Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Type the last letter of the word, "America.":
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Animal
 - Jul 24, 2021, 06:55 PM
While ocular metrics can indicate mental work, the technology has the same basic flaw as the CQT in that there are no pupillary response patterns that are unique to deception.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Jul 24, 2021, 12:06 PM
To my eye, EyeDetect looks like repackaged snake oil.

In 2018, Mark Harris wrote an insightful article about EyeDetect for Wired magazine titled, "An Eye-Scanning Lie Detector Is Forging a Dystopian Future" that will be of interest. The article is now behind a paywall, but I have attached a PDF printout.