Fair_Chance

When I go into an opponent's pool hall I pick up the biggest que stick in the place with which to fight. As far as rules go, when you file under a certain authority, your opponent has to play by the rules of stated authority (s). or attempt to have said authority thrown out. That's where a good "Memorandum of Law" helps you stay the course.

If I wasn't to old, I would apply to the FBI, CIA,etc. just so I could the jerk that called me a liar into the court room. You see, I also play by my set of rules which are just as nasty as theirs.

Dear Twoblock:

When you file legal action against the Federal Government or State Governments, a huge amount of special restrictions and laws apply.

You have to remember, you are going into the local pool hall and house rules apply.  The bad part is that the house decides which rules it wants to play by and they are often not explained to out-of-towners.

I admire your spirit and certainly would celebrate any triumphs you can have in this area.

To all of you who have been branded a liar by government agencies and which brand seems to stay with you, the following seems apparent to me.

1. You have been liabelously slandered.
2. You have a legal right, in the courts, to make the liable 
    perpetrators prove each and every charge of lying.
3. It they can't prove their charges, then they are liable for
   actual and punitive damages.
4. I know of the class action lawsuit filed be Mark Zaid. Does it
   ask for monetary damages? If not, when the suit is won, 
   each should file their own personal action. Nothing gets 
   attention like a lawsuit.
5. Slander encompasses LE as well as others.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

I am in the mining business and ( for my own protection) have studied federal law, by computer, for four years and still studying. Twice I have, pro se, gone against some pretty good lawyers and won. Working on another.

The reason for the above paragraph is to show that one person can make a difference if that person has the intestinal fortitude to go against that intity which does you wrong. If I had been slandered as you have, the water wouldn't get cold before I hit them with a suit. Jurisprudence, in federal courts, should be about the same whether it's a slander or mining suit.

Marty wrote on Oct 20^th, 2002 at 12:13am:


I never do.   8)

Skeptic

Fair Chance wrote on Oct 20^th, 2002 at 1:21am:


ROFLMAO.  Yup, I am as emotional as the next guy. The difference here is that my interest in the polygraph wars is not personal and I think most everyone here has a personal interest, either as a user, victim, or potential victim.  I am none of these nor do I expect to be, rather, I am just a curious, intrigued, bystander blessed (or cursed) with more curiosity than most.

Good luck to you as well, fair_chance! There are those I think have been unfairly screwed and it does in fact bother me, as analytic as I may seem to be.

-Marty

Whoa Marty!

You have been very scientific and analytical about this webpage until this last posting. 

You are adding a little bit of personal emotion to this last zinger.

Easy big Guy!

Skeptic wrote on Oct 19^th, 2002 at 9:11pm:


LOL

Please, never confuse the taste of blood for victory. Good luck, Skeptic.

-Marty

Dear Skeptic,

You hit the nail on the head about "lack of knowledge."  The polygraph community places more emphasis on confession rate.  Anyone who reads all of these threads on this website knows more then most polygraph operators.

I have to agree that the government does not care two hoots about getting "quality people."  I think that they discover them by accident after they are hired.  They need warm bodies and as long as they have people applying, throwing away applicants will never "affect their careers."

I am a government worker who takes great pride in my work.  I have paid for all of my degrees.  The government truly does not care if I am highly educated.  I do.  I am a small cog on a huge colossal gear that keeps moving despite itself.

My point:  Politicians and government appointees only care when they or their careers are personally affected.  Votes, money, or bad publicity are probably the most significant motivators.

Antipolygraph.org is on the right track with the publicity.  Convince the American Public that this is more risk than assurance against terrorism and you will see quick results.

Clog the arteries of the agencies using these practices with appeals until the grease that keeps the gears moving dries up and makes them squeak.  This is a long term fight.  Nothing worth accomplishing happens overnight.

Skeptic,

Quote:


Yes, Mark Zaid is indeed representing a number of plaintiffs who are suing the federal government over its reliance on polygraph screening. These cases have survived the government's request for summary judgment, and are now in the discovery phase.

Quote:


The NAS report should go a long way toward shattering the mystique of the polygraph for anyone who would take the time to read it. Unfortunately, the number of individuals actually doing so is likely to be quite small.

One of the goals of AntiPolygraph.org is to inform the public about "the lie behind the lie detector" and shatter the mystique of the polygraph. We have made progress toward that end, especially among those who are subject to polygraph screening. I think it is only a matter of time before the spread of the news reaches critical mass and the polygraph house of cards collapses.

Quote:


Note that the NAS conclusion that polygraph "tests" can differentiate between truth and deception in specific incidents at levels "well above chance" was heavily caveated. It assumes a population of subjects who are uninformed about "the lie behind the lie detector" and untrained in countermeasures. Moreover, the NAS found no convincing evidence that polygraphy has any intrinsic ability to detect deception: its ability to differentiate between truth and deception at levels above chance in certain contexts may well depend on the subjects' belief in the polygraph and in their ignorance of effective countermeasures.

Skeptic wrote on Oct 19^th, 2002 at 9:11pm:


Skeptic,

No, you're simply being brutally honest. The cowardly silence of polygraph screening advocates (like Gordon H. Barland) when tough questions have been put to them, and actions such as the polygraph community's manoeuvers to withhold countermeasure studies from the National Academy of Sciences, speaks to a witting complicity in propagating a fraud and dereliction of duty to country.

Marty wrote on Oct 19^th, 2002 at 8:53pm:


Isn't Mark Zaid already doing this?  I hope the NAS report gives him some fresh ammunition.

Quote:


This can, of course, work both ways.  It's only because of the "polygraph mystique" that the public has condoned increased use of polygraph screening.  If that mystique is shattered and faith in the polygraph is fingered as a national security liability, the tides can change very quickly.

Quote:


This may be a difficult issue, given the statistics-based rationale behind the NAS's findings:  a lot depends upon the prevalence of the guilty among a tested population.

The real problem, as I see it, is not that the polygraph makes mistakes (which information you could disseminate widely without destroying the concealed information upon which the polygraph depends).  The real problem is that the public believes the polygraph detects lies, which means people tend not to take the error rates into account.  As I see it, the only way to dispel this myth and put the polygraph's accuracy into correct perspective is to let the public "in on the secret", which will simultaneously destroy whatever leverage the polygraph has towards generating reactions concominant with lying.

It should also be noted that, while the NAS did conclude that SI polygraphy has results "well above chance", it was still highly critical both of the quality and quantity of the research done on this and other issues, and of the generalizability of laboratory research to field work.

Skeptic

Marty wrote on Oct 19^th, 2002 at 8:07pm:


I'm sure they see things this way.  To my mind, however, such irrational conclusions indicate "incompetence", and more than that, a dereliction of duty.

Or perhaps I'm simply feeling fiesty and particularly unforgiving today.

Skeptic

George,

It will be interesting to see if the class action attys will take this on. Since employment screening is pretty much limited to govt or govt mandated private sector programs, it won't be as attractive financially as other opportunities. I'm sure you will keep us informed about events here.

Perhaps the political liabilities will be more productive, but in the wake of 9-11, cries of "national security" will provide cover given the widespread ignorance and belief in the workability of the polygraph extant.

Improving public polygraph "literacy" is the key factor facilitating the rest of this. This has the adverse consequence of likely reducing the tool's effectiveness as a criminal interrogation tool. Interrogations can be and are abused but the issue of corruption of investigative processes is quite broad and is not polygraph specific.

The polygraph community would be quite wise to eliminate job screening in order to salvage the other uses where arguably it has been of some benefit, at least in the case of naive subjects. I doubt they will choose to voluntarily do so though.

-Marty

Marty,

You write in part:

Quote:


Note that this is a cost for which the polygraph community has not hithertofore been held liable.

Skeptic wrote on Oct 19^th, 2002 at 7:13pm:

Sadly it is not the result of incompetence.  The polygraph community simply does not consider a high rate of false positives as "intolerable" but just as the cost of doing business. Obviously they don't take joy in it but see no alternative. The NAS report didn't say anything they didn't already know even if lawmakers and the general public may not have known.

-Marty

Quote:


The situation will simply get worse and worse over time.  As desirable, intelligent applicants increasingly come to polygraph sessions with background knowledge of its fraudulent nature and effective countermeasures, it will become increasingly difficult to acquire competent, capable people into positions of trust.   

