Drew and Marty,

You both failed to answer my original question.  Let me repeat it.  

We all know the anti-poly crowd questions examiner integrity based on the procedures of an examination.  With this in mind, is it fair that we should question George's integrity when he suggests that an applicant should "not volunteer" (lie by omission) specific information in the course of one's law enforcement application.  A simple yes or no will do.

In the very specific context George answered, I would say no. However, if I agreed with your assessment, that he was suggesting a lie  by omission of specific information asked I would have said yes.

-Marty

If you're in law enforcement, I pitty the dept that has to put up with your pathetic excuse of a human being.

Talk about an illiterate ignoramus, you freaken moron, you can't even spell "dude" right. It's dude, not dud idiot. Look it up in the dictionary, or do you even own one dork. You are a dunce, and a disgrace to everyone on this web site. If you are in law enforcement, get out, you are a danger not only to yourself, but everyone around you.

P.S. I apologize to everyone else on this web site, for the immature level I have descended to regarding this member. I have had enough of this criticizing bafoon.

Good by

...We all know George questions the integrity of  polygraph examiners....

Examiner:  
 
You say in part:  
 
“…Yes, an examiner lies during the conduct of an interview.  Every investigator I have ever known or heard of, from law enforcement to insurance to private lies during the interview process.  The United States Supreme Court sanctioned this type of activity decades ago.  This is an appropriate and accepted aspect of law enforcement.  Its not like its any secret, I fail to understand why this is such a significant issue here…”  
 
     You are to be congratulated for your candor and thanked for furthering these on-going discussions.  For the present, without much elaboration (I plan to start a new thread regarding polygraph “examiner” deception), I would like to simply characterize that which you describe as “…examiner lies during the conduct of an interview…” and list certain of those deceptions.  Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement.  Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:  
 
(1)      A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner’s background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects.  In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.   
 
(2)      The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the “stim” test, more recently referred to as an “acquaintance” test.   
 
  
(3)      Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.  
 
(4)      Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.   
 
  
(5)      Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.  
 
(6)      A host of misrepresentations that are made as “themes” and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.  
 
 
(7)      The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other…  
 
This listing is not offered as complete (nor in any way are the surrounding thoughts fully developed) but merely as a starting point for the following commentary and recommendation.   You have stated that court opinions have been written which sanction the use of deception on the part of law enforcement officers.  Agreed.  I would suggest for your consideration the following points:  
 
(1)      The deceptions cited in such decisions are generally isolated to specific actions/conversations occurring within specific investigations, not pandemic and not necessary to the day-to-day general and routine practices of law enforcement officers.  
 
(2)      The decisions you might cite clearly refer to law enforcement officers.  On what basis would you extend this “license to lie” to civilian polygraph examiners conducting polygraph exams related to purely administrative, commercial, or domestic subjects or even to polygraphers hired by the accused in a criminal matter?  
...