Fair_Chance,
Welcome to the discussion.
Quote:Why was the polygraph "pushed" ahead of background investigations? Why did it even start being used for pre-employment screening in the first place?
There are many reasons for the increased reliance on polygraph screening. First, agencies like the polygraph because it
encourages admissions. It provides powerful leverage for interrogators, primarily because naive and gullible subjects, fearing that the polygraph will detect the slightest hint of deception, will often make admissions that they might not otherwise make. Those innocent persons who are falsely accused in the process are considered acceptable losses. With more applicants than positions, this is not a problem for the bureaucrats involved in the hiring process.
Still, perhaps the most important reason for the increased reliance on polygraphy is the fact that
these "tests" allow bureaucrats to cover themselves in the inevitable situations where it turns out that a bad decision was made in hiring someone or granting a security clearance. Middle level bureaucrats like the ability to say "he passed the polygraph, don't blame me."
Quote:Political opinion right now is to be tough on terrorism and homeland security. I have digested the NAS review. It is good science. Unfortunately, it does not always translate into good politics. The politicians are in no hurry to change the system.
Unfortunately, I agree with you here. People sincerely want to believe that the polygraph is an accurate detector of truth and deception (despite the tremendous wealth of evidence to the contrary). Most debates on the polygraph are in terms of national security vs. civil rights. Unfortunately, it is normally assumed the polygraph is a positive contributor to security. As we can see from the NAS report, it isn’t. Until more people (including politicians) realize just how flawed these “tests” are (they serve to insulate spies and criminals from suspicion because they are easily passed using countermeasures), we will not see a legislative solution. Hopefully the NAS report will cause some people to wake up and smell the coffee.
Quote:I do not think enough people have been touched negatively by the polygraph (I personally think that one person is too much) to attract votes and attention to this issue.
For someone who has not spent a lot of time dealing with this issue, you have hit the nail on the head rather quickly. Polygraphy does not affect many lives because a vast majority of the American public cannot legally be asked to submit to it. If Internet had been available during the 1980s before the passage of the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act (when polygraph screening and abuse was rampant in corporate America and everywhere else), I feel that the dynamic would have been quite different. A large number of those abused by polygraphers would have eventually located Internet sites like this one, found out the trickery behind these “tests,” and become outraged. A far greater amount of media attention would have been generated. Polygraphers may very well have been on the run from lynch mobs. But, because so few people are affected by this issue, there is a marked lack public interest in seeing a new comprehensive polygraph protection act passed. This does, indeed, make the hope of a legislative solution difficult (but not impossible).
Pages: 1
Money and Politics (Read 2358 times)
