posted 10-24-2002 12:49 PM            

I may be oversimplifying, but the consequence of a false positive is the interrogation of an innocent person. The consequence of a false negative is that a criminal may go free. Right or wrong, investigators trust us to give them the most accurate results available and few will continue to pursue a suspect who passes a polygraph. This is one possible explanation for your lack of evidence regarding countermeasures on the NDI/NSR tests you conduct.

The idea that we can stick our collective heads in the sand and just hope that subjects aren't preparing themselves for polygraph is a dangerous one.

Many physical countermeasures appear to cause distinctive tracing patterns which an examiner can learn to recognize.

Type polygraph into a search engine and you will get an idea of how much information on countermeasures is really out there.

We must also be prepared for the innocent subject who uses countermeasures in an effort to "help himself along". I refuse to call NDI/NSR where I have any credible evidence of countermeasures. Rather than becoming angry or accusatory, I try to gently discourage their use and assure the examinee that if he is innocent countermeasures are unnecessary. If the behavior doesn't cease then interrogation must follow. I have been able to get good tests using this process.

posted 10-24-2002 09:04 PM            

It is my opinion that the days of point countermeasures, that are so obvious that you could pick them out within a chart clear across the room, are at their days end.

[This message has been edited by J.B. McCloughan (edited 10-24-2002).]

posted 10-25-2002 07:54 AM            

Fortunately most people who attempt countermeasures lack access to an instrument in order to train to "smooth out" their responses. Someone who does have this access along with hands on training under an experienced examiner will be very difficult to spot.

Countermeasure clues can be very subtle. Learning to spot them requires training and practice.

The main thing I think we need to be aware of is that almost all of the countermeasure systems available on the internet deal with manufacturing tracings that look like reactions to comparison questions. They do nothing to mask genuine reaction to relevant questions.

If you spot consistent reaction to both comparison and relevant issues you should begin counter-countermeasures. Some of the more simple ones are gentle confrontation, changing the testing format, time bars on relevant questions to name a few.

One of the things that Doug Williams teaches is to DENY attempting to learn how to beat the polygraph. How about a S.P.O.T. exam using the names Drew Richardson, Doug Williams, David Lykken, and George Mascke.

I use a modified CVOS exam for an aquaintance test which is designed to screen for countermeasures.

I intend to work much harder than those who seek to defeat me.

posted 10-25-2002 08:17 PM            

Although the above suggested may not be perfect science and most likely will not give you anything of substance to ‘hang your hat on’, it does give you some general information on what might occur specifically with certain countermeasures. If you find something, you can then conduct some further initial research on it. I scour physiology text and research articles for possible answers. You could then ask other examiners to try those same countermeasures and discuss your findings to see if the same results are obtained. This type of information could also be share with the APA research team for possible future research and validation.

Just an idea for thought, discussion, and possible collaboration.

posted 10-27-2002 09:24 PM            

I am unsure of the research of which you speak of. Most of the research available on countermeasures, without proper security clearances, were conducted by Charles Honts. It is my understanding that these research studies sought to measure the deceptive examinees' ability to successfully carry out their countermeasures, that is cause a false negative, and the examiners' abilities to detect them.

posted 10-30-2002 07:42 AM            

I am most concerned about truthful people trying to help themselves through a test. people who are liars and try to defeat the test are less of a concern because they will eventually be found out. These days losing good candidates for wrong reasons is costly.

posted 01-18-2003 01:31 AM         

You mentioned a study you participated in, but you didn't say what the result was. (" I will let those who participated in these experiences advise you on the outcome of their exercise.")

posted 01-21-2003 09:15 PM            

The problem with this type of research is that it is impossible to replicate real world consequences in a laboratory test setting. Responses to relevant questions (deceptive subjects)are increased when the outcome has real effects on the subjects life.(Raskin)

The psychodynamics of a field test cannot be replicated in a lab and in my opinion can be skewed to misleading outcomes.

That is not to say that you can spot subtle countermeasures just by looking at the charts. A well trained subject would be able to do this and go unspotted.

The question is would the reaction generated by such efforts be significant enough to generate a true false negative on a specific issue test, in the field with real consequences for the subject, if their deception was revealed.

Also if the subject has no access to a polygraph there is no way for them to know how significant their reactions are/not. Honts research indicated that there was no significant difference when subjects had all the information on how to do it. The difference came when the subjects were shown what they were doing wrong then 50% were successful. These are lab studies once again. Would a field study show a 50% false negative outcome when jail can be an end result from failing the test in the field as compared to nothing in the lab.

However screening exams would be easier to confound as relevants can act like controls and compete with each other, and self stimulation would be more effective here as anti climax dampening could occurr between relevants and flatten out reponses to deceptive answers.

How does the theory of the psychological set apply here when the subjects focus has to change so regularly anti-climax dampening and adrenal exhaustion could affect test results and then add countermeasures applied by trained subjects to the mix.

If screening tests are the target there may be significant effects here but once again there is no field research to support any hypothesis in this regard.

Reseach should be conducted on countermeasure detection devices such as lafayettes latest version which can detect the popular sphincter contraction. Lab research here would be applicable to the field but no one seems to look down this road of late. An examiner then could eliminate the use of any physical countermeasure with the use of this equipment that research has supported.

posted 01-23-2003 12:00 AM         

As you indicated in your post the problem of replicating ‘real world’ consequences in a Lab setting has confounded researchers for decades- and no doubt will remain with us for another decade. The identification of countermeasures however can be significantly improved upon in our profession and I believe ultimately supported by Lab research.

In regards to your statement: “The question is would a reaction generated by such efforts (countermeasure) be significant enough to generate a false negative on a specific issue test in the ‘field’ with real consequences for the subject if their detection was revealed.”

I tend to believe it is conceivable that a ‘false negative’ can result, although ‘more than likely’ an Inconclusive will be the outcome (I propose ‘conceivable’ and ‘more than likely’ are not very a positive kind of a statement and lends to guess work).

In conducting examinations, I consider myself a ‘seasoned’ examiner and cognizant of ‘countermeasure’ methods. I would say it’s absolutely incumbent upon the examiner to identify the presence of and source of the countermeasure on any question, comparative or relevant, and that question be excluded from the evaluative process. Many examiners in our profession tout ‘how easy it is to detect’ countermeasures although I tend to disagree, except for the blatant countermeasure. -- I concede that some examiners may be ‘better’ at detecting the'secretive' countermeasure than I. If detecting countermeasures Is that easy, then I ask “Why hasn’t someone taken up the challenge at antipolygraph.org? (after all, we can be an opinionated and sometimes arrogant bunch- I suggest it hasn’t been done because we don’t want to stick our neck out.)”

I tend to believe much of the time ‘we speculate’ that countermeasures were or were not being used. If an examinee submitted to a ‘real world’ specific issue test, and post test was reported as being “Truthful”, he certainly is not going to look at the examiner and say “I just lied and used XYZ countermeasures that I learned on the Internet against you.” Now contrary, if we report an examinee as ‘Deceptive’, and we’re able identify a specific countermeasure- like 8 breaths a minute-, he is more than likely to admit its use when confronted.

The ‘informed’ examinee knows quite well to apply the countermeasure to the ‘comparatives’ (thanks to Internet sources and others writing books on how to defeat the examination process, as well as providing information on counter-interrogation methods); the ‘uninformed’ examinee however may (and unwisely) choose to give a countermeasure to the ‘relevants.’ Haven’t we all seen the examinnee ‘flip the finger or raise the thumb’ when a relevant question was being asked, or engage in ‘movement behavior’ when a known irrelevant question was being asked? ’ OR they apply a more‘generalized secret catch-me-if-you can’ overall effort during the exam process,this is the area I’m concerned with. I suggest Sex offenders are employing this methodolgy on us and may very well be getting away with it, - an Inconclusive is better than Deception in their eyes. They present themselves as being cooperative in their words, actions, and behavior during the exam, as that is what they know best- ‘a life time of manipulating people.’ Post chart/test it’s “I wasn’t moving. I was concentrating on remaing still, or gee was I moving? Sorry, I was just so nervous, and a multitude of other lines. Post test viewing of video tapes does not always ‘show’ the movement ocuring in conjunction with the activity sensor.

To ramble on about 'detecting countermeasures,' I have used Lafayettes pneumatic activity sensor since its availability, I have found the sensor to be very ‘helpful’, but by no means ‘the answer’ or ‘the icing on the cake’ if you will. With myself as the ‘subject,’ I have created several ‘templates’ of the sensors ability to detect “intentional but secretive movements (so as not to be seen)” and found the sensor to have it’s shortcomings. In disappointment, I have even utilized anal contraction to produce a significant BP arousal with NO response on the sensor having occurred. [By the way, I have included yet another sensor pad placed behind the head; and as another advantage, the polygraph chair that I utilize is leather- I’ve learned when an examinee is ‘moving or secretly shifting weight- the chair has the ‘leather tattle tail squeak.’ I have conducted exams where the chair is squeaking like an injured mouse, and Nothing is on the ‘activity sensor.’]

Now, don’t get me wrong- ‘most’ of the time the sensor will detect ‘something is going on somewhere’ and is the best we currently have. [as a side note in evaluation: I learned that by “secretively and intentionally floating the forearm of either arm” will cause a baseline arousal in the respiratory channel as well as an upward drift in the activity sensor. In speculation maybe using the shoulder muscles to generate a ‘fine motor skill’ in secretly lifting the forearm becomes inhibitory to the intercostals for relaxation during exhale. If this secretive intentional movement is done with the BP cuff arm, BP arousal also occurs and can ‘mimic’ a slow but deliberate anal contraction].

Since using lafayette’s sensor, and clients are obviously aware of it use, rarely do I see a ‘specific’ movement countermeasure being applied to a question, but more of a ‘generalized’ throughout the chart methodology. Such as the ‘unobservable floating’ of an arm or leg throughout a chart. I see it as a steady baseline of the sensor until SRQ 2, and then a fairly steady upward (or downward) trend until it goes off the chart. Now here again, ‘something is going on, but what?’ And is there specific intent of thwarting the examination being attempted.

Is the subject ‘merely relaxing’ more in the chair as the chart progressed and NOT attempting a countermeasure maneuver, or is the examinee merely ‘tensing’ because of a generalized increased anxiety level? [While creating my ‘template’ and with no intent of producing a countermeasure, significant ‘activity’ baseline shifts have occurred. In exploring this, I found the shift is entirely dependent upon the examinee’s state and degree of overall muscle tension level at the ‘start’ of the chart and may have nothing to do with the intent of producing a countermeasure.]

‘Sometimes, but not always,’ the ‘acvitity’ is observable in the cardiovascular channel as well. For example when the examinee is ‘releasing and relaxing overall muscle tension’, an increase in the pressure of the sensor is created which causes a downward movement trend in the activity baseline which almost parallels a decrease in blood pressure trend. When ‘floating’ a body limb I find a decrease pressure occurs which is represented as rise in the activity baseline while increasing the cardiovascular trend. During slow anal contraction, but with the specific intent of countermeasure, I see a divergence- BP trend goes up and activity sensor baseline trends downward. The faster the baseline shifts of both parameters, the more I ‘speculate’ the generalized countermeasure attempt.

I suggest even when an activity sensor is being used, unless we can say with specificity as to ‘what’ is being manipulated and how it is being performed, it becomes difficult to convincingly support and Demonstrate a claim of ‘purposeful non-cooperation’ via a physical countermeasure without an admission.

What amazes me, is that with todays sensor technology (peizosensors, velostatic sensors, flexiforce sensors- and a variety of others) why don’t we have something ‘better’ that allows us to be able to identify the ‘source’ of the activity? These sensors a relatively inexpensive.

As a thought- consider the placement of a separate and independent peizo type sensor under each body limb and seat. If each sensor is ‘assigned’ a specific software color (red, blue, green etc), and when no movement is being detected the color produced would be a combination of the ‘assigned’ colors (say black); then if one sensor becomes ‘more active’ not only would a ‘change’ occur in separating it from the baseline but the ‘assigned’ color becomes predominant. Examiners could then ‘demonstrate’ that the examinee was secretively lifting/moving his right arm on relevant questions, and left leg on comparative questions, or a specific limb on a specific questions etc.

Interestingly I discussed this concept with Lafayette about two years ago– Chris said he thought the idea was interesting, but later said the Federal Government didn’t want to be able to be that specific- which I found to be a surprising answer. Since the Fed Gov was their biggest purchaser/user Lafayette wasn’t interested in pursuing the idea because of expense. The concern of the Fed Gov was that an examiner would ‘point out’ the countermeasure being employed, and the examinee would merely change gears to something else; to this I say so what? If we can show the examinee was ‘moving’ his right arm on chart one, and switched to his left leg on chart two, and ‘anal puckered’ all the way through chart three, then all the better for us to substantiate their intent.

We all know DoDpi has done various research on different ‘bio recording sensors’ to get away from ‘cuffs’, ‘straps’ and ‘plates’, but what have they done to identify physical countermeasures, except to say “if the reaction looks too Good, it probably is” ?

To make an additional comment, I suggest if we could identify the ‘source’ of the physical countermeasure– and eventually couple that with Emanuel’s research (if supported) on ‘multi-tasking’ to detect mental countermeasures (presented at APA seminar 2002); add in a blood oxygenation sensor to aid in identifying ‘intentional and voluntary’ over or under respiratory ventilation for the body’s needs, then we may be well on our way to take up the antipolygraph.org challenge.

Even with the pneumatic sensors shortcomings, if an ‘activity sensor’ is not being used during the administration of a test, then I believe examiners are missing the boat and physical countermeasures are going undetected.

Just wanted to add some thoughts, maybe even get off the ‘lurker’ status.

posted 01-23-2003 02:13 AM            

I find the response you got from the Fed Gov via an instrument manufacturer in regards to activity sensors pejorative.

Why would we not want to know which particular countermeasure is being used? That is just sending a message they are not serious.

That is the exact argument the anti's use. We are only guessing that a c/measure was used because we cannot localise it via current sensors.

The subject would have to change gears to mental countermeasures which are no where near as effective.

If physical countermeasures could be eliminated via proper detection methods and instruments that are currently out there what the anti-polys teach would have to change dramatically and offenders could have a harder time.

Someone should take this idea on and develop an effective system, there are only positives that can come from this and lab research would validate the system for field use. Why isn't someone looking into it that would satisfy an improvment as suggested by the NAS report.

Physical countermeasures can be a problem if we can eliminate it we should.

posted 01-23-2003 07:39 AM         

While there is indeed some guesswork in countermeasure detection, we can make educated guesses. In my experience, every single subject who has admitted having been to the anti sites and read their literature during the pretest passed the test without any indication of countermeasures.

I take it as a rule of thumb that such honesty in eth pretest is a good indication of a truthful subject.

posted 01-23-2003 07:47 AM            

Might I suggest that you contact Limestone technologies out of Canada? I am not real familiar with their product but was impressed with some of their ideas. This might be a way for them to really get a start in the Polygraph business and wake up the others.

I am a fan of and support lafayette but if they don't want to get involved you can't make them. I believe they are heading in a different direction in research and development and hope that new technology will eliminate the need for worry about counter measures.

I wish I had more of a mind for this type of discussion. I hate feeling lost when things get technical. I have to trust others to take care of these things. Do you feel that the sensors you are talking about would be built into the chair or more attachments?

I do know one thing for sure, you don't have to be scientific to realize counter measures are a problem and we should check out any possible way to detect them.

Great information, thanks

Jack

posted 01-23-2003 01:20 PM            

On a side note, I still think you should patent that chair of yours Bob. I view it as a masterful working of art.

As for research, I agree that hypothetically the real world responses to the relevant issue would be greater, in both truthful and deceptive subjects. Arguably true for the comparison responses as well. I simply participated in the aforementioned research study. However, I did have the opportunity to review numerous charts following the research completion. In my opinion, unadulterated deceptive and truthful charts appeared as just that. I was quite surprised to see such responses for something as a mock crime.

All the existing research supports the statement that subjects attempting point countermeasures are unsuccessful in producing a false negative. However, Honts et al studies showed that when subjects were given information on how to defeat the polygraph, using dual physical countermeasures employed simultaneously, they were 70% successful in creating a false negative outcome. Subjects that were given advance training in countermeasures, information and practice, produced a 47% false negative rate. In these two studies, 0% of the subjects whom were absent the information on how to defeat the polygraph, guilty control, produced a false negative outcome. Honts et al does comment on the seemingly lack of information available to the general public to achieve such training. With the advent of sites like antipolygraph.org, this statement is hardly true today. Not only is there a wealth viable information on countermeasures available but an ability of these persons to cooperate through open and private discussions on their results through personal experimentation. Even 1% is unacceptable to me in a criminal issue setting.

As far as the federal government sharing countermeasure information goes, they are in a completely different arena then we are. The DoD is in the national security business. If they share guarded information openly, there are no safeguards to prevent a mass distribution of that information and it ultimately ending up in the hands of those they are charged to protect our country and its citizens from. The most current review of the polygraph was a very good example of how to handle information privileges. If they had chosen to give guarded information, it would have ended up online for everyone to view on the NAS and antipolygraph.org sites at the least.

I do not tell a person who has used countermeasures what they used and how I know. My personal opinion is that when they are given this information they will disburse it. The Maschke and Williams of our society will then refine that countermeasure to a less detectable modus or simply eliminate it by discouraging its use. We do not see those private discussions that occur outside the public message board.

Great topic of discussion. I have enjoyed reading and pulling from everyone’s knowledge and thoughts thus far.

[This message has been edited by J.B. McCloughan (edited 01-23-2003).]

posted 01-23-2003 10:05 PM         

To answer your question, electronic sensors come in a variety of shapes and sizes, micro-miniture on up. They 'could be' imbedded in the chair itself (in the arm rests/under the seat/legs) or "portable', much in the same manner as the current pneumatic system.

Like yourself, I too unfortunately,am not very technically orientated when it comes to electronics and 'creating a motherboard'(so to speak) to accept the signals from the sensors; nor am I literate in computer software design/program writing to create software changes necessary to accept the 'electronic' signal and transform it into something the computer can understand to be able to produce something 'on the screen'.

But,what I do know is, some of these sensors function very simular to the GSR channel (a change in resistance causes the pen to go either 'up, or down.') The change in resistance is 'interpreted' through the use of the Wheatstone Bridge circuitry.

In the sensors that I'm referring to, a change in "pressure" causes a resistance change within that sensor. The sensors of today I believe can detect 'micro-pressure' changes which occur during'unobserveable' movements. That change can be interpreted on the computer just as it does for a GSR channel.

In essence we would potenially have five 'different signals' entering the DAS unit (which I think could be simply accomplished through the '5-pin' auxillary input channel). Inside the DAS, suppose, a 'wheatstone bridge circuitry' is created for each body limb being monitored.

I think it would be relatively easy to simply create "5 new trace lines' on the computer screen, but frankly that would be an absolute mess that we wouldn't want to 'see'.

So- I was thinking if 'somehow' these five new signals could be assigned a software "color", and then through software design the signal and colors are "overlayed" until one sensor "becomes more active" than the others (which results in pen deflection away from the baseline).

When the pen delfects,the 'color' produced on the screen reverts to the assign signal 'color' of that particular sensor.

The knowledge of 'overlaying' the signals through software design is already present. For example, when we record respiraton- we record 'two channels' that we watch scroll across the screen in two seperate trace lines. If you so choose, you can 'start' the recording with the 'two traces' overlaping each other, and when they diverge from one another, the color produced is the color you assigned to that channel.

Just thinking out loud, sorry if I started rambling again.

posted 01-24-2003 07:34 AM            

Thanks for making that easier to understand. I think it sounds like a great idea. The key seems to be to find something sensitive enough to detect any movement made by a subject not just obvious ones we can see if watching. Being able to tell exactly what was moved would be icing on the cake.

As I said earlier you might contact Limestone and discuss things with them. Being the new guys on the block might give them incentive to try something new the competitors don't have.

Mike Barton, an examiner out of Texas I believe has a Limestone system and has their ear. I think he is listed under examiners on this home page.

I don't know about anyone else but I think this sounds like something that should be pursued.

posted 01-24-2003 08:12 AM         

Maybe these countermeasure sensors could begin taking measurements the moment the subject sits in the chair for the pretest? This could provide a baseline "fidget index" for the subject that could then be compared against activity during the intest phase.

posted 01-27-2003 02:21 AM            

Lafayette state that the sensitivity of their activity sensor(pneumo) can be set to detect the pulse in the subjects legs. How then is it that it cannot detect subtle countermeasure attempts?

From what has been previously stated it sounds like it wouldn't assist much anyway with a subject who knew what they were doing.

There is obviously a need and a hole in the market here. Bob has a great idea which a manufacturer would reap benefits if they spent the money to develop it.

It will take a long while before we see any technology that significantly improves polygraph measures that on their own are immune to countermeasures.

posted 01-30-2003 12:19 AM         

Lafayette does propose the pneumatic sensor is sensitive enough to detect the pulse; although I tend to disagree. The 'noise' or 'chatter' as I'll call it, doesn't appear to match the pulse rate to me. I've tested clients with slow heart rates, and the 'chatter' remains present,rapid and irregular, all of which is super imposed on a respiratory cycle (and the cyclic wave to me is very annoying by the way). Increasing the sensitivity, increases everything even the respiratory cycle- the setting of 5 SU does seem to be the 'best performance' setting.

In my viewpoint, the sensor does not detect 'movement' per se, but changes in the 'pressure' being applied. Hence, if a person's arm is on the 'pad', and they do not change the arm pressure they are applying, they can wiggle their fingers all day long and it won't show much of anything.

What is the cause of the 'chatter', I don't rightly know for sure- doesn't seem to be micro-pressure changes as I would think the sensor would by highly sensitive to movement as well.

One thing I haven't done- but wanted to try, was to place an inanimate object of sufficient "weight" (say 130+ lb) in the seat while recording, just to see if the 'chatter' is still present; If so- then it 'ain't' pulse being recorded.

The sensors are however pretty 'sensitive' to even relatively minor 'gravitational pressure' changes (meaning lifting up or pressing down). If I remember correctly in a test strip I did quite sometime ago, I maintained arm pressure,but merely slowly 'rotated' the arm and not much showed, just a very slow rise in the baseline. I found a very similar type of rise can occur, and is dependant whether or not the subject changes from a state of 'relaxation' or tension' after beginning the chart.

posted 02-13-2003 06:23 PM         

If you think countermeasures are easy to spot, think again. At the last C.A.P.E. seminar(California Asoc of Polygraph Examiners)in Oct., Ed Gelb passed out a set of charts and asked a group of about 50 examiners to score them. There was the usual mixed bag of opinions.....DI, INC, NDI. Only two examiners in the group recognised the charts as containing countermeasures. The charts did in fact, contain countermeasures which the examinee admitted to.

As Examiners, we should all be looking at the anti-polygraph web sites as often as possible to stay current with the venom they are spewing out.

Also remember that for the most part, only a deceptive subject(or a real idiot !) is going to try to use countermeasures. Your DI charts will probably be genuine DI charts. It is your NDI charts that really need to be carefully evaluated for countermeasures.

posted 02-14-2003 01:33 AM         

Your practice of warning the subject about our ability to detect countermeasures and the consequences of using them is a good one! I recently started doing this too, especially with subjects who are more educated and likely to have had internet access.

Were there any telltales in the charts that Gelb presented? I am surprised that only two examiners caught them. Did the subject say where he got his countermeasure info from?

------------------
It's a thankless job, but somebody's gotta do it.

posted 02-14-2003 10:15 AM         

Ed Gelb did share with the class where the guy got the countermeasure info but I do not remember which sewer the guy gave the credit to. Obviously, the examinee should be screaming for a refund!

There were tell tale signs. In these charts, as with most countermeasure attempts I see, is consistancy. When you see reactions to control questions that are genuine, each reaction is different if even only a little. When someone is attempting countermeasures, their faked responses to the control questions look like they were put there by a rubber stamp. In other words, each response to the different control questions looks about the same. That alone is inconsistant with normal human physiological response patterns.

I also like to tell the examine in the pre-test how much time I spend on the anti-poly web sites and that I have studied all of the anti-polygraph publications as well. I tell them that I can usually tell what sites they have been to just by looking at the attempted countermeasures on their charts. When they leave the office, I am sure many of them have called Mr. Williams and friends demanding a refund!!

P.T. Barnum made quite a living off of people like those who spend money at anti-polygraph sites!

Take care,

Ted

posted 02-23-2003 02:37 AM         

Are you planning to be at the C.A.P.E. training seminar in March? The topic is countermeasures. If you're there, it would be great if you could bring up our forum. It's a wonderful resource that we have here (thanks to Ralph Hilliard for his selfless service).

If you (or anyone else) will be there, there are a few questions I would have if I were able to attend (I'm not a member and am about as far from California as you can get at the moment):

1 - What is the estimated base rate for countermeasure use? By job applicants? By criminals?

2 - Where are those who attempt countermeasures getting there information from?

3 - What deterrents are most effective? Ted, I htink your one of giving a warning in the pretest (I avoid mentioning any specific manuals or websites when I do this) is the best, but I'm interested in other ideas.

4 - In the latest issue of Polygraph there is an EXCELLENT article on countermeasures and ethics by Paul M. Menges. I recommend that everyone read it. One of the things he suggests is that knowingly distributing countermeasure information to criminals could be outlawed, the same way that a law was passed making it a crime to sell 'clean' urine samples to help subvert urinalysis tests. This is an idea that I think ought to be seriously considered. The law referred to was a state law. What state is Antipolygraph.org in? What state is Doug Williams' site in (I know he is in Oklahoma)? And what state is this new Passapolygraph.com sight in? Maybe appropriate legislation could be passed in these states, if not at the federal level (would hte Patriot Act apply?)

posted 02-23-2003 11:01 AM         

I missed the cut off for the cheap rooms and now they are $300.00 per night. No I will not be at the Cape Seminar at that rate! I did plug this site at the last Cape seminar and there was a lot of interest. Last year, I unofficially formed the California Regional Association Of Police Polygraphists(C.R.A.P.P.). We meet four times a year for training and there are no fees or dues. I continue to plug this site there and will do so again on our April 4th meeting.

Dave R. and the rest of the folks are DOE have email and are very good about responding to questions. Dave and Ann both love to talk about those nasty counter measures! If you need their address let me know.

Ted

posted 02-23-2003 01:43 PM         

At $300/night I don't blame you! I couldn't afford it either. Not on government pay...

Hey, I love your sense of humor. I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I read the acronym for your informal grouping.

Do you know if Dave and Ann know about our private forum here? If not, they ought to be invited to join. I don't personally know either of them, but I do know Dave R. is fighting the good fight at DOE and that is why the antis like Zelicoff hate him so much.

posted 02-24-2003 10:55 AM         

I do not know if Dave Renzelman or Ann Reed are aware of this forum. Both would be welcome contributors.

Take care,

Ted

posted 02-24-2003 01:45 PM            

I always push this site to people and I know they look but don't participate much. If some biggie comes along people will discuss it and we get new opinions if the topic hits a nerve with them. I try occasionally to start a new topic but they rarely get discussed more than a few posts.

Jack

posted 03-04-2003 08:57 AM         

Still, I try to check this site on a regular basis, and I think many other examiners whould if only they knew about it.

posted 03-04-2003 12:57 PM            

The aforementioned also allows us whom do post to focus on those topics of interest to those whom do not.