This series of posts read like a bunch of school boys trading insults about yo mamma's so ugly. If everyone can get past their ego's need to be right, they will see that the problem has been clearly defined.  I think even batman and polycop will agree that Polygraph machines are considerably less than 100% accurate.  This site is indicative that some people pass that shouldn't - Some people fail that shouldn't . Even if the machine, properly used, were say 90% accurate, is such a margin of error fair and acceptable? 

For those that pass that shouldn't - What security risk does that pose in a post 9-11 world? (Terrorists can read this site too.)  For those who fail that truly shouldn't - Where is the justice? One false positive can flush an entire LE education down the toilet.

The problem being defined why don't we all focus on a fair solution rather than trading insults.

Perhaps one solution could be - Rather than the total abolition of the poly or the total acceptance of it's findings resulting in disqualification - The poly could be used only as a tool to suggest a more specific background investigation.  In a post 9-11 world a very thorough BI should be must for LE, FBI, etc.

Another solution may be hidden in the irony that the American tax payers expect their police to be of the highest caliber and integrity when the educational requirements and pay scales are so low.  Truly, we will find only a limited number of high caliber people willing to serve and protect at the salary offered.  I serve, (volunteer), as a reserve deputy but I can't imagine supporting my family on cop pay.  Something to think about.

The Beaver

The Breeze,

You write in part:

Quote:


In assessing the level of interest in serious debate here, unbiased readers may care to review, for example, the exchange of thoughts (in which you participated) in the message thread My FBI Poly (Used Countermeasures and Passed).

You also wrote in part:

Quote:


Your above remarks are libelous, Breeze. I answered all questions truthfully on my FBI application, and I answered all questions truthfully during my pre-employment polygraph examination, but I was falsely accused of deception with regard to all relevant questions.

Breeze,

I'll be the first to admit that I am not a career LE person.  As a reserve deputy I spend my limited duty time protecting your parades, high school football games and maybe working an occasional DUI check point, (woo hoo! now that's exciting shit-LOL). Given the nature of your lifetime LE career I can understand some of your cynicism.  However, one thing I do have a tremendous amount of experience in is being a background investigator of sorts - So indulge me in playing the Devil's Advocate for a minute. 

For the last 15 years I've been a full time Mortgage Loan Officer/Underwriter.  In other words, before you get that new home loan, I'm that nosy guy that spends an hour interviewing you, requiring proof all your financial, credit,  employment and residential histories. Then I have every shred of information verified by credit reporting agencies, title companies, public record searches, banks, current and previous employers, and even ordering from the IRS your tax records. I see a lot of liars in my business and my polygraph machine is the Credit Report. (Process sound familiar?)

The credit report strikes fear into the even the most honest loan applicant and, like the  poly, can be used to disqualify a person before the rest of the BI begins.  The biggest difference being that the credit report is an objective collection of historical information.  It's indications of character, capacity and willingness to repay are based purely on past performance.  AND - (though it may be a big, frustrating, time consuming pain in the ass),  information on my credit charts can always be challenged and proven right or wrong. 

In contrast, the polygraph is a highly subjective tool which can report a different answer with each different operator, subject's mind set, medications, proper or improper  preparation, amount of sleep, anxiety levels, etc.  Even though I passed mine I would be very apprehensive about letting the poly have the last word.  Disqualifying someone based solely on the poly seems too ridged for it's margin of error, even unfair and truthfully kind of lazy on the part of the BI.

In my experience, where there is smoke there is fire. If the poly indicates deception in one or more areas that is certainly a heads up for the BI.  (I smell smoke!)  However, before you hose the poor guy it might be worth making sure it's not the neighbor's backyard grill. In my experience, as an underwriter, deception in an applicant is a long thread.  If you pull it, you will see the entire fabric begin to bunch up or come apart. Stories will change and evolve.  For example, if the poly were to suggest deception in the area of drug use, I would expect that if I pulled that thread I might find poor grades or a possible school drop out - A spotty employment history - An old DUI - Overly frequent changes of residence - Maybe a poor credit history, evictions, judgments - Calls for domestic violence - Hell, he might even fail the drug screen.  While most of this evidence is circumstantial it supports the suspicion and it can all be easily obtained with little time or expense. The applicant could then be DQ'd based on past instabilities rather than the questionable accuracy of the poly.   

