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.
>>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.
No, the dystopian part of it is pretending you can detect lies by monitoring the body.
Good-bye
They already have such a test built in. You just need to look at their lips and see if they are moving.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
> 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.
Have you heard of any scientific study that correlates dilation of the pupil with lying? I haven't.
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.
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...