The security geek splash-story of the day comes from Private Eye, via Ian Brown, via FIPR; allow me to quote another website to set the context:

neuroskeptic (Feb 1 2009)

Via Mind Hacks, we learn about the case of Francisco Lacerda, a University of Stockholm academic who’s been threatened with legal action […] Nemesysco sell software which, they claim, can detect deception and emotions by analyzing the sound of people’s voices – lie detection, in other words. (In fact it turns out that it can also be used to detect love, or at least, so they say – see below…)

The legal dispute surrounds a 2007 paper authored by Lacerda and Anders Erikkson, entitled Charlatanry in Forensic Speech Science: A Problem to be Taken Seriously. It was originally published in The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, but was taken down from the journal’s website following Nemesysco’s threats. However, the full text is still available on scribd.

…and lo and behold the paper referred really is still available (as linked to in the above article) at Scribd, as well as apparently being cited on several Torrent sites; the paper does not appear to be on Wikileaks yet, but reference is made to the brouhaha on that site.

It’s quite a pleasant read. For vox pop, see also: sciencenow antipolygraph – and the September 2007 posting at medicalnewstoday which reads perhaps like a Nemesysco press release.

I am sympathetic towards Nemesysco’s Mr Liberman if he’s truly just a victim of academic arrogance as suggested in the ScienceNow article:

Liberman says that he acted not because the researchers questioned his technology but because they targeted him personally by, for example, noting in a section titled “Who is Mr. Liberman?” that he has no university degree. “The objection was not in the publication of their study results, it was in their calling us charlatans,” Liberman says.

[1]

…but working in the field of security I am always interested in accusations (and rebuttals, if forthcoming) of “snake oil” tactics; but any form of “gagging” does not constitute a rebuttal. The reason I feel that this is a case of “gagging” is comes from the litigation aimed at the publisher:

Janet Joyce, managing director at Equinox, declined to discuss the specifics of the case, but she says the journal–which is published biannually, has a circulation of less than 500, and employs no full-time staff–simply lacks the resources to put up a legal fight. The journal has agreed to publish a rebuttal letter from Lieberman and the company, but Joyce notes that “we didn’t withdraw the article. It’s still in print.”

With my already dim opinion of polygraph technology, I would welcome more light to be shone upon the “science” of this industry.

I would welcome dissent, discussion and correction.

I don’t welcome silence.

[1] See page 18 of the Scribd article for the referred text.