Quote:To further cover the point about Title 18 USC 1001 let me state this, you may call it civil disobedience or whatever you like, but this is a binding law that has teeth. If you fill out the SF-86 (form for national security positions), have an interview as part of your background check, or yes, undergo a federal preemployment polygraph, you are not only subject to Title 18, but you are also adviced to the fact that you are Subject to it.
Big deal. I grow weary of the transparent tactics of the pro-polygraph community here on this board. When confronted with the
Countermeasure Challenge, or indeed any mention of the use of countermeasures, they 1. Attack the messenger's character. 2. Bluff that countermeasures (as described in
The Lie Behind The Lie Detector) can be discerned-- yet when asked HOW countermeasures are discerned, or even to produce ONE EXAMPLE of a test subject who employed countermeasures and was detected as doing so (absent a confession), they are unable to articulate nor produce such evidence. This is the case
one hundred percent of the time on this discussion board. This is important enough to the discussion at hand to repeat: Polygraphers have never offered one shred of evidence here-- other than their 'good word'-- that they can detect countermeasures as described in
The Lie Behind The Lie Detector. It bothers them greatly that the paradigm of power has been handily wrested from their clutches and now sits firmly with the interrogation victim, and they will do and say ANYTHING in order to negatively influence one's choice on whether or not we the people control the polygraph interrogation or allow the polygrapher to dictate the outcome. 3. and of course this latest tactic is tangential to the 'you're going to be in so much trouble if you lie' spew.
Anonymous, please name one person who has ever been prosecuted under Title 18 USC 1001 for using the kinds of countermeasures as described in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector during the couse of a Federal government agency administered polygraph interrogation. Ana Montes? Brian Regan? Aldrich Ames?
No one will ever be prosecuted under Title 18 USC 1001 for employing countermeasures (absent an admission from the examinee) because 1. countermeasures are undetectable and 2. to do so retroactively (as would be the case with the above noted spies) would be tantamount to admitting that the polygraph is worthless other than as an interrogation prop (as it is currently used).
Quote:If you think this is a law that is just taken lightly, I just ask you to consider the Forest Service employee involved in starting all the fires in Colorado... The first thing she was charged with was a violation of Title 18 for turning in a false report. This offense is punishable by up to a $10,000 fine and five years in prison.
No one is saying the law doesn't have teeth, nor that it lacks severe and harsh penalties should one be convicted of same. The above mentioned charge (if it is true) is a all-too-common tactic of the prosecution-- dogpile on the charges and then use those charges to plea bargain down to the heart of the matter-- in this case arson. I respectfully suggest this also has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Quote:Secondly, and more pertinent to the question of whether one should lie or not on the polygraph or any other part of an investigation is Guideline E of the Adjudicative Guidelines used by agencies throughout the federal government:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/spb/class.htm If you notice, this guideline is the only guideline that may require disqualification of an individual seeking a security clearance. Take it from me gents, the government does not kid around when it comes to falsification issues. If fact, if you read any appeal decisions concerning denied clearances you will often find that individuals were denied clearances simply because they had lied about information, that in of itself, would have not disqualified them.
Since countermeasures as described in George and Gino's book have never been proven to be detectable, what of it? Your argument started out as an ethical one-- the morality of lying in violation of this country's laws. As George said, this is clearly, CLEARLY
malum prohibitum and, IMHO, a non-issue as Title 18 USC 1001 is repugnant to the US Constitution and is thus null and void. Note I am not dismissing the consequences, I am dismissing the notion that there is something morally wrong in disobeying an un-Constitutional law.
Now you are making dire prognostications over the
consequences of lying. I'm saying there are no consequences as the techniques as decribed here are undetectable, absent an admission from the examinee.
Quote:Again, I want to stress that I hate polygraphs and I do think, that because of how they're being abused, they should be banned. I do however disagree with some of the things said on this website, like in every aspect of life, the truth can be found somewhere between the middle of the two opposing opinions:
I don't like people who think moderation and/or compromise is the key to 'understanding' the truth behind an issue. Inevitably those who argue for same then try to sway one's opinion over to their side. Let's see if this holds true here as well:
Quote:1. The point that polygraphers expect you to LIE to control questions is not necessary true.
~BINGO!~ JB, is that you? Many of the anti-polygraph contributors here choose to remain anonymous, but at least we have the courtesy to do so under a single, registered screen name. This tired, wheezy, geriatric argument again? Yes, polygraphers lie during the course of a polygraph interrogation. To argue otherwise is just absurd and frankly, insulting to anyone with a brain and a knowledge of the basic facts of polygraphy.
Quote: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.
Why would we be nervous if we're telling the truth? And if a 'significant response' only indicates nervousness on a Control Question, how in the hell does a 'significant response' on a Relevant Question suddenly indicate deception, instead of 'nervousness'?
Quote:2. I do believe polygraphs detect deception and so do you!
You must have a willing subject in order for hypnosis to work, anonymous! No, in point of fact I do not believe polygraphs detect deception.
Quote:The fact is polygraphs detect bodily reactions and Lying does cause the body to react.
Oh goodness, here we go again!
When you were growing up, if you are like most people, you
were raised to know the difference between right and wrong.
Quite probably, all of the adults you came in contact with--your parents, grandparents, relatives, teachers, church officials--taught you that lying, cheating, and stealing were wrong. Ever since you were a young child, you have been programmed to know that ying is wrong. Think about the first time you lied and got caught. Remember how your body felt during that confrontation. Your heart may have been racing or you may have been sweating. However, the responses were automatic; your body adjusted to the stress of the situation. No, anonymous, we're not buying that here today, but thanks for playing.
Quote: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.
Because those sets of reactions are the ones that polygraphers delude themselves into believing connote truth or falsehood. We're simply augmenting physiological reactions to fit your paradigm-- it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not we believe it-- quite the opposite is true! Silly, silly man.
Quote: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.
An interrogation prop, you mean?
I originally hoped that instrumental lie detection would become
a legitimate part of professional police science. It is little more
than a racket. The lie detector, as used in many places, is nothing
more than a psychological third-degree aimed at extorting confessions
as the old physical beatings were. At times I’m sorry I ever
had any part in its development. John Larson
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.
When the agenda involves Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, yes we should. To do otherwise would be an act of cowardice.
If we listened to you, anonymous, blacks would still be sitting at the rear of the bus. Women wouldn't have the right to vote. Hell, we might still be a colony serving at the King's whim, cranking out tar pitch and shipmasts for His Majesty's Royal Navy if we listened to that crap!
Quote:4. I think that the endless argument over the validity of the polygraph is a lost cause.
What argument? The polygraph is a pseudo-scientific fraud that has ruined the lives of many, many hard working, honest people, and is the root cause of many people interested in public service being denied their dream. It's a lost cause from the pro-polygraph side, without a doubt.
Quote: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.
1. What do you mean, 'us', paleface?
2. George has already noted the recent, timely demise of the Philly Hotbox.
Pages: 
DOD Polygraphs (Read 25284 times)
