{"id":1266,"date":"2014-11-04T03:00:11","date_gmt":"2014-11-04T08:00:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=1266"},"modified":"2014-11-04T04:30:52","modified_gmt":"2014-11-04T09:30:52","slug":"nsa-director-mike-rogers-on-polygraph-screening","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2014\/11\/04\/nsa-director-mike-rogers-on-polygraph-screening\/","title":{"rendered":"NSA Director Mike Rogers on Polygraph Screening"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"mike-rogers-on-polygraph-screening\"<\/a>
NSA Director Mike Rogers Speaking on Polygraph Screening<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers says that he hates polygraphs but nonetheless considers them “a good tool for us.”<\/p>\n

Rogers made the remark during an appearance<\/a> on Monday, 3 November 2014 at Stanford University in response to a question by professor of political science Scott Sagan<\/a>, who asked what Rogers has done in terms of background checks, security clearances, and personnel reliability programs to preclude another security breach like Edward Snowden’s.<\/p>\n

The first specific measure Rogers mentioned was polygraph screening, replying in relevant part (at 1:09:09 in the webcast<\/a>):<\/p>\n

So, I remind the workforce, we all signed up to a higher level of scrutiny and a higher level of security. We all know that that’s part of the job. We all agree to that. Whether it’s polygraphs, whole lots of other things that we do–I mean, I can’t stand ’em. I’ll be the first to admit I hate ’em, but it is as…but I acknowledge that it’s a good tool for us, and if I’m gonna do this, I go into it with my eyes open even though part of me goes, “Oh man, I’ve got to sit down and get wired to a machine.” ‘Cause we have one standard for all of us. It doesn’t matter if you’re the four-star running the organization, or you’re a junior individual. I’ve got one standard for all of us when it comes to the security framework.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Rogers seemingly ignores the fact that polygraph screening is completely without scientific basis<\/a> and disregards the National Research Council’s conclusion<\/a> that “[polygraph testing’s] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies.”<\/p>\n

Rogers also seems to suggest that he’s setting an example for his employees: everyone from the highest to the lowest ranking at NSA has to take the polygraph. But it’s not really the same. When the director of the NSA sits for a polygraph “test,” it’s the polygrapher’s job that’s on the line. No director of the NSA need fear failing a polygraph. The same is not true for those further down the food-chain, for whom a false-positive<\/a> outcome is a serious risk.<\/p>\n

Of course, polygraph screening is not a policy instituted by NSA in response to Edward Snowden’s disclosures. NSA has been (mis-)relying on polygraphy for almost its entire history. It may be the case, however, that NSA has increased the frequency of polygraph screenings. In December 2013, Daniel W. Drezner, writing<\/a> for Foreign Policy<\/em> magazine, reported following a visit to NSA headquarters:<\/p>\n

Snowden has also changed the way the NSA is doing business. Analysts have gone from being polygraphed once every five years to once every quarter.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Update:<\/strong> While DIRNSA Mike Rogers says he goes into polygraphs “with [his] eyes open,” the NSA has produced a video<\/a> for employees and contractors that attempts to mislead them about key aspects of polygraph screening. And NSA-affiliated personnel who attempt to open their eyes about polygraphy by researching it online may have their web browsing history intercepted and presented to them<\/a> during their polygraph sessions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers says that he hates polygraphs but nonetheless considers them “a good tool for us.” Rogers made the remark during an appearance on Monday, 3 November 2014 at Stanford University in response to a question by professor of political science Scott Sagan, who asked what Rogers has done in terms of …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[87,70],"class_list":{"0":"post-1266","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polygraph","7":"tag-nsa","8":"tag-polygraph-screening","9":"anons"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1266","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1266"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1266\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1271,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1266\/revisions\/1271"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1266"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1266"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1266"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}