To assert that the words “anyone” and “criminals” are synonymous in the English language is beyond preposterous.  

The advice we give to criminal suspects is crystal clear and runs 1.5 pages:  

NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmaster of this site and associated businesses do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational and entertainment purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.

The Act also includes limited exemptions where polygraph tests (but no other lie detector tests) may be administered in the private sector, subject to certain restrictions:
• To employees who are reasonably suspected of involvement in a workplace incident that results in economic loss to the employer and who had access to the property that is the subject of an investigation; and
• To prospective employees of armored car, security alarm, and security guard firms who protect facilities, materials or operations affecting health or safety, national security, or currency and other like instruments; and
• To prospective employees of pharmaceutical and other firms authorized to manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances who will have direct access to such controlled substances, as well as current employee who had access to persons or property that are the subject of an ongoing investigation.

Using your same logic, an attorney who tells the general public that it is often wise to ask for a lawyer rather than submitting to a police interview should be denigrated for advising people to conceal criminal activity.I disagree.

He isn't providing a product he is providing advice. Lawyers and Physicians are held accountable for their advice through malpractice actions. 

T.M. Cullen wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 6:09pm:

He isn't providing a product he is providing advice. Legal immunity does not in my opinion insulate him from moral or ethical responsibilty for his words and actions. Does this bother him? I think not. 

But if you ask most people if lying or cheating is wrong they will tell you that it is. Based on his writings Dr. Maschke does not think that way. 

This situation would be more akin to attempting to provide a means of getting away with the murder after it was committed. 

 Why don't you go back and read his whole book and calculate how much space he devotes to encouraging the reader to tell the truth versus how much space he devotes to  telling the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity in order to cheat the testing process.  

Sancho Panza

If You Are Suspected of a Crime
If you have been asked to submit to a polygraph examination in
connection with a criminal investigation, “just say no!” You should
not submit to any polygraph “test.” (In most cases, the fact that
you refused to submit to a polygraph “test” will not be admissible
polygraph countermeasures 123
as evidence in court.) Instead, you should get a lawyer. If for some
reason your lawyer advises you to submit to a police polygraph
interrogation, ask him to read this book. Just like a majority of the
public at large, many lawyers are simply ignorant of the true nature
of the polygraph process. If, after reading this book, your lawyer
still advises you to submit to a polygraph “test,” you should probably
fire your lawyer. You have little to gain by submitting to a polygraph
interrogation and much to lose: if you “pass,” the police may well
continue to suspect you regardless; if you “fail,” it will only confirm
their suspicions, and news of your “failure” may well be leaked to
the local media to smear you. 

As John A. Larson, a pioneer of polygraphic lie detection lamented:
I originally hoped that instrumental lie detection would become
a legitimate part of professional police science. It is little more
than a racket. The lie detector, as used in many places, is nothing
more than a psychological third-degree aimed at extorting confessions
as the old physical beatings were. At times I’m sorry I ever
had any part in its development.24

Top-flight defense attorneys never let their clients submit to a polygraph “test” 
conducted by the police or any other authority. In the
few cases where clients are polygraphed (most notably high profile
cases where the client is being tried in the media), the attorney
makes arrangements to hire a private polygrapher. The “test” is
conducted in private, and the results, which are protected by
attorney-client privilege, are released only if the client “passes.”
This was the protocol used by the attorneys for O.J. Simpson, John
and Patsy Ramsey, and Gary Condit. The Ramseys and Condit
“passed,” and their results were therefore made public. Mr. Simpson
apparently fared worse, and his results were never made public.
24Cited in J.H. Skolnick, “Scientific Theory and Scientific Evidence: An Analysis
of Lie Detection,” The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 70 (1961), pp. 694, 728. Cited in
Lykken (1998) at pp. 28Ð29.
(After word got out that Mr. Simpson had been polygraphed by a
124 the lie behind the lie detector
private examiner, the official explanation was that he was hooked
up to the polygraph to see how it works, but that no actual “test”
was conducted.)

But if you ask most people if lying or cheating is wrong they will tell you that it is. Based on his writings Dr. Maschke does not think that way.

You provide your book and techniques free of charge to ANYONE. I think the term anyone would necessarily include criminals wouldn't it?

OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity

What published moral or ethical code permits an adherant to lie or cheat, just because they suspect that they suspect someone is lying to them? 
Sancho Panza

Now that I have answered your question with quotes and page numbers, could you please attempt to explain your blatantly false assertion that polygraph[y] is a process which was OUTLAWED in the US in 1988 for everyone but government employees

If a person murders somebody with a knife, is the knife manufacturer complicit in that murder?

Are you asserting that the techniques that you publish in your book DON'T WORK if used by criminals?

Today at 4:21am:
Can you please point out to us which portion of the book (page nr?) that provides "ways and means to attemptto conceal criminal activity"?Or are you just fibbing again?

And pleeeeaaase!Don't give us one of your long, convoluted posts.A page number will suffice.

Please see my response to Mr. Scalabrini. I'm sorry if it is too long and convoluted for you to understand but he asked for quotes.

Can you please point out to us which portion of the book (page nr?) that provides "ways and means to attemptto conceal criminal activity"?Or are you just fibbing again?

And pleeeeaaase!Don't give us one of your long, convoluted posts.A page number will suffice.

If a person lies to a conman who is himself lying and trying to cheat them, then the conman is not in a very good position to complain about it.

It's like a "john" going to the police to report that some hooker, he hired illegally, has heisted his wallet!  

But don’t tell your polygrapher that you’ve read this book or that you’ve done research on the Internet and visited such websites as
AntiPolygraph.org! Page 140 CONCEALING INFORMATION

Instead, provide a general answer to his question about what you know about polygraphy, such as: Page 140 SUGGESTING LIES TO TELL THE EXAMINER
I heard on T.V. that they’re almost always accurate when
used by a skilled examiner. Is that right?
• A friend of mine in law enforcement said not to worry, just
go in and tell the truth, and you’ll have no problem!
• I understand that polygraphs are a lot more accurate than
those voice stress analyzers. (Polygraphers generally hold the competing
voodoo science of Computerized Voice Stress Analysis
[CVSA] in utter contempt.)
• I read in the paper that the polygraph has been constantly
improving with time and that the latest computerized polygraphs
are very reliable.
• When I was in grade school, a polygraph examiner came
and gave a demonstration to my class and showed us how the test
is done using my teacher as a volunteer. She lied about a card she
had picked from a deck, and the polygraph examiner caught her
lie and was even able to figure out exactly which card she had
picked!
• I heard it caught O.J. in a lie! (Virtually no one in the polygraph
community believes O.J. Simpson to be innocent of the
murder of his ex-wife, Nicole.)

Whatever answer you give, don’t memorize and repeat the above
examples word-for-word. Page 140 SUGGESTING WHICH LIES TO USE AND OFFERING ADVICE ON HOW TO DELIVER THEM.

If you do choose to submit to a polygraph for some other
reason (most likely as a pre-requisite for an employment process),
the most important step you can take to minimize the potential
for a negative outcome is to make no admissions. Page 197 CONCEALING INFORMATION Note  this statement does not differentiate between what it is or isn't permissable to lie about

Make no admissions is also the rule if and when a polygrapher accuses you of using countermeasures.  Page 197 IN OTHER WORDS IF THE EXAMINER ACCUSES YOU OF USEING THE TECHNIQUES TAUGHT ON ANTIPOLYGRAPH.ORG TO MANUFACTURE FALSE REACTIONS, LIE .

a process which was OUTLAWED in the US in 1988 for everyone but government employees

The countermeasures we’ve discussed produce physiological responses that are indistinguishable from those that polygraphers believe to be associated with truth-telling concerning the relevant issues TLBTLD page 159.

Dr. Maschke 

I'm betting that you also sent a link to your book to the firefighters union so they could try to cheat on their tests. 

Did You??  You better hurry because I'll bet Doug Williams is offering them on-site training.

Dear IAFF Local 2665 Members,

I'm a co-founder of AntiPolygraph.org, a non-profit, public interest website dedicated to exposing and ending waste, fraud, and abuse associated with the use of polygraphs and other purported "lie detectors."

The recently reported plan to force Normandy firefighters to submit to lie detector testing while no doubt well-intentioned, is ill-advised. The problem is that polygraphy has no scientific basis. The truthful often fail, while the deceptive can pass with the help of simple countermeasures that polygraphers have no demonstrated ability to detect.

The plan to force firefighters to submit to this pseudoscientific procedure has virtually zero chance of determining 1) whether a crime was committed and 2) if so, who committed it. But there is a very good chance that one or more innocent firefighters will wrongly fail and suffer adverse career consequences.

For more on polygraphy, and why it should have no place in the workplace, please see our book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, which may be downloaded as a PDF file here:

http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf

Sincerely,

George W. Maschke, Ph.D.
Co-founder,
AntiPolygraph.org

Who do you think is more likely to take your advice and try countermeaures, an innocent person or  someone who attempted to kill a man because of the color of his skin?

For the record, I think fire district is wrong here. This investigation should be left in the hands of the police or FBI.

I am also not sure that the fire district board or its employees would be considered an exempt government entity under the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. 
 
From their web site:
Quote:


The board seems to be more of a Co-Op than a government entity. Based on their web site I think they are subject to the same EPPA restrictions as any private employer.

If they are not exempt, I seriously doubt the incident as described meets the standards required for employers testing employees.  Even if the incident met EPPA standards, there doesn't seem to be any information that would justify testing 30 employees.

No wonder John Grogan's name popped up in the story, He doesn't think he has to comply with EPPA, probably because he never finished polygraph school and has never been a licensed examiner.

Mr. Scalabrini, Considering your status as a co-author of a book (TLBTLD) that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity;

One thing is for sure. If Dr. Maschke is successful in his quest in turning honest truthful people into liars and cheaters, then anytime a polygrapher accuses somebody who follows Dr. Maschke's instructions of lying or cheating on their exam, then they certainly won't be in a very good position to claim that they told the truth and failed or claim that they didn't cheat will they?

I was honest and truthful, took the scam and FAILED as many others have

I think polygraphy does a pretty good job of that.Accusing honest and innocent people of lying, that is.

TC  

Again, we are talking about a process which was OUTLAWED in the US in 1988 for everyone but government employees.

We propose the following changes to the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (29 USC 22).

Dr. Maschke  

Who do you think is more likely to take your advice and try countermeaures, an innocent person or  someone who attempted to kill a man because of the color of his skin?

Sancho Panza

Dr. Maschke 

I'm betting that you also sent a link to your book to the firefighters union so they could try to cheat on their tests. 

Did You??  You better hurry because I'll bet Doug Williams is offering them on-site training. 

Who do you think is more likely to take your advice and try countermeaures, an innocent person or  someone who attempted to kill a man because of the color of his skin?

For the record, I think fire district is wrong here. This investigation should be left in the hands of the police or FBI. I am also not sure that the fire district board or its employees would be considered an exempt government entity under the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. 
 
From their web site:
Quote:


The board seems to be more of a Co-Op than a government entity. Based on their web site I think they are subject to the same EPPA restrictions as any private employer. If they are not exempt, I seriously doubt the incident as described meets the standards required for employers testing employees.  Even if the incident met EPPA standards, there doesn't seem to be any information that would justify testing 30 employees.   No wonder John Grogan's name popped up in the story, He doesn't think he has to comply with EPPA, probably because he never finished polygraph school and has never been a licensed examiner. 


Sancho Panza

......as evidenced by the amount of effort he expends trying to turn honest and innocent people into liars and cheaters....

Quote:


Flip of the coin.  Same as polygraph itself.

TC

Who do you think is more likely to take your advice and try countermeaures, an innocent person or  someone who attempted to kill a man because of the color of his skin?

The Normandy Fire Protection District is not governed by the City of Normandy nor any of the cities within its geographical boundaries; instead an independently elected three member Board of Directors manages and sets policies for the district.