A review of AntiPolygraph.org's referrer log led to a post titled "just beat a polygraph test!" on Overgrow.com, a website used by marijuana growers to share information. In this post, "frostibud108" states that he used countermeasures learned on AntiPolygraph.org to pass a police-administered polygraph examination regarding a crime regarding which he falsely denied having knowledge:

Quote:


AntiPolygraph.org makes information about polygraph countermeasures freely available to provide truthful persons with a means of protecting themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome. But unavoidably, the same information is also available to, and may be used by, deceptive persons. Let this post serve as a reminder regarding the danger of relying on polygraph results to guide criminal investigations.

Quote:


We, the makers of thalidomide, are very sorry that it caused birth defects; however, we should not be held accountable because your doctor prescribed it for your use.

This web site provides information to those seeking to insure they pass a polygraph, plain and simple.  Who those individuals are or to what ends they seek the information for, you have no knowledge; but you are responsible for providing the knowledge to them...so do not try and make your efforts legitimate [wash your hands of Joe Pot Head] by placing a disclaimer with Joe Pot Head’s web post highlighted.   

What will the post by the child molester/rapist/murder [choose one] who the cops let go look like when he/she posts saying thank you for the help???

Knowledge is power, but posting knowledge [providing power] with out any concern for the repercussions makes us no better than those who wrong the innocent in screening polygraphs.

I agree, a polygraph should never be the short cut to good police work; but what happens when it is used in that manner [and you/we helped]?

Not a sermon, just a thought 

Shadow,

So what do you suggest we do differently? Are you suggesting that the countermeasure information on AntiPolygraph.org should be withdrawn? Regarding the ethical issues involved in publishing such information, see my Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public.

Quote:


What would the admission criteria be?  How do you propose to verify information provided by those priveleged few to access this secure area?  This is not a professional issues site where strict standards can be met, making your suggestion nearly if not completely impossible.

There is no way to ensure that only persons with good intentions obtain the information available from antipolygraph.org.  A poster could give the impression that he/she is seeking information to avoid being mislabeled as a liar, when in fact the person desires the information to facilitate lying his/her ass off to obtain a favorable polygraph result.

The only way to ensure that those people seeking information for the wrong reasons do not obtain it is to make the information publicly unavailable.  This hopefully, and I expect, is not an option.

Jeffery wrote on May 24^th, 2005 at 4:46am:


Yeah, I was an honest guy who failed his poly and was branded a "LIAR."  It makes me angry and bitter to think about it.  I have lost alot of faith in the system.

Shadow,

The reason I posted frostibud108's here is that it sheds some light on a dark corner of polygraphy. Very few deceptive persons who use countermeasures to pass a polygraph examination publicly say so. Frostibud108's post is a rare exception, and I thought it noteworthy.

At the same time, I thought it was important to note (especially for new visitors to this website) that  our motivation in making countermeasure information publicly available is to protect the innocent against the random error associated with an invalid test and not to aid the guilty, even while recognizing that the information provided here may benefit the latter to the extent that polygraph results are relied upon.

I think your sarcastically delivered comparison of me to a thalidomide manufacturer seeking to avoid liability is inappropriate. Indeed, I find it highly offensive.

We're not selling a product here. We're engaging in 1st Amendment protected speech about a procedure that the scientific community agrees is invalid.

Now you seem to be suggesting that perhaps I should not have publicly mentioned frostibud108's post because it "provid[es] fuel to the adversaries of this site." I disagree. On the contrary, frostibud108's post vividly illustrates the danger of relying on polygraph results.

My, my -- a tendency towards hurt whining at the slightest provocation, and jumping to conclusions regarding whether someone "supports their country", based upon nothing more than where he or she lives.  Yep.  Sounds like a polygrapher.

I see very little has changed in my hiatus from the site: polygraphers are still the single best exhibit for the site regarding whether or not judgements about careers, crimes and the fate of the country should be in polygraphers' hands.

George,
Quote:

Agree it is noteworthy, as I said previously it just struck a cord in me and caused me to re-think public postings.
Quote:

Again, I agree with what you are saying and I track with your line of thought; however, as I have said, it caused me to take pause and think.
Quote:

My intent was not to offend; however, the analogy, not the kindest, still stands.  I truly feel we all must take responsibility for our actions.  By publicly posting information to the WWW on how to beat a polygraph, you are aiding [not intentionally] the more nefarious factions of our society.  By saying, "We're not selling a product here. We're engaging in 1st Amendment protected speech about a procedure that the scientific community agrees is invalid.", you cannot erase the fact that criminal elements benefit from your posts.  In fact, you almost sound like the defense attorney who plays word games with the law to win for his client.  You offer a service on this site for which you cannot control the end use.  This use can be for both the common good and for the lesser side of honesty.  You must always be aware of that and not hide behind the vile of “greater good” or "First Amendment rights."  As stated in my previous post, “Sometimes the greater good means one may need to parse his words before posting public.”  To quote Bill O’Reilly, “This is a no spin zone.”   
Quote:

Opponents of this site would offer that it shows just how dangerous this site is.  Again, two diametrically opposed ends of the spectrum using the same issue to support their argument.  I would be interested in your take on my comments to your reference to the "Menges post".
"Not a sermon, just a thought"

Darkcobra, 
Your comments to George are your opinion, but let us not forget, an American Citizen, living within the country or not, still has the same rights that are afforded all citizens of this nation.  Some citizens just chose to exercise those rights from afar.  George served his nation in the military and has earned the right to grouse/bitch/and complain just like any other veteran, whether you [or anyone else] agree with him or not.  That is what defines us as a nation.