I cannot imagine a statute that would be violated by what a person thinks or does during a polygraph.

Even if they attempted to write new law, I can't imagine how one would phrase such a law so that it could be enforced.

I think CBP would have been justified in redacting the name of the polygraph countermeasure operation (I'll call it "Operation X") only if the operation were still ongoing at the time CBP document was released. The metadata in the PDF file released by the Center for Investigative Reporting indicates that it was created on 31 January 2013. If that date is correct, it follows that CBP redacted the document no later than that. So Operation X may have still been active at the beginning of February 2013.

The fact that no arrests have been announced as a result of the "precedent setting" Operation X suggests that either:

1) Operation X was wound down without any criminal charges having been brought

or

2) Operation X is still ongoing and release of the CBP document unintentionally disclosed it's existence.

Admissions to polygraph countermeasures are quite rare. The CBP report cites only seven such admissions for the period from 2008-2012. These admissions (at paras. 208-214 of the CBP report) do not appear to be connected with Operation X.

By contrast, Operation X has allegedly identified ten CBP applicants who received polygraph countermeasure training and, it would seem, an undisclosed number of applicants or employees of other agencies. No admissions are alleged. This is rather extraordinary, and it suggests to me that the information may be derived from electronic eavesdropping.

Polygraph community countermeasure documentation received by AntiPolygraph.org (which we will be posting shortly) indicates that there are two primary sources of information about countermeasures that concern the polygraph community: AntiPolygraph.org and Doug Williams' Polygraph.com. Communications with either site may be the subject of a court-ordered wiretap.

Quickfix,

No polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and the CBP admissions summary doesn't suggest that countermeasures were "detected," unless you're naive enough to believe that the seven who admitted using countermeasures are the only instances (out of some 11,149 CBP polygraph examinations conducted from 2008-2012) where countermeasures were employed. Documentation soon to be published on AntiPolygraph.org indicates that the polygraph community has no coherent methodology for detecting such countermeasures. Stay tuned.

Quickfix,

"Detection" means identification at better-than-chance levels of accuracy. The seven countermeasure confessions do not (and cannot) demonstrate that CBP polygraph examiners are able to detect countermeasures. This is so because we do not (and cannot) know:

• what percentage of examinees employed countermeasures;
• what percentage of those who employed countermeasures were "determined" by CBP to have employed countermeasures;
• what percentage of those who were "determined" by CBP to have used countermeasures actually did so.

Doug Williams,

Can I ask if you have perceived any kind of harrassment or privacy violations in the course of running your business? I hope you are prepared to bring a lawsuit against anyone who crosses the line.

Should I go into the field of polygraph or psychics?

The most successful psychics rake in more money than the most successful polygraph operators, though.

Good point and article!