Kim Zetter reports for Politico that it was a tip from Russian computer security firm Kaspersky Lab that led to the identification and arrest of NSA contractor, hoarder of classified data, and polygraph beater Hal T. Martin III. Excerpt:

Quote:

quickfix wrote on Oct 8^th, 2016 at 7:30pm:



Thanks for your annotations, Auntie.
Of course, it is important to understand that the IC works in a world of "fantasy" and of obfuscation of facts.
That is why there are some contentious people on this site!

George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 7^th, 2016 at 9:55am:


Has it ever been determined what his motivations for stashing documents at home were?  This behavior would appear indicative of a "hoarding" or "pack rat" disorder, rather than espionage.   

Aunty Agony wrote on Oct 8^th, 2016 at 9:12pm:


Highly doubtful!   lol   

Aunty Agony wrote on Oct 13^th, 2016 at 1:57am:


Amen Aunty !!!!!!  Well stated.  What strikes me is that after every American schoolchild learns of the insanity of the Salem Witch Trials at the end of the 17th century there are millions of Americans who can not see that today's use of the polygraph is no different than what happened 300 + years ago in Massachusetts.  Scientists studying the polygraph would have the same challenge that scientists would have trying to prove that a person born with a clubbed foot was actually a prodigy of the devil.  One can't disprove it either even if one is a devout athiest.  Therein is the heart of the problem.  Both the witchburners and the polygraph examiners are dealing in a realm where nothing can be proven or dis-proven.  The occasional, and I do mean occasional, confession of someone who falls for this B.S. is all they have to hang their hat on.  Anyone who claims that a reaction to a relevant question can only be a lie and not caused by concern over failing a polygraph is the biggest liar of all time. 

Dan Mangan wrote on Oct 12^th, 2016 at 12:25am:

If by "legitimate scientists" you mean "persons who are legally permitted to label themselves as scientists", then yes, I'm sure there are a few BS and MS degrees among them. People take academic degrees for a variety of reasons, most of which have to do with living indoors and not starving. 

But if by "legitimate scientists" you mean "persons who truly practice science", then no, I've seen no evidence of that. (Uness you insist on allowing "scientist" to include "sometimes a scientist", that is, "person who might be practicing science somewhere else but is definitely not using science to study the polygraph as a lie detector".) 

Science is a rigidly defined and highly disciplined way of examining the world and making predictions about it. A necessary and important part of its discipline is not caring what answer you get. The instant you conceive a preference for one fact over another, you rip the foundations out of the whole process. 

But proponents of the polygraph as a lie detector need certain facts to be true; therefore there can be no true scientists among them. 

As far as experiments go, I'm sure any scientist could tell you how to answer the question, "Can the polygraph be used to tell if a person is lying?" 

The method is simple. Using data gathered in the field (where liars suffer real consequences), tally the number of subjects who pass and the number who fail. Independently, tally the number who were lying and the number who were honest. This would yield four categories:

Liar who passed (false negative)
Liar who failed (detected liar)
Honest who passed (detected honest)
Honest who failed (false positive)

(If the count of 'false negative' and 'false positive' is small, and the count of 'detected liar' and 'detected honest' is large, the test is good. If the ratio "false negative"/"detected honest" nearly matches the ratio "detected liar"/"false positive", the test is worthless.) 

The problem with this experiment is that the second independent observation, the number who were lying vs. the number who were honest, has never been done. Millions of public sector applicants have been subjected to "lie detector" based interrogations. No one -- no one -- knows how many of them were lying. 

Many polygraph proponents have put a number to the effectiveness claims for their methods, and attempted to support that number by correlating the pass-fail observation with some other observation. Invariably they are referring, one way or another, to the number of confessions obtained during the post-test interrogation. 

But the post-test confessions are an indicator only of the skill and rapaciousness of the examiner; the best interrogators can make their victims say anything. They are in no way an independent observation of whether the subject was lying or honest. These confessions are part of the test. 

I believe that building a picture of how many polygraph subjects have actually lied would be extremely difficult and would require a well-funded long-term study by some very patient and dedicated scientists. (Real scientists, not merely legitimate ones.) So far, no such body of data exists. 

So we have the first observation, the number who passed vs. the number who failed, but we have nothing to correlate it with. No claims about the effectiveness of the polygraph lie detector can be made without such a correlation. Any scientist would know this and would not venture to make such a claim. 

Anyone who says the effectiveness of the lie detector has been measured is wrong. Anyone who says he is a scientist and also says the effectiveness of the lie detector has been measured is a liar. 

Now, another necessary and important part of science discipline is not lying. So to answer your question: No, there are no scientists among the APA's home-grown researchers and cargo-cult statisticians. 

Aunty, in your world model, are the APA's home-grown researchers and statisticians legitimate scientists?

Dan Mangan wrote on Oct 11^th, 2016 at 9:39am:

I guarantee you that Dan Mangan and Chad Dixon occupy very different localities in Aunty's world model.

Aunty Agony wrote on Oct 11^th, 2016 at 4:53am:


Aunty, let me be clear: I do not teach, coach or provide advice on countermeasures.

As a full member of the American Polygraph Association, I serve primarily as a polygraph consultant and examiner who strives to preemptively reduce victimization by educating consumers -- both primary and secondary -- about the risks, realities and limitations of the polygraph "test."

I continue to administer polygraph "tests" in select cases, and conduct QA reviews of polygraph exams. 

Perhaps you had me confused with Chad Dixon?

Aunty,

The same thought occurred to me, and I suspect Elizabeth Martin has already been questioned regarding what information about polygraphy she imparted to her ex-husband, Hal.

George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 10^th, 2016 at 5:45am:

All references to Hal Martin describe him as independently curious, and deeply interested in detecting pathologies such as PTSD via direct histological examination of a patient's behavior -- the same techniques used by military and police interrogators, and so crudely mechanized by the polygraph. 

Martin's ex-wife Elizabeth is a formidible person who served in military and civilian police, and in 1996 became a highly trained and thoroughly certified polygrapher.  I can't find when they were divorced but she evidently had at least some contact with him until 1999. 

This means he had roughly three years to pump her about how the polygraph works. 

If they were on speaking terms, and as she had no reason to suspect he might someday so spectacularly shatter government security protocols, she probably shared so much information with him that he could have written another How To Sting The Polygraph or even The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. 

So -- he had no need for his own Doug Williams or Dan Mangan -- just pillow talk.

Aunty Agony wrote on Oct 10^th, 2016 at 3:36pm:


And that's what convicted felon Dougy will have slopped on to his tray for dinner in the prison chow hall!

I cannot help wondering how much overlap there is between the security violations of Harold T. Martin III and the similar security violations of Hilary R. Clinton. 

As far as we know, neither miscreant harbored treasonous intent nor expected to profit from the activity; and in neither case is the breach known to have caused significant harm to the United States nor given aid or comfort to its enemies. 

Quote:

Correct. 

Only the indictment itself is a true bill of the facts.  All other announcements, press releases, and blog postings from John Schwartz (CBP), Fred Ball (CBP), Leslie Caldwell (DOJ), Brian Kidd (DOJ), James Finch (FBI), or quickfix are steaming piles of digested grass. 

Aunty Agony wrote on Oct 8^th, 2016 at 7:00pm:

quickfix wrote on Oct 8^th, 2016 at 7:30pm:

Aunty Agony wrote on Oct 8^th, 2016 at 9:12pm:

quickfix wrote on Oct 10^th, 2016 at 11:50am:

So you agree with me, then. 

As I said, Aunty just likes to keep the public record accurate. 

The New York Times, citing unnamed government officials reports that Martin had been taking home classified materials since the late 1990s. So 1999 would be the no-later-than date for his mishandling of classified information:

Quote:


According to the same article, Martin began working for NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton in 2009. The Daily Beast reports that Martin worked for the NSA's highly compartmented Tailored Access Operations unit. It's a safe bet that Martin was required to pass a polygraph examination in connection with his NSA contract work, and this would be after having hoarded classified documents for a decade.

Can someone tell me what exactly did Doug do that constitutes witness tampering and mail fraud?  What do those chargea have to do with teaching people how to pass a poly?  It seems that if teaching how to pass a poly was a crime, Doug would have been charged with that.  Hence, teaching poly beating is not a crime, correct?

George, the operative word here is "suppose";  do you know for sure it was 1999?  Do you know for sure Martin took a polygraph with NSA (or anyone else), and if so, was it after he began rat-holing classified material or before?  Polygraph cannot predict future actions, only verify actions taken in the past.  Media reports are not always initially complete or accurate.

On another topic, perhaps you should explain to Aunty Agony that Mail Fraud and Witness Tampering are the federal crimes that Doug Williams pleaded guilty to, since he/she can't seem to/doesn't want to read the DOJ press release I posted above.

Quickfix,

How do you suppose Hal Martin, who reportedly had been collecting classified documents at his home since 1999, was able to pass a polygraph screening test?

quickfix wrote on Oct 9^th, 2016 at 3:58pm:

Well, I wouldn't know from reading that post.  It's just a mendacious announcement from the Department of Justice describing some of Doug's actions and ineptly trying to pretend that they are all crimes. 

If you don't know the answer, its all right to just say you don't know the answer. 

To what crime did Doug Williams plead guilty? 

The title of the article in the link above that quickfix posted is misleading. It says down the page that Doug pled guilty to mail fraud and witness tampering. There is no crime against teaching how to beat the poly. Thats good news. I'm going to start telling people how to beat it too.  Put polygraphers out of business, like that asshole quickfix.

Is the answer Mail Fraud and Witness tampering?  It sounds like Aunty is right.  Teaching how to beat the poly is not a crime. The feds had to come up with some other charges to get Doug.   

Can someone explain exactly what Doug did that constitutes Mail Fraud and Witness Tampering?

if you did your homework YOU would already know.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/owner-polygraphcom-sentenced-two-years-prison-tra...

quickfix wrote on Oct 9^th, 2016 at 1:29pm:


No, it isn't.  The post describes the second day of the trial, during which the crime was not named. 

If you don't know the answer, just say you don't know the answer. 

To what crime did Doug Williams plead guilty? 

Doug Williams wrote on Oct 9^th, 2016 at 7:45am:


You mean your crime, not your quest, cockroach.  Now get back to your cell, visiting hours are over.