CSIS urged to end polygraph testing

Andrew Mitrovica

Toronto — ANDREW MITROVICA The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Jun. 12, 2000 12:00AM EDT

Last updated Saturday, Mar. 21, 2009 4:34PM EDT

Canada's intelligence service should abolish the use of polygraph testing because the device is unreliable and has lost its scientific credibility, says the former head of the agency's polygraph unit.

"I agree it should be abolished if it is not done properly and I am not convinced that it is being done properly just about anywhere, including at CSIS," said Brian Lynch, a former chief psychologist at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Mr. Lynch said last week in an interview with The Globe and Mail that CSIS managers pressed him to divulge employees' confidential medical and psychological information.

One of the agencies acting as a watchdog for Canada's intelligence service says the allegations are a grave matter which could trigger a formal inquiry.

"It's obviously a very serious allegation to make," Maurice Archdeacon, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service's Inspector-General, said in a recent interview.

Mr. Archdeacon, who reports to Solicitor-General Lawrence MacAuley, said that, if true, the allegations may be investigated "more seriously."

Dr. John Service, executive-director of the Canadian Psychological Association, said the allegations were "troubling" and he would welcome any probe that would "get to the bottom" of the issue.

"We hold the confidentiality of client information very dear. It's very important," Dr. Service said.

Both men were responding to accusations made by Mr. Lynch who left CSIS in 1996 after spending 12 years at the service. He suggested last week that the pressure from some CSIS managers to provide the sensitive information became so untenable that he chose to leave the agency rather than agree to hand it over.

CSIS denies the allegation.

Mr. Lynch joined CSIS in 1984 and set up the new civilian intelligence service's combined polygraph testing and psychological assessment programs.
He said the agency uses polygraph testing simply as a "pretense for interrogation."

The use of polygraph testing is a source of considerable friction between CSIS and its watchdog, the Security Intelligence Review Committee. SIRC has repeatedly urged CSIS to abolish the use of polygraph testing because it also believes it is unreliable.

Indeed, in seven consecutive annual reports from 1985-1986 to 1991-92, SIRC demanded that the solicitor-general and CSIS dump the polygraph, once even suggesting the device be thrown onto the "scrap-heap."

In its reports, SIRC said it had "grave doubts" about the use of the polygraph, pointing out that "even defenders of polygraph examinations admit that their results are sometimes are wrong 10 per cent of the time or more."

SIRC chairwoman Paule Gauthier reiterated the watchdog's desire to see CSIS abandon polygraph testing.

The only concession CSIS has made was to end mandatory testing for employees in the mid-1980s. However, SIRC noted in its 1986-87 report, anyone reluctant to take such a test "would inevitably be suspected of having something to hide."

Mr. Lynch said that polygraph testing was used on all new CSIS recruits and even occasionally for operational purposes.

"It was driven by the police community originally, historically and still primarily. It does not have the academic substance. It doesn't enjoy the kind of reliability that is inherent in most psychological tests," he said.

Mr. Lynch said that while he was head of polygraph testing, the device was not used to determine whether potential recruits were lying or being truthful, but rather to gauge physiological reactions that may warrant further "exploration."

The device "does not allow you to infer mendacity or outright lying," said Mr. Lynch, who is now a senior adviser at the Public Service Commission of Canada.

However, polygraph testing reverted to a tool of "interrogation" when responsibility for the program was assumed by the agency's internal security division in 1989, Mr. Lynch said.

"I thought it was a very bad move. It was being administered by non-psychologists. I thought that was not the way to go," he said.

Mr. Lynch said that despite its unreliability, polygraph testing was increasingly used at CSIS to "scope people out."

A CSIS spokesman refused a request for an interview.

Has anyone had an interview for Intelligence Officer with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)?

Anyone know what role play scenarios are asked at the competency interview?

There was some info on this thread but nothing recent about the role play scenarios.

https://forums.redflagdeals.com/has-anyone-applied-csis-intelligence-officer-846...

