The Skype Lie Detector

Link: Liars, use Skype at your peril - lie detector on Skype

Interesting tool for Employers, Recruiters and Hiring Managers. Try interviewing over Skype and see if people are lying to you by using "The KishKish Lie Detector". Honestly I am not sure I would use this but I can totally see why it would be attractive to a lot of people even just for the entertainment value of it. Since the application tells people when the call starts that the lie detector is in use, I would think that it would make them reasonably nervous immediately. I guess that is one of the uses for a system like this because it encourages people to tell the truth or be found out.

               

Comments

[George Lenard]

This is illegal as all get-out, when used in the recruiting/hiring process.

It violates federal law, pure and simple.

U.S. Code, Title 29 § 2002 (Prohibitions on lie detector use):

Except as provided in sections 2006 and 2007 of this title, it shall be unlawful for any employer engaged in or affecting commerce or in the production of goods for commerce—

(1) directly or indirectly, to require, request, suggest, or cause any employee or prospective employee to take or submit to any lie detector test;

(2) to use, accept, refer to, or inquire concerning the results of any lie detector test of any employee or prospective employee;

(3) to discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner, or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against—

(A) any employee or prospective employee who refuses, declines, or fails to take or submit to any lie detector test, or

(B) any employee or prospective employee on the basis of the results of any lie detector test

And do you think you're OK because a recruiter's not an "employer"? Not so fast. Look who is an "employer":

§ 2001. Definitions

As used in this chapter:

(2) Employer
The term “employer” includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee or prospective employee.

Are recruiters not acting "in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee or prospective employee"? Your client sure expects that you are!

And the legal exposure?

§ 2005. Enforcement provisions

(a) Civil penalties
(1) In general
Subject to paragraph (2), any employer who violates any provision of this chapter may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $10,000.

Plus:

(c) Private civil actions
(1) Liability
An employer who violates this chapter shall be liable to the employee or prospective employee affected by such violation. Such employer shall be liable for such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate, including, but not limited to, employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of lost wages and benefits.

(3) Costs
The court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party (other than the United States) reasonable costs, including attorney’s fees.

Go ahead, make some plaintiff attorney's day! It may put you out of business. Don't worry, though, I and my brethren in the employment defense bar will be happy to represent you . . .

[Steven Kempton]

Good to know there is someone out there to look after the Recruiters who try this one George! I thought there might be some laws somewhere that didn't much like this kind of activity.

[Steve Levy]

Steven-

I hope you're well - let's catch up offline...later.

The problem I have with the test - George's analysis notwithstanding (BTW, Steven what are the laws in NZ?) - is that when conducting an interview over the internet, you come face to face with a higher signal to noise ratio which impacts any sensitivity test - is the noise the lie or the lie the noise.

I love you George but don't get so legal eagle when the real issue is whether the test is actually measuring what it says it's measuring.

[Steven Kempton]

Good to hear from you Steve.

In regards to good old New Zealand I just spoke with a Lawyer who thought there were at least three pieces of legislation not to mention plenty of other hooks that could cause MAJOR grief in using this particular piece of technology for recruitment. This included breaking privacy laws, opening yourself up to a discrimination suit, and passing private information on to a 3rd party. Basically he thought you would be nuts to even try this tool. We all know there are some nuts out there though.

[Restaurant Recruiter]

"Except as provided in sections 2006 and 2007 "

I would be interested in seeing what the exceptions are. Why does everyone always leave those out?

Also, I think it might be hard to prove that a 'agency' exists when a recruiter is merely recruiting talent without having a specific job opening in mind... but, that's just me.

Restaurant Recruiter | Restaurant Jobs | Restaurant Recruiters >> Blog

[Steven Kempton]

The exceptions would be interesting. I actually spoke to the Privacy Commission here in New Zealand and there were some interesting points they made which may have equal weight in other parts of the world. In general, they are technology neutral so they don't care how you collect people's personal information. But they have some principles which this would seem to fall under:

Firstly, that you can only collect information if it is lawful and necessary. Secondly, that you make it obvious as to why you are collecting it and the use. And thirdly, that the manner of collection is fair. This would seem to open the door for particular uses of this tool but not for it's use in general.

[Karen Mattonen]

Here you are Carl, all the info re the bill http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/29C22.txt

One thing I noticed was the word prospective employee in there as well. So Maybe, that may also refer to the candidate you are speaking to w/o a job in mind? AS they may ultimately be an employee of your client? and we are considered said agents of the client?

George, Like Steven Kempton said, thanks so much for putting this info out there, it is nice to just know what to do to Avoid any possible legal expenses and hassles. They sure can get expensive!

Karen

[Karen Mattonen]

Was talking about this with one of my clients yesterday. He said he would love to use this tool on several recruiters he had call him in the past year.. He wondered how many would pass the test!

That was so funny, can you imagine if our candidates and clients decided to do this with us? what an interesting turn it would be!

Karen Mattonen C.A.C, C.S.P
Recruiting Standards Resources
TEL: 858-668-3111
Email: contact@recruitingstandardsresources.com
Web: www.recruitingstandardsresources.com
Recruiting Standards Resources (RSR) is your training specialist.

[Steven Kempton]

Great idea! They should run it on the TV screen while politicians are talking, that would be interesting. I probably need a handheld version for when my kids tell me they don't know which one of them drew on the wall I just painted :-)

[Colin Kingsbury]

As with many other things (such as the do-not-call registry), the law George cited does not apply to the US government.