In an interview with Sibel Edmonds' Boiling Frogs show, NSA whistleblower Russ Tice mentions (at 55:38) that contacts inside the NSA who are providing him information are all beating the polygraph:


Quote:

As a matter of fact, all my people that I talk to have had to learn how to beat polygraphs, and they’ve all been successful in doing it, because it’s easy to beat a polygraph. And that’s something that, if I was still in the business, and I was wanting to get back into this sort of thing, that I’d learn how to beat a polygraph before I did anything.

Perhaps emboldened by Edward Snowden's whistleblowing, Tice makes explosive new revelations in the interview, including the fact that the NSA wiretapped Barack Obama in the summer of 2004 when he was running for the U.S. Senate. Tice alleges that many other senior government officials have also been targeted and he names names. Here's a partial transcript, beginning at 45:35:


Quote:

Russ Tice: I’ve already said that they’ve gone after journalists and news agencies and that sort of thing. But I haven’t said who else they go after. And I’ll hit you with that right now, if you are sitting down and you can keep your mouth from going wide open. Peter B. Collins: Both of my ears are wide open Russ. Tice: Okay. They went after--and I know this because I had my hands literally on the paperwork for these sort of things--they went after high-ranking military officers; they went after members of Congress, both Senate and the House, especially on the intelligence committees and on the armed services committees and some of the--and judicial. But they went after other ones, too. They went after lawyers and law firms. All kinds of--heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges. One of the judges is now sitting on the Supreme Court that I had his wiretap information in my hand. Two are former FISA court judges. They went after State Department officials. They went after people in the executive service that were part of the White House--their own people. They went after antiwar groups. They went after U.S. international--U.S. companies that that do international business, you know, business around the world. They went after U.S. banking firms and financial firms that do international business. They went after NGOs that--like the Red Cross, people like that that go overseas and do humanitarian work. They went after a few antiwar civil rights groups. So, you know, don’t tell me that there’s no abuse, because I’ve had this stuff in my hand and looked at it. And in some cases, I literally was involved in the technology that was going after this stuff. And you know, when I said to [former MSNBC show host Keith] Olbermann, I said, my particular thing is high tech and you know, what’s going on is the other thing, which is the dragnet. The dragnet is what Mark Klein is talking about, the terrestrial dragnet. Well my specialty is outer space. I deal with satellites, and everything that goes in and out of space. I did my spying via space. So that’s how I found out about this. Collins: Now Russ, the targeting of the people that you just mentioned, top military leaders, members of Congress, intelligence community leaders and the--oh, I’m sorry, it was intelligence committees, let me correct that--not intelligence community, and then executive branch appointees. This creates the basis, and the potential for massive blackmail. Tice: Absolutely! And remember we talked about that before, that I was worried that the intelligence community now has sway over what is going on. Now here’s the big one. I haven’t given you any names. This was is summer of 2004. One of the papers that I held in my hand was to wiretap a bunch of numbers associated with, with a 40-something-year-old wannabe senator from Illinois. You wouldn’t happen to know where that guy lives right now, would you? It’s a big white house in Washington, DC. That’s who they went after. And that’s the president of the United States now.

Listen to the whole interview here:

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/19/podcast-show-112-nsa-whistleblower-goes-on-record-reveals-new-information-names-culprits/

In September of last year, U.S. News and World Report writer Elizabeth Flock interviewed both Russ Tice and myself regarding polygraphy for an article titled, "NSA Whistleblower Reveals How to Beat a Polygraph Test":

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/09/25/nsa-whistleblower-reveals-how-to-beat-a-polygraph-test

On 26 September 2012, American Polygraph Association president Barry Cushman posted a link and the full text of the article to the PolygraphPlace.com private forum, an archive of which (94 mb ZIP) was recently posted to AntiPolygraph.org. Cushman titled his post "NSA whistleblower (making things up...)." (The message thread is found in folder 2 of the archive, and a PDF "print" is attached to this post.)

Dan Mangan replied to Cushman:


Quote:

Barry, What, exactly, is the whistleblower making up? And how do you know it's made up? Dan

Cushman, who is also registered on the AntiPolygraph.org message board, never provided an explanation.

Barry, do you still believe that Russ Tice is "making stuff up?" Would you care to explain?

---

it cant be done. you cannot fool a computerised, properly conducted test. these tests are simply more accurately able to do what law enforcement professionals are already taught to do. i.e they measure physical responses to to questions asked. however, the tests leave out the good cop bad cop routine, they leave out any personal prejudices of the cop toward the subject, they prevent the cop from putting pressure on the subject, bombarding the subject with questions in a rapid fire and desperate fishing expedition to find anything in word or physical reaction that they can twist to fit their fantasy and use against the subject. granted, the old analogue tests were complete bunkum, and easily fooled. but today the science has moved on. the question we should be raising is how accurate are trained police officers and juries by comparison to properly conducted, computerised polygraphs? too many innocents are having their lives torn to shreds because for others it is better to send 9 innocents into hell if it means that just 1 offender is caught and dealt with. well i say, not for any of the 9, or their families it isnt. if you were innocent and faced that living hell yourself you would want to have accepted anything that could point to reasonable doubt and might spare you from that hell. wouldnt you? in the uk for example, in all cases, legally, the police must withhold any evidence which they have gathered and which might prove the defendant is innocent. certain types of serious criminal allegations (historical allegations of child abuse for example) are  tried on the basis of guilty until innocent, and anything the defendant wishes to enter as evidence in their own favour gets ruled as inadmissable. historical allegations often have no real evidence and come down to one persons word against anothers. prosecution dont have to prove their case, only destroy the credabilty of the defendant with the full help and support of the court. they are the easiest cases to secure convictions and make the authorities look good. and with private prosecutions now possible, in many cases theres more money on the table for victim compensation. currently it is too easy to play the system for cold hard cash playing the victim.  polygraphs on both sides would make this harder and protect genuine victims of abuse and protect the innocent from a life of hell. they could also help clear innocents and give them back their lives. (albeit mentally scarred and in need of much help and support to resettle and recover). its not polygraphs that are the problem, it is when and how they are conducted and how the results are used. clearly in many organisations people are abusing their privileges and/or not making use of honest and well trained, professional examiners. clearly polygraphs are being used against subjects already rejected or marked out as someone they wish to remove by one person in the chain of command but who must provide "valid" reason for this to their bosses. any more than three questions requiring a simple yes or no, one word answer (beyond the control questions) is simply no less than a desperate fishing trip by those overseeing the exam trying to find anything they can use against the subject for their own ends. this should not be used an excuse to seek to pour scorn on the use of polygraphs. dig deeper. dig deeper too when anyone says that polygraphs can be beat and ask: has that individual actually got proof that they themselves did either beat the polygraph, or they have been witness to such an event, and can they provide the proof? and when was this? and was it an analogue test or computerised? dont rely on hearsay and missinformation like russ. dont even take my own word for it as someone who took a properly conducted polygraph in my own home, off my own back, without coercion, without dictating the test questions to the examiner and passed. i urge you to do your own research.

adrian,

You are incorrect. There is no difference between an analog and digital instrument; they both produce the same charts. If you are thinking that scoring algorithms somehow eliminate examiner bias, you are dead wrong.

Absolutely right.  I have 2 digital and 2 analog instruments and they do in fact produce the same charts.  But the digital instrument's scoring algorithms not only DO NOT eliminate examiner bias, they often default to DECEPTION INDICATED or indicate COUNTERMEASURES have been used when there has been no deception and no use of countermeasures! 

I have also run tests without even asking the questions, just clicking on the computer to indicate the questions were asked, and the subject didn't do anything except sit quietly in the chair - and the computer scored DECEPTION or COUNTERMEASURES!  No questions were asked, and no answers were given, but they were all accused of lying or using "countermeasures" by the computer! 


Ex Member wrote on Jun 26^th, 2013 at 8:29am:

adrian, You are incorrect. There is no difference between an analog and digital instrument; they both produce the same charts. If you are thinking that scoring algorithms somehow eliminate examiner bias, you are dead wrong.

Mr. Williams,

Or as I like to call you, Dougie Douchebag



"they often default to DECEPTION INDICATED or indicate COUNTERMEASURES have been used when there has been no deception and no use of countermeasures!"

Either you are bold faced lying there or you are clueless.  I would like to think it is the later, but I think the former maybe more the case.  I would say the rest of your post is as well a lie, but I'm laughing too hard at the above quote to take anything more you say seriously. 

I heard they too your license away from someone.  If this is true, I can see why.

Anyway, yea, you lie

Have a nice day, I am done with you, go crawl back under your rock now.

Joe McCarthy wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:12pm:

Mr. Williams, Or as I like to call you, Dougie Douchebag "they often default to DECEPTION INDICATED or indicate COUNTERMEASURES have been used when there has been no deception and no use of countermeasures!" Either you are bold faced lying there or you are clueless.  I would like to think it is the later, but I think the former maybe more the case.  I would say the rest of your post is as well a lie, but I'm laughing too hard at the above quote to take anything more you say seriously.  I heard they too your license away from someone.  If this is true, I can see why. Anyway, yea, you lie Have a nice day, I am done with you, go crawl back under your rock now.

Ladies and Gentlemen - Here you have a prime example of the high caliber of intellectual debate you will get from most polygraphers.  ;) They can't defend their position so they resort to childish taunts, crude name calling, and personal attacks.  My name alone gets them so riled up that they can't even use proper grammar when they rant and rave!   ::)

Scoring algorithms' only utility would be when numerous charts are to be scored as in a study. Performing discriminant analysis on a sampled waveform is actually trivial as far as DSP is concerned. Computerized instruments are by no means a scientific leap; they just provide an opportunity for polygraph operators to fool themselves into thinking that they are "high tech."