Lie-detector software has been used in Derbyshire to help in a crackdown on people falsely claiming council tax discounts. Should it have been?
சிறு குழந்தைகள் முதல் முதியோர் வரை ஆண், பெண் இருபாலரும் பொய் பேசுகிறார்கள். சிலர் குறைவாக மற்றும் சிலர் நிறைய. சிலரால் யோசிக்காமலேயே பொய் பேசுவதற்கு முடியும். அவ்வளவு முதிற்சி. மற்றும் சிலரால் யோசித்துதான் பேசுவதற்கு இயலும். சில தொழில்களில் பொய் பேசுபவர்கள்தான் அதிகமாகக் காணப்படுகின்றார்கள். உதாரணமாக வியாபாரத்தில் ஈடுபட்டுள்ளவர்கள், தரகர்கள், விற்பனை பிரதிநிதிகள், அரசியல் ஈடுபாடு உள்ளவர்கள், வக்கீல்கள் இன்னும் பலர். தொழிலில் வெற்றி பெற பொய் அவசியமாகி விடுகிறது இவர்களுக்கு.சரி, யார் வேண்டுமானாலும் பொய் பேசிவிட்டுப் போகட்டும். அந்த பொய் நம்மைப் பாதிக்கக் கூடாது என்றும் நாம் எல்லோரும் விரும்புகிறோம். இது நல்ல எண்ணம்தான். எனவே, ஒருவர் பேசுவது உண்மையா அல்லது பொய்யா என்று நாம் தெரிந்து கொள்ள கண்டிப்பாக ஆசைப்படுவோம். அதைக் கண்டுபிடிக்க முடியுமா?என்று யோசித்த இங்கிலாந்தில் உள்ள எசெக்ஸ் பல்கலைக்கழக விஞ்ஞானி மஸ்சிமோ போசியோ, இத்தாலி விஞ்ஞானி டொமாசோ போர்னசியாரி ஆகியோர் இணைந்து, பொய் எழுதினால் அதை கண்டுபிடிக்கும் சாப்ட்வேரை கண்டுபிடித்துள்ளனர். ஒரு பத்தியில் ஒரு குறிப்பிட்ட வார்த்தை எத்தனை தடவை இடம்பெற்றுள்ளது என்பதை கண்டறியும் அதே தொழில்நுட்பத்தை பயன்படுத்தி, இந்த சாப்ட்வேர் உருவாக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.
இந்த சாப்ட்வேர் திறம்பட செயல்படுகிறதா என்பதை அறிய, இத்தாலி கோர்ட்டுகளில் சாட்சிகளும், குற்றம் சாட்டப்பட்டவர்களும் அளித்த வாக்குமூலங்களை படித்துப் பார்க்கும் பணியில் சாப்ட்வேர் ஈடுபடுத்தப்பட்டது. அதில், வாக்குமூலத்தில் எந்தெந்த இடத்தில் பொய் சொல்லப்பட்டுள்ளது என்பதை சாப்ட்வேர் கண்டுபிடித்தது. இது, 75 சதவீதம் துல்லியமாக செயல்படுமாம்.
இதுபோல், ஆன்லைனில் இடம்பெறும் புத்தக விமர்சனங்கள், ஓட்டல்கள் பற்றிய விவரங்களிலும் பொய்யை கண்டுபிடித்து விடுமாம். எனவே, ஆன்லைன் புத்தக விமர்சனங்களை அதன் ஆய்வுக்கு உட்படுத்தும் பணியில் விஞ்ஞானிகள் ஈடுபட்டுள்ளனர்.
Lie-detector software has been used in Derbyshire to help in a crackdown on people falsely claiming council tax discounts. Should it have been?
