Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50% (Read 91988 times)
Guest
Guest


Re: FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%
Reply #30 - Jan 2nd, 2003 at 11:02pm
Print Post  
This reply is primarily addressed to Skeptic:

I cannot really answer your question in the manner which you posted it because I was not there when the NAS was at the CIA. Therefore I would not say that they were given certain information and then they chose to lie about it (not nice to put words in my mouth). I wouldn't go so far as to say that they "lied", but I have to wonder how they could have made such a statement when I strongly suspect they were told things that SHOULD have made the statement they made at the very least incorrect.

I can understand that there are peope (some of whom reside on this site) that do not like polygraph.  That is their right to feel the way that they do.  But the reality is that whether you like it or not, the polygraph has provided (and will continue to provide)  a valuable service to the general public.  There are others who have not fared well in the conduct of a polygraph test.  I willagree that perhaps some of them ran afoul of an poorly trained examiner.  Not all examiners are the best that they can be...but then again not all doctors are the best either.  A weak excuse, I will grant you, but I have always been an advocate for strong licensing requirements (private and government) to demand quality control and peer review.  If there is a "bad" test, then let's find out why and take corrective action.  Just the same as if there was a porrly done operation.  You want tomake surd that the doctor possesses the knowledge necessary to do the operationin the first place and if he doesn't train him/her.  If they are incapable of training, "encourage" them to persue another career.  Just being adamant about ending a program that HAS been reasonably successful isn't the answer. IMHO, and opinion is just what it is, having a system like polygraph is still better than having a Gestapo come and search your home without the benefit of a legal warrant or whatever the same system would be in a Communinst environment. Of course any discussionof this typemust end with a question about what are the alternatives to this system, which the criticis called flawed?  Despite their willingness to select portions of the NAS study and put it in the little "quote" boxes, I have yet to  note anyone from the antipolygraph side coment about the stament made by th4e NAS that reads (QUOTE) "some alternatives to the polygraph show promise, but NONE (empahsis added) have been shown to OUTPERFORM (empahsis added) (and note that at least IMHO, the term "outperform" connotes there is some significant performance...and not NONE as the favorite term often being thrown around) the polygraph.  NONE (empahsis added) shows ANY (empahsis added) promise of supplanting the polygraph for screening purposes in the near term".  Now when you consider this statement in its entirety, made by the NAS, can you possibly think that they were castigating the polygraph completely?  IMHO these scientists were doing what scientists do best, comtemplating the creation of soemthign different to replace what already exists.  They were saying it is good, but they were not necessarily (in every aspect) saying it was bad either.  They left themselves some wiggle room.  Yes, I know I am rambling, so I will cut it off here for you to consider.  I do not expect to win you over in this venue, but maybe it will be some food for thought.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%
Reply #31 - Jan 3rd, 2003 at 12:07am
Print Post  

Quote:
This reply is primarily addressed to Skeptic:

I cannot really answer your question in the manner which you posted it because I was not there when the NAS was at the CIA. Therefore I would not say that they were given certain information and then they chose to lie about it (not nice to put words in my mouth).


It's not my intent to misquote you.  I'm trying to get at what you were saying.

Quote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that they "lied", but I have to wonder how they could have made such a statement when I strongly suspect they were told things that SHOULD have made the statement they made at the very least incorrect.


I think one consideration that may cause some confusion on this issue is whether the polygraph itself has ever caught a spy.  This means that a person was screened, deception was indicated (when there was no other evidence prior to the screen indicating that the person was a spy) and subsequent investigation, based on the polygraph findings, verified that the screenee was indeed involved in espionage. 

For this I would not include pre-test admissions of involvement in espionage or admissions in post-test interrogations where no deception was actually indicated.  In these cases, the polygraph would be used not as a lie detector but as an interrogation prop -- certainly something for which it can be valuable, but a separate issue from whether the device itself has ever caught a spy.

