Evolv Technology, a company that develops “intelligent” scanners designed to identify concealed guns, knives, and bombs, has backtracked on claims regarding the testing and capabilities of its technology. The company’s scanners are intended to replace traditional metal detectors and are used in various locations, including the Manchester Arena in the UK.
The company initially stated that its AI weapons scanner had been tested and found “highly effective” by the UK Government’s National Protective Security Authority (NPSA). However, after inquiries from BBC News, Evolv acknowledged that the NPSA does not conduct such testing. Instead, an independent company tested Evolv’s technology against NPSA standards.
Metrix NDT, the UK company that performed the testing, clarified that it did not “validate” the system or pass judgment on its effectiveness in detecting weapons. This contradicts Evolv’s earlier claims about the testing results.
Evolv has faced mounting criticism for overstating the capabilities of its technology. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) launched an investigation into the company last month, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is looking into its marketing practices.
Experts have raised concerns about the technology replacing “tried and tested” security options and the need for close scrutiny and potential regulation of companies making such claims. There are also worries about how customers might be influenced by claims involving government bodies.
Evolv has previously claimed that its technology can detect the “signatures” of concealed weapons, including guns, bombs, and tactical knives. However, the company has faced criticism that it cannot reliably detect knives or bombs and has since adjusted its claims to state that it can detect “many types of knives and some explosives.”
Previous testing by a US facility found that Evolv’s technology could not consistently detect knives and certain types of bombs, contradicting the company’s earlier claims.
Evolv has acknowledged the confusion surrounding its technology’s capabilities and expressed regret for any misleading statements. However, questions remain about what the company has previously told customers regarding its technology’s capabilities and the extent of testing it has undergone.
