Copy
View this email in your browser
Vol. 1 • Issue 1 • May 2015
Connect with Converus!
LinkedIn
LinkedIn
YouTube
YouTube
Google+
Google+
Twitter
Twitter
Website
Website
Email
Email
Share our newsletter.
Share
+1
Read Later
Tweet
Share
Forward
Watch the Converus Corporate Video

EyeDetect Discussed on Huffington Post

 
What’s the Most Reliable Lie Detector? It’s Not What You Think

The Very High Cost of Global Corruption
"Signum Verum" (Latin for "Truth Standard") is the new newsletter from Converus. We hope you enjoy it.

Which New Lie Detection Technology’s Popularity is Rapidly Growing in Spanish Latin America?


By Jeff Pizzino, APRCorporate Communications – Every now and then a new technology comes along that breaks new ground and captivates audiences. Converus’ EyeDetect — the world’s first lie detector that measures deception based on eye behaviors — is one such technology.

Deception, a deliberate attempt to distort or conceal facts or information for the purpose of misleading others, is a worldwide problem and can cost companies millions in lost revenues annually.

When Converus Science Team Member Dr. David Raskin and Converus President and CEO Todd Mickelsen visited Mexico City and Panama City last month for various events, the audiences of perspective customers were very intrigued by this new technology and asked a lot of questions.

Dr. Raskin’s presentation, titled “Today’s Lie Detection Technologies,” covered the polygraph, MRI, electroencephalogram, intuition, integrity and personality tests, and EyeDetect.

“The eyes exhibit involuntary changes when lying,” said Dr. Raskin. “Liars, concerned about being believed, often come across as helpful and truthful in an interview and put more effort into impressing their interviewer.”

On the morning of Feb. 24, Dr. Raskin and Todd spoke to 80 potential customers in Mexico City at the Uny-II office, a Converus service provider. Also attending were many of the Converus authorized Service Partners. That evening, Dr. Raskin also addressed a group of polygraph examiners. For those who may not know, Dr. Raskin has become one of the top names in the lie detection industry over the years. It was no surprise, therefore, that many attendees requested to have their photo taken with him after this event.

Dr. Raskin pointed out the polygraph is 74-94 percent accurate for event-specific questions and 65-85 percent accurate for pre-employment and periodic employee screening. However, EyeDetect is 85 percent accurate and has the additional advantages of being noninvasive, faster and less expensive.

Todd shared EyeDetect case studies, showing how the technology helps companies prevent fraud and theft — and, when fraud and theft is suspected, identifies the guilty parties. He also spoke about the potential return on investment for employers who use this new technology for screening job candidates and evaluating current employees.

On Feb. 26 in Panama City, Dr. Raskin and Todd spoke at the Hard Rock Hotel to 75 potential customers. This event was co-sponsored by EyeScan, an authorized Converus service provider in Panama City. You can read more about EyeScan here.

As mentioned, Dr. Raskin is a big name in the lie detection world. He’s authored more than 150 scientific articles, chapters, books and reports. Previously, Dr. Raskin worked with the National Institute of Justice, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, U.S. Secret Service and National Institute of Mental Health on the topic of lie detection. He’s consulted and trained many U.S federal agencies and foreign governments. Dr. Raskin and his colleague, Dr. John Kircher, are recognized worldwide as leaders in the research and development of polygraph methods. They introduced the first computerized polygraph in1991. He’s served on the faculties of UCLA, Michigan State and the University of Utah. Dr. Raskin earned his Ph.D. in psychology from UCLA.

Google Wants The Truth


By Jake TaylorMarketing – When I was a teenager, I remember how my little brother would ask me the most outlandish questions. My mom, never knowing the answers to these obscure questions, would simply say, “Ask Google.” Sometimes he would take the effort to look things up and others times he would leave the question unanswered.

