|
Author
|
Topic: More rotten press for polygraph
|
Barry C
Member
|
posted 08-08-2007 05:40 PM
  
Isn't this nice:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/08/ap4000455.html I'll paste it here too in case the link goes down: Associated Press
Lie Detectors Lie Behind Colombia TV Hit
By JOSHUA GOODMAN 08.08.07, 3:33 PM ET BOGOTA, Colombia - Have you ever cheated on your wife? Stolen money from your boss? Do you consider yourself a better person than your mother-in-law? Coming soon to U.S. television is a game show that has already taken Colombia by storm. Similar productions are being sped up in Brazil, France and Britain. The concept: watch people squirm while they're being interrogated. The format of "Nothing But the Truth" is as simple as it is cruel: If the participants truthfully answer 21 increasingly invasive questions, they walk away with $50,000. Tell a lie, though, and the lie-detector test they took backstage betrays them before a studio audience packed with unsuspecting friends and loved ones. Caracol TV bought the concept from Los Angeles-based producer Howard Schultz, who also sold a pilot to the News Corp. (nyse: NWS - news - people )-owned Fox network that is expected to air in a few months. In Colombia, it is getting top ratings, and feeding a boom in the use of polygraph tests. Since the show first aired in May, the phone hasn't stopped ringing at True Test, one of about 200 companies in Colombia that charge about $65 a test to customers that include airlines, banks, multinational companies - and the occasional bickering couple. "I went from receiving five inquires a week to ten a day," said True Test owner Juan Villota. "Pooling together money from all the polygraph examiners in Colombia could never buy you that kind of publicity." The truth-be-told boom is surpassed only by the controversy over the polygraph tests, which use a blood-pressure cuff and electrodes to measure changes in a person's stress level when asked sensitive questions. An exhaustive 2003 study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded that the tests have too many false results to be relied upon as job-screening tools. The American Polygraph Association, based in Chattanooga, Tennessee, says polygraphs aren't perfect, but are still highly valuable when combined with other vetting techniques. The trade group tried unsuccessfully to get Caracol to pull the program, fearing it could reinforce old stereotypes of the polygraph as a pseudoscientific truth machine. "It's the sort of abuse we've been trying to stamp out for years," said Donald Krapohl, president of the trade group, which urges examiners to abide by a strict ethical code that rejects the kind of intrusive questioning viewers see on the show. But the network stuck by its guns. "My job is to produce entertainment, not play public prosecutor," said Cristina Palacio, the Caracol executive who bought the show from Schultz. To the producers' surprise, the program has proved to serve as a catharsis for some conscience-plagued contestants. Before coming on the program, English teacher Lidia Villamil was hiding from her family the dirty little secret that she learned the language while serving a five-year prison sentence in the United States for being a drug courier. "I feel relieved, at peace with God and my family," Villamil said following her prime-time confession. Schultz, the creator of such reality TV hits as MTV's "Next" and ABC's "Extreme Makeover," said the huge success of "Nothing But the Truth" in Colombia has encouraged networks in other countries to speed production of their own versions. The U.S. Congress in 1988 banned lie detectors in employment matters for all but a few security firms and the government, but the lawmakers didn't anticipate the tool's use for entertainment. In Colombia and most parts of the developing world, lie detectors are unregulated. "For us it's as common a procedure as a medical exam - if you fail, you don't get hired," said Nelson Tovar, president of the oil drilling firm Mettco S.A., whose multinational clients are a frequent target for rebel saboteurs and kidnappers. The U.S. government prohibits exports of polygraph instruments to China, Venezuela and other countries where it fears they may be abused to extract confessions from political opponents. But U.S. agents train Colombian security forces to use polygraphs for counterintelligence work as part of Plan Colombia, a $5 billion anti-narcotic and counterinsurgency aid package. As a result, Colombia now outpaces other security-obsessed nations such as Ukraine, Russia, Egypt, Israel and South Africa in purchases of polygraph instruments. "Colombia has the potential in the next few years to become our biggest foreign market," said Yazmin Bronkema, international sales director for Lafayette Instrument Company, an Indiana-based firm that claims to be the world's leading manufacturer of polygraphs. Caracol now hopes to haul elected leaders before the cameras, to try to clear their names and extract themselves from a scandal that has been gripping Colombia. More than a dozen lawmakers face up to 12 years in jail for allegedly colluding with illegal right-wing paramilitary groups. "The reason the show has caught on," Palacio said, "is because we are fed up with lies."
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
[except for didactic purposes, of course, as is the case here]
IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 08-10-2007 07:48 AM
They're really getting excited over this one. Here's just one of today's stories. I saw a post on the anti-site in which George suggested this show could be used to their advantage. If people keep getting caught in lies and admitting they were caught, then it could backfire for him. Even still, I don't like the idea of this show at all. Here's the link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/colombia/story/0,,2145853,00.html
IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 08-10-2007 08:59 PM
One only has to look at countries like South Africa (over 150 examiners!)to see what happens when polygraph goes unregulated/unchecked. South America is getting there (or there already)------i.e. if you want to manage a McDonald's----you have to take a polygraph (in many regions).There are many people requiring polygraph tests from marital suitors, servants, bartenders, cab drivers----you name it. It's no wonder that such wanton use is bleeding into entertainment. The problem with such countries is that due to such delayed civil liberties (if any) the countries will continue to ruin a great thing---by virtue of their weak civil rights activism and/or political sensitivities. The APA can only train and advise, but it is the governments of those countries that ultimately hold the reins. U.S. APA should ask ourselves if it is in our national interests to train dozens and dozens of examiners from Columbia every year----for what duties? Policia? Farc? Anti-Farc? Who/what/where? The civilian backlash will (imo) result in one of two things for those countries regarding poly. They will a. Allow so much saturation of the "testing modalities" that they will ultimately outlaw the practice, or b. They will implode politically with riots and other upheavals due to poly abuse along with the many other "socio-economic intensifiers" within those troubled regions and the millions of peasant citizenry. I do not mean this in a racist way, but I am reminded of when many of the native Americans were first armed with rifles---for some time they shot every thing in sight. America went through this stage pre-EPPA. The tv shows are only a symptom of the same "rifle mystique."Barry, this isn't news to you or many others----and I don't mean to preach to the choir. [This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-10-2007).] [This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-10-2007).] [This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-10-2007).] [This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-11-2007).] IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 08-11-2007 11:03 AM
Stat, I understand. Sometimes we all need a shoulder to cry on.Your point is well taken; however, that show is coming here - to the US! Who's going to run those tests? When the national associations speak against it - and some have already - the public will see it as a fight between the polygraph community. I hope we will be able to use it to show the difference between professionals and charlatans - if it must come here that is. IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 08-11-2007 12:29 PM
This is just further demonstration of the core problem with polygraph. If we didn't have CQ and the inherent poly secrets, then we wouldn't have this problem. If we had more simple scoring rules, we wouldn't have this problem---as anyone with little training could score with the best of us. If we had better accuracy, we as examiners wouldn't fear grand publicized false negatives, or feel privately ashamed at likely ruinous false positives. We should each ask ourselves, why do we not want people running tests all over the TV? and .....does it really matter who is doing the testing i.e. recognized veteran examiner or not?IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 08-11-2007 01:54 PM
Maybe states could use this as a means to get licensing laws where there aren't any? This could prompt legislation if the professional polygraph community got together. They couldn't ask most of those questions here in Maine, which means that we won't have that problem, but you folks in CA might want to try again.IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 08-11-2007 07:22 PM
You missed my point of question. Whenever appealing to any executive committee you have to lay out reasons for strictures in licensing or reasons for licensing at all. Again, we have to ask ourselves why can't just anyone run tests (in very pithy terms) and why can't there or shouldn't there be polygraph exams on TV? Every other kind of test (even those aweful colonoscopies)is viewed, very private therapy and treatments are shown on TV---hell, everything is on TV. The answer to my own question regarding why shouldn't polygraph be exploited and exposed on TV is that we as a profession have too many secrets, too many skeletons, and too little uniformity. Every other profession has benefitted from TV----from palm readers to motorcycle builders. I remember in polygraph school being very disappointed that we weren't learning actual "lie detection", but a method which in a very indirect and even nebulous way indicates deception. It will come as a great disappointment to many of the masses when they learn what we know----and the more polygraph is promoted, the more people will want to research the details of polygraph (not the vagueries found on this site), as our great nation isn't filled with incurious peasants. [This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-11-2007).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 08-11-2007 07:50 PM
Let me see, polygraph examiners in bad suits trying to lobby California Legislators vs. Hollywood Studio heads. Our argument: "we don't want to cheapen polygraph by asking unethical questions on TV." Hollywood Studio heads' argument: waahhhh! hmmmmm. no contest IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 08-11-2007 08:01 PM
I don't know how much of a secret the CQT is, and it doesn't seem to matter. I do think many people will see this type of show as so invasive that they won't like it. Even we don't exploit people with the CQs. We use them yes, but we don't report those issues. The reason for not showing a polygraph live is so we don't have to show a person confessing to CQs. That's our secret. It's the person's dignity - not protecting the sacred CQT that's at issue. At least I hope that's the case. After all, how many have confessed to things they don't want anybody to know - let alone the whole viewing world. But yes, some would be more concerned about the test and structure, etc. IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 08-11-2007 09:31 PM
I believe the secrets don't stop with the CQT. As I've said before, there is no money in polygraph (I'm talking about REAL money) and so this is why we will lose every time. Is the APA site done yet?---almost a year later. We can't even buy web engine preference over a puny little (well designed though) anti-polygraph site ran by a "dutch nobody corp." If we did have money, some enterprising group would have beseiged the anti-site with spam, malware, trojans, and viruses----just for laughs. Ask what the oil companies have been "accused of doing" (by proxy)to the MoveOn website and the Greenpeace site for the last 3 years. Incidentally, web engine preferences (Yahoo/Google)which would knock anti-poly site listings into the 100's (rather than #1 or #2)web search listing would cost the pro-poly crowd a staggering $1,000 a month. That's not much money for a global organization. It's sad. Barry,you and I both know that polygraph secrets don't stop with CQ and humiliation. The 8 week training and the acedemic rigor(wink), the history, the amount of examiners with phony or non-relevant grad degrees, the multiple issue ping-pong phenom, the high profile historic false negatives (being reminded of them again), the CVSA bedfellow, the bloated claims and tweaked statistics used by private examiners, the George Mashke story, the medication goofs and lack of research on med effects (after 50 years), psychopothy poly research disagreements,and let's not forget about the cautionary tales of "just shut your mouth no matter what he says" mantra, the FBI "Marston" file via FIA. I am too tired to name more, but as soon as I log off, I will recall many more skeletons I would rather not have to answer a resurging public curiousity ----as more publicity will draw more inquiry. Our spokespeople with the APA can only gloss so much historic turmoil. Regardless, people can smell the difference between PR and scoop. I referred a senior in college to this and the APA website to learn about polygraph, as he was rightfully curious and I didn't have the time for a goofy power point lecture. He told me that after scouring both sites, he didn't learn much.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-11-2007).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 08-11-2007 09:59 PM
Call me a lefty, but I believe the only solution to the emerging trends of polygraph abuse and exploitation is to collectively join or form a trade union (yes, this is a trade, we are not a bunch of physicians). You right-wingers out there might wince, but some of you loyal decendants of blue-collar workers (such as myself) know that unions can be quite powerful when push comes to shove and provided that you elect honest leadership. Just try to cross the actors guild, or the guild of hypnotists and see if you can work "in this town" ever again. Just a thought.[This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-11-2007).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 08-12-2007 06:49 PM
OK, so I just got off of the APA website and it is in fact now operational----and quite thorough. I apologize to authorities of the APA for my earlier dig at the APA for dragging their feet on the official website. IP: Logged |
skipwebb
Member
|
posted 08-13-2007 07:50 AM
Damn, Sounds to me like you are in the wrong business! If I was as despondent about what I did for a living as you, I'd find a different profession.As for a polygraph union, How strong would a union with less than 7-8000 members be? We have roughly 2500 members in the APA and that's worldwide. The Sreen Actor's Guild, has 120,000 members. The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) represents over 70,000 performers, journalists and other artists working in the entertainment and news media. 6,800 fingerprint examiners are members of the International Association for Identification (IAI). That's almost 3 times as many as the membership of the APA. Hell, even The American Chiropractic Association (ACA) has 18,000 members and the The American Massage Therapy Association represents 56,000 massage therapists! Face it. We're just a very small, very disorganized group of people performing a very unique service to a relatively small group of people. Hell, more people per year(250,000) have radial keratotomy surgury than take polygraphs. IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 08-13-2007 07:57 AM
Once this is sold you'll have one more union recruit, Stat:
http://www.uberreview.com/2007/08/stoetling-polygraph-under-the-hammer.htm Stat, if all those things were a secret, we'd have no enemies. The reason the anti crowd exists is because those things are known. I think the fact that we are still a growing profession tells us something positive. IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 08-13-2007 08:26 AM
Skip, the title of this post is "More rotten press for polygraph" not "We shall overcome adversity in the face of......"
"Despondent"---i.e. hopeless/ faithless. I beg your pardon? At this time, I am working on a new pdd technique which could potentially save our profession, developing interrogation techniques that go beyond war stories and blather, propogating disinformation on the anti-site, serving on a state board of advisory, encouraging this site to engage in a deeper level of candor (I did say "encouraging,")and lastly, I am putting forth ideas that are sometimes useful and never spin and PR. As an organization, our fly is open and too few are merely stating that "we aren't perfect" rather than zipping the damn fly. [This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-13-2007).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 08-13-2007 09:48 AM
Barry said "I think the fact that we are still a growing profession tells us something positive."I agree that there are great positive things under works. The collective goal is to attempt to insure that those positive strides aren't over-shadowed by the creeping attacks. I personally believe that polygraph can be better------that we can make polygraph live up to it's intrepid image if researchers strive to not except the status quo and start asking hard questions------questions that make the old guard defensive, questions that to some signal negativity (dispondency). As Ray once said, we need to start coloring outside of the lines in order to understand polygraph.
Skip, your point about the small size of our field is well taken, but I believe that such reletive smallness should serve to make us more responsive and more upwardly mobile regarding advancement in best practices and unity. Of course unionizing polygraph in and of itself is not lucrative, but our disunity is a symptom of fear. What are we fearful of? The answer to this is imo the core of our collective shortcomings.
IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 08-13-2007 10:02 AM
Stat,I think polygraph (the CQT) works better than most would admit, but examiners can't look at the data they have and make the correct decisions. (Look at the Evidentiary Scoring Rule studies by Krapohl and Krapohl / Cushman. Examiners looked at the same data, yet accuracy rates were all over the place.) Even if we could come up with a test that's 100% accurate, could we get examiners to make %100 accurate decisions? If not (and we couldn't, I suspect), what is the solution? With that said, I agree with what is still on the research needs list. I think part of the solution is a need to get all of our schools reading from the same sheet of music. One of the things they should do is take a stand against this type of show that's about to air. Doing so requires a really look at ethics, and I always think there's time (and a need) to visit that topic. IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 08-13-2007 11:06 AM
Here's a case. In my home town (I don't live there anymore) back in the 70's, there was a multiple murder that even today holds an anniversary mourning. The murderer ( he eventually was found guilty and confessed)was given a stipulated/defense agreed evidentiary polygraph test---which he passed---this was long before he confessed. The then junior judge (currently the chief judge) and the then junior prosecutor (you guessed it---now chief prosecutor) now have complete disdain for polygraph----even remarking on a tv show that polygraph was bunk----------------which any rational person would believe, as a person who murders a large family over a botched home invasion should probably fail their test (an mgqt no less!). I am hard at work designing my Neuro-Lock Test, in hopes of completely overhauling how tests are administered, scored, and understood. The goal is to remove the human element of scoring altogether----making for less fudging and subjectivity. Ultimately, scoring in my model theory for polygraph testing will be done by the computer-----an instrument that is underworked in our field due to challenges that current testing modalities present for current scoring softwares i.e. artifact recognition and all those non-human disadvantages. [This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-13-2007).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 08-13-2007 01:24 PM
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-13-2007).] [This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-13-2007).] IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 08-13-2007 02:00 PM
I know Skip can defend himself, but let me jump back in for a minute. As Skip pointed out, we're a small group. There is an even smaller subgroup involved in conducting research. I think we've made great accomplishments in the recent past for such a small group. We may not be moving ahead as fast as we'd like, but we're moving ahead.Keep in mind we're probably hitting the ceiling on accuracy as far as this type of test goes. It seems - as I pointed out before - it's not the "techniques" that are the problem: examiners are. I can't think of many who have been more passionate when it comes to running a good, reliable and accurate test than Skip. His "Nailing the Pre-test" course he's been teaching for the past couple years (or so) attests to that fact. Polygraph 101 tells us that if we mess that up, we've messed up the whole test, yet Skip's lectures have been necessary to get some people to understand that point. How did they miss it in school, or how did they forget? I don't know, but watch some of the tests being run out there (as I know you have). You can invent whatever you want. Unless you can get examiners to do it correctly (once you know it works), you're sure to accomplish more frustration than anything. IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 08-13-2007 03:50 PM
Another nuked post... you're going to send Ted into the spin cycle.IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 08-13-2007 06:39 PM
stat: quote:
As Ray once said, we need to start coloring outside of the lines in order to understand polygraph.
Are you sure I said that? I'm not so sure. Not that I wouldn't color outside the lines, but I don't recall that one - plus, it sounds like something Mark Handler would say. So, I might have been parroting him (I'll blame him anyway.) and you have to admit, some of those earlier posts do sound kinda angsty... OK, now to business. If people can use a Kolmogorov-Smirnov equation to authenticate human signatures (names) at 70+%, then could certainly use math to ID countermeasures and other anomallies in polygraph data. I'd like to hear more about that neuro-lock test. It sounds cool.
r
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 08-13-2007 06:42 PM
Bruce White's still keeping the details a hush-hush, but he's doing just that: using math to identify not only CMs, but drift. It'll be interesting to learn what he finds - if he'll put pen to paper.IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 08-13-2007 07:41 PM
Barry,What in the world is drift? I saw the references to on Bruce's site. However, I can't find a single thing in any database searches. Is it some new-fangled thing that someone just made up, or what? I have no real objection to people making up new things. However, it would make a lot more sense to have some documentation on the need for something new. A responsible approach would be to provide a written discussion of the presently understood constructs and phenomena, along with a description of how that is inadequate to account for some important phenomena, plus additional discussion about how a new construct or paradigm better accounts for, better describes, and better utilizes that phenomena. Ideally, that would be done in a way that other researchers could recognize, provide commentary or feedback in response to, and express their concurrence or disagree ment as to how the new construct fits parsimoniously with the existing body of science in polygraph and the related fields of physiology, psychology, signal processing, measurement, inferential statistics, and decision theory. It may be time for a new thread on that. ------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
[This message has been edited by rnelson (edited 08-13-2007).] IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 08-13-2007 07:46 PM
Yes, it would be a new thread. I did see the term somewhere, but I still consider it a Brucism, and as such, I can't do it full justice. Think of it as a mind that wandered off the issue of the question. (Yes, it sounds like and ESP algorithm.) Ask him at APA, but make sure I'm nearby for the explanation. I need to hear it again.IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 08-13-2007 09:00 PM
I like some of Bruce's ideas, but polygraph does not need more "black-box" solutions. We need to be an accountable science.just my .02
r
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
skipwebb
Member
|
posted 08-14-2007 07:05 AM
Bruce has explained drift to me on a number of occasions and I think I lost brain cells in each encounter. I know on each occasion it made my head ache afterwards. The premise makes sense. I’m really oversimplifying here but apparently “drift” occurs when a person, for whatever reason, loses adequate concentration on the issue, comparison or relevant. I personally don’t care for the term "psychological set" but my understanding from Bruce would lead me to characterize "drift", for lack of a better explanation as a loss of "psychological set". Bruce and his current scoring software "White Star II (and White Star III) should probably be a topic of discussion apart from this one but I have been using it at his request, since he designed it and it works really well, particularly at identifying non-deceptive examinees. The problem is not the software or algorithm, it’s the fact that Bruce keeps it locked up and won't let others evaluate his math and science. I've told him a thousand times that the government or any other research entity will never accept it unless they can "look under the hood" and see what makes it work. If he won't allow anyone else to take it apart and look over his math and science, then it's just a mysterious "black box" solution. He has a fear that others will steal his work and that's certainly a possibility but one that he must get over if he wants it to be in general use. I’m often amazed at its ability to discern the right condition, even when the charts, by hand score, are inconclusive. I’ve asked him to do a Journal article on his work, explaining what he has found and his scoring software, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it.
IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 08-14-2007 08:37 AM
Thanks Skip,That was helpful. I too like being able to open the black box, or at least read about how it works. Some of the defining characteristics of "science" are the adjustment of decision models and practices in response to observations achieved through the study of data, and description of those data and decision models for review and feedback from other scientists. That way knowledge other smart folks can generalize our knowledge to other situations in which they may have some expertise that we don't, and new knowledge is scaffolded onto existing knowledge. When we work in a secretive or sequestered manner, we're not talkin' science, but simply bid'ness - how do I sell you my stuff. So how to pharmaceutical companies account for their development and validation efforts, while protecting their intellectual property and financial interests? It seems like Bruce's concerns are successfully managed all the time in other fields. I do like the fact that Bruce continues to be interested in signal processing improvements. I just find myself wishing he didn't do so in such a cloistered way. The rest of our field has been almost completely stagnant in the area of signal processing in the almost 20 years since Kircher and Raskin (1988). Then again, we all know that the Flock-of-Seaguls era was the pinnacle of creative achievement.
r
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
[This message has been edited by rnelson (edited 08-14-2007).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 08-14-2007 03:40 PM
I just checked the anti-site and the message board is down and administrators say that all messages and member id's have been lost----and they are trying to recover all data (have fun george). It appears that someone may have flooded the message board with something digitally devestating.Don't ask, don't tell. [This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-14-2007).] IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 08-14-2007 05:19 PM
Skip,I've told Bruce the same thing. His position seems to be that he's producing a product that people like - proven by his sales. I've encouraged him to write too, but I'm not holding my breath. (He has written some blurbs on things he's found.) I get the sense he was burned somehow along the way and now he is very guarded. Is there a history we don't know? IP: Logged |
skipwebb
Member
|
posted 08-15-2007 08:24 AM
Apparently, and this is not confirmed by Bruce, in his "prior life" "BP" (before polygraph) he was in the oil business and developed a pretty nifty piec of equipment in conjunction with a business partner who stole the work and made big time cash for Bruce's work. That would make anyone gun shy. My daughter works for a patent/tradmark attonery firm in DC and she suggested that Bruce patent his "White Star" software but who knows why he doesn't.IP: Logged | |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
