Lies, damned lies, and video. A new web site purports to separate the spin and the slime from the truth by analyzing the speech patterns of public figures. Is this too good to be believed? Cringely has a few thoughts. Just in time for this season of debates and dirty politics comes a site called Real Scoop. Its mission: To analyze video of public figures and tell you when they are probably lying (and no, it’s not just whenever their lips are moving). The site allegedly uses “emotion based voice analysis technology” to rate each statement. From the site’s own description: The Believability Meter utilizes analyzes over 100 vocal elements of the human voice and performs over 1,000 calculations per second. It is widely used in various industries including law enforcement. Take a demonstrably false statement like Bill Clinton’s immortal “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and the meter glows fire engine red (“highly questionable”). When Olympic swimmer Dana Torres denies using performance enhancing drugs the meter glows green (“believable”). Naturally, Sarah Palin graces the home page as the most viewed video. When the Woman Who Would be Veep talks about the investigation into her firing of Wasilla public official Walt Monegan (aka “Troopergate”) and says “I look forward to any investigation or questions being asked because I’ve nothing to hide,” the meter goes waaaay into the red. Lest you think this site is some offshoot of MoveOn.org, there’s also a fair amount of Obama on the site, including one of him defending his statement during the primaries about embittered small town people turning to religion and guns. (Which, given the sudden emergence of Palin, sounds eerily prescient.) Registered users can rate how believable each person sounds and suggest content for RealScoop to analyze, but you can’t upload any videos yourself. Which is a damned shame, because I can think of a few dozen I’d like to see analyzed, including some from home movies.So how does the site itself rate on the believability scale? Not so hot. The meter seems to react mostly to pauses, stuttering, and “umms,” not necessarily untruths. Halting speech does not necessarily equal fibbing. The worst lies are the ones that sound like truth because the speaker has practiced saying them, over and over and over. In other words, just like a politician. Given its spotty performance, I wouldn’t want to have the cops use this technology to interrogate me. Still, a video lie detector is a great idea, if they could build one that actually worked. In the meantime, Real Scoop is a fun diversion from all the dark news swirling about these days.Who in the tech world do you think is lying, and why? Post your thoughts below or email me here: cringe (at) infoworld (dot) com. Think you’ve got the right stuff to pass our tech quizzes? They’re not as easy as they look: • The InfoWorld News Quiz • Test Your Geek IQ • Test Your Network Security IQ Software DevelopmentSmall and Medium Business