My brother, my mother and I all credited Google as a source of truth, which may not be wise. Google’s search algorithm relies heavily on Internet popularity — or how many incoming links the website has — as a ranking agent for search results. If my brother had wanted to know about vaccines, for instance, the first search results for vaccines on Google is a anti-vaccination website, which presents its information with a strong bias. This is not exactly an ideal result for well-balanced information, but since it has the most visitors and links, it comes up first.

Counting the Facts

To rectify this situation, Google is working on altering its search engine to produce more relevant, truthful results. By filtering through all of the trash that is on the Internet, Google hopes to make veracity a viable ranking quality on the web.

Theoretically, by counting the number of facts on any given webpage, Google will be able to see whether or not the webpage is truthful or not.

This feature could really come in handy to stop the spread of false information online. For example, I remember seeing an article on social media once that stated, “Kanye West scores 106 points against wheelchair basketball team.” I thought it was an incredibly funny prospect, even though it was quite obviously satirical.

Unfortunately, many people did not realize the facetious nature of the article, and as all viral Internet phenomena, do it spread like wildfire. The International Business Times even wrote an article describing the event. This article was written for comedic purposes and the rumor was soon dispelled that Kanye West did not score 106 points against handicapped children. This whole hoax could have been avoided has Google’s new tool already been in place.

Satire v Deception

There are a lot of satirical websites like The Onion, which purposefully skew information to be funny. Everyone knows they are making fun, so there’s no problem there. The problem lies in the websites on the Internet seeking to disseminate false opinions in the form of bona fide facts. This is where Google’s fact counting search algorithm could truly make a difference.

As the Internet continues to expand at an exponential rate, it becomes more relevant each day for something like Google’s truth seeking search engine to help tame the cyber jungle that has formed. Unlike the days before the Internet when information was valuable and harder to come by, nowadays information is poured out like monsoon rains over us all, and not all of it is clean.

It is important to keep the Internet as truthful as possible, especially in regards to reputable source information. Once the fact is no longer identifiable from the fiction, the tool that once was the Internet becomes nothing more than a plaything.

How to Help Banks With Regulatory Compliance

 

By Austin Gray, Marketing – With the increasing rules and regulations, banks are obligated to constantly demonstrate their professionalism and compliance to regulations. These rules are intended to help the bankers provide better, more trustworthy service to their customers. However, it’s common to find employees who do not comply with the rules.


Another problem with maintaining compliance is that with so many regulations and security measures, companies end up spending extensive amounts of effort and time in documenting regulations. Employers spend countless hours overviewing and ensuring the safety of the business. This is a huge resource drain on each company.

Creating a Culture of Compliance

Banks need a strategy to help get their employees on board with compliance. For starters, banks must reinforce the structure of compliance within their industry by creating a culture of compliance and honesty. Employers create this kind of culture by helping each employee understand the rules and regulations, and also making them aware of the penalties they will face if compliance is not met.

Bank employers must also enforce the ideals of professionalism and honesty to create this culture of compliance. If banks can successfully instill this culture with their employees, their companies will see improved employee performance and effectiveness in the long run.

Using Technology to Detect Compliance Breaches

After instilling a culture of compliance with their staff, banks may still find employees not meeting compliance standards, especially if they are participating in deceptive, corrupt activities. Then comes the time to look for a way to screen employees for compliance breaches.

EyeDetect®, the newest development on the lie detection market, can provide one such solution.  This technology can identify fraud and deception with 85 percent accuracy. It is by far one of the most accurate and advanced technologies to detect lies and fraud.

In countries where lie detection screening is permissible, banks may use this test as a way to screen prospective and existing employees to determine their commitment to compliance.

Can the Eyes Lie?


By Daniel StarkMarketing – Ninety-three percent of all body language is nonverbal. The eyesare likely the most powerful source of non-verbal communication. In the film “Scarface,” Al Pachino’s character infamously declares, “The eyes, Chio. They never lie.”

People maintain eye contact in interviews, stare at a secret crush, and are told “not to stare” because conventional wisdom states that eye contact reveals significantly more than words.

Intuition regarding eye communication may begin at birth, as some studies have indicated. When we break eye contact with our mother as a child, we feel it indicates disapproval. Consequently people associate gaze aversion with negative emotions or actions, such as deceit.

However, intuition may not be the best source to detect deceit. People are able to instinctively detect deceit with an accuracy of approximately 54 percent.

Blake Eastman, founder of The Nonverbal Group,  agrees that breaking eye contact is a poor way to detect deceit. He indicates that someone might look away because the situation is unnatural or uncomfortable. Sometimes averting the eyes is founded on embarrassment or even shame. Some people simply have a high level of social anxiety. In fact, there are no scientific studies that conclude that lying can be detected by a break in eye contact.

Quantified Impressions, a communications analytics company, determined that most adults establish eye contact between 30 and 60 percent of the time during a conversation. Conventional wisdom concerning the deceptive nature of eye contact aversion causes liars to maintain eye contact. The liar, to avoid people thinking a he or she is lying, will typically maintain eye contact.

Cognitive overload theory is based on the idea that if a person becomes overwhelmed with thinking or feeling, their blink decreases dramatically, leading them to stare more than a normal person. On the other hand, when people tell the truth, they generally don’t have to create ideas to recall the memory, leading to a normal blink rate. Unfortunately, this method of lie detection is not infallible on its own. He claims that if people use memories when deceiving, it decreases the rate of cognitive overload and blinking rate.

Overall, he says that it’s difficult to correlate with a high level of certainty specific human behavior with lying without a little help.

Technology and Lie Detection

With this in mind, what is the best way to handle lying and corruption? It’s clearly necessary to have technological innovation to assist us in fraud detection.

EyeDetect® can help detect deception by monitoring multiple aspects of eye movements with a highly accurate optical scanner. The simple, noninvasive test consists of a series of true or false questions that the subject answers while their eye movements are tracked and recorded. The system is able to detect deception with 85 percent accuracy.

Is Corporate Corruption A Necessary Evil?

 
 

By Matthew Startup, Marketing – Corporate corruption has been an ongoing problem for many years.  Reportedly, billions of dollars are wasted annually on bribes and other forms of corruption.  It’s hard to estimate how many resources are actually being wasted on corruption, because not many people who are involved are willing to talk about it for fear of the law or losing their job.

Many may question if corruption is a necessary evil, a byproduct of doing business in countries where the law is a little looser, and a little foul play is expected to get the big sale.  Many accept that bribes will be the cost of doing business.

The Costs of Corruption

Usually when a bribe is paid, the company or employee is desperate, which is not an ideal image to present to the public. The individual they are making the deal with also doesn’t have the best integrity, and is thus likely to try to cut corners, hurting the company’s brand and bottom line.

Even when corrupt companies get the contract they so desire, it is less profitable for them in the long run, as the bribes paid out can reduce the profit margin substantially.

What Is There To Do?

It comes down to the laws of the land and the enforcement thereof. One potential method to subvert such activities would be to conduct ongoing lie detection tests of public officials and employees of corporations.

EyeDetect® technology can identify deception and fraud with 85 percent accuracy. The behavior of human eyes reflects signs of stress and deception that are undetectable by other humans. With the use of this lie detection technology, corrupt officials, employees or professional criminals can be caught based on completely unbiased mathematical data generated from the behavior of their eyes. This means that corporations have the means to root out corruption from their midst and prevent the huge losses in the economy from dishonest dealings.

Can You Cut It as a Human Lie Detector?


By Jake Taylor, Marketing – There are some people that claim to be a human lie detector. They claim that they are able to read body and speech cues given by those who are lying and, with that information, determine the subject’s level of integrity.


When I researched this issue, I wondered exactly what kinds of things should one look for when determining a person’s honesty.

The Cues of Deception

Body positioning might indicate a person’s intentions. Usually a person who is trying to conceal the truth will move in some irregular fashion. Sometimes this manifests as a twitch, shrinking to one side or crossing the arms or legs. Also, by touching the person’s hands, you can see if they’re sweating. Sweating is usually a telltale sign of lying.

