Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) A Response to Paul M. Menges (Read 50948 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box G Scalabr
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 358
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: A Response to Paul M. Menges
Reply #15 - Feb 27th, 2003 at 7:55am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
The people who help criminals are polygraph examiners who believe the results are accurate. It is you who are a threat to society and national security.


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.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6216
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: A Response to Paul M. Menges
Reply #16 - Feb 28th, 2003 at 10:04am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
An interesting commentary on issues raised by Mr. Menges is available on SecureTheory.com here:
 
http://www.securetheory.com/archives/000096.html ;
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
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 Seeker
Very Senior User
****
Offline


"There are only two sins:
 The first is to interfere
with the growth of another
human being, and the
second is to interfere
with one's own growth."
 Anonymous

Posts: 128
Location: Roanoke, VA
Joined: Oct 19th, 2002
Gender: Female
Re: A Response to Paul M. Menges
Reply #17 - Feb 28th, 2003 at 3:26pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

Quote:

An interesting commentary on issues raised by Mr. Menges is available on SecureTheory.com here:
 
http://www.securetheory.com/archives/000096.html ;
 

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


"There are only two sins:
 The first is to interfere
with the growth of another
human being, and the
second is to interfere
with one's own growth."
 Anonymous

Posts: 128
Location: Roanoke, VA
Joined: Oct 19th, 2002
Gender: Female
Re: A Response to Paul M. Menges
Reply #18 - Mar 1st, 2003 at 4:53am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Ok, I am ignorant.  

It was pointed out to me, quite reasonably, that  simplifying the discussion of the failings of the polygraph in more "street" language would easily confuse and leave open to error the interpretations of such.  

My apologies, George.  I don't claim to have all of the answers or fully understand all of this.

I will just sit here with my Websters and grit my teeth at those scientific wordings that I abohor so much, being that science was my least favorite subject.

I still can't stop thinking about the pneumonia that my mother warned me about as a child every time I read about that gadget placed around your chest in the polygraph exam.

Smiley

Regards,
  
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Lurking Woman
Guest


Re: A Response to Paul M. Menges
Reply #19 - Mar 1st, 2003 at 6:14am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: A Response to Paul M. Menges
Reply #20 - Mar 1st, 2003 at 6:57am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

Quote:

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?


Put simply, Menges' claim is not supported by the evidence.  The polygraph has a measure of utility.  Scientific validity is another matter.

According to the Conclusions (Chapter 8) of the NAS report:

"We have reviewed the scientific evidence on the polygraph with the goal of assessing its validity for security uses, especially those involving the screening of substantial numbers of government employees. Overall, the evidence is scanty and scientifically weak. Our conclusions are necessarily based on the far from satisfactory body of evidence on polygraph accuracy, as well as basic knowledge about the physiological responses the polygraph measures."

There are other, more specific references to validity in the report, but none less damning.

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: A Response to Paul M. Menges
Reply #21 - Mar 3rd, 2003 at 11:17am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Fair Chance
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 551
Joined: Oct 10th, 2002
Re: A Response to Paul M. Menges
Reply #22 - Mar 3rd, 2003 at 3:02pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The_Breeze wrote on Mar 3rd, 2003 at 11:17am:

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.

To Readers:

The Breeze and I have had some spirited disagreements on this website.  We have agreed to disagree on certain points.  I do not believe I will sway his mind on certain subjects for the same reason he will not sway mine.

I do try to stress on points we can agree on.

We both believe prescreening polygraph is not an effective tool in predicting future behavior and is used as a scapegoat prop by many agencies because they are trying to avoid expenses and there is no other easy method of cutting down the highly qualified group of applicants.

This type of use is clouding any other type of polygraph use.  He is one of the few polygraph examiners who believes it is poorly used in this manner.  He had never stated otherwise (prescreeing).

The Breeze videotapes his sessions and makes information about his exams easily acceptable to his examinees. I wish I did not have to take a polygraph prescreening exam but I also wish that it had been videotaped and I could get a copy during my appeal.

By agreeing to disagree, we keep open the lines of communication for further discussion.  One of us will surely break through the stupidity of the other!

