Comments on: Brain Fingerprinting

By: Bob Nesbo

Bob Nesbo — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:33:46 +0000

I think this device can easily fall through when you need it to work. I started a new job recently, and I work with people over the phone along the east coast. And one of my fellow new co-workers at this new enterprise said she worked with me at a previous place of employment, physically, in person several times. She went on to recount how I was the one who told her so and so was pregnant, and we discussed a certain unforgettable topic. I remember the pregnancy story, as well as the that big topic along with the places in the office where we discussed these things. But for the life of me, I can’t remember this woman. I don’t remember her face, I don’t remember her being in that room when the discussions occurred. I mean, I could have handed her a signed document as part of work. But to save my own life, I can not even begin to describe this woman, what she looks like or any other jobs she did at the other company. From the context of what she says, I know we met, and I know she is not lying. But if it were the other way around, that I needed a brain fingerprint to show I knew this woman to exonerate myself, well, I would bet $1 million that I would get a negative reading if shown a picture of this woman!

By: BenKinsey

BenKinsey — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:28:48 +0000

What about dejavu? What if you think something looks very familiar but in truth you have never seen it before? You might just end up in prison.

By: My2Cents

My2Cents — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:36:11 +0000

Helazoid has a good point but for any case that doesn’t involve someone killing their spouse this technology would be very helpful seeing as how the current lie detector has so many flaws. I’m glad to hear that they are working on something else. However, if I find myself in a situation where I need to fool a lie detector I might not be so glad.

By: Helazoid

Helazoid — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:25:50 +0000

Let me make sure I have this straight. You are suspected of killing your wife, even though you and your buddies were watching the superbowl in a bar. You are then hooked up to this thing, shown a picture of the crime scene, and you are flagged as the culprit because you recognize your wife, the ring she wears, and the Green Bay Packer jersey you got her for her birthday. Lets not forget the 100s of items from around YOUR house that you see every day that lit up the recognition lights. Yep...definitely sounds like they have a great thing going..keep up the good work.

While were at it...lets crack open the fruit machine from a previous DI article and show images from the 'Crying Game' to test for homosexuality as well.

By: Merciless

Merciless — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:13:54 +0000

This is kinda like that movie with the "pre-cogs." Of course they knew your thoughts before action. Again human error.

What if the individual was put in a room with the images flashing all around. I bet that would trigger some kind of brain transmission. Either that or a seizure.

By: peridot window

peridot window — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:05:08 +0000

In contrast, it might also be used to support an insanity plea. If evidence and witnesses point to person A committing a crime but the crime draws no recognition from person A, this may be valid proof (with supporting factors, of course).

By: phazeshifter

phazeshifter — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 08:49:48 +0000

Marius said: "I can imagine any number of ways this device could be fooled. What if the criminal was on drugs at the time of the crime? Might that not change his perceptions of events so that a picture of the crime scene or victim viewed while no longer drugged might not trigger a familiarity response? Or if the test subject were schitzophrenic, or just inattentive? This shows, to me anyway, a fundamental problem when scientists try to apply themselves to real-world situations. They are trained to observe and notice as much as possible. The average person just sort of cruises through the world and would probably not recongnize the person next to them on the bus if they saw them again. This certainly has promise, but I would be very surprised to see it become widely accepted without some major confirmational data."

You bring up very valid points. It seems that there are many bugs yet to be worked out. Who knows though, maybe they're working on them as I type this...

By: Marius

Marius — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:30:57 +0000

I can imagine any number of ways this device could be fooled. What if the criminal was on drugs at the time of the crime? Might that not change his perceptions of events so that a picture of the crime scene or victim viewed while no longer drugged might not trigger a familiarity response? Or if the test subject were schitzophrenic, or just inattentive? This shows, to me anyway, a fundamental problem when scientists try to apply themselves to real-world situations. They are trained to observe and notice as much as possible. The average person just sort of cruises through the world and would probably not recongnize the person next to them on the bus if they saw them again. This certainly has promise, but I would be very surprised to see it become widely accepted without some major confirmational data.