Quote:
I can understand that there are peope (some of whom reside on this site) that do not like polygraph.  That is their right to feel the way that they do.  But the reality is that whether you like it or not, the polygraph has provided (and will continue to provide)  a valuable service to the general public.


I believe a cost-benefit analysis would find otherwise, and I think this is the conclusion the NAS also came to.  In fact, they specifically found that reliance on the polygraph was a detriment to national security.

Quote:
IMHO, and opinion is just what it is, having a system like polygraph is still better than having a Gestapo come and search your home without the benefit of a legal warrant or whatever the same system would be in a Communinst environment.


Of course.  However, I don't think those are the only two choices we face.

Quote:
Of course any discussionof this typemust end with a question about what are the alternatives to this system, which the criticis called flawed?  Despite their willingness to select portions of the NAS study and put it in the little "quote" boxes, I have yet to  note anyone from the antipolygraph side coment about the stament made by th4e NAS that reads (QUOTE) "some alternatives to the polygraph show promise, but NONE (empahsis added) have been shown to OUTPERFORM (empahsis added) (and note that at least IMHO, the term "outperform" connotes there is some significant performance...and not NONE as the favorite term often being thrown around) the polygraph.  NONE (empahsis added) shows ANY (empahsis added) promise of supplanting the polygraph for screening purposes in the near term".  Now when you consider this statement in its entirety, made by the NAS, can you possibly think that they were castigating the polygraph completely?


Actually, there's been some discussion here on that.  If you consider that statement in context, the NAS was not referring to the polygraph and any alternatives vis-a-vis counterintelligence in general; rather, it was specifically referring to methods of lie detection.  In other words, they were not attempting to say the polygraph must stay because there's no good alternative, or even whether better methods of counterintelligence exist; instead, they were narrowly addressing whether anything better has been found to detect lies.  They concluded that nothing has.

With regard to the polygraph's place in counterintelligence, they not only found that reliance upon it is a significant flaw in our national security, but also that it adds no incremental value to other counterintelligence methods.

Quote:
I do not expect to win you over in this venue, but maybe it will be some food for thought.


Of course.  I vastly prefer this to trading barbs.

Skeptic
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Fair Chance
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 551
Joined: Oct 10th, 2002
Re: FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%
Reply #32 - Jan 3rd, 2003 at 3:28pm
Print Post  

Quote:
I thought your comment about
"super top secret perfect procedure" was a bit sarcastic (I thought we were trying to stay away from this kind if behavior?).  I re-read my original posting and it did not seem vague...can you advise?

Dear Guest,

That comment did come off in the posting as being sarcastic, I will do better next time.  My frustration is about how many polygraph experts constantly state that there is a "higher authority" that has "top men" on this information. It keeps reminding me of the government agents stating to "Indiana Jones in the Raiders of the Lost Ark" about how they have "top men" working on research concerning its power only to show a picture of the Ark going into some huge warehouse.

I would like to know at least which agency is suppose to have all of this knowledge and why everyone in the government is not using them as a resource (or at least the FBI in my case since I would have been dealing with "top secret" information which would require such review)?

Regards.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Guest
Guest


Re: FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%
Reply #33 - Jan 3rd, 2003 at 7:20pm
Print Post  
I am not sure I am qualified to answer your question, but I will try nonetheless.  At the risk of sounding sarcastic myself, just who are these "many polygraph experts" who are saying this about research. There isn't (or shouldn't be) anything so secret about research to warrant such a statement.  It sounds as if you are encountering people who simply do not know the scope of research being done and are making such statements out of hand.  That being said, the follwing is offered for your information.


I can tell you that research i in the discipline of lie detection has been over the past fairly dismal, and probably (just my opinion here)  because no one ever saw a need to research something that had been relatively accepted.  I am guessing that anyone who expressed an interest in research (at least for the most part)came from within the practice. Notwithstanding what many of those who criticize polygraph would say, folks like Gordon Barland and Frank Horvath have done a lot to advance the concept of scientific inquiry in the field of lie detection.  My exposure to researchers has helped me learn that unless their JOB is research, unless there is something in it for them, they are unlikely to express any interest.  I guess I can see their point because it might be admirable to be philanthropic, but being so doesn't pay the bills or put food on the table. 

