Lafayette Polygraph, the #1 provider of polygraph to the military and federal agencies is no longer offering Coverus EyeDetect for sale on its site. I failed my only polygraph with the government several months ago and went to that site to look something up about the LX4000. McClatchy news in DC had an article about defects with this system. My Border Patrol friend who was at PSP with me many years ago said that he noticed Lafayette launched a new site and removed all references to EyeDetect. It is interesting as Converus is staffed with the same people with the same mindset. Since polygraph is about power and money it seems odd. I am attaching the press release he sent. He told me EyeDetect is nothing more than a Microsoft surface tablet with a special add on that monitors your eye movement. He does not think the feds will go with it long term as there is no interviewing component and it has that gadget type impression. I would agree with him that being hooked up to a LX 4000 or 5000 is far more scary than looking at some tablet. Have my interview set up with PSP and they are no longer using polygraph for pre-employment as they had too many inconclusive results and complaints to state legislators regarding questions on the exam.
I will respond to Neal's post here as it is specific to Eye Detect.
Neal, what kind of sparked this debate is the "science" versus "pseudoscience" argument. Both of these terms have complex definitions. What makes something scientific? Some schools of though require certain attributes like quantifiability, reproducibility, predictability and testability.
So why do many on this site condemn the polygraph as being pseudoscience? This label is usually directed toward the CQT. But why? The argument is that it lacks construct validity and that the comparison questions are not true controls (delineating the reasons why would take too much time here). This is the construct which I referred to in my previous post Neal. For example, the CIT is considered "scientific" because it can be associated with the Orienting Reflex, a psychological construct, thereby giving the CIT construct validity. The CQT lacks this construct. This does not mean that is invalid, only that it is not scientific.
Guglielmo Marconi had only an elementary understanding of Hertzian waves, but that didn't stop him from working 14 hours a day, winding coils and constructing antenna systems on two continents and many ships. Surely, having some scientific knowledge of Maxwell's Equations would have saved him much labor realizing that he would have been better to use higher frequencies. The great scientists who scoffed at Marconi accomplished little beyond consuming lots of brandy at the Royal Institution.
My point is, that something doesn't necessarily have to be "scientific" for it to work.
Back full circle to my reductionist statement that Dr. Kircher didn't appreciate. Pupil dilation is indeed a result of sympathetic arousal and response time is an indicator of a mental work requirement. But, is this mental work and sympathetic arousal a result of deception? In most cases, it probably is, but there is no way of knowing for sure. There is no associated psychological construct to give it construct validity. So, one could say that it is "pseudoscience" but in the same breath, one cannot claim that it lacks efficacy.
The university lab testing results seem straightforward as do the statistical analyses proffered in the dissertation. But, college undergrads have long skewed results. These folks are not a good sample set. They are immature, under indoctrination by left wing professors and their only concerns in life is who may have unfriended them on Facebook, in short they are homo sapiens pablum with little forensic significance.
Dr. Kircher's team needs to conduct more field testing. The one screening test mentioned is a good start, but much more work needs to be done. In my opinion, the commercial launch was a bit premature. But, more power to them.
I am disappointed that Lafayette terminated their resale partnership, but I have great respect for the Rider's and their company. Many examiners view EyeDetect as a threat, and they were vocal with Lafayette.
I've worked for several technology startups, and there are always a few speed bumps on the road to success. As I said previously, bad technology dies because investors won't continue to fund losses if they don't see sales traction. Good technology and sales traction drives investor frenzy. We know our sales traction and investor support, so for those that believe Lafayette's decision is fatal for Converus, I'll pass along the famous Mark Twain quote, "The rumors of our death are greatly exaggerated!"
Besides, if polygraph truly had the ability to stop any alternate technology, why do I talk to so many customers of CVSA each week?
I guess this post is in response to mine? I have no interest in Converus or EyeDetect, polygraph or CVSA. My information came from my Border Patrol friend who is also against polygraph. He saw EyeDetect at a show out West. I queried him regarding CVSA and he said that CVSA, Polygraph and EyeDetect are not reliable and each one has it's own drawbacks. While I am a new and temporary poster on this site, all of these technologies have been found to be inaccurate. Many people have suffered at the hands of these devices and I am sure they also have suffered as a result of EyeDetect as well. All you have to do is read some of the comments from the people who post here as they are awesome for the most part. I am very impressed with the content. The last post that was directed to EyeDetect technology was well thought out and appears to be true. Getting on this site to promote or defend polygraph, CVSA, or EyeDetect or the next generation lie detector is a waste of anyone's time. The intellectual and savvy sharks on this site will surely eat them alive, and for good reason.
Neal, if EyeDetect is scientifically valid and reliable, then why shouldn't work in fidelity cases?
Hi Dan:
Converus made a business decision early only to avoid fidelity cases. In my personal opinion, couples should spend their money on counseling.
Tom, I agree that this is not good forum to defend any credibility assessment technology, but I am not afraid of the sharks on this site. I want to hear all their criticism. But statements should be backed up. Could you cite a source for your statement that EyeDetect has been found to be inaccurate?
And we are lucky to have sharks as investors. See the attached photos.
Another Shark
Shark? I'm just a harmless little fur ball.
Neal, let's put "business decisions" aside.
Do you yourself believe that EyeDetect would be about 86% accurate in specific-issue fidelity cases?
Also, does Converus regard polygraph as science, or as pseudo-science?
Neal
In terms of your question on accuracy. This information came from polygraphers from three letter agencies that worked with me. I was on the investigative side, and just a victim of the process. Apparently Converus is pitching this device to the various USG as that is what I was told. I would not call ARK a shark but very informed on many things. I suspect this site has many people from USG agencies that failed polygraphs like I did for no viable reason as well as good candidates that the examiners did not like and failed them as that is easy to do. In light of Dan Mangans post, who is another poster that has good qualifications, his comment about infidelity testing does have a point. If Converus is interested in making money what do they care about what EyeDetect is used for so long as they profit from it. I also heard that the actual software that runs this tablet is in the cloud. I do not think that too many examiners would want his or her data stored on the cloud. It is more secure left on the Lafayette or Limestone polygraph where it cannot be compromised.
You must have time on your hands as to be on this site, as I doubt you will leave with any information that is of value. This site is dedicated, at least in my opinion, to exposing polygraph and devices like EyeDetect, and whatever else surfaces as the so called lie detector.
ARK
I meant no lack of respect in terms of the word shark. You and other capable people on this site have already seen what EyeDetect is, along with any other new device that comes down the pike. Like George M said, they need to be destroyed and the plans burned. He is right on like he normally is.
In terms of photo ops of the shark Mark Cuban with Neal Harris. The only person missing from that photo is his hero and the person he wanted to be President, Hillary Clinton. Someone needs to research that old pro bono case where she was laughing about the polygraph and post it. She is like Ames, Snowden, and the rest of them that could pass a polygraph was none of these people even had a soul to begin with.
Dan
You make a great point about infidelity testing. If EyeDetect is that accurate why not use it. Stating that Converus made a decision not to sell to that market seems strange coming from a salesman, and any salesman. In looking at the site Converus does not sell direct, so what do they care. They sell to what appears to he a dealer, distributor, examiner network. In recalling one of his posts. GOOD SALES TRACTION CREATES INVESTOR FRENZY. If that is the case why not let that money just roll in. In fact why not sell to Sharper Image or even Amazon as this device requires little training from what the website implies. They seem to have most of the companies selling this device in Central and South America or the Middle East where there is already a lack of human and legal rights.
Dan, you should have been one of those licensing investigators that investigate polygraph examiners. With your talent you could really weed out the bad examiners, and leave the good ones? You would certainly have a caseload in places like VA and MD! You have some great posts over the past several days regarding this new device.
QuoteDan, you should have been one of those licensing investigators that investigate polygraph examiners. With your talent you could really weed out the bad examiners,
Tom, I've been weeding out bad examiners one at a time -- mainly in the PCSOT arena -- but it's an arduous task.
You would not believe what really goes on in the polygraph suite.
Generally speaking, the "test" is a sham.
Ark:
I just read pages 314 and 315 of the book "Credibility Assessment which discusses the accuracy of CQT's: "...despite the uncertain theoretical underpinning, CQT's seem to be reasonably accurate."
No scientific diagnostic test is 100% accurate, so the key is to give utility (better than chance) and clearly disclose the limitations (FP & FN error rates). We do this, and our error rates are much more consistent than polygraph because the tests are standardized; i.e. no variability based on the examiner.
Regarding the commercial launch, we spent a year in Latin America tuning the algorithms before we launched in the US.
Our cloud architecture allowed us to run 10's of thousands of tests and data mine the results. We clearly explained to our LatAm customers that our solution was "rev 1.0" and we needed their help to make our algorithms better. Their knew what they were buying.
In working with these early customers, we learned how to fine tune base rates, identify the best R2's, develop the best preambles to solidify the R1's and R2's in the minds of the examinees, and QA each test.
Polygraph mostly uses hand scoring, and the APA understands that this needs to change. Years ago, Dr. Kircher developed QA algorithms for polygraph under an NCCA contract that minimize the ability of the examiner to make mistakes. He worked with Andy Dallings, and when Andy died the project died also. This is a shame, as Dr. Kircher's algorithms would have been more fair to examinees than hand scoring.
The biggest indicator in tech on whether you launch too early is the "stickiness" of the application. Are customers happy and do they come back and buy more? Most tech products are far from perfect when they launch. The iPhone 4 was supper buggy, but did it give customers utility? Did they hate it? The key is to deliver value commensurate with a price point the customer is willing to pay.
The other key is to be significantly better than the alternative solution. Techies call this the 10x rule. Antipolygraph.org highlights the deficiencies of polygraph and calls for it to be eliminated. Well, how has that worked out so far? How long has this site been up and what progress has been made?
If the goal is to eradicate polygraph (especially the abusive screening tests that have unfairly harmed so many people), why wouldn't antipolygraph.org support a step forward and endorse a test that eliminates examiner bias and variability? Examinees would at least have a fighting chance to pass when the examiner and/or testing protocol isn't biased to make them fail! Too many agencies and examiners (especially ex-cops) think, "A little interrogation never hurt anyone", so tests are designed to make people fail and force the interrogation.
"Everyone suffers some injustice in life; and what better motivation than to help others not suffer in the same way." Bella Thorne.
Converus is well aware that we have not created a perfect test. We also know that there is abuse and injustice in polygraph. We want to reduce the abuses and injustices of polygraph while continuing to protect society. On our worst days, we do far less harm.
Ark, I'll make you a wager - if you can find one unhappy EyeDetect customer (an actual end user that purchased the product and says it did not meet their expectations), I will send you a $1,000 personal check. Find a customer that agrees with your belief that we launched too early and put some money in your pocket!
QuoteConverus is well aware that we have not created a perfect test. We also know that there is abuse and injustice in polygraph. We want to reduce the abuses and injustices of polygraph while continuing to protect society. On our worst days, we do far less harm.
It seems to me that any type of measurement of cerebral activity, no matter how much more technically advanced, amounts to
mind-reading. It is equivalent to belief in alchemy. Even if our science and technology reaches the point where we can bring someone back from the dead, I don't believe we will ever be able to read someone's thoughts with 100% accuracy. Like I've read earlier in these threads, the human mind is so complex that such measurement is impossible. People can be tricked by their own memory so no person can even read their own mind. If we can not be 100% accurate, we can not condemn someone based on cerebral activity measurement.
Using devices like Conversus are great investigative tools. Unfortunately, the tyrants that are running our country insist on using these tools as panacea of truth and therein lies our problem. If someone flunks a poly, try to determine what they might be lying about and do one hell of a background investigation focusing on that area. If nothing further is discovered, exonerate.
Quote"...despite the uncertain theoretical underpinning, CQT's seem to be reasonably accurate."
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.
Ark: Your are absolutely correct! The CQT is biased against the innocent, which is why we publish the FN and FP error rates openly. I don't agree that we view the results as deterministic. We instruct our customers to do what Wandersmann suggests: interrogate, deep background check, and exonerate when there is no supporting evidence of deception. Our customers clearly understand EyeDetect's error rates, and that they MUST be taken into account before using the tool to ruin someone's life.
Dr. Kircher would love more field data, but it is very hard to come by. We have tried and tried. It took years to get the field studies approved. In the US, it is virtually impossible for University researchers to test on human subjects. Nevertheless, we are continuing to push for more. Could anyone on this thread share a good polygraph screening field study?
Ark, which specific element of ground truth was concerning to you (hair, saliva, or confessions)? We know there are error rates in each, but if you have any ideas for our scientists on how to better establish ground truth, I will forward to the science team.
Regarding customers, please re-read my post on stickiness. We have many customers that order monthly. We also have government customers running thousands of tests per year. In Mexico, one casino chain ran 2,600 tests last year and just reordered for the next 12 months. For them, this is not a cool new toy. They have integrated EyeDetect into their HR software and workflows using our API's (application programming interfaces). They feel EyeDetect is more fair, less biased, and more scientific than polygraph examiners using hand scoring.
QuoteThey feel EyeDetect is more fair, less biased, and more scientific than polygraph examiners using hand scoring.
This is marketing pablum. Prove it.
I will respond to your other points later. I have to catch an international flight.
I do not understand how my initial post about Lafayette dropping Converus EyeDetect ends up in numerous posts that really have nothing to do with the core values of this site. If Converus is so sure of what they have to sell and the government (Whose Govt?) is buying so many licenses (whatever those cost?) why is this Harris asking all of these questions? He appears to be a salesman that is 100% sure of his product, so why seek out information from others on this site, other than to use it for his advantage? In going back through previous posts no other lie detection or credibility assessment salesman has been posting about his or her product and/or seeking solutions, ideas or other data to improve the product. If I had any knowledge that could improve that device or any other lie detection device I certainly would not provide it. All of these devices can be manipulated by the user/examiner to obtain the answers he or she, or his agency ultimately is seeking.
QuoteHe appears to be a salesman that is 100% sure of his product, so why seek out information from others on this site, other than to use it for his advantage? In going back through previous posts no other lie detection or credibility assessment salesman has been posting about his or her product and/or seeking solutions, ideas or other data to improve the product.
Hmm, you have a point Tom. Neal, let me know if Converus would like to negotiate a consultation contract.
Neal, let's put "business decisions" aside. Do you yourself believe that EyeDetect would be about 86% accurate in specific-issue fidelity cases? Also, does Converus regard polygraph as science, or as pseudo-science?
Note - I need to figure out how to put a box around a the text box, so I will highlight for now.
Dan and Tom: I would need to consult with Dr. Kircher on the likely accuracy for a fidelity test. We have not discussed it to date. An R2 would need to be created that had face validity, which is usually the challenge in a CQT as Ark highlighted.
Tom, why do you care which tests we decide to develop? When you work at a tech startup, you place bets on certain markets. We started in LatAm and then US federal. We then moved to many other countries via Lafayette's international partners that signed partnership agreements with us. We are also pursuing PCSOT and US law enforcement. We have plenty on our plate without aggressively pursing the fidelity market.
Science vs. Pseudoscience response is still being drafted....
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? ;)
He appears to be a salesman that is 100% sure of his product, so why seek out information from others on this site, other than to use it for his advantage? In going back through previous posts no other lie detection or credibility assessment salesman has been posting about his or her product and/or seeking solutions, ideas or other data to improve the product.
Tom, go back to the chart showing science vs. pseudoscience. Scientists welcome criticism. It's called peer-review. Dr. Kircher sent his work to Ben Shakar at Hebrew University, one of his biggest critics but a very respected scientist. Ben's biggest worry was about EyeDetect being used covertly, but Dr. Kircher doesn't think this will ever be possible. Sensor technology would have to come a long, long way.
I have made it clear that EyeDetect is not perfect, and has error rates that we publish openly. Why wouldn't we want to improve the science by seeking input for critics? Just because the polygraph and CVSA folks don't post on this site seeking input doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
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.
This is marketing pablum. Prove it.
Ark: Why is it hard for you to believe that customers would like an alternative to polygraph? If polygraph is as bad as everyone on this site discusses, why wouldn't customers like something different?
For proof, go to our YouTube channel. We are adding customer videos every week. See the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caqz-GH18-o&t=245s
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.
I do not think that too many examiners would want his or her data stored on the cloud. It is more secure left on the Lafayette or Limestone polygraph where it cannot be compromised.
Tom: You are correct. To address customer security concerns, we have the ability to redact all PII (personally identifiable information) in the data file being uploaded, rendering it worthless to a hacker. The customer has a key to associate the test results with an individual. All that is uploaded is the 1's and 0's of the sensor data, where they are scored by our algorithms on our servers. Also, we use 256 bit encryption and two-factor authentication to access the test results (Google authenticator, Microsoft authenticator, etc.).
Some world governments have laws that restrict any data from traversing their borders (i.e. Ecuador and Colombia), so we also developed a "local scoring" option. They can run and score tests locally without being connected to the internet.
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.
Neal, don't shoot the messenger, but, having spent 20+ years on the marketing/communications side of the technology industry, this is my take...
IMHO, it looks like you sold your soul to Converus.
We're curious... How much did you get for it?
Think it was it a fair bargain?
Think again.
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.
QuoteOur customers clearly understand EyeDetect's error rates, and that they MUST be taken into account before using the tool to ruin someone's life.
That reminds me of an oft-used expression:
"Let's give him a fair trial, then hang him."
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! ...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.
We had discussions with Lafayette on this topic. Also, Bruce White told me at NPA two years ago that he could buy a $100 sensor and have a solution for his Acciton instrument. After I met with Canadian government officials, I heard that they gave $200K to Limestone to integrate an eye tracker. I have not been able to confirm this rumor, so I don't know for sure.
The USG spent $40 million on AVATAR. The eye trackers and software were primitive by today's standards. Ocular Motor was one of the most promising elements of AVATAR according to their researchers. Ultimately, their funding stopped, and they have not been able to raise funding to build a commercial product to the best of my knowledge. Investors don't like to invest in products build for the government, because they know it's a tough sell...
So, again, I agree completely with your assessment. But we know how hard it is to build the algorithms and all the back end infrastructure. Our engineers are mostly from Ancestry.com and Mediconnect - both were commercial successes. We've spent millions of $, written over a million lines of code, and learned a lot. We already have the algorithms for the polygraph physiological data. As I posted earlier, Dr. Kircher built them under contract with the NCCA. We could easily add them to EyeDetect if the science supported improved accuracy rates.
As for the polygraph companies getting together to rally against EyeDetect, I guess this is a possibility. But from what I've seen, there is a lot of bad blood between these companies.
Thanks Dan
That was a great quote. I hope you win the APA election as I think they are at a turning point. You probably are the best one to try and turn that ship around.
QuoteDan and Tom: I would need to consult with Dr. Kircher on the likely accuracy for a fidelity test. We have not discussed it to date.
Neal, run this real-life scenario by Kircher and the other ivory tower academicians at Converus...
Hernando is doing 10 to 15 for attempted murder. He nearly killed his wife in a rage over her alleged infidelities.
Hernando's parole has been approved. Soon, he will return to the community.
Hernando's girlfriend needs a "test" to prove she has been faithful to him during his incarceration.
Could EyeDetect be counted on to produce 86% accuracy in this case?
If not, why not?
QuoteThanks Dan
That was a great quote. I hope you win the APA election as I think they are at a turning point. You probably are the best one to try and turn that ship around.
Tom, I appreciate your support, but I suspect the fix is in -- at least in a manner of speaking.
That's how them APA good ol' boys roll, IMHO.
There's simply too much at $take for the newly elected APA prez to reveal the truth about the "test", which is what I'd do.
It's complicated, but you can start to learn more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/special-reports/article24749260.html
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.
Ha Ha - everyone hates sales people. I am used to it and I have thick skin. I have been extremely lucky in sales. I went to Silicon Valley in 1990 and spent the next 22 years working for SynOptics/Bay Networks, Ascend Communications, Packet Engines, and Foundry Networks/Brocade. These 4 companies were very successful. If I only wanted to make money, I would go and work with my buddies at Nvidia, Arista Networks, or Palo Alto Networks.
I am working at Converus to try and make the world a better place for my kids. I'm not content to just complain about the abuses of polygraph; I want to be part of the solution. It is doubtful that I will work full-time again when my tenure at Converus is over. Most of you reading this will likely try to make that happen! There have been insinuations that sales people will sell their souls to make a quick buck and couldn't care less about the human impact. For me, that is just not the case.
This post certainly opens me up to a lot of abuse, but that's OK. Bring it on.
