John,

The procedure Archangelsk refers to (CIT - "Concealed Information Test," also known as a "Guilty Knowledge Test") is a rarely used polygraph technique that has a sounder basis than lie detection "tests." See this chapter on it from the first edition of the late David T. Lykken's seminal work on polygraphy, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector:

https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-037.pdf

I think it is exceedingly unlikely that the Guilty Knowledge Test would be used in any federal leak investigation.

Quote:

John, I am sympathetic to your angst. I am not a polygraph proponent, but I do not see much benefit in complete polarization either. 

My observation regarding polygraph ethics has revealed two levels:

1. The "truth test" polygraph technique is not rooted in firm psychological foundations. Thus it is indeed a pseudoscience, and should not be used as a Human Resource tool because its accuracy is unknown and perhaps unknowable.

2. The mind is a private domain with its own providence and sanctity and should not be breached by anyone even if they were to have a highly accurate way to detect deception.

Those of the first mindset should not object if an authentic truth machine were to surface; those of the second would still scoff.

xenonman

I disagree.  This board was even more contentious when I began posting.  As for the usefulness of polygraph, I could not have made a living offering my services privately unless many people and businesses found it useful.  Ask yourself why you have never seen a complaint on this board about an EPPA test.  Are you even aware of EPPA?   

The EPPA, or the Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, or Public Law 100-347 supposedly provides protections for employees from polygraph abuse.

What is polygraph abuse?  Simply stated: Misusing the results.

To be clear, the law provides several exemptions, but also places explicit restrictions on those exemptions.

#1 on the list of restrictions is that the results of the polygraph shall not be used as the sole basis for taking unfavorable administrative action or adverse employment actions against an employee.

As I've said before, DODI 5210.91 provides this same protection for DOD employees.  I would assume the other agencies have their own instructions to prevent this type of abuse.

And for those who think the government gets to decide what is, and what an unfavorable administrative action isn't, see the Code of Federal Regulations - Title 32, Part 154.3.  Definitions:

(bb) Unfavorable administrative action. Adverse action taken as the result of personnel security determinations and unfavorable personnel security determinations as defined in this part.

(cc) Unfavorable personnel security determination. A denial or revocation of clearance for access to classified information; denial or revocation of access to classified information; denial or revocation of a Special Access authorization (including access to SCI); nonappointment to or nonselection for appointment to a sensitive position; nonappointment to or nonselection for any other position requiring a trustworthiness determination under this part; reassignment to a position of lesser sensitivity or to a nonsensitive position; and nonacceptance for or discharge from the Armed Forces when any of the foregoing actions are based on derogatory information of personnel security significance.

I have spent thousands of hours over the past 3 years trying to expose this abuse.

Imagine if everyone who was already an employee with a security clearance knew this?  No need to worry, go take their silly little test - they can't do anything to you, right?

Or, better yet, what if those charged with enforcing the regulations (DODI 5210.91) actually did their freaking jobs?

Yeah, I'm talking to you DOD and DIA IG.

John M

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, a federal labor law enforced by Wage and Hour Division of DOL, applies only to employees of private businesses, employees of any branch of federal, state or local government are excluded.

Whatever your beef with governmental use of polygraph EPPA has nothing to do with it.

pailryder wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:


I have never, ever had a "beef" with the EEPA.  In fact I fully support it. Like I said, it provides exemptions for certain situations and permits the use of the polygraph, but it clearly has restrictions on those exemptions too.  The Law clearly prohibits those administering the lie detector from using the results alone as the sole basis for taking unfavorable actions against an otherwise innocent individual.

DODI 5210.91 covers the use of the polygraph for DOD employees (like me) and provides the same protections as the Public Law.  It states "The polygraph is a supplement to, not a substitute for other methods of investigation.  No unfavorable administrative actions shall be taken based solely on the results of the polygraph."

As Mr. Williams stated in his post to this thread 3 weeks ago, it’s time for the EPPA to be expanded to include government employees.

This is an individual rights issue.

Quote:


This is spot on.  It is an individual rights issue.  I'm sick of the old defense, "you don't have the right to a security clearance, the Government can do as it pleases"

Really?  Then why not subject Government clearance holders to waterboarding during their BI?  Is mental torture humane and moral?  Who made that decision?  

The methods used by polygraphers to extract information are identical to the methods used by the former East German STASI.  Threats of loss of livelihood (made real), extensive interrogation followed by isolation, lies to extract confessions absent any previous evidence of wrongdoing, etc, etc.  The big difference is that the STASI only used these tactics against perceived enemies of their state.   The polygraph thugs use these tactics against their own comrades to make an easy living and a fast buck.  Ultimate traitors they are.