Post Reply

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X
Topic Summary - Displaying 25 post(s).
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jan 9th, 2019 at 8:53pm
  Mark & Quote
Kim Zetter reports for Politico that it was a tip from Russian computer security firm Kaspersky Lab that led to the identification and arrest of NSA contractor, hoarder of classified data, and polygraph beater Hal T. Martin III. Excerpt:

Quote:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/09/russia-kaspersky-lab-nsa-cybersecurity...

Exclusive: How a Russian firm helped catch an alleged NSA data thief

The U.S. has accused Kaspersky Lab of working with Russian spies. But sources say the company exposed a massive breach that U.S. authorities missed.

By KIM ZETTER

01/09/2019 05:01 AM EST

The 2016 arrest of a former National Security Agency contractor charged with a massive theft of classified data began with an unlikely source: a tip from a Russian cybersecurity firm that the U.S. government has called a threat to the country.

Moscow-based Kaspersky Lab turned Harold T. Martin III in to the NSA after receiving strange Twitter messages in 2016 from an account linked to him, according to two people with knowledge of the investigation. They spoke with POLITICO on condition of anonymity because they’re not authorized to discuss the case.

The company’s role in exposing Martin is a remarkable twist in an increasingly bizarre case that is believed to be the largest breach of classified material in U.S. history.

It indicates that the government’s own internal monitoring systems and investigators had little to do with catching Martin, who prosecutors say took home an estimated 50 terabytes of data from the NSA and other government offices over a two-decade period, including some of the NSA’s most sophisticated and sensitive hacking tools.

The revelation also introduces an ironic turn in the negative narrative the U.S. government has woven about the Russian company in recent years.

Under both the Obama and Trump administrations, officials have accused the company of colluding with Russian intelligence to steal and expose classified NSA tools, and in 2016 the FBI engaged in an aggressive behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit the company and get its software banned from U.S. government computers on national security grounds. But even while the FBI was doing this, the Russian firm was tipping off the bureau to an alleged intelligence thief in the government’s own midst.

"It's irony piled on irony that people who worked at Kaspersky, who were already in the sights of the U.S. intelligence community, disclosed to them that they had this problem,” said Stewart Baker, general counsel for the NSA in the 1990s and a current partner at Steptoe and Johnson. It’s also discouraging, he noted, that the NSA apparently still hasn’t “figured out a good way to find unreliable employees who are mishandling some of their most sensitive stuff.”

“We all thought [Martin] got caught by renewed or heightened scrutiny, and instead it looks as though he got caught because he was an idiot,” he told POLITICO.


Posted by: xenonman
Posted on: Apr 6th, 2017 at 6:42pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
quickfix wrote on Oct 8th, 2016 at 7:30pm:
Accurate according to you, fantasy to the real world.



Thanks for your annotations, Auntie.
Of course, it is important to understand that the IC works in a world of "fantasy" and of obfuscation of facts.
That is why there are some contentious people on this site! Grin
Posted by: xenonman
Posted on: Mar 31st, 2017 at 4:25pm
  Mark & Quote
George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 9:55am:
https://antipolygraph.org/graphics/hal-martin.jpg
Harold Thomas Martin, III

On 27 August 2016, NSA contractor Harold Thomas (Hal) Martin, III of Glen Burnie, Maryland was arrested[url=chrome-extension://gmpljdlgcdkljlppaekciacdmdlhfeon/images/beside-link-icon.svg]chrome-...[/url] based on probable cause to believe that he improperly removed and retained at his home terabytes of top secret NSA documents.

According to the New York Times, Martin had been taking home classified material "since the late 1990s."


Has it ever been determined what his motivations for stashing documents at home were?  This behavior would appear indicative of a "hoarding" or "pack rat" disorder, rather than espionage.   Undecided
Posted by: xenonman
Posted on: Mar 31st, 2017 at 4:21pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Aunty Agony wrote on Oct 8th, 2016 at 9:12pm:
Let us now see if quickfix can form a single cogent argument in support of a single coherent fact:


Highly doubtful!   lol   Grin
Posted by: Wandersmann
Posted on: Oct 13th, 2016 at 4:26pm
  Mark & Quote
Aunty Agony wrote on Oct 13th, 2016 at 1:57am:
Anyone who says the effectiveness of the lie detector has been measured is wrong. Anyone who says he is a scientist and also says the effectiveness of the lie detector has been measured is a liar.

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


Amen Aunty !!!!!!  Well stated.  What strikes me is that after every American schoolchild learns of the insanity of the Salem Witch Trials at the end of the 17th century there are millions of Americans who can not see that today's use of the polygraph is no different than what happened 300 + years ago in Massachusetts.  Scientists studying the polygraph would have the same challenge that scientists would have trying to prove that a person born with a clubbed foot was actually a prodigy of the devil.  One can't disprove it either even if one is a devout athiest.  Therein is the heart of the problem.  Both the witchburners and the polygraph examiners are dealing in a realm where nothing can be proven or dis-proven.  The occasional, and I do mean occasional, confession of someone who falls for this B.S. is all they have to hang their hat on.  Anyone who claims that a reaction to a relevant question can only be a lie and not caused by concern over failing a polygraph is the biggest liar of all time. 
Posted by: Aunty Agony
Posted on: Oct 13th, 2016 at 1:57am
  Mark & Quote
Dan Mangan wrote on Oct 12th, 2016 at 12:25am:
Aunty, in your world model, are the APA's home-grown researchers and statisticians legitimate scientists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, another necessary and important part of science discipline is not lying. So to answer your question: No, there are no scientists among the APA's home-grown researchers and cargo-cult statisticians.
Posted by: Dan Mangan
Posted on: Oct 12th, 2016 at 12:25am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Aunty, in your world model, are the APA's home-grown researchers and statisticians legitimate scientists?
Posted by: Aunty Agony
Posted on: Oct 11th, 2016 at 12:02pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Dan Mangan wrote on Oct 11th, 2016 at 9:39am:
Perhaps you had me confused with Chad Dixon?

I guarantee you that Dan Mangan and Chad Dixon occupy very different localities in Aunty's world model.
Posted by: Dan Mangan
Posted on: Oct 11th, 2016 at 9:39am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Aunty Agony wrote on Oct 11th, 2016 at 4:53am:
So -- he had no need for his own Doug Williams or Dan Mangan -- just pillow talk


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

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

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

Perhaps you had me confused with Chad Dixon?
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Oct 11th, 2016 at 5:18am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Aunty,

The same thought occurred to me, and I suspect Elizabeth Martin has already been questioned regarding what information about polygraphy she imparted to her ex-husband, Hal.
Posted by: Aunty Agony
Posted on: Oct 11th, 2016 at 4:53am
  Mark & Quote
George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 10th, 2016 at 5:45am:
How do you suppose Hal Martin, who reportedly had been collecting classified documents at his home since 1999, was able to pass a polygraph screening test?

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

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

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

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

So -- he had no need for his own Doug Williams or Dan Mangan -- just pillow talk.
Posted by: quickfix
Posted on: Oct 10th, 2016 at 3:55pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Aunty Agony wrote on Oct 10th, 2016 at 3:36pm:
All other announcements, press releases, and blog postings from John Schwartz (CBP), Fred Ball (CBP), Leslie Caldwell (DOJ), Brian Kidd (DOJ), James Finch (FBI), or quickfix are steaming piles of digested grass.


And that's what convicted felon Dougy will have slopped on to his tray for dinner in the prison chow hall!
Posted by: Aunty Agony
Posted on: Oct 10th, 2016 at 3:54pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I cannot help wondering how much overlap there is between the security violations of Harold T. Martin III and the similar security violations of Hilary R. Clinton.

As far as we know, neither miscreant harbored treasonous intent nor expected to profit from the activity; and in neither case is the breach known to have caused significant harm to the United States nor given aid or comfort to its enemies.
Posted by: Aunty Agony
Posted on: Oct 10th, 2016 at 3:36pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
It seems that if teaching how to pass a poly was a crime, Doug would have been charged with that.  Hence, teaching poly beating is not a crime, correct?

Correct.

Only the indictment itself is a true bill of the facts.  All other announcements, press releases, and blog postings from John Schwartz (CBP), Fred Ball (CBP), Leslie Caldwell (DOJ), Brian Kidd (DOJ), James Finch (FBI), or quickfix are steaming piles of digested grass.
Posted by: Aunty Agony
Posted on: Oct 10th, 2016 at 2:15pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Aunty Agony wrote on Oct 8th, 2016 at 7:00pm:
Doug Williams was not sent to prison for teaching how to beat the poly

quickfix wrote on Oct 8th, 2016 at 7:30pm:
Of course he was.  He pled guilty.

Aunty Agony wrote on Oct 8th, 2016 at 9:12pm:
To what crime did Doug Williams plead guilty?

quickfix wrote on Oct 10th, 2016 at 11:50am:
Mail Fraud and Witness Tampering are the federal crimes that Doug Williams pleaded guilty to

So you agree with me, then.

As I said, Aunty just likes to keep the public record accurate.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Oct 10th, 2016 at 12:37pm
  Mark & Quote
The New York Times, citing unnamed government officials reports that Martin had been taking home classified materials since the late 1990s. So 1999 would be the no-later-than date for his mishandling of classified information:

Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/nsa-suspect-is-a-hoarder-but-a-lea...

...

Harold T. Martin III, the contractor arrested by the F.B.I. on Aug. 27, brazenly violated basic security rules, taking home a staggering quantity of highly classified material. He had been doing this undetected, agency officials were chagrined to learn, since the late 1990s....


According to the same article, Martin began working for NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton in 2009. The Daily Beast reports that Martin worked for the NSA's highly compartmented Tailored Access Operations unit. It's a safe bet that Martin was required to pass a polygraph examination in connection with his NSA contract work, and this would be after having hoarded classified documents for a decade.
Posted by: Username007
Posted on: Oct 10th, 2016 at 12:15pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Can someone tell me what exactly did Doug do that constitutes witness tampering and mail fraud?  What do those chargea have to do with teaching people how to pass a poly?  It seems that if teaching how to pass a poly was a crime, Doug would have been charged with that.  Hence, teaching poly beating is not a crime, correct?
Posted by: quickfix
Posted on: Oct 10th, 2016 at 11:50am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
George, the operative word here is "suppose";  do you know for sure it was 1999?  Do you know for sure Martin took a polygraph with NSA (or anyone else), and if so, was it after he began rat-holing classified material or before?  Polygraph cannot predict future actions, only verify actions taken in the past.  Media reports are not always initially complete or accurate.

On another topic, perhaps you should explain to Aunty Agony that Mail Fraud and Witness Tampering are the federal crimes that Doug Williams pleaded guilty to, since he/she can't seem to/doesn't want to read the DOJ press release I posted above.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Oct 10th, 2016 at 5:45am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quickfix,

How do you suppose Hal Martin, who reportedly had been collecting classified documents at his home since 1999, was able to pass a polygraph screening test?
Posted by: Aunty Agony
Posted on: Oct 9th, 2016 at 7:07pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
quickfix wrote on Oct 9th, 2016 at 3:58pm:

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

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

To what crime did Doug Williams plead guilty?
Posted by: Username007
Posted on: Oct 9th, 2016 at 4:15pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
The title of the article in the link above that quickfix posted is misleading. It says down the page that Doug pled guilty to mail fraud and witness tampering. There is no crime against teaching how to beat the poly. Thats good news. I'm going to start telling people how to beat it too.  Put polygraphers out of business, like that asshole quickfix.
Posted by: Username007
Posted on: Oct 9th, 2016 at 4:11pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Is the answer Mail Fraud and Witness tampering?  It sounds like Aunty is right.  Teaching how to beat the poly is not a crime. The feds had to come up with some other charges to get Doug. 

Can someone explain exactly what Doug did that constitutes Mail Fraud and Witness Tampering?
Posted by: quickfix
Posted on: Oct 9th, 2016 at 3:58pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Posted by: Aunty Agony
Posted on: Oct 9th, 2016 at 3:09pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
quickfix wrote on Oct 9th, 2016 at 1:29pm:
Aunty Agony wrote on Oct 8th, 2016 at 9:12pm:
To what crime did Doug Williams plead guilty?


https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2015/05/14/u-s-v-doug-williams-day-2-doug-william...

It's right here in George's own post.


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

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

To what crime did Doug Williams plead guilty?
Posted by: quickfix
Posted on: Oct 9th, 2016 at 1:31pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Doug Williams wrote on Oct 9th, 2016 at 7:45am:
But a word of caution - my quest has landed me in federal prison.


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