demonstration” and much more.

The research from Nwogu and colleagues utilized a sample size of forty, which is too small to be statistically significant, yet Nwogu says their findings were still exciting.

The findings suggest that computers may very well be able to learn enough about the behavior of a person in a relatively short period of time that they might be able to outperform even the most experienced of investigators.

In order to best detect deceit, the researchers included videos of people with a range of head poses in various lighting with assorted skin colors and items which can obstruct the face like glasses.

The next step in this research, according to Nwogu, will be to draw from a larger sample size of videos and to develop more advanced automated pattern-recognition models to suss out liars.

Thankfully, Nwogu isn’t claiming that the technology is foolproof as some people are able to maintain eye-movement patterns while lying and thus tricking their system.

However, she does say that automated deceit detection systems could indeed be used in law enforcement and security screenings.

In reality, they are already being field tested by the DHS and perhaps other federal agencies as well under the banner of “threat assessment” and “malicious intent detection.”

While it might be beneficial in some ways, I think that the risks are much greater than the rewards, since the DHS seems to want to use this as a kind of pre-crime technology.

They seek to create a world where if a computer says you’re lying, you become instantly criminalized, even if you are just darting your eyes around or your skin temperature is raised because you are nervous.

As I have pointed out in my previous coverage of such technology, the physiological signals monitored by these symptoms are wildly variable from person to person.

This is likely why these studies are avoiding using samples which would actually make the findings statistically significant as it would greatly diminish the results.

The DHS tests of the FAST system are heavily redacted so it is almost impossible to tell how effective their systems supposedly are.

I see this type of technology as posing a great risk to the entire notion of due process and the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” which is already being eradicated with a vengeance here in the United States.

There is also the concerns raised by retired Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) counterintelligence special agent Joe Navarro, who was a founding member of the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit and 25 year FBI veteran.

He told Scientific American, “I can tell you as an investigator and somebody who’s studied this not just superficially but in depth, you have to observe the whole body; it can’t just be the face,” adding that failing to take body language into account could result in “an inordinate amount of false positives.”

Scientific American makes a great point that human law enforcement today have to take “into account that interrogations can make even honest people a little anxious,” which is obviously something a machine cannot do.

This could result in wholly innocent people being treated as potential criminals just because they’re uncomfortable being questioned by police, and this is something that should never happen in the United States or anywhere else, for that matter.

Did I miss anything? Would you like to tip me off to a story or submit something you have written yourself? Email me at [email protected]

4 Responses to Study shows that computers might be able to spot liars better than human experts

  1. Anonymous March 10, 2012 at 1:42 AM

    more support for the minority report style CRAP

  2. Anonymous March 10, 2012 at 4:14 AM

    I do have problems with such a machine, and it could prove to be as useful as the useless lie detector machine.

    I think that with computers, there is more possibility of the program being rigged and the computer actually lying, because it was programmed that way.

    It could be that whenever an Unscrupulous Person speaks a set of words, then the lie shows up as that Person being honest, or it could be that the conductor of the test is a Shadow CIA, like Stratfor has been described, to make it look like any possible espionage by them is Patriotic and Legal, but that any alleged espionage by Bradley Manning or Julian Assange is Treacherous and Criminal, because there is one Law for the Rich and another for the Poor.

    We saw this with ACTA, SOFA, and PIPA, where the Corporations would not be accused of copyright violations, but the poor would, and again, this is because there is one Law for the Rich and another for the Poor.

  3. Anonymous March 10, 2012 at 4:21 AM

    This is good that they are doing this, because it is all good evidence for a Genocide Lawsuit that should never have been dropped against Croatia.

    It is good that there is no statue of limitations when it comes to War Crimes, and Croatia is on the record of celebrating War Crimes.

    This means that if Croatia values the Money that Tourism brings, then they will try hard to join the Human Race if they are smart, because Tadic and Company will not always be there.

    The Croatians and Albanians use Racism to sometimes quickly and sometimes to slowly but surely drive the Serbs away.

    They do this because Croatia and Kosovo want to create a Catholic Dictatorship, and an Islamic Dictatorship, and that is why they need ethnic cleansing of Territories that they claim first, and they have America’s and the European Union’s support for this.

    This might help the Serbian People to realize that you cannot negotiate with Terrorists, and they should go back on any deals with the Albanians that are not in Serbia’s interests.

    The European Union cannot take back their European Union Candidate Status, because one European Union Country will Veto it, and even if they did, then Serbia should make this a matter for United Nations General Assembly motions.

    I had a few older Relatives who have passed on, and even though they were good People and I loved them and they love me, and while I have my faults, what is true, is true.

    They were Incredibly Stupid, and perhaps too many Serbs fall into this category, because they Voted for Tadic and Company, even though the Very Intelligent but Selfish Serbian Citizens will Vote for the Unprincipled Tadic and Company, because they hope to exploit their fellow Serbs with the help of Tadic and Company.

    I never wished those elderly relatives who have passed on anything bad, but I can assure everyone that life is very pleasant when you do not have dealings with Stupid People, and if Serbian People want better conditions, then they know that Tadic and Company must go.

    Serbia should not negotiate with the Terrorist Criminal Albanians based in Pristina, until the Kosovo Albanians renounce Criminality, Terrorism, and until every Country has withdrawn their Filthy, Criminal, and Vile support for Albanian Criminality.

    Serbia should continuously and in a nagging way put endless motions such as the Territorial Integrity of Countries and Many other motions that have been thought of by the DSS to the United Nations General Assembly, until this matter is resolved Fairly, with all Reasonableness, and Accordingly to Law.

  4. iain July 2, 2013 at 12:45 AM

    This software should be built into televisions – politicians should not be able to lie when speaking to the people who pay their salaries.

    In any other business, that would be a sacking offence.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>