continued Dick Keifer (rhymes with "cipher"), who is a past president of the American Polygraph Association and who retired from the FBI in 1996, also made some interesting claims (quoted from his
written statement):
Quote:
It is my opinion that in a security screening polygraph examination, Robert Hansen [sic] would have reacted with greater than 99% certainty.
This is a remarkably vague statement coming from someone who ought to know better. It would seem Mr. Keifer meant to imply that there is a 99% chance that Robert Philip Hanssen would have failed a polygraph screening examination. It is not clear on what basis Mr. Keifer opines this. It seems that considerably fewer than 99% of persons polygraphed who later turned out to be double agents "failed" their polygraph "tests."
Mr. Keifer went on to claim:
Quote:
Based on the results of scientific studies, when conducting a screening polygraph, you will have high confidence (99.99 %) on decisions to clear people.
Mr. Keifer didn't say which "scientific studies" support a 99.99% confidence level with regard to decisions to clear people. But since convicted spy Aldrich H. Ames passed two polygraph "tests" while allegedly spying for the Soviet Union and later, Russia, then if Dick Keifer's figures are correct, President Bush ought to pardon Ames (and grant a posthumous pardon to Larry Wu-tai Chin, who was convicted of spying for China, but passed his CIA polygraph "tests."). After all, we can be 99.99% confident that they are innocent.
About a half hour into the hearing, after each witness had delivered his opening statement, Senator Hatch left and turned the hearing over to Senator Spector.
In response to a question, Mr. Keifer (if memory serves) made reference to a study in which polygraph examiners were asked to report on every error they thought they had ever made. The self-reported error rate was less than 1%.
About 50 minutes into the hearing, Senator Durbin spoke. He likened polygraph testing to a trial by ordeal, and said that when he practiced law, he never advised a client to take a polygraph. Senator Durbin asked Mr. Keifer if he conceeded the point that polygraph testing is subjective. Mr. Keifer downplayed subjectivity in counterintelligence-scope polygraph screening, but said that greater leeway was given in incident-specific polygraph interrogations.
In summary, Senator Durbin said something very close to "We're looking for a quick fix. I don't think this is the machine."
Senator Specter described the "mock crimes" used in laboratory studies of polygraphy as a "contrivance," saying it was a "game." He didn't think that real life accuracy will be better than in laboratory studies. He was skeptical of such studies because there were no serious personal consequences for the volunteers.
In response to a question from Senator Specter, former DoDPI director Mike Capps said "We'll never know the validity of polygraph" and downplayed the validity of laboratory studies. However, he did not argue that polygraphy is invalid or should not be relied upon. Rather, he seemed to accept polygraphy as a scientifically valid procedure albeit one for which no precise validity rate can be specified.
Written statements submitted by other individuals were also entered into the record, although such statements were not enumerated at the hearing. The statement which I submitted may be read on AntiPolygraph.org at:
http://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-2001/maschke-statement.shtml The hearing ended about an hour after it began, with Senator Specter raising the possibility of a follow-up hearing. After Senator Specter had shaken hands with each of the invited witnesses, I introduced myself to him and presented him with a spiral-bound copy of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, which he took with him as he exited the hearing room.
Pages: 1
A Report from the Senate Hearing on Polygraphs (Read 5372 times)
