What was the question?  I forgot already.

OK, now I remember.  To Dr. Richardson, my optimism is based on continuing research, both at DODPI and universities trying  such methods as brain-scanning, eye movement, and other non-traditional lie-detection methods.  When the day comes that current polygraph technology can be replaced by better technology, I'll hop on the train.  Lokking back at history, if I remember my DODPI history classes, polygraph instruments began with a glass jar filled with water, watching it rise and fall while a subject was questioned.  I recall a three-channel instrument, with one pneumo tube;  then came four and five-channel instruments with electronic pneumo and cardio channel;  Lafayette had an adjustable discrotic notch, Stoelting had a "quality watch" feature which prevented manipulation of sensitivity settings by examiners.  Circa 1993, Axciton and other manufacturers produced the computerized polygraph program based upon, if I recall correctly, algorithms developed by Johns Hopkins APL.  Now Limestone is out with the next generation of computerized polygraph.  Earlier movement bars are now replaced with Piezo movement pads.  So, technology is advancing compared with what was the standard 75 years ago.  But I think your assertions are more along the lines of methodology vice technology.  Yes, I agree that the R/I technique is the least desirable and least accurate of all.  PLCs have been around for decades, some techniques evolving from the original ZCT.  TES, derived from the DLCT, which has been used for 30+ years, came along in 1993, after extensive research, and is widely used among the military services.  The next technique developed may be extremely accurate compared to what we have now.

That's my source of optimism.

Regards

only as a last resort, which is not often.  There are other methods available.

This is of course the same Shiela Reed, who herself was subsequently discredited, disavowed, and thrown out of DODPI (quite literally).  Regardless, TES works quite well, has for the past 13 years, and is the test of choice in military screening.  When you yourself come up with a better solution, let us examiners know.

I didn't forget, I simply ignored your nonsense.
Regards

On the same grounds that the US Senate dismissed his arguments in Sep 1997, and the DOE two years later;  long on theory, short on proof.

Digithead

I want to remind you that Brandeis wrote the "minority" opinion.  Tell the surviviors of 911 that "the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement"  I think you will find that they all support the tools at our disposal to fight terrorism. I forget which judge wrote the minorty opinion in Miranda but just like your minority opinion, so what.

retcopper wrote on Aug 14^th, 2006 at 8:29pm:


retcopper,

Our government's reliance on such quackery as polygraphy (and voice stress analysis) for counterterrorism purposes should outrage all who know the truth about lie detectors.

The first World Trade Center bombing might well have been prevented had not the FBI, relying in part on polygraph chart readings, decided to terminate a confidential informant named Emad Salem who had penetrated the group that eventually carried out the 1993 bombing. See the message thread, FBI Polygraphing of Confidential Informants for more on this.

Moreover, America's jihadist adversaries know that the lie detector is a sham, as is made clear in a relevant section of the Encyclopedia of Jihad and a jihadist article titled, "The Myth of the Lie Detector."

Generally, I would agree with you;  however, in this case I believe they were correct.