In the current era of technological advancements, there is an increasing interest of testing the lie detection methods. Different scholars have gained interest in testing whether lie detection is a science or myth. What is evident is that, in most cases, liars may not offer telltale signs of their dishonesty. As such, it is difficult to identify the persons who are telling the truth or those who tell lies. In most cases, a lie could be embedded in some truth. There is also a small difference between the people telling the truth and those who tell lies. A common mistake that has been made by lie detectors is putting so much emphasis on the nonverbal cues. For example, lie detectors neglect the actions of an individual when he or she is telling the truth. They only record the actions of liars when they are lying. Lie detectors have also proved to be overly confident in their skill of detection (Ask, Granhag, Juhlin, & Vrij, 2013). In this case, there have been a number of misconceptions when it comes to deceptions. This paper discusses the fact that lie detection is science rather that a myth believed by some proponents.


Lying can be defined using many approaches. Lying is seen as communication that is falsified and intended to benefit only one party. This classification covers a broad range of subjects – from humans to plants. In a plant, deception may be experienced in a situation where a male wasp is seduced by orchid flower, which produces smell creating an illusion of mating. The gainer is the orchid because, in the course of deception, the wasp acts as an agent of pollination. This approach is not conventionally used because it includes an act of misleading as a way of deception. Lying can be defined as an act that is meant to manipulate other people believe something he or she knows is untrue (Zuckerman, DePaulo, & Rosenthal, 1981; Krauss, 1981). Lying is a part of everyday life, sometimes causing harm and sometimes “white lies” may even benefit the lie receiver by acting as a social lubricant (Vrij, 2008).


Vrij (2008) argues that everybody has an idea of what lying is. Everybody knows that lying is something that is not acceptable in the society. The myth here is pretending that we seldom lie because humans cannot accept themselves as miserable liars. Since lying is unacceptable in society, people opt for others means of deceit. In the long run, they spend little time with liars and completely avoid them. Most individuals in the world are sick liars; they forget that they are lying and reveal their deceit by being nervous or avoiding eye contact. The author notes that people tend to be good detectors when monitoring their children, and close friends. Criminals accomplish their objective by deceiving others. Then there are professional lie catchers who are technically trained to catch lies. There has been a revolution in technology with the development of machines technically designed to detect lies. An example is the brain-scanner, which is used by researchers to monitor the thoughts and feeling of somebody directly (Vrij, 2008).

There is a big difference between good liars and poor lie detectors. Most people assume that they don’t lie and by so doing they are underestimating their ability to lie. There are many ways of telling why people believe that they are the worst liars than they thought. First, they overestimate how honest they are with their feelings and thought to others. By saying so, Vrij (2008) implied that people believe that their lies trend all the way. Second, the selfish act makes people see themselves as more morally upright than others (Kaplar & Gordon, 2004). When someone admits that he or she is a good liar, he or she complicates the good self-image. People will tend to disclose their white lies and hide dangerous lies (Elaad, 2003). This shows that it is easy to detect a dangerous lie compared to white lie because people will remember the lies that can be easily noticed. Lastly, people will remember instances when they lied and were detected that than instances when they lied successfully. When people forget how easily they can lie, they are underestimating their ability to lie (Vrij, 2008).


The reason why people lies go unnoticed is that no efforts are put in detecting them, and they do not want to know the truth. Vrij (2008) calls it the ostrich effect and states that there are at least three reasons as to why people don’t like to know or accept the truth. One, the truth may be bitter and people prefer to stay ignorant by believing a more “pleasant” lie. Second, people fear consequences that the truth may present. They are afraid of what they would need to do if they were to accept the truth. Third, people fear not knowing what to do if they came to know the truth.


Even though, lie detection has been used in many contexts, the technique has been misunderstood in many ways. Lie detection is one complex technique and requires a personal judgment. The scientific underpinnings used in lie detection are less straightforward than other tests like the breath-alcohol test. The nature of lie detection makes it interesting to analyze especially from the basis of science. It uses the methods and conclusions of a number of disciplines that deal with behavior and human physiology. Lie detection also offers a vital probability issue that is applicable in criminal law (O’Sullivan, 2007).

In 1895, a mix of pulse reading and blood pressure was used to investigate crime. Other experiments done in lie detection have used blood pressure, and respiratory recordings. The science of lie detection was equally tested by the polygraph created by Larson John. The polygraph used the three measurements (pulse, blood pressure, and respiration) in lie detection. The Keeler, made by Leonarder Keeler, introduced the galvanic response of the skin to the list. The key improvement in the Keeler is the ability to obviate and record the blood pressure distortions especially in the readings that could result from muscular flexing (Evans & Stanovich, 2013).

In most cases, the procedure used in lie detection such as the polygraph test is done by experienced examiners in a controlled environment. The examiner will engage in questions that depend on the preliminary interview results together with different circumstances and facts that create an accusation basis. Some questions would be variable depending on the individual being questioned. Many studies on lie detection have proposed the use of some systematically designed models as ways of measuring the physiological activities and creating the last credibility judgment (Frank & Ekman, 2004).

Even though lie detection appears extremely useful, a number of results obtained from lie detectors have been excluded from trial (Albrechtsen, Meissner, & Susa, 2009). There is a possibility that the validation and the verdict could be wrong just like the lie detector (Etcoff, Ekman, Magee, & Frank, 2000). In this case, lie detection procedures have no independent means of checking the phenomena which is lying or confirming whether the accused person lied.


Detecting liars and lies is not an easy task. Even professional lie detectors, like police officers and intelligence officers, fail to do so in most cases. Research shows that professionals also make wrong decisions and fail to distinguish between a lie and truth. One reason behind failing to detect a lie is due to the complexity of the task. There is no single response from a liar that a lie detector can rely on to truly capture a liar. A liar who is determined to lie will avoid being caught at all cost, and there will be an attempt to hide nonverbal, psychological and verbal signs. Liars will try at all cost to create an accurate impression to lie detectors to avoid being caught. They will employ informed tactics to fool whoever is trying to fool them, living the lie detector with mixed feelings about the situation. There are many errors committed by lie detectors that hinder them from knowing the truth; they may tend to focus more on signs that are not linked with the lie. This may be contributed to the fact that they were trained to do so. Some of the techniques the detectors are trained to might be well known by the liars thus making it hard for them to separate the truth from a lie (Vrij, 2008).

Lack of realism is another contributor to the lack of ability to detect lies. Many studies mention that a lie can be detected by observing how people are behaving, screening their speech and analyzing their psychological responses. When lie detectors are conversant with these principles, they are so proud to have the ability to detect deception. Research experts have claimed to have the capacity to detect lies, but they fail to support their study with evidence. Interestingly, lie detectors who have been trained to look for certain cues tend to perform worse than those who do not (Kassin & Fong, 1999; Mann, Vrij, & Bull, 2004).


Lie detection is a science and not a myth since the procedure used in lie detection follows a practical and intellectual activity involving a systematic study of behavior and structure of the natural and physical world using experiment and observation (Moore, Cappelli, Caron, Shaw, Spooner, & Trzeciak, 2011). The process of lie detection, however, could be improved if methods of testing the validity are improved.

While it is important to understand nonverbal, verbal, and physiological indicators of deceit, it is equally important for a lie detector to know which is indicator is more valuable. We sometimes tend to place more emphasis on nonverbal cues when detecting deception, however differences in cultural behaviors may define nonverbal indicators more than lying itself. This leads us to suggest that Emotional Intelligence (EQ), a combination of People Intelligence (PQ) and Cultural Intelligence (CQ), has a key role to play in lie detection.


1.Albrechtsen, J. S., Meissner, C. A., & Susa, K. J. (2009). Can intuition improve deception detection performance? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 45, 1052–1055.

2.Ask, K., Granhag, P. A., Juhlin, F., & Vrij, A. (2013). Intending or pretending? Automatic evaluations of goal cues discriminate true and false intentions. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 27, 173–177.

3.Elaad, E. (2003). Effects of feedback on the overestimated capacity to detect lies and the underestimated ability to tell lies. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 17, 349–363.

4.Etcoff, N. L., Ekman, P., Magee, J. J., & Frank, M. G. (2000). Lie detection and language comprehension. Nature , 405, 159.

5.Evans, J. S., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 8, 223–241.

6.Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (2004). Appearing truthful generalizes across different deception situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 86, 486–495.

7.Frank, M. G., & Feeley, T. H. (2003). To catch a liar: Challenges for research in lie detection training. Journal of Applied Communication Research , 31, 58-75.

8.Kaplar, M. E., & Gordon, A. K. (2004). The enigma of altruistic lying: Perspec- tive differences in what motivates and justifies lie telling within romantic relationships. Personal Relationships , 11, 489–507.

9.Kassin, S. M., & Fong, C. T. (1999). “I’m innocent!”: Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior , 23, 499–516.

10.Krauss, R. M. (1981). Impression formation, impression management, and nonverbal behaviors. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna, Social cognition: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 323–341). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

11.Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2006). Looking through the eyes of an accurate lie detector. Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology , 7 (1–16).

