Benefit Cheats Caught By Lie Detectors

Benefit Cheats Caught By Lie Detectors

news.sky.com

Lie detector tests are being used to identify benefit and council tax cheats.

One council which is trialling the voice risk analysis system says the initiative has already saved tax payers more than £300,000.

The system detects changes in people's voice patterns, such as hesitation or avoiding direct questions.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Just how reliable are these tests?

Certainly not reliable enough to be used in a court of law although reliable enough to be used by dodgy local councils risking a person's home and welfare in the process!

If it is not totally accurate then it should not be used.

Fair enough we have jury systems etc. and we rely on the good old 'beyond reasonable doubt' but this is so very different. We expect a jury to be unreliable every now and then.

When the powers that be start telling the public that technology is flawless then we have a problem.

For example, we are told that a new Magic Box always detects whether a person is innocent or guilty. It is trialled and it seems to work fine.

Then a top politician, let's say the Prime Minister, is accused of wrong-doing.

The PM is tested and the Magic Box shows he is innocent.

Little do we know that the powers that be have tampered with the box to rig the outcome!

Then we are for it big time!

news.sky.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 18/2/2008 by skibtz]

In the US, "lie detector" tests are inadmissible in court.

Taping a person is not legal, unless they are informed beforehand.

Things might be different in the UK, but if the technology is not admissible in court and if there is no prior consent, then I don't see how it could be deemed ethical, much less legal.

If people are informed at the time that they file for benefits that they will be subjected to these procedures then I think it might fly.

But, to hold someone legally culpable for fraud would definitely require something more substantive than a polygraph or voice stress analyzer attached to a phone.

Courts don't allow these technologies as evidence because they are unreliable. If they are unreliable, then they should not be used for any purpose.

That's my position.

[edit on 2008/2/18 by GradyPhilpott]