|
Author
|
Topic: Grassley seeks probe of polygraph techniques at National Reconnaissance Office Read
|
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 07-27-2012 09:11 PM
 
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/07/27/3727654/grassley-seeks-probe-of-polygraph.html
Interesting article on a topic that's ripe for discussion, but likely to whither on this forum in light of the "three wise monkeys" doctrine...
Any takers? IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 07-28-2012 06:00 PM
I still don't understand all the issues. Aside from whether it is a violation of the rules, what is inherently wrong with asking broadly intrusive questions in the context of information gathering for risk assessment? Are there some types of integrity that do not matter and contribute nothing of value to security risk management? .02 r ------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 07-28-2012 11:42 PM
Dan,
I get admissions all the time from lateral applicants (current police officers) that does not only disqualify them from the new position that they are seeking, but would most likely result in criminal prosecution if the truth were to be known.
The problem is; I obtain the admission and provide it to the agency that hired me. More often than not, they reject the applicant and never share the information with the applicant’s current employer. I know this is not the best policy but I have no way to change this as so many agencies are so worried about liability. Your thoughts?
Ted
IP: Logged |
Mad Dog
Member
|
posted 08-02-2012 09:47 PM
I have to agree with Dan on this one. Polygraph examiners do not have a license to pry (or voyer) into areas that are not germane to risk assessment. I think all areas of inquiry should have an actuarial justification. This is all the more reason for semi-structured interviewing. IP: Logged |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
