1  Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Polygraph Procedure / Re: CI Polygraph questions
 on: Dec 14th, 2017 at 11:16pm 
Thank you and apologies for the late response. I have read over most of the links you provided and find it very interesting. The questions they ask during the CI poly as you have detailed match closely with what I have heard from colleagues but there are some ones that could be a potential hang up in my situation and for anyone in general.

Questions such as:
"Do you intend to answer the security questions truthfully?"
"Outside of security issues did you ever falsify any part of an official document? - This lines up with the SF 86 question i asked before (though I do not understand what the outside of security issues portion means)

These seem to be so open to interpretation that could cause someone to over analyze the question and get in trouble. Are these still being used?

Second, what is the purpose for asking questions such as:
Did you ever say anything negative about another person behind their back?
Did you ever lose your temper when you were angry?
In your personal life, did you ever cheat at anything?

Are these to establish a baseline for your other answers?

thanks again.


2  Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Federal Polygraph Lawsuit / Re: Lawsuit
 on: Dec 9th, 2017 at 11:15pm 
I spent the day researching and channeling Dr. Richardson.

In theory, the polygraph machine measures fear of detection rather than deception.  The examiner infers deception when the physiological response to questions about crimes or unauthorized activity is greater than the response to other questions.

Once the examiner tells you that you are being deceptive, anxiety and self-doubt set in.  I provided numerous reasonable explanations for my responses, but apparently, they were not deemed sufficient enough.  I was asked the same question over 2,000 times and suffered through over 20 hours of interrogation.

Dr. Richardson explained a concept of “fear of consequences”.  I wasn’t concerned about the truth concerning that specific issue as much as I was terrified of the consequences.  The consequences were in fact, if I was found to be deceptive again, I would be subjected to more interrogations, lose my career, lose my house, and be labeled as untrustworthy.  My fear of the consequences consumed me. 

Also, it is generally recognized that for the polygraph test to be accurate, the voluntary cooperation of the individual is important.  Although, I showed up on time and stayed until I was dismissed, I wasn’t there voluntarily (hence my profile pic).  I knew very well that by refusing to take the “test”, I would be subjected to even worse punishment.  The US Congress found in 1983 that imposing penalties for not taking a test create a de facto involuntary condition that increases the chances of invalid or inconclusive test results.

I contend that it is an abuse of individual rights to use the polygraph “results”, by themselves, to punish someone – especially if the government does it.

#stoppolygraphabuse


3  Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Federal Polygraph Lawsuit / Re: Lawsuit
 on: Dec 9th, 2017 at 5:00pm 
I think we all know where the "deception" is.  The use of the polygraph.  It's a total scam and a fraud.

During 20+ hours of interrogation, I provided several explanations for my apprehension when asked the same question over and over and over.  The DoD IG even investigated some of my admissions to see if there was any evidence of wrong-doing.

For the record, this is what I provided to the Office of Security after my second encounter with the polygraph "examination":

My concerns with the question - 'have you ever intentionally mishandled classified information?

1. Approximately 30-40% of my duties involve the transfer of classified data in support of national-level intelligence requirements, Special Operations planning and support to the war fighter. Because we use systems on both SIPRnet and JWICS, we are constantly moving data back and forth between them. This is accomplished via removable hard drive, DVD/CD and sometimes floppy disk. Usually, imagery and other data is acquired on the JWICS and moved down to the SIPRnet or standalone workstation for processing, and then moved back up to the JWICS for dissemination. Occasionally, some files are required to be downloaded from the JWICS only to disseminate on the SIPRnet. Another aspect is that some of our workstations are stand-alone and not connected to a network. As far as I know, they've never been officially designated as classified, but we use classified information on them, so we’ve internally designated them as classified - at one time several years ago as Top Secret, then more recently as Secret. Confusion usually arises as to what we should classify the removable media taken from these machines, ultimately developing in to feelings of inappropriate behavior. At one point we've heard that it's okay to mark a CD Secret if it only contains Secret data, but was taken from the JWICS. Then later we find out that it should have been marked Top Secret. We've also been instructed to document each and every file that is moved down from JWICS on a spreadsheet for accountability purposes. This spreadsheet currently consists of thousands and thousands of files. Although I have diligently tried to keep up with this list, due to overwhelming circumstances, I cannot state with a clear conscience that every single file that has been moved down has made it to the list. As a side note, we have never been required to provide this list to anyone.

2. Over the course of the last 12 years, we have been authorized to move data in this way, and then told to stop (BUCKSHOT YANKEE), and then told it was okay. Often times there were grey areas where we weren't exactly sure what we were doing was officially authorized, but in the interest of supporting the war fighter, we went ahead and moved the data. In the early 2000's, we were even told that we had an 'exception to policy' that authorized us to move classified data via removable media. Although I had never seen this 'exception to policy', I often felt that have been in some way circumventing the approved methods. Later, I was directed to self-study for the Information Transfer Authority (ITA) test. The way this test worked was that you had to score at least 90% and you could only take it three times - the third failure would result in denial of the authority. After falling short on the first two attempts, I decided that I would put off taking the test for the third time for as long as possible. This decision allowed us to continue transferring data without interruption for at least another few weeks. After being contacted by the Information Assurance Office on several occasions that they would have to lock down our machines if we weren't ITA certified, I studied intensely, took the test for the third time and finally passed.

3. Throughout the history of this office, we have been required to burn CDs/DVDs/floppy disks from either JWICS or SIPRnet and label them according to their contents. Up until about a year ago, this was accepted practice - depending on who you listened to. Some people would say it was fine, while others said that the removable media should be labeled with the level of classification of the system it came from. I was always uncomfortable with this practice and would always do it in trepidation. Now, according to SOCOM regulations, we have permission to create a disk with the classification of the system it was taken from, but not allowed to create and label a disk with a lower classification than the system it was taken from. Instead, a form 14 and an ECR is required before J6 representatives will perform the procedure for the requestor.

4. To help remedy these types of problems and address potential areas of concern to conscionable workers like me, SOCOM JICSOC leaders have directed J6 computer support personnel to create a workstation that has all the necessary applications on the JWICS. Although this would seem like an easy task, we have been waiting for over two years for the workstations to come online. In the meantime, we continue to transfer classified data back and forth between the domains adhering to current security requirements. Even when/if this gets accomplished, we will still face the dilemma of transferring down to SIPRnet for dissemination to the war fighter.

4  Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Federal Polygraph Lawsuit / Re: Lawsuit
 on: Dec 9th, 2017 at 4:38pm 
quickfix wrote on Dec 9th, 2017 at 3:33pm:
George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 8th, 2017 at 11:43pm:
You seem to believe that if a person's CI-scope polygraph charts are scored as "significant response," that means they're lying about relevant national security questions. How do you know for sure that that is true?

Significant Response is what we used to call Deception Indicated.  A failure is a failure.  If John M. provided a reasonable explanation as to his concerns about why he failed, maybe it could have been resolved.  He didn't, it wasn't.

Dan Mangan wrote on Dec 9th, 2017 at 1:58am:
Should you have the balls to state any claims as to the accuracy of the polygraph "test", please cite the independent, peer-reviewed sources that support your claim.

I have a better idea;  please cite the independent peer-reviews sources that support YOUR claim that it isn't accurate.


Quickfix, I would like to first respond to this statement: "If John M. provided a reasonable explanation as to his concerns about why he failed, maybe it could have been resolved."

It seems to me that the burden of proof is on the accuser - not the accused.  I think it is incumbent on the polygraph industry to "provide a reasonable explanation" as to your assertion that a nervous reaction indicates deception.  Just as there is no way to rationalize an irrational act, it follows that it is impossible for John M. to explain why he "failed" his polygraph "test".

Secondly, your request to Dan Mangan to cite "sources that support YOUR claim that it isn't accurate".  The only real independent "study" showing the polygraph isn't accurate was done by CBS 60 MINUTES.  In that investigative report, it was proved that the polygraph, when used as a "lie detector" was wrong 100% of the time!  Three different polygraph operators called three different innocent truthful people liars on a crime that never even happened.  And I might add that the government, by virtue of it's prosecution of me for teaching "countermeasures", has admitted that the chart tracings can be manipulated very easily and that a person can learn how to "beat" the test very quickly.  That is also proof that the polygraph isn't accurate as a "lie detector".

Here is that CBS 60 MINUTES program: https://youtu.be/ziMAoHhxiYQ

5  Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Federal Polygraph Lawsuit / Re: Lawsuit
 on: Dec 9th, 2017 at 4:01pm 
quickfix wrote on Dec 9th, 2017 at 3:33pm:
George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 8th, 2017 at 11:43pm:
You seem to believe that if a person's CI-scope polygraph charts are scored as "significant response," that means they're lying about relevant national security questions. How do you know for sure that that is true?

Significant Response is what we used to call Deception Indicated.  A failure is a failure.  If John M. provided a reasonable explanation as to his concerns about why he failed, maybe it could have been resolved.  He didn't, it wasn't.


I agree that "significant response" is what polygraphers used to call "deception indicated." But you haven't really addressed my question to you: how do you know for sure that a person's failing a polygraph screening "test" means they're lying about any of the relevant national security questions?

6  Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Federal Polygraph Lawsuit / Re: Lawsuit
 on: Dec 9th, 2017 at 3:33pm 
George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 8th, 2017 at 11:43pm:
You seem to believe that if a person's CI-scope polygraph charts are scored as "significant response," that means they're lying about relevant national security questions. How do you know for sure that that is true?

Significant Response is what we used to call Deception Indicated.  A failure is a failure.  If John M. provided a reasonable explanation as to his concerns about why he failed, maybe it could have been resolved.  He didn't, it wasn't.

Dan Mangan wrote on Dec 9th, 2017 at 1:58am:
Should you have the balls to state any claims as to the accuracy of the polygraph "test", please cite the independent, peer-reviewed sources that support your claim.

I have a better idea;  please cite the independent peer-reviews sources that support YOUR claim that it isn't accurate.

7  Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Federal Polygraph Lawsuit / Re: Lawsuit
 on: Dec 9th, 2017 at 1:58am 
And quickfix...

Should you have the balls to state any claims as to the accuracy of the polygraph "test", please cite the independent, peer-reviewed sources that support your claim.

Once more, with feeling...

ROTFLMAO!

8  Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Federal Polygraph Lawsuit / Re: Lawsuit
 on: Dec 9th, 2017 at 1:48am 
John, I prefer to let self-claimed federal polygraph operator "quickfix" state his own Scientific Wild-Ass Guess (SWAG) as to the accuracy of the polygraph "test."

What say you, quickfix?

ROTFLMAO!

[cue crickets]

9  Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Federal Polygraph Lawsuit / Re: Lawsuit
 on: Dec 9th, 2017 at 1:27am 
Dan Mangan wrote on Dec 9th, 2017 at 12:59am:
how accurate is the "test"?

Great question - what's your best guess, Dan?

Here are another two off the top of my head - Why give the damn thing 5 times if it supposedly works?  And, how do you get to a "No Opinion?"

10  Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Federal Polygraph Lawsuit / Re: Lawsuit
 on: Dec 9th, 2017 at 12:59am 
quickfix, please tell us -- for the record -- in your professional opinion, how accurate is the "test"?

[cue crickets]

 
  Top