Nonombre,

Don't you think you're being a little dramatic here? If the names of polygraph examiners were so top secret, then why do they give their names to the applicants they polygraph? They're probably putting themselves in the most danger doing that than anything else. Think about it. They're routinely falsely branding job applicants as liars and costing them jobs and careers. I'd say that's kinda dangerous, don't you think? It's definitely causing a lot of anger, hard feelings and resentment. Just look at the hatred expressed by allegedliar's post--and he's not alone. Another thing, if those names were so hush-hush, then why when I did a Google search on my polygraphers' names, did I get hits on both identifying them as FBI agents? The FBI should watch what it allows for release--it might be putting its own agents in danger. One of my polygrapher's pictures was even posted on the net. The agency would not allow information to be released that could pose dangers to it's agents--atleast one would think that it wouldn't do that. Something to think about before you go pointing fingers at George, Nonombre.

Dimas, 
I agree that newspapers who publish the names, pics and street addresses of LEO's involved in shootings are acting irresponsibly, but the media cannot publish information and/or material that's not made available to them. It could in fact, be both the department and the media acting irresponsibly in this regard. It's usually the norm for a department to actually withold the names of officers involved in shootings at least until the internal investigation is complete. A law enforcement officer's address and picture should never be published in the paper, unless he is charged with a crime. That's just common sense.

While I do not agree with Mr. Maschke posting the name of anyone who works in the LE/Intelligence field on the internet, this is a venue for polygraph information to be brought to light and exposed.  I really doubt that by doing so any of these people's lives have been put in danger, however, I really would not want to risk that chance myself.

Over the years that I have worked in LE, I have received various threats on my life and that of my family.  Have any of them come to fruition?  No, but it did make me lose some sleep and hair knowing that there were people out there with the intent to harm me and even my family for what I did for a living.  After receiving a few threatening phone calls to my house I took steps to have myself not listed in phone books or my address released to those inquiring in the DMV.   Unfortunately, if someone wants to find you , they will.  Either via credit reports or websites such as www.zabasearch.com  or a dozen other ways of doing so.  Local newspapers are great at this as they have no problem with posting the street a LEO lives on when he is involved in a shooting or any kind of incident along with a picture.  

If they are going to do something to me, so be it, I am ready for it and accept it with the job I do, but people are cowards and usually lash out at those least likely to put up a fight.  It is difficult to remain anonymous in today's world.  It sucks, as I go to work every day planning on doing my best and always have to leave my home and family and have it on the back of my mind if today may be the day that some jerk decides he is going to get even with me through my family or my home, because as I mentioned earlier they are cowards and will prey on those less likely to put up a fight.

Point is, I took on this aspect of the job when I decided to choose law enforcement as a career.  I can live with it, but I cannot nor will I ever condone making it easier for others to gain access to personal information about those in the LE or Intelligence field.   This, unfortunately, is the world we live in.

NoNombre wrote " Can you spell dead?"

   what does this sentence mean then?   my thought on this is that you assume that government polygraphers are in dire straits because of this posting of names.  there are much more important and meaningful people in our government other than polygraph examiners, so don't feel that your job title entitles you to any kind of covert, secret status.   you do what you do because this is your chosen profession.   no one is pointing a gun to your head and telling you, you have to be an examiner.

nonombre wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 2:08am:


That might be the correct answer in a police state, but not in a democratic republic. As Jeffery pointed out, information is sometimes (in fact, all too often) classified not to protect national security, but to avoid embarrassment, mask incompetence, and sometimes to cover up crimes. In such situations, as whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, has (in my view convincingly) argued, unauthorized truth-telling is a patriotic duty.

I suspect that much of the information about polygraphy that has been designated as classified has been made secret not to protect national security, but to avoid embarrassment and the exposure of incompetence. For example, Charles Honts has stated that the identities of four federal agencies in portions of a 1989 study of polygraph screening were classified because the agencies didn't like the results. (For example, in one experiment, only one-third of programmed guilty subjects were identified). Even the unclassified version of the report was withheld from the public. (The linked document was originally placed on-line by Honts.) In another instance, DoDPI and the CIA played a game of "hide-the-countermeasure-studies" with the National Academy of Sciences (see The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, 4th ed., p. 162). If such documents were provided to AntiPolygraph.org, we might well find a compelling public interest in publishing them.

whylie wrote on Dec 7^th, 2005 at 4:03pm:


Nonsense. Do you consider the publishing of the names and salaries of nearly all corporate executives in the United States irresponsible? Well, the government mandates it by law. What is special about govt. polygraphers?

Marty

NoNombre,


  if we had to break this all down, its really NO BIG DEAL.  it's done already , live with it!

Look, I think it was not useful for George to post the names of these people but really, aren't we getting a bit carried away?

Excuse me but I am at a complete loss as to why anyone thinks this a big deal. Let me explain.

The government MANDATES that ALL individuals that are the top officers, directors, or shareholders in ALL companies with publicly traded stock be listed ON THE INTERNET. Not only by full name, but sometimes by address and for the larger ones, their specific salary and bonus. Ten's of thousands of people have to do this. Also, millions of dollars of net worth are disclosed in these files.

In case you haven't watched any movies recently, corporate executives are demonized far more than civil servant polygraphers.

Not only are these folks listed, but they have been for about 10 years!  Anyone that has done the slightlest bit of investing in the stock market knows this. The rest of the world knows this. So why are you all acting like children imagining some crazy threat?

It would be one thing if these guys in the story George linked to were secret polygraphers that had a cover job and were CIA NOCs. Ain't the case here (they wouldn't be listed) so why the overreaction? Are you ashamed at what you do for a living?

Marty

on Today at 18:37:54, Jeffery wrote:
Quote:


Please to note, not all on the chart were polygraph examiners.  There in lies the error of the orginal post.

nonombre wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 2:08am:

Nonombre-

From interactions in the past, you seem to be a pretty reasonable fellow.  Please don't base your assumptions on how classified information is or should be protected, or how it came to be classified in the first place off of experiences watching some James Bond movie or episode of 24.

A private citizen (w/o a clearance) is under no legal obligation to protect classified info.  One could make an argument that one would be under a moral obligation to do so, but that would depend on the information invovled, whether it was properly classified, and if a greater public good is served by publishing it.

Information can be classified simply because that info could be embarrasing to an organization.  Would it be wrong for a whistleblower to leak it to the press?  Would the reporter be ethically bound to not pursue it?  (my answer to this question: the leaker could and should get in trouble; the reporter should report the story).  A bit of a dichotomy, but that is how the system works.

Look at the situation with Scooter (got to love that name) leaking the name of the CIA gal.  Scooter is in deep doo doo.  The reporters who published it have no worries.  The only reporter that got in trouble here was in trouble not becuase they published her name, but because she was in contempt of court for not revealing a source.

You are right, there are rules concerning the release of classified info, and those who break those rules should be punished, but those who receive classified information without a clearance are breaking no laws and under no legal obligation to keep it under seal (but if it truly hurt the national security, I think morally they should keep it secret).

And FWIW. on a side note, I think the deep-throat leaker from the Watergate era should be prosecuted for breaking the law (even if he's lost his mind).  But I also thinkg Bob Woodward et al deserve credit and recognition for the work they've done.

So please, again, how is publishing an unclassified org chart showing the name of civil servants (practicing a despicable career path) some how damaging to the defense and security of our country?

Quote:


Uh uh, wrong answer there, Mr Maschke,

The correct answer was:

"As a loyal American citizen, and as a former member of the U.S. intelligence community, I would never, ever, under any circumstances, give away classified information that came into my possession."

You would continue by saying:

"Especially as a former intelligence officer, I realize that the disclosure of classified information potentially reveals U.S. sources, methods, and operations, and therefore would endanger us all.  I will go to my grave protecting it.  I don't care how I came upon it, I would protect it.  The cost of not doing so is to great."

But you did not say that Mr. Maschke.  Instead you decided that you would administer your own "test."  "Compelling public interest"  I believe you called it.

I am not in the government Mr. Maschke, but I do know there are rules concerning the public release of classified information.  Please don't hide behind the "Private Citizen" arguement. You, far more than most of us, know better.  You KNOW BETTER.

But alas, it seems you don't care about any of that, for you have made up your own rules.

Yes, Mr. Maschke.  That was indeed the wrong answer.  Why don't you give this some more thought and get back with us.

Nonombre

nonombre wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 1:40am:


It is not standard practice for airlines to povide the flight manifests of hijacked aircraft to the press. Even were that not the case, the NSA employees named here should be more concerned about the risk of being struck by lightning than the scenario you have painted above.

Quote:


I would not call your concern "paranoid." But I do consider it to be greatly overstated.

Quote:


AntiPolygraph.org has never solicited nor received classified information. If such information were provided, there would have to be some compelling public interest in making it public in order for us to publish it. I doubt a classified list of polygraph personnel would meet that test.

nonombre wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 1:40am:


Nonombre-

IF George had a security clearance and IF he obtained such information as a result of his clearance, then he'd be legally bound not to disclose it (and face a sever penetaly for doing so).  As a private citizen, he is under NO SUCH OBLIGATION.  Security classifactions only carry weight for those with clearances.

That being said, based upon what I have seen regarding interactions with George on this site, I don't think he would ever do anything intentional to put the country in jeaporady.  The polygraph and polygraph community?  Sure.  They need a little embarrassment.  Amazing how rats scurry when the light shines.  But I can honestly say I doubt George and many on this board would ever do anything to harm the country as a whole.

Don't confuse NSA polygraph operators with actual Intelligence Operatives, and don't confuse "the good of the agency" with the "good of the country."  I'd counter that in the case of the polygraph, those two interests collide.

Quote:


paranoia (According to Webster's Online).

Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek, madness, from paranous demented, from para- + nous mind
1 : a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
2 : a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others.

Sorry, based on the defination above, I would disagree that any of my postings were "paranoid."

Secondly, I never said anything in any of my posts to indicate that I believed "certain death would occur to these examiners."

But I do remain concerned.  First, I continue believe it wrong to publically identify any member of the intelligence community for the reasons I have already indicated.  I don't care if the information is only "For Official Use Only,"  verses being "classified."  I still believe it wrong to openly publish that information.

Put it this way.  You are on a plane that is taken over by Islamic militants.  They demand all to relinquish their passports.  All on the flight are Americans including you.  The press does an internet search, trips over this website, and reports their discovery that one of the passengers (you) are an NSA "Security Officer."  The militants decide to shoot a passenger.  Wanna guess who gets the bullet?

Wanna call my concern for the safety of the men and women outed by George Maschke and his reporter friend "paranoid" go right ahead.  The scenerio denoted above is not all that unlikely given the times we are living in.

What also concerns me is that based on what I have seen published by Mr. Maschke and others on this website, I am convinced if he were to get his hands on an actual classified list of U.S. government polygraph personnel, he would not hesitiate (based on the justifications he has used to date) to publish those agent's names.

I hope I am wrong...

Nonombre
      
   



 

nonombre wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 5:50am:



The fact that you think that certain death would occur to these examiners.  These documents served a purpose, but seemingly you think that the said documents shouldn't be published here on the internet.  So it seems that this is so hush hush and no one should be allowed to view the names of these polygraph examiners.   I don't think these are any kind of double, secret, dark covert agents.   This was a roster of examiners and the order in which they serve.   Nothing else, but you seem flustered that Mr. Maschke published them.  Would you not consider your dear concern for these examiners somewhat paranoid?

Quote:


Why do you think I am "paranoid?"  I don't understand.  Please explain yourself...

Nonombre

NoNombre

  why do you have such paranoia?  is someone after you?

nonombre wrote on Dec 8^th, 2005 at 3:34am:


As I am a federal employee, let me assure you that George is correct: "FOUO" carries absolutely no obligation, legal or otherwise, for a private citizen to keep material under wraps.

Nonombre,

Members of the public are under no legal or moral obligation not to discuss or publish information merely because someone in a government agency has designated it to be "For Official Use Only." This is a fortiori the case when such information has previously been published, as was the NSA directory.

You may disapprove of my decision to post this information here, but the argument that I should not have done so because it was marked "For Official Use Only" is a very weak one.

Quote:


Mr Maschke,

Since I am not a federal employee, I do not claim to know much about the federal defination of "For Official Use Only."  However, I do know that in the local jurisdiction where I work, the term "For Official Use Only," means For Official Use Only.  I don't drive my grandmother to church in my police car which is "For Official Use Only."  I don't use my office computer to post on this website, because it is "For Official Use Only," and I don't give anyone department documents (unless under court order) because they are "For Official Use Only."

Now, according to what you have told us, "For Official Use Only" in the federal government actually means "MAYBE" For Official Use Only.

Okay, I don't know any better so I'll believe you, but to me it just don't pass the "stupid test."  No offense.

Nonombre

whylie wrote on Dec 7^th, 2005 at 4:03pm:


Can you specify how, exactly?  It's already been noted that this information is freely available and not classified.

whylie wrote on Dec 7^th, 2005 at 4:03pm:



No more, actually less, than continued use of polygraph testing which has been proven to be vulnerable in regard to accuracy.  The test can be effected by the examinee, examiner or procedure.  Continued use of a method so vulnerable to interference seems to be more irresponsible.

Why not go after every news outlet in the country.  They regularly report information which includes names of involved parties who may wish to remain anonymous.  Thankfully our forefathers had the vision and forsight to protect the American population from the censorship goons.

It is irresponsible

Nonombre has previous stated that George’s publishing of methods one can use to beat a polygraph is similar to leaving a loaded shotgun on a subway platform and then claiming you are not responsible if someone picks it up and uses it.

It is therefore hardly surprising that he feels the publication of non-classified material which federal law makes freely available to anyone is also somehow an irresponsible act of some kind.

nonombre wrote on Dec 7^th, 2005 at 4:01am:


I very clearly understand the meaning of "For Official Use Only." Perhaps you do not, so I'll explain it. Within the Department of Defense (the parent agency of the NSA), the designation "For Official Use Only" is sometimes used to mark information that may be exempt from disclosure under under the Freedom of Information Act. Information designated "For Official Use Only" is by definition unclassified.

Quote:


You are correct that the Maryland Polygraph Association (MPA) does not publicly advertise that any of these polygraphers are employees of the NSA. However, quite a number of them do include their work address (at Fort Meade, Maryland) and phone number on the MPA's membership list. It's no big secret that the NSA is headquartered at Fort Meade.

Quote:


Yes indeed, I have played a role in publicly identifying NSA employees on the Internet. That was the whole point of my post, and I make no apology for it.

In the case of the NSA polygraphers, I think the public -- especially the many whom they have falsely accused of deception -- are entitled to know who these people are. I think these polygraphers should at least have this small measure of public accountability. 

I have no personal beef with any employees of the NSA's Office of Personal Security. While I could have edited the graphic to exclude the names of non-polygraphers, considering the information is already public, doing so would have been pointless.

nonombre wrote on Dec 7^th, 2005 at 4:01am:



Again I state...public information.  Perhaps you would prefer censorship for such information, thankfully however our constitution protects us from such shrouded secrecy.  If you truly have a concern in regard to the availability to this information your concerns would better be voiced to the US Government or more specifically the NSA.  It seems to me that this is an attack of sorts simply because of your strong disagreemnet with the authors of this site (i.e. this post).  Your argument is moot.