- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 09, 2019, 03:53 PMKim Zetter reports for Politico that it was a tip from Russian computer security firm Kaspersky Lab that led to the identification and arrest of NSA contractor, hoarder of classified data, and polygraph beater Hal T. Martin III. Excerpt:
Quotehttps://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/09/russia-kaspersky-lab-nsa-cybersecurity-1089131
Exclusive: How a Russian firm helped catch an alleged NSA data thief
The U.S. has accused Kaspersky Lab of working with Russian spies. But sources say the company exposed a massive breach that U.S. authorities missed.
By KIM ZETTER
01/09/2019 05:01 AM EST
The 2016 arrest of a former National Security Agency contractor charged with a massive theft of classified data began with an unlikely source: a tip from a Russian cybersecurity firm that the U.S. government has called a threat to the country.
Moscow-based Kaspersky Lab turned Harold T. Martin III in to the NSA after receiving strange Twitter messages in 2016 from an account linked to him, according to two people with knowledge of the investigation. They spoke with POLITICO on condition of anonymity because they're not authorized to discuss the case.
The company's role in exposing Martin is a remarkable twist in an increasingly bizarre case that is believed to be the largest breach of classified material in U.S. history.
It indicates that the government's own internal monitoring systems and investigators had little to do with catching Martin, who prosecutors say took home an estimated 50 terabytes of data from the NSA and other government offices over a two-decade period, including some of the NSA's most sophisticated and sensitive hacking tools.
The revelation also introduces an ironic turn in the negative narrative the U.S. government has woven about the Russian company in recent years.
Under both the Obama and Trump administrations, officials have accused the company of colluding with Russian intelligence to steal and expose classified NSA tools, and in 2016 the FBI engaged in an aggressive behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit the company and get its software banned from U.S. government computers on national security grounds. But even while the FBI was doing this, the Russian firm was tipping off the bureau to an alleged intelligence thief in the government's own midst.
"It's irony piled on irony that people who worked at Kaspersky, who were already in the sights of the U.S. intelligence community, disclosed to them that they had this problem," said Stewart Baker, general counsel for the NSA in the 1990s and a current partner at Steptoe and Johnson. It's also discouraging, he noted, that the NSA apparently still hasn't "figured out a good way to find unreliable employees who are mishandling some of their most sensitive stuff."
"We all thought [Martin] got caught by renewed or heightened scrutiny, and instead it looks as though he got caught because he was an idiot," he told POLITICO.
Posted by xenonman
- Apr 06, 2017, 02:42 PMQuote from: quickfix on Oct 08, 2016, 03:30 PM
Accurate according to you, fantasy to the real world.
Thanks for your annotations, Auntie.
Of course, it is important to understand that the IC works in a world of "fantasy" and of obfuscation of facts.
That is why there are some contentious people on this site!
Posted by xenonman
- Mar 31, 2017, 12:25 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Oct 07, 2016, 05:55 AM
Harold Thomas Martin, III
On 27 August 2016, NSA contractor Harold Thomas (Hal) Martin, III of Glen Burnie, Maryland was arrestedbased on probable cause to believe that he improperly removed and retained at his home terabytes of top secret NSA documents.
According to the New York Times, Martin had been taking home classified material "since the late 1990s."
Has it ever been determined what his motivations for stashing documents at home were? This behavior would appear indicative of a "hoarding" or "pack rat" disorder, rather than espionage. :-/
Posted by xenonman
- Mar 31, 2017, 12:21 PMQuote from: AuntyAgony on Oct 08, 2016, 05:12 PMLet us now see if quickfix can form a single cogent argument in support of a single coherent fact:
Highly doubtful! lol
Posted by Wandersmann
- Oct 13, 2016, 12:26 PMQuote from: AuntyAgony on Oct 12, 2016, 09:57 PMAnyone who says the effectiveness of the lie detector has been measured is wrong. Anyone who says he is a scientist and also says the effectiveness of the lie detector has been measured is a liar.
Now, another necessary and important part of science discipline is not lying. So to answer your question: No, there are no scientists among the APA's home-grown researchers and cargo-cult statisticians.
Amen Aunty !!!!!! Well stated. What strikes me is that after every American schoolchild learns of the insanity of the Salem Witch Trials at the end of the 17th century there are millions of Americans who can not see that today's use of the polygraph is no different than what happened 300 + years ago in Massachusetts. Scientists studying the polygraph would have the same challenge that scientists would have trying to prove that a person born with a clubbed foot was actually a prodigy of the devil. One can't disprove it either even if one is a devout athiest. Therein is the heart of the problem. Both the witchburners and the polygraph examiners are dealing in a realm where nothing can be proven or dis-proven. The occasional, and I do mean occasional, confession of someone who falls for this B.S. is all they have to hang their hat on. Anyone who claims that a reaction to a relevant question can only be a lie and not caused by concern over failing a polygraph is the biggest liar of all time.
Posted by Aunty Agony
- Oct 12, 2016, 09:57 PMQuote from: danmangan on Oct 11, 2016, 08:25 PMAunty, in your world model, are the APA's home-grown researchers and statisticians legitimate scientists?If by "legitimate scientists" you mean "persons who are legally permitted to label themselves as scientists", then yes, I'm sure there are a few BS and MS degrees among them. People take academic degrees for a variety of reasons, most of which have to do with living indoors and not starving.
But if by "legitimate scientists" you mean "persons who truly practice science", then no, I've seen no evidence of that. (Uness you insist on allowing "scientist" to include "sometimes a scientist", that is, "person who might be practicing science somewhere else but is definitely not using science to study the polygraph as a lie detector".)
Science is a rigidly defined and highly disciplined way of examining the world and making predictions about it. A necessary and important part of its discipline is not caring what answer you get. The instant you conceive a preference for one fact over another, you rip the foundations out of the whole process.
But proponents of the polygraph as a lie detector need certain facts to be true; therefore there can be no true scientists among them.
As far as experiments go, I'm sure any scientist could tell you how to answer the question, "Can the polygraph be used to tell if a person is lying?"
The method is simple. Using data gathered in the field (where liars suffer real consequences), tally the number of subjects who pass and the number who fail. Independently, tally the number who were lying and the number who were honest. This would yield four categories:
Liar who passed (false negative)
Liar who failed (detected liar)
Honest who passed (detected honest)
Honest who failed (false positive)
(If the count of 'false negative' and 'false positive' is small, and the count of 'detected liar' and 'detected honest' is large, the test is good. If the ratio "false negative"/"detected honest" nearly matches the ratio "detected liar"/"false positive", the test is worthless.)
The problem with this experiment is that the second independent observation, the number who were lying vs. the number who were honest, has never been done. Millions of public sector applicants have been subjected to "lie detector" based interrogations. No one -- no one -- knows how many of them were lying.
Many polygraph proponents have put a number to the effectiveness claims for their methods, and attempted to support that number by correlating the pass-fail observation with some other observation. Invariably they are referring, one way or another, to the number of confessions obtained during the post-test interrogation.
But the post-test confessions are an indicator only of the skill and rapaciousness of the examiner; the best interrogators can make their victims say anything. They are in no way an independent observation of whether the subject was lying or honest. These confessions are part of the test.
I believe that building a picture of how many polygraph subjects have actually lied would be extremely difficult and would require a well-funded long-term study by some very patient and dedicated scientists. (Real scientists, not merely legitimate ones.) So far, no such body of data exists.
So we have the first observation, the number who passed vs. the number who failed, but we have nothing to correlate it with. No claims about the effectiveness of the polygraph lie detector can be made without such a correlation. Any scientist would know this and would not venture to make such a claim.
Anyone who says the effectiveness of the lie detector has been measured is wrong. Anyone who says he is a scientist and also says the effectiveness of the lie detector has been measured is a liar.
Now, another necessary and important part of science discipline is not lying. So to answer your question: No, there are no scientists among the APA's home-grown researchers and cargo-cult statisticians.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Oct 11, 2016, 08:25 PMAunty, in your world model, are the APA's home-grown researchers and statisticians legitimate scientists?
Posted by Aunty Agony
- Oct 11, 2016, 08:02 AMQuote from: danmangan on Oct 11, 2016, 05:39 AMPerhaps you had me confused with Chad Dixon?I guarantee you that Dan Mangan and Chad Dixon occupy very different localities in Aunty's world model.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Oct 11, 2016, 05:39 AMQuote from: AuntyAgony on Oct 11, 2016, 12:53 AMSo -- he had no need for his own Doug Williams or Dan Mangan -- just pillow talk
Aunty, let me be clear: I do not teach, coach or provide advice on countermeasures.
As a full member of the American Polygraph Association, I serve primarily as a polygraph consultant and examiner who strives to preemptively reduce victimization by educating consumers -- both primary and secondary -- about the risks, realities and limitations of the polygraph "test."
I continue to administer polygraph "tests" in select cases, and conduct QA reviews of polygraph exams.
Perhaps you had me confused with Chad Dixon?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 11, 2016, 01:18 AMAunty,
The same thought occurred to me, and I suspect Elizabeth Martin has already been questioned regarding what information about polygraphy she imparted to her ex-husband, Hal.
The same thought occurred to me, and I suspect Elizabeth Martin has already been questioned regarding what information about polygraphy she imparted to her ex-husband, Hal.
Posted by Aunty Agony
- Oct 11, 2016, 12:53 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Oct 10, 2016, 01:45 AMHow do you suppose Hal Martin, who reportedly had been collecting classified documents at his home since 1999, was able to pass a polygraph screening test?All references to Hal Martin describe him as independently curious, and deeply interested in detecting pathologies such as PTSD via direct histological examination of a patient's behavior -- the same techniques used by military and police interrogators, and so crudely mechanized by the polygraph.
Martin's ex-wife Elizabeth is a formidible person who served in military and civilian police, and in 1996 became a highly trained and thoroughly certified polygrapher. I can't find when they were divorced but she evidently had at least some contact with him until 1999.
This means he had roughly three years to pump her about how the polygraph works.
If they were on speaking terms, and as she had no reason to suspect he might someday so spectacularly shatter government security protocols, she probably shared so much information with him that he could have written another How To Sting The Polygraph or even The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
So -- he had no need for his own Doug Williams or Dan Mangan -- just pillow talk.
Posted by quickfix
- Oct 10, 2016, 11:55 AMQuote from: AuntyAgony on Oct 10, 2016, 11:36 AMAll other announcements, press releases, and blog postings from John Schwartz (CBP), Fred Ball (CBP), Leslie Caldwell (DOJ), Brian Kidd (DOJ), James Finch (FBI), or quickfix are steaming piles of digested grass.
And that's what convicted felon Dougy will have slopped on to his tray for dinner in the prison chow hall!
Posted by Aunty Agony
- Oct 10, 2016, 11:54 AMI cannot help wondering how much overlap there is between the security violations of Harold T. Martin III and the similar security violations of Hilary R. Clinton.
As far as we know, neither miscreant harbored treasonous intent nor expected to profit from the activity; and in neither case is the breach known to have caused significant harm to the United States nor given aid or comfort to its enemies.
As far as we know, neither miscreant harbored treasonous intent nor expected to profit from the activity; and in neither case is the breach known to have caused significant harm to the United States nor given aid or comfort to its enemies.
Posted by Aunty Agony
- Oct 10, 2016, 11:36 AMQuoteIt seems that if teaching how to pass a poly was a crime, Doug would have been charged with that. Hence, teaching poly beating is not a crime, correct?Correct.
Only the indictment itself is a true bill of the facts. All other announcements, press releases, and blog postings from John Schwartz (CBP), Fred Ball (CBP), Leslie Caldwell (DOJ), Brian Kidd (DOJ), James Finch (FBI), or quickfix are steaming piles of digested grass.
Posted by Aunty Agony
- Oct 10, 2016, 10:15 AMQuote from: AuntyAgony on Oct 08, 2016, 03:00 PMDoug Williams was not sent to prison for teaching how to beat the poly
Quote from: quickfix on Oct 08, 2016, 03:30 PMOf course he was. He pled guilty.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Oct 08, 2016, 05:12 PMTo what crime did Doug Williams plead guilty?
Quote from: quickfix on Oct 10, 2016, 07:50 AMMail Fraud and Witness Tampering are the federal crimes that Doug Williams pleaded guilty toSo you agree with me, then.
As I said, Aunty just likes to keep the public record accurate.