 So it's been a technology that's been around for well around 80 years It's known as the lie detector and it's something that is legally allowed to be used in a number of Situations, but the question would be with this ancient technology I mean really if you consider technology in the way that's progressed over the years Is it still the best way to try and figure out if somebody is Attempting to be deceptive or not And it may not be Talk a little bit about it this morning We have a couple of guests on the wake-up call Robert Gross is one of those he's retired from the Lane County Sheriff's Department after serving 27 years He's somebody that's trained as a polygraph examiner and he brings with him Mr. Peter Shannon a licensed sex offender treatment provider here in Eugene so first off to both of you welcome to the wake-up call We appreciate you coming in. Thank you. All right, so Robert. Let's let's start with you. You initially reached out to us about This new technology that appears to be Quite a bit more effective than The Traditional I guess if you will lie detector Let's let's start with the the lie detector itself and how does that thing even work? Okay, well, I want to be absolutely Clear about something. I was an intern examiner. I hadn't received my full license Because I saw this newer technology and I decided I wanted to go to it And so I suspended my effort to obtain my full license in Oregon. So full disclosure The lie detector basically works that there are three Measurements biological measurements that are being taken during an exam. You have a blood pressure cuff on your arm You have what are called pneumo tubes on your chest and on your abdomen And then you have some electronic connectors on your fingers which are looking for How well electricity passes through your skin when your skin is damp it will pass a little bit better That's called the EDA or electro thermal activity Person sits in the chair. They're given a series of about five minutes worth of questions and Those biological markers are recorded The charts are printed out and the examiner Interprets the data on those charts Mm-hmm. Okay, and that technology has been around for 80 years the FBI used it started using it in the 1930s. Mm-hmm, and It can be used in certain Circumstances explain what those circumstances that it can be used in because they're not admissible quote-unquote in court, right or wrong That's correct. It can't be used in court It has to pass an evidentiary standard is called the Dobber test and Because It's not Demonstrated to be Sufficient to pass that test. It's not allowed in court. It can be used in a parole-improvation hearing it can be used For Investigative purposes for law enforcement it can give an indication of whether you have the right person or the wrong person And then an interview was done after that The federal government he used it for years to try to determine if somebody's lying or Being truthful about a matter but not in a court proceeding in trial and Peter you being a sex offender treatment provider for folks that have been Convicted of sex crimes. It is something that is used in your line, correct And using polygraph examinations for probably 30 years Outside of our office as well as approximately I would guess in the neighborhood of around 8,000 polygraph examinations We've done inside our office at one point in time. We had a in-house polygraph examiner that Principally tested all of our clients on a regular basis oftentimes weekly depending on what our particular Program caseload was at any given time frame And we anticipate continuing the use of polygraph. It's a valuable tool It's Reasonably effective and more often than not produces results that are really quite useful in terms of monitoring community safety Compliance for the program requirements the treatment contract, which is a very detailed four-page contract We also assist with pro-improvation in terms of monitoring compliance with supervision requirements either on probation Parole or post prison supervision. Well, what kind of things are you I mean specifically? Are you looking for? With those contracts with those particular sex offenders. I mean what specific things are you trying to find out? well first and foremost We want to know whether or not they're conducting themselves in the community in a fashion that would be safe and Without any intent to be malicious towards other citizens principally children, but oftentimes adults as well So when they get released from an institution or get placed on probation from the courts, they have a very specific List of things that they can and can't do and their life in in many regards is Monitored and in some ways taken over by people who are working to supervise their safety in the community their Choice and free will has been reduced fairly dramatically by places where they can go people who they can Socialize with activities that they can engage in Social events and those types of things whether or not they're allowed access to a computer technology or screen time Whether or not they're allowed access to minor children With or without chaperones. We have chaperone training programs that assist With community safety by attaching people to the clients that we're working with So that when they're out in the public and around social gatherings where there are children That there is somebody with them at all times to ensure compliance with basic requirements Okay, Robert the question for you when talking about the polygraph if you were to have Three people that work the poly that you know were reading polygraph experts. Mm-hmm. Is it potential that you could get three different Outcomes or predictions