Eagle Eye's CEO Dean Drako is celebrating raising $40 million in an SSN interview where he was quoted touting temperature screening while people "walk, or run, by an entrance, and you can measure hundreds of people per minute".
Drako explained to IPVM that he was "not sure if [he] said run' or 'rush'" emphasizing that Eagle Eye cannot enforce FDA guidelines but do encourage following them.
Quite the article simply because someone misspoke a little!!! LOL Probably took you hours more time to figure out how to write the article then it did for everyone who heard it to forget Deans' statement!!!
Changing it from 'run' to 'rush' does not change the reality of it violating FDA guidelines. And claiming it 'can measure hundreds of people per minute' does as well.
Frankly, I think the bigger story is that Drako kept on doubling down and expanding on his statements. It's quite an eye-opener into how a CEO thinks and rationalizes their decision.
my favorite part of Drako's response were the numerous references to Elevated Temperature Screening (or ETS).
does he not know it's actually EST (Elevated Skin Temperature) screening? or is he making up a new acronym to try and justify his apparent acceptance of the ability to measure crowds moving swiftly (whether running or simply rushing) all at the same time by mass-measuring forehead temps and applying algorithmic leveling?
further, Drako deflects here by using the bolded "Our experience" statement to pretend that it has anything to do with - let alone being a defense of - his first underlined "Practically speaking" sentence.
"Practically speaking we have seen systems deployed that are reading large numbers of people as they stream into buildings through double or multiple doors. Our experience has been that most customers do a secondary screen of anyone that is flagged as problematic or anyone that the camera misses."
this is gibberish.
and Drako does the exact same thing in almost every 2 sentence paragraph he is quoted in above....
First, make a general statement in your first sentence and then follow with some peripheral platitude that has nothing to do with the original sentence, pretending it supports the first sentence.
Practically speaking we have seen systems deployed that are reading large numbers of people as they stream into buildings through double or multiple doors
This is where not having ground truth is such a significant factor. A system can be deployed that reads people streaming into a building that returns normally looking temperature readings. However, that does not mean the system is 'accurate' or will reliably detect the rare person who does have a legitimate elevated temperature. This is the issue we have seen in our testing.
In my experience almost all EST camera deployments are "for show". They are being advocated simply because it is necessary to show you are doing something, as opposed to doing nothing. Most EST camera system deployments are an incredible waste of money for companies that are trying to "re-open" or protect themselves from a litigious society.
How many customers will hire companies who have employees that have been trained to properly design the system and install it in the manner prescribed by the manufacturer? How many customers will provide a proper physical space for deployment of the system, as opposed to trying to fit it into their existing lobby, backroom, etc.? How many customers will hire and train employees to operate it in the manner defined by the manufacturer? How many customers will periodically send the camera and black body in for re-calibration and re-certification if required by the manufacturer?
We have all read the articles here on IPVM that show many customers have ZERO knowledge of these systems and are simply shopping price and through their existing purchasing channels - regardless of the experience of the installing company. In fact we routinely see companies selling EST "solutions" that have no physical installation presence - they will be self-installed by the customer or deployed through a contractor they use for lighting, network cabling, etc. How effective will those deployments be?
Ironically, Dean's statements reflect how the systems will actually be used in most instances, not the way they should be used to possibly detect an elevated temperature. One has to wonder how the government doesn't see FDA enforcement of these standards as important - especially with the mountains of evidence surrounding the deceptive marketing that has been prevalent since day one. IPVM has done a good job of testing and posting results of those tests. One would think interest in the problem would be stimulated from a perusal of the articles on just this site alone.
Unfortunately the majority of people infected by COVID-19 are asymptomatic. They will sail right past these cameras and infect their co-workers and nobody will know where their infection actually came from.
One has to wonder how the government doesn't see FDA enforcement of these standards as important
I don't believe that's the appropriate conclusion. The government is dealing with a flood of coronavirus issues (from fake medicines, cures, etc.) and working through them. I do believe that, given time, the government will do something here.
We can agree to disagree. From the FDA mission statement:
"FDA also plays a significant role in the Nation's counterterrorism capability. FDA fulfills this responsibility by ensuring the security of the food supply and by fostering development of medical products to respond to deliberate and naturally emerging public health threats."
When the FDA decided to weigh in and declare these devices "medical equipment" they also assumed responsibility for regulations and enforcement. If people are being led to believe that a technology is being deployed for their safety / benefit it deserves immediate action when there are flagrant violations.
We know our tax dollars are being spent on these systems that are known to be ineffective. How much time do we give the FDA to enforce the law when these systems are being deployed in schools and are of dubious accuracy? What about systems deployed in nursing homes / assisted living facilities - where many of the highest risk people live? Time is something they cannot afford.
The medicinal portion of the FDA is undoubtedly swamped with work. The skillset of a person evaluating the effectiveness of a vaccine is quite likely much different than the skillset of the person required to evaluate an electronic temperature screening device. I'm sure there are others who could be assigned to something like this as a higher priority for the immediate safety of the country. They already have people who are qualifying the devices as compliant or not - enforcement is the area lacking in response.
I don't particularly disagree, certainly not in principle. My point is more that I don't think the FDA doesn't think this is important as much as this tidal wave of 200+ new entrants is difficult for the FDA to immediately respond to.
Great article! When I see a quote from Dean I feel like he is the ringleader at the circus. “Come see the bearded lady and half man – half sheep.” He is a very good illusionist and a good businessman. I recently wrapped up an installation with a global integration using multiple lanes of an FDA approved camera to process 400 people in about 20 minutes. It took a lot of work, but I think we are onto some sort of standard here until more proven information is uncovered from reliable authorities like the FDA.
Back in April as COVID-19 was really starting to ramp I met with a variety of large end users who were working on possible solutions to become educated as possible on the subject matter. The one universal thing they all spoke about was understanding and developing processes associated with EST testing. I spend 2 hours discussing the topic with a Global Security Director with a Fortune 100 insurance company that everyone has heard of. It was amazing how much they had accomplished in basically 45 days. The biggest issue he had was the processes associated with the testing. The concern I have with Drako’s remark is creating the idea that people running or rushing through the testing area is ok. If an infected person “rushes” through the testing area, how long is it going to take to track that person down and how many innocent people were they in contact with? What is the reaction time going to be? The whole idea here is to create a choke point where people with an elevated temperature are kept out of the facility. This Global Security Manager was going to move the testing area outside of the building to keep the infected people from entering the building altogether and contaminating others. In light of these basic concepts Dean’s remarks either show ignorance to the topic or a complete disrespect for public safety. It is imperative that the FDA cracks down on this sort of misinformation.
I see a quote from Dean I feel like he is the ringleader at the circus.
Lol, I don't see Dean as a ringleader at a circus but I am surprised about his outlook on such things. With his background, I would have thought he would have a more cautious engineering perspective on things...
The biggest issue he had was the processes associated with the testing. The concern I have with Drako’s remark is creating the idea that people running or rushing through the testing area is ok.
Same. What Drako is reflecting is giving customers what they dream of, convenience and safety together. Just rush by and if you have a fever we will get you. The problem is that it is not grounded in scientific reality and will cause more problems long term.
Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Create New Topic
Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts reporting, tutorials and software funded by subscriber's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.
Comments (13)
Undisclosed #1
At some point we have to turn our attention to the FDA and pressure them to follow through with their "Enforcement Policy".
Create New Topic
Undisclosed Manufacturer #2
Quite the article simply because someone misspoke a little!!! LOL Probably took you hours more time to figure out how to write the article then it did for everyone who heard it to forget Deans' statement!!!
Create New Topic
Undisclosed Integrator #5
In my experience almost all EST camera deployments are "for show". They are being advocated simply because it is necessary to show you are doing something, as opposed to doing nothing. Most EST camera system deployments are an incredible waste of money for companies that are trying to "re-open" or protect themselves from a litigious society.
How many customers will hire companies who have employees that have been trained to properly design the system and install it in the manner prescribed by the manufacturer? How many customers will provide a proper physical space for deployment of the system, as opposed to trying to fit it into their existing lobby, backroom, etc.? How many customers will hire and train employees to operate it in the manner defined by the manufacturer? How many customers will periodically send the camera and black body in for re-calibration and re-certification if required by the manufacturer?
We have all read the articles here on IPVM that show many customers have ZERO knowledge of these systems and are simply shopping price and through their existing purchasing channels - regardless of the experience of the installing company. In fact we routinely see companies selling EST "solutions" that have no physical installation presence - they will be self-installed by the customer or deployed through a contractor they use for lighting, network cabling, etc. How effective will those deployments be?
Ironically, Dean's statements reflect how the systems will actually be used in most instances, not the way they should be used to possibly detect an elevated temperature. One has to wonder how the government doesn't see FDA enforcement of these standards as important - especially with the mountains of evidence surrounding the deceptive marketing that has been prevalent since day one. IPVM has done a good job of testing and posting results of those tests. One would think interest in the problem would be stimulated from a perusal of the articles on just this site alone.
Unfortunately the majority of people infected by COVID-19 are asymptomatic. They will sail right past these cameras and infect their co-workers and nobody will know where their infection actually came from.
Create New Topic
Undisclosed Manufacturer #6
Great article! When I see a quote from Dean I feel like he is the ringleader at the circus. “Come see the bearded lady and half man – half sheep.” He is a very good illusionist and a good businessman. I recently wrapped up an installation with a global integration using multiple lanes of an FDA approved camera to process 400 people in about 20 minutes. It took a lot of work, but I think we are onto some sort of standard here until more proven information is uncovered from reliable authorities like the FDA.
Back in April as COVID-19 was really starting to ramp I met with a variety of large end users who were working on possible solutions to become educated as possible on the subject matter. The one universal thing they all spoke about was understanding and developing processes associated with EST testing. I spend 2 hours discussing the topic with a Global Security Director with a Fortune 100 insurance company that everyone has heard of. It was amazing how much they had accomplished in basically 45 days. The biggest issue he had was the processes associated with the testing. The concern I have with Drako’s remark is creating the idea that people running or rushing through the testing area is ok. If an infected person “rushes” through the testing area, how long is it going to take to track that person down and how many innocent people were they in contact with? What is the reaction time going to be? The whole idea here is to create a choke point where people with an elevated temperature are kept out of the facility. This Global Security Manager was going to move the testing area outside of the building to keep the infected people from entering the building altogether and contaminating others. In light of these basic concepts Dean’s remarks either show ignorance to the topic or a complete disrespect for public safety. It is imperative that the FDA cracks down on this sort of misinformation.
Create New Topic