QuoteI am working at Converus to try and make the world a better place for my kids.
By helping to peddle a "mind hack" with precious little in the way of field studies?
That is some sad shit.
By helping to peddle a "mind hack" with precious little in the way of field studies? That is some sad shit.
Dan:
Sorry you feel I am a sad case and have sold my soul.
I just looked at your website again. It says you do PCSOT exams for a living, which is a screening test. I don't understand how you can rail against polygraph on this site and also do it for a living. What am I missing?
And why so much anger? I have tried to be polite. You may view me as misguided, but can't the posts be civil?
Quote from: Tom Tesslin on May 24, 2017, 09:30 AMLafayette Polygraph, the #1 provider of polygraph to the military and federal agencies is no longer offering Coverus EyeDetect for sale on its site. I failed my only polygraph with the government several months ago and went to that site to look something up about the LX4000. McClatchy news in DC had an article about defects with this system. My Border Patrol friend who was at PSP with me many years ago said that he noticed Lafayette launched a new site and removed all references to EyeDetect. It is interesting as Converus is staffed with the same people with the same mindset. Since polygraph is about power and money it seems odd. I am attaching the press release he sent. He told me EyeDetect is nothing more than a Microsoft surface tablet with a special add on that monitors your eye movement. He does not think the feds will go with it long term as there is no interviewing component and it has that gadget type impression. I would agree with him that being hooked up to a LX 4000 or 5000 is far more scary than looking at some tablet. Have my interview set up with PSP and they are no longer using polygraph for pre-employment as they had too many inconclusive results and complaints to state legislators regarding questions on the exam.
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:
Quotehttp://citizensvoice.com/opinion/smart-move-on-polygraph-tests-1.2143162
Smart move on polygraph tests
The Editorial Board / Published: January 18, 2017
Polygraphs are known euphemistically as "lie detectors," but they more accurately might be described as "nervousness detectors." The machines do not magically uncover lies; they collect physical data from subjects as they respond to questions, most often under stressful conditions. Examiners then interpret the data and render opinions on whether the subject was truthful.
Test results famously are inadmissible as evidence in court for a very good reason — they are not reliable, much less definitive.
Numerous experiments over many years have shown that accomplished liars can defeat the nervousness detectors.
There is no reason to believe that the tests are any more reliable when administered in the course of job applications. So state police Commissioner Tyree C. Blocker is on the mark in eliminating polygraph tests for prospective cadets applying to the State Police Academy.
The troopers' union objected to the decision, contending that it eliminates a useful tool in screening applicants for integrity.
Yet, the academy's 144th class graduated only 49 of its original 113 members last year due to a wide-ranging cheating scandal. All of the suspected cadets presumably had passed the lie detector tests to gain entry to the academy, indicating that the process is no better at determining integrity than at detecting specific lies.
Many police agencies administer the tests in screening applicants, but there is no evidence that those agencies produce better officers as a result.
The New Jersey State Police and New York City Police do not administer polygraph tests to recruits and they are effective forces.
Blocker did not announce a specific reason for ending the polygraph tests, although The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that he was concerned about the tests slowing the hiring process at a time when the agency is struggling to fill the ranks due to a surge of retirements.
Eliminating the tests will require the state police to rely on more concrete indicators of applicants' quality, and that is not a bad thing.
QuoteThe other key is to be significantly better than the alternative solution. Techies call this the 10x rule. Antipolygraph.org highlights the deficiencies of polygraph and calls for it to be eliminated. Well, how has that worked out so far? How long has this site been up and what progress has been made?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
QuoteI wouldn't blame a gun if someone used it inappropriately. Similarly, I don't blame a polygraph instrument if it is used improperly.
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"?
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?
QuoteI guess we should watch the Converus website to see if ARK gets appointed to the Advisory board?
I would last a week before being escorted to the gate.
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.
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.
Quote from: danmangan on May 30, 2017, 08:47 AMThat said, when a capitalist starts talking about making the world a better place through lie detection, watch out.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Quote
I wonder how many EyeDetect examinees are going to test out Deceptive when he or she was really innocent?
My hunch is about 50% -- roughly the same as polygraph.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Tom, make no mistake.
EyeDetect will become the new polygraph.
It's all over but the crying.