Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Technology

Insurance Claims to be Tested by Lie Detector 307

Posted by michael from the whiplash dept.
Albanach writes "HBOS, one of the largest UK banks is to introduce random lie detector analysis of insurance claims according to this article from the Edinburgh Evening News. The three month trial will see calls from its 1.5 million policy holders randomly subjected to voice stress analysis. Those flagged up will then receive a set of questions designed to expose 'potential fraudsters'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Insurance Claims to be Tested by Lie Detector More

Insurance Claims to be Tested by Lie Detector

Comments Filter:

  • Yea right, I'm sure (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mjmalone ( 677326 ) *
    they'll be chosen randomly, more like a 'you fit our demographics for a lieing bastard lie detector test.' Isn't this an illegal detainment/unjust search? What are the search/seizure laws in the UK anyways?

    • Re:Yea right, I'm sure (Score:5, Insightful)

      by oniony ( 228405 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @08:59AM (#6685169) Homepage
      I really don't believe they would be allowed to do this without prior consent. Calls are typically prefixed with a "this call may be recorded for training purposes" but I doubt they would be able to do the same thing for detecting fraud.

      More likely, one would have to consent in writing which they may offer a reduced premium to encourage people to sign up. (In reality, the money they save will possibly not be passed on: instead the 'reduced premium' could end up as being the usual price and those not signing up will pay a penalty).

    • Re:Yea right, I'm sure (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:01AM (#6685197)
      Unless I missed something, these are banks doing this not the government or police. And they aren't detaining you or performing any search or seizure. It is a phone system that looks for stress in your voice. I am sure it is pretty unreliable and not admissable in any court of law, though.

      Or did you just mean - First Post?

      • Re:Yea right, I'm sure (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ozbon ( 99708 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:27AM (#6685462) Homepage
        I'm more intrigued about the stress-levels part. They're testing it in the household insurance department, which means they'll be dealing with fun things like people who've just been burgled, or who've come home to find everything destroyed by fire/flood/whatever.

        Surely under these circumstances, the voice-stress meters will be pegging all kinds of false positives and so on? I know I'd be all over the place, so any stress analysis is likely to be inherently flawed in such a situation...

        • Re:Yea right, I'm sure (Score:3, Insightful)

          by TheCarp ( 96830 ) *
          However heres the thing... contrast that with the scenario of someone who wasn't burgled or who set the fire themselves and as such lost everything on purpose for the money.

          I would bet dollars to donuts the stress would be different.

          Or would it, I dunno, I supose I don't know much about what "Voice stress" really measures... but I can't imagine that a frauder and a real claim are going to be stressed in the same way.

          -Steve
      • it's unlawful under the UK Data Protection Act unless they have your consent.

        That's why the article refers to the subject having to be given a Data Protection Act warning at the start of the call - continuing with the call will deem to be consent. I'd be interested to see the warning - the unusual nature of the procedure means it would have to be rather detailed.
    • What I want to see is lie detector tests for lying insurance agents. :) Probably going to happen about when that law which dictates the flogging of spammers followed by their head being placed on a pike as a warning to others is finally passed...

  • Silly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grennis ( 344262 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @08:55AM (#6685124)
    Wouldn't it be natural to have stress in your voice if something has happened in your life causing you to file an insurance claim?

    • Re:Silly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ihummel ( 154369 ) <ihummel@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @08:58AM (#6685168)
      And some people (like me) would find any such interrogation stressful.

    • Re:Silly (Score:5, Funny)

      by mikerich ( 120257 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:09AM (#6685283)
      Wouldn't it be natural to have stress in your voice if something has happened in your life causing you to file an insurance claim?

      Not to mention stress induced by the 'Press 1 to speak to a human being who sounds like a machine, Press 2 to speak to a machine who sounds like a human being ... [BLIP]

      You pressed 1. Press 1 to speak to a person in Edinburgh, Press 2 to speak to a person in Bangalore, Press 3 ... [BLIP]

      You pressed 2. If you want to learn more about our low, low rates Press 1, If you want a cuddly toy as seen in our adverts Press 2, If you actually want to talk to someone Press 3 ... [BLIP]

      You pressed 3. Are you sure you want to speak to someone? Press 1 ... [BLIP]

      whirr clickity

      Hello and welcome to the queue to join the queue to talk to one of our service representatives, you are number [pause] fifty-seven in the queue, estimated wait time is [long pause] - do you have any plans for October? While you are waiting, do you know about our other services?' rigamarole.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    • twice in the last year I've had to phone up to make insurance claims. I'm sure on both occasions my voice stress levels would have been through the roof. On one occasion I'd just come downstairs to find my house had been burgled in the night. On the other, I was calling my travel insurer because all flights out of the airport I was in had been cancelled due to a strike and it was looking like I was going to be stuck abroad for another day. In either situation, I guess it was conceivable I might have been ly
    • Just make sure you call before your morning cup of joe. [thinkgeek.com]

    • Re:Silly (Score:3, Informative)

      by Foochar ( 129133 ) *
      Thats why they do a baseline first. You start with questions that are pretty much guaranteed to be right. For example you confirm their name, their address, their phone number etc. This is used to establish a baseline for their voice stress levels. Its the same way that polygraphs work. You think if you are hooked up to all this equipment your pulse and resperation aren't going to be slightly elevated? Of course they are, but they establish a baseline first before asking the questions they are really

      • Re:Silly (Score:5, Informative)

        by madfgurtbn ( 321041 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @10:58AM (#6686544)
        Thats why they do a baseline first. You start with questions that are pretty much guaranteed to be right.

        Actually that' "baseline" is all bullshit.

        The first questions to "calibrate" a polygraph are simply to mindfuck the person being tested. The user is told to tell the truth on a meaningless question, then told to lie on another meaningless question. The polygraph operator looks quizzically at the data then says something like "You're a terrible liar! It's off the charts!".

        Lie detecting is fraud,whether by voice stress analysis or any other means. Read deeply at www.antipolygraph.org

        It's about gaining confessions from gullible people. There is no real science involved. No lies are actually "detected".

        • Re:Silly (Score:5, Informative)

          by Merk ( 25521 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @12:05PM (#6687375) Homepage

          I'm lucky enough to have been polygraphed, but not for having done something important. I was actually a guinea pig for police officers being trained to become polygraph operators. I am not sure if polygraphs are completely worthless or not, but I can guarantee that the way they're used is not as a "lie detection device" but more as an interrogation technique.

          When they polygraphed me, they used some cheap magicians tricks. They had me choose a random card, then told me to say no for each card when they asked "is this your card?". Using the polygraph they claimed to know what card I had chosen -- but the way they set things up it seemed more like magicians tricks, than it did polygraph operation. They also showed me a wavy line with a spike afterward, claiming that the spike was when they detected me lying... but when I tried to get some more details they avoided the subject.

          When it came for the real test, it ran mostly like what you see in the movies. After the test was done they thanked me for cooperating and then started trying to usher me out. I asked if I could see the results and they refused. Later on, I was told that a polygraph operator never shows their results to anybody, not even their partners.

          I'm not sure if the machines are completely worthless, or if they can do something, but it certainly isn't a lie detector, it's more a "reaction sensor" if anything. I wouldn't be surprised if the cops get more out of watching someone's face, eyes, and posture than they do out of the device. It's just that the device has such fame from TV and movies that guilty people think it will catch them, making them more nervous (and presumably innocent people feel it will vindicate them, making them more relaxed).

          The only think I learned from the experience is that police interrogators are good at getting confessions. That doesn't necessarily mean they're good at getting only guilty people to confess, however. If you ever get accused of something and a cop wants to question you, whether you're completely guilty or completely innocent, insist on a lawyer.

  • Great. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ihummel ( 154369 )
    Now they will be able to refuse you insurance payment based upon a method that doesn't hold up in court, at least not in the U.S. Does it in Europe?

    • Re:Great. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by colinleroy ( 592025 )
      No, but as they plan to use this method only to find possible frauds, and investigate them using more standard methods, your point isn't valid.
      Don't you think insurance companies have some lawyers paid to think about such issues before spending money on them ?
    • Where does it say they will refuse your claim based on teh results of the lie detector? This isn't even really a standard lie detector. Just some voice analyzer that looks for patterns. Could it read false positives? Almost certainly. Will they deny your claim? No, you'll be transfered to someone who's job it is to sniff out fraudsters.

