- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by John M.
- May 09, 2018, 02:35 PMQuote from: sammorter on Jan 19, 2018, 12:37 PMLet's all work together to remove the government's exemption to use this scientifically unreliable polygraph test to punish, abuse or judge an otherwise innocent individual.If you, or someone you know was punished based solely on their inability to successfully pass the polygraph, I urge you to contact the Federal Practice Group www.fedpractice.com ASAP. You may be entitled to compensation.
Posted by John M.
- Jan 19, 2018, 12:37 PMQuote from: stoppolyabusenow on Dec 05, 2007, 09:49 PMI don't think that this person is looking for a lawyer to be his hero. I think he just wants to clear his good name and help put a stop to this pseudoscience bullshit. There is no other way to fight these $%#^idiots, except through the courts and unfortunately you need a lawyer to do that. If there was some way that I could make a difference and put a stop to the wholesale abuse of government employees and applicants that doesn't involve the courts, let me know and I'm there. Someday we will all look back on this, like our parents looked back at the McCarthy era. People will say with disbelief, "Can you believe they actually did this to people? What a bunch of morons." But, until that day comes, we are stuck with this rampant injustice and the lawyers who deserve to make a living more than polygraphers. I don't know how they can even sleep at night. Anyone who can conduct polygraph examinations on people who are not criminal suspects has not morals.Here we are over ten years later, and what's happened? Innocent lives are being ruined more than ever by power hungry DIA officials on a witch hunt for the next Snowden. The Insider Threat Task Force has morphed in to an entire industry (see my other posts under Polygraph Policy on this topic), which relies heavily on nothing more than a cheap parlor trick known as the polygraph creditability assessment.
These days, the polygraph lobby is deeply ingrained in politics and the old saying, "good enough for government work" seems to be the collective mantra in D.C. The National Center for Credibility Assessments was recently quoted as saying that it was acceptable to have some false positives – "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet" they said. Well, good enough is not good enough anymore. When you dishonestly ruin someone's reputation, career and their life with it, you've gone too far. All those responsible for allowing this abuse to continue have egg on their faces and on their hands.
As we all know, people can "fail" the polygraph for several reasons. These are called false positives, and happen at a rate of 10-50%, depending on who you ask. The point is, it is an indisputable fact that there are reasons that can cause ones physiological reactions to mimic a "lie reaction".
In my case, I had already been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder – a disorder that was exacerbated by being forced to undergo five polygraph interrogations in three years. Because of my uncontrollable anxiousness, I was overwhelmed with fear. Fear of failure. When the failure will result in terrifying consequences, this "fear reaction" is intensified. Once I was accused, it was impossible for me to suppress that reaction – which I re-experienced with increasing intensity over 2,000 times.
This fear reaction, is fraudulently being labeled as a lie reaction by senior Department of Defense officials. They have also perjured themselves in federal documents. It is reprehensible that we permit a policy that condones using the polygraph results by themselves, to rule against, or to punish anyone. Especially, when there are approved and relevant regulations that prohibit doing so in the first place. It is a pernicious form of abuse to impugn ones character, to label them untrustworthy and a vulnerability.
Now is the time to stop the fraud, waste and abuse known as the polygraph. Let's all work together to remove the government's exemption to use this scientifically unreliable polygraph test to punish, abuse or judge an otherwise innocent individual.
Posted by John M.
- Dec 09, 2017, 06:15 PMI spent the day researching and channeling Dr. Richardson.
In theory, the polygraph machine measures fear of detection rather than deception. The examiner infers deception when the physiological response to questions about crimes or unauthorized activity is greater than the response to other questions.
Once the examiner tells you that you are being deceptive, anxiety and self-doubt set in. I provided numerous reasonable explanations for my responses, but apparently, they were not deemed sufficient enough. I was asked the same question over 2,000 times and suffered through over 20 hours of interrogation.
Dr. Richardson explained a concept of "fear of consequences". I wasn't concerned about the truth concerning that specific issue as much as I was terrified of the consequences. The consequences were in fact, if I was found to be deceptive again, I would be subjected to more interrogations, lose my career, lose my house, and be labeled as untrustworthy. My fear of the consequences consumed me.
