Slashdot Mirror
An Eye-Scanning Lie Detector Is Forging a Dystopian Future (wired.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Sitting in front of a Converus EyeDetect station, it's impossible not to think of Blade Runner. In the 1982 sci-fi classic, Harrison Ford's rumpled detective identifies artificial humans using a steam-punk Voight-Kampff device that watches their eyes while they answer surreal questions. EyeDetect's questions are less philosophical, and the penalty for failure is less fatal (Ford's character would whip out a gun and shoot). But the basic idea is the same: By capturing imperceptible changes in a participant's eyes -- measuring things like pupil dilation and reaction time -- the device aims to sort deceptive humanoids from genuine ones.
It claims to be, in short, a next-generation lie detector. Polygraph tests are a $2 billion industry in the US and, despite their inaccuracy, are widely used to screen candidates for government jobs. Released in 2014 by Converus, a Mark Cuban-funded startup, EyeDetect is pitched by its makers as a faster, cheaper, and more accurate alternative to the notoriously unreliable polygraph. By many measures, EyeDetect appears to be the future of lie detection -- and it's already being used by local and federal agencies to screen job applicants.
It claims to be, in short, a next-generation lie detector. Polygraph tests are a $2 billion industry in the US and, despite their inaccuracy, are widely used to screen candidates for government jobs. Released in 2014 by Converus, a Mark Cuban-funded startup, EyeDetect is pitched by its makers as a faster, cheaper, and more accurate alternative to the notoriously unreliable polygraph. By many measures, EyeDetect appears to be the future of lie detection -- and it's already being used by local and federal agencies to screen job applicants.
Look, it's not hard to fool any biometric methods for detecting lies. They all are just measuring how you react to lying. If you believe (even incorrectly) that the lie is not a lie, or not important, they fail to detect it.
They're looking for response. Kind of like the reverse of the Blade Runner detection, which looked for abnormal non-reaction to things that create reactions, and reaction to theings that don't create reactions.
This will only catch people who want to get high, and poor people. Wealthy people will be coached in how to avoid detection.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
This is going to make electing our leaders so much easier. Mandatory that they wear these during presidential debates and the results live broadcast along the bottom of the screen.
>>Ford's character would whip out a gun and shoot
Did you even see the film??
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
From noted experts on lie detectors and their weaknesses: Yes, they are measuring your current emotional/visceral response. Pathological liars do very well on these as they are acting out their stories (true or not); as they experience the universe of the story, it becomes their reality and their bodies react accordingly.
Okay, you aren't a pathological liar. Can you focus on images, at least? You want a positive emotional response? Focus your mind on sex while answering a question. You'll inhale, your pupils will dilate, skin thermal and electrical properties will change. For an opposite reaction, focus on maggots on an open wound on your arm.
"Polygraph tests are a $2 billion industry in the US"
And completely inadmissable in any court in every developed country.
They're bunk. Nonsense. Tripe. Bullshit.
This one will be no different.
Can people control their eye dilation like that?
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
No, the dystopian part of it is pretending you can detect lies by monitoring the body.
Good-bye
> history of efficacy.
Really? I thought that people tortured will tell you whatever you want to hear.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
An ocean of false positives is not efficient - you're stuck with figuring out which one is the truth, so you're back to square one.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Exactly, if you can 'prove' someone is lying with my black box of pseudoscience in a court of law then that gives you a lot of leverage.
Have you heard of any scientific study that correlates dilation of the pupil with lying? I haven't.
This is hucksterism, plain and simple. The polygraph test was not created to be used as a lie detector, and it has never been reliable in that application. This eye-scanner device appears to be little more than another round of bullshit: "Converus believes that emotional arousal manifests itself in telltale eye motions and behaviors when a person lies." Human beings are incredibly complex systems. Claiming the ability to detect what is in the mind of another human being based on some external cue, no matter how sophisticated the method, is blatantly disingenuous. The issue here is that the device in question cannot possibly work to any reasonable standard of reliability. It is a scam, a dupe, and a fraud. Its use at all in any official capacity will be a travesty; a farcical perversion of honesty. Dystopia is a world where so-called "justice" hinges on such a test.
Lie "detectors" always have been, are today, and will always be snake oil.
Not true. They work and they are useful... if the subject being interrogated believes they work.
It's almost like the placebo effect, except that placebo effectiveness is around 20 percent, whereas lie detector effectiveness is over 50 percent (and sometimes approaches 80 percent). Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert comics) explained this on his blog. He is a trained hypnotist and studies mental persuasion.
Yes you can easily beat any polygraph if you receive training. But how many people in the general population actually get such training? And btw it's not enough to hear or read about how polygraphs don't work, you actually have to have some first-hand experience on how they operate... you need to see for yourself that you can manipulate the readings by doing various things (thinking different thoughts, feeling discomfort and pain by deliberately doing things like stepping on a nail hidden in your shoe, etc)
Case in point: when you join a spy agency, they don't just tell you that polygraphs aren't scientific and they don't work, so don't worry about it. They give you actual live training on how to beat it. Because just tellling you about it isn't enough.
In context, an inefficient result disproves efficacy.
Unless they are comfortable with lying.
In the 1980's Southland corporation gave up using lie detection as a pre-screening tool in selecting employees. They were actually selecting better liars, not excluding the dishonest.
Back then the majority of minimum wage jobs were performed by teenagers (like I was at the time). Funny thing about teens is that they aren't grown up yet. Teens don't have a great deal of life experience. That includes failure, and having their integrity questioned. When you question the integrity of a confident, experienced adult, they can handle it. Question a kid, and you make them uncomfortable, nervous, twitchy. They don't have the experience and confidence to handle it.
Unless they are already accomplished liars and are comfortable and experienced at having their integrity and motives questioned.
TL;DR, southland actually had an increase in employee theft thanks to their use of lie detectors as a employment tool. https://newsok.com/article/203... https://www.cia.gov/library/re...