      To us this may seem like a bad idea, but fraudulent claims are a HUGE problem in the insurance industry, and they are trying to fight these people any way they can. One thi

  • Stress? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @08:56AM (#6685138) Homepage Journal
    So, when their customer who has just been involved in an auto accident calls and reports the accident to the insurance, their voice will not in the least be affected by stress?

    • Read the article: And Mr Hemingway said there will be measures in place to make sure only fraudsters are trapped, rather than those who naturally find making such phone calls difficult.

      I doubt they will be doing this for people who just got in accidents; this is for further investigation. Much like I got whiplash from the accident, and I can't work; or I hurt my back on the job and can't work (but I can still play baseball!)

      I'm all for it, if they can prove it cuts down insurance fraud (the reason insur

    • Even worse, when the detector says they're stressed, they're going to be asked even more stressful questions. They're going to have some very angry customers after putting them through an interrogation.

  • It's a Manipulation Tactic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Greenisus ( 262784 ) <michael@NOSpAm.mayotech.com> on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @08:57AM (#6685143) Homepage
    Lie detectors are not effective [apa.org]. This is just being used to scare people into thinking they can't lie.
    • Okay, so at the least, it is a detterent to keep people from lying about insurance claims. Every claim they have to pay makes everyone else pay more. So, at the worst, it will save you money. Is this bad?
      • Oops, I mean deterrent.

      • Re:It's a Manipulation Tactic (Score:5, Insightful)

        by PurpleFloyd ( 149812 ) <zeno20@@@attbi...com> on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:11AM (#6685299) Homepage
        What happens if you get falsely accused? Lie detectors are at best random and can be conciously affected by an adept scammer (when you tell something you want to be recognized as the truth, relax, when you tell something you want to be detected as a lie, tense up a few muscles subtly; the toes are ideal as long as you wear shoes). Lie detectors are bogus science; while there may be physiological responses associated with dishonesty, they can be easily overwhelmed by other stresses (like going into a lie detector test and being grilled mercilessly). Also, it's very rare that two polygraph "experts" will read the results the same way. You might "fail" the test, while if your results had been interpreted by someone else, you might have "passed."

        This is not just bad, this is awful. If you were falsely accused, you could land in jail and be out thousands of dollars in fines. Even if you miraculously avoided all that, you would still be left with a valid insurance claim that wouldn't be paid, despite the fact that you paid your premiums and did nothing wrong, other than fail a pseudoscientific test.

        As for the supposed deterrent effect, that's a ridiculous analogy. You might as well suggest that we fine and jail people who "look suspicious" at random; you would get the same results. While you'd certainly catch criminals, you'd also punish a number of completely innocent people. Deterrent effect? No, there's a difference between deterrents and people living in fear of the law. The fact that polygraph tests are generally inadmissable in American and European courts should tell you something about what effects this would have.

        • You can't get falsely accused, it is random. I am not saying its the end all and be all, but hopefully it will dissuade your "casual scammer", the hardcore experienced scammers will still succeed most of the time. Again, it is more of a deterrent, don't scam, because we can (maybe) tell if you are lying. I am sure they know how unscientific and unreliable polygraph examinations are, but if people know it is out there, how likely are they to burn down their house, or get one of their friends to "disappear" t

          • Re:It's a Manipulation Tactic (Score:5, Insightful)

            by PurpleFloyd ( 149812 ) <zeno20@@@attbi...com> on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:39AM (#6685565) Homepage
            Let's take a hypothetical scenario:
            You have a fairly new, expensive car with good comprehensive insurance. You leave the alarm system disabled by accident one day, and your car is stolen. You submit a claim to the insurance company and file a police report. A few days later, you are called into their office, to give a statement into a tape recorder. You fail the "voice stress analysis." Due to this, the insurance company starts to dig. They find that you left your alarm off, and think they can take you to court. You are taken to court and convicted of fraud, and punished accordingly. You are punished, but did nothing wrong.

            What's the point I'm trying to make? It's simple: these essentially random tests will be used to determine who is suspected of a crime and thus investigated further, with a heavy bias towards criminal activity - investigators will tend to look for any evidence at all that might support the "criminal activity" theory, and doubt evidence that disproves that theory. It's a basic tenet of psychology that people tend to choose one theory and build up supporting evidence for it, while disregarding evidence that might disprove it.

