- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by NSAreject
- Apr 21, 2005, 10:28 AMThis may be repetitive, like most of my posts, but:
Any applicant taking a polygraph needs to realize that
it is a different situation, than being interviewed for a
typical DoD clearance. For a DoD clearance, by law, one
is required to be totally truthful on their SF86 and any
interviews; just look at the SORs, for the DoD appeal
cases. Sitting for a polygraph interrogation, this is not
the case, although, one is intimidated into believing so;
there must be a reason for this. Any derogatory
information, will be sent back to the DoD/DSS for review,
but, if one is not totally truthful during the polygraph, it
is not held against him (even if, someone is deemed
"deceptive") by the DoD; it is my understanding, that
the DoD/DSS does not look at the actual polygraph
results, but only at any derogatory information that is
"coughed up". My objection, and a good part of the
reason that I post here, is that applicants are kept
"in the dark", by both private corporations (employing
SSO/FSO security officers) and Intel agencies. I do
not recall, any mention that derogatory information
is sent back to the DoD/DSS, in any of the forms
that are signed, before sitting for the NSA polys (this is
probably the same, elsewhere); I do believe, it only
mentions that any unlawful activities admitted to, could
be reported to law-enforcement agencies. And we all
know, how issues get exaggerated, and how people
get pressured into admitting things they didn't do
(e.g., the typical, "how many times did you use pot",
routine), by polygraphers.
What it boils down to, is that the NSA, and others, must
be hoping for, and get off on, a total screw job of
applicants. Maybe they have a white board in back to
keep score on, just like at the end-of-the-month sales,
at car dealerships and time-shares.
Any applicant taking a polygraph needs to realize that
it is a different situation, than being interviewed for a
typical DoD clearance. For a DoD clearance, by law, one
is required to be totally truthful on their SF86 and any
interviews; just look at the SORs, for the DoD appeal
cases. Sitting for a polygraph interrogation, this is not
the case, although, one is intimidated into believing so;
there must be a reason for this. Any derogatory
information, will be sent back to the DoD/DSS for review,
but, if one is not totally truthful during the polygraph, it
is not held against him (even if, someone is deemed
"deceptive") by the DoD; it is my understanding, that
the DoD/DSS does not look at the actual polygraph
results, but only at any derogatory information that is
"coughed up". My objection, and a good part of the
reason that I post here, is that applicants are kept
"in the dark", by both private corporations (employing
SSO/FSO security officers) and Intel agencies. I do
not recall, any mention that derogatory information
is sent back to the DoD/DSS, in any of the forms
that are signed, before sitting for the NSA polys (this is
probably the same, elsewhere); I do believe, it only
mentions that any unlawful activities admitted to, could
be reported to law-enforcement agencies. And we all
know, how issues get exaggerated, and how people
get pressured into admitting things they didn't do
(e.g., the typical, "how many times did you use pot",
routine), by polygraphers.
What it boils down to, is that the NSA, and others, must
be hoping for, and get off on, a total screw job of
applicants. Maybe they have a white board in back to
keep score on, just like at the end-of-the-month sales,
at car dealerships and time-shares.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Apr 21, 2005, 02:17 AMDear NSAreject,
Your conclusion is becoming a repetitive theme of mine. The use of polygraph in federal pre-screening and "security screening" is a pretense to remove someone who is "not desirable" under circumstances that cannot be investigated or held to the light of legal employment decisions.
The polygraph proceedings are held secret under the context that publicity of findings will adversely affect the national security. No publicity, no third party observations, no recordings, no videos (ooh, I forget, they cost so much money and would take up so much time and effort, even if DVD-R disc cost $0.69 bulk per disc, can be attached to a cheap VCR, record for two hours at superior resolution and audio standards, last for a minimum of five to ten years under normal storage temperature, and be burned from almost any government portable laptop computer easily: this would be too costly considering that it might protect an individual's rights and subsequently, a polygraph operator's professional reputation).
The FBI and NSA are funded with BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars. Why waste such funds on protecting Constitutional rights to equal and fair treatment?
Any agency afraid of public scrutiny only leads to the loss of public confidence.
I assure you, a falsely accused applicant of such polygraph usage will forever hold the goverment promise of fair and equal treatment in suspicion.
The federal agencies that use polygraph for employment decisions will always be lacking of scientific minds of the best caliber that know such test are nothing short of quackery.
Regards.
Your conclusion is becoming a repetitive theme of mine. The use of polygraph in federal pre-screening and "security screening" is a pretense to remove someone who is "not desirable" under circumstances that cannot be investigated or held to the light of legal employment decisions.
The polygraph proceedings are held secret under the context that publicity of findings will adversely affect the national security. No publicity, no third party observations, no recordings, no videos (ooh, I forget, they cost so much money and would take up so much time and effort, even if DVD-R disc cost $0.69 bulk per disc, can be attached to a cheap VCR, record for two hours at superior resolution and audio standards, last for a minimum of five to ten years under normal storage temperature, and be burned from almost any government portable laptop computer easily: this would be too costly considering that it might protect an individual's rights and subsequently, a polygraph operator's professional reputation).
The FBI and NSA are funded with BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars. Why waste such funds on protecting Constitutional rights to equal and fair treatment?
Any agency afraid of public scrutiny only leads to the loss of public confidence.
I assure you, a falsely accused applicant of such polygraph usage will forever hold the goverment promise of fair and equal treatment in suspicion.
The federal agencies that use polygraph for employment decisions will always be lacking of scientific minds of the best caliber that know such test are nothing short of quackery.
Regards.
Posted by NSAreject
- Apr 20, 2005, 09:36 AMGeorge,
Sounds like he received an SOR, and didn't just fail the
poly. I guess, in that case, he could appeal, but it may
take a very long time, with no guarantees. Because
it sounds like something he shouldn't have admitted
to, NSA could just string-him-out (sit on his appeal,
or schedule him for a "subject interview", in a year
from now). His company will only keep him around, so
long (sounds like AT&T Government Systems, Columbia).
Not meaning to be offensive (it happened to me too),
if NSA is making an issue out of nothing, they simply
don't want him (he probably doesn't fit their typical
mold), and will make every effort to keep him out...
Sounds like he received an SOR, and didn't just fail the
poly. I guess, in that case, he could appeal, but it may
take a very long time, with no guarantees. Because
it sounds like something he shouldn't have admitted
to, NSA could just string-him-out (sit on his appeal,
or schedule him for a "subject interview", in a year
from now). His company will only keep him around, so
long (sounds like AT&T Government Systems, Columbia).
Not meaning to be offensive (it happened to me too),
if NSA is making an issue out of nothing, they simply
don't want him (he probably doesn't fit their typical
mold), and will make every effort to keep him out...
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 20, 2005, 09:32 AMQuote from: NSAreject on Apr 20, 2005, 09:21 AM...Mike will
be wasting time and energy, when he should be
devoting all his energy to finding a new job...
The outcome of the case I cited above indicates that the allegations of an NSA polygrapher may in at least some cases be successfully challenged.
Posted by NSAreject
- Apr 20, 2005, 09:21 AMTwoBlock,
Believe me, I have delt with the NSA for many years,
and have seen the same type of situation, over and
over again. Once a person steps into the interrogation
room, all bets are off; NSA knows they are immune and
can pretty much say and do, as they please. Mike will
be wasting time and energy, when he should be
devoting all his energy to finding a new job. If I were
him, I would look for a position requiring a DoD
clearance, then present his case to the DoD
investigators (they are very fair). At least, the DoD
has a legal system (e.g., court system) that one can
exhaust, if necessary.
I am really glad that Mike posted his experience,
with the NSA (he really didn't need to keep referring
to NSA, as the "customer" - it is no big secret that
Columbia and full-scope poly means NSA
. Can you
imagine living your life in fear of them, on a daily basis:
Believe me, I have delt with the NSA for many years,
and have seen the same type of situation, over and
over again. Once a person steps into the interrogation
room, all bets are off; NSA knows they are immune and
can pretty much say and do, as they please. Mike will
be wasting time and energy, when he should be
devoting all his energy to finding a new job. If I were
him, I would look for a position requiring a DoD
clearance, then present his case to the DoD
investigators (they are very fair). At least, the DoD
has a legal system (e.g., court system) that one can
exhaust, if necessary.
I am really glad that Mike posted his experience,
with the NSA (he really didn't need to keep referring
to NSA, as the "customer" - it is no big secret that
Columbia and full-scope poly means NSA
. Can youimagine living your life in fear of them, on a daily basis:
Quote"be careful where you click that mouse and don't do it again".
It is such a bunch of B.S. Obviously, NSA is looking for
people, who are used to being controlled in a
disfunctional environment. And yes, Mike, one of my
best friends, at the NSA, was an incredible liar, but he
played the NSA game...
Posted by Twoblock
- Apr 19, 2005, 05:32 PMMike
This sounds deeper than in the begining. I don't think I should respond any more in an open forum. The word blackmail compells me to say to make your Attorney General aware of your situation. Keep in mind all Attornys General are not completely honest as are most publicly elected officials. I'll just say find a good lawyer.
NSAreject
I am not aware that NSA, FBI, CIA, ect., enjoys qualified immunity from lawsuits for committing a libelous act. Portaying a person as a liar, when it can't be proven with hard evidence, is defamatory and damaging to an honest person's integrety and is libelous and subject to lawsuits regardless if it is a polygrapher or the President of the U. S. Sure it takes a while but, one should uphold their integrety no matter how long it takes.
This sounds deeper than in the begining. I don't think I should respond any more in an open forum. The word blackmail compells me to say to make your Attorney General aware of your situation. Keep in mind all Attornys General are not completely honest as are most publicly elected officials. I'll just say find a good lawyer.
NSAreject
I am not aware that NSA, FBI, CIA, ect., enjoys qualified immunity from lawsuits for committing a libelous act. Portaying a person as a liar, when it can't be proven with hard evidence, is defamatory and damaging to an honest person's integrety and is libelous and subject to lawsuits regardless if it is a polygrapher or the President of the U. S. Sure it takes a while but, one should uphold their integrety no matter how long it takes.
Posted by NSAreject
- Apr 19, 2005, 05:01 PMMike,
Well, this is a most refreshing post ! I was almost in
the same situation, an ex-NSA employee waiting for my
SCI reinstatement, and on overhead at my company.
Boy, do I know that sucks ! At least, at an early stage
in NSA processing, you figured out what a bunch of
disfunctional liars, and manipulators they are. Sounds
like they tried to nail you for child pornography; well,
my polygrapher clown, tried to get me to admit to
masturbating to pornography on the Internet. They
are amazingly inappropriate, just like many of the NSA
employees. Unfortunately, you have no chance - the
NSA polygraph can't be challenged, or reviewed (well,
dah, I wonder why). I left NSA and went with another
DOD agency, for a non-poly TS/SCI. If I were you,
Northrup Grumman is heavy in the BWI area, and they
do a lot of DoD cleared work, at different clearance
levels. Yes, in some ways, this customer is incompetent,
repressive, abusive, and a joke (yes, a lot of money is
thrown down the toilet)...
Well, this is a most refreshing post ! I was almost in
the same situation, an ex-NSA employee waiting for my
SCI reinstatement, and on overhead at my company.
Boy, do I know that sucks ! At least, at an early stage
in NSA processing, you figured out what a bunch of
disfunctional liars, and manipulators they are. Sounds
like they tried to nail you for child pornography; well,
my polygrapher clown, tried to get me to admit to
masturbating to pornography on the Internet. They
are amazingly inappropriate, just like many of the NSA
employees. Unfortunately, you have no chance - the
NSA polygraph can't be challenged, or reviewed (well,
dah, I wonder why). I left NSA and went with another
DOD agency, for a non-poly TS/SCI. If I were you,
Northrup Grumman is heavy in the BWI area, and they
do a lot of DoD cleared work, at different clearance
levels. Yes, in some ways, this customer is incompetent,
repressive, abusive, and a joke (yes, a lot of money is
thrown down the toilet)...
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 19, 2005, 04:43 PMMike,
Your experience may have parallels with that of "Frustrated," who made the following public statement:
http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-019.shtml
A recent Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals case with striking similarities to that described by "Frustrated" was ruled in favor of the applicant:
http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/02-12199.h1.html
The attorney in this case was:
Mark F. Riley
Managing Partner
Mark F. Riley, L.L.C.
1113 Odenton Road, P.O. Box 492
Odenton, Maryland 21113-0492
(Anne Arundel Co.)
Telephone: 410-280-9615
Fax: 443-230-0239
Your experience may have parallels with that of "Frustrated," who made the following public statement:
http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-019.shtml
A recent Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals case with striking similarities to that described by "Frustrated" was ruled in favor of the applicant:
http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/02-12199.h1.html
The attorney in this case was:
Mark F. Riley
Managing Partner
Mark F. Riley, L.L.C.
1113 Odenton Road, P.O. Box 492
Odenton, Maryland 21113-0492
(Anne Arundel Co.)
Telephone: 410-280-9615
Fax: 443-230-0239
Posted by Mike_J_Price
- Apr 19, 2005, 04:19 PMMy beef is not with my company. They have been experiencing this injustice for a while now and have lost a number of people, so they have me on overhead while I look for another job.
The customer is the culprit here. I want the opportunity to prove my innocence, that is all. I don't even want to work for the customer any more. All of their projects are failing. I don't know a single program that isn't just throwing taxpayer money out of the window.
From my experience here I see why. They only employ liars and sociopaths. If you tell the truth, they will exaggerate a small mistake and distort it into a crime. If I was dishonest like most people I would still have passed. All I did was mention something non-criminal that might be causing me to overthink the question, then I fell for used car salesmen tactics. In the real world, what I admitted to would have received something like "be careful where you click that mouse and don't do it again". In this case, a simple mistake was exaggerated to be an indication of gross misjudgement. Here is the problem, I have documentation and records showing what I really did. This will prove his statements are exaggerations and falsehoods. The main conclusion is I may be coerced or blackmailed. I can apparently be blackmailed about something I will openly talk with to anyone. My 60+ year old parents know the whole story. I am not ashamed of anything, just of the actions of this customer.
I don't want to work for this incompetent customer, I just want this taken off of my record so I can work for another customer that requires a SCI.
The customer is the culprit here. I want the opportunity to prove my innocence, that is all. I don't even want to work for the customer any more. All of their projects are failing. I don't know a single program that isn't just throwing taxpayer money out of the window.
From my experience here I see why. They only employ liars and sociopaths. If you tell the truth, they will exaggerate a small mistake and distort it into a crime. If I was dishonest like most people I would still have passed. All I did was mention something non-criminal that might be causing me to overthink the question, then I fell for used car salesmen tactics. In the real world, what I admitted to would have received something like "be careful where you click that mouse and don't do it again". In this case, a simple mistake was exaggerated to be an indication of gross misjudgement. Here is the problem, I have documentation and records showing what I really did. This will prove his statements are exaggerations and falsehoods. The main conclusion is I may be coerced or blackmailed. I can apparently be blackmailed about something I will openly talk with to anyone. My 60+ year old parents know the whole story. I am not ashamed of anything, just of the actions of this customer.
I don't want to work for this incompetent customer, I just want this taken off of my record so I can work for another customer that requires a SCI.
Posted by NSAreject
- Apr 19, 2005, 03:13 PMTwoBlock,
I can only guess that he was duped into admitting
something during his NSA poly. It is unclear whether
he did something at his company, or admitted it to
NSA. He is out-of-luck in fighting NSA, but any litigation
against his company could take a very long time, and be
extremely expensive. If I were him, I would move on;
maybe, I am just missing the point here...
I can only guess that he was duped into admitting
something during his NSA poly. It is unclear whether
he did something at his company, or admitted it to
NSA. He is out-of-luck in fighting NSA, but any litigation
against his company could take a very long time, and be
extremely expensive. If I were him, I would move on;
maybe, I am just missing the point here...
Posted by Twoblock
- Apr 19, 2005, 02:37 PMNSAreject
Having never applied to Fed. Gov. for a job, and no more detail written, I didn't apply Mike's post to Fed. LEO application. Never-the-less, based on the info in his post, he has more than ample grounds for a federal lawsuit. If he has evidentual proof, a very large door is open to him.
From reading posts here, it seems like every person that has failed a screening poly thinks they still have a shot at being hired and that possibility seems little to none. So what's the hangup to filing a lawsuit?
I am advising a person right now (free of coarse) in a fed. suit. and I'll bet a dollar to a donut that there will will be a settlement shortly after discovery because the person has documented evidence that is 3 1/4 inches thick.
Having never applied to Fed. Gov. for a job, and no more detail written, I didn't apply Mike's post to Fed. LEO application. Never-the-less, based on the info in his post, he has more than ample grounds for a federal lawsuit. If he has evidentual proof, a very large door is open to him.
From reading posts here, it seems like every person that has failed a screening poly thinks they still have a shot at being hired and that possibility seems little to none. So what's the hangup to filing a lawsuit?
