- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 13, 2002, 05:13 PMAnonymous,
You wrote in part:
As you consider the ethical choices you face going into a pre-employment polygraph interrogation, two salient points to bear in mind are:
1) The polygraph "test" is fundamentally dependent on your polygrapher lying to and otherwise deceiving you.
2) If you face a probable-lie "control" question "test," it is fully expected that you will be deceptive with regard to the "control" questions.
You also wrote to Skeptic:
Could you elaborate on this (and perhaps provide references)? Skeptic specifically asked you whether your assessment was "a legal fact or a lay opinion," and your above remarks are not really responsive to that question.
You wrote in part:
QuoteI acknowledge false positives occur and I believe this is why polygraphs should be discontinued, but I also believe that many people with slight mistakes in their background may be tempted to lie about them in the process of an investigation. The current misuse of polygraphs has created an environment where, I concede, one must worry about false positives and, in turn, consider deception. I, for one, have truly considered the pros and cons of all options one can take and I finally decided that, yes, one should be as honest as possible and hope the polygraph does not trip him up. This might be naive, but at least one may live the rest of his or her life knowing he did the right thing. Falsification is a slippery slope to follow, I refer all those considering it to the following link which discusses clearance determination made by DOHA which reviews industrial clearance appeals. Unfortunately, I could not find such a link for law enforcement personnel, but I think this will give you a good idea of the adjudication process. If you notice, besides serious financial and drug issues, falsification is the major reason clearances are denied.
As you consider the ethical choices you face going into a pre-employment polygraph interrogation, two salient points to bear in mind are:
1) The polygraph "test" is fundamentally dependent on your polygrapher lying to and otherwise deceiving you.
2) If you face a probable-lie "control" question "test," it is fully expected that you will be deceptive with regard to the "control" questions.
You also wrote to Skeptic:
QuoteP.S. in terms of Malum Prohibitum crimes, yes, I know I'm correct on my last point. There are very few crimes that are not considered Malum Prohibitum, examples of these are murder, rape, etc.
Could you elaborate on this (and perhaps provide references)? Skeptic specifically asked you whether your assessment was "a legal fact or a lay opinion," and your above remarks are not really responsive to that question.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jul 13, 2002, 04:01 PMHello, Skeptic, and thank you for your kind comments.
Here's my reply to your last post:
Quote:
I believe there is a basic contradiction in the above two points. You've readily acknowledged the "false positive" problem, but you don't seem to take it into consideration when it comes to what a polygraph screening applicant must face. Clearly, actual fabrication is not the only way one may be disqualified on the grounds of falsification or omission. A bad flip of the coin on the polygraph may do so, too. Your advice to those people would seem to be, "just tell the truth and take your chances that they'll call you a liar, anyway".
I acknowledge false positives occur and I believe this is why polygraphs should be discontinued, but I also believe that many people with slight mistakes in their background may be tempted to lie about them in the process of an investigation. The current misuse of polygraphs has created an environment where, I concede, one must worry about false positives and, in turn, consider deception. I, for one, have truly considered the pros and cons of all options one can take and I finally decided that, yes, one should be as honest as possible and hope the polygraph does not trip him up. This might be naive, but at least one may live the rest of his or her life knowing he did the right thing. Falsification is a slippery slope to follow, I refer all those considering it to the following link which discusses clearance determination made by DOHA which reviews industrial clearance appeals. Unfortunately, I could not find such a link for law enforcement personnel, but I think this will give you a good idea of the adjudication process. If you notice, besides serious financial and drug issues, falsification is the major reason clearances are denied.
http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/2000.html
QUOTE:
And what would you tell the person who is familiar with the polygraph's deceptions and potential countermeasures? Do you really believe such a person has a reasonable chance of a successful adjudication without lying about that knowledge, to say nothing of using it?
In the near future I'm going to be taking another polygraph and to tell you the truth, I am scared. I admit that I have considered all my options, i.e. not mentioning my previous poly, using countermeasures, etc. and I have decided that due to the fact that any issue in my background is minor, I am going to opt for the totally honest approach. I will tell my examiner about everything, including that fact that I have read this site, and I will follow his instructions. If I fail, I will be able to leave the room knowing that I did my best, HONEST, effort. If things don't go as I hope, I know I'm smart enough and that I have enough family support to find another calling in life. I'll let you know how things go... I might even use my real name because I won't have anything to hide. Wish me luck.
P.S. in terms of Malum Prohibitum crimes, yes, I know I'm correct on my last point. There are very few crimes that are not considered Malum Prohibitum, examples of these are murder, rape, etc.
Here's my reply to your last post:
Quote:
I believe there is a basic contradiction in the above two points. You've readily acknowledged the "false positive" problem, but you don't seem to take it into consideration when it comes to what a polygraph screening applicant must face. Clearly, actual fabrication is not the only way one may be disqualified on the grounds of falsification or omission. A bad flip of the coin on the polygraph may do so, too. Your advice to those people would seem to be, "just tell the truth and take your chances that they'll call you a liar, anyway".
I acknowledge false positives occur and I believe this is why polygraphs should be discontinued, but I also believe that many people with slight mistakes in their background may be tempted to lie about them in the process of an investigation. The current misuse of polygraphs has created an environment where, I concede, one must worry about false positives and, in turn, consider deception. I, for one, have truly considered the pros and cons of all options one can take and I finally decided that, yes, one should be as honest as possible and hope the polygraph does not trip him up. This might be naive, but at least one may live the rest of his or her life knowing he did the right thing. Falsification is a slippery slope to follow, I refer all those considering it to the following link which discusses clearance determination made by DOHA which reviews industrial clearance appeals. Unfortunately, I could not find such a link for law enforcement personnel, but I think this will give you a good idea of the adjudication process. If you notice, besides serious financial and drug issues, falsification is the major reason clearances are denied.
http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/2000.html
QUOTE:
And what would you tell the person who is familiar with the polygraph's deceptions and potential countermeasures? Do you really believe such a person has a reasonable chance of a successful adjudication without lying about that knowledge, to say nothing of using it?
In the near future I'm going to be taking another polygraph and to tell you the truth, I am scared. I admit that I have considered all my options, i.e. not mentioning my previous poly, using countermeasures, etc. and I have decided that due to the fact that any issue in my background is minor, I am going to opt for the totally honest approach. I will tell my examiner about everything, including that fact that I have read this site, and I will follow his instructions. If I fail, I will be able to leave the room knowing that I did my best, HONEST, effort. If things don't go as I hope, I know I'm smart enough and that I have enough family support to find another calling in life. I'll let you know how things go... I might even use my real name because I won't have anything to hide. Wish me luck.
P.S. in terms of Malum Prohibitum crimes, yes, I know I'm correct on my last point. There are very few crimes that are not considered Malum Prohibitum, examples of these are murder, rape, etc.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 13, 2002, 06:09 AMAnonymous,
I agree with Skeptic that you've raised a number of relevant issues. While I don't believe that you're a polygraph advocate masquerading as an opponent, perhaps you can see why some may have suspected as much. In any event, even if such were the case, it would have little bearing on the merits of the arguments you've presented.
I'd just like to elaborate on one of the points Skeptic raised:
We noted in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:
I've been trying to get an answer from the polygraph community on how they will handle those who use our suggested "complete honesty" approach. To date, I haven't received an intellectually satisfying answer. Take a look, for example, at the e-mail exchange I had in December 2000 with American Polygraph Association president Milton O. (Skip) Webb, Jr.:
http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml#informed-subjects
Skip Webb ultimately refused to say how polygraphers should handle informed subjects.
See also my unanswered October 2000 e-mail to then Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson:
http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-005.shtml
At the moment, I can only think of one person in the polygraph community who has responded to the question of how to handle informed sources. In the message thread Countermeasure considerations for the innocent, Dr. Gordon H. Barland, formerly with the DoDPI Research Division, after much prodding, finally answered my question, "What would you say to the earnest employee or applicant for employment who wants a straightforward answer to this simple question: what will the polygrapher do if I admit to him/ her that I understand 'the lie behind the lie detector' (i.e., the trickery on which polygraph 'testing' depends)?" Here is his response:
In response to this, I asked Dr. Barland:
For reasons he surely knows best, Dr. Barland never responded to the above question.
I think that the federal polygraph community's unwillingness to state how it will handle subjects who are completely honest about their knowledge of the fraud that is "control" question "test" polygraphy is further justification for subjects to protect themselves, if necessary, by denying any knowledge and/or use of polygraph countermeasures.
I agree with Skeptic that you've raised a number of relevant issues. While I don't believe that you're a polygraph advocate masquerading as an opponent, perhaps you can see why some may have suspected as much. In any event, even if such were the case, it would have little bearing on the merits of the arguments you've presented.
I'd just like to elaborate on one of the points Skeptic raised:
QuoteAnd what would you tell the person who is familiar with the polygraph's deceptions and potential countermeasures? Do you really believe such a person has a reasonable chance of a successful adjudication without lying about that knowledge, to say nothing of using it?
We noted in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:
QuoteOne graduate of [the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute] has cautioned that if a subject were to follow this "complete honesty" approach [i.e., openly admitting knowledge of the psychological manipulations on which the procedure in theory depends], the polygrapher would probably go ahead with the polygraph interrogation anyhow and arbitrarily accuse the subject of having employed countermeasures. Maureen Lenihan is a case in point. She worked as a research assistant with the federal Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy, also known as the "Moynihan Commission." She later applied for employment with the CIA. She explained to her CIA polygrapher that she had researched polygraphy while working with the Commission. The polygrapher proceeded with the interrogation anyhow, and later accused her of having employed countermeasures.
I've been trying to get an answer from the polygraph community on how they will handle those who use our suggested "complete honesty" approach. To date, I haven't received an intellectually satisfying answer. Take a look, for example, at the e-mail exchange I had in December 2000 with American Polygraph Association president Milton O. (Skip) Webb, Jr.:
http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml#informed-subjects
Skip Webb ultimately refused to say how polygraphers should handle informed subjects.
See also my unanswered October 2000 e-mail to then Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson:
http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-005.shtml
At the moment, I can only think of one person in the polygraph community who has responded to the question of how to handle informed sources. In the message thread Countermeasure considerations for the innocent, Dr. Gordon H. Barland, formerly with the DoDPI Research Division, after much prodding, finally answered my question, "What would you say to the earnest employee or applicant for employment who wants a straightforward answer to this simple question: what will the polygrapher do if I admit to him/ her that I understand 'the lie behind the lie detector' (i.e., the trickery on which polygraph 'testing' depends)?" Here is his response:
QuoteThis approach is so new the field has not developed any uniform response, not in the federal community and certainly not in the police and private arenas. The only research bearing on this has been done by Honts and his colleagues. They have published a couple of studies which found, among other things, that subjects who are aware of the purpose of control/comparison questions are at greater risk of a false positive error. This is another down side to making polygraph information available to the public. In their understandable desire to help innocent people avoid false positive errors, the authors may be inadvertently increasing the risk for some people.
As for how I would deal with the situation, I would have no qualms about conducting an examination. My personal outlook is "when in doubt, give it a try and see what happens." I would go into the situation with my eyes open, aware of the pitfalls, and make sure that the person receiving my report was also aware of the need for caution in relying upon the results. When I was an examiner in private practice, I tested several polygraph examiners on real world matters. The only thing I did differently from testing a naïve subject was to use a relevant/irrelevant (RI) test format, which is less susceptible to point countermeasures. The RI test is far more sophisticated in design and interpretation than most critics give it credit for. To be used successfully, I believe it requires formal training followed by an internship under experienced practitioners, so this option is not realistic for many examiners.
In response to this, I asked Dr. Barland:
Quote...if you would use the relevant/irrelevant format with sophisticated subjects (i.e., those who understand the polygraph procedure), then on what scientific basis do you expect to be able to distinguish truth from deception using this (thoroughly discredited) technique? For the informed, truthful subject who heeds your advice and does not employ countermeasures but instead admits to his/her knowledge of the trickery on which "control" question "test" polygraphy depends, the promise of being treated to a relevant/irrelevant "test" instead is hardly reassuring.
For reasons he surely knows best, Dr. Barland never responded to the above question.
I think that the federal polygraph community's unwillingness to state how it will handle subjects who are completely honest about their knowledge of the fraud that is "control" question "test" polygraphy is further justification for subjects to protect themselves, if necessary, by denying any knowledge and/or use of polygraph countermeasures.
Posted by Skeptic
- Jul 13, 2002, 04:18 AMQuote from: Anonymous on Jul 12, 2002, 08:46 PM
Wow,
That was a bunch of replies, let me see if I can present my OPINION more clearly:
Take it as a compliment, Anonymous. I, for one, think you've raised some good, relevant issues in a well-written manner.
Quote from: Anonymous on Jul 12, 2002, 08:46 PM
*. First of all, a lot of you expressed disagreement or right out angry because I stated that polygraphs do detect deception. Believe me gents, I am not a closet polygraph supporter, through years of experience, I have, however, learned to attempt to consider and troubleshoot problems or issues OBJECTIVELY. Now, to give you a little background about myself, I started visiting this site about 1 1/2 years ago after I underwent a preemployment polygraph.
I'm just guessing, given the length of time you've been waiting, that the agency in question has a three-letter acronym beginning with "F" and ending with "I".
Quote from: Anonymous on Jul 12, 2002, 08:46 PM
2. When I said polygraphs detect deception, I was in no way supporting their use in preemployment screening. Here's an analogy that expresses my opinion: I view the polygraph as being similar to a metal detector and lies as being similar to a precious metal for polygraphers. Although metal detectors do in fact detect precious metals, they also detect coke cans, tin, pennies and all other kinds of useless metals. The misuse of polygraphs can be equated to a G-man's metal detector going off and him selling the farm before he actually digs through the sand to make sure he discovered a precious metal.
Quote from: Anonymous on Jul 12, 2002, 08:46 PM
In reference to the replies about Title 18, I want to make this point: I don't think that the issue should be, "Will a AUSA prosecute you for a violation or not." The reason I brought this law up is that I believe many of the visitors to this sight might have slight issues in their background and they might be considering the question: "Should or should I not tell?" I believe that it almost always behooves those with minor issues to fess up instead of lying. Secondly, as I previously mentioned, I have concerns about the fact that a person with minor issues that uses countermeasures may be cornered into lying and, thus, have a more major issue in their background. Of course I don't think these individuals would be prosecuted but I do KNOW any adjudicator that has evidence of any willful falsification or Omission will usually issue a adverse clearance decision. And, no gents, adjudicators do not need to prove falsification beyond a reasonable doubt. They make these decisions routinely on the basis of a preponderance of evidence (51% chance).
I believe there is a basic contradiction in the above two points. You've readily acknowledged the "false positive" problem, but you don't seem to take it into consideration when it comes to what a polygraph screening applicant must face. Clearly, actual fabrication is not the only way one may be disqualified on the grounds of falsification or omission. A bad flip of the coin on the polygraph may do so, too. Your advice to those people would seem to be, "just tell the truth and take your chances that they'll call you a liar, anyway".
And what would you tell the person who is familiar with the polygraph's deceptions and potential countermeasures? Do you really believe such a person has a reasonable chance of a successful adjudication without lying about that knowledge, to say nothing of using it?
Quote from: Anonymous on Jul 12, 2002, 08:46 PM
In terms of malum prohibitum laws, George, do you know that most crimes including drug trafficking, tax evasion, not paying child support, ect, are malum prohibitum crimes?
I'm sure, by the above, that you did not intend to go beyond classifications of crimes to equate defending oneself against a fraudulent, unfair and coercive process with drug trafficking, etc. Regardless, is the above assessment a legal fact or a lay opinion? If the former, I'll defer to your knowledge on this, as I am most certainly not a legal expert. If the latter, I must dispute it; I can think of real violations of commonly-held morality and norms of behavior inherent in the above.
Skeptic
Posted by Anonymous
- Jul 12, 2002, 08:46 PMWow,
That was a bunch of replies, let me see if I can present my OPINION more clearly:
*. First of all, a lot of you expressed disagreement or right out angry because I stated that polygraphs do detect deception. Believe me gents, I am not a closet polygraph supporter, through years of experience, I have, however, learned to attempt to consider and troubleshoot problems or issues OBJECTIVELY. Now, to give you a little background about myself, I started visiting this site about 1 1/2 years ago after I underwent a preemployment polygraph. I didn't lie during my polygraph, but I was worrying about a slight issue (I know today, that this issue would not disqualify me from keeping a clearance) while I was being polygraphed. I underwent a post-test interrogation and I explained to the polygrapher why I was worried about a certain question he was asking me. He had me write a statment and that was the end of the poly. He did not, however, hook me back up to verify what I told him. Of course, I freaked out and started worrying about not passing and I starting visit this and other sites on the net. Note, my package for the agency in question is still being processed, but, I don't know whether or not the poly situation will cause me problems.
Since, the time that I began visiting this site and researching polygraphs I have viewed many different opinion and over time, I have developed my own opinion and that is the only thing I'm expressing here.
2. When I said polygraphs detect deception, I was in no way supporting their use in preemployment screening. Here's an analogy that expresses my opinion: I view the polygraph as being similar to a metal detector and lies as being similar to a precious metal for polygraphers. Although metal detectors do in fact detect precious metals, they also detect coke cans, tin, pennies and all other kinds of useless metals. The misuse of polygraphs can be equated to a G-man's metal detector going off and him selling the farm before he actually digs through the sand to make sure he discovered a precious metal.
Now that I've explained my position let me respond to your replies:
Skeptic, George, and Mr. Richardson posted:
Quote:
*I can agree with much of what you wrote. However, it is simply not necessarily true that lying causes the body to react. I think it is more accurate to say guilt (read: internalized concern over being caught) may cause the body to respond. The whole point of the pre-test "pep talk" is to instill a fear of lying that may not have been there before.
Quote:
No, I don't believe that polygraphs detect deception. They record relative changes in certain bodily functions on the basis of which polygraphers make inferences about a subject's truthfulness or deceptiveness. And as Skeptic correctly observed, lying may or may not cause one's body to react in ways that are measurable by the polygraph.
Quote:
Sorry, but not in this lifetime. As I have indicated numerous times, I believe control question polygraphy often is nothing more than a recording of physiological response(s) to the consequences (e.g., being denied employment, further investigation, prosecution, conviction, loss of friends, family, fortune, etc) of being found deceptive about a relevant question issue, NOT, and I repeat NOT, an indicator of having been deceptive about anything. Along with base rate problems, it is this phenomenon that likely leads to the large number of false positive (an innocent examinee being found deceptive) results that are reflected in the continual stream of examinee testimonies on this site.
As stated above, you all agree that polygraphs may detect guilt, relative changes in bodily functions, and/or physiological response(s) to the consequences. I am by no means a polygraph expert and I'm sure that gentlemen such as Mr Richardson, know much more about them that I do, but I am good at gathering and analyzing facts. I believe that in some people, me for instance, lying would cause guilt, relative changes in bodily functions, and/or physiological responses. Again, I don't think that lying is the only thing that causes these reactions, but it is one of them. Additionally, most polygraphs consist of many series of the same questions, if a subject has a significant response to the same question, over and over, throughout an examination, I think it is safe to say that he or she has a problem with that question. I still don't believe that this means you can automatically say, "WHAM, he's lying."
In reference to the replies about Title 18, I want to make this point: I don't think that the issue should be, "Will a AUSA prosecute you for a violation or not." The reason I brought this law up is that I believe many of the visitors to this sight might have slight issues in their background and they might be considering the question: "Should or should I not tell?" I believe that it almost always behooves those with minor issues to fess up instead of lying. Secondly, as I previously mentioned, I have concerns about the fact that a person with minor issues that uses countermeasures may be cornered into lying and, thus, have a more major issue in their background. Of course I don't think these individuals would be prosecuted but I do KNOW any adjudicator that has evidence of any willful falsification or Omission will usually issue a adverse clearance decision. And, no gents, adjudicators do not need to prove falsification beyond a reasonable doubt. They make these decisions routinely on the basis of a preponderance of evidence (51% chance).
In terms of malum prohibitum laws, George, do you know that most crimes including drug trafficking, tax evasion, not paying child support, ect, are malum prohibitum crimes?
FOR BEECH TREES:
You got a little snippy on your reply, so let me tell you a few things I think about you and your positions. Please, correct me if I'm wrong (I know you will):
Something interesting occurred to me. YOU LIED ABOUT A RELEVANT ISSUE ON YOUR POLYGRAPH! I'll tell you why I know this. You posted:
Quote:
*I am a lay person, and with a little effort and a bit of moxy successfully passed my polygraph interrogation using countermeasures.
How can you be so sure that countermeasures are responsible for the fact that you passed your polygraph? If you were being honest about relevant issues during your poly and you were just using countermeasures to ensure that you'd pass, there would be no way of knowing that the use of countermeasures was responsible for you passing the exam. The only way for you to know that you passed because of countermeasures is that you LIED (big dog Title 18 type lie) about something relevant and you still passed because you were using countermeasures.
*Secondly, who named Justice Beech Tree to the Supreme Court, that last I knew only courts decide that laws are unconstitutional.
*Third, I have respect for George and Drew, but you often regurgitate what they say. Do you have any thoughts of your own? If George was the Bull Dog in Looney Toones, I see you as the mangy pouch that follows him going, "Hey Spike, Hey Spike!"
That was a bunch of replies, let me see if I can present my OPINION more clearly:
*. First of all, a lot of you expressed disagreement or right out angry because I stated that polygraphs do detect deception. Believe me gents, I am not a closet polygraph supporter, through years of experience, I have, however, learned to attempt to consider and troubleshoot problems or issues OBJECTIVELY. Now, to give you a little background about myself, I started visiting this site about 1 1/2 years ago after I underwent a preemployment polygraph. I didn't lie during my polygraph, but I was worrying about a slight issue (I know today, that this issue would not disqualify me from keeping a clearance) while I was being polygraphed. I underwent a post-test interrogation and I explained to the polygrapher why I was worried about a certain question he was asking me. He had me write a statment and that was the end of the poly. He did not, however, hook me back up to verify what I told him. Of course, I freaked out and started worrying about not passing and I starting visit this and other sites on the net. Note, my package for the agency in question is still being processed, but, I don't know whether or not the poly situation will cause me problems.
Since, the time that I began visiting this site and researching polygraphs I have viewed many different opinion and over time, I have developed my own opinion and that is the only thing I'm expressing here.
2. When I said polygraphs detect deception, I was in no way supporting their use in preemployment screening. Here's an analogy that expresses my opinion: I view the polygraph as being similar to a metal detector and lies as being similar to a precious metal for polygraphers. Although metal detectors do in fact detect precious metals, they also detect coke cans, tin, pennies and all other kinds of useless metals. The misuse of polygraphs can be equated to a G-man's metal detector going off and him selling the farm before he actually digs through the sand to make sure he discovered a precious metal.
Now that I've explained my position let me respond to your replies:
Skeptic, George, and Mr. Richardson posted:
Quote:
*I can agree with much of what you wrote. However, it is simply not necessarily true that lying causes the body to react. I think it is more accurate to say guilt (read: internalized concern over being caught) may cause the body to respond. The whole point of the pre-test "pep talk" is to instill a fear of lying that may not have been there before.
Quote:
No, I don't believe that polygraphs detect deception. They record relative changes in certain bodily functions on the basis of which polygraphers make inferences about a subject's truthfulness or deceptiveness. And as Skeptic correctly observed, lying may or may not cause one's body to react in ways that are measurable by the polygraph.
Quote:
Sorry, but not in this lifetime. As I have indicated numerous times, I believe control question polygraphy often is nothing more than a recording of physiological response(s) to the consequences (e.g., being denied employment, further investigation, prosecution, conviction, loss of friends, family, fortune, etc) of being found deceptive about a relevant question issue, NOT, and I repeat NOT, an indicator of having been deceptive about anything. Along with base rate problems, it is this phenomenon that likely leads to the large number of false positive (an innocent examinee being found deceptive) results that are reflected in the continual stream of examinee testimonies on this site.
As stated above, you all agree that polygraphs may detect guilt, relative changes in bodily functions, and/or physiological response(s) to the consequences. I am by no means a polygraph expert and I'm sure that gentlemen such as Mr Richardson, know much more about them that I do, but I am good at gathering and analyzing facts. I believe that in some people, me for instance, lying would cause guilt, relative changes in bodily functions, and/or physiological responses. Again, I don't think that lying is the only thing that causes these reactions, but it is one of them. Additionally, most polygraphs consist of many series of the same questions, if a subject has a significant response to the same question, over and over, throughout an examination, I think it is safe to say that he or she has a problem with that question. I still don't believe that this means you can automatically say, "WHAM, he's lying."
In reference to the replies about Title 18, I want to make this point: I don't think that the issue should be, "Will a AUSA prosecute you for a violation or not." The reason I brought this law up is that I believe many of the visitors to this sight might have slight issues in their background and they might be considering the question: "Should or should I not tell?" I believe that it almost always behooves those with minor issues to fess up instead of lying. Secondly, as I previously mentioned, I have concerns about the fact that a person with minor issues that uses countermeasures may be cornered into lying and, thus, have a more major issue in their background. Of course I don't think these individuals would be prosecuted but I do KNOW any adjudicator that has evidence of any willful falsification or Omission will usually issue a adverse clearance decision. And, no gents, adjudicators do not need to prove falsification beyond a reasonable doubt. They make these decisions routinely on the basis of a preponderance of evidence (51% chance).
In terms of malum prohibitum laws, George, do you know that most crimes including drug trafficking, tax evasion, not paying child support, ect, are malum prohibitum crimes?
FOR BEECH TREES:
You got a little snippy on your reply, so let me tell you a few things I think about you and your positions. Please, correct me if I'm wrong (I know you will):
Something interesting occurred to me. YOU LIED ABOUT A RELEVANT ISSUE ON YOUR POLYGRAPH! I'll tell you why I know this. You posted:
Quote:
*I am a lay person, and with a little effort and a bit of moxy successfully passed my polygraph interrogation using countermeasures.
How can you be so sure that countermeasures are responsible for the fact that you passed your polygraph? If you were being honest about relevant issues during your poly and you were just using countermeasures to ensure that you'd pass, there would be no way of knowing that the use of countermeasures was responsible for you passing the exam. The only way for you to know that you passed because of countermeasures is that you LIED (big dog Title 18 type lie) about something relevant and you still passed because you were using countermeasures.
*Secondly, who named Justice Beech Tree to the Supreme Court, that last I knew only courts decide that laws are unconstitutional.
*Third, I have respect for George and Drew, but you often regurgitate what they say. Do you have any thoughts of your own? If George was the Bull Dog in Looney Toones, I see you as the mangy pouch that follows him going, "Hey Spike, Hey Spike!"
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jul 12, 2002, 04:47 PMFightbackk, Skeptic, and Anonymous,
Fightbackk, I will answer your question, largely to return this thread to the subject matter suggested by Anonymous and to give him the opportunity to answer the relevant posts within this/his thread.
The specifics of Xenadrine are largely unimportant in answering your question. Although this multi-component preparation would likely have a variety of effects on ANS physiology (as recorded via a polygraph exam), because these effects (as is the case with other drugs) are non-selective (not specific to either relevant or control questions), it is unlikely that either intentionally or unintentionally an examinee taking this medication would thereby produce (solely through this mechanism) either a deceptive or non-deceptive polygraph finding. At most one would expect that a conclusive polygraph result (deceptive or non-deceptive) would be rendered inconclusive. Because inconclusive polygraph results often have the same consequences as do deceptive results for an examinee (particularly with regard to applicant screening), pharmacological countermeasure efforts would be both ineffective and unnecessary (many other useful stimulus-specific physical and mental countermeasures available). Although there may exist unintended effects (an inconclusive result) for an innocent examinee properly taking medications, these as well as the inherent (non-drug related) error of CQT polygraphy leading to false positive results can most likely be overcome through the use of properly applied countermeasures.
Fightbackk, I will answer your question, largely to return this thread to the subject matter suggested by Anonymous and to give him the opportunity to answer the relevant posts within this/his thread.
The specifics of Xenadrine are largely unimportant in answering your question. Although this multi-component preparation would likely have a variety of effects on ANS physiology (as recorded via a polygraph exam), because these effects (as is the case with other drugs) are non-selective (not specific to either relevant or control questions), it is unlikely that either intentionally or unintentionally an examinee taking this medication would thereby produce (solely through this mechanism) either a deceptive or non-deceptive polygraph finding. At most one would expect that a conclusive polygraph result (deceptive or non-deceptive) would be rendered inconclusive. Because inconclusive polygraph results often have the same consequences as do deceptive results for an examinee (particularly with regard to applicant screening), pharmacological countermeasure efforts would be both ineffective and unnecessary (many other useful stimulus-specific physical and mental countermeasures available). Although there may exist unintended effects (an inconclusive result) for an innocent examinee properly taking medications, these as well as the inherent (non-drug related) error of CQT polygraphy leading to false positive results can most likely be overcome through the use of properly applied countermeasures.
Posted by Skeptic
- Jul 12, 2002, 03:56 PMQuote from: fightbackk on Jul 12, 2002, 03:33 PM
I was reviewing the posts on this topic and one question came to my mind. (I hope that someone on this site is qualified to opine on the following subject)
When I took all 3 polygraphs, I was taking Xenadrine (Rapid FatLoss Catalyst). It causes sympstoms/feelings of rapid heartbeat, dizziness, severe headache, shortness of breath and or similar symptoms (including feeling very hyper). I told them I was taking that off-the-counter drug. The agent who interviewed me strongly believed that was creating some reactions and false readings, etc.
Does anyone know whether the above drug could have affected the polygraphs?
Although I'm not an MD, it stands to reason that anything which influences what the polygraph measures (i.e. breathing rate/amplitude, heart rate, blood pressure, GSR) would show up on the polygraph chart. If the polygrapher believes there's too much "noise" (read: random readings) then they could find the chart "inconclusive" (according to the DoDPI's materials). If the random changes take place at unfortunate times, you might be viewed as "deceptive". And if the polygrapher suspects the noise is due to some attempt to fool him, you might also be viewed as "deceptive".
Although it's fairly safe to assume most polygraphers do not have training in medications and their effects (much less anything like a medical degree), it's certainly possible that your medication caused the result indicated.
Hell, given the fact that contracting the anal sphincter muscle produces a change in blood pressure (and perhaps GSR/heart rate, as well), simply needing to relieve oneself could produce "deceptive" (or "truthful", or "inconclusive") charts.
Skeptic
Posted by fightbackk
- Jul 12, 2002, 03:33 PMI was reviewing the posts on this topic and one question came to my mind. (I hope that someone on this site is qualified to opine on the following subject)
When I took all 3 polygraphs, I was taking Xenadrine (Rapid FatLoss Catalyst). It causes sympstoms/feelings of rapid heartbeat, dizziness, severe headache, shortness of breath and or similar symptoms (including feeling very hyper). I told them I was taking that off-the-counter drug. The agent who interviewed me strongly believed that was creating some reactions and false readings, etc.
Does anyone know whether the above drug could have affected the polygraphs?
When I took all 3 polygraphs, I was taking Xenadrine (Rapid FatLoss Catalyst). It causes sympstoms/feelings of rapid heartbeat, dizziness, severe headache, shortness of breath and or similar symptoms (including feeling very hyper). I told them I was taking that off-the-counter drug. The agent who interviewed me strongly believed that was creating some reactions and false readings, etc.
Does anyone know whether the above drug could have affected the polygraphs?
Posted by eisenmann372002
- Jul 12, 2002, 02:59 PMAnonymous,
I'm sorry, but with this statement: "...I do believe polygraphs detect deception and so do you...", you have not only lied (as evidenced by Beechtrees' response), but you have discredited any further statements/points/arguments you may make in the future. Polygraphs DO NOT detect deception. I choke on the fact that any intelligent person would EVER buy that load of crap. I would suggest a retraction immediately....but that's just me.
Eis
I'm sorry, but with this statement: "...I do believe polygraphs detect deception and so do you...", you have not only lied (as evidenced by Beechtrees' response), but you have discredited any further statements/points/arguments you may make in the future. Polygraphs DO NOT detect deception. I choke on the fact that any intelligent person would EVER buy that load of crap. I would suggest a retraction immediately....but that's just me.
Eis
Posted by beech trees
- Jul 12, 2002, 12:25 PMQuote from: Anonymous on Jul 12, 2002, 03:20 AMTo further cover the point about Title 18 USC 1001 let me state this, you may call it civil disobedience or whatever you like, but this is a binding law that has teeth. If you fill out the SF-86 (form for national security positions), have an interview as part of your background check, or yes, undergo a federal preemployment polygraph, you are not only subject to Title 18, but you are also adviced to the fact that you are Subject to it.
Big deal. I grow weary of the transparent tactics of the pro-polygraph community here on this board. When confronted with the Countermeasure Challenge, or indeed any mention of the use of countermeasures, they 1. Attack the messenger's character. 2. Bluff that countermeasures (as described in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector) can be discerned-- yet when asked HOW countermeasures are discerned, or even to produce ONE EXAMPLE of a test subject who employed countermeasures and was detected as doing so (absent a confession), they are unable to articulate nor produce such evidence. This is the case one hundred percent of the time on this discussion board. This is important enough to the discussion at hand to repeat: Polygraphers have never offered one shred of evidence here-- other than their 'good word'-- that they can detect countermeasures as described in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector. It bothers them greatly that the paradigm of power has been handily wrested from their clutches and now sits firmly with the interrogation victim, and they will do and say ANYTHING in order to negatively influence one's choice on whether or not we the people control the polygraph interrogation or allow the polygrapher to dictate the outcome. 3. and of course this latest tactic is tangential to the 'you're going to be in so much trouble if you lie' spew.
Anonymous, please name one person who has ever been prosecuted under Title 18 USC 1001 for using the kinds of countermeasures as described in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector during the couse of a Federal government agency administered polygraph interrogation. Ana Montes? Brian Regan? Aldrich Ames?
No one will ever be prosecuted under Title 18 USC 1001 for employing countermeasures (absent an admission from the examinee) because 1. countermeasures are undetectable and 2. to do so retroactively (as would be the case with the above noted spies) would be tantamount to admitting that the polygraph is worthless other than as an interrogation prop (as it is currently used).
QuoteIf you think this is a law that is just taken lightly, I just ask you to consider the Forest Service employee involved in starting all the fires in Colorado... The first thing she was charged with was a violation of Title 18 for turning in a false report. This offense is punishable by up to a $10,000 fine and five years in prison.
No one is saying the law doesn't have teeth, nor that it lacks severe and harsh penalties should one be convicted of same. The above mentioned charge (if it is true) is a all-too-common tactic of the prosecution-- dogpile on the charges and then use those charges to plea bargain down to the heart of the matter-- in this case arson. I respectfully suggest this also has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
QuoteSecondly, and more pertinent to the question of whether one should lie or not on the polygraph or any other part of an investigation is Guideline E of the Adjudicative Guidelines used by agencies throughout the federal government:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/spb/class.htm
If you notice, this guideline is the only guideline that may require disqualification of an individual seeking a security clearance. Take it from me gents, the government does not kid around when it comes to falsification issues. If fact, if you read any appeal decisions concerning denied clearances you will often find that individuals were denied clearances simply because they had lied about information, that in of itself, would have not disqualified them.
Since countermeasures as described in George and Gino's book have never been proven to be detectable, what of it? Your argument started out as an ethical one-- the morality of lying in violation of this country's laws. As George said, this is clearly, CLEARLY malum prohibitum and, IMHO, a non-issue as Title 18 USC 1001 is repugnant to the US Constitution and is thus null and void. Note I am not dismissing the consequences, I am dismissing the notion that there is something morally wrong in disobeying an un-Constitutional law.
Now you are making dire prognostications over the consequences of lying. I'm saying there are no consequences as the techniques as decribed here are undetectable, absent an admission from the examinee.
QuoteAgain, I want to stress that I hate polygraphs and I do think, that because of how they're being abused, they should be banned. I do however disagree with some of the things said on this website, like in every aspect of life, the truth can be found somewhere between the middle of the two opposing opinions:
I don't like people who think moderation and/or compromise is the key to 'understanding' the truth behind an issue. Inevitably those who argue for same then try to sway one's opinion over to their side. Let's see if this holds true here as well:
Quote1. The point that polygraphers expect you to LIE to control questions is not necessary true.
~BINGO!~ JB, is that you? Many of the anti-polygraph contributors here choose to remain anonymous, but at least we have the courtesy to do so under a single, registered screen name. This tired, wheezy, geriatric argument again? Yes, polygraphers lie during the course of a polygraph interrogation. To argue otherwise is just absurd and frankly, insulting to anyone with a brain and a knowledge of the basic facts of polygraphy.
QuoteThe only expectation is that you have a significant response to these questions. For example, if a question such as: Have you ever lied to anyone you love, is asked, the idea is that even after you admit all the times you remember having to a loved one, you will still be nervous about the question and therefore have a significant response. A polygrapher would definitely expect you to admit to any serious lie, i.e. having been involved in a crime, adultery, etc.
Why would we be nervous if we're telling the truth? And if a 'significant response' only indicates nervousness on a Control Question, how in the hell does a 'significant response' on a Relevant Question suddenly indicate deception, instead of 'nervousness'?
Quote2. I do believe polygraphs detect deception and so do you!
You must have a willing subject in order for hypnosis to work, anonymous! No, in point of fact I do not believe polygraphs detect deception.
QuoteThe fact is polygraphs detect bodily reactions and Lying does cause the body to react.
Oh goodness, here we go again!
When you were growing up, if you are like most people, you
were raised to know the difference between right and wrong.
Quite probably, all of the adults you came in contact with--your parents, grandparents, relatives, teachers, church officials--taught you that lying, cheating, and stealing were wrong. Ever since you were a young child, you have been programmed to know that ying is wrong. Think about the first time you lied and got caught. Remember how your body felt during that confrontation. Your heart may have been racing or you may have been sweating. However, the responses were automatic; your body adjusted to the stress of the situation.
No, anonymous, we're not buying that here today, but thanks for playing.
QuoteEven countermeasures prove this point... The countermeasures advocated on this site suggest one produce a more significant response to control questions in order to minimize the significance of any reaction to revelant question.
Because those sets of reactions are the ones that polygraphers delude themselves into believing connote truth or falsehood. We're simply augmenting physiological reactions to fit your paradigm-- it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not we believe it-- quite the opposite is true! Silly, silly man.
QuoteThe problem with the polygraph is the LYING is not the only thing that can cause significant responses. I would have no problem with the polygraph if they were really used how they are supposed to be used - as an investigative aid to direct investigations.
An interrogation prop, you mean?
I originally hoped that instrumental lie detection would become
a legitimate part of professional police science. It is little more
than a racket. The lie detector, as used in many places, is nothing
more than a psychological third-degree aimed at extorting confessions
as the old physical beatings were. At times I'm sorry I ever
had any part in its development. John Larson
Quote3. We as Americans have the right to disagree with, protest, and attempt to change laws, but we should not merely decide to ignore laws when they don't conform to our agendas.
When the agenda involves Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, yes we should. To do otherwise would be an act of cowardice.
If we listened to you, anonymous, blacks would still be sitting at the rear of the bus. Women wouldn't have the right to vote. Hell, we might still be a colony serving at the King's whim, cranking out tar pitch and shipmasts for His Majesty's Royal Navy if we listened to that crap!
Quote4. I think that the endless argument over the validity of the polygraph is a lost cause.
What argument? The polygraph is a pseudo-scientific fraud that has ruined the lives of many, many hard working, honest people, and is the root cause of many people interested in public service being denied their dream. It's a lost cause from the pro-polygraph side, without a doubt.
QuoteUnfortunately for us, the general public is under the misconception that polygraphs are infalliable and no politician, especially after Sep 11, would in his right mind advocate the end of polygraphs in security investigations base on their validity.
1. What do you mean, 'us', paleface?
2. George has already noted the recent, timely demise of the Philly Hotbox.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jul 12, 2002, 11:11 AMAnonymous,
You state:
Sorry, but not in this lifetime. As I have indicated numerous times, I believe control question polygraphy often is nothing more than a recording of physiological response(s) to the consequences (e.g., being denied employment, further investigation, prosecution, conviction, loss of friends, family, fortune, etc) of being found deceptive about a relevant question issue, NOT, and I repeat NOT, an indicator of having been deceptive about anything. Along with base rate problems, it is this phenomenon that likely leads to the large number of false positive (an innocent examinee being found deceptive) results that are reflected in the continual stream of examinee testimonies on this site.
With regard to Title 18 USC 1001 and countermeasure denials, I would ask you which AUSA is going to be willing to wade through the snake pit of lies that exists in the polygraph suite to find the one that serves his prosecutorial purposes, and what polygraph examiner will willingly have his litany of lies exposed in the due course of a defendant's defense??
For the sake of conversation, let's assume there is an AUSA is willing to so wade. He, of course, is faced with proving beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime being prosecuted. With regard to lying about countermeasures, absent an examinee admission about same, two tasks are required on the part of the polygraph examiner for a prosecutor to successfully prosecute his case: (1) detect the countermeasure effort (2) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the physiological recording is in fact evidence of a countermeasure attempt. To date the polygraph community has been unwilling and/or unable to meet my challenge to demonstrate its ability to accomplish the first of two tasks, let alone the combination of the two (that is considerably more difficult). I suppose that if there exists anything useful in the thought process you have led us through, it would be to reinforce the site administrator's admonition about not making admissions regarding the use of countermeasures (however your thinking has little if any bearing on the advisability of using countermeasures in the first place). For that, I suppose this readership should be thankful for your comments.
You began this thread with goading Mr. Maschke about insider information within the polygraph community, then chided him for not producing it, meandered through a discussion of Title 18 USC 1001 and have along the way provided us with the aforementioned quote. If you do truly believe as you say that you "hate polygraphs and I do think, that because of how they're being abused, they should be banned..." you might well better focus your position and message.
You state:
Quote...I do believe polygraphs detect deception and so do you...
Sorry, but not in this lifetime. As I have indicated numerous times, I believe control question polygraphy often is nothing more than a recording of physiological response(s) to the consequences (e.g., being denied employment, further investigation, prosecution, conviction, loss of friends, family, fortune, etc) of being found deceptive about a relevant question issue, NOT, and I repeat NOT, an indicator of having been deceptive about anything. Along with base rate problems, it is this phenomenon that likely leads to the large number of false positive (an innocent examinee being found deceptive) results that are reflected in the continual stream of examinee testimonies on this site.
With regard to Title 18 USC 1001 and countermeasure denials, I would ask you which AUSA is going to be willing to wade through the snake pit of lies that exists in the polygraph suite to find the one that serves his prosecutorial purposes, and what polygraph examiner will willingly have his litany of lies exposed in the due course of a defendant's defense??
For the sake of conversation, let's assume there is an AUSA is willing to so wade. He, of course, is faced with proving beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime being prosecuted. With regard to lying about countermeasures, absent an examinee admission about same, two tasks are required on the part of the polygraph examiner for a prosecutor to successfully prosecute his case: (1) detect the countermeasure effort (2) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the physiological recording is in fact evidence of a countermeasure attempt. To date the polygraph community has been unwilling and/or unable to meet my challenge to demonstrate its ability to accomplish the first of two tasks, let alone the combination of the two (that is considerably more difficult). I suppose that if there exists anything useful in the thought process you have led us through, it would be to reinforce the site administrator's admonition about not making admissions regarding the use of countermeasures (however your thinking has little if any bearing on the advisability of using countermeasures in the first place). For that, I suppose this readership should be thankful for your comments.
You began this thread with goading Mr. Maschke about insider information within the polygraph community, then chided him for not producing it, meandered through a discussion of Title 18 USC 1001 and have along the way provided us with the aforementioned quote. If you do truly believe as you say that you "hate polygraphs and I do think, that because of how they're being abused, they should be banned..." you might well better focus your position and message.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 12, 2002, 08:09 AMAnonymous,
I think the polygraph community's term of art "probable-lie control question" adequately summarizes how polygraphers expect subjects to reply to these questions.
No, I don't believe that polygraphs detect deception. They record relative changes in certain bodily functions on the basis of which polygraphers make inferences about a subject's truthfulness or deceptiveness. And as Skeptic correctly observed, lying may or may not cause one's body to react in ways that are measurable by the polygraph.
As a practical matter, whether to observe or ignore laws is a decision that most of us make daily. For example, shall you observe the speed limit of 55 m.p.h. or go with the flow of traffic that's zipping along at 70? Or will you go out of your way to pay the sales tax you legally owe to your state government on an item that you purchased from another state (by mail or over the Internet), and on which you did not pay out-of-state sales tax?
With regard to the otherwise truthful person who employs countermeasures during an employment-related polygraph interrogation, but falsely denies having employed countermeasures, or having researched polygraphy, I believe there is no ethical violation. There's a legal maxim fraus meritur fraudem (fraud merits fraud). In the case of polygraph screening, the fraud being perpetrated by the state merits the citizen's use of deception to protect himself against that fraud. As English playwright Henry Chettle wrote, "'Tis no deceit to deceive the deceiver."
In my opinion, any violation of 18 USC 1001 in such circumstances would be at worst a malum prohibitum (defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "...a thing which is wrong because it is prohibited; an act which is not inherently immoral, but becomes so because its commission is expressly forbidden by positive law...") and not a malum in se ("[a] wrong in itself; an act or case involving illegality from the very nature of the transaction, upon principles of natural, moral, and public law...").
In any event, for the otherwise truthful person who falsely denies knowledge of and/or having used countermeasures, the risk is negligible that:
1) Any federal agency would make a criminal referral under 18 USC 1001 based on a polygrapher's suspicions that a subject had lied about knowledge and/or use of countermeasures;
2) Any federal prosecutor would bring an indictment based on such suspicions.
I disagree with your supposition that the general public is under the misconception that polygraphs are infallible. Most Americans seem to believe that polygraphy is an admittedly fallible but nonetheless science-based methodology. This misconception can and must be corrected. We're working toward that end, and are having some success in reaching those most directly affected by governmental reliance on polygraphy. When enough employees and applicants who are subject to polygraph screening become aware that the "test" is a fraud, the polygraph house of cards will collapse.
As you may be aware, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is conducting a review of the scientific evidence on the polygraph. The public meetings held by the polygraph review committee were well attended by senior members of the federal polygraph community. Their trepidation over the committee's ultimate conclusions and policy recommendations was quite apparent. (At the public meeting held on 23 July 2001, Dr. Andrew J. Ryan, chief of research at DoDPI, made what was essentially an appeal for clemency.) The NAS report is due later this summer, and I anticipate that it will give quite a boost to the antipolygraph effort.
With regard to politicians in their right minds not advocating the end of polygraphs in security investigations post 9-11, note that the Philadelphia Police Department abolished polygraph screening for applicants in May of this year. Nonetheless, I agree with you that post 9-11 exigencies make it politically difficult for decision makers to take a public stance against polygraph screening. The alternative arguments against polygraphy that you propose all have merit, and you'll find them reflected in Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (on polygraph policy). But the key argument that polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud is a compelling one that we will continue to vociferously put forth.
Quote1. The point that polygraphers expect you to LIE to control questions is not necessary true. The only expectation is that you have a significant response to these questions. For example, if a question such as: Have you ever lied to anyone you love, is asked, the idea is that even after you admit all the times you remember having to a loved one, you will still be nervous about the question and therefore have a significant response. A polygrapher would definitely expect you to admit to any serious lie, i.e. having been involved in a crime, adultery, etc.
I think the polygraph community's term of art "probable-lie control question" adequately summarizes how polygraphers expect subjects to reply to these questions.
Quote2. I do believe polygraphs detect deception and so do you! The fact is polygraphs detect bodily reactions and Lying does cause the body to react. Even countermeasures prove this point... The countermeasures advocated on this site suggest one produce a more significant response to control questions in order to minimize the significance of any reaction to revelant question. The problem with the polygraph is the LYING is not the only thing that can cause significant responses. I would have no problem with the polygraph if they were really used how they are supposed to be used - as an investigative aid to direct investigations. Unfortunately, many agencies put too much faith in the polygraph and many people end up getting hurt.
No, I don't believe that polygraphs detect deception. They record relative changes in certain bodily functions on the basis of which polygraphers make inferences about a subject's truthfulness or deceptiveness. And as Skeptic correctly observed, lying may or may not cause one's body to react in ways that are measurable by the polygraph.
Quote3. We as Americans have the right to disagree with, protest, and attempt to change laws, but we should not merely decide to ignore laws when they don't conform to our agendas.
As a practical matter, whether to observe or ignore laws is a decision that most of us make daily. For example, shall you observe the speed limit of 55 m.p.h. or go with the flow of traffic that's zipping along at 70? Or will you go out of your way to pay the sales tax you legally owe to your state government on an item that you purchased from another state (by mail or over the Internet), and on which you did not pay out-of-state sales tax?
With regard to the otherwise truthful person who employs countermeasures during an employment-related polygraph interrogation, but falsely denies having employed countermeasures, or having researched polygraphy, I believe there is no ethical violation. There's a legal maxim fraus meritur fraudem (fraud merits fraud). In the case of polygraph screening, the fraud being perpetrated by the state merits the citizen's use of deception to protect himself against that fraud. As English playwright Henry Chettle wrote, "'Tis no deceit to deceive the deceiver."
In my opinion, any violation of 18 USC 1001 in such circumstances would be at worst a malum prohibitum (defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "...a thing which is wrong because it is prohibited; an act which is not inherently immoral, but becomes so because its commission is expressly forbidden by positive law...") and not a malum in se ("[a] wrong in itself; an act or case involving illegality from the very nature of the transaction, upon principles of natural, moral, and public law...").
In any event, for the otherwise truthful person who falsely denies knowledge of and/or having used countermeasures, the risk is negligible that:
1) Any federal agency would make a criminal referral under 18 USC 1001 based on a polygrapher's suspicions that a subject had lied about knowledge and/or use of countermeasures;
2) Any federal prosecutor would bring an indictment based on such suspicions.
Quote4. I think that the endless argument over the validity of the polygraph is a lost cause. Unfortunately for us, the general public is under the misconception that polygraphs are infalliable and no politician, especially after Sep 11, would in his right mind advocate the end of polygraphs in security investigations base on their validity. As I've stated before, we must turn to fight to an argument about: 1. How the government selectively uses polygraphs... i.e. us scrubs on the bottom of the barrel are required to undergo polygraphs, but politicians and powerful government officials are not. 2. We have to promote studies to show that polygraphs have not diminished the number of incidents of misconduct in the government. 3. We have to demand that if polygraphs are to be used, which they will be, they should only be used as a tool and not as an executioner.
I disagree with your supposition that the general public is under the misconception that polygraphs are infallible. Most Americans seem to believe that polygraphy is an admittedly fallible but nonetheless science-based methodology. This misconception can and must be corrected. We're working toward that end, and are having some success in reaching those most directly affected by governmental reliance on polygraphy. When enough employees and applicants who are subject to polygraph screening become aware that the "test" is a fraud, the polygraph house of cards will collapse.
As you may be aware, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is conducting a review of the scientific evidence on the polygraph. The public meetings held by the polygraph review committee were well attended by senior members of the federal polygraph community. Their trepidation over the committee's ultimate conclusions and policy recommendations was quite apparent. (At the public meeting held on 23 July 2001, Dr. Andrew J. Ryan, chief of research at DoDPI, made what was essentially an appeal for clemency.) The NAS report is due later this summer, and I anticipate that it will give quite a boost to the antipolygraph effort.
With regard to politicians in their right minds not advocating the end of polygraphs in security investigations post 9-11, note that the Philadelphia Police Department abolished polygraph screening for applicants in May of this year. Nonetheless, I agree with you that post 9-11 exigencies make it politically difficult for decision makers to take a public stance against polygraph screening. The alternative arguments against polygraphy that you propose all have merit, and you'll find them reflected in Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (on polygraph policy). But the key argument that polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud is a compelling one that we will continue to vociferously put forth.
Posted by Skeptic
- Jul 12, 2002, 03:52 AMQuote from: Anonymous on Jul 12, 2002, 03:20 AM
Dear friends,
To further cover the point about Title 18 USC 1001 let me state this, you may call it civil disobedience or whatever you like, but this is a binding law that has teeth. If you fill out the SF-86 (form for national security positions), have an interview as part of your background check, or yes, undergo a federal preemployment polygraph, you are not only subject to Title 18, but you are also adviced to the fact that you are Subject to it.
If you think this is a law that is just taken lightly, I just ask you to consider the Forest Service employee involved in starting all the fires in Colorado... The first thing she was charged with was a violation of Title 18 for turning in a false report. This offense is punishable by up to a $10,000 fine and five years in prison.
Secondly, and more pertinent to the question of whether one should lie or not on the polygraph or any other part of an investigation is Guideline E of the Adjudicative Guidelines used by agencies throughout the federal government:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/spb/class.htm
If you notice, this guideline is the only guideline that may require disqualification of an individual seeking a security clearance. Take it from me gents, the government does not kid around when it comes to falsification issues. If fact, if you read any appeal decisions concerning denied clearances you will often find that individuals were denied clearances simply because they had lied about information, that in of itself, would have not disqualified them.
Anonymous,
I have absolutely no doubt that the above is true, but it simply does not address the dichotomy, in this case, between what is legal and what is right.
I would never advocate that anyone go around lying about just anything, and especially not in order to get a security clearance. However, I think lying about one's knowledge of countermeasures is not lying about "just anything". In fact, given polygraphers' documented propensities, I would submit such lying is essentially necessary if one is familar with how the polygraph works and still wishes to pass one. And this is to say nothing about the dreadful ethics and wrong-headedness involved in all aspects of polygraph screening itself.
Quote from: Anonymous on Jul 12, 2002, 03:20 AM
Again, I want to stress that I hate polygraphs and I do think, that because of how they're being abused, they should be banned. I do however disagree with some of the things said on this website, like in every aspect of life, the truth can be found somewhere between the middle of the two opposing opinions:
1. The point that polygraphers expect you to LIE to control questions is not necessary true. The only expectation is that you have a significant response to these questions. For example, if a question such as: Have you ever lied to anyone you love, is asked, the idea is that even after you admit all the times you remember having to a loved one, you will still be nervous about the question and therefore have a significant response. A polygrapher would definitely expect you to admit to any serious lie, i.e. having been involved in a crime, adultery, etc.
I believe the above would be an absolute best-case scenario. However, I would submit that, in most cases, it is far more likely that most applicants are deliberately and knowingly steered into outright "minor lies" by the polygrapher's words and actions.
Quote from: Anonymous on Jul 12, 2002, 03:20 AM
2. I do believe polygraphs detect deception and so do you! The fact is polygraphs detect bodily reactions and Lying does cause the body to react. Even countermeasures prove this point... The countermeasures advocated on this site suggest one produce a more significant response to control questions in order to minimize the significance of any reaction to revelant question. The problem with the polygraph is the LYING is not the only thing that can cause significant responses. I would have no problem with the polygraph if they were really used how they are supposed to be used - as an investigative aid to direct investigations. Unfortunately, many agencies put too much faith in the polygraph and many people end up getting hurt.
I can agree with much of what you wrote. However, it is simply not necessarily true that lying causes the body to react. I think it is more accurate to say guilt (read: internalized concern over being caught) may cause the body to respond. The whole point of the pre-test "pep talk" is to instill a fear of lying that may not have been there before.
Quote from: Anonymous on Jul 12, 2002, 03:20 AM
3. We as Americans have the right to disagree with, protest, and attempt to change laws, but we should not merely decide to ignore laws when they don't conform to our agendas.
In general, I strongly agree with you. As with all things, however, one must ultimately follow one's conscience.
Quote from: Anonymous on Jul 12, 2002, 03:20 AM
4. I think that the endless argument over the validity of the polygraph is a lost cause. Unfortunately for us, the general public is under the misconception that polygraphs are infalliable and no politician, especially after Sep 11, would in his right mind advocate the end of polygraphs in security investigations base on their validity. As I've stated before, we must turn to fight to an argument about: 1. How the government selectively uses polygraphs... i.e. us scrubs on the bottom of the barrel are required to undergo polygraphs, but politicians and powerful government officials are not. 2. We have to promote studies to show that polygraphs have not diminished the number of incidents of misconduct in the government. 3. We have to demand that if polygraphs are to be used, which they will be, they should only be used as a tool and not as an executioner.
I would not ignore the fact that the government is missing out on badly needed talent, and hurting loyal Americans in the process, by the use of the polygraph.
Skeptic
Posted by Anonymous
- Jul 12, 2002, 03:20 AMDear friends,
To further cover the point about Title 18 USC 1001 let me state this, you may call it civil disobedience or whatever you like, but this is a binding law that has teeth. If you fill out the SF-86 (form for national security positions), have an interview as part of your background check, or yes, undergo a federal preemployment polygraph, you are not only subject to Title 18, but you are also adviced to the fact that you are Subject to it.
If you think this is a law that is just taken lightly, I just ask you to consider the Forest Service employee involved in starting all the fires in Colorado... The first thing she was charged with was a violation of Title 18 for turning in a false report. This offense is punishable by up to a $10,000 fine and five years in prison.
Secondly, and more pertinent to the question of whether one should lie or not on the polygraph or any other part of an investigation is Guideline E of the Adjudicative Guidelines used by agencies throughout the federal government:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/spb/class.htm
If you notice, this guideline is the only guideline that may require disqualification of an individual seeking a security clearance. Take it from me gents, the government does not kid around when it comes to falsification issues. If fact, if you read any appeal decisions concerning denied clearances you will often find that individuals were denied clearances simply because they had lied about information, that in of itself, would have not disqualified them.
Again, I want to stress that I hate polygraphs and I do think, that because of how they're being abused, they should be banned. I do however disagree with some of the things said on this website, like in every aspect of life, the truth can be found somewhere between the middle of the two opposing opinions:
1. The point that polygraphers expect you to LIE to control questions is not necessary true. The only expectation is that you have a significant response to these questions. For example, if a question such as: Have you ever lied to anyone you love, is asked, the idea is that even after you admit all the times you remember having to a loved one, you will still be nervous about the question and therefore have a significant response. A polygrapher would definitely expect you to admit to any serious lie, i.e. having been involved in a crime, adultery, etc.
2. I do believe polygraphs detect deception and so do you! The fact is polygraphs detect bodily reactions and Lying does cause the body to react. Even countermeasures prove this point... The countermeasures advocated on this site suggest one produce a more significant response to control questions in order to minimize the significance of any reaction to revelant question. The problem with the polygraph is the LYING is not the only thing that can cause significant responses. I would have no problem with the polygraph if they were really used how they are supposed to be used - as an investigative aid to direct investigations. Unfortunately, many agencies put too much faith in the polygraph and many people end up getting hurt.
3. We as Americans have the right to disagree with, protest, and attempt to change laws, but we should not merely decide to ignore laws when they don't conform to our agendas.
4. I think that the endless argument over the validity of the polygraph is a lost cause. Unfortunately for us, the general public is under the misconception that polygraphs are infalliable and no politician, especially after Sep 11, would in his right mind advocate the end of polygraphs in security investigations base on their validity. As I've stated before, we must turn to fight to an argument about: 1. How the government selectively uses polygraphs... i.e. us scrubs on the bottom of the barrel are required to undergo polygraphs, but politicians and powerful government officials are not. 2. We have to promote studies to show that polygraphs have not diminished the number of incidents of misconduct in the government. 3. We have to demand that if polygraphs are to be used, which they will be, they should only be used as a tool and not as an executioner.
To further cover the point about Title 18 USC 1001 let me state this, you may call it civil disobedience or whatever you like, but this is a binding law that has teeth. If you fill out the SF-86 (form for national security positions), have an interview as part of your background check, or yes, undergo a federal preemployment polygraph, you are not only subject to Title 18, but you are also adviced to the fact that you are Subject to it.
If you think this is a law that is just taken lightly, I just ask you to consider the Forest Service employee involved in starting all the fires in Colorado... The first thing she was charged with was a violation of Title 18 for turning in a false report. This offense is punishable by up to a $10,000 fine and five years in prison.
Secondly, and more pertinent to the question of whether one should lie or not on the polygraph or any other part of an investigation is Guideline E of the Adjudicative Guidelines used by agencies throughout the federal government:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/spb/class.htm
If you notice, this guideline is the only guideline that may require disqualification of an individual seeking a security clearance. Take it from me gents, the government does not kid around when it comes to falsification issues. If fact, if you read any appeal decisions concerning denied clearances you will often find that individuals were denied clearances simply because they had lied about information, that in of itself, would have not disqualified them.
Again, I want to stress that I hate polygraphs and I do think, that because of how they're being abused, they should be banned. I do however disagree with some of the things said on this website, like in every aspect of life, the truth can be found somewhere between the middle of the two opposing opinions:
1. The point that polygraphers expect you to LIE to control questions is not necessary true. The only expectation is that you have a significant response to these questions. For example, if a question such as: Have you ever lied to anyone you love, is asked, the idea is that even after you admit all the times you remember having to a loved one, you will still be nervous about the question and therefore have a significant response. A polygrapher would definitely expect you to admit to any serious lie, i.e. having been involved in a crime, adultery, etc.
2. I do believe polygraphs detect deception and so do you! The fact is polygraphs detect bodily reactions and Lying does cause the body to react. Even countermeasures prove this point... The countermeasures advocated on this site suggest one produce a more significant response to control questions in order to minimize the significance of any reaction to revelant question. The problem with the polygraph is the LYING is not the only thing that can cause significant responses. I would have no problem with the polygraph if they were really used how they are supposed to be used - as an investigative aid to direct investigations. Unfortunately, many agencies put too much faith in the polygraph and many people end up getting hurt.
3. We as Americans have the right to disagree with, protest, and attempt to change laws, but we should not merely decide to ignore laws when they don't conform to our agendas.
4. I think that the endless argument over the validity of the polygraph is a lost cause. Unfortunately for us, the general public is under the misconception that polygraphs are infalliable and no politician, especially after Sep 11, would in his right mind advocate the end of polygraphs in security investigations base on their validity. As I've stated before, we must turn to fight to an argument about: 1. How the government selectively uses polygraphs... i.e. us scrubs on the bottom of the barrel are required to undergo polygraphs, but politicians and powerful government officials are not. 2. We have to promote studies to show that polygraphs have not diminished the number of incidents of misconduct in the government. 3. We have to demand that if polygraphs are to be used, which they will be, they should only be used as a tool and not as an executioner.
Posted by beech trees
- Jul 12, 2002, 12:02 AMQuote from: Anonymous on Jul 11, 2002, 07:09 PMA quick note to BeeTrees:
I personally think preemployment polygraphs are wrong because the government puts too much faith in them. I truly believe there use should be forbidden. BUT, I don't support the promotion of the use of Countermeasures in any way because in order to use countermeasures, one MUST lie. Standard and possible questions during a pre-test and a polygraph include:
1. Do you intend to tell me the truth during this interview.
2. What do you know about polygraphs.
3. What do you know about countermeasures
etc.
If one intends to employ countermeasures, it is obvious that he or she must lie to the types of questions above. As you well know, lying on a government security forms or interviews is a violation of Title 18 USC 1001 - this is a felony!
Anonymous,
Thanks for your reply. Food for thought/possible response on your part:
1. If we are to correctly and strictly interpret Title 18 USC 1001, then your polygraph interrogator is guilty of multiple felonies every time they polygraph a Federal government employee-- be it counterintelligence or criminal-specific in scope, they are still lying to and making false assertions about the nature of polygraphy as well as its accuracy many times over during each phase of a polygraph interrogation.
2. Consider that in a Constitutionally-limited form of government, the awesome scope of Title 18 USC 1001 is quite clearly un-Constitutional in a myriad of ways. Any law which is repugnant to the highest law of the land-- the U.S. Constitution-- is null and void.
QuoteSo if you didn't previously have to lie to the question about serious crime, you would have to after employing countermeasures. Secondly, although I'm sure countermeasures work, I'm also sure that the lay untrained person can't just use them without any problems - if this was true, nobody would be flunking polygraphs. So, although I think you mean well, I think that by pushing the use of countermeasures you might be sending some individuals to certain doom. I know this, most adjudicators are pretty forgiving of past transgressions, even semi-serious ones if they didn't occur recently, but one thing that will almost always lead to the denial of a clearance is any evidence of willful falsification or omission. Let's fight these stupid government policies, but lets not do it through supporting illegal means. Just my opinion.
I am a lay person, and with a little effort and a bit of moxy successfully passed my polygraph interrogation using countermeasures.
The ethics of lying is tangential to polygraphy (seeing as polygraphers expect you to lie during the course of a polygraph) and perhaps a topic for another discussion thread, but I am quite comfortable having deceived my deceivers.