- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by xenonman
- Nov 01, 2016, 02:12 PMQuoteThis is a sad day. Another federal agency has succumbed to using pseudo-science polygraphy.
:-(
Time was when the FBI also did not routinely use the polygraph for employment screening purposes.
Posted by xenonman
- Nov 01, 2016, 02:05 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Oct 17, 2016, 01:58 PMFelix Bloch was never charged with, let alone convicted of, espionage. But if he were a spy, the odds that the polygraph would have caught him are approximately zero.
Ironically, he was later convicted in NC of the much more mundane crime of shoplifting!
Posted by xenonman
- Oct 29, 2016, 12:43 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Oct 17, 2016, 01:58 PMFelix Bloch was never charged with, let alone convicted of, espionage. But if he were a spy, the odds that the polygraph would have caught him are approximately zero.
No, he was never even arrested because the investigation of him had deteriorated into a wild "media circus".
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 17, 2016, 01:58 PMFelix Bloch was never charged with, let alone convicted of, espionage. But if he were a spy, the odds that the polygraph would have caught him are approximately zero.
Posted by xenonman
- Oct 17, 2016, 01:17 PMThey're afraid of more Felix Bloch incidents!
Posted by Visitor
- Oct 15, 2016, 08:44 PMWell this is a losing situation for the employee. If the Department has the option to accept or reject the polygraph results no matter what the outcome, whether the employee passes or fails the Department does not mean anything if the Department is already out to end the career of the employee.
Posted by Savannah Isis
- Oct 15, 2016, 11:28 AMFrom 12 FAM 251.4-3(D) Exculpation
a. A polygraph examination may be authorized for the purpose of exculpation. The request for such examination may be initiated by an applicant, intern, employee, or contractor of a U.S. Government agency, who is the subject of a criminal, personnel security, or counterintelligence investigation. A DSS special agent or Department OIG investigator may also advise the prospective examinee that he or she has the option of undergoing an exculpatory polygraph examination, but may not obligate the Department to abide by the results of the examination.
+++
So the examinee may undergo an exculpatory examination, but the agency is not obligated to abide by the results.
Yet polygraph is supposed to "work". :-)
This is an admission it doesn't.
a. A polygraph examination may be authorized for the purpose of exculpation. The request for such examination may be initiated by an applicant, intern, employee, or contractor of a U.S. Government agency, who is the subject of a criminal, personnel security, or counterintelligence investigation. A DSS special agent or Department OIG investigator may also advise the prospective examinee that he or she has the option of undergoing an exculpatory polygraph examination, but may not obligate the Department to abide by the results of the examination.
+++
So the examinee may undergo an exculpatory examination, but the agency is not obligated to abide by the results.
Yet polygraph is supposed to "work". :-)
This is an admission it doesn't.
Posted by xenonman
- Oct 01, 2016, 01:59 AMQuoteWe used to be able to say that the U.S. Department of State (DOS) was one agency that did not use polygraphs, however as of September 1, 2016, this is no longer the case.
Does this mean that everyone in INR will now have to be polygraphed? How about the Diplomatic Security Service? :-/
Posted by Visitor
- Sep 30, 2016, 05:42 PMWe used to be able to say that the U.S. Department of State (DOS) was one agency that did not use polygraphs, however as of September 1, 2016, this is no longer the case.
See the DOS policies here:
https://fam.state.gov/fam/12fam/12fam0250.html
The date in brown at the top of the page and under each section shows the date the policy was initiated. The black standard font means the policy is official, the purple italic font means some final approver has to click a button to make the policy official, but that is more of a formality because the policy has been finalized and already implemented.
If you read through it, the polygraph is NOT used for pre-employment screening...yet. However, the polygraph can be used if you are under criminal investigation, if the department believes you have counterintelligence issues, if you are working with the Intelligence Community, or if you need to be part of some super-secret Special Access Program. Before this policy was created, employees could get TS clearance with SCI and SAP access without a polygraph. Now it looks like SCI and SAP may require the polygraph.
The policy also describes the polygraph is detail about the pre-test, post-test, irrelevant questions, and the like.
This is a sad day. Another federal agency has succumbed to using pseudo-science polygraphy.
:-(
See the DOS policies here:
https://fam.state.gov/fam/12fam/12fam0250.html
The date in brown at the top of the page and under each section shows the date the policy was initiated. The black standard font means the policy is official, the purple italic font means some final approver has to click a button to make the policy official, but that is more of a formality because the policy has been finalized and already implemented.
If you read through it, the polygraph is NOT used for pre-employment screening...yet. However, the polygraph can be used if you are under criminal investigation, if the department believes you have counterintelligence issues, if you are working with the Intelligence Community, or if you need to be part of some super-secret Special Access Program. Before this policy was created, employees could get TS clearance with SCI and SAP access without a polygraph. Now it looks like SCI and SAP may require the polygraph.
The policy also describes the polygraph is detail about the pre-test, post-test, irrelevant questions, and the like.
This is a sad day. Another federal agency has succumbed to using pseudo-science polygraphy.
:-(