Tom, make no mistake. 

EyeDetect will become the new polygraph.

It's all over but the crying.

Dan

I do not want to beat a dead horse on EyeDetect as people are probably sick of this topic considering the exchange over Memorial Day.  However, do you think that EyeDetect is going to be the NEW polygraph and take over.  I know that sounds strange, but these people apparently have limitless amounts of money behind them and could very well purchase the market share.  I suspect that is what sent Lafayette fleeing for cover is the very threat of that premise.

It would be interesting to get feedback from Joe, the poster from TX, as he is in the PSCOT business and from what  have read done a pretty good job of fending off the TAPE and APA examiners as to correct their abusive practices.

Dan:

CORRECTION.  I meant to say not ANY, but examinees that should test out innocent, and end up testing out Deceptive. I wonder if EyeDetect has kept track of that, or if it even matters to them.  In previous posts it was stated they only sell the licenses and do not know what other people are doing. I find it hard to fathom that they just FEDEX these gadgets off and that is the end of it.

In any of Harris's post does anyone recall what is required to be a Certified EyeDetect Examiner, and what is the educational level required.  I think I read in some internet article it was designed to be used by someone that is basically a customer service person or clerk.

Tom, this is mainly about money. So, an APA "position paper" about EyeDetect might well be in the works.

IMHO, the polygraph indu$try will soon be fighting for its life.

Nothing would surprise me.

Dan:

It is not unusual for an innocent person to be convicted of a child related or other sex offense.  These are hard cases to defend, bur easy to bring.  The legal expenses alone are staggering and if the person is found innocent people still cry technical foul.  While I am conservative in most views of this world, I am concerned for any person that is classified as Deceptive using any one of these devices, EyeDetect included.

Do you think that the APA is going to post a decision regarding accuracy and other factors like they did with voice stress many years ago. I am sure they are obligated to do something to protect the PSCOT examiners that are not only members of the APA but the local state chapters as well.  I am sure this is going to be a high stakes battle as there is much for the APA too lose on this one.

Quote:


My hunch is about 50% -- roughly the same as polygraph.

Dan:

I posted that when my source mentioned the PSCOT thing as he looks at AP site every so often. He does it from a library as he worked in Nothern VA with me until I got transferred overseas.  NSA is probably watching this site. 

I wonder how many EyeDetect examinees are going to test out Deceptive when he or she was really innocent?  Since no form of lie detection is 100% there very well could be victims here to from what I recall in one of your last posts about EyeDetect accuracy.  Maybe some of these units will end up in your area and you will get some real time feedback.

Interesting. I've worked the PCSOT racket since 2007.

From what I've seen, it's a license to steal.

Collateral damage? F*ck those clowns.

They're just pervs/sickos/skinners.

EyeDetect will destroy polygraph

Converus EyeDetect has yet another new target, the large scale market of PSCOT Polygraph Examiners.  My source in Las Vegas tells me they are contacting the sex offender treatment specialists as to UNSEAT the PSCOT examiner.  While it is a back door method they apparently have figured out that all of these ATSA Providers
Association For The Treatment Of Sexual Abusers are good prospects.  Selling the EyeDetect station and licenses are recurring revenue and essentially send the PSCOT examiners down the highway as they cannot compete on price. The ATSA provider is now in control and can test anytime he or she wants and is not beholden to the PSCOT examiner. Question is can EyeDetect make the grade when there is no interviewing component?. This should be an interesting war as an army of PSCOT examiners will eventually mobilize to hang on to this revenue.  More at:http://converus.com/treatment-providers/

NOTE WHITEPAPER ATTACHMENT ON CONVERUS SOLUTION-REPLACEMENT OF PSCOT EXAMINERS.

Wandersmann, you have no idea how much I appreciate your observation.

I can't speak to EyeDetect with any authority, but if you knew what really goes on within the polygraph indu$try, you'd be stunned.

Make no mistake: Polygraph "testing", from what I've observed in the field, is largely a racket.

Science? Forget about it.

It's all about money.

Dan Mangan wrote on May 30^th, 2017 at 12:47pm:


Dan -
           I have little to add except that this is the best line I've seen in my years of affiliation with antipolygraph.org.  Bingo!!!       My family origins are East German and my immediate family was fortunate enough to escape.  I never knew anyone more anti-communist/anti-socialist than my dad.  He used to always say, however, "the only thing worse than communists are people who make communists".  As a child I never really understood what he meant but later came to realize that people who make communists are these capitalist whores who would sell their own mother to make a buck.  There is no greater example of "people who make communists" than the majority of polygraph community (excluding you) and their supporters in security divisions.

It doesn't take much heat to melt a snowflake, and it was not my intent to do so.