The CSIS Polygraph

The RCMP and Department of National Defence (including Canadian Forces) do not use the polygraph in their Top Secret level security clearance process. Only security clearances either for CSIS or processed by CSIS at the Top Secret level use the polygraph. The polygraph is then repeated at 5 year renewal and reinvestigation intervals, or is supposed to be.

The problem with this approach is that aside from the polygraph not being used by the RCMP, DoD, and CF, which are much larger organizations than CSIS, the polygraph simply doesn’t work. Relaxing and "lying" with confidence can beat any polygraph. This is because you are not actually beating the machine, but instead the operator/interviewer. Such examiners are trained to recognize stereotypical behavioral body language cues often associated with nervousness and avoidance. False positives also occur for overly nervous or self-conscious individuals resulting in a deception indicated determination due to overreactions to questions (certain issues evoke an elevated physiological response because people exaggerate experiences or find the subject matter personally offensive). Polygraphs are practically useless if someone has different cultural attitudes in terms of lying and personal responsibility, which happens with various nationalities. Flatliners can retain emotional detachment to the questions and easily "beat" any polygraph.

The polygraph is part stage prop, part pseudo-scientific instrument, part interrogation device, but mostly just serves as a psychological intimidation tool. At best, using the prop a skilled interviewer can elicit damaging admissions from a very naive and gullible subject during a re-investigation or applicant polygraph (via psychological conditioning, aka thinking it detects "lies" thus showing a "response"). Without admissions the polygraph at worst will result in a subjective inconclusive result. Naive and gullible means a subject who buys into the narrative and psychological conditioning and who has a fear that the instrument really works and so responds to the stimulus set.

These assumptions are supported by the fact that throughout the CSIS recruitment process the polygraph is mentioned from the very beginning, even though it is one of the very last steps. Applicants are warned during multiple interview stages to not conduct research or look up any information on any aspect of polygraph testing since doing this can jeopardize the ability of applicants to be assessed and to successfully "pass" the polygraph. It is constantly reinforced that applicants who read up on or do any research on the polygraph (as little as merely talk about the topic with others) are much more likely to have problems in "passing" the polygraph and run into difficulty during that step.

Why is this? It is because merely admitting to doing any sort of research on the polygraph is seen as an attempt to cheat and indicates a lack of integrity. This is because the polygraph only works if one is tricked or conditioned into believing it works. If one knows it doesn't work (because it doesn't) then the whole exercise becomes a sham and the conditioning no longer works since the carefully controlled psychological set is lost. It should also be stated that countermeasures are not necessary since the polygraph is next to useless to begin with, but countermeasures can sometimes help get a stronger pass or "cleaner" charts depending on the specific procedure used (if the directed lie comparison method is used for example). Since truth and lies are relative shades of grey and the polygraph cannot differentiate either, anyone researching this obvious fact is seen as suspicious or as potentially lacking integrity (aka trying to cheat and not being truthful). 

The best way to fail a polygraph is to admit to having visited Anti-polygraph or similar websites, which will immediately cause the examiner to think the applicant is trying to beat him and use countermeasures (because the applicant must be hiding something really bad and is most likely being deceitful while trying to hide the "truth"). Even if countermeasures were to be used, psychological countermeasures are effective and impossible to detect other than through direct subject admissions (perhaps another reason as to why applicants are told not to research anything about the polygraph or look up any information whatsoever about the test); because doing so makes the procedure almost useless (inserts external factors and issues that cannot be controlled in the psychological set conditioning).

Once again applicants are strongly warned to never conduct any research or look up any information about the polygraph from any source, and to not discuss the topic with anyone because doing so might cause them not to be able to be "assessed" during the test. This would be like saying if you read about how a tire pressure monitor device works then the tire pressure monitor might no longer be able to assess the tire pressure (no longer able to assess whether the tire is flat or not).

If the truth is relative, then how can deception be objectively assessed (or truth be verified) by any instrument? It truly is a wilderness of mirrors!