John M. wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:28pm:


Let's polygraph him on that statement.    Until Anti-polygraph.org is able to grease his palms with more money than the polygraph lobby, I wouldn't hold my breath.      I also sent messages to my Senators and received similar responses.  I'm going through the motions like a good citizen, but not the slightest bit optimistic that these whores have even a shred of conscience.

John M. wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 8:33pm:


When I worked for the government I was required on one occasion to visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington.  The reason was to enable us to see how horrible things can get when people in authority abuse their power.  This requirement created by the very people who sign off on ruining people's lives with the polygraph.  I hope there is an eternal Hell for all of them.  

When the Roman Empire collapsed and Rome was overrun by Barbarians, what was left moved to Constantinople and became  the Byzantine Empire.  When the Soviet Union collapsed, what was left moved to Washington and took over a huge part of our government.  Although the human rights abuse involved in the application of the polygraph to ruin innocent people's lives simply to exert control is right out of the Marxist playbook, even the Soviets weren't dumb enough to believe that it worked.   

John M. wrote on Jan 9^th, 2018 at 7:45pm:


I won't take that bet John because I agree with you.  It won't pass because the polygraph lobby is greasing their palms.  They still have the problem of too many good applicants flunking the poly.  I predict there will be a miracle occur in which applicants will start passing their polygraphs by huge numbers.  The passing percentage will explode.  Because it is pseudo-science and a fraud they can cook the books anyway they want.  It's just like when high school physics students aren't getting the correct answers in the lab tests and then the students figure out what the correct answers should be.  Miraculously, the lab results start to correctly fall in line.   

Bingo, Mr. Mangan.  You wouldn't even believe how big the problem is at the federal level.

I'd bet that the majority of members on this site know the truth as well.

I remember... my second attempt at the polygraph was in a dark hotel room just off base.  After about three hours of intense interrogation, the polygraph operator left the room and made me sit - still all hooked up - for about 10 minutes.  Finally a new guy came in and ran through the questions again and again.  And then, he got to interrogate me.  After witnessing me have a breakdown, he confessed to me that he hated his job and was sorry for what he was doing.

Here's a question for all the APA members out there?  How many of you actually have a conscience and are sorry for what you are doing?

But it's not just the "operators" that are to blame.  Politicians and senior officials at all levels look the other way and allow the abuse to continue... but, I digress.

Currently, Skopos Labs gives this Bill a 41% chance of passing.  I find it noteworthy that factors considered in the prediction include Government Operation and Politics.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr2213

Several articles have surfaced recently that discuss this Bill in relation to Beto's support for it.

It's sad to see our politicians weaponize the use of the polygraph. Come to think of it, could this be why the government got an exemption to the EPPA in the first place?

There are many things in this article that deserve comment.

One of the polygraph believers' overused statistics is that in seven years, “144 current or former CBP employees were arrested or indicted for corruption-related activities.” So, with 60,000 employees, this represents .0003 of the work force annually. How does this compare with other Federal Agencies?

https://capitalandmain.com/beto-vs-democrats-texas-lawmaker-frequently-voted-to-...


Some excerpts:

Polygraph tests have been part of CBP’s efforts to confront the corruption and misconduct that have plagued the agency in recent years. A 2012 Government Accountability Office report found that between 2005 and 2012, “144 current or former CBP employees were arrested or indicted for corruption-related activities.” The report noted that CBP uses polygraph tests as part of employment background checks “to mitigate the risk of employee corruption and misconduct” — and it recommended that the agency consider expanding the tests. The report specifically noted that CBP internal affairs officials were expressing “concerns about the suitability of the officers and agents hired during [employment] surges because most of these officers and agents did not take a polygraph examination.”

n April of 2017, the Trump administration issued a memo pushing for authority to waive the polygraph tests in order to expedite the hiring of thousands of new CBP agents. Critics immediately raised red flags — the American Immigration Lawyers Association said it was a plan “to water down hiring standards.” Tom Jawetz, the Center for American Progress’ Vice President for Immigration, told Univision that “many agents brought on beforehand who had not gone through a polygraph were cooperating with cartels and subject to corruption.” James Tomsheck, the CBP’s former head of internal affairs, called the idea of waivers “preposterous” in light of what the polygraph tests had been finding.

Compared to other law-enforcement agencies, “a larger number of people failed the exam, but the admissions of the applicants who failed the exam were hair-raising,” Tomsheck told The Nation. “The most shocking, frankly terrifying, were the many applicants who admitted that they were infiltrators. That they actually worked for a drug-trafficking organization and had for some period of time. They had been directed to apply for the job solely for the purpose of feeding information back to the criminal organization they worked with.”

Two days after the Trump administration’s memo, Republicans introduced legislation to allow the polygraph tests to be waived. The bill — which did not even get a committee hearing — was authored by Arizona Republican Rep. Martha McSally, an immigration hardliner and supporter of a border wall. During the floor debate, she described the measure as a necessary step to “provide CBP with immediate relief so they are able to quickly, yet judiciously, hire officers and agents.”

Democrats adamantly objected. New Mexico Democratic Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham — the chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus — said “eliminating the critical polygraph requirements for certain CBP applicants only undermines our Nation’s safety, given this agency’s historic connection to organized crime, drug cartels, and corruption.” She asserted that “no other federal law enforcement agency in the country—not the FBI, DEA, ATF, or Secret Service—makes any exceptions to their polygraph exam.”

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., declared: “Anyone who votes for this bill is voting to support and implement Donald Trump’s views on immigration, his desire to militarize our southern border, and his fantasy of a mass deportation force. You cannot spin it any other way. If we want to lower the standards for screening and hiring CBP officers, eliminate checks that could help weed out candidates with criminal histories or criminal intentions, and water down the integrity of this important national security source, this bill is for you.”

O’Rourke opted to join Republicans in voting for the bill, which passed. In a statement after the vote, he echoed McSally’s rationale for the legislation, asserting that to address staffing shortfalls, the bill was necessary to “help speed up the hiring process and provide the CBP Commissioner additional authorities to recruit and hire quality CBP officers and Border Patrol agents.”

Quote:


Ron,

Beto O'Rourke is no longer a member of the House of Representatives and H.R. 2213, on which he voted "aye," did not pass or even come to a vote in the Senate.

What specific rumors have you heard about EyeDetect?

George 

I did not mention that Idaho State Police adopted the Eye Detect for the employee screening process.  Apparently this is the same thing CBP is trying to do.   

The following link is the announcement that appears to be in sync with Idaho State Police announcing the usage.

https://converus.com/blog/idaho-state-police-job-applicants-say-eyedetect-reduce...

In taking a polygraph many years ago, I recall my heart murmurs created a problem for the examiner. Exam was called non conclusive. 

I guess the Eye Detect takes into account such health problems. 

Quote:


Note that the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 specifically mandates polygraph screening:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s3243/text/enr

For CBP to substitute EyeDetect for polygraphy would be a direct violation of the law. I would be interested in any additional details you might learn about this.