Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) U.S. Senate Energy Cttee. Hearing on Polygraphs (Read 19866 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box The_Breeze
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 107
Joined: Jul 31st, 2002
Re: U.S. Senate Energy Cttee. Hearing on Polygraph
Reply #15 - Sep 10th, 2003 at 4:54pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Hi George
You may remember that I called this months ago and told you the number of polygraphs required in the DOE system will be reduced not eliminated.  This may irritate you but I will draw you to an important excerpt from McSlarrow's testimony:

"Federal agencies deploying the counterintelligence scope polygraph as a screening tool for initial hiring or initial access   have detected applicants for classified positions within those agencies who were directed by foreign governments or entities to seek employment with the agencies in order to gain successful penetrations within the various U.S. Government components. 
U.S. agencies have also benefited from the utilization of the polygraph screen as part of periodic security evaluations and re-investigations of federal employees and contractor personnel.   Such examinations have resulted in multiple admissions in several different areas:

 Knowingly providing classified information to members of foreign intelligence services. 
 Involvement in various stages of recruitment efforts by foreign intelligence services. 
 Prior unreported contacts with known foreign intelligence officers. 
 Efforts by employees to make clandestine contact with foreign diplomatic establishments or foreign intelligence officers. 
 Serious contemplation or plans to commit acts of espionage. 
 Knowingly providing classified information to foreign nationals and uncleared U.S. persons. 

As a result of admissions and subsequent investigations, federal agencies have disrupted on-going clandestine relationships between employees/contractors and foreign intelligence officers, and stopped others in their beginning phases, or even before the clandestine relationships began.

If this were the end of the inquiry, it would be a relatively straightforward matter.  The probability would be that use of the polygraph screen as one tool for counterintelligence would have a value that demanded its use in the context of access to information the protection of which is critical to our national security, even taking into account questions of employee morale and the resources necessary to sustain such a program.  The value of its use in specific-incident investigations would be presumably greater still".

The often repeated assertions made on this site have been directly challenged by this government official.  I am not surprised that you and Orolan (who was recently been taken to task for being superficial in his research) have ignored this, and are selectively reporting his remarks.  I could do it, but why dont you post his testimony in total?
Is it possible that the government has access to information not originating in the fertile minds of antipolygraph activists, or disgruntled job seekers?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6232
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: U.S. Senate Energy Cttee. Hearing on Polygraph
Reply #16 - Sep 10th, 2003 at 7:38pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Breeze,

You ask why I don't post Kyle McSlarrow's testimony in total. Actually, if you look again, you'll note that on the day of the hearing, I posted a link to his statement on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee website. And the following day, we added Mr. McSlarrow's written remarks to AntiPolygraph.org:

http://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-energy-2003/mcslarrow-statement.shtml

Deputy Secretary of Energy McSlarrow all but conceded that polygraph screening has no validity, choosing instead to base his arguments in favor of continued polygraph screening on claims of utility (i.e., admissions obtained.) But the unverifiable anecdotal evidence that Mr. McSlarrow adduced tells us absolutely nothing about the utility of polygraphy. Over the past 50-some-odd years, various instrumentalities of the U.S. Government have administered hundreds of thousands of polygraph screening examinations. It is hardly surprising that a few people would confess to all sorts of things. Indeed, there is zero statistical chance that one wouldn't get some admissions when polygraphing (or simply interviewing, without the polygraph) such large numbers of people.

The NAS report found that there is essentially no evidence on the additive validity of polygraphy (its ability to add predictive value to that which could be achieved by other means). Which raises the question, might the admissions Mr. McSlarrow referred to have been obtained by other means?

More importantly, how many innocent people wrongly suffer to "catch" these few transgressors who are stupid enough to make admissions during their polygraph examinations?
  

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 The_Breeze
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 107
Joined: Jul 31st, 2002
Re: U.S. Senate Energy Cttee. Hearing on Polygraph
Reply #17 - Sep 11th, 2003 at 4:55pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George
Some quick thoughts before I start work.
Posting a link (which most will not access) is not the same as discussing fully the content of the message, of course since the content works against your goals and philosophy this is not surprising.

McSlarrow seems to making specific reference to  polygraph success in uncovering espionage directed against our country.  You and others frequently state that this has never happened, (based on comments made by government officials favorable to your view) Do you think spies are merely "stupid enough to make admissions" or were they presented with evidence backed up with polygraph results leading to confession. 

Is it possible that McSlarrow has access to classified information that you do not possess? Do you think he is so casual as to continue a polygraph policy without backup for his position that he cannot speak to specificially? Politically, it would of been far easier to scrap the program.  Its anecdotal to you because it must remain so.
Why do you continue to believe that your viewpoint is more credible than those that actually perform investigative work, see the tool in action, and value the result?
You have based your position on the fact that the CIA does not publish every investigative success.  Why would any agency with the complexity of mission that our intelligence gathering organizations deal with trumpet polygraph success? They probably would prefer that people adopted your view, and not take it seriously-possibly leading to an opening.

I guess the DOE has placed some value on those hapless spies making admissions.  Its amazing to me that you can make such sweeping judgements ( about someones intellect) without any proof what so ever.
I thought McSlarrow considered the NAS findings throughout his testimony, and your analysis of his viewpoint is simply a reflection of your bias.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: U.S. Senate Energy Cttee. Hearing on Polygraph
Reply #18 - Sep 11th, 2003 at 6:38pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The_Breeze wrote on Sep 11th, 2003 at 4:55pm:
George
Some quick thoughts before I start work.
Posting a link (which most will not access) is not the same as discussing fully the content of the message, of course since the content works against your goals and philosophy this is not surprising.


Get over yourself, Breeze.  He not only posted a link, but the entire text of the address, in direct contradiction to your complaint.  Your M.O. seems to be that you never admit you're wrong (no matter how obviously you are), but in this case, you look like an idiot for continuing the argument when George clearly did exactly what you said he didn't do.

You don't have to take my advice, of course, but you really don't want to pursue such an obviously losing line of argument.  At least have the honesty and integrity to admit it when you're so clearly mistaken.  

Quote:
McSlarrow seems to making specific reference to  polygraph success in uncovering espionage directed against our country.  You and others frequently state that this has never happened, (based on comments made by government officials favorable to your view) Do you think spies are merely "stupid enough to make admissions" or were they presented with evidence backed up with polygraph results leading to confession.


Unfortunately, McSlarrow's comments don't make clear the process by which the espionage was uncovered (he himself may not know the details).  Your own questions above reveal the fact that drawing firm conclusions one way or another is unwarranted, and indeed, McSlarrow's comments (which you posted) seem to indicate admissions, not polygraph charts, were what stopped the espionage.

The bottom line is, by making inferences from what McSlarrow said you're doing exactly what you accuse others of doing: pushing your bias.

The burden of proof is upon pro-polygraph people to demonstrate that the polygraph itself caught spies.  I see nothing in McSlarrow's testimony that indicates this issue is resolved.  But please, feel free to post the relevant quote that does so.

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: U.S. Senate Energy Cttee. Hearing on Polygraph
Reply #19 - Sep 11th, 2003 at 10:01pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Skeptic
When I make an honest mistake like pointing out that George and Orolan seemed to be cherry picking remarks from McSlarrow's testimony (since this is the thread where its being discussed) understand that I dont dwell here and lurk around the reading room.  My point remains: why ignore or gloss over his other relevant comments? So Im an idiot for not spending too much time on this site? That label is yours to wear.
I dont have an M.O.  I tell the truth based on experience and direct observation, not the whimpering of others. You can listen to anyone you want to.

Since your so generous in giving advice, as if I needed some from you, I will return the favor.  Try and not feel stupid that you have spent so much time on a cause that is having little practical impact. The tone creeps into your messages.
McSlarrow has made a decision based on facts, you have argued a point based on emotion.  Admissions seperate from polygraph? where do you make that connection since he is linking the two himself? Guess those spies just broke down on seeing the equipment? why dont you let us in on what you have seen in your vast experience.
Your strident, illogical arguements are pathetic.   
"Burden of proof"? agencies make decisions based on thier needs and thier experiences.  I dont think the DOE needs to demonstrate anything specificially to your satisfaction, thier decision is sufficient.  No one has to work for the agency, or any other that polygraphs if it is so objectionable.
The next time you feel a need to post to me you can keep it civil, your wasting my time.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: U.S. Senate Energy Cttee. Hearing on Polygraph
Reply #20 - Sep 11th, 2003 at 11:11pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
(Modified after re-reading Breeze's remarks)

The_Breeze wrote on Sep 11th, 2003 at 10:01pm:
Skeptic
When I make an honest mistake like pointing out that George and Orolan seemed to be cherry picking remarks from McSlarrow's testimony (since this is the thread where its being discussed) understand that I dont dwell here and lurk around the reading room.  My point remains: why ignore or gloss over his other relevant comments? So Im an idiot for not spending too much time on this site? That label is yours to wear.
I dont have an M.O.  I tell the truth based on experience and direct observation, not the whimpering of others. You can listen to anyone you want to.


Breeze,
You're not being an idiot if you make an honest mistake -- though I think it's reasonable to expect people to look around before criticizing.  Nor are you being an idiot if you think George overlooked (or ignored) points you think he shouldn't have.  You're being an idiot when you then try to defend your mistake and continue your attack, instead of retracting your remarks.

Perhaps George overlooked an important point and perhaps not.  But given the fact that he posted prominent links to the transcript from here and the home page of Antipolygraph.org, it is hardly fair to criticize him on the grounds that he's "selectively reporting [McSlarrow's] remarks" in order to advance his agenda.  He reported the remarks in toto.

You may not realize it, but you're accusing him of intellectual dishonesty, and it's not a fair accusation.

Quote:
The next time you feel a need to post to me you can keep it civil, your wasting my time.


Breeze, given your evinced tendency to post insulting and counterfactual comments regarding George and others, followed invariably by a refusal to retract your comments when you're called on them, I feel my posts to you have been the picture of civility.  There are trolls on Usenet who display more intellectual integrity than you do on this message board.

As I said before, you need to get over yourself.  No one's perfect, and admitting an error goes a long ways towards getting people to take you seriously.

Skeptic
« Last Edit: Sep 12th, 2003 at 12:20am by Skeptic »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6232
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: U.S. Senate Energy Cttee. Hearing on Polygraph
Reply #21 - Sep 12th, 2003 at 5:34am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Dr. Fienberg has also responded to Mr. McSlarrow's claimed utility for polygraph screening. In his amended written statement, he notes:

Quote:
The Deputy Secretary's testimony makes reference to the utility of counterintelligence scope polygraph screening programs employed by federal agencies in terms of admissions made. Our committee heard repeated reference to such anecdotes but found little systematic evidence to evaluate them. It is important to note that such admissions rely heavy on the polygraph as an interrogation tool and not as a device that accurately detects deception.  As such the polygraph may be no better a prop than other less costly devices.  Our report refers to this as the "bogus pipeline," a term that comes from the social science literature which has repeatedly demonstrated the value of such props in other settings.
  

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 Marty
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 499
Joined: Sep 27th, 2002
Re: U.S. Senate Energy Cttee. Hearing on Polygraph
Reply #22 - Sep 12th, 2003 at 7:26am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Dr. Fienberg has also responded to Mr. McSlarrow's claimed utility for polygraph screening. In his amended written statement, he notes:


George,

I think perhaps props deserve some "props", in the current blog vernacular. McSlarrow's description of the polygraph as "taslismatic" is consistent with this and one shouldn't discount the value of this "prop." I often run into bright people who are simply awed by the polygraph and seem to place it beyond understanding.

I don't understand this thinking as I am curious about nearly everything I don't understand (INTP).

It is something of an ethical quandry in that I don't initiate discussions of how poly's work with people that might actually have to take one. Fortunately, few people that I know are at such risk.

-Marty
  

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


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6232
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: U.S. Senate Energy Cttee. Hearing on Polygraph
Reply #23 - Sep 12th, 2003 at 10:00am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Marty,

Quote:
I think perhaps props deserve some "props", in the current blog vernacular.


I am largely unfamiliar with the current blog vernacular. What do you mean by the foregoing?
  

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 Marty
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 499
Joined: Sep 27th, 2002
Re: U.S. Senate Energy Cttee. Hearing on Polygraph
Reply #24 - Sep 12th, 2003 at 5:09pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Marty,


I am largely unfamiliar with the current blog vernacular. What do you mean by the foregoing?


"props" is widely used to indicate approval or strong agreement with a blog journal entry. I am unclear what the origin is - it may be shorthand for small icons that people add much like the "smileys" Smiley  Currently, it seems to indicate something like the "here here" one might hear from the "House of Commons." It is ubiquitous on the blogscape.

-Marty
  

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


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6232
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: U.S. Senate Energy Cttee. Hearing on Polygraph
Reply #25 - Sep 12th, 2003 at 5:46pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Marty,

Thank you for the clarification!

No one is arguing here that props (including the polygraph) cannot be useful in interrogations. But as the National Academy of Sciences noted in its report, there is essentially no evidence on the additive validity of polygraphy (its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other means). And as Dr. Fienberg pointed out, the handful of purported successes of the polygraph that Kyle McSlarrow adduced are of no statistical value.

Polygraph screening is a fraud, as more and more of us who are or have been subject to it are learning. As Dr. Richardson has pointed out before, continued polygraph screening would require such a universal bluff as to be impractical over the long term.

Do you agree with Kyle McSlarrow's stated plan for continued reliance on polygraph screening?
  

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 Marty
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 499
Joined: Sep 27th, 2002
Re: U.S. Senate Energy Cttee. Hearing on Polygraph
Reply #26 - Sep 12th, 2003 at 6:23pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:

No one is arguing here that props (including the polygraph) cannot be useful in interrogations. But as the National Academy of Sciences noted in its report, there is essentially no evidence on the additive validity of polygraphy (its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other means).

While true, predictive value is not established for many qualification standards. OTOH, one can argue establishing predictive value should be a precondition for highly invasive processes as the polygraph.

Quote:

And as Dr. Fienberg pointed out, the handful of purported successes of the polygraph that Kyle McSlarrow adduced are of no statistical value.

OTOH, I think it is obvious that if such information was available, it would not be prudent to publish it's detail as it would be valuable for adversaries.

Quote:

Polygraph screening is a fraud, as more and more of us who are or have been subject to it are learning. As Dr. Richardson has pointed out before, continued polygraph screening would require such a universal bluff as to be impractical over the long term.

Perhaps this is true over the long term, but it would appear that the new information discovered  from admissions remains at a fairly high level and so the "long term" may be much further out. Admission rates are likley a good proxy for the effectiveness of the polygraph "bluff."

Quote:

Do you agree with Kyle McSlarrow's stated plan for continued reliance on polygraph screening?


I don't know enough about it to make that determination assuming a purely utilitatian approach. OTOH, I have a very visceral reaction to the idea of false positives from a screening test that is deceptive on it's face. It appears Kyle has adopted a utilitarian approach and has factored in consequences such as loss of talent, etc.

-Marty
  

Leaf my Philodenrons alone.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: U.S. Senate Energy Cttee. Hearing on Polygraph
Reply #27 - Sep 12th, 2003 at 9:34pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Marty wrote on Sep 12th, 2003 at 6:23pm:

While true, predictive value is not established for many qualification standards. OTOH, one can argue establishing predictive value should be a precondition for highly invasive processes as the polygraph.


Well, Marty, as long as you're going to rebut your own position Wink


Quote:
OTOH, I think it is obvious that if such information was available, it would not be prudent to publish it's detail as it would be valuable for adversaries.


Perhaps, perhaps not.  In fact, I would think some details would serve as a deterrent to adversaries...

Skeptic
« Last Edit: Sep 12th, 2003 at 10:47pm by Skeptic »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Marty
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 499
Joined: Sep 27th, 2002
Re: U.S. Senate Energy Cttee. Hearing on Polygraph
Reply #28 - Sep 12th, 2003 at 10:11pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Skeptic,

I found Kyle's rationalization nuanced and not totally without merit.

Just because they haven't provided the basis for statistical utility doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As for info of use to adversaries, any information that were to indicate the poly either more or less reliable in actual usage would be of value in structuring an attack. Adversaries depend on a global assessment of both strengths and weaknesses in order to optimize and target. 

Still, the poly as a screening tool for knowledgable examinees is offensive and irritating. Because of that, I respect the poeple that are willing to go through it to provide service to this country. It's more than I would do.

-Marty
  

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


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6232
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: U.S. Senate Energy Cttee. Hearing on Polygraph
Reply #29 - Sep 12th, 2003 at 10:28pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Does anyone else find it curious that details of apparently all of polygraph screening's purported counterespionage successes to which Mr. McSlarrow referred remain classified (bearing in mind that the U.S. government has been doing this for 50+ years), and apparently none led to criminal prosecutions?
  

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
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
U.S. Senate Energy Cttee. Hearing on Polygraphs

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