More lie detectors to curb fraud

More lie detectors to curb fraud

news.bbc.co.uk

The government is to provide funding for 15 more councils to get lie detectors to catch out benefit cheats, who cost taxpayers up to £400m a year.

Trials of the system, which analyses speech patterns, have saved hundreds of thousands of pounds, say councils.

Seven councils have already tested the technology, which is already used by the insurance industry to combat fraud.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Another example of how we are all being monitored. This is obviously a case of 'one law for them, another law for everyone else'..
Reason I say that is that if I (or anyone) was to record your voice as evidence against you, that recording is unsubmissible in court unless I informed you that you were being recorded.

If a lie detector used in the manner described in the report was to be used as evidence against you, would the same law apply to a recording of you taken against your knowledge?

Are you actually informed that a lie detector is being used whilst you're conversing over the phone?

And I wonder how many genuine insurance claims have been refused due to the use of this technology?

As much as there are those who will try to beat the system, the system is doing its hardest not to give anything out at all in the name of 'saving money'.

Ad to all that, this;

Our streets bristle with CCTV cameras but tracking suspects requires long trawls through hours of footage. Facial recognition software is one shortcut, as is a new system that tracks clothing logos.

among police proposals to improve conviction rates is to try new software that will automatically search footage for distinctive clothing worn by unidentified offenders.

It's technology currently used by the sponsors of sporting events to track the visibility of their logos during TV coverage. This system - called Magellan - automatically tells firms how many times their logo appeared during coverage of a particular event, its size, prominence and the length of time on screen.

DCI Neville has said he wants criminals to "fear" CCTV more, but the challenge for the police is getting the systems - and the budgets - in place to make the most of the images caught on camera.

news.bbc.co.uk...

They are getting their act together far quicker than we perceived. The reach they are stretching to seems beyond hat which we are familiar with and can only get worse.
Face and voice recognition,
Clothing and logo recognition
And even the way you walk or gesture are all the latest methods of spotting YOU....wherever you are.

But they still haven't found Bin Laden...



news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Not being a member of the UK family I can only state that you should all require your leaders to submit to the same lie-detector tests as they 'impose' on others. You would likely find that the technique would fall into disuse rather quickly.

[edit on 7-5-2008 by Maxmars]

Why not act like you cant speak and use a computer translator? A voice shifter, Have a family member call that wouldn't know what the "truth" is ..

Easy to beat ... Theres no law that you have to be able to talk to get your benefits is there ?

reply to post by Extralien



Those contraptions are rarely useful, for the simple fact that they rely on stereotypes based on generalised assessments of certain physiological responses - which are a direct result of the tested subject's own perception of his/her words.

The secret of "good" lying is to believe one's own story at the moment of telling it.
If you can do that, the polygraph or any other such device will act accordingly: it'll show a "truthful" result.
(But you don't even have to go that far. Throwing the polygraph "off course" by eliciting "false" responses to the initial questions - about the name, the age, ordinary factual data - would suffice to cast a serious doubt on the entire test.)

And the opposite is also true: a perfectly honest but nervous or guilt-ridden person who, for some reason, has a problem with his/her own story , regardless of its veracity, may show certain responses that are considered to be "characteristic" of lying.











[edit on 7-5-2008 by Vanitas]