Two Swedish professors of linguistics, Anders Eriksson and Francisco Lacerda have published an article called “Charlatantry in forensic speech science” in an international magazine for voice experts working for the police and security services. Here they condemn the use of speech analysis for lie detection.

But Nemesysco demanded that the article should be withdrawn from the online version of the magazine, and the publisher Eqinox did so.

Here you can read Equinox apology for insulting Nemesysco: http://www.equinoxjournals.com/ojs/index.php/IJSLL/article/view/3775

Nemesysco’s lawyers have also sent letters to the Swedish professors where they threaten to sue them for defamation if they publish similar articles again.

Read more from the University of Stockholm: http://www.su.se/english/about/news_and_events/scientists_threatened_with_legal_action

Nope, sorry…

I’m happy to concede that much of the twattery one encounters when dealing with council officers and DWP employees is situational rather than personal but the appellation is entirely appropriate when making a subjective ‘claimants eye-view’ remark –

- and I never did swallow the Nuremburg defence anyway.

At the risk of repeating myself, I really don’t see how you get from an explanation of why these systems are unreliable – based on the data from Harrow, rolling a D8 every time someone rang in with a claim would have done just as well – to the view that I’m in any sense supportive of the DWP’s policy of rolling these systems out on a UK wide-basis.

What I would hope, and what seems to be the case when it comes to other readers/commenters, is that the people who’ve read this leave with a much better understanding of the flaws in the system and, in doing so, will:

a) find themselves much better placed to challenge the use of these systems, and,

b) in the event that find themselves in the position of making a claim to a council where they are being used, be in much stronger position to refuse to be interviewed using these systems.

In Harrow, only about 5% of those asked to take part in the pilot refused, a figure that should increase the more that people are informed about the unreliability of the systems and the risk of finding themselves under suspicion because of a false positive.

There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and when it comes to sparring with the DWP and its offshoots, the best way to beat the system is to know the system and its flaws and loopholes better than they do.

Believe me, I’ve been at this game on and off for more than 20 years, having cut my teeth in anti-poll tax unions, so I do know quite a bit about how to gum up the works of officialdom and nothing works quite as well as beating them at their own game.

Put it this way, once the system is rolled out, anyone who refuses to be tested point blank on the back of an unsupported claim that its flawed or unscientific is just going to get their benefit cut because that’s what happens to those who cannot articulate their objections.

On the other hand, those who can put up detailed objections are unlikely to get sanctioned for fear of them fighting back and challenging the validity of the system with something like a judicial review.

The technology might alter over time, but the bureaucratic mindset doesn’t and there’s nothing that spooks a bureaucrat more than a face-off with someone who knows more than they do.

The real Labour client state is amongst these supposedly private-sector firms, which are in fact beholden to the state & not only that but to a government of one particular party.

I cut & paste my responses to the Letters From A Tory post which references the article.

“Do these geniuses realise that bullying & intimidating the most vulnerable people in the country won’t get them into sustainable work or save money, it will be an expensive waste of time?

I have encountered more than enough people sent on wholly futile “courses” & just as unlikely to get jobs afterwards. The best thing that can be done is allowing them to do voluntary work, whilst still receiving their benefits.

This should not be made mandatory or directly paid for as it would be bad for the voluntary organisations to do so. (In a similar way, one of the main things that sunk the original National Service was that the army didn’t want to have to deal with young, unwilling recruits). But those who want to improve their skills should be exempt from looking for low-paid jobs as they are making a long-term investment.

There should be much wider education about this. Additionally, it could be arranged with universities that students can receive credits if they volunteer.

I reiterate that no one should ever do this kind of work for financial gain as it would be deeply counter-productive. But it is better for them to do this than be forced into applying for jobs they are never going to get.

With any luck, as middle-class people become unemployed, the Job Centre will stop treating its “clients” like minions.

But the first thing to do is to put this piece of idiocy right next to ID cards on the bonfire, preferably with New Labour ministers & the Daily Mail in the middle of the flames

[2]

The above applies in a recession far more so than in normal times. That loud-mouthed ignoramus David Freud, who admitted to knowing nothing about welfare, assumed the credit-fuelled boom would go on forever.