In trying to get some answers to your question, I learned that in 1994, there was a paper published. The title was "Redefining Security"  Particularly, you should read Chapter 4 and some of the personal statements in the appendices.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/jsc/

which was headed by a professor from USC named Dr. Jeffrey Smith. 

http://www.usc.edu/dept/ise/faculty/Smith.html

I also found it interesting to read his statement which he made before the Senate Judiciary Commitee in 2001.  He acknowledges then, as he did when he headed the Commission that the polygraph process is an imperfect science (there isn't much that IS perfect) but it appears that things have been done that perhaps weren't being done before.  Your question concerning research is answered in this study.  There was a recommendation of the Joint Security Commission that the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute is engaged in an active and robust research program. From what I was able to learn, they have been and are doing just that.  They actively solicit what are called Broad Area Grants for new and original research in the area of lie detection.  Sadly, there is little money available for such research and I would think that even the academic researchers would realize that no money = no research.  Unfortunately, I think that many of their efforst are stymied by the lack of funds.  In the early days of federal polygraph, there was no internal research program.  Slowly, but surely, a research entity was developed.  Yes, there were people like Shiela Reed employed there (there was a television show some time back that spoke of her being fired from that job) and Charles Honts (the professor who speaks of countermeasures and damns screening polygraph, but suppoorts use in the specific issue world (countermeassures notwithstanding) - perhaps because he has a business in this realm??  Gordon Barland brought a new dimension into federal polygraph and indeed today, many polygraph examiners ar being encouraged to seek higher academic degrees and are becoming more involved in research within their own field.  This concept that polygraph examiners are sitting back and doing nothing just isn't so and I for one think that (and there are exceptions to be sure) most polygraph examiners are enthused about participating in scientific inquiry of their choisen profession. Okay I have gone on much longer than I expected to. I hope I have provided you with some information that addresses your concerns.  Unfortunately, I have observed when people provide extended remarks (as I have), there are those who will dissect every word and "demand" reponses.   I do not have that luxury, but I think that all in all, polygraph is not getting a fair shake here and they do not seem to have a champion.
 
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/042501_smith.html

P.S. By the way, the Commissioners came from very respected backgrounds,(just like the NASpanel members) and were headed by a very respected USC professor named Dr. Jeffrey Smith, who addressed Congress during the Hansen debacle.  Oddly, I was unable to find anything on this site about that and reading it would show that there have been tremendous changes made to polygraph as a result of this study.  So for your reading enjoyment, here are the links for you to review. It is hoped, as I have tried to do, this will generate some meaningful dialogue and not, as Skeptic has said, trading barbs.


http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/042501_smith.html

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Fair Chance
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 551
Joined: Oct 10th, 2002
Re: FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%
Reply #34 - Jan 3rd, 2003 at 8:49pm
Print Post  
Dear Guest,

I currently work for the Department of Justice in Law Enforcement (for over ten years) and I have over the years read certain sections of the website (I did not know at the time exactly where the information was from but I recognized much of it from previous reading).

I am very much aware of the need for security since it is the main function of my position.  I am also very aware of the cost constraints in these fiscal times.  Your answers were as concise as possible considering the issue of the question I posed.

My contention concerning the "50%" FBI failure rate:  I would have been one of the percentage as I was accused only on FBI polygraph interpretation.  I saw none of the reasoning provided in your website references used in "evaluation" of my "total security risk ".  There was no common sense involved.  I have had a secret clearance for over eight years in the military with an honorable discharge.  I have had a sensitive clearence in the Department of Justice for over ten years in security electronics.  My background paperwork was bland and complete (no red flags).  No one had any common sense because "they" (my polygrapher and his review team in Washington,D.C.) interpreted my pre-screening charts to be using "countermeasures".  Too much emphasis is being placed on the polygraph results in these clearances without reasonable skepticism.

More importantly, why would they not contact my current employer and check upon my trustworthiness in my current postition since they are most confident of their evaluation?  My employer would ask what information that they are basing their conclusion on.  After three background checks, over ten years of loyal service, and good appraisals,  my employer has far more reason to trust me than not.  Why does the government not save some money and call other agencies and use existing information as suggested in your website links?

In most of the websites, cost versus results is a very big factor.  Money is not unlimited.  I just become upset about the lack of "common sense" as your weblinks constantly stress.  I am talking about the FBI in my case.  

I cannot find a reasonable polygraph examiner who would use strictly polygraph results with no other information to make an employment decision. This is exactly what the FBI does.

I realize that you might not have time to respond but I appreciated your dialogue.

Respond.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5802
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%
Reply #35 - Jan 3rd, 2003 at 11:14pm
Print Post  
Guest,

First, I'd like to welcome you to this message board. You might wish to consider registering: it won't compromise your anonymity and will give you the option of editing your posts. You can create a free, anonymous e-mail account with ZipLip.com for this purpose if you like. Your views are very welcome here.

That said, I'd like to comment on something you wrote earlier that I find...troubling. Following my observation that National Academy of Sciences polygraph review panel member Dr. Katherine Laskey had emphatically stated that no spy had ever been caught through a routine polygraph screening "test," and my observation that the NAS panel had been briefed by the CIA's polygraph unit, you wrote:

Quote:
What was passed to them should have precluded the NAS member from making the statement that she did...but alas, it did not and now there are those who believe what she said based solely on her academic credentials.  It is indeed unfortunate that under the guise of academic freedom, Dr. Fienberg either did not, or worse, chose not, to "encourage" her to not make such a statement, or to retract the statement.  Fortunately, there are much wiser people and they KNOW she "misspoke".


I think the above may well amount to libelous innuendo. You admit that you were not at the CIA briefing. And you maintain that you're not saying Dr. Laskey lied. Yet you strongly suggested it. Why did you put "misspoke" is quotation marks? I think the proper course of action would be for you to either substantiate your allegation against Dr. Laskey or retract it.

And who are these "much wiser people" who "KNOW she 'misspoke?'"

In the same post, you also wrote:

Quote:
No doubt, some of the antipolygraph "army" will jump onthis and demand "proof"....but you may be reasonably sure that such "proof" (as they call it) will not be forthcoming....that is why polygraph works as well as it does.


I am perplexed by that last statement. Did you really mean to say that polygraphy "works as well as it does" (however well that may be) because proof is lacking?

Let's suppose that a CIA polygrapher had indeed caught a spy using the polygraph. Here's a scenario: a CIA polygrapher is called in to screen a 27-year-old Iraqi male who contacted the American Embassy in Amman, Jordan and offered his services to the CIA. The polygraph charts strongly indicate deception when the man is asked "Did anyone direct you to approach the Americans?" and in a post-test interrogation, the subject confesses to having been sent by the Iraqi Mukhabarat (intelligence) to feed disinformation to the CIA. The quick-thinking young CIA agent who has been handling this source thinks this would be a good opportunity to double the agent against the Mukhabarat. He draws up a plan and sells it to his station chief, who gets approval from Langley. The source is now in Baghdad and is providing critical intelligence information that is believed to be highly reliable, some of which has been independently corroborated. Of course, the details of this operation are highly classified (codeword), and properly so.

But what harm could there be in giving the National Academy of Sciences polygraph review panel this "sanitized" version?: "A foreign national contacted a US embassy offering to provide information to the CIA. A polygrapher was called in to verify the man's story, and the charts indicated deception. In a post-test interrogation, the subject confessed to having been sent by a foreign intelligence service."