I am advising a person right now (free of coarse) in a fed. suit. and I'll bet a dollar to a donut that there will will be a settlement shortly after discovery because the person has documented evidence that is 3 1/4 inches thick.
Posted by NSAreject
- Apr 19, 2005, 02:01 PMMike,
Columbia and full-scope poly, can only spell one thing -
NSA. You didn't give much detail, but there are NO
recourses for failed NSA polys. You would be wasting
a lot of time, fighting either NSA, or your company.
Companies can fire-at-will, just like they hire-at-will.
Aren't you glad you got mixed up with the NSA poly ?
Columbia and full-scope poly, can only spell one thing -
NSA. You didn't give much detail, but there are NO
recourses for failed NSA polys. You would be wasting
a lot of time, fighting either NSA, or your company.
Companies can fire-at-will, just like they hire-at-will.
Aren't you glad you got mixed up with the NSA poly ?
Posted by Twoblock
- Apr 18, 2005, 08:00 PMMike
You don't give enough detail to get much advise. It sounds like your company has charged you with wrong doing.
If you have documentation, witnesses etc., to refute the charges and your company will not give you a hearing, then take your proof to the Attorney General's office and present your case. They can force the company to a hearing. If you think you need a lawyer, then check with your local lawyer referral service. Tell then what kind of lawyer you need i.e., labor, civil or criminal. If the company is charging you with a crime, you need a criminal defense lawyer. If your situation concerns unfair labor practice, then you need a Federal labor lawyer. Most other situations fall under civil litigation.
About the best I can do not knowing any more than I do.
If you want to give me more detail, you can send me a private email through this website.
I am not a lawyer but, being in the type of business that I am in, I have had to learn Federal law to protect me and my business from people who are trying to get something for nothing be lying, cheating and filing bogus lawsuits. So far none of the idiots have succeeded.
You don't give enough detail to get much advise. It sounds like your company has charged you with wrong doing.
If you have documentation, witnesses etc., to refute the charges and your company will not give you a hearing, then take your proof to the Attorney General's office and present your case. They can force the company to a hearing. If you think you need a lawyer, then check with your local lawyer referral service. Tell then what kind of lawyer you need i.e., labor, civil or criminal. If the company is charging you with a crime, you need a criminal defense lawyer. If your situation concerns unfair labor practice, then you need a Federal labor lawyer. Most other situations fall under civil litigation.
About the best I can do not knowing any more than I do.
If you want to give me more detail, you can send me a private email through this website.
I am not a lawyer but, being in the type of business that I am in, I have had to learn Federal law to protect me and my business from people who are trying to get something for nothing be lying, cheating and filing bogus lawsuits. So far none of the idiots have succeeded.
Posted by Mike_J_Price
- Apr 18, 2005, 12:29 PMHello,
I recently failed a full-scope polygraph. I am completely stunned and angered by the whole situation. I have been accused of something I didn't do. Moreover, I can prove I didn't do it. My company seems to be cutting me high and dry and won't even give me a chance to prove my innocence.
I just received the official letter. Line-by-line the document is full of complete lies, exaggerations, and misinterpretations. I can refute everything in the document, line-by-line.
I don't know where to begin here. I have left a message with Mark Zaid, but I haven't got a response. I have never even talked to a lawyer before (except social situations).
I need to talk to a lawyer, but don't know where to begin. I live in Columbia, Maryland, so I am in the Washington-DC, Northern Virginia, and Baltimore areas.
Please help me. I can fight this, I just don't know where to begin.
Mike Price
Mike_J_Price@hotmail.com
I recently failed a full-scope polygraph. I am completely stunned and angered by the whole situation. I have been accused of something I didn't do. Moreover, I can prove I didn't do it. My company seems to be cutting me high and dry and won't even give me a chance to prove my innocence.
I just received the official letter. Line-by-line the document is full of complete lies, exaggerations, and misinterpretations. I can refute everything in the document, line-by-line.
I don't know where to begin here. I have left a message with Mark Zaid, but I haven't got a response. I have never even talked to a lawyer before (except social situations).
I need to talk to a lawyer, but don't know where to begin. I live in Columbia, Maryland, so I am in the Washington-DC, Northern Virginia, and Baltimore areas.
Please help me. I can fight this, I just don't know where to begin.
Mike Price
Mike_J_Price@hotmail.com