Well, what are superior forms of life like him going to do when mass employment is upon us & many hitherto respectable, mortgaged types are turning into scum overnight?

I would have almost all of these people in better jobs in 5 years. All New Labour could ever do is make a hash of what should be a natural, human-led recovery by trying to get the Daily Wail’s approval.”

Though, given the complete utter idiocy of the somewhat longwinded and utterly wrong Mr Unity, why, exactly, you find it necessary to cut what I had to say is a bit beyond me.

Unity has the space to say, Christ the ludicrous amount of space to say, yes and no to lie detectors, when the obvious conclusion is no.

And then he says this:

And that’s why this system SHOULDN’T be used.

Beyond that, explaining the limitations of these systems illustrates the deficiencies in the reasoning behind the decision to roll them out. Regardless of any political justification the government might like to put forward for their use, the scientific evidence does not support the policy – in essence, the argument is that the manner in which the systems have been piloted and evaluated is wholly inadequate by any reasonable standard of scientific research.

Which is what he ought to have been said at para one. This is a arguing in reverse. His stupid government supports lie detection, and therefor Unity argues a whole load of shit:

So, what all this amounts to is bad science?

Yes… and no.

No folks it is shite.

Well, I don’t think I have misunderstood the science. Stress can be indicative of anything you like. Being taken into custody by the Police, for instance.

And it is the problem with these systems – that they don’t work at all. It is ‘bad science’ to suggest that they measure anything useful. Sure, they measure something, they just don’t measure truth and lies. You bloody well know that!

You do it here:

Although it’s being used over here, in a system provided by a company called Digilog, for assessing (and threatening) benefit and insurance claimants, Nemesysco’s main sales pitch in the US is directed towards Law Enforcement (hence the company’s seriously twatty name) and the more paranoid arms of corporate America, all of which ensure that the more you read about this ‘wonder’ system the more your personal bullshit detector goes right off the scale.

To fall off the fucking scale here:

It’s not socialist authoritarianism driving forward the introduction of these systems, but capitalist authoritarianism, a point which too many self-styled right-wing libertarians are prone to overlook.

If that is so, Unity, why is this daft idea, let’s call it no more than that, a government initiative? I’d be far happier if you just said it as it is. “This is pish.” Or “this is anti-science.”

You, frankly do not have to write thousands of words to say the obvious.

I was hoping someone would take this piece of shit to bits. You haven’t done it. This is just a piece of governmental authoritarianism, as you, no doubt, know.

———————————————————————–

Sunny,

It is quite important that something goes up on chapter four lest we lose momentum. If you like, I’ll cut it down…..

BTW, is Purnell about the worst wanker ever to wear Labour colours (worse perhaps evn than Milburn). He’s too Thatcherite to even be a wet Tory.

Few people understand all the benefit rules. One way to find out if you qualify is to apply and see what happens. The worst that can legally happen to you is that, as long as you tell the truth, they turn down your claim.

But if people are made to believe (wrongly) that there could be immediate consequences for making a claim when they are not entitled to, they may decide to play it extremely safe and avoid claiming at all. Ironically it is probably the ‘hard working families’, in work but on a low income, and pensioners, who will be discouraged due to lies about all benefits going to immigrants and lone parents.

Huh?

I think you’ve misunderstood the science.

What ‘lie’ detectors actually detect is stress, which can be indicative of dishonesty,,,

…and lots of other things besides.

And that’s the problem with these systems. Its not that they don’t work at all, but they don’t work reliably, hence they’re not bad science per se, rather they misapply science for a rather spurious and over stated purpose.

And that’s why this system SHOULDN’T be used.

Beyond that, explaining the limitations of these systems illustrates the deficiencies in the reasoning behind the decision to roll them out. Regardless of any political justification the government might like to put forward for their use, the scientific evidence does not support the policy – in essence, the argument is that the manner in which the systems have been piloted and evaluated is wholly inadequate by any reasonable standard of scientific research.

‘Quite how you get from that to an apologia, I’m not sure.

Douglas – huh? I didn’t understand…

If you are late for a meeting, run for the bus, had an argument with the child minder — you could “fail” VSA. It isn’t that physiological tests do not work as an indicator, but that they only work in controlled circumstances.

“Fred, have you taken your beta blockers?” “No, I’ll take them after I’ve phoned the council.”

Given that the majority of council or central government employees who interview claimants are simply performing an unpleasant duty (which is also stressful to them), a duty which does not make them guilty participants in a fascist regime, I suggest that Unity removes the word “twat”.

That makes a lot of sense . It is impossible for capitalism to work without order . You have to be able to trust people to order ordinary trade credit . It is pointless to invest when you are at the mercy of the nearest big man and without the certainty of contract required and law which will enforce it capitalism is impossible . Capitalism emerges from a civil society and when the state in question is an economic basket case it is not unlikely that it will on the one hand x be a corruption ridden inefficient statist sink as well as too lawless for ordinary business to start
One essential is the ability to buy insurance to cover capital investment and without reasonable order it cannot be provided except at prohibitive cost , capitalism relies on the is risk mechanism far more than is generally discussed perhaps because it lacks glamour , in emerging economies it is crucial.
Incidentally it is the security and surveillance techniques which have emerged from the Insurance industry have been responsible for much of the improvement in crime figures especially PDH and Motor . The state has taken credit whilst actually pissing tax payers money up the wall aka creating sinecures for paid voters . Because there is market mechanism the intrusive use of CCTV alarms and surveillance on private space has been beneficial.

Most supposed Libertarians are actually Conservatives yet to grow up . Conservatives are keen on order believe the natural state of man is not freedom but a state of enslavement under the biggest bastard around . This is quite a different matter from seeking to organise the minutiae of peoples lives from the desk of Gordon Brown

btw, I think you’d find my comment on Chapter 4 is a bit shorter than this.

And this – Unity’s post right here – worries me about what a Liberal Conspacy is about.

Frankly I do not need to be educated on the potential of evil. Neither do I need to see an apologia for it.

This waivers this way and that way, for no obvious reason.

I’d quite like Liberal Conspiracy to simply state:

“We believe that lie detectors are bullshit”

Perhaps Unity could be the first to sign?

There is no such thing as a lie detector.

It is all bullshit.

Why couldn’t you have just said that?

If you are the scientist you seem to be, it is really up to you to come down off the 12″ long posts that you go in for and tell the simple, straightforward truth. Lie detectors are woo woo .

Your apologia for it – that stress equals dishonesty – to which you offer nothing but, maybee aye, maybee naw, arguements are frankly ridiculous.

Yes, if I was captured by the Police and subject to questioning, I’d be fucking well stressed. Doesn’t matter whether they were right or wrong. I’d feel the fear.

So stop being so ridiculous.

The number of false positives amongst normal folk would always exceed the negatives. Makes for a high,and wrong, conviction rate.

But what do you care? At least it bludgeons free thought.

Can I have your mask as you are obviously finished with it?

The labelling is there simply to remind some of the self-style libertarians, many of whom are no more than disaffected Thatcherite Tories with a bit of shiny veneer, that there’s altogether more to libertarianism than tax cuts and moaning about the welfare state.

A good rule of thumb for sifting the real Libbies from the faux variety is to give then a quick run through Rothbard and see how much of a panic they get into as the penny drops and they realise just how radical his ideas are.

That said, yes, there’s little to choose between the state capitalism of Stalin-era and the corporate capitalism that operates at the nexus between what are effectively stateless multinational corporations and global financial institutions.

Maybe while we’re trying this out on people who suck money off the state, we could put a few bankers through the test – ask them if they mean it when they say they’re going to act responsibly now that they’re living off the rest of us just like anyone on a benefit, and if they plan to stop themselves from fleecing us now that competition law no longer applies to them?