Hello All,
I just discovered this site after taking and apparently failing an FBI lie-detector test.  I was accused of altering my breathing in order to beat the machine.  I had no idea what the specific techniques were for trying to beat the machine, so I didn't even have enough information to intelligently argue with the examiner.  She seemed very convinced (angry), and basically treated me like a criminal.

My question is this: is there any way that my normal breathing pattern could be mistaken for trying to manipulate the machine?  I feel completely wronged, but still want to realize my life-long goal of serving my country with the FBI.  If I get a re-test, is there any reason to think I won't be accused of the same thing again, given my breathing?

Thank you for your time.

Mr. Smith,

I am very sorry to learn of your experience. Such bogus accusations of attempted polygraph countermeasures are not uncommon. Polygraphers expect "normal" individuals to breath at a rate of 15-30 breaths (in and out) per minute. Individuals who breath more rapidly or slowly than this may be accused of attempting to manipulate the "test" by controlling their breathing.

You are right to feel completely wronged: you were. Not only have you been falsely accused of attempted polygraph countermeasures, but you now have a permanent FBI HQ file that accuses you of such. This false accusation could quite possibly preclude you from ever holding a security clearance with any federal agency.

At this point, it is important that you appeal your polygrapher's decision in writing. Your letter (send it by certified, return-receipt mail) will become part of your FBI HQ file, and will show that you have not simply accepted your polygrapher's accusation. That said, I think that your prospects of clearing your name are poor. I am not aware of any instances where an FBI applicant accused of attempted countermeasures has successfully appealed. This may in part be explained by the FBI polygraph unit's need to maintain the fiction that it can reliably detect countermeasures.

For an understanding of how polygraph "testing" works (and doesn't: it's a pseudoscientific fraud), see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. You'll find an explanation of polygraph countermeasures in Chapter 4.

You may also wish to consider joining the plaintiffs represented by attorney Mark S. Zaid <ZaidMS@aol.com> who are suing the federal government over its pre-employment polygraph policies. 
You'll find filings from these pending cases on AntiPolygraph.org's Polygraph Litigation page. Apart from e-mail, you can contact Mr. Zaid at (202) 223-9050.

It may be some small consolation to know that about 50% of FBI special agent applicants who make it as far as the polygraph are presently being accused of deception and/or attempted countermeasures and permanently barred from FBI employment. You'll find public statements from some who have been so accused on AntiPolygraph.org's Public Statements page. (If you would be willing to help document polygraph abuse by making such a statement of your own, please contact AntiPolygraph.org by e-mail to info@antipolygraph.org.)

Mr_Smith wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2003 at 1:12am:


LOL, That is funny - and clever.

Quote:


That is a good point and I think you are right that examiners are increasingly looking for "countermeasures."  That also means that DQ's are possibly going up due to the cumulative effect of false positives AND false accusations of countermeasures from naive examinees. Kleiner's manual reports countermeasures require more than just information to be effective, but some degree of practice.

CQT's effectiveness, such as it is, depends on ignorance and lies. The examiner lies to the examinee re the "control" questions and the examinee won't recognize the lie if she is ignorant about how the polygraph works. And on top of that, in order to get a good reading on a CQT the examinee is expected to lie.

I'm starting to think phrenology might make more sense.

-Marty

Mr. Smith,

You write:

Quote:


Of course, if polygraph countermeasures did not exist, it stands to reason that your polygrapher would not have accused you of attempting to beat the polygraph. But countermeasures "exist" -- or are possible -- because of the inherent weaknesses of polygraphy, which I think you'll understand after reading through Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

The existence of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector may well have put some polygraph examiners "on  a hair trigger," as you put it. The establishment of AntiPolygraph.org in September 2000, and our making detailed countermeasure information freely available, has helped to make countermeasures a hot issue in the polygraph community. The topic of countermeasures, which was once largely ignored, is now a recurring theme on the seminar agendas of most polygraph associations.

But it would be wrong to equate the existence of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector with the existence of countermeasures. Gino Scalabrini and I did not invent the countermeasures we've described in the book. They're based on unclassified, open sources for which we've provided citations. Moreover, accusations of attempted polygraph countermeasures were not uncommon well before the advent of AntiPolygraph.org. One of the most common accusations was of "controlled breathing" (especially breathing "too slowly").

Quote:


The system is indeed broken, and we're trying to fix it through the passage of a Comprehensive Employee Polygraph Protection Act that would completely eliminate polygraphy (and other pseudoscientific forms of "lie detection") from the American workplace. You'll find documentation of some of the harm that a misplaced institutional faith in polygraphy has caused to both individuals and to our national security in Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

I would like to think that your faith in the FBI to revisit your case is not misplaced. But past experience provides little ground for confidence. Nonetheless, it is important to exhaust all administrative avenues of appeal that may be available.