Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: Catwell
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 3697 views
  • Likes 1 like
  • Comments 31 comments
Related
Recommended

Eye tracking system looks deep into your eyes - can tell if you’re lying

Catwell

image

SMI RED-oem Remote Eye Tracking platform render. (via SMI)


Law enforcement and federal agencies have been using polygraph machines to detect lies since Cesare Lombroso introduced his blood pressure device back in 1895. Before that? Torture was used as the best method to detect fibs (still is to some extent). Just ask any witch that was present at the Salem Trials and they could probably tell it didn’t work that well. Some analysts will tell you that the eyes are the gateway in detecting if someone is telling the truth or not. They claim the rate a person blinks is a telltale sign of lying as well as not making eye contact or even looking up and to the left or right may be an indication of false pretenses. Some of the early pioneers of computerized polygraph have banded together to form a company, known as Converus, which is developing a new platform that tracks eye movement to detect deception.


The soon-to-be-released EyeDetect device is outfitted with German-based SMI’s (SensoMotoric Instruments) RED-oem Eye Tracking 3D camera system that tracks gaze, eye movement and pupil dilation down to 1/10 of a millimeter. According to Converus, lying causes minute changes in the eye’s behavior because it induces ‘cognitive load’ (psychology- load related to executive control of working memory), which has an effect on eye movement. Think of it like computer RAM that holds on to pieces of data before being replaced by different programs. EyeDetect captures that ocular data and analyses it to assess the ‘likelihood’ of deception while ‘suspects’ answer a series of true or false questions. The company claims the system has an accuracy rate of 85%, which is pretty high in terms of reliability but most courts in the US still don’t allow polygraph tests submitted as evidence. Converus is set to launch their device in April of this year, with Mexico as its first test subject. Businesses will use it for pre-employment screening as well as using it for random testing on employees to weed-out those individuals that accept bribes or are involved in other nefarious activities (there goes police officers and government officials).


C

See more news at:

http://twitter.com/Cabe_Atwell


image

Parents

  • Some people like to rely on a device so that they do not have to carry the responsibility for judging someone in case they get it wrong.

     

    There is a worrisome trend developing where the least trust worthy people (politicians) want all of the rest of us to tell the truth.

    At the same time, they will not let us use one on them before we elect them to office.

    Makes me very curious about who is funding the development and their intended purpose.

     

    Me, I am too lazy to lie.  There are too many details you have to remember and it is only when you are caught, not if.

    So just be honest and you are ok.  Plus it gives me a good excuse to be very blunt when people ask me esoteric questions. image

     

    DAB

  • in reply to DAB

    Me, I am too lazy to lie.  There are too many details you have to remember ...

    I agree its hard to work out which bit you told who, and whether they know more than you.

     

    I have found that some people don't like being told the truth ... or maybe they wanted it sugar coated and implied rather than direct...

     

    mark

  • in reply to Problemchild

    John Alexander wrote:

     

    Nothing new about the ThoughtPolice

    they are definitely still in business

  • in reply to sqkybeaver

    Shabaz raised a good point that happened in NZ a few years ago.

     

    It ended up becoming part of law and I think was called/referred to as "Whistleblowers Act".

     

    I think John has also made some very good points and thankfully I haven't heard of any here.

    We do have to have a Police background check which identifies several things before they will give us a clearance, however the same 'background' checks have failed to find information on prospective teachers who should not be associated with children ...so you have to wonder about how effective it is.

     

    I think we should just go back to the Voight-Kampff machine ... then at least we'd know they were humans.

    mark

  • in reply to johnbeetem

    Hi John,

     

    Let me clarify.  I only condone the use of the polygraph for a very small segment of work and only with the condition of voluntary participation.

    At no point would I ever support its use in a broader sense.

    As for rights violation, how about the idiocy the TSA puts you through before you can take a flight.  Total presumption of guilt until you are cleared to fly.

     

    The Poly is only useful for yes or no inquiries.  You need a specific question with a clear decision point.  It is useless to support "fishing" questions on hypothetical issues.

    Its just a tool and any tool can be abused.  Some people want a world of absolutes.  I wish them luck, humans are just not that simple.

     

    DAB

  • in reply to shabaz

    Hi Shabaz,

     

    Good points.  There are no guarantees of integrity regardless of what process or methods used.

    In the end, the only security you can have is based upon the good intent of the people entrusted to support it.

     

    Everyone makes decisions based upon the information they have at the time.  No decision is set in stone.  When you get better data, you make better decisions.

    Anyone that thinks you only have one chance to get it right will find themselves locked in indecision and are therefore useless as someone who needs to make decisions.

     

    DAB

Comment
  • in reply to shabaz

    Hi Shabaz,

     

    Good points.  There are no guarantees of integrity regardless of what process or methods used.

    In the end, the only security you can have is based upon the good intent of the people entrusted to support it.

     

    Everyone makes decisions based upon the information they have at the time.  No decision is set in stone.  When you get better data, you make better decisions.

    Anyone that thinks you only have one chance to get it right will find themselves locked in indecision and are therefore useless as someone who needs to make decisions.

     

    DAB

Children
No Data