- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 18, 2003, 12:12 AMCC
I would love to go moose hunting and salmon fishing. I love salmon. Grew up bird hunting so it's hard to shake. Don't know your personal circumstances on your polygraph so I can't comment. And once again CC you're wrong. I am a federal examiner, just not an NSA examiner. I do have acquaintances who are NSA examiner's and I find them to be quite competent and skilled at what they do. In fact I would match their program with just about anyone's in the federal government. Their screening exams just aren't my cup of tea.
I would love to go moose hunting and salmon fishing. I love salmon. Grew up bird hunting so it's hard to shake. Don't know your personal circumstances on your polygraph so I can't comment. And once again CC you're wrong. I am a federal examiner, just not an NSA examiner. I do have acquaintances who are NSA examiner's and I find them to be quite competent and skilled at what they do. In fact I would match their program with just about anyone's in the federal government. Their screening exams just aren't my cup of tea.
Posted by Canadian Crusader
- Jul 16, 2003, 10:47 PMLOL I need this site to pass the time at work. Additionally I have a personal interest in this debate as I was "screwed" without even a kiss first by one of you so called professional polygraphers.
PS I love to moose hunt and salmon fishing is out of the question as I am landlocked here in good old Alberta!
Saidme, I take it you are a municipal cop turned polygrapher that is excluded from abiding by the "boring crap" rules as "mandated" by the NSA?
PS I love to moose hunt and salmon fishing is out of the question as I am landlocked here in good old Alberta!
Saidme, I take it you are a municipal cop turned polygrapher that is excluded from abiding by the "boring crap" rules as "mandated" by the NSA?
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 16, 2003, 10:01 PMCC
You've got to get a life. If you're resorting to reading some boring crap produced by the NSA. Go moose hunting or salmon fishing.
You've got to get a life. If you're resorting to reading some boring crap produced by the NSA. Go moose hunting or salmon fishing.
Posted by Canadian Crusader
- Jul 16, 2003, 05:47 PMQuestion.. what exactly is the NSA saying here?? Are they admitting that the charts themselves are useless?
6. Use of Polygraph Examination Results:
a. Any final administrative determinations rendered in cases
in which a polygraph examination is taken shall not be based on the results of
an analysis of the polygraph charts.
This kills me too.
ANNEX C
e. The polygraph instrument shall not be utilized as a
psychological prop in conducting interrogations.
If they can't rely on the charts and can't use the machine for its intended purpose then why are they paying examiners to perform pre-employment polys?
Another laugh.
5. Public Demonstrations. Polygraph examiners shall not participate
in any public demonstration of the polygraph technique that includes a mock
test in which there is an attempt to interpret the results of the test. This
does not preclude a public demonstration to show the physiological changes that
take place during emotional stimulation, provided no attempt is made to
interpret the changes and no unfounded claims of application or reliability are
made. Only polygraph examiners certified under the provisions of Annex C of
this Regulation may be used as instructors, lecturers, or demonstrators of the
polygraph.
They are only allowed to show us poor lay people how the fancy machine charts BP and heart rate. I can go to any corner drug store and get the same show for free!
Sounds like the NSA knows its limitations as a way of measuring physiological changes only. Yet they contravene their own policy when interrogating someone after the test.
6. Use of Polygraph Examination Results:
a. Any final administrative determinations rendered in cases
in which a polygraph examination is taken shall not be based on the results of
an analysis of the polygraph charts.
This kills me too.
ANNEX C
e. The polygraph instrument shall not be utilized as a
psychological prop in conducting interrogations.
If they can't rely on the charts and can't use the machine for its intended purpose then why are they paying examiners to perform pre-employment polys?
Another laugh.
5. Public Demonstrations. Polygraph examiners shall not participate
in any public demonstration of the polygraph technique that includes a mock
test in which there is an attempt to interpret the results of the test. This
does not preclude a public demonstration to show the physiological changes that
take place during emotional stimulation, provided no attempt is made to
interpret the changes and no unfounded claims of application or reliability are
made. Only polygraph examiners certified under the provisions of Annex C of
this Regulation may be used as instructors, lecturers, or demonstrators of the
polygraph.
They are only allowed to show us poor lay people how the fancy machine charts BP and heart rate. I can go to any corner drug store and get the same show for free!
Sounds like the NSA knows its limitations as a way of measuring physiological changes only. Yet they contravene their own policy when interrogating someone after the test.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 03, 2003, 10:10 AMGood news -- NSA released the requested information on 28 April 2003, with only minor redactions. NSA's polygraph regulation and supporting documentation is now available here:
http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml#NSA
http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml#NSA
Posted by Fred F.
- Mar 23, 2003, 01:11 AMGeorge,
Another hurdle has been cleared. Let's hope that the NSA doesn't spend another year "processing" the FOIA request.
CONGRATULATIONS !!!!
Fred F.
Another hurdle has been cleared. Let's hope that the NSA doesn't spend another year "processing" the FOIA request.
CONGRATULATIONS !!!!
Fred F.
Posted by triple x
- Mar 22, 2003, 10:53 PMCongratulations George, well done.
Triple x
Triple x
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 22, 2003, 08:37 AMThe NSA has approved AntiPolygraph.org's fee waiver appeal. See the following letter from William B. Black, the NSA's Freedom of Information/Privacy Act appeal authority:
http://antipolygraph.org/foia/foia-011-3.shtml
http://antipolygraph.org/foia/foia-011-3.shtml
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 23, 2002, 06:01 AMOn 22 November 2002, I sent the NSA Freedom of Information office a fee waiver appeal.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 29, 2002, 05:43 AMVance,
You write:
Yes, that's right, assuming it would actually take the NSA two worker-days to locate its own polygraph regulation and any associated rules, regulations, or directives. I'm not confident that the NSA's estimate of the search time for this request was made in good faith.
Note that the Department of Defense's implementing rule for the Freedom of Information Act (DoD 5400.7-R, September 1998) provides (at para. C6.1.5.1) that "[f]ees may not be used to discourage requesters..." (emphasis added)
DoD 5400.7-R contemplates (at para. C6.1.4.3.1) fee waivers for requests where "[d]isclosure of the information 'is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the Government.'" I think this public interest clause clearly applies to AntiPolygraph.org's request.
As Skeptic pointed out, processing a FOIA request does not necessarily mean taking an NSA employee away from intelligence gathering and/or analysis duties. Presumably, the NSA FOIA office staff are competent to locate the requested records.
Wrong. Only "direct charges" may be assessed as fees. As defined by DoD 5400.7-R, para. C6.1.2.2, "[t]he term 'direct costs' means those expenditures a Component actually makes in searching for, reviewing (in the case of commercial requesters), and duplicating documents to respond to a FOIA request. Direct costs include, for example, the salary of the employee performing the work (the basic rate of pay for the employee plus 16 percent of that rate to cover benefits), and the costs of operating duplicating machinery. These factors have been included in the fee rates prescribed at Section C6.2. of this Chapter. Not included in direct costs are overhead expenses such as costs of space, heating or lighting the facility in which the records are stored."
When you speak of "wasted productivity" involved in processing this FOIA request, you seem to imply that it's not important: a frivolous waste of time and taxpayer money. If such is your view, I would strongly disagree.
The NSA operates perhaps the largest polygraph screening program within the U.S. Government, affecting the lives of thousands of U.S. citizens. The requested documents govern that polygraph program. Decisions to hire or not to hire employees, or to grant or deny security clearances to employees and contractors, and are made on the basis thereof.
We know from public source information that the NSA is using the Relevant/Irrelevant polygraph technique -- one that is completely discredited from a scientific viewpoint (you agree, don't you Vance?) -- in making such decisions. The American public (including, especially, those whose lives have been, are, or will be directly affected) by this nonsense ought to have the ability to review the regulations whereby weighty decisions affecting the lives of so many U.S. citizens are being made. At present, such a review is not possible, because the NSA's polygraph regulation is not publicly available. It is, in effect, "secret law."
Once the regulation is released pursuant to AntiPolygraph.org's request, then any member of the public with Internet access will be able to easily locate and review it. It will "contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the Government."
You write:
Quote1) if you don't pay it, the rest of the taxpayers do
Yes, that's right, assuming it would actually take the NSA two worker-days to locate its own polygraph regulation and any associated rules, regulations, or directives. I'm not confident that the NSA's estimate of the search time for this request was made in good faith.
Note that the Department of Defense's implementing rule for the Freedom of Information Act (DoD 5400.7-R, September 1998) provides (at para. C6.1.5.1) that "[f]ees may not be used to discourage requesters..." (emphasis added)
DoD 5400.7-R contemplates (at para. C6.1.4.3.1) fee waivers for requests where "[d]isclosure of the information 'is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the Government.'" I think this public interest clause clearly applies to AntiPolygraph.org's request.
Quote2) if you take an NSA employee away from more important duties (ie catching spies, terrorists, criminals, other scum), those duties don't get done.
As Skeptic pointed out, processing a FOIA request does not necessarily mean taking an NSA employee away from intelligence gathering and/or analysis duties. Presumably, the NSA FOIA office staff are competent to locate the requested records.
QuoteBy the way, the $44 per hour rate is probably not what the employee gets paid; it is the cost to the organization in wasted productivity, etc.
Wrong. Only "direct charges" may be assessed as fees. As defined by DoD 5400.7-R, para. C6.1.2.2, "[t]he term 'direct costs' means those expenditures a Component actually makes in searching for, reviewing (in the case of commercial requesters), and duplicating documents to respond to a FOIA request. Direct costs include, for example, the salary of the employee performing the work (the basic rate of pay for the employee plus 16 percent of that rate to cover benefits), and the costs of operating duplicating machinery. These factors have been included in the fee rates prescribed at Section C6.2. of this Chapter. Not included in direct costs are overhead expenses such as costs of space, heating or lighting the facility in which the records are stored."
When you speak of "wasted productivity" involved in processing this FOIA request, you seem to imply that it's not important: a frivolous waste of time and taxpayer money. If such is your view, I would strongly disagree.
The NSA operates perhaps the largest polygraph screening program within the U.S. Government, affecting the lives of thousands of U.S. citizens. The requested documents govern that polygraph program. Decisions to hire or not to hire employees, or to grant or deny security clearances to employees and contractors, and are made on the basis thereof.
We know from public source information that the NSA is using the Relevant/Irrelevant polygraph technique -- one that is completely discredited from a scientific viewpoint (you agree, don't you Vance?) -- in making such decisions. The American public (including, especially, those whose lives have been, are, or will be directly affected) by this nonsense ought to have the ability to review the regulations whereby weighty decisions affecting the lives of so many U.S. citizens are being made. At present, such a review is not possible, because the NSA's polygraph regulation is not publicly available. It is, in effect, "secret law."
Once the regulation is released pursuant to AntiPolygraph.org's request, then any member of the public with Internet access will be able to easily locate and review it. It will "contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the Government."
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 28, 2002, 08:20 PMVance,
Here are two good answers to your points:
Considering Antipolygraph.org's actions in particular, and FOIA in general are solidly in the category of "public service" (you don't run a democracy without information, and the polygraph is a bad policy in need of change), the taxpayers are the ones who benefit; why shouldn't they foot the bill?
For that matter, do you have any idea how much money that comes to per taxpayer? I'm willing to bet you'll still be putting food on the table after paying for this FOIA search.
FOIA requests don't take people away from more important duties. They aren't pulling agents off of cases for this -- they have an FOIA office.
And while I certainly think we want to focus on catching the above-mentioned bad guys, if we do so while losing the focus on constitutional government and protection of American freedoms (which the FOIA is designed to do), what's the point?
Skeptic
Here are two good answers to your points:
Quote from: Vance on Sep 28, 2002, 07:24 PM
Hi,
Here are two good non-Orwellian reasons to charge you the expenses associated with your FOIA request:
1) if you don't pay it, the rest of the taxpayers do
Considering Antipolygraph.org's actions in particular, and FOIA in general are solidly in the category of "public service" (you don't run a democracy without information, and the polygraph is a bad policy in need of change), the taxpayers are the ones who benefit; why shouldn't they foot the bill?
For that matter, do you have any idea how much money that comes to per taxpayer? I'm willing to bet you'll still be putting food on the table after paying for this FOIA search.
Quote2) if you take an NSA employee away from more important duties (ie catching spies, terrorists, criminals, other scum), those duties don't get done.
FOIA requests don't take people away from more important duties. They aren't pulling agents off of cases for this -- they have an FOIA office.
And while I certainly think we want to focus on catching the above-mentioned bad guys, if we do so while losing the focus on constitutional government and protection of American freedoms (which the FOIA is designed to do), what's the point?
Skeptic
Posted by Vance
- Sep 28, 2002, 07:24 PMHi,
Here are two good non-Orwellian reasons to charge you the expenses associated with your FOIA request:
1) if you don't pay it, the rest of the taxpayers do
2) if you take an NSA employee away from more important duties (ie catching spies, terrorists, criminals, other scum), those duties don't get done.
By the way, the $44 per hour rate is probably not what the employee gets paid; it is the cost to the organization in wasted productivity, etc.
-Vance
Here are two good non-Orwellian reasons to charge you the expenses associated with your FOIA request:
1) if you don't pay it, the rest of the taxpayers do
2) if you take an NSA employee away from more important duties (ie catching spies, terrorists, criminals, other scum), those duties don't get done.
By the way, the $44 per hour rate is probably not what the employee gets paid; it is the cost to the organization in wasted productivity, etc.
-Vance
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 27, 2002, 12:08 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 26, 2002, 05:24 PM
Skeptic,
Be sure to note that the name of this site is "AntiPolygraph.org" (antipolygraph-dot-org).We included the dot-org part as an integral part of the name and logo so that any reference to the website would include the URL in an easy-to-remember form.
Thanks for the correction, George -- I'll remember that in the future.
Skeptic
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 26, 2002, 05:24 PMSkeptic,
Be sure to note that the name of this site is "AntiPolygraph.org" (antipolygraph-dot-org). We included the dot-org part as an integral part of the name and logo so that any reference to the website would include the URL in an easy-to-remember form.
Be sure to note that the name of this site is "AntiPolygraph.org" (antipolygraph-dot-org).
We included the dot-org part as an integral part of the name and logo so that any reference to the website would include the URL in an easy-to-remember form.Posted by beech trees
- Sep 26, 2002, 04:59 PMQuoteThe decision to deny your fee waiver request is based on Item (3); whether the disclosure of the requested information will contribute to the understanding of the public at large. You have not demonstrated that you have the skills and knowledge to turn the information, should any be located and processed for release, into a product beneficial to the general public. Making information available to the public by posting any responsive documents this Agency provides you on your website does not demonstrate that the information will significantly contribute to the understanding of the public at large. Therefore the public would not be the primary beneficiary of the disclosure, as intended by the Act.
Petty tyrants.
I would reply with a question along the lines of:
"Understanding beforehand that I will disseminate the information provided to me as part of my FOIA request in *any* manner that you deem as 'benefitting the public's understanding' (except expurgation or censorship of the requested documents), please list specifically how I may do so and I will immediately implement such practices."
I would also request names and titles of all people responding to you George, explaining that you wish to know the exact spelling so that the media may publish the names correctly.