Quote:


I would not answer it. I would encourage CCK to withdraw his application as he stated his drug usage is outside of FBI limits.

-Marty

Well done George....I gather from your exchange concerning this person's test that you DO NOT encourage countermeasures.....I am glad that you appear to have seen the light....whew, for a moment there, I could hqve sworn you had ealier (11/04)directed him to the infamous Chapter 4, which one might construe was a tacit recommendation to employ countermeasures, but given your final recommendation that he withdraw his application in lieu of attempting those hopeless countermeasures, I must be incorrect.  Hooray for you George, here is hope for you!

Marty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2003 at 4:02am:



In a nutshell folks, this is what it is all about.  The FBI does have the right to demand honesty and truthfulness from all of its applicants.  In return, the FBI has the responsibility to show respect, truthfulness, and honesty to its applicants.  The pre-employment screening polygraph exam as used today in the FBI is without honor, ethics, or faithfulness to the Constitution of the United States.  I believe in treating people the way I would want to be treated.    The FBI wants honesty.  The FBI has to be honest with its applicants.   The polygraph is not a way to do so.

Regards.

Quote:


There's no way of calculating those chances. Polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis and its accuracy rate cannot be specified. In general, assuming that the examinee is uninformed about polygraph procedure and countermeasures, it's more likely that a truthful person would wrongly fail than that a deceptive person would wrongly pass. But the deceptive can pass using simple countermeasures that polygraphers have no demonstrated ability to detect.

Quote:


Polygraphers routinely claim their machine can detect deception.  But when confronted with the fact that scientifically, all the polygraph machine does is measure fight or flight reactions which can have many underlying causes, they play this down.  One polygrapher here even claimed it was an "overgeneralization" to claim that polygraphers use the term "deception indicated" when labeling chart reactions.  Yet the four NSA polygraphers who tested me either stated or implied the machine detects deception.  One (Mr. Lingenfelter) claimed 98% accuracy.  We have other applicants who routine report they make that claim.

They want it both ways.  Fact is, if it became common knowledge that the machine doesn't detect deception, it would lessen the utility of the test, which relies heavily on applicant gullibility.  Maybe this is why many polygraphers are purposely evasive on the subject (outside of the examination room, of course).

TC

Before my last polygraph, I brought in a written statement to the polygrapher as to why I thought the poly was bullshit.  He read through it, (but because he had to go through the motions) said okay, and started into his "routine," explaining 98% accuracy after new studies, explaining that Gary Ridgeway didn't pass the polygraph, it was the polygraphers fault that he was over worked and missed the deception signs, (yeah, right), blah, blah blah.  I then looked him in the eyes and asked him if he could tell if I was actually lying to him.  To his credit, he answered truthfully, and said no.

I then agreed to the poly, and when he gave me the hold harmless agreement to sign, I refused, stating that since he can't guarantee that he won't brand me a liar, I won't release him of any liability.

The test ended there, with me agreeing to take the poly but refusing to release him from liability, and he refusing to test me because of it.

Quite a show when it was all said and done...