Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Constricting your sphincter (Read 50175 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #90 - Sep 11th, 2002 at 5:55am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Rick,

As one who has often vigorously disagreed with J.B. on matters related to polygraphy (see, for example, the message thread The Scientific Validity of Polygraph), I think your remarks to J.B. are entirely unwarranted. First, he didn't discuss any "logic of electronics" here. Second, although I don't believe J.B. has cared to discuss the particulars of his employment on this message board, I can tell you that your conclusion that he is an FBI Special Agent in Philadelphia who was involved in the Traficant investigation and "made a fool of himself in front of the entire nation" is completely wrong.

Moreover, J.B. has always been courteous in his posts here. I think you owe him an apology.
  

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
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box J.B. McCloughan
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Location: USA
Joined: Dec 7th, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #91 - Sep 11th, 2002 at 7:36am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Rick,

First, not that it is relevant or incumbent for me to respond to your last assertion, you are incorrect on your information and assertion.  I nor anyone else with my last name have ever been employed by the NYPD or FBI.  If you work for the federal government as you have exerted, that information would be a phone call away for you to confirm.  If I did not make it clear enough to you in previous posts I have made, any views, thoughts, writings, etc... I convey here or anywhere else outside an official assigned function of my employment are my own and not that of anyone else.  Any views, thoughts, writings, etc... I convey are in no way to be construed to represent any agency, department, association, entity, etc...  I have never attempted to represent any different.

Second, I am a polygraph examiner and not an accountant.

Third, I have never nor do I now claimed to be the "judge, jury, and executioner of promising young Americans."  I am not. 

Opinions are opinions.  Scientific research data is scientific research data.

Quote:
If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.
- Abraham Lincoln

  

Quam verum decipio nos
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Rick Thirde
Guest


Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #92 - Sep 12th, 2002 at 5:32am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Please Jim, I’d expect more from you.  Using the classic Bureau DEMCA strategy (Deny Everything, Make Counter-Accusations) is ridiculous, especially since you know who I am and know what I know. 

No, you are not an accountant as of the present moment, and it was very sly of you to say that “I am not an accountant.”  But we both know your excellent track record in prosecuting fraud investigations as a Bureau Agent.  (Except for your embarrassment in the Trafficant case)  For goodness sake, Jim, give it up.

And, yes, I know that you do not represent the views of the Bureau, but I am quite sure that you apply your views to your daily routine. But to try and hide your identity now is futile, especially since anyone reading this right now can call the Philadelphia Field Office of the FBI and confirm you as being the resident polygrapher.   

Don’t be angry that I exposed your identity.  You already used your name, as have I.  What do you expect, Jim?  Maybe its time for both of us to retire.

To tell you the truth, I’m already growing tired of having to respond to your ineffective attempts to remain anonymous while adhering to the Bureau credo of “Truth”(within acceptable parameters).  Its too bad that you do a lousy job of it, but then again, that’s why you never excelled at field work, and Marty can vouch for that.   
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box beech trees
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 593
Joined: Jun 22nd, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #93 - Sep 13th, 2002 at 3:21pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Rick Thirde,

What constructive purpose does it serve to publicly 'out' someone's identity during the course of this discussion? I for one am uncomfortable with this as it will no doubt create a chilling effect for both sides of future debates...

Perplexed,

Dave
  

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." ~ Thomas Paine
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box The_Breeze
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 107
Joined: Jul 31st, 2002
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #94 - Sep 14th, 2002 at 1:23am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Thirde
You presume alot.  Fetch your coffee? I place the federal people that assist me on warrant entries on perimeter. (at thier request) I guess the idea of possible gunplay becomes overwhelming.  Since local municipalities make most of your cases (you do re- write them well) I can understand your hostility.  If you are a federal agent, I suggest you leave the psychological analysis to those qualified.  To throw your lot in with a group of hysterical anti-polygraph zealots because you believe in a thorough investigation (who does not?) borders on the pathetic.
I have to admit that calling me "violent and unstable" when you see your friends threatened did brighten my day.  Any reasonableness or dignity you might of wanted to portray, quickly disappeared in your posts to the FBI agent.
What ever you think of me is mildly interesting.  You sound like a blowhard.  A real fed probably would be a bit more discreet in his responses, but I cant be sure as they are typing all day when I visit the local task force.
The reason I have taken this tone (which seems to have offended you) with this particular group is they are as a whole advocating a position I just cannot understand ethically or professionally. Are ethics important in whatever agency you represent? Is the position advocated here (deception because the tool is invalid) yours as well? If you followed the thread you saw the progression of my responses, and my growing anger at what I believe to be borderline criminal advice.
It strikes me as odd you find kindred spirits here.  Since you want a  Sheriff's detective to feel honored you even took the time to respond to someone so unworthy, help me understand what you gain from helping a group of people that could make your next investigation that much harder if it goes to polygraph? If you choose not to use it in your investigations, then maybe you think more like I do than you will care to admit.  Also, I would never attack another LE officer with unbelievable presumptions of incompetence as you have. You truly have no clue here-
Typing a name at the end of a posting does not translate into credibility.  You have demonstrated that.
To Beech:  Ok ill bite.  Since you like yes or no responses even if you are unwilling to give same- just who specifically were the sexual assault victims shown as DI, that allowed thier attackers to re-offend?.  Please be specific (so I can check) as I am truly curious. Maybe your federal friend will take the ball and investigate the polygrapher (local law im sure) for federal civil rights violations.  Could be alot of work...

And to George, Im not surprised you would not want to post your post test responses to the FBI during your failed polygraph.  Perhaps you could stop gritting your teeth and just prove me a liar by your own words.  Ill be waiting, but in the mean time Ill trust my sources, my own research and my own instincts.
Simply saying (bleeting?) that you are truthfull sounds sufficient to the faithfull but rings hollow to those more objective. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #95 - Sep 14th, 2002 at 9:02am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

The_Breeze wrote on Sep 14th, 2002 at 1:23am:
And to George, Im not surprised you would not want to post your post test responses to the FBI during your failed polygraph.  Perhaps you could stop gritting your teeth and just prove me a liar by your own words.  Ill be waiting, but in the mean time Ill trust my sources, my own research and my own instincts.
Simply saying (bleeting?) that you are truthfull sounds sufficient to the faithfull but rings hollow to those more objective. 



Mr. Breeze,
You are continuing to dance around the point.  You were the one who claimed George was untruthful.  The burden is on you to prove your assertion, not on others to prove you false.  Your one attempt to back up your assertion has been "outed" as wholly unsupportive of your position.  Do you have the integrity and intellectual honesty to admit you have no evidence for your accusation and apologize, or will you continue to post your libel?

If not, I believe you will lose all remaining credibility with your readers.

Skeptic
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box The_Breeze
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 107
Joined: Jul 31st, 2002
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #96 - Sep 14th, 2002 at 4:51pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
New Friends:
I almost forgot the reason why I logged on yesterday, I enjoyed George's story of high adventure and excrement, but I have one a bit more relevant for the readers.
A few days ago I sat in on a polygraph in connection with a double murder that happened last month.  Because it was "dealer on dealer" you might imagine that no one was too enthused to talk to Det's about the case.  All financial inducements had failed and the case was going no where.  The case detective made the decision to polygraph a key witness whose story did not quite make sense. The polygraph subject told her story and the polygraph operator at the conclusion of the exam confronted the person with her failing results.  The usual lengthy denials followed but the polygrapher kept bringing her back to the relevant.  After about 30 minutes this person suddenly buried her head in her hands and made a confession that she was in fact a co-conspiritor to a double homicide.  I was impressed.  This serious case can now go forward, warrants are being signed and It will be solved.  But my question is this....what did I observe?  A cheap trick, coin toss, lucky chance event, false confession or valid LE use of an admittedly imperfect tool?
My problem with the overwhelming number of posters on this site is simple.  Your experience with the polygraph is in my view severly limited.  Failing a pre-employment does not give you a well rounded base to give opinion about validity.  George fits into this category, except that he took the extra steps of educating himself.
My thought is this:  If a polygraph will help me solve a crime or IA case I want the option to use it, warts and all.  Since I have freely admitted that this tool seems to be imperfect, I think I have more objectivity than most who visit here, when I say I dont want my options limited by those who are dogmatic about the issue.

