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'."
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?
Lie detectors are not effective. This is just being used to scare people into thinking they can't lie.
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).
Powered by onion juice.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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
He added that it could also lead to lower premiums.
BZZZZZZZT! LIE DETECTED.