            Of the many cases detected by this "lie detector," there are almost certainly cases that have done nothing wrong, but have a large amount of circumstantial evidence against the person making the claim. While circumstantial evidence is technically inadmissable in court, expensive legal attack teams, like the ones held on retainer or employed by large companies like insurers and banks, can get away with almost anything and make it look reasonable. I doubt you could afford your own counterattack lawyers.

            The end result is that it's possible for innocents to be punished. While I agree that insurance fraud is without a doubt a Bad Thing, and deterrents to insurance fraud are good, the chance of error here is simply too high.

        • If you stress yourself when telling the truth and relax when lying, the examiner will end up reporting that you were being deceptive and this is the same as failing.
      • There are a number of people who would be deterred from making legitimate claims because of fear of being falsely accused of scamming, general anxiety, concern over non-relevant liability issues. Of course, this would benefit the bottom line of the insurance company who would claim to have "stopped fraud".

        And of course, real scammers will easily get by this. And since like most "security" measures, it make them watchers complacent: "Nobody is getting past our lie detectors."

    • This is just being used to scare people into thinking they can't lie.
      Well then, if that strategy works, it's a good thing.

      I don't see any downside to this -- they're not using a positive result on the test to deny claims, they're using a positive result on the test as a clue to dig deeper into the veracity of the claim. If it's a legit claim, that should come out no matter whether you pass or fail the lie detector test.

    • Another link, albeit from the popular press so a bit short on technical details: The truth about polygraphs [boston.com].

      These tests are completely unreliable, and suffer both from false negatives and false positives in abundance. If you're ever asked to take one for any reason you should refuse. If the results favour you they'll be ignored, if they don't you'll never live them down, however wrong they may be. These things are evil.

  • And how do we know this story is true?

  • Hopefully... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rczyzewski ( 585306 )
    It will decrease my insurance premiums. Probably not.

  • But what about... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by SUPAMODEL ( 601827 )
    ... the people who are actually stressed or whatever about making the claim itself?
    I know lie detectors are supposed to be calibrated, but they aren't fool-proof and to hang decisions like this on them is just foolhardy.
    Last time I had to make an insurance claim, it was against someone who thru their own negligent driving resulted in me having a serious enough motorbike accident to fuck my ankle, my bike & nearly write off their new, expensive enough, car. And I wasn't going fast, and did what I could

  • From what I have heard... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zubernerd ( 518077 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @08:58AM (#6685165)
    lie detector tests are about as good as flipping a coin. I wonder what the result would be if they just randomly chose ~50% of their claimants and investigated them...

  • This is bullshit (Score:3, Funny)

    by rde ( 17364 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @08:58AM (#6685167)
    Why not just get Uri Geller in to sense whether they're telling the truth? Time and again lie detectors have proved to be - at best - slightly better than waving chickens when it comes to accuracy. Yet all Liberty can say is "I'm not persuaded this works".
    • "Hello, I'm ringing to claim on my insurance, I've had an accident in the kitchen and my spoons are all bent"

    • Why not just get Uri Geller in to sense whether they're telling the truth? Time and again lie detectors have proved to be - at best - slightly better than waving chickens when it comes to accuracy. Yet all Liberty can say is "I'm not persuaded this works".

      The idea is not that lie detectors tell the truth. The idea is that you tell the truth if you are connected to a lie detector. It doesn't matter what that thing does at that time, it doesn't even need to be connected to any power source.

  • I was hoping not every country had people dumb enough to believe in polygraphs and other "lie detectors."

  • Train to beat it. (Score:5, Informative)

    by eddy ( 18759 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:00AM (#6685189) Homepage Journal

    Antipolygraph.org [antipolygraph.org]

  • I'm sure there must be some law where they have to notify the people calling. They have to state that the call may be recorded for training and security. Might just be worth asking them when/if they call. The DPA (Data Protection Act) might contain something

    Rus

  • They're in Trouble (Score:5, Funny)

    by Doesn't_Comment_Code ( 692510 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:01AM (#6685203)
    Using voice stress analysis techniques to detect changes in speech patterns caused by stress, the machines will be able to make an initial assessment as to whether the caller may be lying.

    A special series of questions has also been devised to try and catch out fraudsters.

    And when was the accident?
    Who was driving?
    What's the capitol of Uzbekistan?
    Pi to 15 digits?

    I'm sorry sir, your claim has been denied.

  • This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by henbane ( 663769 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:02AM (#6685207)
    So insurance companies have found yet another way to bog down any legitimate claim you might have so they can keep the inflated premiums they took off you.

    Any time they come up with BS like this they always claim it will lower premiums and give some inflated figure of how much fraudulent claims are costing them, but who is to say how many of those fraudulent claims are not just the companies finding a loophole to screw anybody who makes a claim.

    Can't stand them, they have a business model where everybody has to give them money and they resent anybody with a legitimate claim to it.

  • "The three month trial will see calls from its 1.5 million policy holders randomly subjected to voice stress analysis.

    The three month trial will also see their customer base dwindle to miniscule numbers.

    • Assuming it "works" then they should have less fraudulent claims and be able to offer more competative rates and therefore increase their customer base.

      Note that in order to "work" the technology doesn't actually need to catch people out who make fraudulent claims. It simply needs to get enough publicity to discourage people from making fraudulent claims.

  • Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TWX ( 665546 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:02AM (#6685210)
    Well, if they don't use the lie detector test as the only way of establishing truth or deception, this might not be completely terrible.

    Remember, police don't generally use the polygraph to make a direct case against someone. They use it in conjunction with hard evidence and a narrowed list of suspects for a particular, established crime. As long as an insurance company is smart enough to not use the test to try to claim "you're lying! You weren't hit by the other driver" based on a nervous test taker who trips the system simply by knowing that (s)he is taking it, and they go on other evidence as well, like police reports and the like, things should be okay.

    For other things, like theft, if someone is confident enough that they'll succeed by reporting something stolen, then trying to claim it on insurance, it's pretty likely that they'll now take steps to practice to lie to a polygraph convincingly. That would render things completely useless.

    Either way, we'll have to see what the results of use are, and hope that they don't claim fraud upon people who are exhonerated later.
    • if the police had hard evidence, they wouldn't need the test.

      of course they are unreliable, and different readers can come up with different results using the same data.

    • Remember, police don't generally use the polygraph to make a direct case against someone. They use it in conjunction with hard evidence and a narrowed list of suspects for a particular, established crime.

      They would if they could - polygraphs aren't admissible in many states here in the US. And there's a reason - it's not all that accurate, and that's when used by someone trained. Also, this system isn't even being administered by any trained person, as it isn't even being administered by an actual person

  • Lie detectors are not accurate. Somebody can be nervous because they're afraid of not being believed, and a well-rehearsed lie is easy to pass by a lie detector. Thats why lie detectors are not admissable evidence in court.

  • For the way technology has improved life press 1 (Score:5, Funny)

    by dirtmerchant ( 162306 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:03AM (#6685220) Homepage
    "Thank you for calling HBOS Insurance. Your voice my be monitored to detect tiny fluctuations that may possibly indicate fraudulent statements. This technology is very controversial and invasive, but will allow us to prosecute one additional insurance fraud case each year. Rest assured, the money saved by fraud prevention will not be handed on to you the customer. Please hold for the next available underpaid outsourcer with no job security to copy all of your credit statistics into our closed-source database running the most up-to-date NT service pack from 1999."

  • Good. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Chess_the_cat ( 653159 )
    Homer: Well, let's see. There was the Picasso, my collection of fine wines, one or two Rolexes.
    Insurance Agent: I'm sorry sir. This policy only covers real damage. Not made up damage.
    Homer: D'oh!

    There are a lot of people who try to scam the insurance companies and I end up paying for it through higher premiums. These are private companies and if you don't want to deal with one that uses lie detection don't. But I'll be the first in line to sign up with a company that does.

    • There's lots of people who try to scam other people too. Here's a hint: Your premiums are only very loosely correlated with fraud costs - the cost of legitimate claims far outweighs fraud. Your premiums are calculated to ensure a profit for the ensurer - if there's a million more LEGITIMATE claims, your costs will go up.
  • My question in the subject has to do with the usability of lie detector tests in the UK. Are they also unusable/null-and-void as far as evidence in a court of law? In this case, I think that HBOS is just using a lot of scare tactics to try to reduce the amount of money they'll be paying claimants. I hope everyone who gets denied a claim will sue HBOS for the claim, any possible damages, and lawyers fees. These kinds of business tactics suck and will hurt a lot of innocent claimants. I mean, I'd be stressed

  • turnabout (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zornorph ( 63846 )
    So will the insurance companies be willing to undergo lie detector tests themselves? If they are going to dish it out, they should be willing to take it.

  • Simpson's quote (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lord_Slepnir ( 585350 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:05AM (#6685239) Journal
    Detective: Did you hold a grudge against Montgomery Burns?

    Moe: No

    Lie Detector: BZZZT!

    Moe: All right, I did. But I didn't shoot him.

    Lie Detector: Ding!

    Detective: Checks out. All right, sir. You're free to go.

    Moe: Good, because I have a hot date tonight.

    Lie Detector: BZZZZZT!!!!

    Moe: A date

    Lie Detector: BZZZZZT!!!!

    Moe: Dinner with friends.

    Lie Detector: BZZZZZT!!!!

    Moe: Dinner Alone.

    Lie Detector: BZZZZZT!!!!

    Moe: Watching TV

    Lie Detector: BZZZZZT!!!!

    Moe: All right! I'm going to sit at home and ogle the ladies in the Victoria's Secret catalog.

    Lie Detector: BZZZZZT!!!!

    Moe: Sears Catalogue.

    Lie Detector: Ding!

    Moe: Now will you unhook me already? I don't deserve this shabby treatment!

    Lie Detector: BZZZZZT!!!!

  • Obligatory Simpsons quote (Score:5, Funny)

    by DorkHead ( 696720 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:06AM (#6685242)
    FBI agent Scully : This is just a simple lie-detector test. I'll ask some simple questions and you should answer with yes or no. Do you understand?
    Homer : Yes.
    [ The machine blows up ].

  • From the Skeptic's Dictionary: (Score:4, Informative)

    by narcolepticjim ( 310789 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:07AM (#6685257)

    From a page about the Truster Voice Stress Analyzer [skepdic.com]:

    What is a voice stress analyzer, you might wonder? It is a machine that measures components of the human voice--frequency modulations--that are correlated with stress. No machine can detect stress directly, much less distinguish whether the stress is due to lying, guilt, stutter, fear, constipation, or some other emotion or physical condition. The frequency modulations, called "micro tremors" by those who measure them, must be interpreted by a human being. The machine doesn't do the analysis, the examiner does.

  • i guess i'm not understanding why this is a problem. currently if an insurance agent guesses you are lying or just doesn't like the sound of your voice, they are free to ask more questions about the incident to determine whether your claim is fraudulent.

    this is only automating this method. really, a lie detector is not much better or worse than someone guessing whether you're lying or not.

    it is not as if they are automatically pronouncing your claim as fraudulent because of the results of the lie-detect

  • Some basic facts (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:08AM (#6685270)
    Here are some basic facts about insurance companies:-

    1) They are out to make money
    2) They make said money based purely on others suffering
    3) They will try to weasel (no offence to weasels) out of *any* contract
    4) Any money saved will *not* reduce premiums but increase bonuses and dividends
    5) Insurance companies have never worried about legality. If they reject 50 claims (illegally) and only 5 have the time, energy and money to fight them they have made money on the other 45. All costs that the 5 have to pay, they cannot get back
    6) Lie detectors are inammisable in UK courts - but that won't stop Insurance companies.


    In the UK insurance companies work a "your a lieing defrauding piece of crap" policy. It's not even "guilty until proven innocent" policy. Most of the time Insurance companies believe _all_ people are trying to illegally claim.

  • Hmm (Score:2, Funny)

    by MrFenty ( 579353 )
    Maybe they would be stressed at living in a fascist country that forces them to take lie detector tests for everything.
    • OK, I'm feeding a troll here, but sometimes you've got to teach the idiots a thing or two?

      Just how is Britain a fascist country? What makes it one? Because a private company decides to examine insurance claims in this manner? Because a RFID trial is occuring (and drawing local and national protest) at one supermarket on one pruduct? Because their are CCTVs monitoring things as mundane as passenger flow/safety on the London Underground, traffic jams on major roads and around major terrorist targets?

      Wow, it

  • From nopolygraph.com (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Suhas ( 232056 )
    Minnesota Polygraph Statute

    181.75 Polygraph tests of employees or prospective employees
    prohibited.
    Subdivision 1. Prohibition, penalty. No employer or agent thereof
    shall directly or indirectly solicit or require a polygraph, voice
    stress analysis, or any test purporting to test the honesty of any
    employee or prospective employee. No person shall sell to or
    interpret for an employer or the employer's agent a test that the
    person knows has been solicited or required by an employer or
    agent to test the honesty of a

  • Lie detectors don't always work (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Perdurabo26 ( 265403 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:13AM (#6685324)

    I've been submitted to a lie detector one time. Basically my house was broken into, and to clear my name, the police wanted to give me a lie detector test (i don't know off hand what kind it was) but i basically failed the test. The problem is that I failed the preliminary test too. I failed questions that were specifically designed to be correct.

    Do you live in the state of michigan?

    Do you live in the United States?

    Are you 17 years old?

    If you can't pass questions that are geared to be absolutely correct, than why do they still consider you failing the actual test as you lieing? I'm afraid something like this would happen in this situation.

    Just giving my $0.02 worth.

  • Everyone Lies (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LittleGuy ( 267282 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:13AM (#6685328)
    "Everyone lies, Michael. The innocent lie because they don't want to be blamed for something they did not do. The guilty lie because they don't have any other choice."
    ----- Sinclair, "Babylon 5", 'And the Sky Full of Stars' [midwinter.com]

  • Innocent until tested guilty (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eaolson ( 153849 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:15AM (#6685340)
    I love this bit:
    And Mr Hemingway said there will be measures in place to make sure only fraudsters are trapped, rather than those who naturally find making such phone calls difficult.

    Apparently the system isn't capable of false positives. "You can't be innocent, the machine says you're guilty. And since only guilty people are caught by the machine, you can't be innocent. QED."

    Also note that the article is talking about voice-analysis stress testing (over the phone, surely that couldn't ever be inaccurate), not polygraphs. Polygraphs are a crock as well, of course, but this isn't them.

  • Post-facto (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Johnny Mnemonic ( 176043 ) <mdinsmore.gmail@com> on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:17AM (#6685365) Homepage Journal

    Funny they don't require this before they take your money. Maybe they should be subject to my lie detector when I subscribe with them: are they really going to be there 24 hours a day with a hold time of under 10 minutes? Will they settle all of my claims, or just the claims that they feel are reasonable? If a natural disaster occurs, and several $Billions are filed simultaneously, will I still be covered, or will they simply go bankrupt? Will they really save me 15% or more?

    Really, brillant strategy. Take money, and then decline service later. Maybe computer techs should be in the same business: I'll take your money now, but when you need service I'll just blame it on you and continue to post to /.

  • Too bad it's voodoo science (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hays ( 409837 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:17AM (#6685369)
    On multiple occasions I failed polygraph tests that kept me from getting an internship. It's pretty annoying to have someone telling you you're lying. You're really quite powerless to do anything but deny it. Then they'll kindly show you the door.

    These things have no place. They are not useful for job screening. They are not useful for investigative purposes. They are not reliable enough for any application. Congress was right to refuse to be polygraphed while under investigation- I would certainly refuse any future polygraph. They shouldn't be hypocrital, though. They should strike down polygraph use entirely.

    Trusting polygraphs is a threat to our national security. Not only because double agents and such can easily pass them while lying (any well trained person can), but because so many qualified applicants are replaced with less qualified applicants who can satisfy the voodoo magic of a polygraph machine. Personally, I would like the very best working for the CIA, NSA, etc.

  • From the article: (Score:5, Funny)

    by lungofish ( 6224 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:17AM (#6685373)
    He added that it could also lead to lower premiums.

    BZZZZZZZT! LIE DETECTED.
  • in question will immeadiately be proceeding to massive price-cuts and increasing the coverage/risk of their policies due the now lowered risk of fraud. That, and fairly compensating anyone falsely accused by this "sophisticated technology" for lost time, aggrievment and blood-pressure increase.

    You know, insurrance companies qualify for something lower than lawyers in my books. Witness the apparent world-wide increase in premiums due to 911. Of course that had nothing to do with the come-uppance they rig

  • I'm fine with that... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FJ ( 18034 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:22AM (#6685412)
    ... as long as I can do the reverse. I want to make sure that when my insurance rep says "your covered" he doesn't mean "your covered as long as you never make a claim."

    I also want to get a truthful answer to the question "Will I be dropped after my first claim?"

  • Nothing to Fear? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by CPIMatt ( 206195 )
    "Honest policyholders will have nothing to fear and combating fraud will make things better for them anyway by helping to keep premium costs down."

    Yeah, right. Honest policyholders do have something to fear; the fear that when this flim-flam pseudoscience piece of crap system randomly flags them as a liar!

    Actually, the insurance company will probably use this like the police do. The insurance company will use the voice analysis technology against people who they already think are trying to defraud the c

  • Im a semi-pro insurance fraudster ... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    so I'm posting anonymous coward for obvious reasons.
    I think that this will catch low level fraud such as exagerated and false claims on things like household work and travel insurance. How well will depend on how good the equipment is and how frequently it is used. Also, publicising its use will have a great detterent effect which is why they are doing so.
    However higher up the food chain this is just not going to replace effective investigation. In my scams I always ensure that I have employed some patsy
    • I think that this will catch low level fraud such as exagerated and false claims on things like household work and travel insurance. How well will depend on how good the equipment is and how frequently it is used. Also, publicising its use will have a great detterent effect which is why they are doing so.

      I rather think thats the point. Like warez the intent is not to stop it happening but to reduce its prevalance. A lot of travel insurance fraud is opportunist - people genuinely lose something and then d

  • You gotta love it. When a human being who is completely justified makes an insurance claim, the insurance company really doesn't care if you are a criminal or fraudulent. Literally it's job is to find whatever means possible to deny you the money. They will look to make sure every T is crossed, and will try and screw you over at every occasion. I love how most people pay insurance money, and sit back and relax thinking whatever happens.. they'll be compensated. Think again. The company will find a way to sc
  • The sad truth about the insurance trade is that entirely honest people often get a poor deal from the insurers, while crooks can benefit nicely. A typical exchange between accident victim and insurer...:

    Insurer: "So, your neighbour's car exploded and your house caught fire, you lost all your posessions, and you've now lost your job too?"

    Victim: "Yeah, I guess so, it all happened so fast, I'm still kinda stunned..."

    Insurer: "Do you have proper documentation for all your posessions?"

    Victim: "Well, my hou
  • Lie detectors are not evidence, they only lead to further investigations, which is fair enough.

    From a crowd (/.) that not only advocates free speech but also the freedom to listen to anything that is being transmitted, yet you opose to a 3rd party listening in on your own transmissions?

    Of course someone whose house has just burned down or car totaled will be stressed, but the evidence in these cases is so clear, that a police report can be trusted, something which can't be said about foreign police report
  • I also suggest casting runes and reading chicken entrails to determine claim validity.
  • Why not have police randomly stop people and hook them up to a lie detector to see if they've committed any crimes. Or better yet, just have police randomly search homes to make sure there's nothing illegal going on.

  • As lie detector evidence is inadmissable in UK courts, what is the point?

    Sounds like a scam to scare people rather than a real policy to reduce fraud.

  • The point they seem to be missing... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Angry Mick ( 632931 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @10:25AM (#6686106) Homepage

    ...is that most people generally have very good reasons for sounding distressed during a call an insurance company.

    How is someone supposed to calmly explain they just lost their entire family to a car crash, saw their child die in a terrorist attack, or just permanently lost the use of their arm to the wood chipper? How are they supposed to do this while navigating the vast innefficient bureaucracy insurers have erected to keep callers to a minimum? Just getting through the bloody voice mail tree is often more than enough to send most folks into a rage, which'll probably light these lie detectors up like Times Square on New Year's Eve.

    I get the feeling this is just another attempt for insurance companies to try and justify claim denials. Cheap and cruelly insensitive.

  • What's next (Score:4, Funny)

    by Nept ( 21497 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @12:07PM (#6687400) Journal
    a Voight-Kampf test?

  • Ask the NSA about it (Score:3, Informative)

    by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @01:38PM (#6688330) Homepage
    The NSA used to use heavy-duty polygraphs and experienced operators (possibly they still do), and still let some people pass which shouldn't have. (Possibly flunked some people which should have passed, but those people could hardly file a grevance.)

    "Lie-detectors" are voodoo. Any informed court should tear a case based on those results to shreds. (Two weasel-words in there: informed and should.) I wonder how the insurance companies will hire trained and certified operators? Check for recent certs from the Cthurch of $cientology with E-meters?

    My advice?
    (a) refuse any such idiocy.
    (b) if pressed, curl your toes on any tough question.

Slashdot Top Deals

To the landlord belongs the doorknobs.

Close