You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.
This statement from Jeffrey Smith is interesting and downright scary:
He states If we had never begun to use the polygraph, a strong case could be made that we should now not start. But we already are using it, and it has proven to be a very valuable tool. It has directly led to valuable information in many investigations in cases involving both applicants for employment and current employees. It is also a significant deterrent.
So Mr. Smith, (an analogy) since we discriminated in the past (be it because of age, race, or sex), and because we have already done so and continue to do so, then we should not stop this otherwise harmful practice???? You state it is wrong, but in the same breath you say it should continue because we are already doing it??!??!?!?! Does that make it right to continue doing something that you yourself say is blatantly not accurate - I think not! Your argument is not logical.
In the same comments he states Our goal must be to make that cost in terms of innocent lives harmed zero. How can you do that, when you admit the machine is fallible? The only way to do this is to get rid of it.
Posted by: George W. Maschke Posted on: May 2nd, 2001 at 6:42pm
These are actually more than synopses, they are the written statements presented by four of the five people invited to testify at the Senate's 25 April 2001 hearing on "Issues Surrounding the Use of Polygraphs."
These statements, in addition those of Sen. Hatch, Sen. Leahy, Mark S. Zaid, and a written statement that I submitted for the record are available on AntiPolygraph.org at: