Child pornography is rarely interpreted as viewing nude 16 or 17 years olds, which I suspect is what occurred here.  Many examiners define child pornography as "pre-pubescent," truly children.

  If a cell phone shot of a high school female being passed around is the issue, Bluestang has nothing to worry about (except maybe from the one who was photographed!).

But again, he must voice the concern to his examiner.  Far too many otherwise qualified applicants go down in flames because they withhold info that the hiring agency could not care less about.

But trying to hide that conduct, which likely results in a failed exam, will typically exclude that person.

I am in the same boat as the original poster, however Nude pictures (it was a nip slip) were posted to a girls facebook page when we were both in high school and I saved the images for viewing later. And years later after I turned 18, I stumbled upon nude photos of an actress who was 17 at the time they were taken and I saved them too.  I have since deleted them from my computer since I have realized that it was a terrible thing to do and look at. I have never seeked out any Child Porn, but I am afraid that I will not only fail the polygraph, (I intend to fully disclose what I've said here) but also be arrested and charged with child pornography.  Can anyone help ease my mind or warn me off applying?

GM,

When I tested at NSA, the four counter-intelligence questions did have a "low base rate of guilt". 

Further, the polygraphers explained the questions thoroughly.  For example, with the disclosure of classified info question.  They explained they were talking about PURPOSELY removing classified info from a secure space with the INTENT of doing something untoward with it.  IOW, pulling a Sandy Burglar.

With regard to the "foreign contact" question.  They explained they were talking about KNOWINGLY maintaining a relationship with a KNOWN agent of a foreign government, with the intent of PASSING INFORMATION, or doing something otherwise unauthorized...etc.

Yet, they will then take something you say that doesn't come even close to that and blow it out of all proportion.

In my case, they made a big deal about some translation work I did for the Taiwan Coordination Counsel in Hawaii.  I met an officer there when applying to attend a seminar in Taiwan.  I was on active duty.  My command knew about it, even wanted to pay for it and label it foreign language training.

I had to go to that office about three times.  To apply, to get a visa, and to pick up a seminar packet prior to departing.  

Of course I practiced my chinese during the visits.  On the last visit, the officer suckered me into translating a 12 page fax just in from Taipei.  It was a new directive explaining the new law pertaining to foreigner (americans) wanting to work in Taiwan.  This officer needed it translated to have it available in english for people inquiring at his office about working in Taiwan.  Too cheap to send it to a translation company.

Now, does that come anywhere near what they explained the "foreign contact" question really means?  No?  THEY BLEW IT OUT OF ALL PROPORTION!

This is what I mean, when I say don't mention insignificant shit concerning a relevant question.  Don't speculate at all.  They explained the question quite clearly, I understood it.  Should have said No, I haven't DONE anything like THAT. End of story!  Anything short of that and you're just giving them ammo!

This is precisely how you end up with a false positive.

TC

Child pornography is rarely interpreted as viewing nude 16 or 17 years olds, which I suspect is what occurred here.  Many examiners define child pornography as "pre-pubescent," truly children.  If a cell phone shot of a high school female being passed around is the issue, Bluestang has nothing to worry about (except maybe from the one who was photographed!).  But again, he must voice the concern to his examiner.  Far too many otherwise qualified applicants go down in flames because they withhold info that the hiring agency could not care less about.  But trying to hide that conduct, which likely results in a failed exam, will typically exclude that person.

Did alchemists have a particular garb for their "profession"?  If they did, that might make a suitable costume for polygraphers!