UNL 206

I am always a bit skeptical when it comes to technology like this. I also tend to disapprove of it and its applications. This device has a 90% accuracy rate: not fool proof, and not accurate enough to assume information obtained by it. The idea of companies, employers, and law enforcement using this technology only serves to remind me of Big Brother and all that he entails. Where will the intrusion end if this method is accepted and utilized?

It's a little disturbing, since this is information they choose to make public. I could only imagine what technology the government really has

I don't think people have the right to scan the brains of whoever they feel like. As it is now, I feel that the abundance of security cameras everywhere is invasive enough. I feel that something like the NO LIE MRI would cause more problems than solutions because of it's 90% accuracy.

As far as using to keep terrorists off of planes it doesn't sound bad but I'm afraid it might set some kind of precedent to use it anywhere. It says that the technology is 90% accurate... but what about the other 10%? That's a big percent when you think about in terms of using it in court... a 10% wrongful conviction rate is pretty high.

I would have to agree with the comments above. It is skeptical and the 10% that is wrong is way to high. However, every measure to keep people safe should be considered and well thought out before ruled out. Even this idea.

What are they gonna do, ask everyone who boards a plane if they have a bomb with them and then scan their brain? Call me old fashioned, but that's just absurd. 10% comes out to 1 in 10, which is one in ten people being wrongly accused/convicted, which just doesn't even sound right. I don't even think 99% would be enough. Make it 99.99% (to the hundredths place), and maybe I'll take it seriously. And even then, any criminal convicted by these arcane machines could plead the .01th.

And anyway, there's already a tried-and-true way to convict criminals. It's called EVIDENCE.

I feel that in this time period, we have little privacy as it is and scanning someone's brain takes humanity to the gutter. There still can be people who are 10% false anyway.

I wouldn't mind dealing with this sort of system. However, what would happen if someone even made the simple thought that what if they think i am a terrorist. Would the system dub them as a terrorist even if they had no intention to do so? This is something that needs to be full proof no matter how great it sounds. A system this intricate is not a system to just throw out there. Besides, what if it causes more chaos then leaving everything well enough alone?

I don't agree with the idea. however i feel that if it would help to protect others than it may be something to try.

" It is non-invasive and could be used by anybody... such as a potential employer, a police officer, an airline security screener." Everything about this No lie MRI is invasive, anytime someones privacy is compromised it is invasion. Until this product is error proof I believe that it should not be unveiled.

I would agree with the comments above if the device is 100% accuracy but I don't agree this idea that has still 10% of wrong convince. This big 10% is enough to invasive one's privacy

I strongly disagree with brain scanning someone else's brain. There is potential innocent victims of remaining 10% of test result. That's huge impact on someone else's life. We don't have to right to take those life away from them.

I disagree with brain scanning as well. But I agree with the comments that the device 100% accurate.

I don't know if I fully agree with this method of lie detection. There are many flaws to this design. I'm sure if terrorists were captured beforehand they would have intelligence training as to finding a work around, such as popping pills that make you inactive to the outside world, or finding a nerve that can disconnect the brainwaves to that area. There is always a flaw to something so new. I'm very skeptical about any technology for these types of detection.

I think that this technology could be extremely useful in criminal situations, such as for use by police. If used under similar circumstances to current lie detectors, I see no reason why it would not be admitted in court. As for use in employment situations, that is getting a little too invasive. Only time that might be acceptable are situations where there is already extensive checks run prior to employment, such as when working for the CIA or FBI. At airports though I am totally against it, I don't even like that they can ask me to go through my luggage so invading my brain seems so wrong.