Neal added an interesting albeit self-serving perspective to the discussion. I hope he returns, in part so he can address some of the issues he dodged earlier.

That said, when a capitalist starts talking about making the world a better place through lie detection, watch out.

Ark:

I would not even be let in the door much less be escorted to the gate.

You missed all of the fireworks.

Magan was using my mantra, and in the end prevailed.

If you can't makem see the light, makem feel the heat!  One of my favorite quotes from former president RR.

Quote:

I would last a week before being escorted to the gate.

Dan:

When you get elected President to the APA, you can start the change process.  Remember Trump won when everyone said he was going to lose big.  You may very well win big too.  If I was APA member, I would vote for you. 

I guess we should watch the Converus website to see if ARK gets appointed to the Advisory board?

Quote:


Given that Neal has retreated to his safe space, I'll pose this rhetorical question...

How does one use the pseudo-scientific polygraph machine -- widely known as a psychological billy club -- "properly"?

Tom:

I posted initially to better understand the thoughts of those that are against polygraph and hopefully find intelligent dialogue.  I believe that polygraph has contributed greatly to society, but there have also been abuses that are mostly caused by the humans at the controls of the instrument.   

I wouldn't blame a gun if someone used it inappropriately.  Similarly, I don't blame a polygraph instrument if it is used improperly.  Most people want to protect society and eliminate abuses.   

I enjoyed the exchanges with Ark - he was polite, thoughtful, and intelligent in his comments.  Thanks Ark - I hope to meet you some day.   

Lafayette's decision certainly did not bring the house down in Utah.  And the shark photos were meant to be funny; in no way does it mean I agree with their politics.  I trust the USG will evaluate the technology based on its merits.   

Let me reiterate what I've said before - all opinions expressed are my own.  You are correct in one of your comments - no other Converus executives are aware that I have posted on this site.  My opinions are mine and mine alone and do not necessarily represent the views of the company.  Converus' opinions are posted on our website - not here.

I could have easily posted anonymously, but elected to be straightforward and up front in hopes of good dialogue.  For the most part that didn't happen, so this will be my last post.

Happy Memorial Day to all.  This has been memorable.

Neal,

Thank you, though I don't think you owed me any apology. You asked a fair question.

With respect to your suggestion that I "should make it clear that [I am] against any credibility assessment technology, period," I cannot do that, because I do not hold any such view. If a valid lie detector were developed, I would not oppose it.

With respect to EyeDetect, it appears to me to be pseudoscience.

George:

I feel I owe you an apology.  Although it was not my intent, I feel that my post marginalized your contributions.  I was trying to point out that your end goal of eliminating polygraph in the workplace needs much more support if it is ever be realized.   

My view is that alternative technologies that limit the human abuses might be a step forward.  Obviously, your readers disagree.  So, perhaps you should make it clear that you are against any credibility assessment technology, period.

I suspect something bad happened, and more than just once during the usage of EyeDetect.

Nope.  Since we are cloud based, we know when every test is administered.  Lafayette does not run tests - their partners or customers run them.

I doubt they told Converus the whole truth either.

Yes, it is certainly possible that Lafayette did not tell us everything that went into their decision.  That is their right.

That Harris guy probably did everything possible to prevent them from making that decision.

Nope, I was merely informed of their decision.  That's all.  I clearly understood the impact, but it's not like they asked for my opinion before making the decision.   

My guess would be an exam was conducted and the polygraph was in conflict with EyeDetect or vice versa

EyeDetect and polygraph both have error rates, so of course there will be cases of misalignment.  Lets assume two tests are 86% accurate.  .86 x .86 = .74; so if the test questions were identical the agreement rate should be 74% and the disagreement rate should be 26%.  Many examiners view polygraph as ground truth and 100% accurate, so they will dismiss any misalignment as "EyeDetect doesn't work".  We understand this, but there isn't much we can do about it.

Also I think since there is no Inteview or Interrogation component to EyeDetect that was also creating some conflict in techniques and methodology.   

EyeDetect is a tool to gather eye data, just as a polygraph instrument gathers other physiological data.  Whether our customers interview to extract additional information after an EyeDetect test is up to them.  Since the test is completely automated, we do not train examiners on interview and interrogation techniques.  There are many others that train on I&I.  I can't comment on whether Lafayette viewed this as a conflict in methodology.  I don't know why they would, but I guess it is possible.

They must have made a significant investment as it was on the website and they had collateral brochures promoting it. 

This is incorrect.  Putting a photo and pricing on a website costs next to nothing.  Printing a few brochures doesn't cost much.  Lafayette sold part of their inventory, and we have offered to buy back their remaining inventory.  We certainly don't want them to lose money.

George
Thank you for your reply.  The only way to get more information is to have an insider at Lafayette open up. I am sure that is probably low.  Since we have many private polygraph schools I am sure one of them know what happened. It is hard to keep something like that quiet as in my experience someone always talks!  As we both know Lafayette QUIETLY underwrites many of the private schools, especially the one in Atlanta GA.  I suspect something bad happened, and more than just once during the usage of EyeDetect. I doubt they told Converus the whole truth either. That Harris guy probably did everything possible to prevent them from making that decision. My guess would be an exam was conducted and the polygraph was in conflict with EyeDetect or vice versa. Also I think since there is no Inteview or Interrogation component to EyeDetect that was also creating some conflict in techniques and methodology.   
They must have made a significant investment as it was on the website and they had collateral brochures promoting it.  We  may never know the real reason but it certainly was a major blow as it sent a message from the IBM of the polygraph manufacturers, " Your Fired ".  But then again maybe someone will read these posts and decide to post something about it.

Dan
Converus management probably has no idea he is even on this site. I dealt with white collar criminals for the better part of my career before being transferred into intelligence section.  Harris is like many of those con men I dealt with that are relentless.  They wear people down and keep counterpunching as that is how they survive and reach his or her objectives. While I am sure Harris is no criminal, his behavior patterns mimic the ones I am referring to.   From an investigative opinion, for which I was fortunate to be able to retire from due to having in 25 years, despite the only polygraph failure I had, he is desperate for information.  He probably came to this site as a last resort and not realizing the background of the posters.
When I made my first post, it contained the May 17th press release from Lafayette ending the business relationship. When you use the wayback machine to look at the Converus website and view Partners, Lafayette was listed all over the place to include foreign countries. When you look at it now, it is much different. The only partner that is listed more than once is Ruiz Protective Services in TX.  Most of the partners are in foreign countries and no strong U.S. presence. Losing Lafayette probably brought the house down in Utah. This reseller deal gave them instant credibility.  George M made a comment on one of my posts regarding federal usage.  I think all of that will stop once President Trump learns that Mark Cuban is a major investor in Converus.  For those on the site that do not know the history, Cuban has political aspirations and goes after Trump every chance he gets as he is angry over Clinton losing.  Harris came to this site for one reason only, and that was to obtain information that could help sell EyeDetect and possibly pick up some other data of value. He is no other interest in this site other than that.  Posting a photo of himself with Mark Cuban should also tell you something.

Actually, Neal, all of my PCSOT work these days is consultation, i.e., quality assurance reviews of exams run by so-called "forensic psycho-physiologists." I have yet to review a PCSOT exam -- or any other polygraph "test" for that matter -- that wasn't fatally flawed.

You asked about anger... I am angry in large part because of the enormous amount of collateral damage, primarily in the form of false-positive "test" results, that takes place in the polygraph field. For the last few years I have tried to bring some reform to the APA, but to no avail. 

Try to remember, Neal, that even if Converus' claim of 86% accuracy is true, for the tens of thousands of tests administered, there are thousands of victims. How can that not bother you? Do you write off those victims for the "greater good"?

It is unfortunate that you took offense to my use of the phrase "sad shit," which is an army expression I picked up in basic training 40-something years ago. I thought I read a post of yours that said something about having a thick skin, but I could be mistaken.

Neal, you came to this site on your own volition. (I'm surprised that the management types at Converus haven't told you to stand down, but that's another story.) If you want to run with the big dogs here at AP, you'll have to put up with some barking.

Quote:


Neal,

AntiPolygraph.org has been online since 18 September 2000. The progress that we've helped to make is in public education about polygraphy. We've made accurate information about polygraphy (including the "secrets" that the polygraph community doesn't want the public to know) available to all. We've also documented how the polygraph can be trivially defeated using simple countermeasures, and we've documented that fact that the polygraph community is unable to detect such countermeasures.

We've helped convince many people not to submit to polygraph "testing," and we've helped many polygraph victims understand why it's not their fault, but rather that they are the victims of a state-sponsored pseudoscientific fraud.

Banning polygraphy from the American workplace will require broad public understanding that it's a sham. So our focus remains on public education.

Quote:


Tom,

Thank you for sharing this information. I had been unaware that Lafayette has terminated its relationship with Converus. If anyone has further information about the reasons for this termination, I would be interested to learn more about this.

I think your friend's view that the feds will not adopt EyeDetect long term because of the lack of an interrogation component may well be correct. Interrogation is the primary component of polygraphy, and that's reflected in the great amount of time spent on interrogation in polygraph schools.

Regarding Pennsylvania State Police commissioner Tyree C. Blocker's wise decision to scrap the polygraph, see also this Citizens' Voice editorial:

Quote: