Slashdot Mirror
Insurance Claims to be Tested by Lie Detector
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'."
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?
Visualize the world of wine
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?
INSURANCE cheats will be subject to lie-detector tests in a pilot project being introduced by a Edinburgh bank.
City-based HBoS will launch a three-month scheme starting in September analysing phone calls to its insurance hotlines using the sophisticated technology.
And the insurance industry is sure to be watching with interest as it fights to reclaim the estimated 1 billion which the Association of British Insurers says are made in fraudulent claims each year.
The new HBOS phone system will randomly test a selection of the calls it receives from its 1.5 million policyholders.
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.
Mark Hemingway, spokesman for HBOS, said plans to use the voice stress system would begin on a "small-scale" trial basis on calls to its household insurance department.
He said honest policyholders had nothing to fear from the new system as it will not be used in "isolation", but only as a starting point for further investigations.
He added that it could also lead to lower premiums.
Mr Hemingway said: "The techniques of voice stress analysis have been used in the insurance trade for the last 18 months or so to combat fraud and have been shown to be successful.
"This will just be one of systems we use to help cut down on fraudulent insurance claims and it won't be used in isolation and won't include everyone.
"After the initial three-month trial period we'll be able to judge whether it's been a success or not."
Callers selected to be part of the trial will be read a short script outlining responsibilities under the Data Protection Act before they give details of their claim. 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.
He said: "The system will be used with a whole host of other ways such as the sharing of information which the insurance industry does as routine.
"Honest policyholders will have nothing to fear and combating fraud will make things better for them anyway by helping to keep premium costs down."
And, according to research carried out by Insurance Times magazine, the system, which takes about 15 minutes per claim, could be used to cut down dramatically the need for lengthy investigations into claims by insurance loss adjusters.
But rival insurers, who will be sure to watch whether the system is a success, have already cast doubts on whether the lie-detectors are reliable.
A spokeswoman for Britain's biggest insurer, Norwich Union, said: "We have looked at voice stress systems and we don't believe they are tested, or are effective enough."
And civil liberties groups have also expressed strong reservations about the use of the technology and are seeking assurances about how the data will be used.
Mark Littlewood, campaigns director for Liberty, said: "The first critical thing is that customers are made aware they are under this sort of surveillance. Covert surveillance is very worrying.
"I'm also not persuaded this works, and that it doesn't discriminate against those who are just very distressed."
The new technology is just one of a series of developments which insurance companies have been looking at to try to cut down on the cost of fraud.
Last year, a computer software company announced it had developed an online lie-detector test which sifted through email and other text, looking at factors such as the tone of the messages, to try and find indications of senders telling lies.
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?
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?
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Lie detectors are not effective. This is just being used to scare people into thinking they can't lie.
And how do we know this story is true?
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
It will decrease my insurance premiums. Probably not.
... 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 to avoid it.
It was stressful enough having to deal with the claims people etc, tryin gto pick at everything anyway, so how is this going to help?
I really hate insurance companies.
Especially, when they will go through such efforts to screw you, that they spend more money on lawyers and tests, than they would if they just paid you!
Bastards.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
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...
Accentuate the positive, don't waste your mod points on the negative.
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".
I was hoping not every country had people dumb enough to believe in polygraphs and other "lie detectors."
We are the insurance, prepare to be thought scanned. Resistance is futile!
Antipolygraph.org
Belief is the currency of delusion.
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
Cheap UK and US VPS
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.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
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 also see their customer base dwindle to miniscule numbers.
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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Medtronic, a make of medical devices, announces that voice box orders in their United Kingdom division have increased ten-fold from the third quarter of the previous year.
"We have no idea how this happened, but we're happy to provide our technology to whoever needs it."
This space for rent.
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.
"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."
Joe gets in a car wreck. Later that day, he calls his insurance company. They put him on automated line that asks a few questions. Then it says, "I'm sorry, but you're voice sounds highly stressed. We refuse to acknowledge your claim at this time. You are now suspect of committing insurance fraud. Have a nice day! *click*"
Aren't these kinda days the ones that make people go psychotic and commit mass violent crimes and then shoot themselves at the end?
Only two things are infinite, the universe, and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former.
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.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
There are books out there that tell you how to beat traditional a lie detector test. What do they tell you to do? I've never been tested (except once by a Scientologist at a street fair with an e-meter) so I don't know a helluva lot about them.
This is just another roadblock that insurance companies will put in front of customers to discourage them from making legitimate claims. The more roadblocks they set up, the more people won't make claims, the more money they make. What I have to do right now to make a simple medical claim is completely ridiculous. I have to fill in a paper form with loads of redundant information such as my address (that isn't on file?!?) and mail it to the company at my cost. It takes 3 or 4 days to get to the company and then they "process" it for another 2 weeks. Why isn't this electronic? Simple. If it were electronic, more people would make claims.
I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.
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 as hell if somebody stole my credit... wouldn't you? I am not sure that I'd pass one of these when telling the truth -- not so sure about anybody else, either.
If this isn't usable in court, why institute it in the first place? This makes no sense.
www.sitetronics.com/wordpress
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.
http://bike.stu.ph/rides - free GPS routes available for Garmin, Magellan, GPX and Google Earth
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!!!!
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 ].
Head of the Dorks
From a page about the Truster Voice Stress Analyzer:
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-detector test. they are only flagging your case for a more thorough review.
there are already plenty of ways you can be scheduled for this more thorough review. like if you get in an accident with another car you own, or if you get in an accident with a relative's car and only your car is damaged but you both say they are at fault without any police report.
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.
Developers: We can use your help.
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.
Maybe they would be stressed at living in a fascist country that forces them to take lie detector tests for everything.
How about doing an internal survey and FIRING THE IDIOTS WHO ARE PAYING OUT THESE BILLIONS..
I mean.. it's the claims adjusters job to make sure the claim is VALID.. how abotu they do their damn job or be FIRED.. I bet that would cut down on the BILLIONS IN LOSSES..
Oh yea.. The insurance industry also uses the MPAA's creative accounting practices.. sure they only made $15,000,000,000 last year, but that's down $3,000,000,000 from the previous year, so they *LOST* $3,000,000,000.. must be fraud..
I hate the insurance industry..
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 an employee or prospective employee.
An employer or agent or any person knowingly selling, administering,
or interpreting tests in violation of this section is guilty of
a misdemeanor. If an employee requests a polygraph test any
employer or agent administering the test shall inform the employee
that taking the test is voluntary.
Subd. 2. Investigations. The department of labor and industry
shall investigate suspected violations of this section. The department
may refer any evidence available concerning violations of
this section to the county attorney of the appropriate county,
who may with or without such reference, institute the appropriate
criminal proceedings under this section.
Subd. 3. Injunctive relief. In addition to the penalties provided by
law for violation of this section, specifically and generally, whether
or not injunctive relief is otherwise provided by law, the courts of
this state are vested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations
of this section and to require the payment of civil penalties.
Whenever it shall appear to the satisfaction of the attorney general
that this section has been or is being violated, the attorney general
shall be entitled, on behalf of the state, to sue for and have injunctive
relief in any court of competent jurisdiction against any such
violation or threatened violation without abridging other penalties
provided by law.
Im a pathological lier. Polygraphs dont work on us anyway.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
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.
I will endure to the end.
"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'
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
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.
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.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
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
--
$tar -xvf
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.
He added that it could also lead to lower premiums.
BZZZZZZZT! LIE DETECTED.
Next thing you know, these bastards are going to pass a law making it illegal to lie.
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.
.com crash because of the greedy and reckless investing these companies engaged in.
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 rightly received during the
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
I'm pretty sure, the FBI allready rules an sentence stress-analyser to check our e-mails and our slashdot posts.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
How should I know what I'm thinking before I read what I wrote?
... 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?"
"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 company. They know it doesn't work worth a damn, but use people's ignorance of technology against them to get them to confess to faking a claim. The police do the same thing, they tell a suspect that they have failed a voice analysis test and use that as extra leverage to try to get that person to confess. It only works if the person is gullible enough to believe that the technology works.
-Matt
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 like an office manager who believes what he saying when he talks to the insurance investigator - I do this because most of those guys are really good and pick up on body language which is a very frequent way they pick up on something phoney.
As the article says; it is only the start it will not by itself prove anything - it only provides a starting point. Those of us on the exciting side of the fraud industry know the key to a successful scam is thorough organisation and meticulous planning - most of my schemes would probably survive a 'red light' because of that, but I intend to continue avoiding that risk.
A useful toy but not the panacea thank God.
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 screw you... it's how they stay in business.
The "lie detector" will only make matters worse... christ I get nervous when having my blood pressure taken. There is no way I could pass a lie detector test, even if I was telling the truth.. I'm a nervous irrational human being.
...make the companies themselves sit the tests when you pay your premium. "Now, you are going to pay up if I have an accident, aren't you?" I bet none of the cheating fuckers gets past it.
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 house kinda burnt down, so I guess the papers got lost"
Insurer: "We're willing to make an offer of $1,500 if you sign right here..." (offers paper and pen)
Victim (after signing): "Does this mean I will get my house back?"
Insurer: "Sure, if you can buy one for $1500", turns around smartly and disappears.
This is not comedy: it pretty darn happened to me like that, only it wasn't a fire, just half the neighbour's roof falling into my house.
On the other hand, present the insurance with a clean dossier, lots of pretty receipts and paperwork, and you will probably be paid in full with no discussion.
Lie detectors are fine, but prompt and honest treatment of customers would also be cool.
Disclaimer: insurance companies in your country/city/town may be more honest than the ones I have dealt with.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
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's Nazi Germany all over again isn't it?
Forget about the fact that we've got a democratically-elected parliamentary government, a politically-independant judiciary and guaranteed human rights. Or that, by law, every company has to make it's electronic records on a customer available to that customer. Or that an organisation as respected as Amnesty International was started up in this very country to help promote human rights worldwide. No, those things aren't at all proof that Britain isn't a fascist state, they're just figments of my imagination.
Compare and contrast with the US (which is where I bet you come from) and a flawed democratic process (Florida 2000, California 2003 are nice examples), companies aren't required to disclose a damn thing that they have on you (so who knows how inaccurate your bank's details on you are?), the USA PATRIOT Act is law, and minors can be executed at the state's pleasure.
Seriously, every country has it's pros and cons. Every society has its ills. But fascism isn't one of Britain's. If it is, then it sure is one of the US's too.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Of course you have to have to obligitory Monty Python reference:
Vicar: It's about this letter you sent me regarding my insurance claim.
Devious: Oh, yeah, yeah - well, you see, it's just that we're not...as yet...totally satisfied with the grounds of your claim.
Vicar: But it says something about filling my mouth in with cement.
Devious: Oh well, that's just insurance jargon, you know.
Vicar: But my car was hit by a lorry while standing in the garage and you refuse to pay my claim.
Devious: (rising and crossing to a filing cabinet) Oh well, reverend Morrison...in your policy...in your policy...(he open the drawer of the filing cabinet and takes out a shabby old sports jacket; he feels in the pocket and pulls out a crumbled dog-eared piece of paper then puts the coat back and shuts the filing cabinet)...here we are. It states quite clearly that no claim you make will be paid.
Vicar: Oh dear.
Devious: You see, you unfortunately plumped for our 'Neverpay' policy, which, you know, if you never claim is very worthwhile...but you had to claim, and, well, there it is.
Vicar: Oh dear, oh dear.
Devious: Still, never mind - could be worse. How's the nude lady?
Vicar: Oh, she's fine. (he begins to sob)
-Matt
Just make sure you call before your morning cup of joe.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
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 reports of many people who have the camera they don't like anymore "stolen" (as in donated to a nephew) on holiday. Claiming that, usualy days or weeks after the fact shouldn't put you under much stress, if it does and you can't come up with a good story to further questions, hesitating on too many details you hadn't thought about when concieving your fraud...
I am sceptical about the system but don't see this to be that much of an invasion of privacy.
Its called competition. I am sure there are some very nice Insurance companies in the UK that dont do this. Switch to one of them if you are affected.
Basically, this article says something that I have known from birth: Insurance companies are out to rape you. Either bend over, or find a small insurance company.
In other news, big business is out to make money and doesnt care about their customers....
I also suggest casting runes and reading chicken entrails to determine claim validity.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
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. Combine that with the mitigating factors (like how pundits have mentioned that people typically ARE stressed when reporting a claim), and this system doesn't sound so good.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
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."
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.
It may be interesting to use this on public statements made by company executives.
Any open source implementations out there?
> don't.
Fair enough. A question for anyone reading this: have you or anyone you know actually made an insurance claim that wasn't made to be unnecessarily complicated and inefficient by the insurance company?
I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.
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.
I happen to be a Brit living in Britain, and whilst my original post was an attempt at humour, I felt there is an irony about it, as if we're not living in a fascist state, then it is not one I agree with that often. My own opposition (and that of most of my compatriots) didn't stop my democratically elected leadership going to war against a country that hasn't attacked us, for reasons that it may hold maybe 1% of the WMD that we hold (gotta luv those nukes that don't count as WMD, when they are ours). Ignore the fact that Saddam was/is a bastard, because for many years he was our bastard (funded by our nice democratically elected leadership).
The fact that Amnesty and so on started here shows for me that the people are good, but the system is flawed. I have faith in us, but not necessarily our leaders.
There is no justice, just us.
Certain drugs such as scopolamine are known to alter the resutlts of EEGs and polygraphs by stabilizing a patients brainwave activity and vitals. Does this hold true for voice-stress analysis too?
they have to find a way to pay the CEO over a million quid a year
The annual report for HBOS, the merged Halifax and Bank of Scotland operation, showed that chief executive James Crosby was paid 1m last year - up from 690,000 when he ran just the Halifax.
Peter Burt, the HBOS deputy chairman and former chief executive of the Bank of Scotland, took home slightly less than 1m at 994,000.
just like winning the national lottery every year, so don't forget to smile when you pay them your insurance
with the patentdead eyecon0meter. definitely requires yOUR attention, as we remain in crisis mode, whilst the evile wons seek new/exciting ways to keep the wool over yOUR eyes.
no blood oath/integrity test needed to pay the outrageous premiums to those fauxking thieves?
get off it robbIE.
the lights are coming up now.
you can pretend all you want. our advise is to be as far away from the walking dead contingent as possible, when the big flash occurs. you wouldn't want to get any of that evile on you.
as to the free unlimited energy plan, as the lights come up, more&more folks will stop being misled into sucking up more&more of the infant killing barrolls of crudeness, & learn that it's more than ok to use newclear power generated by natural (hydro, solar, etc...)methods. of course more information about not wasting anything/behaving less frivolously is bound to show up, here&there.
cyphering how many babies it costs for a barroll of crudeness, we've decided to cut back, a lot, on wasteful things like giving monIE to felons, to help them destroy the planet/population.
no matter. the #1 task is planet/population rescue. the lights are coming up. we're in crisis mode. you can help.
the unlimited power (such as has never been seen before) is freely available to all, with the possible exception of the aforementioned walking dead.
consult with/trust in yOUR creator. more breathing. vote with yOUR wallet. seek others of non-aggressive intentions/behaviours. that's the spirit, moving you.
pay no heed/monIE to the greed/fear based walking dead.
each harmed innocent carries with it a bad toll. it will be repaid by you/us. the Godless felons will not be available to make reparations.
pay attention. that's definitely affordable, plus you might develop skills which could prevent you from being misled any further by phonIE ?pr? ?firm? generated misinformation.
good work so far. there's still much to be done. see you there. tell 'em robbIE.
the rest of the wwworld is laughing/crying at/for US in sympathy/disgust, as we fall/jump into the daze of the georgewellian corepirate nazi life0cide, whilst criticizing their ip gangsters, which are also members of the walking dead.
I doubt these voice stress "lie detectors" are any better than the conventional polygraph tests. I participated in a study in college and found the conventional polygraph easy to beat.
Two years later while still in college I was working at a chain store in the local mall. Corporate headquarters "randomly" selected the store for polygraph testing of all employees. You can't refuse without being fired since you almost certainly agreed to polygraph tests as a condition of employment when you were hired.
When my turn came, I went in and sat down. The process was explained and I was handed some forms to sign. They basically said I wouldn't hold them responsible for any harm to me, my reputation, etc. from the test or their use of its results. It also said they could give the info to anyone they felt needed to know. I refused to sign the forms. I then held out my arm and said they have my permission to hook up the machine and proceed with the test.
That confused the hell out of them!
"I can't administer the test until you sign the form", he said. I told them that is not my problem. I aggree to the test. It is your decision to administer it or not.
They decided not to. They gave me a "security interview" instead. All the same questions but no polygraph machine. The man administering the test said that the security interview is actually more acurate because people are more relaxed and reveal more information.
good point
There goes my chance at getting extra-large penis insurance.
...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.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
I would have more than a few choice words, than switch companies.
Wonder how it would register on the lie-o-meter.
ROBIN: Ask me the questions, bridgekeeper. I'm not afraid.
BRIDGEKEEPER: What... is your name?
ROBIN: 'Sir Robin of Camelot'.
BRIDGEKEEPER:What... is your quest?
ROBIN: To seek the Holy Grail.
BRIDGEKEEPER: What... is the capital of Assyria?
[pause]
ROBIN: I don't know that! Auuuuuuuugh!
I've tried in the past to make several legitimate home and car insurance claims and been rejected outright by the claims representative.
They LIE.
They LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE!
Anybody that tells you they don't... is LYING!
Maybe they don't -all- lie, but most of them do!
Basically their first line of defense is:
Lie about it, and tell the person making the claim that it's not covered.
In fact, be a complete asshole to them, and do whatever you have to to keep them from calling back.
A BIG gas pipe in our house broke once.
We all made it out of the house fine, and after it was all plugged up we spent about $1,000 fixing the pipe that broke and all the other pipes that it wrenched loose when it fell.
The insurance company said that "worn or damaged" pipes aren't covered, that's wear and tear.
But if the whole HOUSE would have blown up... they would have covered that.
Genius, I tell ya!
These people even went so far as to berate my wife for even calling, and told her how she should know better, etc.
Assholes!!
Read "The Rainmaker" by John Grisham for a good "get that mean old insurance company" story.
Recently the german supreme court held lie detector tests generally inadmissible in criminal as well as civil cases because the method is "unscientific and unreliable".
Makes one feel safe to know that the FBI is using this junk as one cornerstone in giving and maintaining security clearances.
T
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
In New York State, every single car insurance policy is marked up over $200 a year to cover for insurance fraud.
... All I can say is that XXXXXX no longer carries them as customers >=)
While working at a large auto insurance firm, I had the chance to get revenge on scammers. While working on summer, I ran into a guy from high school, who totally sucked. We conversed for a little, and I mentioned where I was working. He said, "Oh cool, my family has a XXXXXXX policy... my sister, who's 16, got into a real bad accident last year. She had no license as was not even on the policy! We scammed XXXXXX by saying I was driving! Isn't that great???..."
Yeah, real funny.... The next day, with my great powers, I reported this incident to the fraud unit
100% Insightful
Ok i think there was a typo in the story, they must have ment that they would use voice stress analysis on random calls and if it found that the claimer was too calm it would flag further investigation. If your house has just burnt down your probably not going to sound normal, if your planning a fraud you're more likely to have practiced a convincing conversation.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
My friend was recently in an accident. He was doing about 40 50 mph on an open road near his home and a large dog jumped out of nowhere. Caused ~$2200 worth of damage. He hit the brakes and locked up his front wheels. The insurance paid for the bodywork (grille, headlight, fender, etc.) but not for his now severely flat-spotted tires because, quote, "They were not damaged in the impact."
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I think this could actually be doable, as long as they use it only as screening device to decide which cases to investigate more thoroughly. I assume that there are already algorithms in place that analyse the types of claims and select those which are most likely to be fraudulant, and then trigger an invesitgation. Why not use another factor to try to improve their methods? As long as the system is not used to automatically assume guilt, why not try it out? Insurance guys are masters of statistics (there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn'd lies and statistics. mark twain), and this just provides them with an additional variable.
Insurance Claims to be Tested by Lie Detector... Oh I had the faint hope that the policies they offer would be put under scrutiny. Hope springs eternal, Christian
a Voight-Kampf test?
"Teachers leave us kids alone
Hey ! If they are allowed to use such an apparatus on me, should I than too be allowed to use such an apparatus on them ?
... :-)
Would be funny, and they would probably not be able to ever sell "insurance" again
I have to give my .02 cents on this one.
Although there are obvious privacy concerns about a machine anaylsis of speech, the insurance company isn't going to make decisions purely based on the machine results. They simply have tons and tons of tons of claims, and can't possibly examine everyone for accuracy.
The IRS does the same thing, just in a different manner. The use a machine to examine select fields in your return, to see if you might have cheated somewhere else. If their computer flags your return as suspect, then it gets a closer eye, a human eye, which can tell for sure if you really ARE cheating.
So the same thing applies here, as does is many lie detector tests. It's only used to raise that flag of "maybe, just maybe, he's trying to cheat the system". They're not good enough to be in courts, so they aren't. If you get denied a claim, you get to ask why, and it legally can't be "sorry, the machine said no".
And, if they catch frauders, they'll pay out more dividends yes, but then they can also lower premiums to attract more customers, and more customers is where the real profits come in. Anybody who thinks that a company's first priority is paying stock dividends instead of getting new customers and retaining the ones they have obviously hasn't worked in a recession.
"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.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
In the UK, minimum third party cover has been the law for years and it certainly hasn't reduced premuims.
Not so long ago, I was quoted 2,400GBP for third party cover on a 100bhp, 1100kg, ten-year-old car and I'm not even in the 'high-risk' insurance categories!
I'm going to live in France, they respect the motorist there..... they even give the death-penalty to trees that get in the way of cars!
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
* Unless he's set against the idea#, could a gang of volunteers upgrade that Speak'n'Spell voice that he uses? I've got a stand-alone TTS card that does inflections better than that, and it's old (late '70's tech). I'm sure that there are any number of people at Cambridge who'd help out (and probably do). Kudos to Walt Woltosz and David Mason who provided the current works with the tech of the day.
# A voice is personal thing, and if he's happy with it, and it works, end of story, 'nuff said.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
> Im a pathological lier. Polygraphs dont work on us
...
> anyway.
You say you are lying,
but if everything you say is a lie,
then you are telling the truth, but
you cannot tell the truth
because everything you say is a lie.
You lie -- You tell the truth --
But you cannot --
Illogical!
Illogical!
Please explain.
but, but...(cue smoke from ears)
Well, why not just get your own voice stress analyzer and practice in order to find out how to beat it?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Why don't they just use a Magic Nine-Ball?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
I am ashamed no one here has figured this out yet:
1) Call the insurance company through a Telecommunications for the Deaf Operator.
2) Call via an international translator.
3) Call via a text-to-speech synthesizer (claim your larynx was injured by the seatbelt).
4) Call via your lawyer [insert lying lawyer joke here].
5) Run your own voice through an equalizer-- flatten everything out (never mind that the phone company already does this, rendering any bogus "stress analysis" useless anyway).
6) Call from a cell phone, especially a digital one (see above).
7) Sing to the insurance adjuster instead of speaking.
This list could go on forever.
The best they can do is assert that the TTD operator is lying about what you're typing.
Lots of otherwise everyday people think nothing of scamming `those huge insurance companies', yet constantly whine about having to pay exorbinant rates. In New York and New Jersey (and other states), insurance is so expensive that plenty of people who usually like to play by the rules don't carry what is required, despite potential significant legal penalties. When someone close to you is disabled by an allegedly weathly idiot driving an underisured $50k SUV and ends up being massively screwed, insurance issues become very significant and hit home much harder.
No one is suggesting that voice-stress analysis should be the final arbitrater in whether or not they decide if your claim is legit- the point is that they can hopefully sort out some suspicious claims without giving everyone the complete third-degree. If this helps them catch more scammers, more power to them. To my mind, insurance is in a state of crisis, with significant insurers pulling out of covering certain states entirely. I, for one, will happily switch to an insurance company that aggressively pursues cheaters if it means a 10% reduction in rates, and I would hope that most people would as well.
Informative note- lying to your insurance company is a fundamentally bad idea. They pay lots of lawyers to write tight contracts, so if it looks like they are facing a big payout, they will check to make sure that you really were leaving your car in the suburbs at your parent's house where it was `registered' instead of using it downtown where you'd have to pay higher insurance rates. It's not worth their trouble, apparently, for a fender-bender but when the bigger money is on the line, they will check everything.
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
You just covered most all of what I did in replying to another post. I should have known others here would have ample knowledge on the subject. Although I am curious what your thoughts on the guilty knowledge test are as compared with the control question test.
"I swear I won't break you if you let me take you where the willows never weep" -- Switchblade Symphony
What I can't belive is how many consumers buy into "tort reform", like its going to do anything for them. All it does it make it easier for businesses to screw you over.
Tools like this are a good idea if used as directed, but then they always fall victim to mediocre management mentality. Anybody who fails the voice stress test will be presumed to be lying. The people asking the followup questions will be judged on how well they confirm that assumption, and so the second stage will be tailored to do only that.
I can live with it. But I demand to ask as many quastions as I like, on equal terms, to any employee or partner that talks to me. Regarding their sincerity, how much they care, on how much their bonus depends on making my sale, or denying my claims, on their ethical and pratical order of priorities, on the utility to me of a specific policy, their ethical habits, their business practices, the security of my personal data in their companies hands, or their own ... etc.
Just for laughs.
as, strangely, it's accurate