Sergeant1107 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2005 at 8:45pm:


Sergeant,

You are certainly entitled to feel that way.  However, to have the testicular fortitude to place controversial information on the Internet and then absolve yourself of any responsibility by saying it is only for the use of "honest people," is either the height of stupidity or the epitome of pure arrogance.  I am not sure which.

No, on second thought, I’m pretty sure.  It is stupidity.  I mean the Anti-polygraph.com administrator ACTUALLY told somebody who planned to use this material to successfully lie, "...The purpose of this website is not to help liars (like you) (my emphasis) to gain positions of trust for which they are not qualified, but rather to help truthful persons...

“Rather to help truthful persons...???!!

What did the administrator think?  Did he actually believe the bad guy would lean back from his computer, scratch his head, and say, "Well, since I am a liar, I better not download any of this material, because it's meant for honest people, and I am a lying schmuck."

Maybe the administrator believes by making that weak, mealy-mouthed caveat, he absolved himself or Antipolygraph.org of criminal or civil responsibility, should this information fell into the "wrong hands."  BTW, he is wrong there too.  There is lots of legal precedent that substantiates you are responsible for what you write, no matter what disclaimer you use.

I mean, you have to admit, that whole exchange was pretty laughable...

Nonombre

nonombre wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2005 at 9:23pm:


No one is maintaining that the information provided on AntiPolygraph.org will only be used by honest people. The point in the administrator's reply to  icotto56 (which I posted) is that the purpose of this site is not to help liars obtain positions of trust for which they are not qualified. While it is self-evident that the information on AntiPolygraph.org is available for anyone to download and read, persons who obviously intend to lie about relevant issues should not expect to have their questions answered.

Quote:


What law(s) do you think I or anyone else associated with AntiPolygraph.org may have broken by telling the truth about polygraphs?

As for the ethical considerations involved in making such information public, see my article, "A Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public."

uiop wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2005 at 4:48am:

Though much of what you state is arguably correct (anyone can be sued for just about any reason) with a halfway clueful lawyer, the lawsuit woud likely be dismissed by any competent court (and certainly any judgement overturned on appeal).

But I think a lawsuit would be a good thing.  If played right, it could force discovery on some very interesting documents.  I'd love the feds to give this cite credibility by trying to challenge it in court.  They'd be admitting that what was on this site was correct -- that the polygraph is a fraud and can be easily beaten!  I'd alomst consider that a measure of success for this site.   

Howeer, I think the suit would be better targeted against the city/state/federal agency that relied on a bogus "test" to let a suspect go without a proper investigation.

Should that day occur (that this site is sued) I'd suspect they could raise plenty of money (not to mention ACLU support) to generate the publicity they need to not only expose polygraphy as a fraud, but to defeat the suit.

Bottom line: the last thing the Pro Polygraph community wants is a "free speech" suit against this site, with all the publicity it will bring to this site and polygraphy.  Unless this suit is brought in a "secret court" I wouldn't expect it to happen.  If brought by a private party, I'd expect government efforts to discourgage it.

It seems odd to me that no one is mentioning a lawsuit against the Office of Technology assessment or the National Academy of Sciences, both of which tested the polygraph and concluded that it is no better than random chance in non-specific issue testing.

So, let’s see…  Testing the polygraph and determining it is no better than chance in some cases, and significantly less than 100% accurate in other cases is acceptable.  That won’t get you sued, because that’s not irresponsible, right?

But creating a web site where the results of those tests are posted for all to see is irresponsible?  Or perhaps posting a web site where individuals with bad polygraph experiences post their stories for all to see is the irresponsible part?  Or posting documents which are available to anyone in the country under FOIA?  Is that the irresponsible part?

Maybe it is the continuous refusal of people affiliated with this site to give specific advice on the message board to people who want to lie about their background or a crime they’ve commited?  No, that doesn’t sound irresponsible to me.

I think it is tragically ironic that instead of admitting that polygraphs are worse than worthless for non-specific issue testing, people are instead putting their energies into censoring the currently available information about them.

The APA should definitely change its motto to: “Dedicated to Truth about YOU, not us.”

Nonombre,

It would be entirely consistent with your stated logic to hold glove makers accountable if someone uses their product to avoid leaving fingerprints at a crime scene.  Even though the glove manufacturer intended for those gloves to be used to protect someone’s hands, the fact that they could easily be used to avoid identification at a crime scene would make the glove manufacturer responsible.  Does that make any sense?

Part of the challenge in living in a society with continuous technological and informational advances is having to do our job despite the easy availability of information and gadgets which make our job more difficult.

If someone commits a crime and has learned how to avoid leaving DNA, or how to avoid leaving tool marks, or how to avoid leaving fingerprints, what difference does that make?  It is still our job to collect evidence, establish probable cause, and arrest them.  Would it make our job easier if none of that information existed?  Sure, be that’s not something that we can control.  

The government and law enforcement cannot attempt to control the dissemination of information.  If you start down that road where will you logically stop?

Nonombre

I'm at a loss at comprehending the statements of you and other polygraphers.

In one breath all of you say you can catch 100% of all who use countermeasures. In the second breath you condem this site for providing information that allows criminals to beat the polygraph. If you can catch countermeasures, then what is your problem with this site? The information provided here is useless.

uiop

What Federal Statue or section thereof could a lawsuit be brought? Also, under what jurisdiction? Federal court is the ONLY venue here but, what jurisdiction?

I would contribute heavily to the defense if the other side had the funds to fade a multi-million dollar countersuit. Hell, I would contribute heavily if they didn't. I don't think a federal judge would accept an action against free speach.

I have to say that I simply don’t understand these responses.

This site is not encouraging anyone to break the law.  This site is not providing any classified material to anyone.  This site is not advocating that people lie.

It is the opinion of the people who created this site that the polygraph requires examinees to be ignorant of the “testing” procedure.  This site provides information on the "testing" procedure, which they believe will make it more difficult to fool people into believing the polygraph will detect their lies.

It is also the opinion of the people who created this site that augmenting specific mental and physical reactions during specific parts of the “testing” procedure will not be detected and will help prevent the examinee from being labeled as deceptive.  Information on how and when to use such countermeasures is therefore available on this site.

This site makes reference to studies by the OTA and the NAS which concluded that polygraph testing was not as accurate as it was claimed to be.  This site also provides the opportunity for people who feel they have unfairly “failed” a polygraph to tell their side of the story.

Polygraph supporters have continuously argued that examinee knowledge of the “testing” process is not a factor in determining the accuracy of the polygraph.  It logically follows that they can’t be upset that such knowledge is available here.

Polygraph supporters have also argued continuously and vehemently that countermeasures are easily detectable and don’t work anyway.  It logically follows that they can’t be upset about countermeasure information being available on this site.

Polygraph supporters have also argued that the OTA and NAS studies were biased and inaccurate, and that polygraphs actually have an accurate rate of 80%, 90%, or even higher.  Logically they can’t be upset about a web site that refers to such studies when they believe those studies were biased and inaccurate to begin with.  I also don’t see how they could be upset about personal accounts by people who feel they were unfairly treated.

Again, I just don’t understand their responses.  What are they so upset about?  Why are they threatening lawsuits and making denigrating comments about the site creators’ lack of personal responsibility?  

uiop

As I asked nonombre, if countermeasures are so easily detected, what is the problem you have with this site? As yet no response from nonombre. Also, who would spend the time and money to sue a website that lists useless information. I thick this picture needs much more clarification like what you think is sueable in this website. Could it be that polygraphers KNOW that catching countermeasure is pure chance and are using scare tactics to future examinees?