And a quick note, the Jeffrey H. Smith who was a member of the Joint Security Commission and who testified at the 25 April 2001 Senate hearing on polygraphy (at which I was present) is not the University of Southern California adjunct professor of industrial and systems engineering to whose webpage you provided a link. The Jeffrey H. Smith in question is a lawyer, and a former CIA general counsel. He's now employed with the Washington law firm of Arnold & Porter:

http://www.arnoldporter.com/attorneys.cfm?attorney_id=394
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Guest
Guest


Re: FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%
Reply #36 - Jan 4th, 2003 at 6:59am
Print Post  
Sorry, but "Guest" is fine for me. 

George, I and probably others have grown quite weary of those veiled threats by you and a select few others.  Someone says something and you strive to silence them by implying that someone should sue over what what said.  How can you expect to have any exchange of information if you seek to silence dialogue through threats such as what you do....and all too frequently. Maybe I should just stop trying to offer any disagreement here and fold my cards and "go away"....like others have done.  Would that make you happy?  You will have won nothing.  You will have shown only that you are inflexible and completely unwilling to even entertain any opposing view.  If it makes you feel better, what was stated was an opinion. It was based on a presumption of what was most likely said. There was no desire or intent to libel or slander anyone.  Perhaps one could argue that the statement she made could alsoi be considered libelous if it were to have any afgfect on the livlihood of polygraph examiners. I am more inclined to think that what she said she fewlt she could say under the "protection" of the concept of academic freedom and that all to often is an over-used defense.  IMHO I would think it inconceivable that such a question (has the polygraph ever caught a spy) would not have been asked by NAS and surely a CIA answer would have precluded her statement.  But neither of us can address that because neither of us were there...so that leaves both of us just guessing.  The conclusion that I draw from that is somewhat different from what you believe.  Your privilege to believe what you will and my privilege to hold a different view.  You are right, I did not say that she lied.  I offered something for people to think about.  Perhaps, I was hoping that some panel member from NAS would read whjat was written and offer something either in support or in rebuttal.. You have no right to try to "buffalo" a retraction.  No allegation was made.  I believe she misspoke. Why did I put it in quotes?...I dunno..I just like quotes I guess...I have nothing to retract. The wiser people?...in my estimation, they know who they are.  They should come forward, but not in this forum....rather one that enjoys greater respectability. When you go onthe rampages that you do, you damage any credibility this site has.  Don't do that George, you have some good people here who can engage in meaningful debate. It is indeed odd that there are some pro-polygraphers and anti-polygraphers who can engage in this meaningful debate, but along comes their "leader" and destroys any willingness to debate.  I will end here only by acknowledging that you WERE correct about Dr. Smith and I apologize if I misled anyone. I jumped the gun believing that my name search was corerect.  I yeild to you inlight of the fact that you were there.  But this does not demean the "correct" Dr. Smith.  By the same token, I think you were wrong to NOT point out out that Dr. Smith was NOT employed by the CIA when he served on the committee.  You sort of left that little fact out. Perhaps you had hoped to have people think that the Commission was an "inside job".  It wasn't.  Have a good weekend!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Marty
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 499
Joined: Sep 27th, 2002
Re: FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%
Reply #37 - Jan 4th, 2003 at 7:54am
Print Post  
Quote:
Sorry, but "Guest" is fine for me.  

George, I and probably others have grown quite weary of those veiled threats by you and a select few others.  Someone says something and you strive to silence them by implying that someone should sue over what what said.  How can you expect to have any exchange of information if you seek to silence dialogue through threats such as what you do....and all too frequently.


Really now. The legal comments (I don't think they rose to the level of threats)  are indeed largely spurious. As someone who knows a lawyer that has tracked down organized short sellers that grossly slandered a CEO in order to manipulate markets and has prosecuted john doe discovery to the poster's ISP back to their origin I can say showing libel on the net is a complex task and requires statements far more injurious than anything "guest" said - just to get discovery approved.

