- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Marty
- Sep 12, 2003, 10:04 PMQuote from: Skeptic on Sep 12, 2003, 07:46 PM
Of course. But it also doesn't mean such basis does exist, either, and since the people in question want to use the polygraph and (in some cases) have a vested interest in it, the burden is upon them to prove that utility, rather than upon others to prove the negative.
I agree. In fact it would be quite impossible to prove a negative in this instance. That said, there is no obligation (though it would certainly be desireable) to disclose any proven utility to the outside.
QuoteOTOH, letting people know that you have a padlock on your door, and that its a 3" Masterlock made of hardened steel, and that 10 burglars have tried without success to open the lock, would likely have a deterrent effect. ...In general, any information one discloses to an adversary, about whether something works or not, is useful to allow refocussing resources. As for the more capable adversarys, knowing the mechanics and weaknesses of polygraphs is a long way from knowing the kind of statistical information that is lacking here.
... If you are dealing with an adversary who is sophisticated enough to scientifically structure an effective breach of security, you're likely dealing with someone who is capable of doing their own studies on polygraphs and knows the weaknesses full well. If this is the case, failing to release not just full details but *any* details regarding how the polygraph has or has not caught spies only serves to keep ourselves in the dark regarding its utility.
That said, I do believe and I think anecdotal and published evidence supports, some types of countermeasures, especially combined with practice on a polygraph, could be very effective. Enough so as to effectively limit the main use of the poly to a prophylactic utility. It likely is far less effective against well trained moles. Since we have caught some of these spys, it would be interesting to learn what training they recieved re polys. Don't think we will ever see that in public though.
-Marty
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 12, 2003, 07:57 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 12, 2003, 06:28 PMDoes anyone else find it curious that details of apparently all of polygraph screening's purported counterespionage successes to which Mr. McSlarrow referred remain classified (bearing in mind that the U.S. government has been doing this for 50+ years), and apparently none led to criminal prosecutions?
To me, that last point is especially damning. Makes you wonder how much boasting is going on, as in "we are pretty sure we've stopped a bunch of spies, but we could never actually prove any of them were spies. Still, we're going to claim these as polygraph successes anyway".
Skeptic
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 12, 2003, 07:46 PMQuote from: Marty on Sep 12, 2003, 06:11 PMSkeptic,
I found Kyle's rationalization nuanced and not totally without merit.
Just because they haven't provided the basis for statistical utility doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Of course. But it also doesn't mean such basis does exist, either, and since the people in question want to use the polygraph and (in some cases) have a vested interest in it, the burden is upon them to prove that utility, rather than upon others to prove the negative.
QuoteAs for info of use to adversaries, any information that were to indicate the poly either more or less reliable in actual usage would be of value in structuring an attack. Adversaries depend on a global assessment of both strengths and weaknesses in order to optimize and target.
And again, I'll say "perhaps". Some details (such as the combination on a lock) are clearly helpful to an adversary. OTOH, letting people know that you have a padlock on your door, and that its a 3" Masterlock made of hardened steel, and that 10 burglars have tried without success to open the lock, would likely have a deterrent effect. Telling people what tools have been tried might or might not be a bad idea. It all depends upon the nature of the information, and what your adversary already knows.
From a certain point-of-view, simply letting people know that we polygraph could be useful to those looking for a way in. But look at it this way: if you are dealing with an adversary who is sophisticated enough to scientifically structure an effective breach of security, you're likely dealing with someone who is capable of doing their own studies on polygraphs and knows the weaknesses full well. If this is the case, failing to release not just full details but *any* details regarding how the polygraph has or has not caught spies only serves to keep ourselves in the dark regarding its utility.
QuoteStill, the poly as a screening tool for knowledgable examinees is offensive and irritating.
I agree with you, and as regards current usage, I'll throw in "detrimental to one's career and mental health".
QuoteBecause of that, I respect the poeple that are willing to go through it to provide service to this country. It's more than I would do.
Same for me.
Skeptic
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 12, 2003, 06:28 PMDoes anyone else find it curious that details of apparently all of polygraph screening's purported counterespionage successes to which Mr. McSlarrow referred remain classified (bearing in mind that the U.S. government has been doing this for 50+ years), and apparently none led to criminal prosecutions?
Posted by Marty
- Sep 12, 2003, 06:11 PMSkeptic,
I found Kyle's rationalization nuanced and not totally without merit.
Just because they haven't provided the basis for statistical utility doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
As for info of use to adversaries, any information that were to indicate the poly either more or less reliable in actual usage would be of value in structuring an attack. Adversaries depend on a global assessment of both strengths and weaknesses in order to optimize and target.
Still, the poly as a screening tool for knowledgable examinees is offensive and irritating. Because of that, I respect the poeple that are willing to go through it to provide service to this country. It's more than I would do.
-Marty
I found Kyle's rationalization nuanced and not totally without merit.
Just because they haven't provided the basis for statistical utility doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
As for info of use to adversaries, any information that were to indicate the poly either more or less reliable in actual usage would be of value in structuring an attack. Adversaries depend on a global assessment of both strengths and weaknesses in order to optimize and target.
Still, the poly as a screening tool for knowledgable examinees is offensive and irritating. Because of that, I respect the poeple that are willing to go through it to provide service to this country. It's more than I would do.
-Marty
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 12, 2003, 05:34 PMQuote from: Marty on Sep 12, 2003, 02:23 PM
While true, predictive value is not established for many qualification standards. OTOH, one can argue establishing predictive value should be a precondition for highly invasive processes as the polygraph.
Well, Marty, as long as you're going to rebut your own position
QuoteOTOH, I think it is obvious that if such information was available, it would not be prudent to publish it's detail as it would be valuable for adversaries.
Perhaps, perhaps not. In fact, I would think some details would serve as a deterrent to adversaries...
Skeptic
Posted by Marty
- Sep 12, 2003, 02:23 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 12, 2003, 01:46 PMWhile true, predictive value is not established for many qualification standards. OTOH, one can argue establishing predictive value should be a precondition for highly invasive processes as the polygraph.
No one is arguing here that props (including the polygraph) cannot be useful in interrogations. But as the National Academy of Sciences noted in its report, there is essentially no evidence on the additive validity of polygraphy (its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other means).
QuoteOTOH, I think it is obvious that if such information was available, it would not be prudent to publish it's detail as it would be valuable for adversaries.
And as Dr. Fienberg pointed out, the handful of purported successes of the polygraph that Kyle McSlarrow adduced are of no statistical value.
QuotePerhaps this is true over the long term, but it would appear that the new information discovered from admissions remains at a fairly high level and so the "long term" may be much further out. Admission rates are likley a good proxy for the effectiveness of the polygraph "bluff."
Polygraph screening is a fraud, as more and more of us who are or have been subject to it are learning. As Dr. Richardson has pointed out before, continued polygraph screening would require such a universal bluff as to be impractical over the long term.
Quote
Do you agree with Kyle McSlarrow's stated plan for continued reliance on polygraph screening?
I don't know enough about it to make that determination assuming a purely utilitatian approach. OTOH, I have a very visceral reaction to the idea of false positives from a screening test that is deceptive on it's face. It appears Kyle has adopted a utilitarian approach and has factored in consequences such as loss of talent, etc.
-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 12, 2003, 01:46 PMMarty,
Thank you for the clarification!
No one is arguing here that props (including the polygraph) cannot be useful in interrogations. But as the National Academy of Sciences noted in its report, there is essentially no evidence on the additive validity of polygraphy (its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other means). And as Dr. Fienberg pointed out, the handful of purported successes of the polygraph that Kyle McSlarrow adduced are of no statistical value.
Polygraph screening is a fraud, as more and more of us who are or have been subject to it are learning. As Dr. Richardson has pointed out before, continued polygraph screening would require such a universal bluff as to be impractical over the long term.
Do you agree with Kyle McSlarrow's stated plan for continued reliance on polygraph screening?
Thank you for the clarification!
No one is arguing here that props (including the polygraph) cannot be useful in interrogations. But as the National Academy of Sciences noted in its report, there is essentially no evidence on the additive validity of polygraphy (its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other means). And as Dr. Fienberg pointed out, the handful of purported successes of the polygraph that Kyle McSlarrow adduced are of no statistical value.
Polygraph screening is a fraud, as more and more of us who are or have been subject to it are learning. As Dr. Richardson has pointed out before, continued polygraph screening would require such a universal bluff as to be impractical over the long term.
Do you agree with Kyle McSlarrow's stated plan for continued reliance on polygraph screening?
Posted by Marty
- Sep 12, 2003, 01:09 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 12, 2003, 06:00 AMMarty,
I am largely unfamiliar with the current blog vernacular. What do you mean by the foregoing?
"props" is widely used to indicate approval or strong agreement with a blog journal entry. I am unclear what the origin is - it may be shorthand for small icons that people add much like the "smileys"
Currently, it seems to indicate something like the "here here" one might hear from the "House of Commons." It is ubiquitous on the blogscape.-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 12, 2003, 06:00 AMMarty,
I am largely unfamiliar with the current blog vernacular. What do you mean by the foregoing?
QuoteI think perhaps props deserve some "props", in the current blog vernacular.
I am largely unfamiliar with the current blog vernacular. What do you mean by the foregoing?
Posted by Marty
- Sep 12, 2003, 03:26 AMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 12, 2003, 01:34 AMDr. Fienberg has also responded to Mr. McSlarrow's claimed utility for polygraph screening. In his amended written statement, he notes:George,
I think perhaps props deserve some "props", in the current blog vernacular. McSlarrow's description of the polygraph as "taslismatic" is consistent with this and one shouldn't discount the value of this "prop." I often run into bright people who are simply awed by the polygraph and seem to place it beyond understanding.
I don't understand this thinking as I am curious about nearly everything I don't understand (INTP).
It is something of an ethical quandry in that I don't initiate discussions of how poly's work with people that might actually have to take one. Fortunately, few people that I know are at such risk.
-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 12, 2003, 01:34 AMDr. Fienberg has also responded to Mr. McSlarrow's claimed utility for polygraph screening. In his amended written statement, he notes:
QuoteThe Deputy Secretary's testimony makes reference to the utility of counterintelligence scope polygraph screening programs employed by federal agencies in terms of admissions made. Our committee heard repeated reference to such anecdotes but found little systematic evidence to evaluate them. It is important to note that such admissions rely heavy on the polygraph as an interrogation tool and not as a device that accurately detects deception. As such the polygraph may be no better a prop than other less costly devices. Our report refers to this as the "bogus pipeline," a term that comes from the social science literature which has repeatedly demonstrated the value of such props in other settings.
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 11, 2003, 07:11 PM(Modified after re-reading Breeze's remarks)
Breeze,
You're not being an idiot if you make an honest mistake -- though I think it's reasonable to expect people to look around before criticizing. Nor are you being an idiot if you think George overlooked (or ignored) points you think he shouldn't have. You're being an idiot when you then try to defend your mistake and continue your attack, instead of retracting your remarks.
Perhaps George overlooked an important point and perhaps not. But given the fact that he posted prominent links to the transcript from here and the home page of Antipolygraph.org, it is hardly fair to criticize him on the grounds that he's "selectively reporting [McSlarrow's] remarks" in order to advance his agenda. He reported the remarks in toto.
You may not realize it, but you're accusing him of intellectual dishonesty, and it's not a fair accusation.
Breeze, given your evinced tendency to post insulting and counterfactual comments regarding George and others, followed invariably by a refusal to retract your comments when you're called on them, I feel my posts to you have been the picture of civility. There are trolls on Usenet who display more intellectual integrity than you do on this message board.
As I said before, you need to get over yourself. No one's perfect, and admitting an error goes a long ways towards getting people to take you seriously.
Skeptic
Quote from: The_Breeze on Sep 11, 2003, 06:01 PMSkeptic
When I make an honest mistake like pointing out that George and Orolan seemed to be cherry picking remarks from McSlarrow's testimony (since this is the thread where its being discussed) understand that I dont dwell here and lurk around the reading room. My point remains: why ignore or gloss over his other relevant comments? So Im an idiot for not spending too much time on this site? That label is yours to wear.
I dont have an M.O. I tell the truth based on experience and direct observation, not the whimpering of others. You can listen to anyone you want to.
Breeze,
You're not being an idiot if you make an honest mistake -- though I think it's reasonable to expect people to look around before criticizing. Nor are you being an idiot if you think George overlooked (or ignored) points you think he shouldn't have. You're being an idiot when you then try to defend your mistake and continue your attack, instead of retracting your remarks.
Perhaps George overlooked an important point and perhaps not. But given the fact that he posted prominent links to the transcript from here and the home page of Antipolygraph.org, it is hardly fair to criticize him on the grounds that he's "selectively reporting [McSlarrow's] remarks" in order to advance his agenda. He reported the remarks in toto.
You may not realize it, but you're accusing him of intellectual dishonesty, and it's not a fair accusation.
QuoteThe next time you feel a need to post to me you can keep it civil, your wasting my time.
Breeze, given your evinced tendency to post insulting and counterfactual comments regarding George and others, followed invariably by a refusal to retract your comments when you're called on them, I feel my posts to you have been the picture of civility. There are trolls on Usenet who display more intellectual integrity than you do on this message board.
As I said before, you need to get over yourself. No one's perfect, and admitting an error goes a long ways towards getting people to take you seriously.
Skeptic
Posted by The_Breeze
- Sep 11, 2003, 06:01 PMSkeptic
When I make an honest mistake like pointing out that George and Orolan seemed to be cherry picking remarks from McSlarrow's testimony (since this is the thread where its being discussed) understand that I dont dwell here and lurk around the reading room. My point remains: why ignore or gloss over his other relevant comments? So Im an idiot for not spending too much time on this site? That label is yours to wear.
I dont have an M.O. I tell the truth based on experience and direct observation, not the whimpering of others. You can listen to anyone you want to.
Since your so generous in giving advice, as if I needed some from you, I will return the favor. Try and not feel stupid that you have spent so much time on a cause that is having little practical impact. The tone creeps into your messages.
McSlarrow has made a decision based on facts, you have argued a point based on emotion. Admissions seperate from polygraph? where do you make that connection since he is linking the two himself? Guess those spies just broke down on seeing the equipment? why dont you let us in on what you have seen in your vast experience.
Your strident, illogical arguements are pathetic.
"Burden of proof"? agencies make decisions based on thier needs and thier experiences. I dont think the DOE needs to demonstrate anything specificially to your satisfaction, thier decision is sufficient. No one has to work for the agency, or any other that polygraphs if it is so objectionable.
The next time you feel a need to post to me you can keep it civil, your wasting my time.
When I make an honest mistake like pointing out that George and Orolan seemed to be cherry picking remarks from McSlarrow's testimony (since this is the thread where its being discussed) understand that I dont dwell here and lurk around the reading room. My point remains: why ignore or gloss over his other relevant comments? So Im an idiot for not spending too much time on this site? That label is yours to wear.
I dont have an M.O. I tell the truth based on experience and direct observation, not the whimpering of others. You can listen to anyone you want to.
Since your so generous in giving advice, as if I needed some from you, I will return the favor. Try and not feel stupid that you have spent so much time on a cause that is having little practical impact. The tone creeps into your messages.
McSlarrow has made a decision based on facts, you have argued a point based on emotion. Admissions seperate from polygraph? where do you make that connection since he is linking the two himself? Guess those spies just broke down on seeing the equipment? why dont you let us in on what you have seen in your vast experience.
Your strident, illogical arguements are pathetic.
"Burden of proof"? agencies make decisions based on thier needs and thier experiences. I dont think the DOE needs to demonstrate anything specificially to your satisfaction, thier decision is sufficient. No one has to work for the agency, or any other that polygraphs if it is so objectionable.
The next time you feel a need to post to me you can keep it civil, your wasting my time.
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 11, 2003, 02:38 PMQuote from: The_Breeze on Sep 11, 2003, 12:55 PMGeorge
Some quick thoughts before I start work.
Posting a link (which most will not access) is not the same as discussing fully the content of the message, of course since the content works against your goals and philosophy this is not surprising.
Get over yourself, Breeze. He not only posted a link, but the entire text of the address, in direct contradiction to your complaint. Your M.O. seems to be that you never admit you're wrong (no matter how obviously you are), but in this case, you look like an idiot for continuing the argument when George clearly did exactly what you said he didn't do.
You don't have to take my advice, of course, but you really don't want to pursue such an obviously losing line of argument. At least have the honesty and integrity to admit it when you're so clearly mistaken.
QuoteMcSlarrow seems to making specific reference to polygraph success in uncovering espionage directed against our country. You and others frequently state that this has never happened, (based on comments made by government officials favorable to your view) Do you think spies are merely "stupid enough to make admissions" or were they presented with evidence backed up with polygraph results leading to confession.
Unfortunately, McSlarrow's comments don't make clear the process by which the espionage was uncovered (he himself may not know the details). Your own questions above reveal the fact that drawing firm conclusions one way or another is unwarranted, and indeed, McSlarrow's comments (which you posted) seem to indicate admissions, not polygraph charts, were what stopped the espionage.
The bottom line is, by making inferences from what McSlarrow said you're doing exactly what you accuse others of doing: pushing your bias.
The burden of proof is upon pro-polygraph people to demonstrate that the polygraph itself caught spies. I see nothing in McSlarrow's testimony that indicates this issue is resolved. But please, feel free to post the relevant quote that does so.
Skeptic