Bottom line - Pro or Con - Focusing only on the solution... Your presumption that everyone whining on the site is a liar might be overly simplistic, cynical and I dare say even arrogant. Truthfully, I've never met a completely honest person, (myself included) - But if YOU were accused of something you didn't do, would you stake your LE career and pension solely on the accuracy of the polygraph?  No IA, no investigation -- just pass or fail -- no appeals.  I'm no bleeding heart but it truly seems Un-American.  If my little six man loan department can coordinate thoroughly verifying/cross checking every shred of information on 20-30 mortgage applications per month I would imagine a properly motivated BI/Personnel office could do the same. My own cynical opinion is that more money being thrown at the problem is not necessarily the solution.  I fear it boils down to the stereotypical differences between government agencies and private industry.  Government employee jobs are so protected that the motivation to work as hard as their private industry counterparts rarely exists. Perhaps an unfair and debatable assumption. But Breeze and other pro polys - would you even consider modifying the use of the machine as a direction finder only rather than it being the last word? Anit-Poly guys....any room for compromise?  I can see the usefulness of the poly as a tool as long as it's not the last word.  How about suggestions that protect both the American public from subversives and the applicants from a false positive? Maybe I'm too utopian. If so then debate on.

The Beav

Drew

I'm not completely up to speed on federal copyright laws so I respectfully decline to take direct quotes out of the book I cited.  Based on my interpretation of the book, Ames did not pass his polygraph examination(s).  I urge you to read the material yourself and form your own opinions.  I cited specific pages so you wouldn't have to read the entire book if you didn't want too.  If you choose not to check it out then you should refrain from making blanket statements regarding Ames' polygraph's.  Enjoy your travels.  Roy

Quote:


Hi Roy,

Until I can locate the book and passages you cite, could I trouble you for a synopsis?

In point of fact I did not learn that Ames passed multiple polygraphs during the course of his career from the media. I first read of that fact as reported in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector, sourced to U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, (1994) An Assessment of the Aldrich H. Ames Espionage Case and Its Implications for U.S. Intelligence

Let's bury this myth once and for all: Ames was deemed NDI on every single polygraph test he was given. 

As is typical with any polygraph interrogation, upon seeing significant responses to a Relevant Question, the interrogator moved to extract an admission as to the noted reaction. Regardless if Ames' explanation is characterized as a 'rationalization', 'non-damaging admission', 'lie', whatever, the polygrapher moved to exclude the admission in the next series of charts, at which time the final reactions were not more significant than the neighboring Control Questions.

Next the CIA examiner asked a follow on series of questions relating to the "pitch" issue, in order to ascertain why Ames had appeared to give a deceptive response. Ames responded that since he had worked in CIA's Soviet and Eastern Europe (SE) Division, he had been involved in pitches to potential assets. Also, he hypothesized that he might be known to the Soviets because of a recent defector. He further stated that he thought he might be reacting because he was preparing to go to Rome in July 1986, and had some concerns that he might be pitched there. From this, the polygrapher surmised that Ames had gotten his concerns off his chest, and there was nothing more to tell. Once again, the polygrapher went through the CI questions on the polygraph machine, focusing on the pitch issue. This time, the CIA examiner deemed Ames truthful and concluded the examination, characterizing Ames as "bright [and] direct." The examiner's supervisors concurred with the assessment that Ames was non-deceptive.-- An Assessment of the Aldrich H. Ames Espionage Case and Its Implications for U.S. Intelligence, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 01 November 1994.

To characterize Ames as having failed his polygraph (or more precisely, judged Deception Indicated) is incorrect... not only did his interrogator deem him NDI, the quality control reviewers (plural) did as well.

Finally, it seems appropriate to quote the most informed source one could hope for, ex-CIA Director John Deutch, who said something quite different about the importance of polygraph screenings, this noted passage from a thread about Nicholson, yet another spy who passed his polygraph exams. 

Edward Curran also confirmed (see same thread as above) in a televised interview that no spy has ever been caught with a polygraph interrogation.

Roy,

I think you need to do a better job of fact checking.  I have never suggested that Robert Hanssen (check your spelling too) took a polygraph examination, much less passed one during his employment with the Bureau.  You might care to read my position paper which was sent to FBI executives at the time the Hanssen case broke in the press.  This paper is now posted in "the reading room" on this site.  See 

http://antipolygraph.org/documents/richardson-memo-02-2001.shtml  

Regards,

Drew Richardson