xenonman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 5:01am:


Yes -- the duty uniform of a polygrapher should be a pointy cap with stars and comets and orbs all over it, and a long robe with voluminous sleeves. Wand optional.

Did alchemists have a particular garb for their "profession"?  If they did, that might make a suitable costume for polygraphers!

T.M. Cullen wrote on Apr 30^th, 2008 at 4:59am:


Hey TC, Yes!! white lab coats would help their comparison to doctors that way they would at least look like doctors, but then again barbers wear white coats and....... they are still barbers.
I still can't believe they think that comparison makes any sense but, I guess to keep thier BS alive they have to hold on to that.

Child pornography is rarely interpreted as viewing nude 16 or 17 years olds, which I suspect is what occurred here.  Many examiners define child pornography as "pre-pubescent," truly children.  If a cell phone shot of a high school female being passed around is the issue, Bluestang has nothing to worry about (except maybe from the one who was photographed!).  But again, he must voice the concern to his examiner.  Far too many otherwise qualified applicants go down in flames because they withhold info that the hiring agency could not care less about.  But trying to hide that conduct, which likely results in a failed exam, will typically exclude that person.

Quote:


Lot's of people post here.

There are "newbees" recently tested, like Ohio99, Speed204..etc who come here on a steady basis, looking for answers as to why they failed the polygraph while telling the truth.  We answer their questions, then they leave.

Then there are the 5 or so, "regulars" who post on a long term basis.

It is probably no different at "Polygraphplace", minus the "snowjob" answers, of course.

Then there are the "lurkers".  Note this thread has had 328 views, but only 20 posts.

TC

GM,

When I tested at NSA, the four counter-intelligence questions did have a "low base rate of guilt". 

Further, the polygraphers explained the questions thoroughly.  For example, with the disclosure of classified info question.  They explained they were talking about PURPOSELY removing classified info from a secure space with the INTENT of doing something untoward with it.  IOW, pulling a Sandy Burglar.

With regard to the "foreign contact" question.  They explained they were talking about KNOWINGLY maintaining a relationship with a KNOWN agent of a foreign government, with the intent of PASSING INFORMATION, or doing something otherwise unauthorized...etc.

Yet, they will then take something you say that doesn't come even close to that and blow it out of all proportion.

In my case, they made a big deal about some translation work I did for the Taiwan Coordination Counsel in Hawaii.  I met an officer there when applying to attend a seminar in Taiwan.  I was on active duty.  My command knew about it, even wanted to pay for it and label it foreign language training.

I had to go to that office about three times.  To apply, to get a visa, and to pick up a seminar packet prior to departing.  

Of course I practiced my chinese during the visits.  On the last visit, the officer suckered me into translating a 12 page fax just in from Taipei.  It was a new directive explaining the new law pertaining to foreigner (americans) wanting to work in Taiwan.  This officer needed it translated to have it available in english for people inquiring at his office about working in Taiwan.  Too cheap to send it to a translation company.

Now, does that come anywhere near what they explained the "foreign contact" question really means?  No?  THEY BLEW IT OUT OF ALL PROPORTION!

This is what I mean, when I say don't mention insignificant shit concerning a relevant question.  Don't speculate at all.  They explained the question quite clearly, I understood it.  Should have said No, I haven't DONE anything like THAT. End of story!  Anything short of that and you're just giving them ammo!

This is precisely how you end up with a false positive.

TC

I've always wanted to be in law enforcement as a police officer.  A police officer friend of mine was telling me that you have to pass a polygraph test and in his list of things they ask you, he included child pornography.  I am 18 and graduated high school now, but all during high school pictures of naked girls in high school (probably age 15-18) were all over the place being circulated to me through text messages as well as email. Also, I still have media of me with old girlfriends from a year or two ago and we both were not 18 at the time. I guess most of these pictures could technically be classified as child pornography.

Its been on my mind 24/7 now......

Does this mean I can no longer become a police officer since technically I have been both in possession of and have distributed child porn?

I am in the same boat as the original poster, however Nude pictures (it was a nip slip) were posted to a girls facebook page when we were both in high school and I saved the images for viewing later. And years later after I turned 18, I stumbled upon nude photos of an actress who was 17 at the time they were taken and I saved them too.  I have since deleted them from my computer since I have realized that it was a terrible thing to do and look at. I have never seeked out any Child Porn, but I am afraid that I will not only fail the polygraph, (I intend to fully disclose what I've said here) but also be arrested and charged with child pornography.  Can anyone help ease my mind or warn me off applying?

Far too many otherwise qualified applicants go down in flames because they withhold info that the hiring agency could not care less about.  But trying to hide that conduct, which likely results in a failed exam, will typically exclude that person. 
                   

Child pornography is rarely interpreted as viewing nude 16 or 17 years olds, which I suspect is what occurred here.  Many examiners define child pornography as "pre-pubescent," truly children.

  If a cell phone shot of a high school female being passed around is the issue, Bluestang has nothing to worry about (except maybe from the one who was photographed!).

But again, he must voice the concern to his examiner.  Far too many otherwise qualified applicants go down in flames because they withhold info that the hiring agency could not care less about.

But trying to hide that conduct, which likely results in a failed exam, will typically exclude that person.

Sorry, but I'm not reading 220 pages about a polygraph.

Same grade as me, just an image that a girl took of herself and sent to a guy.

when I was in high school, seeing pictures of girls in class, and also a coworker of mine was arrested for child pornography a few years back.

Sorry to rehash this topic, but I'm currently in the same boat. 
I'm going for my polygraph test for my shriff's office in a few weeks and one of the questions is supposedly going to be about child pornography. I've never subjected myself to it as it is disgusting, but the first two things that come to mind when discussing the topic are: when I was in high school, seeing pictures of girls in class, and also a coworker of mine was arrested for child pornography a few years back. If those two things are on my mind when I answer no, will the test read a false positive? Or should I just tell my BI about those two things? There wasn't a very clear answer in the above posts. Thanks in advance everyone!

notguilty1 wrote on Apr 30^th, 2008 at 3:29am:

 
No, you are misrepresenting the information which has been provided, which is not at all unusual.   You see my little friend, when you get caught, as you have just been, misrepresenting the truth, you are deemed dishonest or lacking in credibility.  The doctor in the situation I described specifically said the victim had “two” gunshot wounds to the head, not “a” gunshot wound to the head. There is an obvious and distinctive difference. You do understand the difference between singular and plural, yes? The doctor was mistaken, but not deliberately or intentionally as you have been caught doing,  and made an opinion based upon the evidence before him.  But, he was still wrong in the end.  
 
And no, we don’t try to compare ourselves with doctors (but I do like the idea of the white lab coat – it could portray an aura of academic knowledge).  We are a separate, respected profession.  The analogies  (analogy - a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based) are simply to provide an example so that people who are actually trying to learn something can understand.  Just as an auto mechanic is a profession (they make mistakes, too).  We could use them for analogies also. 
 
And Sackett, you might not look good in white, but I sure do!!

Hey Yankee,
The fact in your doctor case is that the doc correctly called the "death" by a gunshot wound!! He is a doctor not a cop.