A Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public
by George W. Maschke
25 February 2003

Paul M. Menges, a federal polygraph examiner and instructor who currently teaches the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute's countermeasure course, argues in a recent article titled "Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public" (Polygraph, Vol. 31 [2002], No. 4, pp. 254-262), that publicly making available such information is unethical and concludes with the suggestion that it should be outlawed. The present article is a response to Mr. Menges' arguments. Since Polygraph, the quarterly publication of the American Polygraph Association, is not readily available to most members of the public, I will begin by citing the abstract of Mr. Menges' article:

Quote:

Polygraph or Forensic Psychophysiology is an art-science not well understood by the general public. Defended by law enforcement and intelligence agencies as a valuable investigative tool and castigated by others as intrusive and unscientific, polygraph has in recent years come under increasing fire from a vocal minority. Using the technology of the day, the Internet, polygraph opponents are attempting to further their stated goal, the abolishment of polygraph as a viable investigative aid to law enforcement and national security. In addition to questioning the scientific basis for and legitimacy of polygraph practices, some polygraph opponents have gone a step further to advocate the use of countermeasures to defeat polygraph examinations. Indeed, some argue that even innocent subjects need to employ countermeasures in order to be deemed innocent by examiners (Maschke & Scalabrini, 2000; Williams, 2000). The Constitution of the United States provides all citizens with the right of free speech. We enjoy the freedom to challenge government policies and to openly debate issues. However, bounds have been set by our society to protect individuals and the greater good for all citizens. Polygraph is scientifically valid and a tremendous investigative tool available to law enforcement and security personnel of this country. Efforts to openly subvert its use by advocating use of and providing countermeasures training and information to all subjects, regardless of innocence or guilt, run counter to the best interests of society and public safety. These efforts, while currently not illegal, cross the bounds of ethical conduct and present a threat to public safety and good order in society. The time has come to confront this threat by alerting the public to these efforts that aid guilty parties who threaten society, public safety, and quite possibly our national security.

Although in many places, Menges speaks of "polygraph opponents" in general, it is clear that he refers mainly to AntiPolygraph.org. Thus, Menges' assertion that "(u)sing the technology of the day, the Internet, polygraph opponents are attempting to further their stated goal, the abolishment of polygraph as a viable investigative aid to law enforcement and national security" stands in need of clarification. AntiPolygraph.org's "stated goal" is not the abolishment of polygraphy "as a viable investigative aid to law enforcement and national security." We consider polygraphy to be neither valid nor viable, and we simply seek its abolishment.

Menges states that "some polygraph opponents have gone a step further to advocate the use of countermeasures to defeat polygraph examinations." AntiPolygraph.org does not advocate the use of countermeasures "to defeat polygraph examinations." Our suggestion to anyone suspected of a crime has always been (and remains) to refuse to submit to polygraphic interrogation. With regard to polygraph screening, we have never advocated that anyone use countermeasures to "defeat" a polygraph examination. Nor have we made the argument attributed to us by Menges that "even innocent subjects need to employ countermeasures in order to be deemed innocent by examiners." Rather, we have simply suggested countermeasures as a possible strategy for protecting oneself against a false positive outcome.

Menges asserts, without support, that "(p)olygraph is scientifically valid...." We strongly disagree. As explained in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources cited therein, polygraphy -- lacking both standardization and meaningful control -- is pseudoscience. It is not a valid diagnostic technique, and the majority of psychophysiologists do not agree that it is based on scientifically sound psychological principles or theory.

Thus, we see that Menges' conclusions regarding the ethics of making information regarding countermeasures available to the public proceed from a misunderstanding of AntiPolygraph.org's actions, arguments, and objectives, and from a mistaken belief in the validity of polygraphy. These false premises are also evident in the opening paragraph of Menges' article, where he states, "This paper will address the question, Is it ethical to provide information to and assist guilty individuals who attempt to defeat a legitimate, legal, publicly accepted, ethical procedure used by law enforcement and national security agencies?" By framing the question in these prejudicial terms, Menges foreordains his desired conclusion(s).

It should also be noted that Menges adopts a different definition of "countermeasures" than does AntiPolygraph.org. For Menges, "(c)ountermeasures refer to deliberate attempts by a guilty person to preclude the accurate outcome of a testing process." By contrast, in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, AntiPolygraph.org defines countermeasures simply as "deliberate techniques that may be used to 'pass' a polygraph interrogation," without regard to guilt or innocence.

In his discussion of AntiPolygraph.org, Menges states that The Lie Behind the Lie Detector "contains advice regarding countermeasures to be employed to defeat polygraph examinations," insinuating that our motivation in making this information available is to assist the guilty rather than to help the innocent to protect themselves against the random error associated with an invalid test. Menges goes on to state that "indications are that the focus will be expanded to any psychometric testing technique which attempts to provide insight to an employer or security agency." Menges bases this conclusion on a message titled How to pass a Rorschach test that I posted to the "Off-topic Posts" forum of the AntiPolygraph.org message board. Contrary to Menges' suggestion, AntiPolygraph.org is not opposed to psychometric testing per se. But we are opposed to pseudoscience, of which the Rorschach (ink blot) "test" is a good example (and one that shares some features in common with polygraphy). Our focus remains polygraphy.

Menges also makes much of a 17 November 2001 report by New York Times correspondent David Rohde titled, "In 2 Abandoned Kabul Houses, Some Hints of Al Qaeda Presence," in which Rohde reports that documents seized in two Kabul houses formerly used  by members of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization included Arabic language instructions on how to pass lie detector tests. Menges wonders aloud, "What ethical justification would suffice for these polygraph opponents, if the document found was The Lie Behind the Lie Detector or How to Sting the Polygraph!" Menges even goes so far as to suggest that the respective authors of these documents might be guilty of sedition or even treason, though he allows that this is a matter that "will be left to attorneys to argue."

What Menges seemingly fails to realize is that the information on polygraphy and polygraph countermeasures in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is information that any interested person could have obtained by reviewing the open source literature on polygraphy, much of it published by the polygraph community itself. By Menges' logic, the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, the American Polygraph Association, and various scholarly journals and publishing houses might also be guilty of some crime.

As it turns out, the Al Qaeda document found in Kabul was probably neither The Lie Behind the Lie Detector nor "How to Sting the Polygraph!" An Arabic-language Al-Qaeda document titled Mawsu'at al-jihad (Encyclopedia of Jihad) includes a section on "Devices Used in Interrogation" and is likely the document that Rohde encountered. (An English-language translation
of this passage is available on AntiPolygraph.org.)

Menges maintains that "(t)he issue of whether countermeasures are or can be effective in defeating a polygraph examination is moot to the main point of this article." Hardly. If Menges did not believe that countermeasures can be effective, then there would have been little point in his having written the article. (Nor would the American Polygraph Association have had much reason to publish such an article.) Indeed, it is hard to conceive that Menges would have gone so far as to imply that Mr. Scalabrini and I might be guilty of sedition or treason for making such information publicly available if he did not believe that such can be effective.

Menges shrugs off the issue of false positives and false negatives associated with polygraphy by noting that "all forms of psychometric assessment are subject to varying false positive and false negative rates." So what? Menges asserts that "(a)ny competent professional conducting psychometric assessments is aware of the limitations and capablilities of the technique in use." But the polygraph community is unable to state the sensitivity and specificity of any particular polygraph technique for any particular application.

Discussing the ethical issue of examiner deception, Menges states, "(a)nother issue of contention for some is their claim that the examiner is deceptive, therefore, the examinee is ethically justified in employing countermeasures to defeat the examination." (Again, Menges wrongly implies that polygraph opponents advocate the circumvention of polygraph "tests" by the guilty, a recurring theme in his article.) But Menges fails to confront the fact that even without the use of card tricks during the "pre-test" phase, polygraphy remains fundamentally dependent on deception, as explained in detail in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. It is not hard to understand why polygraph advocates would be inclined to sweep the issue of polygrapher deception under the rug, but it is a key concern that must be candidly considered in any meaningful discussion of the ethics of providing polygraph countermeasure information to the public.

While Menges makes other arguments that may be worthy of commentary, I will conclude this response with an examination of the most alarming portion of his article, that is, his suggestions regarding how polygraph examiners should confront the public availability of countermeasure information. After citing several examples from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case law where certain information about polygraphy was deemed exempt from disclosure, Menges argues:

Quote:

In spite of the FOIA exemption to preclude release of such information from government offices, there is no legal statute precluding individuals from selling and or freely providing polygraph countermeasures information, as do Williams (2000) and Maschke & Scalabrini (2000), respectively. Arguments and laws against allowing individuals to provide countermeasures information with the intent of subverting long standing and appropriately promulgated law enforcement efforts might appear to be a violation of constitutional rights. On the surface this position appears to argue against the constitutional guarantee of free speech. In the United States we live in a society governed by laws intended to protect the rights of individual citizens, while protecting the greater good, that of society as a whole. The U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to contain protections for individuals and society as a whole. The Preamble to the Constitution clearly addresses the intent to insure justice for all, promote the general welfare, and insure domestic tranquility in the land (The Constitution, 1787). Under The Constitution, one may have a right to freely express opinions on an issue and even work for legislation to outlaw the offensive practice. But to take actions that subvert legitimate law enforcement practices, the result of which could threaten public safety and or national security, violates all principles of ethics and can, in some cases, be illegal. Providing polygraph countermeasures to guilty persons facing law enforcement or national security polygraph examinations is unethical, clearly attempts to obstruct justice, and should be stopped.

Menges proceeds thence to suggest "alternatives" for both polygraph opponents and supporters, concluding his article thus:

Quote:

Alternatives for those opposing the use of polygraph as an investigative aid or personnel security screening tool are obvious. Opposition can be dropped; it can continue in a form limited to all current forms of opposition, short of advocating and providing countermeasures to prospective examinees; or it can continue in its current form, which includes actions to help guilty persons attempt to defeat the efforts of society to maintain law and order. For those supporting the use of polygraph, the alternatives are equally obvious. Current efforts by the anti-polygraph movement, including the providing of countermeasures information to the general public, can be ignored; they can be countered with efforts by examiners and professional polygraph organizations to engage the opposition in constructive dialogue to address the issue of aiding guilty parties; or a broader based initiative can be attempted by polygraph proponents. The latter alternative would have polygraph proponents contribute toward furthering the science by openly engaging in legitimate discussions with those entrusted to publicly scrutinize the process such as the National Academy of Sciences (National Academy of Sciences, 2001). Ethical principles like veracity, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence would be well served by mitigating or removing the threat to society posed by providing countermeasures information to the general public and guilty parties, in particular. Additionally, all would benefit from the increased research and experimentation certain to be generated by such discourse and scrutiny. The desired end result would be a termination of the current attitude regarding providing countermeasures information to the public, possibly through legislative action indended to make the providing of specific countermeasures information illegal. The latter alternative for the proponents would do much to further the resolution of the primary issue. Opponents could continue to exercise their constitutional rights to criticize, debate, research, and openly oppose the use of polygraph. Concerns for the fate of an innocent subject who fails to resolve all issues during the process is legitimate and worthy of continued attention. Few organizations can afford to miss out on a competent employment candidate. However, society must set the bounds of acceptable actions, whether involving national security clearance cases or cases where an applicant will have access to unprotected young children in a day-care center. In the final analysis, access is a privilege guarded by society, not an inalienable right.

I fully endorse Menges' suggestion that polygraph examiners and professional organizations might engage in constructive dialogue with polygraph opponents. Toward that end, I invite Mr. Menges and any others who may be interested in the issues he has raised to discuss them on the AntiPolygraph.org message board, where a message thread has been started for this purpose. In addition, AntiPolygraph.org would be happy to arrange for speakers to discuss or debate these and other polygraph issues with polygraph advocates in other public fora (preferably in front of a television camera and a live audience).

But it is clear that such constructive dialogue is not Menges' preferred alternative. His call for "a broader based initiative" is a euphemism for the criminalization of public speech on the subject of polygraph countermeasures and the banning of books such as The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. I will leave discussion of the civil liberties implications of such a proposal for another day. Suffice it to note for now that if the polygraph community is so fearful of countermeasure information that it would have it made a speech crime, then perhaps countermeasures are more effective and more difficult to detect than the polygraph community has heretofore been willing to acknowledge.

Mr. Menges, if you should succeed in criminalizing public speech regarding polygraph countermeasures, then after you've put me in jail and seized my computer, don't forget to burn the archival copy of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector that has been deposited with the Library of Congress.

George
Your certainly waxing eloquent on this post, if somewhat overlong.
I guess the original concern that I had when first visiting this site is indeed shared by others, and while you are careful now to get in print your disagreement with helping criminals, you know that your information could easily do so.( you were not as concerned in your book) I have always felt the overriding goal of your (and others) cause here was more focused on retribution than social justice- of course no one can prove someones intent if merely exercising speech. And as regrettable as it was chris and fair chance did not get hired, I bet if I was a fly on the wall during those applicant processes, I would of seen where things were starting to go wrong and need clarification.  Applicants get saved that way, usually from themselves- I have seen it so many times.
And incidentially, a partner of mine is currently undergoing FBI selection.  He had to repeat his initial polygraph, was successful and is going to background.  While one persons experiences should not be given too much weight, he states that he has been handled professionally and ethically.  Maybe the FBI is learning.
Since you received volume 31 of Polygraph, you should comment on an old theme of ours, espionage and polygraph.  Any comments on Sullivan's book?
Since Im rambling, lets talk about countermeasures.  My sister agency recently showed me charts that contained some of the Chapter 4 information you put out for those innocents wishing to "pass" a polygraph.  Without being too specific, I will just say that this applicant was confronted with his results and given an opportunity to re-test.  Do you have any idea how difficult it is (for the average applicant) to duplicate a contrived breathing pattern over 2 different examinations, conducted on different days? This applicant did not try, and resorted to other just as obvious means. The great physiological disparity, reaction to the relevants, combined with excerpts from the anti-polygraph literature, without an admission- no job.
Now, you will write that we dont know for certain, and probably made another ghastly mistake, depriving the LE community of valuable cannon fodder, I will say that your often repeated theme of "no admissions" is hurting applicants.
Specifically, many applicants under report certain issues.  We all can accept that this happens, obviously applicants want to look good- and since local law enforcement does not publish arbitrary standards (around here anyway) they dont know what the agency thinks is acceptable or desirable.  So the application if filled out, and events are under reported.  If the test was given immediately, many would fail (like the FBI) because time is not spent in clarifying responses. In contrast to what you wrote, such admissions given before a polygraph are treated by my agency as a part of the application process.  It is not considered deception to modify an original answer on hiring paperwork.  When the test is given, applicants should not have hidden issues or concerns and have been treated fairly. Some honest souls take advantage of this, others do not and routinely fail.  They also routinely admit what they were hiding.  I know this bores you because you do not believe that the polygraph can make such a distinction, but it does.
I will now return to where I came, since depriving applicants and others of thier rights is an exacting and tedious affair!
Fair chance? have you secured meaningful employment yet?

The_Breeze wrote on Feb 25^th, 2003 at 7:58pm:

I guess the original concern that I had when first visiting this site is indeed shared by others, and while you are careful now to get in print your disagreement with helping criminals, you know that your information could easily do so

Let's call this 'Assertion One'


Quote:

Since Im rambling, lets talk about countermeasures.  My sister agency recently showed me charts that contained some of the Chapter 4 information you put out for those innocents wishing to "pass" a polygraph.  Without being too specific, I will just say that this applicant was confronted with his results and given an opportunity to re-test.  Do you have any idea how difficult it is (for the average applicant) to duplicate a contrived breathing pattern over 2 different examinations, conducted on different days? This applicant did not try, and resorted to other just as obvious means. The great physiological disparity, reaction to the relevants, combined with excerpts from the anti-polygraph literature, without an admission- no job.

And 'Assertion Two'.

So, on the one hand George and Gino's book is aiding and abetting those nasty criminals, and on the other hand the countermeasures propounded within that book are easily detected on the charts. Hmm.. yeah...

Didn't Momma Breeze ever say you can't have your cake and eat it too?

Breeze -- welcome back.



The_Breeze wrote on Feb 25^th, 2003 at 7:58pm:

George Your certainly waxing eloquent on this post, if somewhat overlong. I guess the original concern that I had when first visiting this site is indeed shared by others, and while you are careful now to get in print your disagreement with helping criminals, you know that your information could easily do so.( you were not as concerned in your book) I have always felt the overriding goal of your (and others) cause here was more focused on retribution than social justice- of course no one can prove someones intent if merely exercising speech. And as regrettable as it was chris and fair chance did not get hired, I bet if I was a fly on the wall during those applicant processes, I would of seen where things were starting to go wrong and need clarification.  Applicants get saved that way, usually from themselves- I have seen it so many times.

Breeze,
I have long felt, based on your statements here, that you have an above-average appreciation for the polygraph's shortcomings, and your department takes measures to protect people from those shortcomings that are not necessarily in common use.

I know you'll not be surprised by my disagreement regarding countermeasure effectiveness, so I won't rehash it in detail here.  Suffice it to say that, despite the near-certainty that some subjects have employed countermeasures in some way that was particularly obvious, there remains no bona-fide scientific evidence that such is the norm, or that some characteristic of the charts produced by countermeasures is consistently distinguishable from "genuine" physical reaction.

And as Dave quite rightly pointed out, countermeasures cannot be both ineffective and a threat.

Again, welcome back.
Skeptic

I think Mr. Menges might do well to review the purpose of the First Amendment. His interpretation seems most similar to the way the old Soviet Union used to interpret their constitutional rights (and the way Cuba still does). I used to chuckle at that concept of "freedom" whereas it seems Mr Mendes embraces it.

I suspect the legislative hearings that would occur around such an attempt to prohibit this information would be most unwelcome by the polygraph community. It would expose more bluntly it's own high failure rates and ethicial issues that are simply not well known today, even by many lawmakers.  Probably they would prefer some sort of prohibition by decree. This wouldn't expose their soft underbelly. Sure, a decree might be constitutionally dubious, but hey, if it promotes the general welfare......

-Marty

The_Breeze wrote on Feb 25^th, 2003 at 7:58pm:

Fair chance? have you secured meaningful employment yet?

Dear Breeze,

Welcome back to the discussion.  Is this a trick question (my ego would always like to think that I have been employed in meaningful ways!)?  I am still sipping my Starbucks coffee.

As before, I cannot lecture about any polygraph subject except FBI pre-employment polygraph usage.  I know that you disagree with non-specific random pre-screening usage of the polygraph.

You have stated that you agree with polygraph videotaping and providing copies of strips as necessary.  Many will argue that this does not enhance the validity of polygraph but I believe that this will enhance the professional conduct of all involved: protecting the examiner and examinee from unjust accusations, unethical behavior, and confirmation of confessions or lack of.  This is something that the polygraph profession can do immediately at very little cost.

I hope that as you continue your discussions, everyone will try their best to be civil.

Regards

In a conversation today with a federal law enforcement agent, this thread was the topic.  In particular, the last comment made by George about burning the copy on file, this agent responded:

"I want to see someone try to come into MY house and take MY copy of The Lie Behind The Lie Detector.  I bet they change their toon when they meet my gun in their ear."

I would like to see how they would suppose to destroy all copies that are in existence.  Would they in fact start with the ones on their own shelves?  Or better yet, just try and remove them from their esteemed brothers in arms.  

Regards,

Seeker wrote on Feb 26^th, 2003 at 2:00am:

In a conversation today with a federal law enforcement agent, this thread was the topic.  In particular, the last comment made by George about burning the copy on file, this agent responded: "I want to see someone try to come into MY house and take MY copy of The Lie Behind The Lie Detector.  I bet they change their toon when they meet my gun in their ear." I would like to see how they would suppose to destroy all copies that are in existence.  Would they in fact start with the ones on their own shelves?  Or better yet, just try and remove them from their esteemed brothers in arms.   Regards,

Wouldn't they also need to destroy all copies of Doug Williams' book, Lykken's book, and quite a few others?

Skeptic

Boy....and you guys have spoken....repeatedly I might add.....about paranoia?   Here they come boys.....lock the doors and stand at the ready!  Are you kidding me....tell me this is just "funning"

Torpedo wrote on Feb 26^th, 2003 at 2:41am:

Boy....and you guys have spoken....repeatedly I might add.....about paranoia?   Here they come boys.....lock the doors and stand at the ready!  Are you kidding me....tell me this is just "funning"

Mostly.  I think it's pretty unlikely, too.  But given the current political climate, not out of the question (not the "book burning" part -- outlawing distribution of countermeasure information).

Skeptic

Torpedo wrote on Feb 26^th, 2003 at 2:41am:

Boy....and you guys have spoken....repeatedly I might add.....about paranoia?   Here they come boys.....lock the doors and stand at the ready!  Are you kidding me....tell me this is just "funning"

Yes, Torpedo.  Humor is something that the FBI doesn't allow within their agency.  The fine agent that I quoted is with a less rigid agency.
Regards,

Dear George,

Mr. Menges’ piece is alarming given the ominous, Orwellian quality of Patriot act II.  If you haven’t read about this secretly drafted legislation that guts the Constitution as we know it, you can read about it here:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20030217.html

Or simply go to Google and request information on “Patriot II.”

If you are being accused of providing countermeasure information to terrorists by Mr. Menges, or anyone else for that matter, the government might infer that you are being disloyal to the US, hence you could be forced to renounce your citizenship.   That’s right.  If this legislation gets shoved through like Patriot 1 did, people who have supported a group the attorney general designates "terrorist" would be subject to having their citizenship revoked... No crime need be asserted, no proof need be offered. Patriot II would authorize secret arrests in terrorism investigations -- and it would strip citizenship from Americans for their political associations.

We are fortunate that this legistration draft has come to light. Otherwise, the administration probably would have revealed it only after it began its war with Iraq, when political opposition would be inhibited by support for our troops. The proposals would not help our war with Iraq, but they would help our government cover up its mistakes. Mistakes such as relying upon the polygraph at all, knowing it is not a valid method to detect the truth,  knowing that every recruit for the CIA or FBI will do research and come upon this web site, therefore will MAKE NO ADMISSIONS.
.
It is frightening to think that our leaders would try to undermine our civil liberties through a cynical manipulation of public opinion in time of war.  That they would attempt to do so seems ludicrous.  But as oft’ said, it’s  a different world since 9/11.  

[quote author=Lurking Woman
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20030217.html

It is frightening to think that our leaders would try to undermine our civil liberties through a cynical manipulation of public opinion in time of war.  That they would attempt to do so seems ludicrous.  But as oft’ said, it’s  a different world since 9/11.
[/quote]

Lurking Woman:

Indeed this proposed nonsense is frightening!  I live in fear of such horrific laws being enacted.  

When I was growing up we feared war with Russia, and I recall being directed to hide under a desk during drills done at school.  Today, my son faces a greater fear -- one of being taken away to some undisclosed location, being detained without charges, and finding himself lost in a system that has become to have the appearance of something other than the democracy that we believed it was.  I wish I could comfort him with that desk to hide under.  In reality the crawling under a desk would have provided no protection at all, but as a young teen, it sure seemed to us like it would.  That sense of security, no matter how futile it was, helped a lot of us go on about our day without fear. For young teens like my son, I don't know what sense of security we can offer them to allow them to go on about their day without fear. With such insanity as the proposed Patriot II, I am certain nothing will allay their fears.

Breeze,

You write in part:


Quote:

Since you received volume 31 of Polygraph, you should comment on an old theme of ours, espionage and polygraph.  Any comments on Sullivan's book?

See the message thread, Of Spies and Lies - New Book by Ex-CIA Polygrapher. I'd be happy to discuss the book further there, but I'd like to keep this message thread substantively on the topic of Mr. Menges article: the ethical considerations of providing polygraph countermeasures to the public.

THE_BREEZE


Quote:

I guess the original concern that I had when first visiting this site is indeed shared by others, and while you are careful now to get in print your disagreement with helping criminals, you know that your information could easily do so.

First:

The polygraph community is clearly on record that countermeasures are ineffective and a waste of time. Based on that assumption, why do you care if countermeasures are taught? Why do you care if someone sold snake oil or herbal remedies to beat a polygraph? If countermeasure are not effective, you have nothing to worry about. In fact if such countermeasures are ineffective, they would augment the polygraphers ability to detect deception and someone trying to sneak something past the almighty “grapher.” You and your flying monkeys should be giggling over the stupidity of countermeasures. The reason your not laughing is because you know they are effective.

Second:

You elude to countermeasure assisting the criminal. I interpret that as your acknowledgement that countermeasures are effective. Thank you for your admission.

The people who help criminals are polygraph examiners who believe the results are accurate. It is you who are a threat to society and national security. You attend a course on polygraph examinations and suddenly you are an expert in human physiology. Give me a break.

The polygraph has allowed molesters to continue molesting and spies to keep on spying.

As a police officer and a criminal investigator, I curse any investigator who makes a decision solely based on polygraph results.  The polygraph is nothing more than a technical looking prop to be used during an interview/interrogation to solicit admission and confessions. Whether it is a polygraph, CVSA, microwave oven or a copy machine, it make no difference. To use the results of a polygraph for any type of decision is reckless and slander.

Nothing is more pathetic than a bunch of Detectives waiting for the polygrapher to exit the exam room and ask, “Did he do it?” The question should be, “Did he admit to it.”  

People have been using countermeasure long before “The Lie Behind the Lie Detector” came out.  

Criminals and sex offenders have been using countermeasures for years. They are still in our communities because they were certified by some polygrapher that they were not deceptive and should be eliminated from suspicion.

You cannot blame a criminal for using any means possible to beat the system. I blame the polygraph for allowing him/her the opportunity to beat the system. I believe the saying “garbage in – garbage out” best applies to the polygraph.

Any criminal or spy who wanted to beat the polygraph has been doing so for years. Antipolygraph.org has only provided a forum for discussion.  

So please, stop pointing the patriotic finger at Antipolygraph.org and re-focus it on yourself saying, “I am the problem.”  



Quote:

And incidentially, a partner of mine is currently undergoing FBI selection.  He had to repeat his initial polygraph, was successful and is going to background.  While one persons experiences should not be given too much weight, he states that he has been handled professionally and ethically.  Maybe the FBI is learning.

He probably used countermeasures. The only person who will know if he did will be him. You and I both know the examiner can’t.



Quote:

Since I’m rambling, lets talk about countermeasures.  My sister agency recently showed me charts that contained some of the Chapter 4 information you put out for those innocents wishing to "pass" a polygraph.  Without being too specific, I will just say that this applicant was confronted with his results and given an opportunity to re-test.  Do you have any idea how difficult it is (for the average applicant) to duplicate a contrived breathing pattern over 2 different examinations, conducted on different days? This applicant did not try, and resorted to other just as obvious means. The great physiological disparity, reaction to the relevants, combined with excerpts from the anti-polygraph literature, without an admission- no job.

Look, here you try to come across as the knowledgeable law enforcement official (anonymous I might add). You might be real impressive with wannabe cops, but save it buddy. After your contradictorily statements of how countermeasures don’t work and then turning around saying how easily you can detect them, coupled with your anonymity, you have no credibility. Speaking of credibility, by chance do you have a Ph.D also?

Countermeasures work and because they can manipulate the test, you are placing the lives of fellow law enforcement officer in jeopardy by allowing these people into this profession. Antipolygraph.org is not allowing them into the profession. You are by providing the fallacy that you can detect deception.  

Unfortunately, the polygraph situation is going to have to get worse before it gets better. As more spies and other criminals are eventually captured using legitimate investigative techniques and their polygraphs are researched, the public will continually hear about how they beat the tests with countermeasures.

This house of cards will eventually fall.


Quote:

have you secured meaningful employment yet?

I am not sure what you meant by this, apparently some type of failed personal dig. Knowing George, I unfortunately don’t understand where you are coming from.  But having already established your lack of credibility, no further understanding of your ignorance is necessary.

Countermeasures work and have been around for years. Antipolygraph.org only allows for a forum for discussion. If countermeasure didn’t work, Paul Menges, wouldn’t be writing about it and you wouldn’t be trying to use the, “Your teaching the criminals card.”


Quote:

I will now return to where I came

Good idea

Quote:

The people who help criminals are polygraph examiners who believe the results are accurate. It is you who are a threat to society and national security.

Bill, well said. Let's not forget the other polygraphers that know that the results are inaccurate and that the tests are easily susceptible to countermeasures and still represent polygraphs as valid, reliable tests.

An interesting commentary on issues raised by Mr. Menges is available on SecureTheory.com here:

http://www.securetheory.com/archives/000096.html

wrote on Feb 28^th, 2003 at 10:04am:

An interesting commentary on issues raised by Mr. Menges is available on SecureTheory.com here: http://www.securetheory.com/archives/000096.html

George:
I found this commentary to be very interesting indeed.  A point is made in the very opening of the commentary that I share.

"While a Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public (antipolygraph.org) requires a bit more history and technical understanding of polygraphy to fully understand, the principles that drive the arguments against Mr. Menges’ article are qutie apropos to security theory in general."  

I believe that for the public to fully understand the anti-polygraph side, a more basic and perhaps a less "high-level" of speech is required in discussing the tremendous flaws of the polygraph.  I feel that more results in passing such legislation calling for the complete banning of pre-screening polygraph use could be realized if more of an "easy read" were made available.  

As any public school teacher will confirm, the best results come from catering to the lowest common denominator within a classroom.  I believe the same can be said for efforts to educate the public about the fraudulent junk science of polygraph.

Respectfully,
Seeker

Ok, I am ignorant.  

It was pointed out to me, quite reasonably, that  simplifying the discussion of the failings of the polygraph in more "street" language would easily confuse and leave open to error the interpretations of such.  

My apologies, George.  I don't claim to have all of the answers or fully understand all of this.

I will just sit here with my Websters and grit my teeth at those scientific wordings that I abohor so much, being that science was my least favorite subject.

I still can't stop thinking about the pneumonia that my mother warned me about as a child every time I read about that gadget placed around your chest in the polygraph exam.

:)

Regards,

Mr Menges states:

“Polygraph is scientifically valid and a tremendous investigative tool available to law enforcement and security personnel of this country.”

If this is the case, then WHY IS POLYGRAPH NOT ADMISSABLE IN COURT?  WHY IS THERE AN EPPA?  Since 9/11 people hear the words “National Security” and they become compliant lap dogs. They fear questioning the Government’s abuses of power that are incrementally removing our civil liberties will cause them to be labeled “Anti-American.”  

It is a given that the integrity and trustworthiness of future FBI and CIA agents be scrutinized.  Maybe when information on the Polygraph’s inability to detect lies was not so readily available, when the internet wasn’t around for people to easily research how the Polygraph works (or doesn’t work) it was a viable method for gaining admissions.   BUT NOT ANYMORE.  Even in the past, there were books available, but now, since every future spook or fed is bound to want to know what to expect, and given the nature of the jobs they are applying for, is most likely familiar with using the internet as an investigation tool, Polygraph is an INVALID WAY to screen them.  THE WIZARD HAS BEEN DE-FROCKED.  Even if this or similar web sites did not exist, or were to become censored, there are books available on Amazon.com.  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/103-9005021-9183064 The information is out, and it will forevermore be at the fingertips of future feds and spooks. It will also be at the fingertips of anyone stupid enough to take a polygraph in a criminal case.   THE USE OF COUNTERMEASURES IS NOT ILLEGAL, unlike MP3 file swapping on Napster,  ( you can easily still do this on countless web sites http://www.napstermp3.com/napsteralternatives.htm)  unlike gambling, (you can easily do this on countless web sites http://www.offshore-online-sports-betting.com/gambling_links.htm.   The use of countermeasures is not illegal, and there is nothing ethically wrong with attempting to protect oneself from a false positive.  

The use of Polygraphs as an interrogation tool SHOULD BE ILLEGAL FOR EVERYONE.  There are other options that are more reliable,  and given the amount of money the Bush administration is throwing at the DOD, (at great cost to numerous other programs, but I won’t go there) they can well afford to use them.  (Legitimate background checks, integrity tests, etc.)  For the sake of national security, the likes of Mr. Menges need to stop mewling like wounded kittens and open their eyes to that fact.  They need to update their screening methods along with their dated computer system, and educate their agents on how to properly implement FISA. http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200302/FISA02-03.html They need to be monitored. http://www.idg.net/ic_1186300_9677_1-5042.html  For the sake of National Security.

--- Lurking Woman

wrote on Mar 1^st, 2003 at 6:14am:

Mr Menges states: “Polygraph is scientifically valid and a tremendous investigative tool available to law enforcement and security personnel of this country.” If this is the case, then WHY IS POLYGRAPH NOT ADMISSABLE IN COURT?  WHY IS THERE AN EPPA?

Put simply, Menges' claim is not supported by the evidence.  The polygraph has a measure of utility.  Scientific validity is another matter.

According to the Conclusions (Chapter 8) of the NAS report:

"We have reviewed the scientific evidence on the polygraph with the goal of assessing its validity for security uses, especially those involving the screening of substantial numbers of government employees. Overall, the evidence is scanty and scientifically weak. Our conclusions are necessarily based on the far from satisfactory body of evidence on polygraph accuracy, as well as basic knowledge about the physiological responses the polygraph measures."

There are other, more specific references to validity in the report, but none less damning.

Skeptic

Roche?
I enjoyed your post.  Its predictable that when the conversation gets mired down on this site, an new super cop comes forth to attack.  The last hero wanted me to fetch his coffee so he would not get his hands dirty, maybe secure his perimeter.  Lets dismember your silly response together.
First off experience.  Its clear to me from your couple of posts that you have been in law enforcement since 1981.  You have held a variety of active field and investigative assignments and spent about 8 years in special operations.  You work in a metropolitan area of a million plus and have seen enough violence to fill a legal pad or two.  You have applied all levels of force and have been decorated.  You are right to take me to task over my inexperience, is that a large  decaf latte?
Heres my position on CM's. Whether or not someone has used them does not give any reasonable person or group the right to advocate.  I believe they can hinder, confuse or possibly cause an inconclusive result.  If thats an admission Billy, put it on your monthly. I related one instance of CM use in my post that bothered you, but there have been other subjects that really had no idea just what it would look like on a chart and followed the advice as presented here and elsewhere, they failed.
To make this clear for you, I also would be opposed to a site that taught and advocated behavorial clues for criminals to use during an interview that are indicative of truthfulness. (remember Clintons contrived use of body language during his denials in the Lewinski matter?) It does not mean the truth wont be discovered, its just not helpful to law enforcement.
What do you mean by reckless slander? Seasoned veteran that you are, you may use or at least read in a journal of soft techniques that we hillbillies use to move a case along.  Black arts like handwriting analysis, statement analysis, behavorial responses to key questions, oh yeah and the polygraph.  Perhaps your tool kit consists of 2 screw drivers and you dont mind not having any additional resourses.  On the other hand other Detectives such as myself dont appreciate any group limiting our options, especially when the experience base leading to your position was a couple of failed polygraphs, and strong convictions.
Flying monkeys? are you really a cop? When I make a comment on polygraph its from the perspective of having seen it work dozens of times in both  criminal and screening applications.  It has created openings/confessions when investigations were going no where, or an applicant had slipped through a background. It does not happen where you live, but around here we are too busy making moonshine to conduct a thorough investigation!
Would you care to relate your own vast experience with polygraph failure, so I might understand where your comments come from? While your at it, further explain again how I am the problem.
Your comment about posting under an alias is an interesting one.  A little site history for you: two writers here are applying for FBI positions, both seem to be qualified, educated people, that also failed thier polygraphs.  One goes by an alias, one by his real name.  Both are in the appeal process at the FBI at this time.  Which one would you bet  has the greatest chance of success all things being equel?  If putting a name at the end of a post infers credibility, you can call me Det. Smith.
I could go on. Your absurd comment on my partners integrity, questioning my educational credentials, even your somehow linking Fair chance with George shows me Im dealing with superhuman intelligence, so I better stop. At least Gino liked your idiotic post.  Beech trees, how many assertions did he make?
Skeptic, of course your right about hard proof, but then you know I lump polygraph into the category of tools that give indications, not convictions.
Fair Chance, help Roche' out and let him know that we have friendly conversations about your employment process from time to time.  I would talk to him myself, but he has both feet in his mouth.

The_Breeze wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2003 at 11:17am:

Fair Chance, help Roche' out and let him know that we have friendly conversations about your employment process from time to time.  I would talk to him myself, but he has both feet in his mouth.

To Readers:

The Breeze and I have had some spirited disagreements on this website.  We have agreed to disagree on certain points.  I do not believe I will sway his mind on certain subjects for the same reason he will not sway mine.

I do try to stress on points we can agree on.

We both believe prescreening polygraph is not an effective tool in predicting future behavior and is used as a scapegoat prop by many agencies because they are trying to avoid expenses and there is no other easy method of cutting down the highly qualified group of applicants.

This type of use is clouding any other type of polygraph use.  He is one of the few polygraph examiners who believes it is poorly used in this manner.  He had never stated otherwise (prescreeing).

The Breeze videotapes his sessions and makes information about his exams easily acceptable to his examinees. I wish I did not have to take a polygraph prescreening exam but I also wish that it had been videotaped and I could get a copy during my appeal.

By agreeing to disagree, we keep open the lines of communication for further discussion.  One of us will surely break through the stupidity of the other!

Regards.

Fair Chance,

May I ask for a point of clarification? In your post your words suggest that the contributor 'The Breeze' is himself a polygrapher. Do you know that to be an accurate description?

Dear Beech Trees,

The Breeze has made no direct information available to me that I can say he is definitely a polygraph examiner.

My main inference that he is involved on a routine basis with polygraph operators is in his responses to me during the "Philly Polygraphers Let One Squeak Through" postings exchange.

The Breeze mentioned "we" during those postings when referring to how his agency handles polygraph operations.  I find his working knowledge and direct answers consistant with larger city force police departments as I investigated how polygraphs are used in applicant screening.

Unlike some other polygraph proponents on this site, I found The Breeze's opinions to give an inner working of the polygraph proponents way of thinking (regardless of my personal views which might be in conflict with some of that thinking).

As I stated earlier in another thread,  the FBI Director has requested sixteen (I had stated thirteen previously) new polygraph positions to keep up with the anticipated workload of bringing in additional agents and support personal.  I do not agree with polygraph pre-screening as it is currently used in the FBI.

My main contention with using polygraph for other reasons is the lack of meaningful research into its true margin of error.  It will only be useful as far as people fear it.  Without fear, anger, or other emotional responses, it is useless.  I get a response but I do not know what it is from.  A good interrogator gets as much without the polygraph using other methods.

Does anyone here think that they will use a polygraph on the number three man just caught and get anything useful?  He is just going to look at them and laugh.  That machine is not going to cause any fear in him after what he has done in life.

Regards.

Quick Question:

I am thinking of applying for a Federal contract job requiring a security clearance.  I recently read an article about privatized security clearances.  Would it behoove me to obtain my clearance on my own from a private company at my own expense? I know that I will eventually need to pass a polygraph, but if I already have clearance plus a drug test done (hair and urine) and take those results, wouldn't that improve my chances of passing a polygraph?

What I read about privatized background checks is as follows:

"Reston-based DynCorp has won a $50 million, three-year contract from the Defense Security Service to investigate backgrounds of people requesting security clearances. It will conduct and help process the security investigations necessary before clearances are granted.

The contract expands DynCorp's work in the background check business. It already processes security clearances for several federal agencies and is one of the largest suppliers of outsourced security clearance processing.

The work will be conducted by its DynCorp Systems and Solutions division and will include criminal background checks; verifying employment histories; and interviewing applicants, their references and acquaintances, a process than can take more than six months to complete. "
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2003/02/10/daily30.html?f=et87

I am eager to get the job of my dreams, am sure I will pass all of the checks, but would like to improve my chances to more than 50%.  I do not wish to use countermeasures.

What do you think? (both sides.)  

Smirky Chimp

wrote on Mar 4^th, 2003 at 1:38pm:

I am eager to get the job of my dreams, am sure I will pass all of the checks, but would like to improve my chances to more than 50%.  I do not wish to use countermeasures. What do you think? (both sides.)   Smirky Chimp

Dear Smirky Chimp,

Most government agencies will not recognize any private corporation background check without their previous blessing.  You could use this background check to find any glaring errors in your past but you should be well aware of them by now.  Save your money.

The 50/50 mentioned here is in regard to polygraph prescreening not the background check.

Regards.

wrote on Mar 4^th, 2003 at 1:38pm:

I am thinking of applying for a Federal contract job requiring a security clearance.  I recently read an article about privatized security clearances.  Would it behoove me to obtain my clearance on my own from a private company at my own expense?

No. Competitive 'fifedoms' of security screening entities are rarely mutually recognized, especially from the private sector.


Quote:

I know that I will eventually need to pass a polygraph, but if I already have clearance plus a drug test done (hair and urine) and take those results, wouldn't that improve my chances of passing a polygraph?

No. The only thing that will improve your almost-random chances of passing or failing-- setting aside arbitrary accusations of guilt made by your polygrapher interrogator that are independent of *any* physiological responses on your charts-- is to employ physiological and behavioral countermeasures.


Quote:

I am eager to get the job of my dreams, am sure I will pass all of the checks, but would like to improve my chances to more than 50%.  I do not wish to use countermeasures.

Neither did I.

Smirky,

Assuming your post is genuine, here is some advice, however keep in mind it comes form an individual who has been in the Federal Law Enforcement system since 1978, and a polygraph examiner since 1984.

First and foremost be honest in all portions of your application process, even if it means admitting past wrong doings.  Your honesty will go much further than you think.

Second, do not attempt to utilize countermeasures if you have to undergo a polygraph for whatever position you are seeking.  If you are caught you will be eliminated from consideration, no second chances, your application will not be considered.  Even though I will undoubtedly be challenged as to how you might get caught utilizing countermeasures, I will not enter into that debate.  I will only tell you that you stand a far better chance of getting caught utilizing countermeasures than you do of "failing" the polygraph while being truthful.

Third, you can not obtain a "private" security clearance or background investigation.  The US Government contracts with private firms to do the leg work (interviews, records checks, etc...) for security clearances, however these are not done for, at the request of, or at the expense of the individual being investigated.  So when someone tells you that, "Competitive 'fifedoms' of security screening entities are rarely mutually recognized, especially from the private sector.", whatever that means, simply indicates the individual making such a statement does not know what he or she is talking about.

Good luck in your application process.  If you decide to attempt countermeasures during your polygraph, well, fore warned is fore armed.  You will get caught.

Batman

Smirky,

Federal Agencies could care less about a Security Clearance.  I held a DoD Top Secret with SCI access for 5 years, and now I am resubmitting for another 5 years.

I also failed an FBI polygraph for suspicion of criminal espionage.  

One really has nothing to do with the other.  Actually, my polygraph examiner told me he would be looking harder at me when it came to national security and foreign contacts PRIOR to me being hooked up to the machine.  He also told me he knew that I made errors on my application about my foreign contacts (not true) PRIOR to being hooked up to the machine.  (Hey Batman, is it standard procedure for federal polygraphers to sesnitize their subjects to the nature of the test PRIOR to hooking them up?  Shouldn't this alone make the test invalid?  A member of your beloved APA and former Federal Polygrapher told me it does . . . )

Anyway, Smirky, don't waste your time with a clearance.  And don't be scared with Batman's words about countermeasures.  My opinion, don't use them if you don't need to.  If you truly have nothing to hide, then I believe you have nothing to worry about.

That being said, there is no reason that you shouldn't read TLBTLD.  There is no reason that you should go into the "test" not knowing all of the little mind games that the polygrapher will play.  Sometimes these games are what induce inaccurate results.  Knowing the tricks will keep you straight.  

If the machine itself TRULY works, then the outcome of the "test" shouldn't be affected by the subject having prior knowledge of the polygrapher's mind tricks.
Don't you agree, Batman?


Chris

Smirky,

If Steincj is correct that, "Federal Agencies could care less about a Security Clearance." then you have nothing to worry about, because if one is required for the job you want, and you don't have or can't get one, then you won't get the job.  No problem.  

Stein has an issue with the polygraph because he supposedly failed a pre-employment exam with the FBI.  He believes this has impacted him in some negative way, however he is still employed, as I understand it, with the DoD.  

Stein,

You asked me,
"Hey Batman, is it standard procedure for federal polygraphers to sensitize their subjects to the nature of the test PRIOR to hooking them up?  Shouldn't this alone make the test invalid?"  

You then stated,
"A member of your beloved APA and former Federal Polygrapher told me it does."

It appears you already have your answer.  Do you not believe him?  Is that why you are seeking my opinion or input?

You also stated and then asked,
"If the machine itself TRULY works, then the outcome of the "test" shouldn't be affected by the subject having prior knowledge of the polygrapher's mind tricks.
Don't you agree, Batman?"

Well that's a pretty loaded question Stein.  What "mind tricks" are you referring to?  I am not aware of any "mind tricks" that are utilized during the course of a polygraph examination.   Maybe you could elaborate.

You advised Smirky,
"...don't be scared with Batman's words about countermeasures.  My opinion, don't use them if you don't need to."

Why would you advise Smirky not to use countermeasures?  If they can not be detected then why shouldn't Smirky, or anyone for that matter, utilize countermeasures?  

Lastly, you told Smirky,
"If you truly have nothing to hide, then I believe you have nothing to worry about."

Based on your alleged experience with polygraph, and that of several others who post on this site, I would think Smirky would have a whole hell of a lot to worry about, wouldn't you agree?

Now I know you will undoubtedly respond to my question about the "mind tricks".  That's fair, but if you do, please answer the other questions I have posed to you.

Batman

Batman wrote on Mar 6^th, 2003 at 8:58am:

If they can not be detected then why shouldn't Smirky, or anyone for that matter, utilize countermeasures?

batman,

Just because something can't be detected doesn't mean you should avail yourself. There are ethical considerations that are, when it gets right down to it, more important. I flunked out of college and had to repeat a term. All of my finals were take home, 3 hrs max, half closed book, turn them in the next week. Now the fact is I had partied too much that term and after finishing the finals I realized I had likely failed and I deserved to fail.  I had to go though the rest of the weekend knowing that I could cheat and there would be no way anyone would ever know - except me.  I was tempted but ultmately decided that cheating and living the rest of my life knowing that I took unfair advantage of others simply wasn't an option. Perhaps this explains my distaste for the CQT - even though I understand it's underlying rationale.

-Marty

Marty,

The question was put to Steincj.   I appreciate your heart-warming story about your college years, however the point of the question is very simple.

Many of the individuals who post here emphasis how countermeasures can not be readily detected.  If I'm not mistaken there is some foolish challenge out there regarding same.  Yet these same individuals, many of whom in one breath promote the use of countermeasures by telling people to read certain publications, want to take the high road and say that they don't really believe the use of countermeasures is honest.  These same individuals state that polygraph is a voodoo science, that's it's not reliable, yet then tell someone that if they are honest they have nothing to worry about.

How can this be?  If polygraph really is a voodoo science then anyone who takes one should be very afraid.  They should do everything within their power to overcome it's weaknesses, and the examiners bias (which many here say is evident), to include the use of countermeasures.  I just don't see how you can one without the other. It someone firmly believes the polygraph does not work, that it is based on a pseudo-science, then how can that same person tell someone not to worry and not to use countermeasures?

I tell people not to use countermeasures because I do believe the polygraph works.  It works just as well in exonerating people as it does in identifying individuals who are untruthful.  I also believe that the use of countermeasures can be detected.  Therefore I advise people to be honest, cooperate, don't use countermeasures.  I believe if they lie they will get caught, and if they use countermeasures they will get caught.  

However, if I were to believe otherwise then my advice to people would be just the opposite.  I'm looking for some clarification from Steincj.  I'm sure he will provide it.

Batman

Batman,

You write:


Quote:

...How can this be?  If polygraph really is a voodoo science then anyone who takes one should be very afraid.  They should do everything within their power to overcome it's weaknesses, and the examiners bias (which many here say is evident), to include the use of countermeasures.  I just don't see how you can one without the other. It someone firmly believes the polygraph does not work, that it is based on a pseudo-science, then how can that same person tell someone not to worry and not to use countermeasures?....

You thought you would never hear it, but you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.  Lie Detection polygraphy is completely unreliable, it should not be trusted and anyone who finds him/herself as a potential examinee should be more than slightly concerned.  Anyone who suggests that an examinee simply be honest and unconcerned with the process is either ignorant of the facts or a fool.   This is a clear example of the need  to critically analyze the words of weak allies as well as outright opponents..  Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency.

The problem with countermeasures is that there is even less information about their efficacy than there is about that of the polygraph.  What information there is does suggest countermeasures can be effective with training. However, when a person is given only a small amount of time, countermeasure information alone is not effective. There is a study that shows "accurate" written information about countermeasures together with a detailed description of the CQT polygraph produces no increase in false negatives when the subject is not given much time to train. However, Drew's challenge is far from "silly" and is well thought out within the limits of what one can do absent a full study. How can this (Drew's challenge) be the case and that accurate but limited countermeasure descriptions provided no benefit?  Let me suggest there are 2 effects from this information:

1. The "trick" of the control question is disclosed.
2. Accurate countermeasures were described.


By disclosing point 1 the subject would become less sensitive to the control question, knowing it's purpose was not detecting deception. Fear of detection has long been described by polygraphers as the basis of the physiological response and disclosing the trick removes much of the fear.  By disclosing point 2 the subject would then understand the need to augment their reaction but would not be given time for significant practice. Both of these work in opposing directions and thus can explain why there was no difference from limited but accurate countermeasure instruction.

The problem here is that if someone were to learn the "secret" of the control question test w/o information on countermeasures they would likely respond less on the control Q's but, without using countermeasures, they would be more likely to fail and one would expect a higher rate of false positives.

This brings up the ethical question of whether someone who has learned how the CQT works should avail themselves of countermeasures or simply deal with the fact that because they are no longer ignorant, they should expect a higher likelyhood they will fail.  (sort of an Adam and Eve touch).  I've always disliked being told that I shouldn't know something "for my own good" but, OTOH, I don't like lying either.


*BTW, batman. Would you like the details of the study where "ACCURATE" countermeasure information was given?  Note that was the studies choice of words.

[edited to clarify the study above provided limited countermeasure training time]

-Marty

Batman,

Clarification is my middle name . . .

Batman wrote on Mar 6^th, 2003 at 8:58am:

If Steincj is correct that, "Federal Agencies could care less about a Security Clearance." then you have nothing to worry about, because if one is required for the job you want, and you don't have or can't get one, then you won't get the job.  No problem.

Or the agency you are applying for will process you for clearance as part of their application process . . .

Quote:

Stein has an issue with the polygraph because he supposedly failed a pre-employment exam with the FBI.  He believes this has impacted him in some negative way, however he is still employed, as I understand it, with the DoD.

1.  Not supposedly, I did fail.  If you want proof I will gladly send you a scanned copy of my letter rescinding my offer of emplyment because of the polygraph.
2.  You know what happens when you make assumptions, Batman.  I am not "employed" by the DoD.  I once was on Active Duty, but now am a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, basically on Inactive Reserve status.  The DoD has control of me, but I do absolutely nothing (and receive no pay or benefits).  Recall of the IRR is the last step before a draft.
3.  The failure of my polygraph HAS affected my ability to apply for other government postions.  See my personal statement for details.

Quote:

You asked me, "Hey Batman, is it standard procedure for federal polygraphers to sensitize their subjects to the nature of the test PRIOR to hooking them up?  Shouldn't this alone make the test invalid?"   You then stated, "A member of your beloved APA and former Federal Polygrapher told me it does." It appears you already have your answer.  Do you not believe him?  Is that why you are seeking my opinion or input?

Oh, I believe him.  I just want your reaction to the possibility that the polygraph test is widely abused and mishandled around the nation.  I want you to know that there are many, many reasons why people are being bounced by the polygraph, and not all of them are based on pure machine readings.

Quote:

You also stated and then asked, "If the machine itself TRULY works, then the outcome of the "test" shouldn't be affected by the subject having prior knowledge of the polygrapher's mind tricks. Don't you agree, Batman?" Well that's a pretty loaded question Stein.

You're damn right it is.  The PL CQT is based solely on a unknowing subject falling for all the tricks employed on them.   Why can't a screening or pre-employment test be based solely on the machine readings?  Because the machine readings don't tell you squat unless you compare them to other questions to which you ASSUME the subject is lying.  Tha is BOGUS!!!

Quote:

What "mind tricks" are you referring to?  I am not aware of any "mind tricks" that are utilized during the course of a polygraph examination.   Maybe you could elaborate.

"Let me explain to you the imprtance of honesty and integrity" -- a phrase used when administering a Probable Lie Control Question test.  Emphasize honesty but assume that the subject will lie.  If that isn't the most ass backward thing . . .

"Please write a number from 1 to 7 on a card.  I'm going to run a test to calibrate the machine."  HA!

"This test is about to begin" -- don't you mean "This test began the moment I hooked you up"

Must I go on?  Read TLBTLD for more details.  Better yet, go back to your DoDPI handbook.  It's all in there.

Quote:

You advised Smirky, "...don't be scared with Batman's words about countermeasures.  My opinion, don't use them if you don't need to." Why would you advise Smirky not to use countermeasures?  If they can not be detected then why shouldn't Smirky, or anyone for that matter, utilize countermeasures?

In my opinion, I believe that countermeasures that are used on a first polygraph are undetectable.  However, if an individual tried to use countermeasures on a second polygraph, after not using them on the first, well, a comparison of the charts wouls CLEARLY indicate an improvement in test results.  The marked improvement could only be attributed to 2 things - substantially less anxiety as to the polygraph experience or use of countermeasures.   Countermeasure-paranoia among polygraphers will always lead them to the second conclusion.

Quote:

Lastly, you told Smirky, "If you truly have nothing to hide, then I believe you have nothing to worry about." Based on your alleged experience with polygraph, and that of several others who post on this site, I would think Smirky would have a whole hell of a lot to worry about, wouldn't you agree?

My case is very different than others.  You assume (again, Batman, assumptions mare bad) that I am just someone who claims a false positive but really had some issues during my test.  I had nothing to hide during my poly, but a PAPERWORK error by the agency created misleading information which swayed the polygrapher into calling me deceptive.  Remember, my polygraph took TWO days, and at the end of day one, I was deemed "inconclusive."  But at the end of day two, I was a "definitely conclusive, a conclusive failure."  The polygrapher was looking for information from me that he believed, from a PAPERWORK error, to be true, and when he didn't find it, he failed me.

Without that paperwork error, I'm sure I would have passed.  The PL CQT relies on too many outside factors to judge results on, rather than using straight polygraph readings, like CKT (event specific).  The PL CQT is straight up fishing.  My polygrapher was told where the fish were, went there, didn't get a bite, and chose to believe that there were fish in the water, rather than refute what he was told.  It is crazy.

Quote:

Now I know you will undoubtedly respond to my question about the "mind tricks".  That's fair, but if you do, please answer the other questions I have posed to you.

Come on, Batman.  You know I am a man of my word, despite what your silly PL CQT says about me.  I don't skate around or ignore arguments.  Hell, I'll even include a point from your second post:

Quote:

It someone firmly believes the polygraph does not work, that it is based on a pseudo-science, then how can that same person tell someone not to worry and not to use countermeasures?

Ahh, see, I believe that the polygraph MACHINE does work.  It can measure the physiological responses of the human body.  What does NOT work is the person sitting behind the machine, trying to interperet another human's autonomic nervous system measurements down to a 50/50, truth or lie result.  
Now in the CKT, the measurements are overwhelming, and the questions are specific.  But I would never believe guilt or innocence based on the test result; it is only another piece to the comlete investigation pie.
Of course the PL CQT is nothing like the CKT.  Truth or lie is determined by answers to a question in which the polygraph examiner ASSUMES (there's that word again) that a previos answer given by a subject is a lie.  How crazy is that?  And to boot, some agencies use these test results as the final authority on an individual.  It's the whole pie, not even a piece of it!

The system itself SUCKS.  And countermeasures are living proof that the system is totally unreliable.  Using countermeasures corrupts the system even more.  Well, if a system is corrupt, we ought to get rid of it!!
 
Why do I tell people not to use countermeasures?  If good people, those with nothing to hide, use countermeasures to ensure they pass a polygraph, years later, when they are a asset to the agency they work for, everyone will assume that the polygraph worked well, and let in a real winner.  
When that happens, NOBODY wins, becasue the broken, corrupt system perpetuates.

Chris

Thanks to Fair Chance, Beech Trees, Batman, and Steinj for responding to my question about procuring a background check and drug test at my own expense prior to being polygraphed for a government contract job.  

I understand now that these checks would not be acceptable, or that I actually would not be able to pay the private company contracted by the government for this purpose.  

I am a methodical person, therefore have researched polygraph, and have read TLBTLDT.  As I said before, I do not wish to use countermeasures. It would seem to me that most if not all recruits who are required to take a polygraph would naturally do research, given that we would hopefully have above average intelligence, and a propensity for investigation.  

Because I have been informed of the "dirtly little secret" and I intend to say so, will I be accused of countermeasures?  Are there any numbers available of people who have passed the polygraph after having read TLBTLDT and told the polygrapher that they have done so? Do I now have a less than 50% chance of passing the polygraph, since I did look into how the test is administered?  

I really want this job, but it seems by doing research and trying to get a leg up, I have diminished my chances.  

wrote on Mar 9^th, 2003 at 3:38am:

I really want this job, but it seems by doing research and trying to get a leg up, I have diminished my chances.

Aye, that is the rub my friend. AFAIK, you have diminished your chances since it will be quite hard for the polygrahper to properly condition you on the control questions. OTOH, I would also assume they want bright people who investigate things. This gets to the heart of my so far fruitless search for info on exactly how polygraphers examine other polygraphers. Perhaps you should be tottaly honest and describe what you know and request a DLT form of the CQT. This gets around the problem and should be more likely to give an accurate result for one who knows the "trick".

Sorry, you have eaten a bite from the apple and there is no going back. Perhaps the TLBTLD text should have a warning up front that knowledge of what's inside could reduce one's chances of passing a polygraph absent use (not knowledge) of countermeasures and many (including me) have an ethical problem with use of countermeasures. OTOH, I have an ethical problem with the PL form of the CQT, the most common form. Also, I am fascinated by the subject, but am not the target of it so I am free to pontificate without personal consequence. I'm not really sure why it so fascinates me. Perhaps it is the intersection of technology and psychology. I'm a nerd at heart.

-Marty

Smirky,

[You wrote]
“I am a methodical person, therefore have researched polygraph, and have read TLBTLDT.  As I said before, I do not wish to use countermeasures. It would seem to me that most if not all recruits who are required to take a polygraph would naturally do research, given that we would hopefully have above average intelligence, and a propensity for investigation.”

I respect and support your decision not to use polygraph countermeasures during your polygraph exam. Honesty is always the best option as outlined in TLBTLD. However, honesty is not a guarantee of passing a polygraph. False positive results are not uncommon.

Consider for a moment… you report promptly for your scheduled pre-employment polygraph exam, you answer all questions with absolute total honesty, you do not use/employ polygraph countermeasures, you do everything exactly as directed and explained by the polygrapher, and at the conclusion of the polygraph exam, you are accused of lying/deception, accused of possibly using countermeasures, [even if you do not] and ultimately fail the polygraph exam.

It is my personal position as well as others on this board, that people should simply “consider” protecting themselves against possible false positive results. I do not encourage you or anyone else to lie during a polygraph. In addition, I do not encourage the use of polygraph countermeasures to mask deception. It is my opinion that people should simply educate themselves against a method of testing that is susceptible to countermeasures.

If people were sentenced to Federal/State/County incarceration based strictly on polygraph testing results to determine guilt or innocence; innocent people would be going to jail… any questions.?

[You further ask]
“Do I now have a less than 50% chance of passing the polygraph, since I did look into how the test is administered?”


Strictly in my opinion, you never have a better than 50/50 chance [coin toss] of passing any type of polygraph exam whether or not you tell the polygrapher you have researched polygraph testing or not. If you do tell the polygrapher you have researched polygraph countermeasures, it is only reasonable to assume that your chances of receiving a passing result {NDI] would be significantly reduced. After all, you would have just told the polygrapher that you understand the farce theory supporting the “science” of polygraph testing.

I want to be clear: it is not my intention to insult and/or offend any professional polygraph examiner on this board. That being said; its fair to conclude, if I openly claimed to be a tarot card reader with significant accuracy, I feel certain that I would fall victim to critics challenging my very method and accuracy.


Respectfully,
triple x

x x x,

From the (pro) polygraph literature I have read, properly conditioning a subject as to the importance of a control question is essential to minimize false positives.  If one knows what is really going on and can't be convinced otherwise by a very practiced polygrapher, they are very likely to produce a false positive or at best an indeterminate result without CM's.

BTW, I believe you are correct in assessing that CM's should not be applied full bore to every control Q. It is likely that most respond differently to charges of disloyalty, cheating, stealing, etc. Most of us are not equally worried in each possible CQ area so responding to each at a high level could well be a flag.

Pretty damn amazing (and telling) that NO polygrapher here has yet responded to any of my requests which are directly from a polygrapher's testing survey (with real names in the biz) published in 2002.

I guess it's easy for them to disparage George's info (which seems to be accurate) but not so easy to go after information published by their own side.

I personally would not use CM's (easy for me to say) but don't believe it is unethical to use CM's in a PL CQT since the examiner is lying at the git go. I do think it unethical used in a DLT form of the CQT since deception is not part and parcel.

-Marty

Marty,

You are mistaken in supposing that deception is not also part and parcel of the directed-lie "control" question "test." Although the deceptions involved are perhaps less egregious than is the case with regard to the probable-lie CQT, the technique is nonetheless theoretically dependent on deception, as explained both in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and in my article "The Lying Game: National Security and the Test for Espionage and Sabotage."

Moreover, neither the directed-lie nor the probable-lie versions of the CQT have any scientific basis: they are sheer pseudoscience. It is unethical for government (or anyone else) to make judgements about a person's honesty and integrity on the basis of such nonsense. Those who would use countermeasures to protect themselves against the danger of being wrongly branded a liar have ample ethical justification for doing so, regardless of which "flavor" of snake oil is being administered.

Well, there are 2 issues here.

1. Is deception an essential part of the DL, CQT?
2. Is it ethical to use countermeasures in a polygraph exam?

It is clear that deception is part and parcel of the PL-CQT. It really can't be administered without deception.

As for the DL-CQT, It was invented in large part to deal with the ethical issues of lying to the examinee (some polygraphers have such qualms) . The deception, to the extent that it exists, is in conditioning the examinee to believe that the polygraph is highly accurate if not perfect. This is NOT an essential component of the DLT, but is used (and justified) to reduce false positives with naive subjects. For more sophisticated subjets, it is skipped. I think it is completely appropriate for an examinee to cut the crap short and, if they don't want to talk about reading antipolygraph.org, can get a copy of Kleiner and cite chapter and verse.

BTW, such conditioning is not part of the CIT polygraph, the rarely used (in this country anyway)  form of the polygraph.  I hear Drew is going to do a bakeoff with the CIT and the brain fingerprinting approach. Should be interesting.

As for being shear pseudoscience. Well, while I do think anything  that requires an ignorant populace to work may well be characterized as a pseudoscience, There are ways that the polygraph could be used, with proper informed consent, that would not be so egregious. The problem of course is that a large part of it's effectiveness is due to exploiting ignorance which informed consent would destroy.

-Marty

Marty,

The polygrapher deception involved in the directed-lie CQT is not limited to exaggerated claims about the accuracy of the technique. The rationale for the directed-lie "control" questions provided to the subject is deliberately false and misleading.

George,

Your analysis and description of the DLT is in fact essentially identical with what Kleiner describes and I guess it can be considered a form of deception but at least it doesn't exceptionally disadvantage the most honest examinees, unlike the PL-CQT, and it doesn't require the polygrapher to flat out lie.  Most of them I think believe the polygraph is highly accurate and not all of the lie on the stim tests.

marty

wrote on Mar 9^th, 2003 at 7:10am:

Marty, The rationale for the directed-lie "control" questions provided to the subject is deliberately false and misleading.

How so? It seems to me that it may be incomplete, but getting the examinee to respond "appropriately" to the DL control in order to work is in fact a truthful statement. My guess is though that "appropriately" probably means something different to another polygrapher being examined than a naive subject. :)

It may not be full disclosure, but it is a long way from the flat out deception involved in a PL-CQT.

marty

Marty,

In the directed-lie CQT, the polygrapher attempts to convince the subject that any physiological responses to the directed-lie "control" questions are somehow associated with deception. This is, however, utter nonsense.

Marty,

I genuinely agree that George catches undue blame and harsh criticism as a result of his quest to educate the public on the frailties of polygraph testing.

Regards,
triple x

wrote on Mar 9^th, 2003 at 7:33am:

Marty, In the directed-lie CQT, the polygrapher attempts to convince the subject that any physiological responses to the directed-lie "control" questions are somehow associated with deception. This is, however, utter nonsense.

I think they would like to create that impression, no doubt, and it is misleading. However, let's look at what Honts has said (from your article)

The examiner also tells the subject that it is critical that he or she respond appropriately when lying. However, the nature of appropriate responding is not defined for the subject.

And indeed, it is critical!  The purpose is to focus the subject on the control question and create sufficient concern about their response that they will produce a stronger reaction than the relevant question creates. Implicit in this is the suggestion that the subject just might not react "appropriately" and in fact, were the subject to really believe the instrument detected all lies, they might show no anxiety at all on the question, assuming it would magically pick up their lie.  So unlike the PL-CQT where the subject is simply told the polygraph is nearly infallible, that is not the case with the DLT. It's a fine line though because if the subject inteprets the examiners instructions as suggesting they might be found deceptive on the relevant Q then it might well produce a false positive.  You are right that the whole practice is suffused with examiner bias and lack of controls.  Even in the better CIT, I have yet to see it suggested that the examiner should have no knowledge of the facts being tested (a proper double blind approach which avoids bias). Unintentional bias is a big factor as Facilitated Communication has shown where facilitator bias is THE ONLY factor.

It is, however, a considerable improvement over the PL CQT where, if the examiner chooses a control question that the subject is telling the truth on, they will be almost certain to produce a false positive or inconclusive at best. It is this gross bias against honest examinees that especially condemns the PL CQT.

-Marty

XXX,


wrote on Mar 9^th, 2003 at 7:52am:

Marty, I genuinely agree that George catches undue blame and harsh criticism as a result of his quest to educate the public on the frailties of polygraph testing. Regards, triple x

I quite agree. I have found Georges information pretty reliable. Polygraphers can easily hide under the fig leaf of secrecy by saying that it is important that people believe the polygraph is highly reliable and that people not know how they are done. There is reason to believe that this ignorance does reduce false positives. For that matter deception to the point of getting the examinee to lie is the premise of the PL-CQT so widespread understanding of it would gut the PL-CQT.

-Marty

Marty,

I agree with you that the deceptions inherent in the directed-lie CQT are less repugnant than those of the probable-lie variety. But this deception is not limited to the polygrapher's failure to define what is meant by "appropriate respsonding" to the "control" questions.

DoDPI's administ
ration guidelines for the directed-lie "Test for Espionage and Sabotage" include additional misinformation to be provided to the subject:


Quote:

I am now going to discuss the second type of question, the diagnostic questions. As I explained earlier, when you lie your body responds and I will be able to see the response, just as I did during the demonstration. If, however, you were given a test and I saw no responses to any of the questions, it would look like you were telling the truth. For various reasons (sick, tired, using some medication) some people lose their capability to respond. Consequently, I must ask some questions that demonstrate you continue to have the capability to respond when you are lying and that you do not respond when you are telling the truth. First I will review those questions used to determine if you are capable of responding when you lie. I already know the answer to these questions because we all have done these things at one time or another. When I ask the question I want you to think of an occasion when you did this--don't tell me about it, just think of a specific time. Then lie to me and say no. Before each question preface it with--we have all (e.g. violated traffic laws)--you have haven't you (they should answer yes)--of course. Now think of a specific incident (don't tell me). When I ask you 'Did you ever violate a traffic law' I want you to lie to me and say "NO." When I ask you this question on the test--I want you to think of that incident when you lie to me.

The deceptions inherent in the above instructions are explained in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (at pp. 85-87 of the 2nd edition).

In any event, polygrapher deception aside, I believe that the need to protect oneself against the random error associated with an invalid test provides ample reason -- and ethical justification -- for truthful persons to employ polygraph countermeasures as a safeguard.

“…I will review those questions used to determine if you are
capable of responding when you lie.”

When you answer a question falsely as instructed, you are not
“lying.” Any responses measured by the polygraph when you
answer the directed-lie “control” questions have nothing to do
with deception.
--------

In a way, the examinee is being asked to use a sort of weak version of mental countermeasures. By thinking about the time one violated this or that law one is expected to produce a weak reaction, milder than that of deception on a relevant, but stronger than a "is your name John Smith" sort of question.

I don't disagree on the question of whether it is ethical to use CM's to prevent a false positve, I just wouldn't use them. I would also be quite resistant to the compliance psychology used to condition examinees.

A suggestion for your next edition George. There is considerable discussion in Kleiner on conditioning examinees in the prep and stim phases with background on so called "compliance psychology". You might want to look at adding some references to that.

-Marty

Quote:

THE_BREEZE: Specifically, many applicants under report certain issues.  We all can accept that this happens, obviously applicants want to look good- and since local law enforcement does not publish arbitrary standards (around here anyway) they dont know what the agency thinks is acceptable or desirable.  So the application if filled out, and events are under reported.  If the test was given immediately, many would fail (like the FBI) because time is not spent in clarifying responses. In contrast to what you wrote, such admissions given before a polygraph are treated by my agency as a part of the application process.  It is not considered deception to modify an original answer on hiring paperwork.  When the test is given, applicants should not have hidden issues or concerns and have been treated fairly. Some honest souls take advantage of this, others do not and routinely fail.  They also routinely admit what they were hiding.

I find your suggestion that not making any admissions is detrimental to the application process very self-serving, least of all with your apparent polygraph background.

As an apparent police investigator you know very well that admissions are the lifeblood of any investigation.

In the applicant arena, admissions are very important on the part of the polygraph examiner to explain. As you review the questionnaire, some minor changes and clarifications are acceptable to agencies. An example would be if you give some extraneous information regarding an admission already listed on the questionnaire. An example would be a clarification of stating you might have been 18 instead of 17 when you were caught drinking in a parking lot by the police. However, never listing an arrest, true amount of drug usage or any item directly asked for on the questionnaire will call for disqualification under the pretense if they lie about a direct question asked and they only give it up before they are administered a polygraph test, how can we trust them as an employee.

Most agencies I am aware of will bounce the applicant right out of the applicant pool when additional information is divulged and neglected to be placed on the questionnaire. Even if the divulged information was not in and of itself a disqualification, the fact it was attempted to be concealed becomes an “integrity issue” for the agency and the applicant is bounced.

My estimation of your written responses is your frustration as an examiner that this site has in its few short years dealt a decisive blow to the polygraph community, not only in the use of countermeasures (even if in your view they produce an inconclusive result), but also through counter-interrogation tactics.

Often times I am sure the behavior displayed during the pre-test does not really sway you one way or the other. You administer the test and you call the chart inconclusive. You make the decision to make a “come clean” statement. Maybe you re-enter the polygraph exam room carrying the results, and while standing over the seated applicant, state something similar to, “The polygraph results clearly show that you are withholding information about your [enter subject], while placing the chart on the desk in front of the applicant.  You stare directly at the applicant looking for his/her reaction. Hoping that they will hang their head, sigh, look away, or give a pathetically weak denial.  You continue with some type of a pre-formatted out for the subject so they can make an admission. An example would be, your not a drug dealer are you, you just used drugs for recreational purposes right, its not because you’re a drug dealer (while shaking your head no).

There is no greater frustration when the applicant makes a quick and affirmative denial, maintains consistency, and rebuffs all the scripted Reid Technique phrases.

Are those denials based on true innocence, or are they based on effective counter-interrogation tactics. Maybe they purchased the Interrogations and Confessions Handbook from the Reid Web site at www.reid.com. If a person who has read this or similar books and hears the phrases repeated almost verbatim to him during the examination, the credibility of the examiner is greatly reduced as is stated in the Confessions and Interrogation Handbook, “… once an interrogator is caught in a lie, further effectiveness is lost.” (Interesting thought, I guess the entire Reid group would be subject to a “Paul M. Menges book ban prosecution” based on potential that information they provide could be used by the criminal/applicant community.)

I have no doubt that you can cite plenty of examples that during your tenure you have solicited damaging admissions from applicant and criminals alike. And, for many years the black arts of polygraph and interrogation tactics were a secret for law enforcement with only advanced illicit clicks having the counter information.

Now the information is mainstream. The probability of a criminal and applicant lying and being passed by a polygraph is a very real problem for your community. Your personal ethic fears the dreaded call from the detective saying you were wrong on your polygraph, the call from the Chief wondering how this applicant passed his exam and the press is all over him about how he got hired and exposed the agency to ridicule and liability.

Where once you were the star of the agency walking out with a confession, you will be now be its scorn. It’s to bad. Your intention was noble, but as they say, “the path to hell is paved with good intentions.”

So I don’t blame you wanting to have this information kept secret and it is my opinion that is the basis of your sarcastic and cryptic postings, but, because innocent lives are negatively impacted, it is time for it to go. The cats out of the bag.

I concur with others that Menges response is validation of the overwhelming stress felt by the polygraph community that countermeasures and counter interrogation tactics are negatively impacting the effectiveness of their mission. However, when innocent people are literally destroyed and considered acceptable collateral damage, that is un-American and goes against the grain of society.  

Blade Runner and others
Good movie, by the way, I always wondered how long the battery lasted...
I enjoy coming back here from time to time for the penetrating insight and clarity.  Why am I sarcastic? because that is the tone that was set with me early, and most of those posting here do not generate respect.  This could change.
Lets see now, Im self serving because my agency has made a decision to accept human nature, and give an applicant one final chance to properly fill out the applicant paperwork? No problem.  You see, since we still believe that a person could leave off a minor detail in the application, and make a good cop, its allowed. You seem to be speaking from some kind of experience base, so do you think that if an applicant calls a recruiter with additional information one week after filling out the paperwork that new information should be allowed? or are they past redemption? The arguement that your making about integrity makes sense to me, we are giving applicants every opportunity to be honest after all, its just not my agencies  policy or practice to automatically exclude those that volunteer additional information.
I guess the thought is that management would like to know and evaluate any additional information rather than just accept another dismissal without comment.
Your insights into my frusturation are way off.  In fact, the only thing I am frusturated with on this site are those that do not understand what it is they are protesting, in any real detail.  Kind of like the way I feel about the WTO demonstrators...how many of them could make a persuasive arguement on world trade?
I think polygraph will continue much as it has for decades.  Giving this site credit for gathering information and urban legend that previously existed in print is fine and serves to validate the mission for some.  My perspective is, and always has been, that these things are not helpful to law enforcement.  Thats it. Weights in prision dont help either.
I am not part of the mythical polygraph empire, and any suggestions that there is panic or despair coming through my keyboard is wishfull thinking.  I believe polygraph is nothing more than an adjunct police technique, which like other imperfect techniques (such as interrogation skills) serves our goals.  I say our goals because it should be everyone's goal that law enforcement is effective.
So as information is published that serves no public good, some like me may make comment.  I dont accept the idea that because something has become "mainstream" in your words, that this automatically denotes some kind of respectability.(violent rap music, exctasy raves etc)
Many people would share the spotlight if an applicant or criminal gets through a process with a bad call.  Any thinking person knows that flaws exist from background to psychological.  If you think that is my motivation for posting here, re-read my posts without the anti polygraph bias this time.

Let me start by apologizing for the direction this thread may lead and suggest that I would be happy to re-post elsewhere if necessary, but I recently read information that has me somewhat confused.

blade-runner states: However, never listing an arrest, true amount of drug usage or any item directly asked for on the questionnaire will call for disqualification under the pretense if they lie about a direct question asked and they only give it up before they are administered a polygraph test, how can we trust them as an employee. Most agencies I am aware of will bounce the applicant right out of the applicant pool when additional information is divulged and neglected to be placed on the questionnaire. Even if the divulged information was not in and of itself a disqualification, the fact it was attempted to be concealed becomes an “integrity issue” for the agency and the applicant is bounced.

The Breeze states: You see, since we still believe that a person could leave off a minor detail in the application, and make a good cop, its allowed. You seem to be speaking from some kind of experience base, so do you think that if an applicant calls a recruiter with additional information one week after filling out the paperwork that new information should be allowed? or are they past redemption? The arguement that your making about integrity makes sense to me, we are giving applicants every opportunity to be honest after all, its just not my agencies  policy or practice to automatically exclude those that volunteer additional information.

My dilemma: Several months ago I completed an exhaustive PHQ (Personal History Questionnaire) for a municipal police department application process. Recently, I recalled a minor infraction I failed to list at the time b/c it did not come to mind. It was a juvenile incident in which I believe the charges were finalized as a minor misdemeanor - I can't clearly recall as its been over 15 years ago. Either way, the charge was minor and there was no restitution, probation, etc considered.

My concern: The polygraph portion of the test is rapidly approaching. Over the past few days I have really toiled over whether I should contact the background investigator and "come clean" in hopes that he does not consider that I was attempting to hide some aspect of my past. Or, allow them to discover the indiscretion through their investigatory process and answer any future questions pertaining to it as honest as possible? At this point however, I do not know whether the background investigation occurs after the poly or not, and therefore, they may not have the info at their disposal to even ask about at the poly - which would probably prove derogatory to my application process. If the info is uncovered after the poly, I highly doubt they would provide the opportunity for further explanation...???

Any advice or insight is greatly appreciated. And as I mentioned, I would gladly re-post, I just noticed that two previous posts emphasized this point...

Dear Mindmaster,

My experience with the polygraph involved three sessions with the FBI.  The first one inconclusive, the second accused of countermeasures, and the third one found non-deceptive.

My perception of the process was that after my security interview concerning a word by word, sentence by sentence confirmation of background questionaire information, new "information" concerning my background would be considered "not showing candor" and disqualify me.

The letter of conditional employment was detailed and specific about disqualifications and  how it would be in the FBI's and applicant's best interest to discuss any situations causing concern or worry in the applicant's mind.  This letter was presented previous to the first polygraph.

The Breeze's agency does do many things completely different from my experience and it is highly probable that the "mindset" concerning additional information at a later time is considered acceptable.

The whole process is full of too many variables and I often refer to the polygraph pre-screening procedure as a "crapshoot".

In my situation, I believe any additional information presented after the start of the polygraph exam would be considered detrimental and damaging unless previously disclosed sometime in the application process.

I do not know how smaller enforcement agencies will look at your problem.

Regards.