Anonymous,
Quote:1. The point that polygraphers expect you to LIE to control questions is not necessary true. The only expectation is that you have a significant response to these questions. For example, if a question such as: Have you ever lied to anyone you love, is asked, the idea is that even after you admit all the times you remember having to a loved one, you will still be nervous about the question and therefore have a significant response. A polygrapher would definitely expect you to admit to any serious lie, i.e. having been involved in a crime, adultery, etc.
I think the polygraph community's term of art "probable-lie control question" adequately summarizes how polygraphers expect subjects to reply to these questions.
Quote:2. I do believe polygraphs detect deception and so do you! The fact is polygraphs detect bodily reactions and Lying does cause the body to react. Even countermeasures prove this point... The countermeasures advocated on this site suggest one produce a more significant response to control questions in order to minimize the significance of any reaction to revelant question. The problem with the polygraph is the LYING is not the only thing that can cause significant responses. I would have no problem with the polygraph if they were really used how they are supposed to be used - as an investigative aid to direct investigations. Unfortunately, many agencies put too much faith in the polygraph and many people end up getting hurt.
No, I don't believe that polygraphs detect deception. They record relative changes in certain bodily functions on the basis of which polygraphers make
inferences about a subject's truthfulness or deceptiveness. And as Skeptic correctly observed, lying may or may not cause one's body to react in ways that are measurable by the polygraph.
Quote:3. We as Americans have the right to disagree with, protest, and attempt to change laws, but we should not merely decide to ignore laws when they don't conform to our agendas.
As a practical matter, whether to observe or ignore laws is a decision that most of us make daily. For example, shall you observe the speed limit of 55 m.p.h. or go with the flow of traffic that's zipping along at 70? Or will you go out of your way to pay the sales tax you legally owe to your state government on an item that you purchased from another state (by mail or over the Internet), and on which you did not pay out-of-state sales tax?
With regard to the otherwise truthful person who employs countermeasures during an employment-related polygraph interrogation, but falsely denies having employed countermeasures, or having researched polygraphy, I believe there is no ethical violation. There's a legal maxim
fraus meritur fraudem (fraud merits fraud). In the case of polygraph screening, the fraud being perpetrated by the state merits the citizen's use of deception to protect himself against that fraud. As English playwright Henry Chettle wrote, "'Tis no deceit to deceive the deceiver."
In my opinion, any violation of 18 USC 1001 in such circumstances would be at worst a
malum prohibitum (defined by
Black's Law Dictionary as "...a thing which is wrong
because it is prohibited; an act which is not inherently immoral, but becomes so because its commission is expressly forbidden by positive law...") and not a
malum in se ("[a] wrong in itself; an act or case involving illegality from the very nature of the transaction, upon principles of natural, moral, and public law...").
In any event, for the otherwise truthful person who falsely denies knowledge of and/or having used countermeasures, the risk is negligible that:
1) Any federal agency would make a criminal referral under 18 USC 1001 based on a polygrapher's suspicions that a subject had lied about knowledge and/or use of countermeasures;
2) Any federal prosecutor would bring an indictment based on such suspicions.
Quote:4. I think that the endless argument over the validity of the polygraph is a lost cause. Unfortunately for us, the general public is under the misconception that polygraphs are infalliable and no politician, especially after Sep 11, would in his right mind advocate the end of polygraphs in security investigations base on their validity. As I've stated before, we must turn to fight to an argument about: 1. How the government selectively uses polygraphs... i.e. us scrubs on the bottom of the barrel are required to undergo polygraphs, but politicians and powerful government officials are not. 2. We have to promote studies to show that polygraphs have not diminished the number of incidents of misconduct in the government. 3. We have to demand that if polygraphs are to be used, which they will be, they should only be used as a tool and not as an executioner.
I disagree with your supposition that the general public is under the misconception that polygraphs are infallible. Most Americans seem to believe that polygraphy is an admittedly fallible but nonetheless science-based methodology.
This misconception can and must be corrected. We're working toward that end, and are having some success in reaching those most directly affected by governmental reliance on polygraphy. When enough employees and applicants who are subject to polygraph screening become aware that the "test" is a fraud, the polygraph house of cards will collapse.
As you may be aware, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is conducting a
review of the scientific evidence on the polygraph. The public meetings held by the polygraph review committee were well attended by senior members of the federal polygraph community. Their trepidation over the committee's ultimate conclusions and policy recommendations was quite apparent. (At the
public meeting held on 23 July 2001, Dr. Andrew J. Ryan, chief of research at DoDPI, made what was essentially an appeal for clemency.) The NAS report is due later this summer, and I anticipate that it will give quite a boost to the antipolygraph effort.
With regard to politicians in their right minds not advocating the end of polygraphs in security investigations post 9-11, note that the Philadelphia Police Department abolished polygraph screening for applicants in May of this year. Nonetheless, I agree with you that post 9-11 exigencies make it politically difficult for decision makers to take a public stance against polygraph screening. The alternative arguments against polygraphy that you propose all have merit, and you'll find them reflected in Chapter 2 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (on polygraph policy). But the key argument that polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud is a compelling one that we will continue to vociferously put forth.