ALEXANDER DOWNER CHALLENGED TO LIE DETECTOR TEST

I launched "Poly The Pollie" ten minutes ago. Our first target - Alexander Downer. See the media release here.

Comments

[Rob Irwin]

You know these guys are never going to say yes... the potential for a false reading, and the politcal mileage that others would get out of it, is too great. It's be like that British politician a few years back who tested the drug testing device at a press conference -- and blew a positive result. Cue red faces all 'round. Still, it's an awesome PR stunt for the network ;-)

[Cameron Reilly]

Rob, Steve Van Aperen is Australia's leading polygraph expert. If his skills are good enough to be used in every other field of investigation, I think they are good enough for this one as well. This is no stunt. I am completely serious.

[Phillip Molly Malone]

Rob, he is serius, and it aint no stunt.
I just hope he doesn't have Van sending out the requests to the Pollies!

Molly

[Cameron Reilly]

damn, I wish I'd thought of that!

[Jonno Downes]

Brilliant!

Media hacking at it's finest.

[Paul]

Excellent, glad this idea is getting some traction. Looking forward to the (inevitable?) international spin-offs as we're desperately needing a UK version right now...

[Rob Irwin]

OK, Cam, Molly, you're not reading what I wrote.

I'm saying that you know, or should know, that the average pollie isn't going to say yes to this... which is what makes it a stunt. Because, sure, you can be deadly serious and have the polygraph dude lined up on the off-chance that someone does say yes but, deep down, in your heart of hearts, you know that the average pollie ISN'T going to say yes... but damn, it makes for a good challenge, ie: publicity.

I mean, maybe some dude on the fringe of politics will do it for a bit of self-publicity... so try asking a Democrat or a zany independent type if you want a snowflake's chance in hell of getting a yes in the future because I'd be deeply shocked if a leading light in the Libs or Labour said yes.

[Cameron Reilly]

Rob, this is a ten year vision I have. By 2015, I want to see "random polygraph testing" part of our electoral system. Any politician will know that he or she can be grabbed and put on a polygraph at any time. We need to change behaviour. We need to curb the lying and corruption. Supporting something like this is a simple and, I believe, effective way that "we the people" can change the behaviour of our politicians.

Next stop - Corporate CEOs.

[Phillip Molly Malone]

Hey Cam,
Corporate CEO's? Your a CEO (well if thats the title you hold this week). How about putting your self up as the first person to take the questions? I am sure that there could be a question or two that might be interesting to TPN Listerns that they would like a straight answer too!

JMTC
Molly

[Cameron Reilly]

Yeah Mol, I'd happily sit a polygraph about my business dealings. I'm a straight up guy.

[Glenn Vassallo]

Great to see you have followed through on this cool idea....it is just such a beautifully simple idea that is bound to grab the publics attention.

[Rob Irwin]

Cam, I know you love this idea and you seem to be whipping the punters into a frenzy with it, but please ask your polygraph mate if polygraph evidence is actually admisable in court evidence.

That's a pretty good litmus test for how reliable something is and, if I recall something from my uni days, I don't think you can use a polygraph as evidence in court.

I could stand corrected on this, but I think it's the case. If I'm right... food for thought, no?

[Cameron Reilly]

Rob, I did ask him about this when we first met. He told me that polygraphs are not admissable in court, for a number of reasons, and accuracy ISN'T one of them. I'm not qualified to go into details about why we don't use them in court, but I do know that the police still use them a lot in their investigations. Fortunately, I don't intend to use our polygraph results to throw politicians in jail, so this isn't an issue. It's just one more set of data points that voters can use come election time. I'll be printing "how to vote" cards based on our results.

[Rob Irwin]

Whereas I still doubt the accuracy. No, really, I do.

A polygraph, to my understanding, works on three things - blood pressure, respiration, and skin resistance - is that right? The theory goes that you can detect someone telling a lie when these three things behave in certain ways. However, it's also well accepted that these three things can change due for a variety of reasons other than lying.

I've read that no study actually exists to support a correlation between sweaty palms and lying, for example. In a similar vein, a polygraph cannot differentiate between anxiety caused by dishonesty and anxiety caused by other factors. And god knows, the situation of being wired up to a polygraph to see if you're a liar or not can be quite anxiety inducing, no?

That's why I don't put as much stock in these things as others and certainly one of the reasons why I don't think a polygraph is admisable as court evidence. Now, the expert might say otherwise... but what else would he say about his profession? It would be very weird, actually, if he were to agree with anything I've said, so I don't expect him to.

[Glenn Vassallo]

Hi Rob, I'm pretty sure that a polygraph is routinely used to knock people off the list of suspects in crime investigations. So in this use alone it could provide some very good information. i.e. It could be used to clear a politician who has been accused of lying, and not necessarily used to find them guilty. Would you see this as a fair use of polygraph technology? "Mr. Howard, regarding the Children Overboard......"

[Phillip Molly Malone]

Hey Cam,
Why the Shouting with the title?
Molly

[Cameron Reilly]

sorry bout the shouting dude. i think the media release was written with the title in caps and I just cut and pasted. :-)