Also, it is generally recognized that for the polygraph test to be accurate, the voluntary cooperation of the individual is important. Although, I showed up on time and stayed until I was dismissed, I wasn't there voluntarily (hence my profile pic). I knew very well that by refusing to take the "test", I would be subjected to even worse punishment. The US Congress found in 1983 that imposing penalties for not taking a test create a de facto involuntary condition that increases the chances of invalid or inconclusive test results.
I contend that it is an abuse of individual rights to use the polygraph "results", by themselves, to punish someone – especially if the government does it.
#stoppolygraphabuse
In theory, the polygraph machine measures fear of detection rather than deception. The examiner infers deception when the physiological response to questions about crimes or unauthorized activity is greater than the response to other questions.
Once the examiner tells you that you are being deceptive, anxiety and self-doubt set in. I provided numerous reasonable explanations for my responses, but apparently, they were not deemed sufficient enough. I was asked the same question over 2,000 times and suffered through over 20 hours of interrogation.
Dr. Richardson explained a concept of "fear of consequences". I wasn't concerned about the truth concerning that specific issue as much as I was terrified of the consequences. The consequences were in fact, if I was found to be deceptive again, I would be subjected to more interrogations, lose my career, lose my house, and be labeled as untrustworthy. My fear of the consequences consumed me.
Also, it is generally recognized that for the polygraph test to be accurate, the voluntary cooperation of the individual is important. Although, I showed up on time and stayed until I was dismissed, I wasn't there voluntarily (hence my profile pic). I knew very well that by refusing to take the "test", I would be subjected to even worse punishment. The US Congress found in 1983 that imposing penalties for not taking a test create a de facto involuntary condition that increases the chances of invalid or inconclusive test results.
I contend that it is an abuse of individual rights to use the polygraph "results", by themselves, to punish someone – especially if the government does it.
#stoppolygraphabuse
Posted by John M.
- Dec 09, 2017, 12:00 PMI think we all know where the "deception" is. The use of the polygraph. It's a total scam and a fraud.
During 20+ hours of interrogation, I provided several explanations for my apprehension when asked the same question over and over and over. The DoD IG even investigated some of my admissions to see if there was any evidence of wrong-doing.
For the record, this is what I provided to the Office of Security after my second encounter with the polygraph "examination":
My concerns with the question - 'have you ever intentionally mishandled classified information?
1. Approximately 30-40% of my duties involve the transfer of classified data in support of national-level intelligence requirements, Special Operations planning and support to the war fighter. Because we use systems on both SIPRnet and JWICS, we are constantly moving data back and forth between them. This is accomplished via removable hard drive, DVD/CD and sometimes floppy disk. Usually, imagery and other data is acquired on the JWICS and moved down to the SIPRnet or standalone workstation for processing, and then moved back up to the JWICS for dissemination. Occasionally, some files are required to be downloaded from the JWICS only to disseminate on the SIPRnet. Another aspect is that some of our workstations are stand-alone and not connected to a network. As far as I know, they've never been officially designated as classified, but we use classified information on them, so we've internally designated them as classified - at one time several years ago as Top Secret, then more recently as Secret. Confusion usually arises as to what we should classify the removable media taken from these machines, ultimately developing in to feelings of inappropriate behavior. At one point we've heard that it's okay to mark a CD Secret if it only contains Secret data, but was taken from the JWICS. Then later we find out that it should have been marked Top Secret. We've also been instructed to document each and every file that is moved down from JWICS on a spreadsheet for accountability purposes. This spreadsheet currently consists of thousands and thousands of files. Although I have diligently tried to keep up with this list, due to overwhelming circumstances, I cannot state with a clear conscience that every single file that has been moved down has made it to the list. As a side note, we have never been required to provide this list to anyone.
2. Over the course of the last 12 years, we have been authorized to move data in this way, and then told to stop (BUCKSHOT YANKEE), and then told it was okay. Often times there were grey areas where we weren't exactly sure what we were doing was officially authorized, but in the interest of supporting the war fighter, we went ahead and moved the data. In the early 2000's, we were even told that we had an 'exception to policy' that authorized us to move classified data via removable media. Although I had never seen this 'exception to policy', I often felt that have been in some way circumventing the approved methods. Later, I was directed to self-study for the Information Transfer Authority (ITA) test. The way this test worked was that you had to score at least 90% and you could only take it three times - the third failure would result in denial of the authority. After falling short on the first two attempts, I decided that I would put off taking the test for the third time for as long as possible. This decision allowed us to continue transferring data without interruption for at least another few weeks. After being contacted by the Information Assurance Office on several occasions that they would have to lock down our machines if we weren't ITA certified, I studied intensely, took the test for the third time and finally passed.
3. Throughout the history of this office, we have been required to burn CDs/DVDs/floppy disks from either JWICS or SIPRnet and label them according to their contents. Up until about a year ago, this was accepted practice - depending on who you listened to. Some people would say it was fine, while others said that the removable media should be labeled with the level of classification of the system it came from. I was always uncomfortable with this practice and would always do it in trepidation. Now, according to SOCOM regulations, we have permission to create a disk with the classification of the system it was taken from, but not allowed to create and label a disk with a lower classification than the system it was taken from. Instead, a form 14 and an ECR is required before J6 representatives will perform the procedure for the requestor.
4. To help remedy these types of problems and address potential areas of concern to conscionable workers like me, SOCOM JICSOC leaders have directed J6 computer support personnel to create a workstation that has all the necessary applications on the JWICS. Although this would seem like an easy task, we have been waiting for over two years for the workstations to come online. In the meantime, we continue to transfer classified data back and forth between the domains adhering to current security requirements. Even when/if this gets accomplished, we will still face the dilemma of transferring down to SIPRnet for dissemination to the war fighter.
During 20+ hours of interrogation, I provided several explanations for my apprehension when asked the same question over and over and over. The DoD IG even investigated some of my admissions to see if there was any evidence of wrong-doing.
For the record, this is what I provided to the Office of Security after my second encounter with the polygraph "examination":
My concerns with the question - 'have you ever intentionally mishandled classified information?
1. Approximately 30-40% of my duties involve the transfer of classified data in support of national-level intelligence requirements, Special Operations planning and support to the war fighter. Because we use systems on both SIPRnet and JWICS, we are constantly moving data back and forth between them. This is accomplished via removable hard drive, DVD/CD and sometimes floppy disk. Usually, imagery and other data is acquired on the JWICS and moved down to the SIPRnet or standalone workstation for processing, and then moved back up to the JWICS for dissemination. Occasionally, some files are required to be downloaded from the JWICS only to disseminate on the SIPRnet. Another aspect is that some of our workstations are stand-alone and not connected to a network. As far as I know, they've never been officially designated as classified, but we use classified information on them, so we've internally designated them as classified - at one time several years ago as Top Secret, then more recently as Secret. Confusion usually arises as to what we should classify the removable media taken from these machines, ultimately developing in to feelings of inappropriate behavior. At one point we've heard that it's okay to mark a CD Secret if it only contains Secret data, but was taken from the JWICS. Then later we find out that it should have been marked Top Secret. We've also been instructed to document each and every file that is moved down from JWICS on a spreadsheet for accountability purposes. This spreadsheet currently consists of thousands and thousands of files. Although I have diligently tried to keep up with this list, due to overwhelming circumstances, I cannot state with a clear conscience that every single file that has been moved down has made it to the list. As a side note, we have never been required to provide this list to anyone.
2. Over the course of the last 12 years, we have been authorized to move data in this way, and then told to stop (BUCKSHOT YANKEE), and then told it was okay. Often times there were grey areas where we weren't exactly sure what we were doing was officially authorized, but in the interest of supporting the war fighter, we went ahead and moved the data. In the early 2000's, we were even told that we had an 'exception to policy' that authorized us to move classified data via removable media. Although I had never seen this 'exception to policy', I often felt that have been in some way circumventing the approved methods. Later, I was directed to self-study for the Information Transfer Authority (ITA) test. The way this test worked was that you had to score at least 90% and you could only take it three times - the third failure would result in denial of the authority. After falling short on the first two attempts, I decided that I would put off taking the test for the third time for as long as possible. This decision allowed us to continue transferring data without interruption for at least another few weeks. After being contacted by the Information Assurance Office on several occasions that they would have to lock down our machines if we weren't ITA certified, I studied intensely, took the test for the third time and finally passed.
3. Throughout the history of this office, we have been required to burn CDs/DVDs/floppy disks from either JWICS or SIPRnet and label them according to their contents. Up until about a year ago, this was accepted practice - depending on who you listened to. Some people would say it was fine, while others said that the removable media should be labeled with the level of classification of the system it came from. I was always uncomfortable with this practice and would always do it in trepidation. Now, according to SOCOM regulations, we have permission to create a disk with the classification of the system it was taken from, but not allowed to create and label a disk with a lower classification than the system it was taken from. Instead, a form 14 and an ECR is required before J6 representatives will perform the procedure for the requestor.
4. To help remedy these types of problems and address potential areas of concern to conscionable workers like me, SOCOM JICSOC leaders have directed J6 computer support personnel to create a workstation that has all the necessary applications on the JWICS. Although this would seem like an easy task, we have been waiting for over two years for the workstations to come online. In the meantime, we continue to transfer classified data back and forth between the domains adhering to current security requirements. Even when/if this gets accomplished, we will still face the dilemma of transferring down to SIPRnet for dissemination to the war fighter.
Posted by Doug Williams
- Dec 09, 2017, 11:38 AMQuote from: quickfix on Dec 09, 2017, 10:33 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Dec 08, 2017, 06:43 PMYou seem to believe that if a person's CI-scope polygraph charts are scored as "significant response," that means they're lying about relevant national security questions. How do you know for sure that that is true?Significant Response is what we used to call Deception Indicated. A failure is a failure. If John M. provided a reasonable explanation as to his concerns about why he failed, maybe it could have been resolved. He didn't, it wasn't.Quote from: danmangan on Dec 08, 2017, 08:58 PMShould you have the balls to state any claims as to the accuracy of the polygraph "test", please cite the independent, peer-reviewed sources that support your claim.I have a better idea; please cite the independent peer-reviews sources that support YOUR claim that it isn't accurate.
Quickfix, I would like to first respond to this statement: "If John M. provided a reasonable explanation as to his concerns about why he failed, maybe it could have been resolved."
It seems to me that the burden of proof is on the accuser - not the accused. I think it is incumbent on the polygraph industry to "provide a reasonable explanation" as to your assertion that a nervous reaction indicates deception. Just as there is no way to rationalize an irrational act, it follows that it is impossible for John M. to explain why he "failed" his polygraph "test".
Secondly, your request to Dan Mangan to cite "sources that support YOUR claim that it isn't accurate". The only real independent "study" showing the polygraph isn't accurate was done by CBS 60 MINUTES. In that investigative report, it was proved that the polygraph, when used as a "lie detector" was wrong 100% of the time! Three different polygraph operators called three different innocent truthful people liars on a crime that never even happened. And I might add that the government, by virtue of it's prosecution of me for teaching "countermeasures", has admitted that the chart tracings can be manipulated very easily and that a person can learn how to "beat" the test very quickly. That is also proof that the polygraph isn't accurate as a "lie detector".
Here is that CBS 60 MINUTES program: https://youtu.be/ziMAoHhxiYQ
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 09, 2017, 11:01 AMQuote from: quickfix on Dec 09, 2017, 10:33 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Dec 08, 2017, 06:43 PMYou seem to believe that if a person's CI-scope polygraph charts are scored as "significant response," that means they're lying about relevant national security questions. How do you know for sure that that is true?Significant Response is what we used to call Deception Indicated. A failure is a failure. If John M. provided a reasonable explanation as to his concerns about why he failed, maybe it could have been resolved. He didn't, it wasn't.
I agree that "significant response" is what polygraphers used to call "deception indicated." But you haven't really addressed my question to you: how do you know for sure that a person's failing a polygraph screening "test" means they're lying about any of the relevant national security questions?
Posted by quickfix
- Dec 09, 2017, 10:33 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Dec 08, 2017, 06:43 PMYou seem to believe that if a person's CI-scope polygraph charts are scored as "significant response," that means they're lying about relevant national security questions. How do you know for sure that that is true?Significant Response is what we used to call Deception Indicated. A failure is a failure. If John M. provided a reasonable explanation as to his concerns about why he failed, maybe it could have been resolved. He didn't, it wasn't.
Quote from: danmangan on Dec 08, 2017, 08:58 PMShould you have the balls to state any claims as to the accuracy of the polygraph "test", please cite the independent, peer-reviewed sources that support your claim.I have a better idea; please cite the independent peer-reviews sources that support YOUR claim that it isn't accurate.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Dec 08, 2017, 08:58 PMAnd quickfix...
Should you have the balls to state any claims as to the accuracy of the polygraph "test", please cite the independent, peer-reviewed sources that support your claim.
Once more, with feeling...
ROTFLMAO!
Should you have the balls to state any claims as to the accuracy of the polygraph "test", please cite the independent, peer-reviewed sources that support your claim.
Once more, with feeling...
ROTFLMAO!
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Dec 08, 2017, 08:48 PMJohn, I prefer to let self-claimed federal polygraph operator "quickfix" state his own Scientific Wild-Ass Guess (SWAG) as to the accuracy of the polygraph "test."
What say you, quickfix?
ROTFLMAO!
[cue crickets]
What say you, quickfix?
ROTFLMAO!
[cue crickets]
Posted by John M.
- Dec 08, 2017, 08:27 PMQuote from: danmangan on Dec 08, 2017, 07:59 PMhow accurate is the "test"?Great question - what's your best guess, Dan?
Here are another two off the top of my head - Why give the damn thing 5 times if it supposedly works? And, how do you get to a "No Opinion?"
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Dec 08, 2017, 07:59 PMquickfix, please tell us -- for the record -- in your professional opinion, how accurate is the "test"?
[cue crickets]
[cue crickets]
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 08, 2017, 06:43 PMQuote from: quickfix on Dec 08, 2017, 02:41 PMQuote from: sammorter on Dec 07, 2017, 03:58 PMI'll admit, I don't completely understand the ruling, but I have learned that the government can do whatever the government wants to doNow that you have been stripped of your access after 5 failed polygraphs for being deceptive, why don't you enroll in law school so you will understand it?
quickfix,
You seem to believe that if a person's CI-scope polygraph charts are scored as "significant response," that means they're lying about relevant national security questions. How do you know for sure that that is true?
Posted by John M.
- Dec 08, 2017, 04:47 PMTo tell the truth, it is easier to hire a group of professionals to take it from here. DC District Court is just two steps below the Supreme.
For the record, it was two "No Opinions", one "Significant Response" then one "No Opinion" and finally a "Significant Response". There was never a finding of "deceptive". More likely, is that the "Significant Response" was a classic "False Positive" from being forced to undergo hours and hours of accusation and interrogation.
I contend that it is an individual rights violation to use the polygraph results by themselves to punish anyone - including government employees.
The polygraph is a fraud and those who use it to victimize innocent people are abusers. Face the truth.
For the record, it was two "No Opinions", one "Significant Response" then one "No Opinion" and finally a "Significant Response". There was never a finding of "deceptive". More likely, is that the "Significant Response" was a classic "False Positive" from being forced to undergo hours and hours of accusation and interrogation.
I contend that it is an individual rights violation to use the polygraph results by themselves to punish anyone - including government employees.
The polygraph is a fraud and those who use it to victimize innocent people are abusers. Face the truth.
Posted by quickfix
- Dec 08, 2017, 02:41 PMQuote from: sammorter on Dec 07, 2017, 03:58 PMI'll admit, I don't completely understand the ruling, but I have learned that the government can do whatever the government wants to doNow that you have been stripped of your access after 5 failed polygraphs for being deceptive, why don't you enroll in law school so you will understand it?
Posted by John M.
- Dec 07, 2017, 03:58 PMHere we are Ten Years After -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7-8sCLWwLk
Lawyers challenged the law related to individuals who were denied opportunity for employment due to the polygraph, and lost. I'll admit, I don't completely understand the ruling, but I have learned that the government can do whatever the government wants to do - individual rights be damned.
Now, security officials are using the polygraph machine to unfairly target existing employees. Honest and law abiding federal employees are being labeled as liars, vulnerabilities to security and removed from their positions, based solely on the "results" of the polygraph. If 100,000's of polygraphs are performed each year, and there is a failure rate of 15-66 percent, who decides which failures receive punishment?
Punish every failure or none of them. It is time to rise up and put an end to this abusive fraud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7-8sCLWwLk
Lawyers challenged the law related to individuals who were denied opportunity for employment due to the polygraph, and lost. I'll admit, I don't completely understand the ruling, but I have learned that the government can do whatever the government wants to do - individual rights be damned.
Now, security officials are using the polygraph machine to unfairly target existing employees. Honest and law abiding federal employees are being labeled as liars, vulnerabilities to security and removed from their positions, based solely on the "results" of the polygraph. If 100,000's of polygraphs are performed each year, and there is a failure rate of 15-66 percent, who decides which failures receive punishment?
Punish every failure or none of them. It is time to rise up and put an end to this abusive fraud.