Benefit claimants and job seekers could be forced to take lie detector tests as early as next year after an early review of a pilot scheme exposed 126 benefit cheats in just three months, saving one local authority £110,000.

 

Last May, the Department for Work and Pensions asked Harrow council in London to undertake a year-long, £63,000 pilot of the ground-breaking Voice Risk Analysis (VRA) technology.

 

'We will wait until the end of the formal evaluation period to make a final decision about rolling the technology out across the country but this early review by the council is very positive,' said a spokesman for the DWP.

 

If our own review comes to similar conclusions to Harrow's, we would like to see this technology rolled out across Britain as soon as possible.'

 

VRA technology works by measuring slight, inaudible fluctuations in the human voice known as 'micro-tremors' that indicate when a speaker delivers words under stress, and when those moments of stress are generated by an attempt to deceive. Voice patterns are analysed and displayed on a computer.

 

Normal speech ranges in frequency from 8 to 12 hertz. When they are being honest, the average sound is below 10 hertz. When they lie, the stress causes the frequency to rise to above 10 hertz.

 

'This technology is successfully used in the insurance industry and analyses changes in a caller's voice, giving an indication of the level of risk that they are lying,' said Richard Sheridan from Capita Group which owns the technology and is helping implementation for Harrow council. 'These changes are measured against the caller's "normal" voice which is recorded at the beginning of the phone call, ensuring that nervousness or shyness is not a trigger. If the technology flags up a caller as being suspicious, they will be asked to provide extra evidence to support their claim.'

 

The technology is being tested on people claiming housing or council tax benefit but will be extended at Harrow Jobcentre for other benefits this year. The government claims the technology also improves services.

 

'Operators trained in intelligent questioning and behavioural analysis will use the system to identify suspect cases at the start of the claim process, enabling low-risk claimants to be fast-tracked,' said a DWP spokesman.

 

Over the past two years the procedure for claiming benefits has been reformed. The claim often begins with a telephone interview, after which people may need to provide evidence and sign forms.

 

Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC, said the system 'adds to the demonisation of claimants'.

 

'Whatever their views on welfare policy, anyone who cares about science and reason should also be alarmed: lie detectors do not work, they are as likely to finger the innocent but nervous as the genuinely guilty,' he said. 'Innocent people will account for a majority of those whose claims are delayed while they provide extra evidence.'

 

Experts in America, where the most comprehensive scrutiny of the technology has taken place, warn that the technology is far from failsafe.

 

David Ashe, chief deputy of the Virginia Board for Professional and Occupational Regulation, said, 'The experience of being tested, or of claiming a benefit and being told that your voice is being checked for lies, is inherently stressful.

 

'Lie detector tests have a tendency to pass people for whom deception is a way of life and fail those who are scrupulously honest.'

 

Source: The Observer

'Lie detector tests have a tendency to pass people for whom deception is a way of life and fail those who are scrupulously honest.'

 

Source: The Observer

 

Which is probably the reason why that Lie Detector tests are not admissable in courts as evidence in the US... Another factor is that in the States, Lie Detector tests are voluntary, they are not forced upon people....

 

Frankly, I find this utterly outrageous, another hare-brained scheme from a desperate Govt... The technology has been available for decades and they're only just now thinking about using it...? Come on, there must be some pretty compelling arguements as to why it hasn't been implemented up until now, and I rather suspect the arguement I've quoted is the chief reason. Lie Detector Tests, as any expert in criminal law will tell you, are NOT at all reliable and can be fairly easily beaten at one end by a hardened criminal used to lying, and at the opposite end can actually trip up an honest person because the process of the test itself is very stressful..

 

Even Maggie didn't bring these things in, I'm quite disgusted that a so-called "Labour" administration is even considering it, the implications for civil liberties alone is quite frightening... How far are we gonna take this...? Are we going to allow employers to strap job applicants up to these machines during interviews....?

 

 

 

Even Maggie didn't bring these things in, I'm quite disgusted that a so-called "Labour" administration is even considering it, the implications for civil liberties alone is quite frightening... How far are we gonna take this...? Are we going to allow employers to strap job applicants up to these machines during interviews....?

 

technology has evolved greatly though scott since thatchers day. lie detectors are 96% accurate (according to jeremy kyle) so thats pretty compelling. the question is.... is this an acceptable way of preventing fraud? thats OUR money them scum are claiming. civil liberties? freedom to rob the country?.. i think civil liberties are only a good idea when they wont be abused.

nope i really dont think they work that good waste of money and time!

technology has evolved greatly though scott since thatchers day. lie detectors are 96% accurate (according to jeremy kyle) so thats pretty compelling. the question is.... is this an acceptable way of preventing fraud? thats OUR money them scum are claiming. civil liberties? freedom to rob the country?.. i think civil liberties are only a good idea when they wont be abused.

 

96% isn't good enough. That means out of 100,000 genuine claimants, 4,000 could be assessed as "lying" and deprived of benefits which are rightfully theirs.

96% isn't good enough. That means out of 100,000 genuine claimants, 4,000 could be assessed as "lying" and deprived of benefits which are rightfully theirs.

 

trouble is we dont know how many false claims will be stopped.....

 

its not quite as black and white as that though, the questions could be constructed to be more accurate, (by asking strong unambiguous questions) double checked, and only where theres clear evidence of lying (not the 'inconclusive' results that are in the 4% as well).

 

dunno about you, but im sick of paying for scummy chavs to sit on their fat arses watching tv, shagging, drinking, taking drugs all at my expense! (note:- im refering to the false claimants here, NOT the genuine cases).

trouble is we dont know how many false claims will be stopped.....

 

its not quite as black and white as that though, the questions could be constructed to be more accurate, (by asking strong unambiguous questions) double checked, and only where theres clear evidence of lying (not the 'inconclusive' results that are in the 4% as well).

 

dunno about you, but im sick of paying for scummy chavs to sit on their fat arses watching tv, shagging, drinking, taking drugs all at my expense! (note:- im refering to the false claimants here, NOT the genuine cases).

 

I don't like paying for the royal family either but I wouldn't call them scummy chavs.

I think it's a great idea. Those fraudsters claiming ilegitimately (if that's a word? :unsure:) will be screwed.

These are the lazy scum of society who need to get up off their arses and do some work.

Why should everyone else be funding these scumbags lives?

 

I don't, however, think this should be the only measure to detect fraudsters. They need to look at all cases on an individual basis - not just via a 'lie detector'.

Going after benefit cheats is a great idea. Using discredited technology to do so isn't.

technology has evolved greatly though scott since thatchers day. lie detectors are 96% accurate (according to jeremy kyle) so thats pretty compelling. the question is.... is this an acceptable way of preventing fraud? thats OUR money them scum are claiming. civil liberties? freedom to rob the country?.. i think civil liberties are only a good idea when they wont be abused.

 

Who cares about Jeremy sodding Kyle mate..? If one of his tests goes wrong, nobody's being sent to JAIL and basically fukked as far as benefits go are they...?? The facts are that it's still 4% innaccurate regardless of how the technology has supposedly "progressed", that's potentially a hell of a lot of people we are talking about here who will be put to a lot of inconvienience and stress, and be branded as criminals when in fact they are not.. Sorry, I find that totally unnacceptable, we have specialist benefit fraud investigators (who will, ironically, find themselves redundant if this plan goes ahead... :lol: :lol: ) who track people and find actual evidence of wrongdoing. To me, that is a far more effective way of doing things than some stupid machine that isn't all that accurate and isn't even allowed to be used in a court of law because of its innacuracies...

 

And well, sorry if you find Civil Liberties to be a bit "inconvienient" mate, but I'll take the "inconvieniences" that civil liberties might cause over the alternative (ie, a Police State) any day.... -_-

Ridiculous idea

 

Employ more benefit fraud investigators who will actually pound the streets seeing actual evidence of wrongdoing instead of wasting money and invading privacy with these stupid machines :manson:

 

Benefit fraud is a serious problem but this ain't the solution