George,

In reference to my silence on the R/I test, you wrote:
Quote:


The R/I test is used to protect our national security, yet you seek ways to circumvent this security procedure.  The Government has requested that I not discuss the R/I test in public.  I am obliged to honor that request.   I could not respond to your request a year ago, nor can I now.

Peace.

Gordon

Beech Trees,

     The identity of the organization is not secret, but neither is it to be bandied about.  There are a number of foreign intelligence services which wish to keep abreast of which test formats are used by specific U.S. agencies.  The less they know, the harder it is for them to penetrate those agencies.

George,

     You ask why a technique with forensic applications should be kept out of the public domain.  I would argue that one reason for doing so is because it is also used for security purposes.  Let me give you an analogy.  Intrusion detection systems are unclassified, off-the-shelf items.  Yet it is a prudent practice for any homeowner, corporation, or government agency to withhold information about which specific alarm systems and devices they are using to safeguard their possessions.  This greatly increases the difficulty of trying to penetrate the defenses to access that which must be protected.

Peace,

Gordon

Gordon,

How could answering the following question I put to you conceivably undermine national security in any way?!

Quote:


Is even the theoretical basis of the Relevant/Irrelevant technique a state secret?!

The former head of the National Security Agency's polygraph program, the late Raymond J. Weir, Jr., has described the technique in detail in two articles published in the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph ("In Defense of the Relevant-Irrelevant Polygraph Test," Vol. 3 [1974], No. 2, pp. 119-166 and "Some Principles of Question Selection and Sequencing for Relevant-Irrelevant Testing," Vol. 5 [1976], No. 3, pp. 207-222). For more than 25 years, these rather detailed articles describing the R/I technique then (and perhaps still) used by NSA have been readily available for review by any foreign intelligence service that might be interested in penetrating the NSA. But the retired head of the NSA polygraph program (and Polygraph's then editor, Norm Ansley, who was also at NSA) didn't seem to think that publication of these articles would harm national security.

When you, allegedly at the request of a government agency that you decline to name, assert that you cannot explain why the polygraph subject who admits to his polygrapher that he  understands how the "Control" Question "Test" works (and doesn't) should have any confidence whatsoever in the Relevant/Irrelevant technique, then either you, the un-named agency, or both are being intellectually dishonest.

And how could answering the following question undermine national securtity in any conceivable way?

Quote:


Why not just cite the research, or take the intellectually honest approach and acknowledge the obvious: there is none!

Skeptic,

You write in part:

Quote:


You make an astute observation here. With regard to polygraphy, for example, note that during the Cold War at least one U.S. Government polygrapher defected to the Communists. Retired CIA polygrapher John F. Sullivan mentions this at p. 235 of his book, Of Spies and Lies: A CIA Lie Detector Remembers Vietnam (University Press of Kansas, 2002):

Quote:


Presumably, anything of importance that Glen Rohrer knew about polygraphy also became known to Eastern Bloc intelligence services (if it was not already known to them).

alwazracin:

What were your "results"?  Do you know?

I feel your pain, Batman!   It helps to be a masochist when defending the polygraph here.

Peace.

Gordon

Batman,

You wrote in part to Gordon:

Quote:


On the contrary, independent thought and pro-polygraph opinions are always welcome here. All points of views are invited, and this board is not censored: you'll find that none of your posts have been deleted or otherwise censored because of their content. By contrast, on the message board of the pro-polygraph website PolygraphPlace.com, posts by polygraph opponents are deleted. And the American Polygraph Association website offers no public forum like this message board.