I had to think about whether I should answer this question.  Then I wondered why I was evening debating with myself...and it hit me.  I don't TRUST you.   

My occupation is extremely unique and would stick out like a sore thumb if my future mindreaders were to peruse this site.  So for the sake of my fun, I guess that will have to suffice. 

I do my job because I enjoy helping people overcome illness...and love patient care.  I find it appalling that others spend the "bulk" of their time lying to these same people...while looking down upon them for refusing to lay their souls bare before you.  It baffles the mind.

edit:  i'm not a doctor or rn...before that assuming mind begins.  it really is quite unique.

Tarlain

I don't think a mike will cause any interference with the machine. There is nothing about the machine that is sensitive to radio frequency.

Did you notice that Nonombre didn't answer your question about recording his tests? Could be because maybe he's a Fed. and not state or local polygrapher as he has allowed. Seems like I read where Fed polygraphers do not allow audio or vidio. 

I'm glad I dig gravel and blast holes in mountains for a living. If Nonombre would ever visit my mine, I would let him get experience in real hard, dirty and honest work.

Retcopper

That was before 9/11. Since then the Feds wire tap any one they want without a court order.

I don't know what's your state but, I think if the recording is used "only" to protect ones self, honesty and integrity it is not against the law. Technically, a recording device is not a wire tap. PI's use recording devices all the time without a court order.

Tarlain may want to just use the recording for his own knowledge about the polygraph. In that case, he's legal. Particularly if he isn't caught. I record political speaches, that I attend, so I can put the facts in their face when they don't come through with their promises. When they are elected, they don't give a damn how much they are recorded.

"It is a federal crime to wiretap or to use a machine to cature the communications of others without court approval, unless one of the parties has given their prior consent."


Am I missing something?  Would not I qualify as "one of the parties" giving consent?   

For the record though, this is why I asked.  I felt that these shady people might force me to sign away my right to record my own voice.

I have sought the opinion of a lawyer (friend of a friend type of thing).  I was told that I am absolutely allowed to record any conversation(s) I have.  Polygraphers are NOT allowed to require you to turn off any recording devices.  Lastly, I was told that if discovered, the odds I end up being "deceptive" will be 110% regardless of how I answer (no surprise).

I am still unable to find any legal document or precedent that states or implies that it is unlawful for me to record my own conversations.

I appreciate your response.  While I completely understand the reason you don't allow a person to record his/her own copy of the session (for control, etc), it still appears that the individual was not treated fairly.  If he was their voluntarily, he has every right to record the session.  If you don't like that, you can ask him to leave.  If the person was being detained, he should have just refused (to avoid losing control).   

Nonombre,
While I realize this is not a question you would prefer to answer, I would appreciate an answer to the original question.   

Is there any law that prohibits a person from "secretly" recording their own pre-employment polygraph.  Do you "ask" your subjects to sign some form of waiver preventing this, etc.? 

Seeing that I'm not willing to commit a serious crime to take a polygraph  ...the cheapest alternative is to just apply for jobs that require them  8).

Again, thanks for the first answer.  In case I've never been clear, I have no problems with polygraphs that are used for criminal investigations (though I believe nobody would take them if the pre-employment versions were stopped).

I continue to disagree.   

Let me offer an example.  There is a trashy show called "Cheaters" that video/audio records people cheating on their significant other.  The person who is cheating never has any idea they are being recorded.  The entire show is based off the idea that the person is unaware they are being recorded.  I admit that they blur out the faces at times...but they always play the audio.  As long as the one of the individuals consent to doing the recording, they run with it...regardless of whether both parties are consenting.

I'm not sure if that makes sense.  Why do you believe that I am not allowed to make my own conversations public?  If memory serves me correct, didn't Linda Tripp tape Monica Lewinsky (without her knowledge)?  I definately remember  hearing the tapes.  I don't every remember hearing anything about that being illegal (since Linda Tripp was recording her own conversation).  Why would the press be allowed to play them if it were unlawful?

edit:  on further thought...the entire tv show "Cops" is taped.  I doubt they are getting permission as they barge in people's doors.  But since they have the permisson of one of the parties...it's fine as long as they don't wrongly damage somebody's reputation or good name.