Hot Topic (More than 15 Replies) Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship (Read 26724 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Joined: Oct 20th, 2007
Re: Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship
Reply #15 - Nov 20th, 2007 at 6:07am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Barry_C wrote on Nov 20th, 2007 at 2:05am:
This is just one data point.  When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph.  Why then the reverse?

We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some.  We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer.  Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss.


For one thing, the polygraph industry, (see PolygraphPlace) seems to be trying to convince people the polygraph is highly accurate.  I could copy and paste dozens of comments to back up my statement, but anyone can simply check out this assertion.

But, there is a much larger issue, that being the number or percentage of errors where the polygraph procedure brands someone a liar, when they are telling the truth.   What happened to the old adage "It is better that 100 guilty people go free, than one innocent convicted?"  This is what drives our criminal justice system, and why people are only convicted upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  But, it is okay to "convict" someone of being a liar, drug dealer, thief, etc. based on what the pre-employment polygraph procedure results are.  Which, as we know, is simply one man's opinion based on some squiggly lines on a computer screen.
  

"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams."  (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box 1904
Ex Member


Re: Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship
Reply #16 - Nov 20th, 2007 at 12:58pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Barry_C wrote on Nov 20th, 2007 at 2:05am:
Have you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides.  The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph?  It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get.

When one believes that polygraph, the background investigation, or psychological eval, etc, is going to catch all those who are not qualified, then there's a problem.

This is just one data point.  When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph.  Why then the reverse?

We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some.  We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer.  Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss.



I think that you and your ilk would catch more spies if you used the
'pin the tail on the donkey' method.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Barry_C
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 114
Joined: Oct 17th, 2007
Re: Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship
Reply #17 - Nov 20th, 2007 at 2:27pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
What happened to the old adage "It is better that 100 guilty people go free, than one innocent convicted?"  This is what drives our criminal justice system, and why people are only convicted upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  But, it is okay to "convict" someone of being a liar, drug dealer, thief, etc. based on what the pre-employment polygraph procedure results are.  Which, as we know, is simply one man's opinion based on some squiggly lines on a computer screen.


Nobody is "convicted" during a pre-employment test, so you're way off base here.  To call them "squiggly lines" is a bit of an oversimplification.  You assume - with no science to back it up - that all those who claim to be false positives actually are.  Some will be, yes, as that's the problem with an imperfect test.  However, as I've said elsewhere (and can't continue to explain), because polygraph is better than chance, the process is more fair to the truthful than it would be without polygraph.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Joined: Oct 20th, 2007
Re: Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship
Reply #18 - Nov 20th, 2007 at 3:24pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Barry_C wrote on Nov 20th, 2007 at 2:27pm:
Quote:
What happened to the old adage "It is better that 100 guilty people go free, than one innocent convicted?"  This is what drives our criminal justice system, and why people are only convicted upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  But, it is okay to "convict" someone of being a liar, drug dealer, thief, etc. based on what the pre-employment polygraph procedure results are.  Which, as we know, is simply one man's opinion based on some squiggly lines on a computer screen.


Nobody is "convicted" during a pre-employment test, so you're way off base here.  To call them "squiggly lines" is a bit of an oversimplification.  You assume - with no science to back it up - that all those who claim to be false positives actually are.  Some will be, yes, as that's the problem with an imperfect test.  However, as I've said elsewhere (and can't continue to explain), because polygraph is better than chance, the process is more fair to the truthful than it would be without polygraph.


Mr. C.

When a person is told by a police or national security agency that he is lying, and summarily removed from further consideration for a job, and then is branded a liar and the results of that error ridden polygraph is then used to ban him from further jobs, and then when there is no way for a person to prove he was in fact telling the truth, I would equate that with being wrongfully convicted of a crime.

The criminal justice system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of a crime, but only the opinion of someone who spent 8 weeks or so in a trade school to brand a person for life.

Of course, not all claimed false positives are in fact false positives, but when the polygraph field itself admits to somewhere between an 80 to 95 percent or so false positive rante, (read "the poly was wrong"), and when we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of applicants, then it is a very serious problem.


I'll stand by my assertions and opinion, and while they are not backed by science, at least they are logical.
  

"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams."  (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box WJ
User
**
Offline



Posts: 30
Location: Washington D.C.
Joined: Jul 14th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship
Reply #19 - Jan 6th, 2008 at 4:34pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Barry_C wrote on Nov 20th, 2007 at 2:05am:
Have you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides.  The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph?  It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get.

When one believes that polygraph, the background investigation, or psychological eval, etc, is going to catch all those who are not qualified, then there's a problem.

This is just one data point.  When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph.  Why then the reverse?

We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some.  We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer.  Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss.

At least you're being honest.  The two polys I took the polygrapher told me that "the machine does not lie".  What a bunch of BS.  Telling someone that they are being deceptive and knowing that the machine is "not perfect" is dishonest to say the least.  This is why the machine should no longer be used.
  

Counter-measures were easy.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship
Reply #20 - Jan 6th, 2008 at 5:28pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
WJ wrote on Jan 6th, 2008 at 4:34pm:
Barry_C wrote on Nov 20th, 2007 at 2:05am:
Have you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides.  The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph?  It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get.

When one believes that polygraph, the background investigation, or psychological eval, etc, is going to catch all those who are not qualified, then there's a problem.

This is just one data point.  When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph.  Why then the reverse?

We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some.  We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer.  Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss.

At least you're being honest.  The two polys I took the polygrapher told me that "the machine does not lie".  What a bunch of BS.  Telling someone that they are being deceptive and knowing that the machine is "not perfect" is dishonest to say the least.  This is why the machine should no longer be used.


Seriously????   "The machine does not lie"
Mr. Mashke, you have a PHD. Are you acknowledging that you were convinced that a mechanical device is capable of sentient behavior or has some malevolent cranium obsessed hammer accosted you in your sleep?

Sancho Panza
  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box WJ
User
**
Offline



Posts: 30
Location: Washington D.C.
Joined: Jul 14th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship
Reply #21 - Jan 6th, 2008 at 7:16pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
SanchoPanza wrote on Jan 6th, 2008 at 5:28pm:
WJ wrote on Jan 6th, 2008 at 4:34pm:
Barry_C wrote on Nov 20th, 2007 at 2:05am:
Have you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides.  The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph?  It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get.

When one believes that polygraph, the background investigation, or psychological eval, etc, is going to catch all those who are not qualified, then there's a problem.

This is just one data point.  When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph.  Why then the reverse?

We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some.  We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer.  Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss.

At least you're being honest.  The two polys I took the polygrapher told me that "the machine does not lie".  What a bunch of BS.  Telling someone that they are being deceptive and knowing that the machine is "not perfect" is dishonest to say the least.  This is why the machine should no longer be used.


Seriously????   "The machine does not lie"
Mr. Mashke, you have a PHD. Are you acknowledging that you were convinced that a mechanical device is capable of sentient behavior or has some malevolent cranium obsessed hammer accosted you in your sleep?

Sancho Panza


You know what I mean.  It is obvious that the devious polygraphers were implying that the machine is never wrong.  Wow...it is very interesting that you are so intimidated.
  

Counter-measures were easy.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5925
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship
Reply #22 - Mar 29th, 2010 at 1:47pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
On Sunday, 28 March 2010, CBS 60 Minutes aired a story about Nada Prouty that included an in-depth interview with her. 60 Minutes also spoke with the CIA officer who conducted a security review after she became the target of an FBI investigation. Prouty denies having improperly accessed FBI computer systems, and as I've mentioned before, there's no evidence that she committed espionage:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6341542n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

Sadly, polygraphy, which failed in the FBI hiring process, was again relied upon by the CIA in its attempt to determine whether Prouty had compromised sensitive information. Bob Grenier, the former head of the CIA's counterterrorism section, emphasized that the investigation involved "multiple polygraphs." And 60 Minutes showed the text of a letter that the CIA sent to prosecutors. The following is a transcription that I've prepared (emphasis added):

Quote:
Mr. Kenneth Chadwell
Resident U.S. Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Eastern District of Michigan
211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001
Detroit, Michigan 48226-3211

Re: Nada Prouty

Dear Mr. Chadwell:

This letter is to inform you that the CIA conducted a debriefing of Nada Prouty which began on 28 January 2008, and included a polygraph interview. Mrs. Prouty was fully cooperative during both processes.

The Agency did not identify any information that Mrs. Prouty or engaged in unauthorized contact with a foreign intelligence service or terrorist organization.

Sincerely,

[signed]
Charles S. Phalen, Jr.
Director of Security


In any event, allegations that Nada Prouty was a Hizballah spy seem to be completely unsupported by evidence, and it doesn't seem to me that the cause of justice was served by her prosecution.

Extra video, not included in the broadcast segment, is available on CBSNews.com:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/26/60minutes/main6335794.shtml?tag=curren...
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5925
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship
Reply #23 - Mar 30th, 2010 at 4:30pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Reporter Jeff Stein, now with the Washington Post, discusses the Prouty case in his SpyTalk column. See, "The haunting of Nada Prouty, a counterterrorism heroine":

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/03/haunting_of_nada_prouty.html

See also David Ashenfelter's article, "Lawyer goes to bat for Nada Prouty, suits threatened over terrorist spy remarks," in the Detroit Free Press:

http://www.freep.com/article/20100330/NEWS06/3300355/1322/Lawyer-goes-to-bat-for...
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X