|
Archives
Voice Stress Analysis: Technological Advance or A Step Backwards by John J. Fanning
Imagine interviewing for a coveted job opening only to be turned down for
no apparent reason. Or imagine being rejected for a credit card or mortgage
application
and never being told why you were turned away. If this has happened to you,
the reason for your rejection could possibly have been because, unbeknownst
to you,
a voice stress analyzer made the assumption that you may have been less than
completely truthful in answering questions posed by that HR director or banker.
Voice stress analysis is becoming increasingly popular in the private sector
these days. In the UK, some insurance companies subject customers who file
claims to such analysis, and have refused to pay on claims based on the results
obtained
from the analysis. In most cases, the customer is unaware that they are being
tested. Their voice is being analyzed over the telephone when they call to
make a claim. A computer on the Claims Adjuster desk is busy analyzing the
stress
level in the caller’s voice and makes a determination as to if the caller
is being less than candid in his or her statements.
Several police departments in the U.S. are testing the technology on criminal
suspects and early reports indicate that they are enthusiastic by the initial
results. Voice stress analysis does not require strapping wires to one’s
body like the traditional polygraph tests used by law enforcement today. And
while that less invasive testing method may provide law enforcement with some
benefits, it is exactly that feature that causes concern among civil libertarians.
Not being necessary to attach any device to the individual being tested, allows
anyone with a computer and the right software, to use voice stress testing
for any type of decision-making.
Right now, no law exists in the U.S. specifically addressing whether or not
these devices can be used by the private sector. But according to a recent
New York
Times article, several American insurance companies have expressed interest
in looking at the software. And beyond that, the American public simply does
not
know whom, if anyone, is using the software in the United States. Theoretically,
it could already be in use by companies and individuals, and those being subjected
to the tests could be completely unaware of the fact.
It is important to note that in the same way a polygraph machine can give
false readings, the voice stress analyzers can also give false readings. Only
a trained
professional should use either device, in order to obtain accurate results.
The polygraph machine measures a change in the physical characteristics of
a tested
subject and the voice stress analyzer measures a change in the subject’s
voice patterns. But neither machine will tell you why that measured change
took place. True, it could be because the tested subject is trying to conceal
the
truth. But it could also be from a variety of other physiological or psychological
reasons.
For example, if police investigating a murder were to suspect that a witness
to the murder was actually the killer, and subject that person to a polygraph
examination, when asked, “did you commit the murder”, the subject
could show a marked physical or emotional change. But that change could be
because the question evoked images of what the witness saw and not necessarily
because
the witness is trying to hide his or her complicity in the crime. That is why
professional polygraph examiners use the test as a part of their interrogation
of suspects and not as a definitive crime-solving device. It is also the reason
why the results obtained from polygraph examinations are not admissible in
U.S. courts. But despite their inadmissibility, the American public seems to
be highly
influenced by the results of such tests that are made public or leaked to the
press. And younger generations may be far less suspect of such technological
findings than their parents or grandparents. Young people today have grown
up surrounded by technology. They have learned to both trust and be comfortable
with results displayed on computer screens.
It would be interesting to see if some enterprising person were to open a “truth
cafe” and offer couples the opportunity to voice stress-test each other,
whether the cafe would be successful. Debate around the office here seems to
indicate that it very well could be the next niche business for younger people,
but older office staffers solidly reject the idea.
As technology continues to advance there will be many challenges for Americans
who prize privacy and civil liberty. In more than a few instances those challenges
are already upon us. Historically, our liberty and privacy have been championed
in the courts by a small minority of Americans. The ACLU, Labor Unions and
social activists have been responsible for the vast majority of court rulings
that have
preserved human and privacy rights in the United States. But with technological
change flying off the design table and into the marketplace at breakneck speed,
it may be time to think about putting together some new organization, dedicated
solely to examining new technological devices for their efficacy and potential
to abuse human rights. Such an organization could serve to encourage designers
and manufacturers to make changes in their software or hardware that could
prevent unauthorized or untrained use and offer a seal of approval to the companies
and
inventors who comply with the organization’s goal of protecting privacy
and civil liberty.
If such an organization did evolve, I hope that one of the first things they
would look at would be the potential abuse of voice stress analysis. In the
meantime, it might just be in our best interest to put things in writing.
Archives
|