Even if the current intolerable false-positive rates of candidate rejection (now well-known, thanks if nothing else to the NAS report) aren't incentive enough to stop polygraph screening--IMHO, a product of straightforward incompetence on the part of security personnel--the eventual inability to hire or retain people of even average intelligence and curiosity should do the trick.

Skeptic

Marty,

"Farce" is a very apt word for describing the situation of an informed individual facing a polygraph interrogation. As Drew Richardson mentioned regarding polygraph screening in an internal FBI memo to the then director of the FBI crime lab, "a technique which has no diagnostic value would require such a universal bluff and disinformation campaign as to be impractical, if not comical, to continue over a period of time...." (emphasis added)

The polygraphers' bluff has been called. It's time to end the farcical charade that is polygraph screening.

triple x wrote on Oct 19^th, 2002 at 2:40am:


No. As you know, to easily pass a CQT, absent countermeasures, requires that you NOT tell the truth. At least not tell the truth on the controls!  Of course you can't exactly suggest you know that.....

What a farce that must have been.

-Marty

Fair Chance wrote on Oct 19^th, 2002 at 3:17am:


I like your attitude, fair_chance. That is exactly what I would do were I in your circumstance.

Do remember that the philosopy of hiring screens is that it's perfectly acceptable to reject a large number of false positive applicants if it prevents even a few "bad guys" so you are in the company of a large number of innocent people who have also been rejected. They know that. You know that. Your friends and associates should know that as well.

-Marty

Marty,

Regarding my two FBI test as compared to xXx's similar fiasco:

I can easily remember both experiences in vivid detail (blame the burned-in memory on my law enforcement training!). The first was strictly by book without the stim test.  The proceedure was exactly as the downloadable book at this website presents with the control questions modified slightly as described in the book (Besides what you told me...., Since  xxxx year....., Besides "social" lies, etc.).  Six strips, three sets,  ten questions each, over three hours, two to three IRR, three or four control, and three or four R questions with a throw away R once in a while  (listen to me, sounds like I been doing this for two years instead of two weeks!).  Always ten total.  As I look back upon it, I came back inconclusive because I did not react to anything at all!  I was completely at ease with no fear.  I did not even feel any stress at the "start" and "finish" of the test.  I think the central office threw it back because they feared I was too tranquil for such a "stressful" event.  Real stress is working two jobs, finishing off a degree, and having a child with a medical problem. Anything else is a cake walk!

During my second "event", the examiner was extremely aggressive and hostile in body language and verbage from the handshake on.  He was doing everything he could to "jack me up."  Little did he know that even without any polygraph information at all, I could see through his "act."  He performed a stim test, tried to completely convince that polygraph is 100%.  Four Strips, two sets (they gave me a pass on the national security), ten questions per strip were performed over two hours.  The ratio of I,C,and R questions were identical  to the first test with slightly reworded control questions.  The big difference were the verbal attacks starting immediately after my first strip (remember, at this time, I had no knowledge of the polygraph proceedure and I was flying in the fog of ignorance).  My breathing pattern was attacked.  After the second set, I was warned that if I do not change my pattern, I was going to fail.  I was accused of body movement after the third strip, and I had my method of answer (repeat last word of question and answer) changed during my last strip (obviously to compare it to the previous strip because the question order was not changed).

I was then subjected to "bad cop", "good cop","bad cop" for the last twenty minutes of my "interview." This guy used everything in the book to try and get me to start a dialogue.  Little did he know, I had been completely honest, knew nothing about coutermeasures at the time.  I actually believed that this was some type of psychological stress test to see if I would snap-out, walk-out, tell them to take the job and shove it, etc., etc.  I truly believe at the end of the test, when he was giving his best ultimatum,that he was getting frustrated because I was staying so calm and cool.  I was told before I left that my results were unacceptable (and I would not "explain" them so the application was stopped).

In both cases, I confessed to nothing of importance and did not sign anything except standard forms.

I have appealed the exam but I do not think I will get an "honest" retest in any case now.  After reading xXx's experience, I believe that they will just use it once more as a "countermeasure" test case.  I fully intend to tell them how much I know before the test this time.  Unfortunately, they will conceive that to mean that I did have knowledge during the first two tests.  At this point I do not care,  I will let them know that I intend to use EVERY means possible to clear my integrity.  They can keep the job, I want my integrity removed from a cloud of suspicion!  After being a Union negotiator for many years in the government, I know paperwork and congressmen.  It will take years but I will get my file cleaned!

Gotta get off my soapbox now before the national anthem starts playing!

Long winded answer for such a short question, Marty!  

For the record:

I have received many questions via email and private messages asking me if "I forgot" to say I employed polygraph countermeasures. 

People want to know if I did or did not.

Although I strongly support this website, as well as "TLBTLD" which is readily available for download (free) also on this website, I did not "forget" to indicate if (I did or did not) use polygraph countermeasures. 

I simply cannot and "will not" confirm nor deny if I employed polygraph countermeasures during either or both of my polygraph exams. The concern here should not be if I used them or not. The point of concern here should be: 

1)  If they (the FBI) can so easily identify polygraph
    countermeasures, as they like to claim, then why didn't 
    the polygrapher detect them during my actual 1st 
    polygraph exam? According to the Washington DC FBI 
    polygraph lab; they “suspect” (but are not sure), that I 
    employed polygraph countermeasures.
2)  One thing is for certain in my specific case; the 
    polygrapher absolutely did not detect any 
    countermeasures during my polygraph exams. 
3)  The polygrapher actually told me that I did fine; he went 
    on to tell me that I passed the test with no problems 
    noted on any of the two question series.
4)  I was also told that he (the polygrapher) had to mail the 
    charts to the DC lab merely as a formality, for “QC 
    purposes” he added. 

I can only assume, that the bureau has not paused for a second to consider that I possibly may have been telling the truth…

One can only sincerely hope; that the FBI is better at detecting and identifying terrorist than they are at detecting and identifying polygraph countermeasures with certainty. 

I feel that if they are going to accuse you merely on suspicion alone, they should have to support their claim, and not hide the charts, notes, video, audio, etc., etc. resulting from the actual exam. It is an outrage when you have to write Senators, Congressmen and file various FOIA request for your own results to be made available to you. That alone is a flawed system. 

I’m sure glad our federal government cannot prosecute and incarcerate suspects on as little evidence as they do with polygraphy. If they did, the jails and prisons would be packed full of innocent people.

In closing, I will leave you with this to ponder:

The actual polygrapher that administered my 2nd polygraph (retest) actually told me the following:

"no one does that good", "you did too good to be true".

And all this time, I thought that's what you were supposed to do... I did my best, I did the best I could do, and they failed me because in their own words; "I did too good to be true".

What an outrage!


Respectfully,
Triple_x

Marty/George,

Please allow me to better explain my comments as noted in my previous post:

With regard to my earlier reference that there were six to eight controls per set of questions, that was simply an approximation, not an absolute figure of speech. (My bad).

During my 1st polygraph exam, it merely seemed as though I was asked more controls than relevant questions. Although I don’t remember exactly how many questions were control verses relevant; it’s strictly my opinion that approximately half (possibly less) of all questions asked were of CQT in nature. 

Regardless of the number of CQT questions asked per question series; whether there were six to eight, or, four to six controls asked; they were ALL blatantly easy to recognize and identify during the pre-test interview, as well as again during the “in-phase” exam.  

On my first test, the polygrapher asked me two distinctly different sets of CQT questions, both consisting of 10/12 total questions. 

I hope this better explains my previous reference.


Respectfully,
triple_x

Marty,

Yes, six to eight "control" questions sounds like a high number for a single chart collection (question series) in an FBI pre-employment polygraph examination. I would have expected about half that number, because each question series includes (to the best of my knowledge) only three relevant questions.

Fair_chance:

Do you remember roughly how many "Control" questions you were asked the first time?  How did your experience differ from XXX's?

Thanks.

-Marty

Dear xXx,

I recently went through two FBI test similar to yours.  The examiner on the first one led me to believe that that if it was up to him, I would be passing.  It came back inconclusive.  My second polygraph was nothing more then a thinly veiled inquisition.  They had already made up their mind that I was not passing.  I am still under appeal and do not want to get into too much detail.  I was quizzed up and down the flagpole also about where I was getting my information (I now know this was concerning "countermeasures") and maybe "we could work it out if you cooperate."  

The polygraph community is now trying to prove what we had known for along time.  They have no valid research or techniques to detect countermeasues.

When in doubt, bluff!

The race of lemurs going off the cliff is about to begin.