Specific speech patterns can give away deceit as well. Heavy sarcasm may be used to conceal the truth. Mocking tones and repetition of the question can also give away a liar. Someone telling the truth isn’t going to say, “No, I did not go out and party last night.” They’ll usually just say no.

According to human lie detectors, the biggest give away about a person’s integrity is the eyes. Flitting eye movement, a lack of eye contact and looking down often give away a person’s true answer. Even in my own experience, when a person won’t make eye contact with me, I feel that they are hiding something.

Going With Your Gut

All of these techniques depend on how the subject is feeling and how keen the interviewer’s intuition is; both are very subjective and often inaccurate. In my own experience, I have discovered that intuition regarding anything comes after long hours of study and association. While you might not be actively studying the people with whom you associate, you get to know their mannerisms quite well over time.

This is how I believe intuition works for someone like a mother or a spouse; for those of us who don’t know our subjects that well, a more accurate honesty test is needed.

Hard Data

A person’s feelings are only worth so much in the eyes of society. We tend to value hard data much more than qualitative, and for good reason. Feeling like someone is lying to you is much less accurate than a lie detector test. In fact, only 54 percent of intuition and observation testing is correct in determining honesty. (Bond & DePaulo, 2006.)

For decades, the polygraph has been the most accurate qualitative method for determining honesty. This method depends a great deal on the emotional state of the interviewee and the skill and questions of the interviewer, which has left people searching for a more reliable method.

Luckily, a new solution on the truth verification market has arisen — EyeDetect®. This system accurately and effectively produces hard data regarding a person’s integrity, data that is invaluable in a professional setting. The system tracks involuntary eye movements while interviewee answer true/false questions on a computer screen. It takes emotion and skill out of the process and gives results with 85 percent accuracy. When intuition won’t cut it, EyeDetect is a worthwhile option to consider.

Four Steps to a Better Hiring Program

 

By Austin Gray, Marketing – The purpose of the hiring process is to effectively weed out the most qualified and skilled candidates. Over the years, employers have searched for ways to improve this process. Jeff Neal, founder of chiefhro.com, proposes four suggestions to eliminate unproductive hiring process.

4 Steps for Success

The first adjustment Neal recommended is to limit applicant questionnaires. Applicants spend too much time answer questions because of the long list of qualifications. Oftentimes, these questions are recycled and predictable. The answers applicants put on their applications may not convey their actual qualifications and suitability.

The second step is to limit the length of resumes. Having too much information on the resume leads to a burdensome process to review them. Most HR specialists prefer a simple, concise outline of applicants’ qualifications and experiences.

Third, Neal recommended putting actual people in the applicant review process. With the enhancement of technology, many firms rely heavily on automated screening process. Companies reach a point where they rely on technology too much. To find a good balance, HR department perhaps should spend more time on recruiting the right employees using the intuition and wisdom of real people.

The fourth piece of advice is to include more existing employees in the hiring process. The people that the company hires ultimately have to work with your current employee pool. By letting the existing employees participate in hiring process, companies can build better teams.

Simplify and Expedite

Every company wants to reduce costs by finding the right employees the first time around. By combining Converus’ EyeDetect® lie detection solution with these four suggestions, employers can simplify and expedite the tedious hiring process. EyeDetect tracks eye movement to detect deception with 85 percent accuracy and it can facilitate the burdensome process of finding the right employees.

Corrupt Person of the Year: Vladimir Putin

 

By Russ Warner, VP Marketing – President Vladimir Putin of Russia is the corrupt “Person of the Year,” according to an association of European-based journalists who created the “Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project” (OCCRP), founded in 2006.​​


Since the project’s creation, two other world leaders have been selected for this contemptible distinction. In 2012, Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan was elected most corrupt for his efforts to capture large portions of ownership in Azerbaijan-based companies. The following year, the entire Romanian Parliament was selected for its efforts to add laws making corruption “legal” for high-ranking government officials.

Most recently, Putin was nominated for integrating crime and deceit within the entire framework of Russia’s state policy. The OCCRP report highlights some key reasons why Putin is the world’s most corrupt.

Corruption Checklist

  • Putin has been recognized for his work in turning Russia into a major money-laundering center. He developed a sophisticated money-laundering system collaborating with Russian and Moldovan organized crime groups that used state-run banks, fake loans and corrupt judges. This system created a channel by which corrupt government officials could transfer money throughout Europe to support Putin’s interests.
  • Putin is a world leader in failing to prosecute criminal activity. In fact, Putin’s actions have done more to promote criminal activity than to prevent it. As a result, only 45 percent of Russia’s civilian citizens believe they can make any difference in the fight against corruption. Sadly, it seems the Russians have accepted their fate and many have embraced corruption, adopting it not only in their business practices, but also in their culture as a whole. For example, the Telegraph reports that Russia has been hit by an exam-cheating epidemic; 1,323 Ph.D. diplomas were illegally awarded to professors throughout the country.
  • Putin has established a government practice of working with and using crime groups as key components of state policy; organized crime groups have collaborated with the Kremlin, serving as intermediaries for weapons transfers between Ukrainian pro-Russian rebels and official soldiers based in Russia.
  • Putin used deceptive tactics to obtain control over Crimea and other parts of Eastern Ukraine. Putin used the media to effectively create a fog of confusion so thick that he declared Crimea a sovereign and independent state under Russia’s protective cover. Under Putin’s direction, the Russian media deceived its citizens and the rest of the world.

How to Fight Back

While Putin might be able to use modern techniques to deceive the world, there are also modern techniques available to prevent deception from occurring within governmental agencies.

For years, the polygraph test has been used as a tool to detect deception. However, with the advent of increasingly sophisticated technology, a newer, cheaper alternative to the polygraph has been introduced to the world. This technology, known as EyeDetect®, may be the next step in the fight against global corruption.

Mexico’s $6 Billion Corruption Price Tag


By Jake Taylor, Marketing – Let’s face it: Latin America is no stranger to corruption. Cartels, coupes and mass violence have plagued the histories of these nations and tarnished their reputation.


When I heard Mexico has lost $6 billion over the last decade due to governmental corruption, I wasn’t too surprised. It did make me think that the problem could be solved in part by implementing a few simple steps.​

The State of the States

Mexico’s government favors state administrators and their ability to direct their provinces without much interference from the federal government. Some go to say so far as the state governors have immunity from federal jurisdiction.

This has led to widespread misuse of the funds distributed to the states. The only federal body with the charge of doing state budget oversight is the Superior Audit Federation (ASF) and it lacks the authority to charge perpetrators with crimes.

Lie Detection as a Key

The ASF depends on indisputable information against the perpetrator in order to have them convicted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. This kind of information relies on hard data, proof of the deceit that has occurred. This kind of proof could be produced through lie detection testing.

It is difficult to convict someone of a crime without the proper evidence, but with results produced by a reputable lie detection test, the authorities could acquire the necessary proof to charge and convict criminals for their crimes.

Choosing a System

Of course, there are many lie detection methods from which to choose, each with specific variations and perks. Intuition and personality tests are much too hit-and-miss to use as hard evidence against corruption.

There is always the polygraph. It is accurate and widely accepted as reputable evidence in a court of law in Latin America. But is polygraph testing the most accurate option in this specific setting?

There are many officers and administrators in each state’s financial department. To go through and polygraph each one of these would cost nearly as much as the corrupt dealings themselves, not to mention it would take longer than a decade to carry out.

What the government needs is a system that is quick and cost efficient. Converus’ EyeDetect® fulfills both of those requirements, with an 85 percent accuracy rate to boost.

With just a bit of quick training on how to operate the technical aspects of the program, EyeDetect tests could be administered to large bodies of governmental workers by the ASF, limiting the outflow of money due to corruption by detecting and removing those involved with corrupt deals.

Share
+1
Read Later
Tweet
Share
Forward
Copyright © 2015 Converus, Inc., All rights reserved.


unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences 

Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp