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: John M.
Posted on: Jan 7th, 2019 at 4:19pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Ron

Quote:
I suppose the Eye Detect is easier from what I read and have heard about.

Being easier has nothing to do with the accuracy or validity of a test that is fundamentally flawed.

For further info, see Dr. Richardson's testimony to US Senate - https://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-25-10-99.sht...

Is the use of the EyeDetect system even covered by the EPPA? Theoretically, you could spread rumors that it will eventually be used in every case - everywhere there was ever a question of truthfulness.
Posted by: Ronald S
Posted on: Jan 7th, 2019 at 4:10pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
George

I was not aware of this.  It appears the polygraph lobby was able to get polygraph nominated as the primary device.

Since Senator Romney from Utah he is probably helping the company as most politicians give strong support to the base.

If CBP wants this technology bad enough, someone will pull the right strings to make it happen. 

Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jan 7th, 2019 at 3:57pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
Rumor came from mid level CBP employees. Eye Detect is going to be used as to reduce polygraph backlogs.


Note that the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 specifically mandates polygraph screening:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s3243/text/enr

For CBP to substitute EyeDetect for polygraphy would be a direct violation of the law. I would be interested in any additional details you might learn about this.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jan 7th, 2019 at 3:49pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
In taking a polygraph many years ago, I recall my heart murmurs created a problem for the examiner. Exam was called non conclusive.

I guess the Eye Detect takes into account such health problems.


EyeDetect, like polygraphy, has not been shown to reliably detect lies at better than chance levels of accuracy under field conditions. There are no studies on the effects of health problems on either of these two pseudosciences.
Posted by: Ronald S
Posted on: Jan 7th, 2019 at 3:26pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
George

I did not mention that Idaho State Police adopted the Eye Detect for the employee screening process.  Apparently this is the same thing CBP is trying to do. 

The following link is the announcement that appears to be in sync with Idaho State Police announcing the usage.

https://converus.com/blog/idaho-state-police-job-applicants-say-eyedetect-reduce...

In taking a polygraph many years ago, I recall my heart murmurs created a problem for the examiner. Exam was called non conclusive.

I guess the Eye Detect takes into account such health problems.
Posted by: Ronald S
Posted on: Jan 7th, 2019 at 3:18pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
George

Rumor came from mid level CBP employees. Eye Detect is going to be used as to reduce polygraph backlogs.

One of them that was hired in past times waited a long time  to take a polygraph and almost signed on with a state agency. 

I suppose the Eye Detect is easier from what I read and have heard about.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jan 7th, 2019 at 3:10pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
I do not think that anyone takes Beto serious.

CBP has so many problems with the polygraph program already.

The Eye Detect system is supposed to be replacing the polygraph to some degree from the rumors around DC.

If rumors are accurate this will certainly impact the CBP Program

Ron


Ron,

Beto O'Rourke is no longer a member of the House of Representatives and H.R. 2213, on which he voted "aye," did not pass or even come to a vote in the Senate.

What specific rumors have you heard about EyeDetect?

Posted by: Ronald S
Posted on: Jan 6th, 2019 at 3:48am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I do not think that anyone takes Beto serious.

CBP has so many problems with the polygraph program already.

The Eye Detect system is supposed to be replacing the polygraph to some degree from the rumors around DC.

If rumors are accurate this will certainly impact the CBP Program

Ron
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Dec 25th, 2018 at 5:12pm
  Mark & Quote
Several articles have surfaced recently that discuss this Bill in relation to Beto's support for it.

It's sad to see our politicians weaponize the use of the polygraph. Come to think of it, could this be why the government got an exemption to the EPPA in the first place?

There are many things in this article that deserve comment.

One of the polygraph believers' overused statistics is that in seven years, “144 current or former CBP employees were arrested or indicted for corruption-related activities.” So, with 60,000 employees, this represents .0003 of the work force annually. How does this compare with other Federal Agencies?

https://capitalandmain.com/beto-vs-democrats-texas-lawmaker-frequently-voted-to-...


Some excerpts:

Polygraph tests have been part of CBP’s efforts to confront the corruption and misconduct that have plagued the agency in recent years. A 2012 Government Accountability Office report found that between 2005 and 2012, “144 current or former CBP employees were arrested or indicted for corruption-related activities.” The report noted that CBP uses polygraph tests as part of employment background checks “to mitigate the risk of employee corruption and misconduct” — and it recommended that the agency consider expanding the tests. The report specifically noted that CBP internal affairs officials were expressing “concerns about the suitability of the officers and agents hired during [employment] surges because most of these officers and agents did not take a polygraph examination.”

n April of 2017, the Trump administration issued a memo pushing for authority to waive the polygraph tests in order to expedite the hiring of thousands of new CBP agents. Critics immediately raised red flags — the American Immigration Lawyers Association said it was a plan “to water down hiring standards.” Tom Jawetz, the Center for American Progress’ Vice President for Immigration, told Univision that “many agents brought on beforehand who had not gone through a polygraph were cooperating with cartels and subject to corruption.” James Tomsheck, the CBP’s former head of internal affairs, called the idea of waivers “preposterous” in light of what the polygraph tests had been finding.

Compared to other law-enforcement agencies, “a larger number of people failed the exam, but the admissions of the applicants who failed the exam were hair-raising,” Tomsheck told The Nation. “The most shocking, frankly terrifying, were the many applicants who admitted that they were infiltrators. That they actually worked for a drug-trafficking organization and had for some period of time. They had been directed to apply for the job solely for the purpose of feeding information back to the criminal organization they worked with.”

Two days after the Trump administration’s memo, Republicans introduced legislation to allow the polygraph tests to be waived. The bill — which did not even get a committee hearing — was authored by Arizona Republican Rep. Martha McSally, an immigration hardliner and supporter of a border wall. During the floor debate, she described the measure as a necessary step to “provide CBP with immediate relief so they are able to quickly, yet judiciously, hire officers and agents.”

Democrats adamantly objected. New Mexico Democratic Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham — the chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus — said “eliminating the critical polygraph requirements for certain CBP applicants only undermines our Nation’s safety, given this agency’s historic connection to organized crime, drug cartels, and corruption.” She asserted that “no other federal law enforcement agency in the country—not the FBI, DEA, ATF, or Secret Service—makes any exceptions to their polygraph exam.”

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., declared: “Anyone who votes for this bill is voting to support and implement Donald Trump’s views on immigration, his desire to militarize our southern border, and his fantasy of a mass deportation force. You cannot spin it any other way. If we want to lower the standards for screening and hiring CBP officers, eliminate checks that could help weed out candidates with criminal histories or criminal intentions, and water down the integrity of this important national security source, this bill is for you.”

O’Rourke opted to join Republicans in voting for the bill, which passed. In a statement after the vote, he echoed McSally’s rationale for the legislation, asserting that to address staffing shortfalls, the bill was necessary to “help speed up the hiring process and provide the CBP Commissioner additional authorities to recruit and hire quality CBP officers and Border Patrol agents.”




Posted by: Wandersmann
Posted on: Jan 13th, 2018 at 4:12am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
John M. wrote on Jan 11th, 2018 at 7:55pm:
After about three hours of intense interrogation, the polygraph operator left the room and made me sit - still all hooked up - for about 10 minutes. 


John M -  I've got you beat by a long shot.  My first polygraph in May, 1986, I was in the torture chamber for 8 hours !!!!!!  I had two toilet breaks, no lunch.  I was often hooked up and left alone for an hour or two at a time.  My 2012 nightmare was almost as bad.  I was hooked up and left alone for over an hour.  I feel a kinship to former Stasi prisoners at Hohenschoenhausen and KGP prisoners at Lubyanka.  The Stasi and KGB a**holes are long gone, but our a**holes are still going strong.   Angry
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Jan 11th, 2018 at 7:55pm
  Mark & Quote
Bingo, Mr. Mangan.  You wouldn't even believe how big the problem is at the federal level.

I'd bet that the majority of members on this site know the truth as well.

I remember... my second attempt at the polygraph was in a dark hotel room just off base.  After about three hours of intense interrogation, the polygraph operator left the room and made me sit - still all hooked up - for about 10 minutes.  Finally a new guy came in and ran through the questions again and again.  And then, he got to interrogate me.  After witnessing me have a breakdown, he confessed to me that he hated his job and was sorry for what he was doing.

Here's a question for all the APA members out there?  How many of you actually have a conscience and are sorry for what you are doing?

But it's not just the "operators" that are to blame.  Politicians and senior officials at all levels look the other way and allow the abuse to continue... but, I digress.

Currently, Skopos Labs gives this Bill a 41% chance of passing.  I find it noteworthy that factors considered in the prediction include Government Operation and Politics.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr2213

Posted by: Dan Mangan
Posted on: Jan 11th, 2018 at 3:28am
  Mark & Quote
Wandersmann wrote on Jan 11th, 2018 at 12:16am:
It won't pass because the polygraph lobby is greasing their palms.


This is a most interesting comment that really strikes a chord with me.

When I first got into the polygraph field in 2004, I was told by a highly regarded long-time practitioner that the "test" was mainly about one thing: MONEY.

From what I've seen over the years, that old timer was right.

But, back then, being a freshly minted Backster-trained -- and APA-validated -- "dedicated to truth" forensic psycho-physiologist, I refused to believe him.

Now, over 13 years later, I have to say that sage insider observation was (and is) largely correct-- especially when it comes to PCSOT "te$ting."

I wish I had known then what I know now.

If anyone has any questions about the polygraph "te$ting" proce$$, please contact me.

I'll be happy to tell you the truth about the "te$t."

Telephone consultations are free, as I consider it a public service.

My contact info -- as well as links to articles revealing the truth about the polygraph "te$t" -- can be found at www.polygraphman.com.



Posted by: Wandersmann
Posted on: Jan 11th, 2018 at 12:16am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
John M. wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 7:45pm:
I can't believe the poly lobby hasn't penetrated the McSally camp yet.  Then again, I bet this Bill fails - any takers?


I won't take that bet John because I agree with you.  It won't pass because the polygraph lobby is greasing their palms.  They still have the problem of too many good applicants flunking the poly.  I predict there will be a miracle occur in which applicants will start passing their polygraphs by huge numbers.  The passing percentage will explode.  Because it is pseudo-science and a fraud they can cook the books anyway they want.  It's just like when high school physics students aren't getting the correct answers in the lab tests and then the students figure out what the correct answers should be.  Miraculously, the lab results start to correctly fall in line.   Grin
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Jan 9th, 2018 at 7:45pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Rep. Martha McSally provides the Opening Statement to today's Homeland Security Committee meeting.  A video of the meeting and text of the testimonies is here:

https://homeland.house.gov/hearing/line-border-security-agent-officer-perspectiv...

I can't believe the poly lobby hasn't penetrated the McSally camp yet.  Then again, I bet this Bill fails - any takers?
Posted by: Wandersmann
Posted on: Aug 3rd, 2017 at 4:09pm
  Mark & Quote
John M. wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 8:33pm:
Sadly, HR 2213 is opposed by the dems and S.1560 will undoubtedly be opposed by the repubs, for basically the same reason:

- To polygraph, or not to polygraph?


When I worked for the government I was required on one occasion to visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington.  The reason was to enable us to see how horrible things can get when people in authority abuse their power.  This requirement created by the very people who sign off on ruining people's lives with the polygraph.  I hope there is an eternal Hell for all of them. 

When the Roman Empire collapsed and Rome was overrun by Barbarians, what was left moved to Constantinople and became  the Byzantine Empire.  When the Soviet Union collapsed, what was left moved to Washington and took over a huge part of our government.  Although the human rights abuse involved in the application of the polygraph to ruin innocent people's lives simply to exert control is right out of the Marxist playbook, even the Soviets weren't dumb enough to believe that it worked.   Cry
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Aug 2nd, 2017 at 8:33pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Sadly, HR 2213 is opposed by the dems and S.1560 will undoubtedly be opposed by the repubs, for basically the same reason:

- To polygraph, or not to polygraph?

It's time to say goodbye to the myth of 'lie detection' and accurately label it a violation of ones individual rights.

It is also defamation of character, denial of reasonable accommodations and due process.

Stranglehold baby.




Posted by: Wandersmann
Posted on: Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:08pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
John M. wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:28pm:
Please know that I will keep your views in mind if this issue is considered before the full Senate.


Let's polygraph him on that statement.  Grin  Until Anti-polygraph.org is able to grease his palms with more money than the polygraph lobby, I wouldn't hold my breath.    Angry  I also sent messages to my Senators and received similar responses.  I'm going through the motions like a good citizen, but not the slightest bit optimistic that these whores have even a shred of conscience.
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:28pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I just got this from Senator Bill Nelson.  Nothing yet from Senator Rubio or the HSGAC/Senator Johnson.

Dear Mr. M:

            Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 1560, the Integrity in Border and Immigration Enforcement Act. I understand your concerns and appreciate your taking the time to be involved and informed about matters important to Florida and our nation.

            Introduced by Senator Richard Durbin, this legislation is pending before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Please know that I will keep your views in mind if this issue is considered before the full Senate. If you have any other concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

Sincerely,
  Bill Nelson
Posted by: Wandersmann
Posted on: Jul 28th, 2017 at 9:28pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
George W. Maschke wrote on Jul 28th, 2017 at 8:50am:
See AntiPolygraph.org's latest blog post, "Democratic Senator Dick Durbin Hypocritically Embraces Polygraph 'Testing,'" and please share on social media:


Notice how Durbin uses the term "Quick fix" disparagingly.    Cheesy

Notice how Durbin also basically says, it doesn't work, so let's use it!   Embarrassed
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Jul 28th, 2017 at 8:49pm
  Mark & Quote
Wandersmann wrote on Jul 28th, 2017 at 6:26pm:
Have you figured out how to get their email address to enable form completion?

There is usually a Link called "Contact".  Here's Rubio's - https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

I think it's best if you just say;

Sirs,

It has come to my attention that Senate Bill S.1560 has been referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for review.

It is extremely important that the following issue be addressed before all else, concerning this Bill:

The Bill forbids the CBP and ICE from hiring an individual who fails the polygraph examination, but fails to address the issue of what to do with an existing law enforcement official that does not pass a polygraph examination.  Even DOD regulations state that no unfavorable administrative actions shall be taken based solely on the results of the polygraph examination.

Answering this question is crucial to ensure that abuse and corruption don’t take place in the Customs and Border Patrol and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement like they have at the Defense Intelligence Agency.

I urge you to raise this issue with the committee as individual and civil rights are at stake.

Very Respectfully,

// S //
Posted by: Wandersmann
Posted on: Jul 28th, 2017 at 6:26pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
John M. wrote on Jul 27th, 2017 at 5:58pm:
I urge you all to copy and paste this message to your individual senators and the HSGAC


John -  Now for my next challenge.  I attempted to send this to my senators but was not able because I do not have their Email addresses to include on the form.  I searched for about an our and could only find their website.  Have you figured out how to get their email address to enable form completion?
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jul 28th, 2017 at 8:50am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
See AntiPolygraph.org's latest blog post, "Democratic Senator Dick Durbin Hypocritically Embraces Polygraph 'Testing,'" and please share on social media:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2017/07/28/democratic-senator-dick-durbin-hypocri...
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Jul 27th, 2017 at 10:36pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Everyone here realizes right?  That given the current CBP polygraph failure rates, THOUSANDS of people will lose their livelihoods each year if they take unfavorable actions against them based solely on their polygraph "results".

If you go in to a polygraph knowing that they can't take any unfavorable administrative actions against you, why worry at all?  Hell, why waste our tax money even doing it?

It's a shame, a ruse, a deception.
Posted by: John M.
Posted on: Jul 27th, 2017 at 10:23pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Wandersmann wrote on Jul 27th, 2017 at 9:32pm:
but I'm a bit confused as to what we are asking

I believe that once they admit that they can't do anything to an existing employee based solely on the "results", why do them at all?

It's exposing the lie that George professes and Doug despises.

It's easier for them to accept a few cracked eggs and deny innocents a job - because they didn't have it to begin with, and they can feel like there was no harm done.  It's a completely different thing to ruin a individual's life by using the polygraph "results" as the sole reason for doing so.

If this Bill passes as it is currently written, there will be polygraph abuse and corruption at CBP and ICE - just like at DIA.
Posted by: Wandersmann
Posted on: Jul 27th, 2017 at 9:32pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
John M. wrote on Jul 27th, 2017 at 5:58pm:
I urge you all to copy and paste this message to your individual senators and the HSGAC

John -

      I was getting ready to send this message to my Senator, but I'm a bit confused as to what we are asking.  As I understand the cut and paste message, we are O.K. with applicants not being hired due to the polygraph and we also want on-board officials to be fired if they don't pass a polygraph?  Don't we want to fight this idiotic instrument at all levels?   Are we just trying to put on-board officials through the same hell as applicants to make more victims and get more support for the anti-polygraph community? Tongue
 
  Top