Quote:


Dr. Vrij's comment is correct, but "reasonably" is a subjective term. If you read deeper you'll see that the CQT can have a low specificity which makes it biased against the innocent. "Reasonably accurate" could mean better than chance, a notion which I tend to agree with. Slightly better than chance could be appropriate as part of an aggregate risk calculation. But to view the results as deterministic is what generates so much displeasure from posters in this forum.

Perhaps the launch was not premature from a business standpoint which has other criteria like seizing a niche, heading off competition etc. My call of a premature launch resulted from noticing the scant field testing thus far conducted. I also do not feel at ease with what they used to establish ground truth. 

Regarding customers, you will rarely find a purchaser of a new cool Camaro complain--they are still intoxicated with their new toy. 

Quote:


This is marketing pablum. Prove it.

I will respond to your other points later. I have to catch an international flight.

Quote:


Hmm, you have a point Tom. Neal, let me know if Converus would like to negotiate a consultation contract.

Hmm, you have a point Tom. Neal, let me know if Converus would like to negotiate a consultation contract.

Ark:  Absolutely!  We have consulting contracts with media relations consultants, lobbyists, business services consultants (myCFO, etc.) and technology consultants (typically ex-researchers from US federal agencies).  We also have a technical advisory board.  From your posts I believe you could make a significant contribution.  What are your rates?

If I had any knowledge that could improve that device or any other lie detection device I certainly would not provide it.

Tom, why not?  Don't you want to help people that are being victimized by polygraph?  If you could make it better, you wouldn't do it?  That does not seem to align with the core values of antipolygraph.com.  If you made an alternative to polygraph better, maybe it would replace the technology you despise.

All of these devices can be manipulated by the user/examiner to obtain the answers he or she, or his agency ultimately is seeking.

EXACTLY!  The human manipulation is the primary flaw in the process.  The instrument just gathers physiological data.  The humans at the controls interpret and manipulate the data to suit their objectives and agency goals.    For this reason, computer algorithms score and deliver the results of EyeDetect tests, not humans.

I have no opinion on what test you develop. The potential for abuse is there with EyeDetect, as once you sell these units what does Converus care what is done with them or who suffers from improper usage.  My comment was regarding sales volume in terms of the fidelity testing as Dan Mangan brought up a good point. That is easy money. Selling to the USG is no easy task and you have an army of polygraph examiners and related people that will fight you in every possible way. While you may not want to accept it or realize it, Lafayette dropping EyeDetect was not helpful as it gave you instant credibility of sorts in a very specialized market. Personally if I was Lafayette management I would have kept the device, made a few sales every quarter and strung Converus along as to see how the unit progressed. They are probably now in rapid development now of a eye sensor that they can integrate into what they have presently. I bet you the customers are demanding it! They already have a MIND PING device they are selling now. Even if the sensor only works to some degree, it would discourage the customer base from defecting and augmenting with EyeDetect.  You can be sure that ALL  polygraph manufacturers, schools, and other interested parties are going to end up in the same room coming up with legitimate ways to discredit or eliminate EyeDetect. Let us not forget the attorneys that are still crying over Clinton losing the election, as they might end up suing Conversus on behalf of some immigrant or some applicant that failed.  That is what attorneys do, regardless of them being right. Keep you friends close, your enemies closer. Lafayette forgot that old adage. With no disrespect intended, you are in sales, you have nothing to lose for the most part. If things do not work out at Converus, you can  jump on to the next craze in technology and show the same enthusiasm as you have demonstrated here.

The potential for abuse is there with EyeDetect, as once you sell these units what does Converus care what is done with them or who suffers from improper usage.

Tom:  EXACTLY!   I doubt you'll believe me, but we do care.  I also believe that the instrument manufacturers care when their products are used to abuse others.  You would have to be a pretty cold and heartless human being to not care about the abuse.

For this reason, we do not allow examiners to create their own tests.  This limits EyeDetect's utility today to our standardized tests, and certainly hurts sales. 

We could easily open up our test creation portal to them, but we have low confidence in their ability to adhere to the strict criteria we have designed for a "proper test".  EyeDetect is "locked down" and tests are only created by Converus and reviewed by our science team.  We also tune the base rates to minimize the errors that Ark identified.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but we are trying to reduce the current abuses.  Improvement is not perfection, but improvement is a step in the right direction and better than what we have today.

Selling to the USG is no easy task and you have an army of polygraph examiners and related people that will fight you in every possible way. While you may not want to accept it or realize it, Lafayette dropping EyeDetect was not helpful as it gave you instant credibility of sorts in a very specialized market.

Again, I totally agree.  We are well aware of of the aggressive tactics of many USG polygraph examiners.  Thankfully, there are some very good people in government that also want to improve on the current system.  Also, there is congressional pressure on the agencies to justify why their programs are failing so many applicants.   

I already posted that I was disappointed in Lafayette's decision.  I agree that it was not helpful and impacts our credibility.  We should probably issue a press release.  But, I have yet to launch a new technology without a few speed bumps.  It's frustrating, but it is normal for new tech companies to have setbacks.  The hard part is I really like Jennifer and Steve Rider.  I think they are good people that are also frustrated when their products are used improperly.