anon99 wrote on Dec 25^th, 2002 at 2:19am:


Anon99,
I wish I had better advice to give you.  As a person who recently took the NSA polygraph multiple times, I can tell you a few things:

1) The "test" consists of two sets of questions.  The first is "counterintelligence" (e.g. "Do you belong to any organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government?"  "Have you ever given classified information to an unauthorized person?" -- you get the gist).  The second set consists of three questions: "Are you concealing any falsification on your security forms?", "Are you concealing any information regarding illegal involvement with drugs?" and "Are you concealing any information regarding a serious crime?".  

2) Each set of test questions is repeated perhaps three times in different order.  However, the two sets of questions are not mixed up; IOW, the test is clearly divided into two parts.

3) The test is pure R/I.  To the best of my ability to discern, there are no control questions, concealed or otherwise.  There are some "general truth" questions (IMHO, probably sacrifice relevant) at the beginning and/or end of a test set, as well as announcements of "the test is about to begin" and "the test is now concluded".  Augmenting one's responses through countermeasures on the announcement questions did not seem to do anything for me, although the effort was not detected as countermeasures.

4) You will sit facing the corner of the room in a big, comfy "La-z-boy"-type red chair.

5) The entire purpose of the test is to get you to talk.  They will grill you up and down regarding "reactions" to relevant questions, but the real point is to get information.  Chances are that if you "react" to a question and they want to know more, they will reschedule you for a second, third or even a fourth polygraph.

6) It is highly likely that, at least for your first polygraph, they will not ask you about polygraph research or countermeasures.  Rather, the most they will likely do is ask whether you've heard "horror stories".

7) They will go over all questions before the test.  They will falsely identify irrelevant questions as "questions about identity", designed for the serious purpose of keeping those who would lie about their name from getting into the NSA.

8) You may certainly try countermeasures.  I did so multiple times with no evidence of detection, and at one point in a "breakdown test" it had clear effect.  But straightforward preparedness and behavioral countermeasures along with steady breathing (I did about 15 bpm) will get you much farther, IMHO.  This is an R/I "test", the least scientific of all polygraph "tests".  They don't use control questions on which you can augment -- they just look for excuses to interrogate.  And even if you don't actually react, chances are good they will interrogate, anyway.  From what I've heard, most people do get interrogated, and most take multiple polygraphs.  Our tax dollars at work.

Skeptic

Marty,

I believe that NSA's continued reliance on the Relevant/Irrelevant (R/I) technique is more attributable to institutional inertia (and lack of oversight and accountability). NSA has been using the R/I technique since it began polygraph screening in May 1951 (when it was designated the "Armed Forces Security Agency"). At the time, NSA polygraphers were trained at the Keeler Polygraph Institute in Chicago, and the R/I technique is what was taught there. More than 50 years on, NSA is still using it...

As for James Bamford's book, Body of Secrets, I highly recommend it to anyone contemplating a career in the NSA (or who is interested in government operations in general and intelligence operations in specific). Bamford also provides an overview of the NSA polygraph program in Chapter 13.

Marty wrote on Dec 26^th, 2002 at 8:54am:


Marty,
I would have loved working there, and feel I have a good knack for analytical thinking (among other skills/abilities) that could have been of significant benefit to the NSA.  Further, I very much wanted to work with the people I met, and want to do a job that makes a real difference for our country.   

However, I voluntarily withdrew from the hiring process after having taken several polygraphs -- as far as I know, I would have been hired.  The polygraph process was very traumatic for me emotionally and mentally (something that would have been repeated every five years or so, with the additional stress of potential job loss), and they made no effort to contact me, after such a negative experience, to let me know that things were fine.  Neither did they respond to requests for information regarding my status.

I will not consider working at NSA as long as they use the polygraph, nor will I work for any other agency that employs it in their hiring process.  That's a decision made both for my own sanity and as a matter of principle.

Quote:


I firmly believe that R/I testing has no respectable level of accuracy, period.  No validity at all.  The NSA uses it because it provides an excellent excuse to interrogate people and gather info -- a conclusion drawn both from public statements and from my own experience.

I believe R/I testing is comparable to rolling a six-sided die in terms of countermeasures.  Just as immune, and just as accurate at truth-telling.  I was repeatedly interrogated regarding matters on which I was entirely truthful, and consecutive polygraphs yielded conflicting results.  It's all about information-gathering.

Skeptic

I took the NSA polygraph a few days ago and have yet to recover from the stress.  This is not uncommon, as I have taken this polygraph approx 6 times over the last 11 years with varying results.  The irony of my experience is that I have lied in the past and have had no problems, because I stuck to my story.  This time, I didn't lie, and I think they gave me a harder time than ever before.  This is because: 1) They hate knowing that they were lied to in the past 2) They rely on interrogation as their main source of information.   

The polygraph for NSA is just a compass they use to focus on information you may be hiding.  The polygraphers go into it believing that everyone is a liar and everyone has something to tell.  They also believe--and are right most of the time--that they can extract information from you by using various good cop/bad cop tactics.  However; there is only one cop, and he appears to be a lunatic.   

I have advice for anyone considering taking the NSA poly: Tell the truth or stick to your story. 

The truth advice is your best bet, because if you lie, you have to still beat the test enough that they will blow it off.

cantsay wrote on Jan 7^th, 2003 at 4:15am:


Welcome, CantSay.

You obviously have a higher tolerance for that sort of abuse than I did.  After three NSA polygraphs, I found that my strong desire to work there wasn't strong enough.  You certainly have my respect for being willing to put up with it.

Your statement above jibes very well with my experience.  The whole process seems much more geared towards "beating a confession out of you" than telling truth/falsehood.  And they seem to take a very cynical outlook towards applicants: unless you fess up with something, you're likely to be grilled.

I also agree with you that NSA seems likely to accept a lot of things you could tell them (with the probable exception, as you indicated, of heavy drug use, murder, espionage, etc. or something that could be used as leverage against you).  

Skeptic

I must say that you people need to not get so bent out of shape about the polygraph.  Its very true there isn't much scientific bases to the test.  These agencies are trying to get you to admit to stuff you would not normally tell.  The usefulness of the polygraph depends on the people who actually believe the test can tell if they are lying.  Of course the people giving the test will say your are lying as well as many other things, but don't sweat it.  If you can't handle being interrogated then I wouldn't be comfortable with that person being in control of sensitive information.  Suck it up, be honest and you will be fine.  That has been my experience.  They can handle some minor drug use and other issues.  If they eliminated everyone that wasn't sweaky clean there wouldn't be enough people to work there.

person wrote on Feb 15^th, 2003 at 9:22am:


Do you really feel more comfortable about granting clearances to those who "crack" under an interrogation and spill their guts, rather than those who maintain their innocence?

Skeptic