Quote:


Bill, well said. Let's not forget the other polygraphers that know that the results are inaccurate and that the tests are easily susceptible to countermeasures and still represent polygraphs as valid, reliable tests.

Quote:

George:
I found this commentary to be very interesting indeed.  A point is made in the very opening of the commentary that I share.

"While a Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public (antipolygraph.org) requires a bit more history and technical understanding of polygraphy to fully understand, the principles that drive the arguments against Mr. Menges’ article are qutie apropos to security theory in general."   

I believe that for the public to fully understand the anti-polygraph side, a more basic and perhaps a less "high-level" of speech is required in discussing the tremendous flaws of the polygraph.  I feel that more results in passing such legislation calling for the complete banning of pre-screening polygraph use could be realized if more of an "easy read" were made available.   

As any public school teacher will confirm, the best results come from catering to the lowest common denominator within a classroom.  I believe the same can be said for efforts to educate the public about the fraudulent junk science of polygraph.

Respectfully, 
Seeker

Mr Menges states:

“Polygraph is scientifically valid and a tremendous investigative tool available to law enforcement and security personnel of this country.”

If this is the case, then WHY IS POLYGRAPH NOT ADMISSABLE IN COURT?  WHY IS THERE AN EPPA?  Since 9/11 people hear the words “National Security” and they become compliant lap dogs. They fear questioning the Government’s abuses of power that are incrementally removing our civil liberties will cause them to be labeled “Anti-American.”   

It is a given that the integrity and trustworthiness of future FBI and CIA agents be scrutinized.  Maybe when information on the Polygraph’s inability to detect lies was not so readily available, when the internet wasn’t around for people to easily research how the Polygraph works (or doesn’t work) it was a viable method for gaining admissions.   BUT NOT ANYMORE.  Even in the past, there were books available, but now, since every future spook or fed is bound to want to know what to expect, and given the nature of the jobs they are applying for, is most likely familiar with using the internet as an investigation tool, Polygraph is an INVALID WAY to screen them.  THE WIZARD HAS BEEN DE-FROCKED.  Even if this or similar web sites did not exist, or were to become censored, there are books available on Amazon.com.  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/103-9005021-9183064 The information is out, and it will forevermore be at the fingertips of future feds and spooks. It will also be at the fingertips of anyone stupid enough to take a polygraph in a criminal case.   THE USE OF COUNTERMEASURES IS NOT ILLEGAL, unlike MP3 file swapping on Napster,  ( you can easily still do this on countless web sites http://www.napstermp3.com/napsteralternatives.htm) ; unlike gambling, (you can easily do this on countless web sites http://www.offshore-online-sports-betting.com/gambling_links.htm. ;  The use of countermeasures is not illegal, and there is nothing ethically wrong with attempting to protect oneself from a false positive.   

The use of Polygraphs as an interrogation tool SHOULD BE ILLEGAL FOR EVERYONE.  There are other options that are more reliable,  and given the amount of money the Bush administration is throwing at the DOD, (at great cost to numerous other programs, but I won’t go there) they can well afford to use them.  (Legitimate background checks, integrity tests, etc.)  For the sake of national security, the likes of Mr. Menges need to stop mewling like wounded kittens and open their eyes to that fact.  They need to update their screening methods along with their dated computer system, and educate their agents on how to properly implement FISA. http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200302/FISA02-03.html They need to be monitored. http://www.idg.net/ic_1186300_9677_1-5042.html ; For the sake of National Security.

--- Lurking Woman

Roche?
I enjoyed your post.  Its predictable that when the conversation gets mired down on this site, an new super cop comes forth to attack.  The last hero wanted me to fetch his coffee so he would not get his hands dirty, maybe secure his perimeter.  Lets dismember your silly response together.
First off experience.  Its clear to me from your couple of posts that you have been in law enforcement since 1981.  You have held a variety of active field and investigative assignments and spent about 8 years in special operations.  You work in a metropolitan area of a million plus and have seen enough violence to fill a legal pad or two.  You have applied all levels of force and have been decorated.  You are right to take me to task over my inexperience, is that a large  decaf latte?
Heres my position on CM's. Whether or not someone has used them does not give any reasonable person or group the right to advocate.  I believe they can hinder, confuse or possibly cause an inconclusive result.  If thats an admission Billy, put it on your monthly. I related one instance of CM use in my post that bothered you, but there have been other subjects that really had no idea just what it would look like on a chart and followed the advice as presented here and elsewhere, they failed.
To make this clear for you, I also would be opposed to a site that taught and advocated behavorial clues for criminals to use during an interview that are indicative of truthfulness. (remember Clintons contrived use of body language during his denials in the Lewinski matter?) It does not mean the truth wont be discovered, its just not helpful to law enforcement.
What do you mean by reckless slander? Seasoned veteran that you are, you may use or at least read in a journal of soft techniques that we hillbillies use to move a case along.  Black arts like handwriting analysis, statement analysis, behavorial responses to key questions, oh yeah and the polygraph.  Perhaps your tool kit consists of 2 screw drivers and you dont mind not having any additional resourses.  On the other hand other Detectives such as myself dont appreciate any group limiting our options, especially when the experience base leading to your position was a couple of failed polygraphs, and strong convictions.
Flying monkeys? are you really a cop? When I make a comment on polygraph its from the perspective of having seen it work dozens of times in both  criminal and screening applications.  It has created openings/confessions when investigations were going no where, or an applicant had slipped through a background. It does not happen where you live, but around here we are too busy making moonshine to conduct a thorough investigation!
Would you care to relate your own vast experience with polygraph failure, so I might understand where your comments come from? While your at it, further explain again how I am the problem.
Your comment about posting under an alias is an interesting one.  A little site history for you: two writers here are applying for FBI positions, both seem to be qualified, educated people, that also failed thier polygraphs.  One goes by an alias, one by his real name.  Both are in the appeal process at the FBI at this time.  Which one would you bet  has the greatest chance of success all things being equel?  If putting a name at the end of a post infers credibility, you can call me Det. Smith.
I could go on. Your absurd comment on my partners integrity, questioning my educational credentials, even your somehow linking Fair chance with George shows me Im dealing with superhuman intelligence, so I better stop. At least Gino liked your idiotic post.  Beech trees, how many assertions did he make?
Skeptic, of course your right about hard proof, but then you know I lump polygraph into the category of tools that give indications, not convictions.
Fair Chance, help Roche' out and let him know that we have friendly conversations about your employment process from time to time.  I would talk to him myself, but he has both feet in his mouth.

Fair Chance,

May I ask for a point of clarification? In your post your words suggest that the contributor 'The Breeze' is himself a polygrapher. Do you know that to be an accurate description?

Quick Question:

I am thinking of applying for a Federal contract job requiring a security clearance.  I recently read an article about privatized security clearances.  Would it behoove me to obtain my clearance on my own from a private company at my own expense? I know that I will eventually need to pass a polygraph, but if I already have clearance plus a drug test done (hair and urine) and take those results, wouldn't that improve my chances of passing a polygraph?

What I read about privatized background checks is as follows:

"Reston-based DynCorp has won a $50 million, three-year contract from the Defense Security Service to investigate backgrounds of people requesting security clearances. It will conduct and help process the security investigations necessary before clearances are granted. 

The contract expands DynCorp's work in the background check business. It already processes security clearances for several federal agencies and is one of the largest suppliers of outsourced security clearance processing. 

The work will be conducted by its DynCorp Systems and Solutions division and will include criminal background checks; verifying employment histories; and interviewing applicants, their references and acquaintances, a process than can take more than six months to complete. "
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2003/02/10/daily30.html?f=et87

I am eager to get the job of my dreams, am sure I will pass all of the checks, but would like to improve my chances to more than 50%.  I do not wish to use countermeasures.

What do you think? (both sides.)   

Smirky Chimp

Quote:


No. Competitive 'fifedoms' of security screening entities are rarely mutually recognized, especially from the private sector.

Quote:


No. The only thing that will improve your almost-random chances of passing or failing-- setting aside arbitrary accusations of guilt made by your polygrapher interrogator that are independent of *any* physiological responses on your charts-- is to employ physiological and behavioral countermeasures.

Quote:


Neither did I.

Smirky, 

Federal Agencies could care less about a Security Clearance.  I held a DoD Top Secret with SCI access for 5 years, and now I am resubmitting for another 5 years.

I also failed an FBI polygraph for suspicion of criminal espionage.  

One really has nothing to do with the other.  Actually, my polygraph examiner told me he would be looking harder at me when it came to national security and foreign contacts PRIOR to me being hooked up to the machine.  He also told me he knew that I made errors on my application about my foreign contacts (not true) PRIOR to being hooked up to the machine.  (Hey Batman, is it standard procedure for federal polygraphers to sesnitize their subjects to the nature of the test PRIOR to hooking them up?  Shouldn't this alone make the test invalid?  A member of your beloved APA and former Federal Polygrapher told me it does . . . )

Anyway, Smirky, don't waste your time with a clearance.  And don't be scared with Batman's words about countermeasures.  My opinion, don't use them if you don't need to.  If you truly have nothing to hide, then I believe you have nothing to worry about.

That being said, there is no reason that you shouldn't read TLBTLD.  There is no reason that you should go into the "test" not knowing all of the little mind games that the polygrapher will play.  Sometimes these games are what induce inaccurate results.  Knowing the tricks will keep you straight.  

If the machine itself TRULY works, then the outcome of the "test" shouldn't be affected by the subject having prior knowledge of the polygrapher's mind tricks.
Don't you agree, Batman?


Chris