The website of the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, which has responsibility for the training of all federal polygraph examiners, features a calendar that includes the training schedule for the polygraph examiner basic course.

Interestingly, training on polygraph countermeasures is reserved for the very last day of classes, and consists of only four hours of classroom instruction followed by three hours of practical exercises.

Perhaps this block of instruction is so short (and included almost as an afterthought) because DoDPI has no reliable methodology for the detection of countermeasures.

George,

Perhaps this block of instruction is so short (and included almost as an afterthought) because DoDPI has no reliable methodology for the detection of countermeasures.   

Perhaps you should tell the entire story and not put a Spin on the training.  I found this on the same DoDPI site you found the four hours of training on the last day of classes:

COUNTERMEASURES (40 CEH)
This 40-hour course prepares the PDD examiner to deter, detect, and prevent employment of polygraph countermeasures in criminal and intelligence testing environments. The course presents background information as a foundation, concepts, theories, and research data related to polygraph countermeasures. Laboratory exercises are included to enhance skills and provide hands-on experience. Detailed discussions of numerous case studies involving examples of confirmed countermeasures efforts targeting law enforcement and intelligence polygraph examinations are used to demonstrate methods of detecting and defeating this threat to law enforcement and intelligence polygraph operations. Information provided includes discussion of threats posed by foreign intelligence services, terrorist organizations, and other criminal elements attempting to defeat law enforcement and or intelligence polygraph examinations. This course is intended as the primary polygraph countermeasures course for criminal and security screening PDD examiners or as a periodic refresher course for examiners supporting intelligence operations. The course includes daily directed reading assignments followed by classroom discussions and quizzes.  Prerequisite: The student must be employed or contracted as a polygraph examiner by a federal law enforcement or counterintelligence agency.

I have said it before, I’ll say it again.... I may not be a big fan of the polygraph, but lets stop spinning the issues before you start to sound like a politician!

Quote:


George, 

Your assertion that since a DoDPI official feels teaching countermeasures is unethical and should be illegal, countermeasures cannot be detected; is quite flawed.  No doubt, you assume that if countermeasures can be detected, there is no possibility of harm being caused by countermeasures.  Thus examiners should not care if countermeasure techniques are publicized.  

The flaw in this thought process is as follows.  Whether detected, or undetected, countermeasures do harm.  You (incorrectly) assume the only concern an examiner has is not allowing the deceptive person to avoid detection.  In fact, the examiners job is to get to the truth regarding the relevant matter.  Thus, even detected countermeasures interfere with the mission of a sworn law enforcement or intelligence agent.  The examiner who catches an examinee using countermeasures now has to determine if the person is concealing guilt or is an innocent person just trying to "help" himself. This leaves the examiner with nothing more than interrogation to resolve the matter (assuming thorough investigation has been conducted, as well it should, prior to the exam).

An otherwise innocent/non-deceptive person caught utilizing countermeasures has now compromised his or her own integrity and damaged their own professional reputation.  This site advocates the use of countermeasures by innocent persons to ensure they pass (no doubt to disassociate themselves from criminals who might also use the info to avoid justice). However, the provider of countermeasure information with advice to use them, to any otherwise non-deceptive person, is complicit to the damage caused by countermeasures being detected (not just for damage caused by a guilty person using them to evade justice).   

If you take a cheat sheet with you to an exam in college, yet find you knew the answers without using it, does it negate the ethical violation?  Your integrity is still jeopardized; and if you were caught with the cheat sheet, you could never prove you actually passed the exam of your own merits.  Correlate this to polygraph and a fair-minded person will see why complaints, based upon ethics, to countermeasure info dissemination, does not indicate countermeasures cannot be detected.    

Regards,

Public Servant

Quote:


Public Servant,

I think your point has perhaps even more validity than you posited. Knowledge of the CQT test technique itself potentially reduces its effectiveness even with no countermeasures utilized since it is unlikely a person will react as strongly on the controls. For that matter if they do react it liklely would be out of concern that they might underreact rather than concern of being detected as deceptive on the control. This all gets rather messy and one can't help but wonder how the polygraph community handles this. Ask examinees if they are knowledgable of polygraphy and if they are switch to a DLT?  I don't think knowledge about polygrapy itself is a ever a "relevant" D/Q ing question, but it sure can alter the assumptions polygraphy is based on.

-Marty

Quote:


I would agree that number 1 would likely be a prerequisite for advocating criminalization of such practices.  However, I don't believe number 2 would be a prerequisite since, as I asserted previously, detected countermeasures could also be detrimental to examinee, examiner, agency, and perhaps to justice in general.

For the record, while I take issue with the ethicality and responsibility of this site, I would not advocate having it criminalized.  I have devoted my entire adult life to the defense of freedom, both in the armed forces and law enforcement.  As Mr. Webb stated in your cited email, it is your right to speak your opinions on this site. 

On the issue of dealing with known or suspected  "informed" subjects; there are a number of ideas and methodologies, which often vary from agency to agency, examiner to examiner.  Prior to attending DoDPI, students must undergo a screening exam. Due to extensive exposure while observing exams on their assigned cases, few in my agency were completely naive to CQT when they applied for polygraph training.  Yet the senior examiners are still able to conduct effective exams on the applicants.  I know it worked for my examination.  At least one of these methods has been effective.

But now I am back to the same point, regarding informed subjects, that I have made so often regarding the countermeasure challenge.  For Mr. Webb, or anyone else, to provide information on how examiners deal with the "informed" examinees, would be quite counter-productive.   

Yes, everyone can feel free to make the same attacks to this as were made when I have asserted this regarding CMs in the past.  Feel free to go to old threads and cut and paste!!   But, please don't have Drew issue a challenge regarding "informed" subjects.  I can barely deal with the monotony of the present challenge countdown reminders.

Take care!

Public Servant

Hey beech trees, tell them what happens when you brag about knowing all about countermeasures.