Paul,
With regard to your claim that a deceptive person will increase his chances of being found deceptive in a CQT polygraph examination by employing countermeasures unless he has received hands-on training, you clarified:
Quote:I base that on the employment of countermeasure detection devices particularly lafayettes latest version which will detect the sphincter pucker and most other physical countermeasures. My own experience also on several occasions without countermeasure devices I was able to correctly identify use of advice offered on internet sites.
Some subjects confessed to using c/measures after failing exams and after being accused of using them, and others after failing admitted to using c/measures that I did not detect but they had failed the exams anyway and were not happy the paid for advice did not work.
It's all well and fine that you've polygraphed some subjects who have confessed to using countermeasures "after failing exams and after being accused of using them" and others who have admitted it without prompting. But your experience does not provide any support for your assertion that a deceptive person increases his chances of failing a polygraph examination if he employs countermeasures absent hands-on training.
How many deceptive subjects have you polygraphed that have
successfully employed countermeasures? In the great majority of such cases, you'll never know.
You raised the topic of Lafayette's latest activity sensor (model 76875AS):
It seems plausible to me that constriction of one's anal sphincter muscle might result in an air pressure change in the air pouch on the seat. So might flatulence or any muscle strain to avoid it during the in-test phase of a polygraph examination. How does one determine with this activity sensor whether any changes in pressure in any of the air pouches is the result of the subject's employment of countermeasures? If you could direct me to any published literature regarding this device, I'd be grateful.
Perhaps the
Lafayette Instrument Company would care to accept Drew's
Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge. If Lafayette has any confidence at all in its product, it should gladly accept. Think of what a publicity bonanza it would be for Lafayette to have its activity sensor vindicated in this manner. Agencies that have purchasing arrangements with competitors Stoelting and Axciton would face considerable pressure to switch to countermeasure-proof Lafayette instruments equipped with the amazing model 76875AS activity sensor.
Regarding future prosects for CQT polygraphy you wrote:
Quote:I don't see how polygraphy will collapse as you suggest I know you like to think this is going to happen. It seems the US government is increasing usage all the time not the other way round. International usage is growing as well.
Other parameters are being researched for use in lie detection such as eeg patterns . I can see the use increasing as technology irons out some of the current problems.
I confess that I do rather like to think that polygraphy will collapse. But it's more than mere wishful thinking. As Drew has pointed out
elsewhere, no amount of technology can iron out the fundamental flaws of CQT polygraphy.
But what I think is going to bring about the demise of polygraphy sooner rather than later is the revolutionary advances in information technology of recent years, in particular, the widespread availability of personal computers and easy access to information via the Internet.
Anyone with a computer and Internet access can now obtain detailed information about CQT polygraphy quickly and for free. In my experience, the reaction of the great majority of people once they discover how truth vs. deception is actually inferred in CQT polygraphy is, "What a bunch of bullshit!" (Pardon the vulgarity, but it captures the sentiment -- and often the hearer's exact words -- quite well.)
With the advent of the Internet, polygraph victims are finding each other through sites like this one and are increasingly organizing. We're working to inform precisely those people who are subjected to polygraph screening of the fraud that is being practiced against them. Increased reliance on polygraph screening in the U.S. Department of Energy and FBI is helping to hasten the day when most people who are required to submit to polygraph "testing" will understand that it's a fraud. Admissions will gradually dry up, diminishing the utility of polygraph screening, and faced with informed workforces, the polygraph charade will perforce come to an end.
AntiPolygraph.org exemplifies the kinds of changes in information technology that are going to put the kibosh on polygraphy. In the 17 months that we've been on-line, we've become the Internet's premiere source of information on polygraphy and are now averaging several hundred visits per day. The 1st edition of our free book,
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, has been downloaded 20,000+ times and was probably the most widely read book on polygraphy in 2001. A second edition is soon to be released. And, importantly, a community of polygraph opponents is coming together via this message board. All this is being done on a shoestring budget, and none of it would have been possible a mere decade ago.
So yes, I'm rather confident that polygraphy's days are numbered.