as far as what the outcome was three different Depending on the examiner, maybe That's possible the reason why and This is why the state of Oregon Requires that there's an extended period of time to have full licensure for polygraph Is that you have to be mentored through at least 200 exams to learn how to interpret the data properly? Whether that Reading that you get is something that you would score a positive or a negative against the person Trying to pass the exam. So you have to learn to interpret it and Then you're tested on whether you have a decent skill level at doing that interpretation. So yes, it's possible and especially when somebody is going through an internship and even You know, frankly People who are fully licensed can have a slightly different interpretation of what they would score or not. So yes, it's possible And then you come across Well before we go any further before you ask that question a polygraph exam takes how long to do it properly to do it properly Take some minimum of 90 minutes and it can take several hours depending upon what some of the government ones take Four or five hours to do. All right. So you're looking at about a five-hour test and I mean a lot of it and a lot of the test to Determine the outcome depends on nuances of somatics. It almost sounds like a lot of it has to do with the skill of the exam Okay But the the types of questions that you have to ask to get certain Responses, I mean you have to have a baseline right to be able to get to the point where you can tell whether a person is Ostensibly trying to be deceptive or not right right and so that's the skill of the operator to craft those questions So that you come up with a fair exam for the person taking the test And how much preparation does it take going into an exam with somebody to put those particular questions together? Well, that's why the exam takes a minimum of 90 minutes. Usually a person will fill out a form Answering a whole raft of questions and then you will intervene the person for a while and based on the answers on the questionnaire that you've had them fill out and The interaction you've had with that person you formulate the questions Construct the test and then give the exam Okay, well So you find I detect which I'm curious where did you first come across this new technology in lie detector? Well during During the time that I was an intern you have to keep up on training. Well, I went up to a Training up in Washington state and there were Some vendors there from a company called Converis. They had a new technology. It was called I detect and what it was was a technology that tried to detect deception that was a totally different technology than polygraph and it was demonstrated and I looked at the math of how accurate the test was and I decided that I wanted to go with that equipment and that system over polygraph. What was the accuracy? the accuracy that the company puts out For somebody telling the truth determining whether somebody can actually who is telling the truth is actually telling the truth It's at 89 percent, which is almost 90 percent Or catching somebody who is telling a lie It's at 83 percent. So it's got a mean of 86 percent accuracy compared to what with the polygraph about 85 to 86 percent Accuracy and on a really well done. And we should say the the average length of time for I detect is is how long half an hour And then you have the report in five minutes and it's all computerized the scoring is not interpreted Interpreted by any person is done through a computer algorithm So enormous amounts of data are gathered through that 30-minute test matter of fact And I talked a little bit about the difference in the technology We talked about the the three indexing the three sensors for polygraph. I Detect works totally different. It has nothing to do with your breathing your heart rate your respirations blood pressure What it has to do with how much of your brain is engaged to answer a question So if I were to say to somebody For example, what's two times 15? 30 everybody knows it just recall they learned it in school But if I say to them what's 17 times 15? They have to think for a minute Because it's not just recall they have to think about their answer and construct it that takes more brain activity More the brain lights up the same thing happens the researchers found that when a person is recalling a memory It takes less brain activity than constructing an answer and that's what the polygraph doesn't measure that's what I Detect is measuring and that extra brain activity creates involuntary movement and changes in the eye and That is what is being looked at with infrared cameras and during the course of a 30-minute test You've got a hundred thousand data points being gathered from each eye That's all encrypted sent up to an algorithm. It the algorithm scores it No human scores it and the result comes back So the interpretation where somebody might get a different score than another examiner all of that is gone It's just math Who came up with this? Actually in Washington State there were two scientists That were hiking and they were and they were wondering whether there was any was they say The window the eyes of the window to the soul. They wonder if there was any merit in that old saying and so They decided that they would see if maybe A technology that could measure eye measurement Was viable and that was like in 2003 so they sent the lat the next 12 years or so developing this the University of Utah and Came up with a technology that actually Proved that it is possible that there in there are involuntary movements in the eye Changes that happen when a person lies that don't happen when a person is telling the truth And what's interesting is that it's not just one measurement. I mean, it's not just a pupil dilation and a constriction. There are 16 variables in the eye that the computer is looking at taking 60 samples a second During the test. That's how much data is being gathered for scoring How easy is it in your mind? to manipulate as somebody that say is getting in a lie detector test Is it possible to? manipulate That test so that you can get a positive score even though you go in purposely trying to be deceptive You know I'm I'm In an area where I don't want to go too far because I'll Answer a question directly, but I want to add a caveat first if I could yeah It's sort of like this. Some people really like Windows computers. Yeah, they like the way they work They're used to them. Some people really like Apple products. Mm-hmm. Okay Both will work One person thinks the Apple is better one person windows space is better. Okay, both will work And both have strengths and weaknesses in polygraph and I detect for the same so If you look online Or you talk to people. Yes, you can be trained to Screw around with a polygraph test. You can Okay, what about then I detect? Well At this point the way the tests are constructed There are not any as a matter of fact Charles Hans dr. Charles Hans from Boise State Who's an expert on countermeasures for polygraph? Has looked at this and he said and their research has come up that there are no Known effective countermeasures for I detect at this point. They can't find any hmm, so for instance if you try to Manipulate through Breaking the rhythm of response that the infrared cameras Lock on to both eyes by either blinking or by looking away or distracting there's a certain percentage of Contact time between the camera and the eye itself that is required to even score the test I took the test quite some time ago as a demonstration and Inadvertently kept looking down at the mouse to make sure that I was clicking on the right and left side accurately And I broke my gaze from the infrared cameras over Too many times over too long of a period of time inadvertently not trying to be deceptive And the test when we tried to score it the test came out as being unscorable due to non-compliance Now that wasn't my intent to do that, but the parameters around what is the necessary guidelines for Compliance were broken by me unintentionally, but nonetheless that the Algorithm indicated the score where the test was not scoreable due to non-compliance Now Robert the test and was trying to be deceptive. You did the same thing. No, I didn't look away But I was trying I was altering Different rhythms and things like that as as to where I would come, you know trying to Deceive and make it seem like I was having difficulty when I wasn't And well, why did you do that? Because I'm thinking if somebody is if somebody is trying to avoid Yes, if they're absolutely if they're gonna keep themselves out of jail or having to pay money that they're gonna do the same thing Yeah, so I was trying to think okay. Yeah, and you couldn't beat it. No he he he picked a number the computer questioned him about what number he picked and He was able to put his number Not in second position it picked three numbers most likely second most likely in third and his second and third most likely were a whisker apart and he was able to deceive that test but I've done about 50 of those tests You were the second person who has not scored in first position Of those 50 tests and and the other tests that of that 50 that The equipment didn't correctly identify the number was Peter when he was non-compliant But you and I talked afterwards by the way and I showed you what an actual test question set was right Yeah, no, and you would not have been able to use that strategy. I would I was doing remedial when You look at the questions and when it gets to be a little bit headier a subject I would have a different. I definitely would have a different. I think response and for mindset It'd be it'd be tricky right the strategy that you employed to screw around with a very simple I mean the test I gave you Uses only one of those 16 markers in the eyes. That's it's assessing And it's a very short test. It's like five or six minutes And it's taken the minimum amount of data that the computer needs to make a determination of what it believes the deception was And because the questions were predictable a very short test only one out of 16 markers Yeah, it's possible to mess with that test a little bit, but when you get into an actual test Nothing has been found that works And who okay, so we maybe are introducing to a lot of people out there I detect for the first time Right, but it's it's out there people are using this in the world. Where is it being utilized? Well, it's being used Well, as a matter of fact, there was a news release by Converse that the Israelis for one are going away from polygraph and going almost exclusively to I detect in in their investigative work It's available in 33 states where it's legal in the United States 40 countries Third 25 or 30 languages because you always want to take the test in the person's native tongue You don't want in a Translation going on because that takes additional brain activity. So you always test the person in their native tongue You know you said it's available in 33 states. Is it being used by law enforcement or folks like Peter here? Who works with sex offenders? I mean is it being used in those regards or is it just there if they want to use it? Well, if I could plug a website We're kind of short on time but go ahead The website I have me we can mention it later Gives a list of all the states where it's allowed under what circumstances it's being used by law enforcement. It's being used by investigators sex offender treatment providers and also interestingly enough I Detect was allowed in federal district court During trial in the state of New Mexico because it passed the dober test for validity of evidence And that just happened recently in the past month or so. So it was used in a trial Yes used in a trial at the federal level in New Mexico Talk about two five four five Two five four five house bill two five four five in Oregon, right? That's the house bill. It's our effort to get I detect available In Oregon, so of law enforcement if treatment providers if other people wanted to be able to have access to it as an option Other than poly F or in addition to poly graph They would have that option But the way a statute the the statute that deals with deception detection was written in 1975 The way that statutes written no technology other than poly graph Can be used in Oregon? Even though like you had talked about When we when we first started this conversation all the technological advances that have been made it's it would be very much like Saying to people Apple Was started about in 1975 or six saying to everybody in Oregon You can use a Windows based product for anything you want private use Business, but you can't use an iPhone you can't use any products that were Invented after 1975 if it's not Windows based you can't do it You can do it in Washington State, but you can't do it here. That just doesn't make any sense to me not to have that option And who was it that that actually fought against this house bill? Well, we have a rough year over here smiling. I like it Well, I think two things. Do you want to answer that question if we have an option? All right. Yes. Okay. I don't want to I don't want to sound inferior to things I think the polygraph community is Pretty leery of this Because they see it as a replacement. The problem is I don't see it Really as a replacement. It's sort of like If you've ever had a TB test and you test positive, right? Mm-hmm You go get a check-stakes rate You get a different technology to verify that if you use a polygraph and an idea tech together Your confidence rate that you have the right Decision goes up to 98 percent. That's great. So you don't see it as a replacement. You see it as a tandem Okay, but who was it that? Was it against this All right, I think two things were in play one it's new technology and People had trouble getting their heads around. This is not Polygraph, but we already have polygraph laws. Why do we need? To make any changes in the law they didn't understand this was not polygraph It was new it really wasn't well understood And I think there was some pushback from the polygraph community as well because this is a threat It perceived to be a threat to their industry and people who would make money like polygraph examiners Peter you're over here smiling what? Well, it's it's just human nature to fight anything that's new, okay It breaks traditional mindsets of what's appropriate. What's applicable and what works what I want to underscore is that Roberts have absolutely accurate when he says that the that the efforts that Utilizing I detect will actually augment what polygraph is already done in some ways in that if you put the two of them together They they almost form a perfect picture in terms of either truth or deception when the two protocols corroborate the same position The the bill was not passed forward out of the Senate For The reasons that were sort of alluding to Some of it may have been misinformation Some of it may be an absence of Accurate information that the decision-makers were not willing to move forward We've met with senator James Manning and are attempting to Reinvigorate the bill with this upcoming legislative session We think the research and the data is overwhelming And are they are the politicians that are making these decisions? Are they getting? Good data. Good. Are they getting good information? We're trying to give them good data and good information and We believe that just it's just a matter of time. I think that the decision in New Mexico was huge because As has been previously discussed polygraphy has never been able to pass the Dabbert test for Empirical validity at the time of trial so in New Mexico when they finally introduced all of the data and the research around validity and reliability in the court determined Yes, it does pass the Dabbert standard. That is a huge decision at the federal level and we think that that will simply Contribute to a ripple effect that will expand over a period of time and the fact of the matter is that when the Israeli Defense Force Decides to utilize it in its counter-terrorism. I mean my goodness. What stronger endorsement can you have? when a country who is Amidst a sea of turmoil is using technology of this sort to Defend itself. I mean you can't Establish a more crucial application of technology than that. All right For folks that want to find out more give the website very quickly. We are out of time the website is credibility screening calm and There is a link for all the information Published research peer-reviewed research informational videos and also a link to The Oregon legislature If you read and like what you see and would like to support bill 2545 or encourage support for it There's a direct link where you can say Please take a look at this That would be great. All right Robert Gross on the wake-up call with us and also Peter Shannon And I detect is the technology credibility screening.com the website and go there find out more 756 news radio 1120 kpnw