Glavlit wrote on Dec 31^st, 2010 at 9:05pm:



During my pre-polygraph screening AND the psych screening (which was after my poly), I was asked about drugs and illegal sex acts.  In both cases I gave them the same information about pot use (my "fudge" numbers) and gave a straight "no" to the illegal sex acts.  In both cases they also asked the usual questions on crime, computers, foreign contacts, overthrowing the government, etc.  The psych test also asked about my emotional stability, family history, and other crap as the shrink was just prying into my head trying to see if I was mentally stable.  However in the polygraph, they only focus on a few things and tell you what questions will be asked before hand.  Apparently this makes the polygraph more "effective" according to my research.  The pre-polygraph screening must have made them think that they should focus on crime and computer use for me during my poly.  I never opened the door made them even the slightest bit suspicious about my sex life.  I happily admitted to being a guy who looks at porn at home, the usual, but never anything illegal.  

The polygraph question regarding "serious crimes" is pretty much a cover-all question.   There is really no reason to ask any other questions during a poly.  If a person is single, then technically they won't feel guilty about sleeping around.  If a person is married, they may feel guilty about it.  But the crime question technically can include prostitution, drugs, foreign conspiracies, computer hacking, etc.  So they really try to drill most poeople on crime.  They didn't hone in on anything specific because they wanted me to lead them down some path in my guilty conscious, which I was not going to do!  The polygraphers don't have time to specifically ask you about every crime in the world, so they are vague, and want you to start talking and spilling your guts.  I was too smart for that.

I'm glad I didn't take the job because now I feel I have more control over my life.

WannaBeCopper wrote on Dec 31^st, 2010 at 7:15pm:

As a wise sage once said:
“There may be problems with the polygraph, but anyone who would try to lie has no business working for government agencies based on integrity.”

It all comes down to trust in the end; if they don’t feel that they can trust you, or feel that you are not reliable; then they will most likely shred your application; no hard evidence or explanation required.

Quote:

Technically you did admit to most of your indiscretions up front, so you weren’t really covering anything else up that was major.

That is rather odd that they would ask you after the test if you looked at "explicit images".  What is even stranger is that they did not ask you about illegal sexual activity before or during the polygraph.  It must not have been law enforcement screening, or the interviewer did not do a very good job.  Sounds like you didn’t go through a thorough background investigation either, if all they did was just talk to a few neighbours and friends.

The psych evaluation sounds even more strange, if you were asked about prostitution, but not drug use.

In the end you ended up not taking the job, which again just goes to show that it wasn’t meant to happen for you; whether for one reason or another.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Dec 31^st, 2010 at 4:01pm:


I see. You've convinced me to be candid about my background. I'll tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

WannaBeCopper wrote on Dec 31^st, 2010 at 3:27am:


If the event to which you are referring is your admission to smoking marijuana five times, and you are asking if, after you make that admission and I “guess” you are lying, what would happen, the answer is that I would ask you to think about it and answer truthfully.   

I am not a polygraph operator; I am a detective who is sometimes assigned to do background checks on police applicants.  If I am interviewing an applicant and I get the sense they are lying, I will ask them, sometimes several times, to answer the questions truthfully.  I will explain to them that everyone makes mistakes, and that mistakes won’t necessarily keep you from becoming a cop, but lying will.  Once a cop’s credibility is gone they can’t testify in court any more, and if they can’t testify they can’t work the road or do investigations.  If they can’t do those things they pretty much can’t be cops any more.

Generally speaking, a cop is going to be able to tell when you are lying.  Sometimes he won’t be able to tell what you are lying about, but he will get a sense as to whether you are being truthful or deceptive.  If I am doing a background and I get the sense someone is lying to me, and they ignore my requests to answer the questions truthfully, I will start digging deeper.  Usually it is not all that hard to find corroborating evidence in the person’s past; this evidence is not often good enough for probable cause, but sufficient to drop that person’s application in the shredder.

I also generally tell the applicants that state law requires them to pass a polygraph in order to get into the police academy.  Without getting into my reservations about the polygraph, I tell them that if the polygraph operator believes they are lying their application will go into the shredder.   

Sergeant1107 wrote on Dec 31^st, 2010 at 1:48am:


You didn't answer my question. 

the event is that I say the truth and give them an admission.

WannaBeCopper wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 7:10pm:


I don’t know to which “event” you are referring.

It is not an invasion of privacy if you are asked questions about criminal activity in your past on a job application to become a police officer.  There are volumes of laws regarding what questions employers can ask and what they can’t ask; this does not fall under the excluded questions.

However, if your personal philosophy is that no one needs to know anything about your past, for any reason, because it has no effect on who you are today, then you should feel confident in sharing that philosophy with the agencies at which you are applying.

It is disingenuous at best to lie about your past and claim you are doing so because you feel the questions shouldn’t be asked in the first place.  An honest person in the same circumstance would refuse to answer the questions rather than lie, and an honest and responsible person would be willing to accept whatever consequences came as a result of their decision.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 2:35pm:


I'm not scared about being caught. I won't be caught. I understand the process now. But you do make a good point. my question to you is - is it not possible that this event could be exaggerated? George states that this happens often in his book because polygraphers want to serve their own industry.

If someone tells you they''ve smoked pot 5 times you guess it somewhere around 20? and so fourth?

Couldn't this happen to me? the main problem I have with this is that I see it as an invasion of privacy. 

WannaBeCopper wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 7:52pm:


I am a police officer and I conduct background checks on police applicant.  The fact that you paid for sex at one point in your life means virtually nothing to me.  If it had happened yesterday, or if it had happened daily for the past twenty years, it would likely mean a bit more.  Since it was a rare occurrence and it happened long ago it would not adversely affect your application.

What would most definitely have a negative effect was if you lied about paying for sex.  Everyone, without exception, has made mistakes in their lives.  Responsible people admit their mistakes with candor, while irresponsible and immature people admit to what they think they will be caught lying about.

If you become a police officer someday would you prefer to work with honest cops, or with cops who only tell the truth when they think they will be caught in a lie?

For your info, Glavit, we are different people. I'm with secretive1. From what I've learned here. Admissions is a bad idea.

Glavlit wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 8:21pm:

True, but who would bother? We all know that all internet activity can be traced, even if you use an anonymous proxy.  But seriously, the only way the feds will come busting down your door is if you engage in criminal activity online (making threats, terrorist plots, or having a website like Wikileaks).  We are just a bunch of people ranting and raving about the polygraph, no criminal activity here, so no law enforcement is going to care to try to track each of us down.  There are millions of websites out there with discussions like this and worse.  The feds may read this site, but that's about it. 

Glavlit wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 8:21pm:

Exactly.  So?  This is synonymous with our justice system at work.  So I did the deed, but what should my punishment be?  First the polygraphers have to prove guilt, which can only come from a coercive confession. There is a reason polygraph charts are inadmissible in court, they are unreliable.  If I am guilty, polygraphers argue I should get a harsh sentence (i.e. no job offer), while my defense argues an insanity defense and I deserve a slap on the wrist (i.e. I get the job).  

Glavlit wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 8:21pm:

I can assure you that I am NOT WannaBeCopper.  If you don't believe me, then oh well.

Glavlit wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 8:21pm:

Ok, so actually I took a lifestyle polygraph with a government agency and PASSED, but turned down the offer for a higher-paying job in the private sector that didn't require me to report my personal international travel and every little private incident in my life.  On my polygraph, sexual deviance activity was not asked.  I was given a pre-polygraph screening, where they decided what areas to focus on for my poly.  My lifestyle poly questions were on crime and misuse of computers.  The counterintelligence portion was the usual foreign contacts and such.  Yes prostution and drug use is a crime, but they were more concerned with if I had robbed or killed someone.  That was it, they never honed in on sexual activity at all.  They did ask me if I looked at "explicit images" after the polygraph during the post-test/interrogation, to which I happily answered YES, I do look at porn!  Only normal straight porn at home and nothing illegal.  I wasn't ashamed and it is no big deal as they know everyone has looked at internet porn.  In my pysch evaluation I was asked during a series of questions if I ever used a prostitute and I answered NO and made a disgusting face, lol.  The shrink seemed convinced and we continued with the questioning.  That was the only time I was asked about prostitution.  And admitting to a less serious activity when grilled by polygraphers is a great strategy!  I admitted to pot use a few times (leaving out a few other times when I was alone) and they were content.  I admitted to speeding tickets and downloading music and it was no big deal, plus I had already disclosed this information to them previously.

Not everything can be traced despite Glavlit said.  If you were never arrested or caught in any way, then there is nothing in your police file and you are clean.  During a background check they will NOT go through your ATM transactions for the past several years and ask why you withdrew hundreds of dollars at 1am, lol.  They will NOT go through your phone records and ask you to verify every phone call you made.  All they do is ask your neighbors and friends about you.  So if your neighbors and friends don't know about what you did, they never smelled pot coming from your home, they never witnessed unusual traffic coming to and from your home, they didn't see you bring in numerous women into your home like some pimp (if you were smart, you went to the hooker's hotel and didn't bring her to your home), then you are fine.  

I'm willing to bet my life and a million dollars that your job will not find out about these things unless you tell them.  You don't deserve to be blackballed from your dream job for life because of a few past mistakes.  Forget about them and pretend they didn't happen.
DON'T CONFESS! DON'T CONFESS! DON'T CONFESS!

Quote:

First of all everything can be traced, including your posts, and someone will always know about it somewhere.

WannaBeCopper deleted his previous post (which was soon replaced by secretive1’s), which simply re-iterated his intention to cover up criminal activities from his very recent past, which he refers to as his “personal life”.

secretive1, you have not only admitted to several criminal acts, for which you are clearly not owning up to, nor taking responsibility for; instead you are choosing to cover up, excuse, rationalize, shift blame for, and deny your criminal past.

I’m wondering whether secretive1 is one and the same as WannaBeCopper.  I think this is a most likely and probably hypothesis.  In fact I think you both are one and the same.  I can only imagine what else will be uncovered during your polygraph session; that is, if you even get that far in the process.

Let me tell you some quick facts about your situation:      
(1) You have publicly admitted to criminal acts
(2) Worse yet, you are insisting about not only covering up your extensive criminal past, but also planning in detail about how to deceive your potential future employer
(3) You will not pass the security portion of your application, nor will you pass the psychological component
(4) You are not at all a good fit for law-enforcement, so you should do the right thing and call your recruiter and own up to your past indiscretions before it is too late for you to undo the damage you have already done.  Perhaps then you may be able to save and rehabilitate what’s left of your soul.
 
You may think you are all smart and know-it-all on the internet, but trust me when I tell you this, your interviewers will have a field day with you, and you will become the talk of the water-cooler if you insist on continuing in this direction of mendacity.  The only person you will really fool in the end is yourself, and your upcoming rejection will be all of your own doing.  Do the right thing now and put an end to this nonsense before it gets out of your control.

Quote:


This is what I'm saying. By admitting this and putting it on my file it just makes me look like an unreliable person. Even now, ppl see me as negative (on this website) because I am admitting to this mistake. I'm know just Wannabecoppper, but you see me as "wannabecopper that sleeps with prostitutes" and that status is not true. And that event in my life could be exaggerated by a polygrapher. I did it once and rather not be judged by it.

It's out of my mind as well and was YEARS ago. I learned from it and no one needs to know. It won't make the streets any safer.

pailryder wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 5:11pm:

Well the discussion forum side of it looks to be more of a discussion actually, which is what I was referring to.

Glavlit wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 12:06am:


And here I was thinking this site was simply devoted to the abolition of all polygraph.

I agree with WannaBeCopper.  I had sex with prostitutes before but there is no way I'm telling the polygraphers, or ANYONE about it.  Nobody knows, it was in the past, and I don't want it on my permanent file.  This is something I'll take to the grave.  I also fudged the number of times I smoked pot because I did it on several occasions by myself and nobody knows about it.  So I just confess the number of times I did it with friends.  Am I a liar, sure, fine.  But I want the job and my past life is of no business to the nosey polygraphers.  Besides, I don't smoke pot or sleep with hookers anymore and I've put it out of my mind.  In fact, I'm at the point where I have convinced myself that I never slept with these women-of-the-night so when I lie about it I feel I am telling the truth.   

WannaBeCopper is right, if nobody knows about it and it can not be traced, then don't mention it.  There is a fine line between honesty and personal privacy and the government always crosses that line.

WannaBeCopper wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2010 at 6:50pm:


This site is a discussion forum on various topics, including polygraphy.  It is designed as an outlet for fostering open discussion, and for promoting educational initiatives about such otherwise “mysterious” topics.  It is not meant to help job applicants cover up their past misbehaviours and misadventures.

If you ‘truly’ intend on going forward with intentionally lying and purposefully trying to hide real physical events from your past when directly asked about such real physical events; then you will be caught in the end.  The end result will be you getting essentially blacklisted from all future law-enforcement positions.  There is always more than one way to skin a cat; you eventually getting caught trying to hide your past has really nothing to do with the accuracy or validity of the polygraph.
  
I’m trying to help you help yourself not get banned from all positions in the future.  The irony of the situation is that you are planning to take actions that you think will help you get hired, but it is this very act of intentional deception that you are planning, which will seal your fate in the end.  They know people are not perfect and have made mistakes (and they allow for that), so what they really want to see is whether you can be trusted to tell the truth about yourself and your past (honesty and integrity); that is the real test and the true requirement that you must have.

Glavlit wrote on Dec 19^th, 2010 at 5:01am:


You sound like an interrogator who is trying to implant fear. You sound like people in George's book who promise that they can tell the truth when they really can't. 

Are you an interrogator?

I read the lie behind the lie detector.

From what I understand, if I'm totally honest I could risk failing. I also read that the interrogators won't know the truth unless I admit something to them and that admission could be used against me.

"Damaging admissions" will make me fail. I don't see the point in talking about something I did once 3 years ago that could be turned around to make me look like the wrong person for the job.

There are many examples of this in The Lie behind the lie detector.

"I called an escort once when I was drunk"

Could be

"Frequently calls prostitutes and takes part in illegal sex acts, sleeps with animals, too. " or something else that could hurt my chances.

Ethically I should be honest and I will be about past marijuana use. But If I can swallow this one, I rather do that. Don't see why something that happened in my sex life should go on the record. Isn't this the point of this website? to help people not get screwed by lie detector "tests"?

Well you sure do bring up a good point in terms of the apparent paradox during the polygraph examination. It is true that the test seems to be most effective on the naive subject. It is also true that some of the narrative employed and descriptions given during the early phases of the examination are not only scientifically inaccurate, and overly simplistic, but when carefully and logically examined in their totality, some of the things that are said and explained in the early part of the procedure can actually be found to logically contradict things said or explained in the latter parts of the examination.

I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that an educated subject, both in terms of academic and polygraph specifics, could become quite insulted, if not annoyed, by many of the items in the narrative passed off as “facts” or truths. In fact, I can imagine the possibility of some narratives or explanations being so simplistic, factually inaccurate, and totally misleading, that an educated subject might actually become very annoyed and quite hostile during the commencement of the procedure. So instead of rapport being established, what you get is a feeling of hostility. I don’t think anyone enjoys being essentially belittled and lied to.

So the ethical question is: If the interviewer thinks it is alright to misinform and essentially lie to the subject, then would it not be more likely that if this “game” becomes transparent, then rapport would be impossible to establish, and in fact the subject would me more likely to be less intent on cooperating and being friendly, due to this perceived personal insult brought on by the procedure itself? It’s as simple as the tit-for-tat principle, a measured response in kind to a measured stimulus (a repayment in kind).

Glavlit,

Polygraphs may be useful for eliciting admissions from the naïve and the gullible, but such utility is lost once the examinee understands the lie behind the lie detector. As we can assume WannaBeCopper does or will.

The polygraph instrument is not a tool. It's an interrogational prop. As retired FBI scientist and supervisory special agent Dr. Drew Richardson has put it, polygraph examiners are involved in the detection of deception to the same extent that one who leaps from a tall building is involved in flying.

WannaBeCopper should be candid about his background because it's the right thing to do. Not out of misplaced fear that he might be caught by the polygraph. Or by the bogey man.

Oh, and whether or not he chooses to tell the truth to his polygrapher, his polygrapher will lie to and otherwise attempt to deceive him about polygraphy. In every polygraph examination, there is at least one liar in the room: the polygraph operator.

George,

I do understand where you are coming from and cannot refute your points from a purely technical perspective. However, I do believe we are coming from somewhat different, but nonetheless important viewpoints. You are referencing technical points based on controlled ideal experiment type scenarios.

I however am talking about the real-life implementation of the art of polygraphy in a pre-employment type complex environment. Here are a few additional practical points that would reduce the significance of the accuracy/validity side of the technical machine/procedure debate:

1. The pre-employment polygraph is a holistic process taken as a whole, so for example out of a five hour interview session the subject would only be hooked up to the machine for about 20 minutes, and only at the end.

2. The charts alone do not decide the outcome; the interviewer/examiner submits a recommendation of whether a subject should continue on with processing, based on a holistic global overview and professional opinion of multiple factors, and of an overall impression; not because of any specific technical chart data. In other words, it is more subjective art, than science, just like a standard job interview.

3. The polygraph can be best used as a tool, akin to a magnifying glass, so help identify and zoom in on areas that might need to be looked at closer, and be further investigated. Thus, it is an invaluable tool for pre-employment screening purposes. 

Can you name any other screening tool that has been as effective at uncovering and flushing out information about applicants? 

Of course, different agencies and departments would use different procedures and methodologies, but the above were just a few points to keep in mind, which would apply to some of the agencies, at least some of the time.

In conclusion, the polygraph is just a toolset, just as a notepad and a pen are just tools, and in the hands of a seasoned interviewer, the use of this toolset does produce results, and does save money in the end; which is why it continues to be employed in sensitive domains.

Glavlit wrote on Dec 19^th, 2010 at 5:01am:


One doesn't have to go to spy school to learn how to beat a polygraph. Polygraph countermeasures are as simple as polygraph methodology is simplistic.

Quote:


While I think that applicants for positions of public trust have an ethical obligation to answer relevant questions truthfully, it should be noted that the primary technique used for pre-employment polygraph screening is based on the assumption that everyone, even people that the polygraphing agency would like to hire, will be less than completely truthful when answering the so-called "control" questions. In fact, the "total honesty" you advocate makes a false positive more likely, because the more honestly one answers the control questions, and as a result exhibits weaker physiological reactions when answering them, the more likely one is to fail.

Quote:


Any interrogator/interviewer who believes in polygraphy is indeed a fool.

Quote:


While I agree that WannaBeCopper should be candid about his background, the outcome of any future polygraph screening "test" to which he may be subjected has no direct correlation with whether or not he has told the truth.

Quote:


CQT polygraphy by its design (the built-in bias against the truthful that I mentioned above) can be expected to screen out the most honest applicants while favoring those who will most blatantly lie when answering the control questions. Whatever polygraph screening may be, it is no genuine test of the examinee's loyalty and reliability.

WannaBeCopper wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 3:35am:

Some of the documented official known instances of a polygraph interrogation/exam being successfully “beat” were in the cases of highly skilled operatives of the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (MfS)/Hauptverwaltung Aufklärung (HVA), and the Dirección General de Inteligencia (DGI). There might be other occasional occurrences, but in terms of the historical record, those two main key entities were alleged to be successful at “beating” it in an intentional, pre-planned and consistent manner. Remember, the actual instrumentation phase (when you are actually hooked up to the polygraph) is but a small component of the total examination/interrogation session.

The point I am trying to make to the original poster is that you are nowhere near that playing field, knowledge base, or skill level. So your best course of action is to be totally honest and to tell the whole complete truth, and nothing but the whole complete truth, and you shall be set free (you will feel better about yourself).

The interrogator/interviewer is experienced and is not a fool. Try to intentionally lie and you will be caught and blacklisted for life from all future possible law enforcement and security agency employment positions. If you tell the truth, the worse that could happen is that you might be delayed for a bit longer, but you will not face the risk of being blacklisted for life for dishonesty and attempted deception.

Do as you wish, but remember, you won’t be the first, not the last, to be caught and fail...and ultimately it’s all a test of loyalty and reliability, with your decisions reflecting highly on your ethics and reliability/security.

WannaBeCopper wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 5:09am:

No problem.
Just have the strength of character to tell the agencies to which you are applying that you don't believe things you may or may not have done in the past have any bearing on who you are today.  They will not agree with you, but if you truly believe what you wrote (and are not just rationalizing because you are too irresponsible and immature to own up to mistakes you may have made in the past) you should be okay with being denied a job so long as you stick to your pricincples.

Or you can just admit that you are wrong and that past behavior can and often does impact a person's current morals and ethics.  If you can admit that and you can accept responsibility for choices you made in the past you will be better off, regardless of whether you land the job you want.