To attack me personally is a convienient way to sidestep the message of ethics.  I have only given the general facts of my employment here to illustrate the point that I am not blindly following any ideology.  If you have no basis to speak from how can you be considered credible?. I have both taken and seen the device as it is used, I do not fear it.  If that makes me a target here, no problem.
So my new friend skeptic, this is why I have asked about others backgrounds.  If you want to take a firearms course, you would like to know that your instructor has at least handled one at some point.  Since I have asked for nothing specific or personal, this does not seem unreasonable.   My choice is not to add my own personal information to this site, George's little story notwithstanding.  If I grow to respect the views and see open mindedness suddenly appear, I will most likely change my mind.
And skeptic, (since you appear to have been tagged and are on point) why is something that the founder says automatically carved in stone for you? sharing beliefs and feeling threatened by a contrary experienced view is one thing, blind loyality is another.  I have stated that the source of my comments about George's lack of candor to the FBI stem from the fact that he failed his test and made admissions. This is a matter of record and available to you.  If I see that George did not make such I will be the first to apoligize.  I would point out to you that denying federal employment and the removal of security clearences is not done at a whim.  Im sorry, but the ball is still in George's court on this one....
Somehow trying to make my personal thoughts as expressed here with emotional responders, into a competence issue at my place of employment is unnecessary and pointless.  It would also be very wrong.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #97 - Sep 14th, 2002 at 6:18pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The_Breeze wrote on Sep 14th, 2002 at 4:51pm:
New Friends:
I almost forgot the reason why I logged on yesterday, I enjoyed George's story of high adventure and excrement, but I have one a bit more relevant for the readers.
A few days ago I sat in on a polygraph in connection with a double murder that happened last month.  Because it was "dealer on dealer" you might imagine that no one was too enthused to talk to Det's about the case.  All financial inducements had failed and the case was going no where.  The case detective made the decision to polygraph a key witness whose story did not quite make sense. The polygraph subject told her story and the polygraph operator at the conclusion of the exam confronted the person with her failing results.  The usual lengthy denials followed but the polygrapher kept bringing her back to the relevant.  After about 30 minutes this person suddenly buried her head in her hands and made a confession that she was in fact a co-conspiritor to a double homicide.  I was impressed.  This serious case can now go forward, warrants are being signed and It will be solved.  But my question is this....what did I observe?  A cheap trick, coin toss, lucky chance event, false confession or valid LE use of an admittedly imperfect tool?
My problem with the overwhelming number of posters on this site is simple.  Your experience with the polygraph is in my view severly limited.  Failing a pre-employment does not give you a well rounded base to give opinion about validity.  George fits into this category, except that he took the extra steps of educating himself.

My thought is this:  If a polygraph will help me solve a crime or IA case I want the option to use it, warts and all.  Since I have freely admitted that this tool seems to be imperfect, I think I have more objectivity than most who visit here, when I say I dont want my options limited by those who are dogmatic about the issue.


I don't think anyone here has or will deny that valid and valuable confessions are obtained every day with the polygraph as an aid.  Such anecdotal evidence simply isn't the issue that's being discussed.

The problems I have (and others seem to have) with the polygraph are the overall validity of the technique (which cannot be confirmed or refuted with anecdotal evidence alone) and the brutality, invasiveness and disrespect of the methodology itself.  Valid and valuable confessions have been and are being obtained through the use of physical torture, as well.  However, I am quite sure, Breeze, that you would not condone such a practice.  The sometime utility of a technique simply doesn't tell the whole story.

In my educated humble opinion, the available evidence says polygraphs overall are simply not reliable indicators of whether someone in innocent or guilty.  Beyond their use as an interrogation prop, the error rates are too high to trust the results.  This raises significant issues regarding national security and just treatment of job applicants, not to mention criminal suspects.

Quote:
To attack me personally is a convienient way to sidestep the message of ethics.  I have only given the general facts of my employment here to illustrate the point that I am not blindly following any ideology.  If you have no basis to speak from how can you be considered credible?. I have both taken and seen the device as it is used, I do not fear it.  If that makes me a target here, no problem.


Aside from minor jibes, I for one have only seen people attack your actions (the things you've said or questions you've refused to address) and possible motivations behind them.  Some of Mr. Thirde's material has been an exception.

It should be noted, however, that when you cast personal aspersions, it tends to invite the same.

Quote:
So my new friend skeptic, this is why I have asked about others backgrounds.  If you want to take a firearms course, you would like to know that your instructor has at least handled one at some point.  Since I have asked for nothing specific or personal, this does not seem unreasonable.


In general, Breeze, my friendship is not easy to come by.

As to credentials and/or backgrounds, there is nothing wrong with asking about them.  Addressing them tends to have limited utility,though (for example, if someone is specifically asserting personal knowledge or expertise, or opinion based specifically and solely upon personal experience). They simply aren't relevant to the validity of most of the points being raised here, however, as those involve relating the knowledge and expertise of others.

Quote:
And skeptic, (since you appear to have been tagged and are on point) why is something that the founder says automatically carved in stone for you?


Regardless of where my sympathies lie, it is your out-and-out libel of Mr. Maschke (who I have yet to see engage in such behavior himself) with which I have a problem.  If you want to know, I fully agree with George and Dave that Rick Thirde's attacks on J.B. (who has also done an excellent job of sticking to the issues and discussed them in a rational and thoughtful manner) were rude and unwarranted, as well.  I'd like to see them stopped. 

Quote:
sharing beliefs and feeling threatened by a contrary experienced view is one thing, blind loyality is another.


Why would you assume that my position is based upon blind loyalty?

Quote:
  I have stated that the source of my comments about George's lack of candor to the FBI stem from the fact that he failed his test and made admissions. This is a matter of record and available to you.  If I see that George did not make such I will be the first to apoligize.  I would point out to you that denying federal employment and the removal of security clearences is not done at a whim.  Im sorry, but the ball is still in George's court on this one....


Given the fact that the results of polygraph exams are taken into account, I do believe they are denied based upon very poor data.

Quote:
Somehow trying to make my personal thoughts as expressed here with emotional responders, into a competence issue at my place of employment is unnecessary and pointless.  It would also be very wrong.


I hope you don't think I have tried to do so.  All I am trying to address is what you're presenting in this forum.

Skeptic
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box The_Breeze
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 107
Joined: Jul 31st, 2002
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #98 - Sep 16th, 2002 at 3:36am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Skeptic
I had prepared my usual overlong response to you and then it dropped. So Ill do a short one for a change.
You are right about civility. Please check my early posts and see the way I was spoken to so you might understand any lack of civility I demonstrated.  I regret some of my responses now because I know that its pointless.
I believe in what I see and what my experiences tell me are valid, this was why I furnished the example.  Since I have seen this previously in my career, I dont consider it a ruse or prop. Did aristotle say "that which repeats is not due to chance"? It can be irritating when others, no matter how articulate or passionate, voice an opinion based on one failed polygraph as a platform.  The only reason I have asked one especially aggressive member of this forum to reply with some kind of background statement is for this reason.  If you have never seen this tool work, but emotionally believe otherwise, that does not automatically generate respect.
I have been taken to task for not answering as expected so let me ask my own questions-
Is the polygraph a valid LE tool?
Is teaching countermeasures productive to society?
Is there a failure rate in other diagnostic procedures?
Is it ethical to tell a applicant to distort a test because the tool is inaccurate?
Are background checks subject to bias and incompetence?

I think I had other questions on my lost post but this will do.
Finally I would say this to my detractors, If your irritated with me for not furnishing evidence to your standards, imagine how hypocritical it appears when you make fantastic leaps into my competence without reviewing my spotless IA file, interviewing those I work with or conducting basic research.  George will point you in the right direction if thats important to you.
As far as what I have said, I stand by it.  I know something of the government clearence process- and I know a failed job applicant polygraph will not cause by itself a clearance revocation.  I believe there is more, and George does not want to address it except to say Im wrong.  This is not preparation for a court case, this is my opinion based on facts at hand.  It is not privacy information as he has alleged, no one has asked for anything like that just a discussion in general terms of what was said to his investigators.  My highly placed scource says it was enough to pass him over.  Now why would a linguist with skills in great demand, be passed over in such a spectacular way unless there was more to this story.
I will apoligize to all if my other redundant post suddenly appears
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #99 - Sep 16th, 2002 at 6:24am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The_Breeze wrote on Sep 16th, 2002 at 3:36am:
Skeptic
I had prepared my usual overlong response to you and then it dropped. So Ill do a short one for a change.


Happens to the best of us.  Sometimes brief is better, anyway.

Quote:
I believe in what I see and what my experiences tell me are valid, this was why I furnished the example.  Since I have seen this previously in my career, I dont consider it a ruse or prop. Did aristotle say "that which repeats is not due to chance"? It can be irritating when others, no matter how articulate or passionate, voice an opinion based on one failed polygraph as a platform.


The trouble with this reasoning is that casual observation (as opposed to scientific study) may convince one that many things are correct which are not.  Thanks to confirmation bias (the tendency to notice that which confirms our preconceptions), people can see what seems like solid evidence for astrology, ESP, and other unscientific beliefs.  And it's not a matter of being gullible.  Confirmation bias affects the most intelligent and seasoned of scientists.


Quote:
I have been taken to task for not answering as expected so let me ask my own questions-
Is the polygraph a valid LE tool?


Depends upon how it is used.  I have real problems with how it's currently used in the U.S.

Quote:
Is teaching countermeasures productive to society?


I believe it is more important that a guilty man go free than an innocent man be convicted.  As pertains to the polygraph, this is a tool with documented flaws that are out of proportion to its reputation as a "lie detector", and a documented bias against innocent people.  This means that the reputations of innocent people are impugned, government misses out on the talent of loyal, competent Americans, and false confidence is put in the notion that the guilty don't get by -- all very counterproductive to society.

Countermeasures serve two purposes.  First, they serve directly to protect the innocent from false accusation and all its attendant negative consequences.  Second, they serve to remind us of the false confidence placed in the polygraph, regardless of the existence of countermeasures.

Quote:
Is there a failure rate in other diagnostic procedures?


Of course.  In general, though, that failure rate is scientifically documented and taken into account.  As I see it, neither are the case with the polygraph.

Quote:
Is it ethical to tell a applicant to distort a test because the tool is inaccurate?


Please see my response to your question regarding countermeasures.  Given these flaws and the additional fact that the polygraph is an invasive, disrespectful and traumatizing tool, I have real ethical problems with this particular "test" that go above and beyond accuracy issues.

Quote:
Are background checks subject to bias and incompetence?


Nothing is perfect.  That doesn't mean we can't make value judgements as to what is appropriate to the task at hand and with an eye to people's rights.

Quote:
As far as what I have said, I stand by it.  I know something of the government clearence process- and I know a failed job applicant polygraph will not cause by itself a clearance revocation.  I believe there is more, and George does not want to address it except to say Im wrong.  This is not preparation for a court case, this is my opinion based on facts at hand.  It is not privacy information as he has alleged, no one has asked for anything like that just a discussion in general terms of what was said to his investigators.  My highly placed scource says it was enough to pass him over.  Now why would a linguist with skills in great demand, be passed over in such a spectacular way unless there was more to this story.


Sir, I am a democrat, which some would say means I place an inordinate amount of trust in government.  But even I know that decisions in government are frequently made for less than rational and fair reasons.

I'll say this for you:  you're persistent.

Skeptic
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box The_Breeze
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 107
Joined: Jul 31st, 2002
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #100 - Sep 16th, 2002 at 5:37pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Skeptic
Your well reasoned words work in both directions.  You do know that Phd. level research exists to support the utility of polygraph. It exists to show that it is a coin toss as well. We both know that proponents can find supporting documentation for almost any position, even the ones you named.  I do not debate reliability or validity here for this reason.  I will be told that the research is flawed, self serving, funded by DODPI or just plain wrong. This brands me as evasive to some.
Could I convince a PETA operative that research on inhalation toxicology done on dogs is necessary in that it may save a soldiers life?  You can imagine the response I would get....in fact it might resemble some of the posters here. More emotional than logical.
Your thoughts on preconcieved ideas certainly apply as well to many writers here, there is no moral high ground occupied solely by anti polygraph folks.  I would like to think I do not have a preconcieved notion, even though I am clearly in a minority position here.  Since I have said now repeatedly that I believe the tool is flawed, and certainly does not replace good police work- I should not be considered a zealot.
Thanks for answering my questions.  In response to your thinking on countermeasures you make two good points, but they are from the preposition that all subjects that take a polygraph need protection of thier basic rights/ and are telling the truth. Is it possible that a criminal could receive very real assistance from information contained on this site (as well as others) that could cause very real harm? Is the need to revenge oneself against a tool/process worth that?  I believe Lykken made an excellent reference to this point.
Maybe the value judgement you speak of is what has allready happened in LE and Govt ref. the use of this tool. Investigators and administrators know that backgrounds (which are always done prior) are limited and flawed, but there is a chance that this tool may uncover information not available any other way. In the case of my own agency it has prevented felons from being commissioned when a records check and background did not come up with disqualifying information.  But a failed polygraph and subsequent admission closed the circle.  Could I define that as testamonial rather than anecdotal?
With this use (as allready pointed out) mistakes do occur.  From having spent most of my adult life in Govt. both federal and state, I just do not see the rights violations others here are speculating about. But I have seen Govt. bend over backwards in retaining people that should have been fired, and protecting security clearances. I am not saying it has never happened.The MM case is troubling to me if it has been completely and accurately explained.
I think you make your points well and without rancor.  Since I am not a good candidate for indoctrination (which ran me on the rocks early here) that is appreciated.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #101 - Sep 16th, 2002 at 6:48pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The_Breeze wrote on Sep 16th, 2002 at 5:37pm:
Thanks for answering my questions.  In response to your thinking on countermeasures you make two good points, but they are from the preposition that all subjects that take a polygraph need protection of thier basic rights/ and are telling the truth. Is it possible that a criminal could receive very real assistance from information contained on this site (as well as others) that could cause very real harm? Is the need to revenge oneself against a tool/process worth that?  I believe Lykken made an excellent reference to this point.


Let me make two points.  First, I certainly do assume that "all subjects that take a polygraph need protection of their basic rights" -- this is a basic tenet of our constitutional justice system, and applies not only to the polygraph but to everything in which law enforcement is involved.  However, I don't believe that one must assume all polygraph subjects are telling the truth for countermeasures to be a good idea.  The protection of the innocent is simply too important, and I don't believe such protections are currently part of the polygraph process.

I do agree that "it possible that a criminal could receive very real assistance from information contained on this site (as well as others) that could cause very real harm".  However, there is more than one solution to this problem (we might start by placing far less emphasis on the results of polygraph exams), and as I hope I've indicated, I believe the benefits outweigh the harm.


Quote:
Maybe the value judgement you speak of is what has allready happened in LE and Govt ref. the use of this tool. Investigators and administrators know that backgrounds (which are always done prior) are limited and flawed, but there is a chance that this tool may uncover information not available any other way. In the case of my own agency it has prevented felons from being commissioned when a records check and background did not come up with disqualifying information.  But a failed polygraph and subsequent admission closed the circle.  Could I define that as testamonial rather than anecdotal?


Actually, I'd still see it as "anecdotal" Smiley  -- consider that you have no idea how many people get by the polygraph who also have disqualifying information in their backgrounds.  Are you sure you're not simply getting better liars for employees?

And what of people who drop out of the process due to the invasiveness and discouragement of repeated failed polygraphs?  What of those who falsely confess (despite Batman's assertions, we know this takes place)?  

For that matter, what about someone who, after repeated polygraphs, is pushed to reveal something that might appease the polygrapher, and thus looks like he or she was withholding information they simply didn't think of as responsive to the questions in the first place?

Additionally, I do hope your agency does not disqualify based on polygraph results alone (I think you indicated this previously).  If it does, then you are missing out on good people falsely found deceptive.

Skeptic
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box The_Breeze
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 107
Joined: Jul 31st, 2002
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #102 - Sep 16th, 2002 at 7:35pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Skeptic
In the Metro set up that Im in, we do not disqualify based on polygraph but rather verified information that may result from such tests.  An "inconclusive" is not a problem unless it points a background investigator in a specific direction.
Its clear I respectfully disagree with you on the tools utility.  Your focus is human rights (of course our applicants are treated with respect) and mine is what I consider practical to LE aims.  Have we ever lost anyone who would of made a good officer? probably.  Im not sure doing away with polygraph would change that, just the vehicle by which it happens i.e. background investigator bias/faulty investigation/recruiter "gut feelings" etc.etc.
Since one of your solutions to the problem I raised is less reliance on the tool, I wonder if you think this is a probable short term fix?  I dont believe polygraph use is weakening, in fact the opposite seems to be occuring regardless of the efforts made here.  If that is true, your solution seems more hopeful than practical.
We have probably run the course.  It was nice to have a exchange on this site with a stable individual not prone to hysterics.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Rick Thirde
Guest


Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #103 - Sep 28th, 2002 at 10:41am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I'm back.  Your right, the Breeze, Skeptic, Dave, George, I was a little hostile before I left on TDY.  And I apologize for any cantankerous behavior, but I will not back down from my position. 

Dave, you said that you don’t understand what my ‘uncovering’ accomplishes.  First of all, you don’t know Jim like I know him.  Secondly, you have no idea of the agenda that he is trying to pursue on this website.  Third, has Jim responded?  (On this thread, not likely)

The Breeze, who are you kidding, I attack LE officers every day, its my job to make sure that my operations are running on schedule.  Otherwise, it’s my ass on the Washington Grille.

And speaking of agendas, let me make my agenda absolutely CLEAR: Man’s utter reliance and trust in technology will doom us all.  From polygraphs to StopLight Photography, we entrust too much in digital electronics and binary code.  WE’RE GETTING LAZY!

Here’s a sad story: My neighbor just told me that his 3rd grade son’s math workbook instructs him to solve problems with a calculator.  Not algebra, ladies and gentlemen, simple addition and subtraction.  Let that settle in your gut for a couple of minutes.  My agenda is clear.   
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #104 - Sep 28th, 2002 at 11:20am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Rick, you wrote:

Quote:
First of all, you don’t know Jim like I know him.  Secondly, you have no idea of the agenda that he is trying to pursue on this website.  Third, has Jim responded?  (On this thread, not likely)


First, it's clear that you have no idea who J.B. McCloughan (who, by the way, does not go by the name of "Jim") is. I know Mr. McCloughan through private message, e-mail, and telephone exchanges. He is not an FBI Special Agent. He is not in Philadelphia. And he was not involved in the Traficant investigation, making "a fool of himself in front of the entire nation," as you have previously alleged.

Second, any "agenda" that Mr. McCloughan has in posting here is scarcely concealed. He has offered his ideas on how polygraph countermeasures might be detected (even sending scanned portions of charts for posting on this message board), argued in support of the validity of CQT polygraphy, and discussed concealed information tests, among other things. I have often disagreed with him. But I've always found him to be courteous and respectful of others. I see no reason to suppose that Mr. McCloughan (who has recently revealed his last name here) has any hidden agenda.

Third, you ask if Mr. McCloughan ("Jim," as you call him) has responded. Well, indeed he has. He replied directly to your claims in a post in this message thread dated 11 September.

  

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
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Constricting your sphincter

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X