Canon News has uncovered a patent that shows how Canon plans to add eye control focus technology in the upcoming Canon EOS R3 EVF.
From Japan Patent Application 2021-076832:
… an object of the present invention is to propose an optimum arrangement of the EVF in the image pickup apparatus, which is provided with the EVF and can suppress the deterioration of the operability of the image pickup apparatus provided with the line-of-sight input function.
Canon is using a small image sensor that is positioned on the side of the main display in the EVF and using a diving prism to direct light to this sensor. IR LEDs illuminate your eye for pupil detection and are located around the main EVF display.
The image above shows the path of the IR light being sent to your pupil for detection by the eye control sensor.
I think the IR led are the main inovation compared to the old EOS 3 mechanism. WIth the IR led they can illuminate more powerfully the eye without disturbing it, and then, maybe avoid false reflexions due to googles. It may works well with soft contact lens but not sure with old rigid ones
That would be nice for limiting accidentally turning on the EVF when the camera is on your shoulder, etc.
Eye-controlled AF could well be more useful to a wider set of photographers than eye-identification AF. Many people shoot much more than just living creatures.
To me, for example, eye-ID AF is irrelevant for about 90% of shots. But being able to change the AF point quickly just by looking would benefit me in 100% of shots, as compared to having to take my thumb off the AF button to chug the AF point around with the control stick. When does it reach the edge of the field ... oh crap it's wrapped around to the far edge now, push it back... can it go higher? No! Oh just take the shot... gah too late! Quite often I just revert to central-point-and-recompose as it's faster than moving the focus point.
(BTW, UV radiation is far more harmful to your eyes; that's why we wear sunglasses.)
Do you trust Canon to build the electronics so some kind of failure doesn't result in a higher intensity than intended?
In my judgement, even a small risk is not justifiable for such an unnecessary function, especially since in my case it probably wouldn't work well anyway. So I would certainly turn it off, but given the decades of history of lousy firmware from Japanese camera makers, and the fact that the hardware could also fail on, I wouldn't trust it was actually off, and will never buy a camera with it.
As for the rest of your post, you apparently did not read my description of the dangers of invisible light. To give another example: extended exposure to UV from walking around outside isn't good, but in contrast some of the sterilisation devices that emit concentrated UV out of proportion from what you'd find in sunlight are extremely dangerous.
Just so people know, IR means infra-red. which means it below the visible spectrum of light. which means it's lower energy than sunlight (longer wavelength, lower frequency, less energy). so if this scares you, you better stay indoors all the time and block out the windows and wear sunglasses 24/7. or better yet, never open your eyes to the dangerous visible light.