12.Moore, P., Cappelli, D., Caron, T., Shaw, E., Spooner, D., & Trzeciak, R. (2011). A preliminary model of insider theft of intellectual property. Retrieved 2016, from

13.O’Sullivan, M. (2007). Unicorns or Tiger Woods: are lie detection experts myths or rarities? A Response to on lie detection “wizards” by Bond and Uysal. Law Hum Behav , 31 (1), 117-23.

14.Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities (Second ed.). Chichester, West Sussex, England : John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

15.Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and non- verbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz, Advances inexperimental social psychology. 14, 1–57.





Cyber Forensics has been defined in different terms in available literature. ISO (2012) terms it the identification, collection, acquisition and preservation of digital evidence of substantial value. A better, more broadbased definition that clarifies the legal context is credited to Easttom (2013), which defines Cyber Forensics as the identification, preservation, collection, transportation, analysis, and presentation of digital evidence according to legally accepted processes and procedures.

This paper focuses on the crucial role of Cyber Forensic investigation as related to Intellectual Property. In this context, Intellectual Property is classified as copyright, trademark, trade secrets, licensing and patents. Copyright protects the original “author” or owner the exclusive right to reproduce the work. Definition of copyright might vary across countries. The World Intellectual Property Organization clarifies that computer programs, databases, designs and architecture also counts as copyright (WIPO, 2003). Trademark is a brand name and includes a word, a name, a symbol or a a combination of these to uniquely identify the goods/ services. Trade secrets are confidential business information. Licensing refers to the legal agreement between the Intellectual Property rights owner and another party (licensee). Patents are Intellectual Property rights granted by the government to the inventor. Patents are usually for limited durations (Stephenson, 2014).


Cyber Forensics is tasked with a structured investigation that will maintain a chain of custody. In many cases, the Cyber Forensic investigation follows set procedures that are based on well-established scientific principles (Stephenson, 2014). The device in question would be isolated to ensure it cannot be contaminated accidentally. Then, the investigators prepare a copy of the storage media in the device. After copying that original media, the information will be locked in a safe facility to ensure that the pristine conditions are maintained. Then, investigation will be carried out on the stored copy of digital media.

More often than not, the investigators may apply different techniques and the proprietary software in examining and searching all the hidden files. All the unallocated disk space with deleted, damaged, or encrypted files are checked as well. The evidence found on the device is then documented carefully as a report. The evidence will then be verified and made ready for the legal proceedings. The legal proceedings involve depositions, actual litigation and discovery of the collected evidence.


Cyber Forensic has been used to deal with threats of Intellectual Property initiated internally, by former or current employees and externally, by business partners, contractors and third parties. This section reviews the motivation behind theft of Intellectual Property based on established models. There are two dominant models that explain information stealing within organizations. One is the Entitled Independent model where an insider is acting alone to steal information to help in a new job or own business. The other model is the Ambitious Leader model where a leader, someone with a larger purpose, recruits insiders to steal information.

According to the Entitled Independent model, without an interview, it would be difficult to find out the magnitude to which an insider would feel in charge of the information stolen. In a number of cases, the interviews and findings found out that 60% of the class of insiders who had their information stolen supported the hypothesis that they felt in charge of the stolen information. About three quarters of the entitled independents had their information stolen in their responsibility area, and 37% of the cases were involved partially in developing the stolen information. About 42% of the Entitled Independents had stolen the information or products despite having signed the Intellectual Property agreement with specific organizations (Moore et al., 2011).

Figure 1: Insider theft and deception (Moore et al., 2011)

Moore et al. (2011) found out that this kind of entitlement may be severe especially once the insider considers his function important in product development. In a case where the role of the insider is focused on contributing to a specific product, the insider would have a greater ownership sense regarding the information and product resulting into a huge entitlement. Different from the good management practice, individuals could get positive feedback due to their efforts and could interpret it as some kind of reinforcement provided their predispositions.

A number of cases depicted evidence of entitlement. For example, an entitled independent who stole, and marketed a copy of his employer’s critical software established a huge manuscript that detailed his innocence and considered the persons involved in the trial dead. Similarly, another insider stole the database of the client and offered the company some threats just because he was denied a raise (Moore et al., 2011).

Some dissatisfaction had a role to play in about 33% of the cases of independent entitlement. In most cases, the dissatisfaction came about from insider’s denial of requests. The requests denied in the cases studied involved benefits and raises, promotion application, and relocation requests. Some dissatisfaction also lead to threats of layoff in the organization victim (Moore et al., 2011).

