More technology checking up on people.
It seems that there is a new tool in the armoury for benefit staff. Read here. They are looking at using lie detectors.Or to be more accurate voice stress analysers. It takes your voice and analyses it for indicators of stress and from that it calculates the risk of you lying.
For a while now I have been considering the benefits of using this sort of tool in helping sort out the liars from the truth tellers in these complex rape cases. Something has to be done to sort this out.
Anyway from my understanding it seems that this tool is not really all that good. Sure it can point out when someone is under stress. It then makes the assumption that that stress is caused by lying. It can be caused by many things. Including the fact that a test is being performed can influence the result. Delays while you recall information are seen as areas of concern and Errs, Mmms etc. are to be avoided. The interpretation of the results is a highly skilled job. Skills our benefit staff will not have. Insurance companies who use this then pass the case on to an investigator. He then closely examines the case and digs as deep as he wants. But our benefits staff will simply fail the applicant when it flashes up an increased stress level. No benefits. Of course when she dumps her kids down the local benefits office on a Friday afternoon they won't analyse her then. Or if she decides that the hassle of claiming is too much and walks away then they will decide it was a job well done.
For the true professional of course the machine can be fooled. You can be trained to pass the test. So the real targets for this will simply adapt and slip under the radar or be replaced by new people who can meet the new requirement. The massive frauds will still go on and the only losers will be the poor women who are intimidated by the system. Even now many people won't claim valid benefits because the process is too intrusive and demeaning. This will only add to that.
Of course on the -ve side we will find that the benefits staff will rely on the analyser to save them having to use their own suspicions so all the con men, Tony included, will again get away with an increase in their activities while the poor general public get a kicking.
Seems to me like another gimmick that sounds good, everybody has a high opinion on what technology can do, yet will not really achieve the end result. Our government gives money away for nothing. People are taking it. The money will still be given, different people will take it, those that adapt to the new situation.
My question is; If these things are so good when will we see them in use on the floor in the House of Commons?
posted by Bag @ 12:47 pm
12 Comments:
Why not just have a public database of people claiming benefits. Have it so that you can look someone up and it will tell you what benefits that person is on. Neighbours will then be able to tell who is claiming fraudulantly and tell the police. Problem solved
But one of the problems is people claiming for things like disability, kids that don't live there. Even if there was such a DB, which I would not like to see it won't stop that sort of abuse.
It will just give a few people a view into other people lives.
There is no doubt better ways.
And if they were claiming for children they do not have their neighbours would know about it.
Taxpayers also have a right to know where and to who their money is going to and for what reasons.
It would get some. But not all. Personally I'm against DBs because once you are on one they will be used for other things. Your records will be store all over the place and used later on for reasons they are not intended.
I can see it being one way but to be honest I feel that the system is so poor that I wouldn't look at a DB if it existed and I'm sure I wouldn't turn in someone fiddling it. It's money we give away to those that have kids they can't afford and can't be bothered working. At least when someone is fiddling it they are working at something and taking risks.
I'm beginning to see a benefit in DKs standard payment scheme but at this stage would it be enough?
you mean citizens basic income? if you do it is simply unworkable. it will either cost too much or it will just make the people in most need like the disabled worse off and unable to care for themselves.
Yep. That's the one. I didn't like it at first and thought the same as you just said although I still see big issues with it but, and it's a questionable but, I can see it being less open to fraud. Although there are a lot of questions still to be answered.
Funny you should mention the disabled. That was where I had the biggest concern about the basic income. The people that have ten kids, tough, the people that don't bother going out to work, tough, but the genuinly disabled. Can't just leave them.
The aim of welfare is to help those in need. If we chose a system of welfare that was least open to fraud those that were in need wouldn't be helped so the aim of welfare would fail.
Agree. But we all draw the line in different places. I think that welfare as it is now is abused so much it is unreformable. At least the £2B taken in fraud means that someone is working for their money. Most of the rest of it is taken by people following the rules which are so far from the original intent that the people paying in are being taken for a ride.
We need to change the whole thing. Not just tinker with it and, Yes, we need to ensure that legitimate claimants are taken care of.
I agree we should change it completely. I blogged about how I would change it a few months ago. You can read it here:
http://ydkmwayne.blogspot.com/2007/02/but-i-dont-want-to-work.html
Did you read GK Chesterton's Father Brown story, based on the lie detector? I t seems to me very dubious technology.
Wayne, I remember reading that and thinking it does seem a good idea. There are a few queries about token in any form but in principle I see nothing wrong with them. I agree about the kids. If you can't afford them you shouldn't have them.
James, No i have not read that. The technology is sound it's just that because of what it measures a training subject can influence it and the system can pick up changes it associates with lying when it may not be. It needs to be tuned to each subject and used by a expert. Neither of which will happen.
Post a Comment
<< Home