IT has been described by one MP as sounding like something from George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. A campaign group has called its use in Derbyshire “dubious”. And a national newspaper has raised concerns from scientists that it “does nothing”. But was the use of lie-detector software during a crackdown on people falsely claiming council tax discounts really something to get wound up about? The work has only come to light this week, having been carried out between 2009 and 2011. The London-based firm Capita was contracted by Derbyshire councils, led by the county council, to look at where single-person council tax discount was being claimed falsely. Erewash Borough Council has said it was one of nine councils – out of ten in total in the county – which had signed up to benefit from the Capita project. There were many methods used for the work. It was mainly data-based but, Capita says, councils were able to opt into the use of what it calls “voice risk analysis” (VRA). This is designed to analyse the flow of speech, picking out signs of stress and “signposting” whether someone is telling the truth or lying. Derby City Council, Derbyshire Dales District Council, and Erewash Borough Council have said that VRA was used to deal with their council tax work. The county council refers to the work as a “countywide review”, which “involved the use of voice risk analysis”. But South Derbyshire District Council said that VRA was not used on its council tax discount work. Amber Valley Borough Council said it was not involved in the project at all. First things first: voice risk analysis, used in this way, is not illegal. A human rights lawyer, who said he did not want to be named, told the Derby Telegraph yesterday that he did not believe that there was any breach of human rights in what Capita had done. And a statement from Capita said the technology was never used in isolation. It said: “When Capita undertakes a council tax single-person discount review, councils can choose to use voice risk analysis technology as part of the process. “High-risk cases of potential council tax single-person discount fraud are identified at an earlier stage of the review process using credit reference data. “The selective use of VRA technology is a useful additional tool in the validation process of identifying potentially fraudulent claims for single-person discount.” Capita said that people were told at the start of the VRA interview that the phone call would be monitored and recorded for the detection of fraud. It said: “When a VRA interview is conducted, the trained assessor asks a range of questions which the resident would know the answers to immediately, such as confirmation of name. “This is followed by a series of open questions which are then risk scored using pre-defined criteria. After viewing all information gathered during the review process, the council makes the decision on whether single person discount is revoked.” There is support for the use of VRA from the Local Government Association, which represents councils. Councillor Peter Fleming, chairman of the association’s improvement board, said: “Every pound fraudulently claimed by people trying to cheat the system is a pound less that councils have to help those who need it most. “No-one is going to be prosecuted for benefit fraud on the result of voice analysis tests alone. But, in a small number of areas, councils use this technology as part of a wider range of methods to identify cases which may need closer scrutiny.” Derby North MP Chris Williamson said he was “surprised to hear of the use of VRA” and called for it not be used in association with the county’s councils again. He said: “It sounds like something from George Orwell’s 1984. It’s not an appropriate use of technology in my view.” He said he was also concerned about an issue, raised in the Guardian newspaper which said that, in 2007, two Swedish researchers published their own analysis of VRA and found no scientific evidence to support claims made by the manufacturer. Francisco Lacerda, head of linguistics at Stockholm University, told the paper that VRA “does nothing. That is the short answer”. Emma Carr, of Big Brother Watch, a campaign group set up to challenge “policies that threaten privacy, freedoms and civil liberties”, was also critical. She said: “Outsourcing the use of lie detectors is dubious both in terms of effectiveness and how it respects people’s privacy, especially given that the decision to use this was not made public.” False Economy, the trade-union-funded campaign group that first raised the issue, said: “It says a lot about council outsourcing – and the benefits-bashing agenda – that this pseudo-scientific gimmick is now making its way through the back door.” Councils have said they have never used VRA themselves and will not be doing so in the future. A Derbyshire Dales spokesman said the authority “did not spend a single penny” on participating in the Capita review. He said that the full £280,000 cost of the review was met by the Government-funded and now defunct East Midlands Improvement and Efficiency Partnership (EMIEP) – and that the review raised £2.9 million for the participating councils through rectifying falsely claimed single-person discounts. He said: “The net gain was significant and it is worth stressing that the use of VRA by Capita played a very small part in the overall review. “We have never directly used VRA, nor do we have any future plans to do so.” A Derby City Council spokeswoman said: “Three years ago, the council was involved in a county-wide review of single-person council tax discounts for which there was a limited use of VRA.” An Erewash Borough Council spokeswoman said: “The potential additional revenue for Erewash measured at £288,551. Apart from this project four years ago, we have not used VRA software nor, at this time, are considering its use.” Stuart Young, executive director of East Midlands Councils, speaking for EMIEP, said he did not believe the issue of VRA would have been brought up when the councils applied for funding for the Capita work.
