Sat 17 May 2008

RSS Feed

Edited by Paul Hales

Published by Incisive Media Investments Ltd.

Terms and Conditions of use.

To advertise in Europe e-mail here

To advertise in Asia email here.

To advertise in North America email here.

Join the INQbot Mail List for a weekly guide to our news stories:

Subscribe

Lie detectors extend their reach to social security helplines

No they're not, yes they are, no they're not....

THE GOVERNMENT has put £1.5million up for another round of lie detector test pilots for social security helplines run by local authorities in the UK.

But it has drawn criticism for failing to prove that the last batch of pilots were a success. This comes on top of the criticism for having stuck lie detector machines on its phone lines in the first place.

The DWP said today in a statement that "initial results" from the seven pilots it has conducted across seven local authorities had been "successful". It provided no other details but said the results justified another round of pilot projects with another fifteen local authorities.

Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrat work and pensions shadow, said the government should publish the full results of the first round of pilots before forking out any more money.

He also said more benefits funding was lost to government error last year than to the benefits cheats the government wants to catch with its lie detector software. According to the Libdems, £530 million of benefits money was lost to government error in 05/06, while £480 million was lost to fraud.

The figures did not specify how much of the fraud was derived internally and how much was attributed to "benefits cheats", but it nevertheless showed that the DWP should sort its own act out first.

The software, licensed through Capita by Digilog UK, which bought the UK licence from Nemesysco, an Israeli software developer, attaches risk scores to people after analysing their voices on the telephone. It will alert a call handler with a "pip" and an on-screen assessment if it thinks it has detected a "high-risk" person. According to Capita, half the people it assesses as high risk turn out to be no risk at all.

Harrow Council said today it had saved an estimated £420,000 in the year since it first installed the software. This was derived from a DWP estimate of the amount a person would typically claim on benefit.

The figure was calculated on the assumption that 132 people who refused to complete the voice-risk analysis assessment would otherwise have tried to cheat the system; and that 500 people who, though they had been flagged as low risk, had declared their personal circumstances had changed and no longer needed benefits would also have otherwise attempted to cheat the system.

Out of 1559 benefits claimants processed by the lie detection system, 118 were flagged as high risk. Just 24 of those, or 1.5 per cent, had their benefits decreased as a result of the intrusion.

The TUC protested last year that voice-risk analysis software like that being used in Harrow was more likely to finger "innocent but nervous" people as those who were genuinely trying to cheat the system.

"People with a particular regard for the truth can be the most stressed in these circumstances – lie detector tests have a tendency to pass people for whom deception is a way of life and fail those who are scrupulously honest," it said.

It is usual for such software to pick out innocent people for further questioning in over 95 per cent of cases. µ

Comments

Stupidy is contagious

Why do you Brits buy phony meta-scientific junk like lie detectors anyway? Torture is far more reliable.
Sorry.
posted by : Help Line, 07 May 2008

CIA

Aldritch Aimes used Valium and friends to help fool polygraph testing done in person by ostensible experts at the CIA. Fooling this is rather more trivial.
posted by : Tweeker, 07 May 2008

Plan

Clever, buy a machine you can blame for your anti-social tendencies!
A boon for any public service surely.
posted by : W.-, 08 May 2008

Great idea...

...and seeing as politicians like these things so much, they would obviously be delighted to have an on-screen lie detector for all their news interviews. Or maybe not...
posted by : Jo Blo, 08 February 2008

toss a coin

odd, i'm pretty sure tossing a coin is 50/50. that's slightly better. then 95% failing rate. of course it would help a lot if we knew the percentage of people frauding the system. if only 5% fraud, then that machine is, by my very awesome scientific calculations, absolutely very 100% useless
posted by : remy, 08 May 2008

If only...

If only people knew exactly what 'lie detectors' actually detected - well they sure as heck cannot detect lies!

But if you 'have nothing to hide you don't have anything to fear' - right? Automated enforcement criminalises the law abiding whilst it makes the determined criminal's life soooo much easier!
posted by : Steve, 08 May 2008
IThound
Search for solutions, reports & analysis

Newsletter signup