Evan S, finally someone of superior intelligence on the "anti-" side comes on this forum with something truly excellent.

I enjoyed reading the articles.  The Washington Post article really was disturbing. I've never heard of this type of abuse at the federal polygraph level.  There is supposed to be quality control, not just in each individual polygraph exam, but also in the oversight conducted by DODPI (now DACA) in annual inspections of all federal polygraph programs. 

Unfortunately, the rivalries that exist between federal agencies in general might carry over into the polygraph arena. The problem is not so much with the examiners themselves, but with managers. There is supposed to be uniformity and consistency from one federal agency to another in the polygraph process, especially since all receive their training and certification from DACA, and annual inspections and required yearly refresher training are designed to ensure that this is so. However, at the management level, which usually consists of big egos who aren't polygraph examiners but rather administrators trying to get promoted, there are sometimes outside forces that can affect a program in a negative manner.

I'm more familiar with the FBI program than that of the "spooks" at CIA. I do know that NSA conducts periodical CI exams of its employees, and I've never agreed with this procedure. Once someone is proven (to the best ability of an agency) to be a qualified applicant with no known skeletons in his closet, he should not be subject to polygraph exams every year or, God forbid, several times a year.  You say that "Better background investigations and ongoing security education is the solution, and not polygraphs." I absolutely agree with you.  While the polygraph is a good screening tool at the entry level, I don't agree with its continued, periodical use with proven employees, and there has been some research regarding the utility of repeated polygraph exams.

The second article is a bit more dubious, since we aren't privy to the background of the former manager's story except from his own point of view. Retaliation?  Maybe and maybe not. But it's ironic, certainly.

Interesting that you would advocate "behavioral countermeasures" while not recommending mental or physical countermeasures.  Again, I agree.  If someone is truly one of the tiny minority who is a "false positive," I've stated before that you must defend your own integrity.

Thank you for posting something interesting, informative, and without portraying yourself as an expert in the polygraph process. Your opinion is valued, and I respect that. If only some of the more ignorant and vocal regulars on this forum could be more like you.

Fine, G.  Then you must have lied to every relevant question, right? Because that's the only other plausible explanation for failing every relevant question when we discount your naive speculation of examiner misconduct and unorthodox scoring methods.

Quote:


But how can you be sure?

TC

It should be noted that the originator of this message thread, LieBabyCryBaby, who evidently hoped that this website might be silenced by means of a civil suit, is a federal law enforcement officer: Drug Enforcement Agency Special Agent Shawn Hacking. Several of his posts in this message thread originate from a DEA-registered IP address. It is not clear whether his posting here was sanctioned by the DEA. Special Agent Hacking has been banned following repeated violations of AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy.