T.M. Cullen wrote on Feb 20^th, 2009 at 7:05am:


T.C.,

My own experience, and that of many others, indicates that you are dead wrong about this. While the polygrapher's goal is indeed to obtain information, those facing polygraph screening most certainly can face adverse consequences based on polygraph chart readings alone. No damaging or disqualifying disclosure is necessary. (If such were the case, I might not object to polygraph screening.)

Sergeant1107

Well stated, sir, I hope we are listening.  Lie detection we do pretty good, truth verification is more difficult, but the use of cm by the otherwise truthful increases the risk of a misclassification and truly offers no protection against error.  Best advice--leave the cm to the guilty.  

Quote:


If I remember his personal statement correctly, FBI polygraphers accused GM of "lying" when he denied being a major drug dealer.   Detecting a lie that wasn't even there (unless you actually believe GM is a major drug dealer).  Also, the "lie detectors" at the CIA concluded that Aldrich Eames WASN'T  "lying" to them either, and that he wasn't a major security risk.

"Lie detection" versus "truth verification".  Sounds somewhat like splitting hairs.  If you conclude somebody is a liar, when he/she is telling the "truth", you have  neither  "detected a lie", nor  have you "verified the truth".  If you accuse somebody of lying, and they ARE lying, you have BOTH "detected a lie" AND "verified the truth that they are lying".  I think "Boolean logic" may apply here.  

If you are saying that a polygraph interrogation is good at eliciting disqualifying admissions, I agree.  The problem is when polygraphers see a "boogie man" that is not really there.  The ones I've dealt with would make excellent fiction writers.  That is why I say, answer the specific, unambiguous relevant questions truthfully, and emphatically, but don't engage in "plot development" with the examiner because he/she has FALSELY claimed you are lying when you are not!  If there is really nothing bothering you about your ANSWER to a relevant question, believe your own mind, and not the machine. The less you say about the relevant questions, the better.   Don't say anything that the interrogator can twist, distort, blow out of proportion in order to make a castle out of a straw hat.

People have requested FOIA info, and are consequently shocked at the bogus and distorted crap polygraphers have put into their file.  If you are dealing with somebody who is going to distort what you say, it's better to say as little as possible.  And, as you'd expected, interrogators try to get you to "open up" to the greatest extent possible.  Wonder why?  It is an inherently contentious process.  The applicant's and examiner's best interests are inherently in opposition. 

TC

Mr Cullen

In college my wife and I started taking part in Red Cross blood drives and had supported RC with blood, money and time for many years.  Not long ago she donated and received a letter requesting she see a specalist at a well known medical center as a blood screen indicated she was a carrier of a sexually transmitted virus similiar to HIV but more rare and deadly.  We went, of course I had to test, and a long, long month later we returned for the results.  Her initial screening test was a false positive.

The Kicker

My wife then received a letter from the RC warning her never to attempt to donate blood again as her name was on a list of potential carriers and would not be removed, even though a result of a false positive.

She, however, does not blame or hate the RC.

pailryder,

So the worse your wife has to endure is no longer being able to donate blood. 

Now imagine that the chance of getting a false positive has increased significantly. So much so that people are constantly complaining about having failed this test although they shouldn't have. Also, because of misplaced faith in this test, false negatives are prominent and many people who should fail this test aren't, allowing them opportunities they shouldn't have. Next, imagine that the false positives people are getting are destroying their chance to work in positions that they have striven to occupy for many years because a large number of organizations require candidates pass this test before getting hired. Lastly, consider that these same people are being unjustly shunned because of the inaccurate results of this test, so much that some are even considered criminals despite their being innocent. To top it all off, this test that so many people rely on has been condemned by every major scientific body to be inaccurate, unreliable and invalid. Yet, organizations continue to rely on this test and people's lives continue to be hurt.

Quote:


And in my case, I held a TS/SCI for close to twenty years as a Navy linguist and made it through four periodic security updates.  Retired as a linguist in good standing.  So what, I guy serves his country for 20 years, no problems, holds a top clearance, retires, then becomes a spy?  it could happen, but not likely, and I'm sure an experienced investigator could have found the accusations to be baseless.  All based on a polygraph interrogation with no follow up?  And NSA submitted a security referral to the FBI concerning what came out in my polygraph.  They investigated me and found NOTHING!   And I submitted a FOIA with them, and was told there is no file on me.

After failing the polygraph my reputation was ruined, and I ended up with people I've known and worked with for years think I'm some sort of spy for Taiwan!  With only a few exceptions, the only old SIGINT chronies who will still talk to me are people who were also false positivized.  Not that there were a lot of people who would talk with me before!      

So when I say watch what you say during a polygraph interrogation I speak from experience.  And it don't take much to come out of your mouth, under the right circumstances, for it to be twisted and distort to screw you!  They will develop the plot as they go along.  Oh, and it doesn't help if you rip the straps off during the test like I did either!   

But at least I get to retire in Hawaii!  The drinking fountains here all contain pineapple juice. Did you know that!