Secondly, reading "guest's" objectionable (if not realistically actionable) assertions, they seemed to me obvious opinion anyway. Given "guest's" checkered prior postings I was frankly surprised and pleased to see what later turned into a decent post. "Guest" should be encouraged to do more of that (absent the attacks and barbs which are somewhat fun but not really productive). It may be a while before we return to the quality of some of Barland's older posts but this site badly needs decent representation from the pro-polygraph community as George has done a pretty decent job on the "anti" side.

[added] Also, look at the attacks questioning George's patriotism and aluding to inside knowledge about his polygraph experiences. If one totes it up I think the pro-polygraph side comes out on the short end.

Also,  there is a pretty disgusting group of other folk that seem to come here looking for a fast way to "beat" the box.  My guess is that they are better "served" by Doug William's book which won't clutter their minds with technical or moral issues and get's right to the recipe in a jargon many may feel at home with.

-Marty
« Last Edit: Jan 4th, 2003 at 8:21am by Marty »  

Leaf my Philodenrons alone.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5802
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%
Reply #38 - Jan 4th, 2003 at 11:50am
Print Post  
Guest,

It was not my intent to browbeat you (or any other poster) into silence. Nor did I mean to suggest that you might be sued for what you anonymously posted regarding Dr. Laskey when I wrote that it "may well amount to libelous innuendo." Upon re-reading my reply to you, I see how it may have left that impression, however. By "libelous" I simply meant "involving defamation through written means."

What you wrote about Dr. Laskey is defamatory if indeed her statement about the polygraph never having caught a spy in a routine screening examination is consistent with the information provided to the NAS. Since you have conceded that you were not at the CIA briefing, that you were "just guessing," and that you don't know why you put "misspoke" in quotes with regard to Dr. Laskey's remarks, I suggest we drop the matter and move on.

I am still interested in your reasoning on why the CIA would not have mentioned to the NAS any alleged success in catching spies with the polygraph, at least in some "sanitized" form (with classified details omitted). Or have I misunderstood your argument?

As for my mentioning that Jeffrey H. Smith is a former CIA general counsel, I merely mentioned it to distinguish him from the USC adjunct professor you had believed him to be (and because it was in that capacity that he was introduced as a witness at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on polygraphs). Nonetheless, as for the Joint Security Commission report being an "inside job," of this there can be little doubt. In fairness, I don't think the report was ever intended to be, or represented as being, an "outside" review. The Commission was established in 1993 by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey. Smith is a U.S. Military Academy graduate and former Army lawyer who served as Chief of the Clinton Transition Team at the Department of Defense. You correctly noted that the Commisioners came from respected backgrounds. But they were defense and intelligence community "insiders." Commissioner Ann Caracristi was a former deputy director of the NSA. Commissioner Anthony A. Lapham was a former CIA general counsel. Commissioner Larry D. Welch was a retired four-star general and former U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff. The list goes on. In addition, all the Commission staff members were drawn from CIA, DoD, NSA, and DOE. However, that the Commission was composed of, and staffed by, insiders does not necessarily impugn its findings, and I had no intention of suggesting that it does.
« Last Edit: Jan 4th, 2003 at 1:02pm by George W. Maschke »  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5802
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%
Reply #39 - Jan 4th, 2003 at 1:28pm
Print Post  
Guest,

I also feel compelled to say a word in defense of Sheila Reed and Charles Honts, both of whom were invited speakers at the NAS polygraph review panel's public hearings. You wrote:

Quote:
Yes, there were people like Shiela [sic] Reed employed there (there was a television show some time back that spoke of her being fired from that job) and Charles Honts (the professor who speaks of countermeasures and damns screening polygraph, but suppoorts use in the specific issue world (countermeassures notwithstanding) - perhaps because he has a business in this realm??


The television show you have in mind is no doubt the CBS 60 Minutes II segment "Final Exam" that aired on 12 December 2001. It said nothing of Dr. Reed having been fired. Here's the relevant excerpt from the transcript:

Quote:
Pelley: Reed left the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute in 1996, and not on good terms, but no one who would talk to us questioned the quality of her work. Even scientists who are still with the Defense Polygraph Institute have their doubts about screening. Last summer, no less than the chief of research at the Institute told the national academy of sciences that polygraph suffers from what he called "an extreme dearth of research."


You'll find the entire transcript posted in the message thread, Poly Segment on 60 Minutes II, 12/12/01.

With regard to Charles Honts, he doesn't just "speak" of countermeasures: he's one of a just handful of researchers to have done any meaningful research on countermeasures, and was the lead researcher of the only peer-reviewed studies on the subject. I don't see how his countermeasure research (including his finding that countermeasures can reduce the accuracy of the CQT) and his opposition to polygraph screening materially benefit his polygraph business. Moreover, I note that Dr. Honts left DoDPI (and went to the University of North Dakota) on grounds of principle, taking a substantial pay cut in the process.

If you disagree with anything that Drs. Reed or Honts have said with regard to polygraphy in general or polygraph screening in particular, then why not address these issues directly rather than calling into question their reputations and/or motives?
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Johnn
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 116
Joined: Aug 29th, 2005
Re: FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%
Reply #40 - Sep 22nd, 2005 at 8:06pm
Print Post  
George,
It seems like the FBI phoned the Philly Inquirer to have the article deleted!  Shocked

Quote:
In an article titled, "FBI seeks to rebuild its image," Chris Mondics of the Philadelphia Inquirer Washington bureau reports that Roger L. Trott, chief of the FBI's agent training unit, asserts that nearly half of FBI agent applicants who pass preliminary tests don't pass the polygraph:

If Trott is right, then the percentage of FBI applicants who fail to pass the polygraph is up sharply from an earlier figure of about 20%. Perhaps, with the surge in applications following the events of 11 September 2001, the FBI has decided that it can afford to arbitrarily disqualify more applicants based on polygraph chart readings.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5802
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%
Reply #41 - Sep 22nd, 2005 at 8:13pm
Print Post  
Johnn,

I doubt it was anything so sinister as that. Smiley  Many newspapers routinely remove their free on-line content after a period of time.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
freaked-out
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 8
Joined: Mar 23rd, 2006
Re: FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%
Reply #42 - Mar 23rd, 2006 at 6:31pm
Print Post  
But it has worked perfectly well for many years.  (50% figure/false positive info. way off.)  So what would be the purpose of changing it now?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5802
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%
Reply #43 - Mar 23rd, 2006 at 6:46pm
Print Post  
freaked-out wrote on Mar 23rd, 2006 at 6:31pm:
But it has worked perfectly well for many years.  (50% figure/false positive info. way off.)  So what would be the purpose of changing it now?


I do not maintain that the FBI's false positive rate is 50%. Rather, it is the overall failure rate that has been authoritatively reported to stand near 50%. However, considering the fact that polygraphy has no scientific basis and is without validity as a diagnostic test for deception, it is clear that a sizable portion of those accused of deception are being falsely accused.

It is grossly unfair to accuse people of deception and permanently disqualify them from employment based on voodoo science such as the polygraph. Our government's continued reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy is a national disgrace.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
polyfool
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb 23rd, 2005
Re: FBI Polygraph Failure Rate Reportedly Near 50%
Reply #44 - Mar 23rd, 2006 at 8:17pm
Print Post  
freaked-out wrote on Mar 23rd, 2006 at 6:31pm:
But it has worked perfectly well for many years.  (50% figure/false positive info. way off.)  So what would be the purpose of changing it now?


freakedout,

Are you aware that HALF (that would be 50%) of the first class at the Academy subjected to polygraphs failed? They were given waivers, yet the agency pushed ahead with the policy, anyway. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something was wrong with the so-called testing procedure then and there's still a heck of a whole lot wrong with it now. Otherwise, there would be very little reason for this site to exist.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
Send TopicPrint
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo