Quote:Marty,
It seems to me that the DOE's decision to adopt polygraph screening was a knee-jerk political decision taken to stem criticisms of lax security at the national laboratories arising as a result of the Cox Report.
I would wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. Notwithstanding whether there was (or was not) a belief in polygraphy, it was quite obvious that the DOE needed to something - anything. Congress was breathing down their necks and something had to be done. Dr. Lee was just a convenient target, e.g. Chinese ancestry, travel to Mainland China, etc.
One other thing that's important about this case is the fact that a Federal judge chastised every single group involved in the prosecution (which happens so infrequently, I have heard of no other case). Why the judge did not single out the blantant misuse (asumming of course that it can be used properly) or even mention it is beyond me.
In a slightly off-topic tone, I see the use of polygraphy and other questionable security methodologies as a panacea. I have worked in IT security for a while now and I have come to the conclusion that security is a "contact sport". In other words, it is an ongoing process. In Dr. Lee's case, it was just an attempt at a quick fix.
That whole era was just rife with attempts to "fix" a completely broken system. For example, countless memos came down from Richardson's office about DOE's stance against racial profiling, however the vast majority of those targetted for special investigations were - you guessed it - of Asian descent. The number of individuals polygraphed in Albuquerque during this period must number close to a hundred, also. Guess what ancestary they had??
-d