England is a longtime user of voice-stress analysis, the system that’s touted to detect when someone strays from the truth. British insurers as well as government agencies have used the technology to question claimants: it detects changes in voice stress, supposedly a reliable indicator of lying.
The technology has its supporters — and critics — on both sides of the Atlantic. There has been little published data to indicate how well the technology works with insurance claimants.
One borough of London recently released data on the first 1,000 disability claimants on which the technology was tested. Of the 1,000 subjects, 43 — or 4.3 percent — were flagged by the system and all of these were found to have filed false claims or displayed a high potential for committing fraud.
Even more impressive: Another 281 claimants withdrew their claims after they learned about the use of the technology. The withdrawal rate is twice what it was before the technology was used.
So users now claim that voice-stress analysis is not only a detection tool, but a deterrent as well.
Officials say no claim is ever denied solely on the basis of voice-stress analysis, but it does help to direct investigators to claims that merit more scrutiny. It’s also said to help speed claims payments to truthful claimants.
So, is America ready for this technology? In an age when cameras catch red-light violators and the FBI can monitor phone calls and e-mail at will, perhaps Americans would accept this technology — if it helps to keep premiums in check.
I’d like to see the results of more thorough testing first.
I was not amused by Dennis Jay’s comments about “Lie detection technology and fraud”. First, voice stress analysis is an unproven and unreliable method. It’s just more of the same “voo-doo, witchcraft” nonsense that is pitched as a substitue for investigators who lack proper interview skills. Second, the remark that “the FBI can monitor phone calls and e-mails at will” shows Mr. Jay’s total lack of knowledge about what he speaks. Being a retired FBI Agent of 30 years with 4 years in the insurance fraud arena, I can assure you, and all the others who resort to these kind of false sweeping statements, that the FBI uses these investigative methods under court supervision only after submission of a lengthy affidavit detailing the need for such measures, often for the purpose of preventing terrorist acts and loss of lives of U. S. Citizens. Dennis Jay should take the time to properly research the topics before he makes such misinformed commentary.
Dennis:
As a tool Voice Stress analysis and the polygraph are less than reliable. In addition, here in California, we have a Regulation that prevents use of a “lie detector” without the permission of the insured and proper contract language authorized by the Department of Insurance.
It will not even come close to working here, even if you could train the thousands of claims people to use it properly.
I prefer a thorough investigation by competent investigators who rely on facts admissible in court.
Voice stress analysis is simply another tool used by organizations to quickly assess the possibility of fraud. Basing no decisons on its outcome is the ideal way to use this technology, but ultimately using it to support and/or direct investigative resources would be ideal. Assisting in making investigators better aware of deception during interviews should improve on their skill level. This tool appears to have merit now and in the future.