Regards.

  
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: A Response to Paul M. Menges
Reply #23 - Mar 4th, 2003 at 5:38am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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?
  

"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 Fair Chance
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 551
Joined: Oct 10th, 2002
Re: A Response to Paul M. Menges
Reply #24 - Mar 4th, 2003 at 7:41am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Dear Beech Trees,

The Breeze has made no direct information available to me that I can say he is definitely a polygraph examiner.

My main inference that he is involved on a routine basis with polygraph operators is in his responses to me during the "Philly Polygraphers Let One Squeak Through" postings exchange.

The Breeze mentioned "we" during those postings when referring to how his agency handles polygraph operations.  I find his working knowledge and direct answers consistant with larger city force police departments as I investigated how polygraphs are used in applicant screening.

Unlike some other polygraph proponents on this site, I found The Breeze's opinions to give an inner working of the polygraph proponents way of thinking (regardless of my personal views which might be in conflict with some of that thinking).

As I stated earlier in another thread,  the FBI Director has requested sixteen (I had stated thirteen previously) new polygraph positions to keep up with the anticipated workload of bringing in additional agents and support personal.  I do not agree with polygraph pre-screening as it is currently used in the FBI. 

My main contention with using polygraph for other reasons is the lack of meaningful research into its true margin of error.  It will only be useful as far as people fear it.  Without fear, anger, or other emotional responses, it is useless.  I get a response but I do not know what it is from.  A good interrogator gets as much without the polygraph using other methods. 

Does anyone here think that they will use a polygraph on the number three man just caught and get anything useful?  He is just going to look at them and laugh.  That machine is not going to cause any fear in him after what he has done in life.

Regards.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Smirky
Guest


Re: A Response to Paul M. Menges
Reply #25 - Mar 4th, 2003 at 1:38pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Fair Chance
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 551
Joined: Oct 10th, 2002
Re: A Response to Paul M. Menges
Reply #26 - Mar 4th, 2003 at 2:46pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

Quote:

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

Dear Smirky Chimp,

Most government agencies will not recognize any private corporation background check without their previous blessing.  You could use this background check to find any glaring errors in your past but you should be well aware of them by now.  Save your money.

The 50/50 mentioned here is in regard to polygraph prescreening not the background check.

Regards.
  
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: A Response to Paul M. Menges
Reply #27 - Mar 4th, 2003 at 4:18pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
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?


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

Quote:
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?


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:
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.


Neither did I.
  

"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 Batman
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Joined: Jan 12th, 2003
Re: A Response to Paul M. Menges
Reply #28 - Mar 5th, 2003 at 12:29am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Smirky,

Assuming your post is genuine, here is some advice, however keep in mind it comes form an individual who has been in the Federal Law Enforcement system since 1978, and a polygraph examiner since 1984.

First and foremost be honest in all portions of your application process, even if it means admitting past wrong doings.  Your honesty will go much further than you think.

Second, do not attempt to utilize countermeasures if you have to undergo a polygraph for whatever position you are seeking.  If you are caught you will be eliminated from consideration, no second chances, your application will not be considered.  Even though I will undoubtedly be challenged as to how you might get caught utilizing countermeasures, I will not enter into that debate.  I will only tell you that you stand a far better chance of getting caught utilizing countermeasures than you do of "failing" the polygraph while being truthful.

Third, you can not obtain a "private" security clearance or background investigation.  The US Government contracts with private firms to do the leg work (interviews, records checks, etc...) for security clearances, however these are not done for, at the request of, or at the expense of the individual being investigated.  So when someone tells you that, "Competitive 'fifedoms' of security screening entities are rarely mutually recognized, especially from the private sector.", whatever that means, simply indicates the individual making such a statement does not know what he or she is talking about.

Good luck in your application process.  If you decide to attempt countermeasures during your polygraph, well, fore warned is fore armed.  You will get caught.

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



Posts: 103
Joined: Dec 8th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: A Response to Paul M. Menges
Reply #29 - Mar 5th, 2003 at 1:03am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
A Response to Paul M. Menges

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
                       
Change Text Color
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