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:


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 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.

Fightbackk,

In response to your previous inquiry posted to me:

Before addressing your question, I would like to comment briefly regarding one thing you said which I find somewhat amusing.  You indicated that your first polygrapher stated something to the effect that it was difficult to polygraph someone with a legal background.  Two points: Although I have clearly and repeatedly made clear that I believe polygraph screening to be invalid for any group of people (professional grouping or otherwise), I suspect those who use it in the polygraph community would take exception to the notion of it being unable to be used (or used with difficulty) with attorneys et al.  The reason I find this particularly amusing is that, in the not too distant past, the only way to become an agent of the FBI was to have a background in law or accounting.  A substantial number of FBI employees still have legal backgrounds.  Perhaps this FBI polygrapher should be called as a witness in any future hearings and litigation related to proposed legislation to increase polygraph screening of FBI employees...

Common sense would indicate that in addressing your question, I would begin with the notion of whether your polygraph exam was a valid instrument for determining your suitability in various areas, i.e., is it a valid diagnostic tool for determining truth in matters related to your background and of concern to the Bureau.  Although the Bureau/Justice Department has periodically through sworn testimony (given in affidavit and otherwise) admitted that various uses of polygraphy do not meet the muster and rigor of scientific scrutiny, i.e., they are not found to be widely accepted as valid by the relevant scientific community (ies), and are readily vulnerable to countermeasure efforts, overall institutional awareness and memory seems to be rather faulty.  There seems to be a bit of "have your cake and eat it to" going on.  That is, there seems to be an institutionally recognized problem with an opposing polygraph exam and result, but Bureau uses seem to go without comparable scrutiny.  Interestingly, it is the use of polygraph screening that the Bueau has decided to adopt (absolutely no scientific support) whereas it has decided to attack based on considerations of validty various uses (generally opposing defense counsel uses of and subsequent court testimony) of criminal specific issue testing (for which there exists minimal scientific support).  The bottom line to all of this is that as ridiculous as it may appear, attacking the polygraph procedure because it is not valid does not seem to be a useful approach with the Bureau.  It apparently cares that it is valid only when it chooses to care if it is valid...

Which leaves us with two other areas for inspection: ethical behavior and adherence to administrative/procedural guidelines.  Although there are many things that might be considered with the former, because you do not raise the issue, I will not address it further.  With regard to the latter...

You indicate that you were involved in a procedure that had multiple presentations (polygraph charts) of the same questions.  Presumably these questions (and your answers to these questions) had been reviewed/rehearsed in advance with you.  It would be proper to let you know in advance that you could expect to have several (usually three or four) presentations of these questions made to you while polygraphic data was being recorded.  It should also have been explained to you in advance that the only difference between these presentations would be that the question sequence would be different (and unknown to you) for each of the presentations.  It is not clear to me exactly what was done in your case, so it is hard for me to comment about whether this generally accepted procedure was followed.  With regard to specific Bureau procedures, they do exist, but because they may have changed numerous times since my formal involvement with the Bureau's polygraph research program, I cannot comment as to whether your examinations would accurately be described as in compliance.  As you may be aware, there currently exists a civil suit with four government agencies (all of whom employ polygraph screening in their applicant review process) as defendants and various applicants seeking employment with these agencies as plaintiffs in this matter.  I suspect that it would be useful for you to consult specifically with the attorney representing the plaintiffs about your experience and as to whether grievances exist stemming from your polygraph exams that might be litigated or the subject of further administrative review.  That attorney is Mr. Mark Zaid and he can be contacted telephonically at 202-371-6626.

Fightbackk,

I won't repeat that which I have already described--the general procedure and explanation connected with a polygraph exam.  I see no reason whatsoever (partcularly in an applicant exam as opposed to a criminal exam) to not carefully and clearly explain in advance to the examinee what he/she could expect to occur during the polygraph process.  Not doing so would only invite non-specific reactions due to any generalized anxiety, fear, or surprise that might occur.  With regard to the citizenship issue, I can see no reason for it being raised by a polygraph examiner.  It has nothing to do with the relevant subject matter of an applicant exam.  The only reason that occurs to me for it being properly discussed is if you raised your own concerns about it and the polygraph examiner discussed the issue with you to minimize concerns that you had raised.  If you feel that there was any ethical problem(s) connected with your examination(s), I would suggest that you contact and discuss them with the Bureau's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).  You can reach them through the general switchboard at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C.  The number for that switchboard is 202-324-3000.

Beechtrees,

The sensor would have to be used with the LX-4000 not the 3000 you wouldn't know this as you could not pluck that info off Lafayettes site. More evidence that your story is a fabrication.

Paul,

You wrote:

Quote:


How do you know that physical countermeasures would not have worked for a deceptive subject with the correct use of the Lafayette model 76875AS activity sensor?

What is the "correct" use of this activity sensor?

Paul,

In the reading room on this site, I have an open letter to "all politicians and public office holders". If you haven't read it please do and tell the visitors to this site if you concur with it or not. If you do not concur give us your reasons why you do not. If you do, would you copy it and send it to your state and federal congressmen? I would like to know if the people who we voted for, and that really control our lives, are truthful people. If the polygraph is truly a lie dector, wouldn't it make sense to polygraph the occupants of state houses and Washington D.C.

I have sent and caused to be sent hundreds of these letters to elected officials and to newspapers. To this date not one of these letters that I sent, nor any of the ones I caused to be sent, has generated "A" response. Could it be that all of these public officials believe the polygraph works and they have something to hide? If this is so, then they want everyone else to be polygraphed but 'LEAVE US OUT' Something doesn't seem right here. Washington congressmen and congresswomen have access to very sensitive national security material. Shouldn't we know that they are behaving ethically?

Your comments please.

George and Gino,

On the subject of the activity sensor there are specific instructions to calibrate for the detection of certain C/measures particularly seated movements.
Of course any indicators that occur only on controls and never on relevants on three differing charts will be considered a c/measure. 
Different types of movements squeezing of buttocks as opposed to sphincter contraction as opposed to someone shifting weight from one side to the other or tightening leg muscles etc, generate identifiable differences represented graphically. Similar to differences in graphical representations in the cardiograph e.g. pulse rates ,blood volumes ,aortic pulse wave representations cannot be confused for each other because of their obvious differences. 
Unless there is another physical countermeasure to do with the seat that I am unaware of that may produce responses 
I am confident that those types of c/measures will cause a problem for examinees who use them when A/S is employed.
This would be an area of interest for research outside of claims made by the manufacturer and examiners who use it. 

As for your comments Gino in relation to polygraph examiner accuracy in determining truth from deception in screening applications I agree there is not much scientific support for those formats. Accordingly there is hardly any research conducted into this area (screening of employees in a pre-employment setting) not enough to draw any conclusions from. Although it has been demonstrated that the more variance between issues increases competition between the relevant questions and hence increase error rates. 
However there is a large amount of peer-reviewed literature published showing high accuracy rates for single issue specific test formats . As Dr Richardson hinted at earlier only in his view limited support.    

Politicians will base their decisions on official reports given to them from the various government agencies and scientists who are employed for that purpose such as the DODPI.
Polygraph utility as far as obtaining  extra information over and above normal investigative processes is solid, of course this is a separate issue to validity. There are cases that do not get published officially where spys have been caught as a result of failing a polygraph test. Some have been published in fiscal reports to congress and cases solved by the CIA using polygraph may be of interest as well. 



Wild Bill,

You will not be taken seriously by the powers that be because:      
Quote
Regrettably, the 21st century anti-polygraph movement is often mistakenly associated with the extreme left and organizations that campaign for expanded rights for the most reprehensible criminals in our society. Many of these organizations voiced strong support for the EPPA in the mid 1980s, when the debate on polygraphs was one of security vs. civil rights.

Along with the fact that polygraph applications have been employed by government agencies for some time with good results in terms of utility. The main concern for most posting on these sites is pre-employment settings and job application verification by polygraph. This does not appear to be a concern for politicians because as I have heard it said that if a person can't pass a pre-employment polygraph then they are probably not cut out for law enforcement positions anyway. That is what you are dealing with. 
 


     

Wild Bill,

I agree with your comments, To get political members to agree to submitting to polygraph testing would be a major breakthrough, for reasons you point out corruption etc. They are also the very reasons it would never happen. Just for the record I am an advocate for law and order and am all for cleaning up the political arena and making elected officials more accountable using the polygraph along with any other investigative methods that any other federal employee would have to agree to as part of the process. I find it unusual that someone on a site designed to convince others to abolish the use of polygraph in any setting would be advocating its use.