Some of the things that trigger an insider into contemplating to steal information include the insider’s plan to move into the competing organization, dissatisfaction with their job, and the sense of entitlement to the products. As a result, the need to steal information became strong resulting into theft. Some organization may not be able to detect the theft. In some organization, the employee’s actions which appear suspicious may be observed and action taken (Moore et al., 2011).

The concerns over being caught when stealing could make the insider not to steal the information. This could be explained by the psychological predisposition of entitlement that makes an individual overestimate his abilities while underestimating the capabilities of other. Even though, the agreement of Intellectual Property may be in place, in any cases, a very low percentage of the entitled independents attempt to deceive the organization when they try to take the information (Moore et al., 2011).

According to the Ambitious Leader model, some leader may recruit the insider to steal some information especially for a larger purpose. Some of the cases include the specific plans in developing competing product or using information in attracting clients away from the organization victim. More than 50% of cases of the stealing Intellectual property fall in this category. About 38% of the cases involve insiders who were working with the competing organization so as to help his new employer. About 30% fall in this category. The last category of insider involves those who sell the information to competing firms. About 10% of the cases may fall in this category (Moore et al., 2011).

Figure 2: Theft planning by Ambitious Leader (Moore et al., 2011)

The cases where foreign entities were benefitted fit into the Ambitious Leader scenario. The study also showed that the loyalty to the native country was higher than the loyalty to the employer. Some insiders who stole the Intellectual Property were influenced by the Ambitious Leader. The insiders with loyalty to the foreign country were influenced by the goal to bring value to and relocate to the given country. All the cases of the Ambitious Leader involved an individual being influenced and motivated to promote the crime (Moore et al., 2011).


Cyber Forensic investigation helps establish the provisions that target the infringement of Intellectual Property. For example, the United States No Electronic Theft Act attempts to criminalize noncompetitive infringement. On the other hand, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act offers penalties for crimes like conduct, and the circumventing of the codes designed to have the copyright material protection (Moohr, 2001).

Cyber Forensic investigation helps prevent theft of copyright. For example, the Copyright Law targeted at preventing the infringement by the competitors holding copyright. The law acknowledges that the infringement by competitors for commercial reasons is a crime classified as misdemeanor. Initially, the criminal offense was applicable to only the people who infringed for reasons of profit and the economic competitors were subjected to some liability. However, the new legislation included a penalty to protect different type of copyright material and increased the criminal penalties severity, while ensuring that the quasi-copyright material is protected by the criminal provisions. In this case, the infringement of copy right for private financial gain, and commercial advantage were included in the law provision (Moohr, 2001).

The goal of the Copyright Law is to benefit the public through the promotion of the ideas and learning. To promote this law, authors are granted exclusive rights. The law protects the interest of the author as ways of having an end protection. In this case, the law provides access to the authors work when the statutory grant expires (Moohr, 2001).

The law offers some rights to the initial expression of ideas to overly restrict the access by the public. Confining the protection involves setting out limited rights and restricting the period of time for the rights, while maintaining an existence of material in the public domain. The law helps others to build on ideas freely.


From the study, it is evidenced that Cyber Forensic investigation helps prevent theft of Intellectual Property, helps establish the provisions that target the infringement of copyright, helps identify the motivation behind theft of Intellectual Property, and helps deal with the threats of Intellectual Property. Some of the reasons behind theft of Intellectual Property involve benefiting the foreign entities, stealing information especially for a larger purpose, insider’s plan to move into the competing organization, dissatisfaction with their job, and the sense of entitlement to the products. The two theories used to explain the insider’s motivation include the Ambitious Leader model, and the Entitled Independent model. Laws like the Copyright Law have been enacted to protect the authors against theft of Intellectual Property. In summary, Cyber Forensic investigators need to give sufficient importance to Intellectual Property rights when obtaining and reviewing digital evidence.


1.Easttom, C. (2013). System forensics, investigation and response 2nd ed. . Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

2.ISO. (2012). ISO/IEC 27037:2012 Information technology — Security techniques — Guidelines for identification, collection, acquisition and preservation of digital evidence. Retrieved from

3.Moohr, G. (2001). The crime of copyright infringement: An inquiry based on morality, harm, and criminal theory. Retrieved October 2016, from

4.Moore, P., Cappelli, D., Caron, T., Shaw, E., Spooner, D., & Trzeciak, R. (2011). A preliminary model of insider theft of intellectual property. Retrieved October 9, 2016, from

5.Stephenson, P. (2014). Official (ISC)2® Guide to the CCFP CBK. CRC Press.

6.WIPO. (2003, June). What is Intellectual Property? Retrieved 2017, from World Intellectual Property Organization:

Translate »