The thing is, although I have nothing to hide myself, and there's very little I won't just tell if asked politely, I am worried nevertheless.

My greatest concern is, if this can tell if you're lying, and we accept its authority, then we will have a means by which we can objectively determine the truth, and honesty.

But what happens to our conceptions of our society, when the technology that determines honesty is controlled by dishonest people?

Far beyond any specific scenarios of abuse, the greatest threat is that it could undermine our own natural sense of trust and truth. The psychological effect would be much less "Minority Report" and much more "A Scanner Darkly" (To remain within the...

The thing is, although I have nothing to hide myself, and there's very little I won't just tell if asked politely, I am worried nevertheless.

My greatest concern is, if this can tell if you're lying, and we accept its authority, then we will have a means by which we can objectively determine the truth, and honesty.

But what happens to our conceptions of our society, when the technology that determines honesty is controlled by dishonest people?

Far beyond any specific scenarios of abuse, the greatest threat is that it could undermine our own natural sense of trust and truth. The psychological effect would be much less "Minority Report" and much more "A Scanner Darkly" (To remain within the Philip K Dick metaphor... dang it! That guy just keeps popping up!)

The results of the 20 years of research speak for themselves.

After 20 years of research and testing, Dr. Farwell began applying the Brain Fingerprinting® technology in the criminal justice system. In several dramatic cases (Harrington & Grinder), he demonstrated that Brain Fingerprinting testing could profoundly change the criminal justice process, giving both prosecutors and defense attorneys a new scientific method of identifying the guilty and exonerating the innocent. In a major breakthrough, Brain Fingerprinting test results were admitted as evidence in a US District Court in March 2002. On February 26, 2003, in the Terry Harrington appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court left undisturbed t...

The results of the 20 years of research speak for themselves.

After 20 years of research and testing, Dr. Farwell began applying the Brain Fingerprinting® technology in the criminal justice system. In several dramatic cases (Harrington & Grinder), he demonstrated that Brain Fingerprinting testing could profoundly change the criminal justice process, giving both prosecutors and defense attorneys a new scientific method of identifying the guilty and exonerating the innocent. In a major breakthrough, Brain Fingerprinting test results were admitted as evidence in a US District Court in March 2002. On February 26, 2003, in the Terry Harrington appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court left undisturbed the law of the case establishing the admissibility of the Brain Fingerprinting test evidence.

The results of the 20 years of research....

Is this 20 years of "their" research or does it include peer verification research. Has their research been through rigorous peer review?

20 years of research in of it self does not say much. 20 years of good research, with the "good" being determined through peer review, means a great deal.

As far as the courts allowing its use, well, it does not mean much. The courts are not experts. I do not put great faith in the courts being a solid trustworthy source for validation of anything concerning science.

Until I fully understand what they are doing and what evidence they use to back up their claims, I will remain skeptical as should all o...

The results of the 20 years of research....

Is this 20 years of "their" research or does it include peer verification research. Has their research been through rigorous peer review?

20 years of research in of it self does not say much. 20 years of good research, with the "good" being determined through peer review, means a great deal.

As far as the courts allowing its use, well, it does not mean much. The courts are not experts. I do not put great faith in the courts being a solid trustworthy source for validation of anything concerning science.

Until I fully understand what they are doing and what evidence they use to back up their claims, I will remain skeptical as should all others. The first question that I must ask is has it been peer reviewed? If it has, I then have to check to see what they say about it.

I'm not saying they are wrong or that their tool does not work. I'm just saying that I am not willing to put faith in their work until I can fully check it out.

People tend to over hype new toys. Even if this were not true, one should always demand much proof for all new things.

I hope it does do all they claim it can. It could help in many ways in the justice system.