It's not voodoo, please stop spreading FUD. The name -- lie detector -- is complete horseshit because it doesn't detect lies, but that doesn't detract from its effectiveness as a low-level torture device.

The physiological measurements may be inadmissible to the courts, but if you happen to confess to a crime during the (thoroughly unpleasant) interrogation then that is perfectly admissible. This key point here is why LEOs are so adamant about subjecting their prisoners to polygraph examinations.

Over 95% of Federal court cases end as a result of a plea bargain, despite the plea bargain being offered under threat of lifetime imprisonment and death.

Letting the public know that the machines do not work as described should have the effect of reducing the machines effectiveness as torture devices.

The public should not fear the machines, and the public, knowing that the machines cannot be used to make them seem innocent, should never consent to being hooked up to one.

Isn't calling voodoo voodoo the opposite of "spreading FUD?"

I think you can use voodoo in two ways: "Impossibly arcane but near-magical technology" or "total crap."

I don't really have any knowledge about this, but the discussions around the Aaron Swartz case had the consensus that this is because of the asymmetry or resources: Federal government with unlimited resources, vs. defendant with little to no resources, in a fight for multiple years.