George, thanks for your reply.  I don't have access to Honts' article at the moment.  I suspect that "experienced" polygraphers aren't necessarily examiners that have been trained in countermeasures.  Does the article indicate if the "experienced" examiners were Federal examiners trained in countermeasures and counter-countermeasures?  If they were not, I would hardly consider them qualified to detect countermeasures and how to engage in counter-countermeasures.  The information you seek concerning the Government's ability to detect countermeasures and employ  counter-countermeasures is not available for public dissemination; therefore, I will not comment on it.  Is there a chance that one employing countermeasures might beat an  examiner?  Yes, there is a chance.  In addition to beating the examiner they will have to also beat the examiners who conduct quality control reviews.  However, there is also the chance that he will not succeed.  Unfortunately for the users of your information, the chances are not in their favor if they are dealing with an experienced Federal examiner trained to detect countermeasures and  counter-countermeasures.

L72cueak,

Quote:

And we also know that more and more people are passing these "tests" via countermeasures from the numerous e-mails we receive. This is nothing more than anecdotal evidence that cancels out for both sides of the argument.

Quote:

Keep telling yourself this and eventually you may believe it. In a similar manner to how individuals are baselessly accused of deception by polygraphers, it is likely that examiners are accusing persons of using countermeasures without corroboration by confession. Although adverse action may result in both cases, an examiner’s accusation absent a confession does not mean a person is “caught.” Furthermore, in both of the above cases, it is quite likely that the accused did not engage in the activity (deception/countermeasures) that he is accused of. 

Quote:


If these techniques you refer to do even exist, it is overwhelmingly likely that they operate at the same level of accuracy as the CQT polygraphy you champion—chance. Still, I can understand the need for secrecy on behalf of federal government examiners. The polygraph emperor is naked, and the federal polygraph community is attempting to hide him behind the convenient cloak of "classified." The explanation "it works, but we can't tell you how" is a convenient cop-out that may be acceptable for some. It will not fly here.

Since we are unlikely to get anywhere when discussing polygraph examinations where secrecy is an issue, perhaps you can explain to us how private examiners and others without DoDPI training (police examiners, etc) detect countermeasures? As you know, the use of polygraphy outside of the federal government (police employment, probation and post conviction programs) has increased tremendously in recent years. Surely these examiners, especially those (foolishly) entrusted with supervising our country’s criminals, need reliable techniques for catching those who attempt to beat the box. 

From our review of the literature, it is safe to say that there is no established methodology for detecting countermeasures. The only reasonable assumption is that examiners are developing their own techniques on an individual basis (i.e. “he looks and acts guilty, but he produced a strongly 'truthful' chart, so he must have been using countermeasures"). 

Please prove me wrong by pointing out an established methodology for detecting polygraph countermeasures in use by private examiners. Furthermore, please do not waste everyone’s time by telling us that this is “secret” as well.

As George pointed out in his 17 March 2002 FOIA request to DoDPI, the methodology of any standardized test can not depend on secrecy. 

Gentlemen, regarding your statement: 

The explanation "it works, but we can't tell you how" is a convenient cop-out that may be acceptable for some. It will not fly here.

It is not a cop-out.  The information can't be disseminated because it is classified at various levels.  Disclosure of such information would be a violation of law.  I'm surely not going to violate the law to illustrate a point to you.

As I suspected, there apparently was no information in the article that suggested the examiners were actually trained in CM detection and CCMs.  

One day I would like to see some research conducted in a similar manner with examiners that are trained in CM and CCM.     

Regarding what private examiners and non-DoDPI personnel do or don't do regarding CM and CCM, I don't know.

Gino, you said:

At the very least, a polygrapher using his real name could publish an article in Polygraph or another shop journal on how to detect sophisticated countermeasures. So far, we have yet to see even this level of persuasiveness (if you can call it that). The only theories on detecting sophisticated polygraph countermeasures that I have seen to date have been published by anonymous individuals on Internet message boards.

There was an article published in Polygraph on how sophisticated CM were detected and defeated with CCM, written by London & Krapohl.  I doubt there will be any future articles of that nature because of obvious reasons.

George, regarding your statement:

"It seems likely that any potential reactions to the relevant questions on the electrodermal and cardio channels will be attenuated when one understands the fraudulent nature of polygraph "testing," simply because one will understand that one need not fear them."

If a guy has molested his daughter, stolen something, murdered, etc., you think his responses to the RQ will be attenuated because he "understands the fraudulent nature of polygraph testing..."?  The person still fears the consequences of having committed the felony.  The fact is that there are reactions to all questions on an exam - even the irrelevant questions - even when a person employs CM.  So, I'll ask you again: How does one know at what level to employ the CM if he doesn't know what he delivered on all of the RQ?  The correct answer is that one can't know.  That lack of knowledge coupled with an inability to always deliver a sub-maximal level on the CQ and an examiner trained in CM and CCM makes for a difficult task.      

L72cueak wrote on Apr 28^th, 2002 at 2:59pm:


Here is a shining example of the fraudulent and abusive use of the polygraph. Just what the hell kind of reaction do you think you would get from an innocent subject who comprehends that a failed test would bring about the possible consequences of 1. a failed marriage 2. social pariah 3. possible forced psychotherapy, including the forced ingestion of drugs among many other negatives? Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that an innocent subject's reactions to a question like 'have you ever lied to an employer?' would be greater than 'did you penetrate your daughter's vagina?' when essentially that person's whole world hangs in the balance?

George, I find it interesting that you latch onto the research conducted by Honts to illustrate your point that CM can't be detected at better than chance levels.  If the study involved examiners that were trained in CM and CCM - that might have some bearing on this discussion.

L72cueak wrote on Apr 28^th, 2002 at 4:42pm:


My observation was merely that "the available scientific research does not support the conclusion that polygraph examiners can detect countermeasures (or indeed, deception) at better than chance levels." If you are aware of any research whatsoever supporting the conclusion that polygraphers can detect countermeasures at better than chance levels, perhaps you'd care to share it with us?