- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by honeysuckle
- Aug 08, 2005, 05:59 PMThanks polyrized--you bring up some good points. This clearance currently isnt a big deal for me as I'm young and have a well paying job on a long term contract. It might be best for me to wait 2-2.5 years until I submit the 86p, as that'll put all drug use 3-4 years into my past and put the "harder" stuff outside of the 7 year scope all together.
Posted by polyrized
- Aug 08, 2005, 11:10 AMI had the same sort of attitude - to be totally honest and if I didn't get the job, oh well. The problem is that the information they collect will be part of your permanent file and if you should ever decide to apply for any job requiring any level of security clearance in the future the information will come out. Even if the clearance doesn't require a polygraph.
I also have learned that sometimes they will use the background investigation process not just for getting a clearance but also to determine 'suitability' - which means do they think you are the kind of person that they would want working for them. Having prejudicial information could haunt you for the rest of your career.
Lastly - I'd be very careful believing what they tell you. My experience is that they have no compunction about bending the truth to get people to confess to 'bad' behavior. The implication of their website statements is that if you haven't used MJ in the last year it might be excused. That isn't necessarily their true policy - but by saying that they will get people to confess to using perhaps three years ago, which might be disqualifying, when they otherwise wouldn't have.
I have become very dissapointed in how intelligence agencies will lie with a straight face in order to get dirt on people. They do this on their advertisements as well as in polygraph interviews. Basically, they think the end justifies the means and will do anything to find derogatory information. Even if the derogatory information really has nothing to do with your risk to national security.
I also have learned that sometimes they will use the background investigation process not just for getting a clearance but also to determine 'suitability' - which means do they think you are the kind of person that they would want working for them. Having prejudicial information could haunt you for the rest of your career.
Lastly - I'd be very careful believing what they tell you. My experience is that they have no compunction about bending the truth to get people to confess to 'bad' behavior. The implication of their website statements is that if you haven't used MJ in the last year it might be excused. That isn't necessarily their true policy - but by saying that they will get people to confess to using perhaps three years ago, which might be disqualifying, when they otherwise wouldn't have.
I have become very dissapointed in how intelligence agencies will lie with a straight face in order to get dirt on people. They do this on their advertisements as well as in polygraph interviews. Basically, they think the end justifies the means and will do anything to find derogatory information. Even if the derogatory information really has nothing to do with your risk to national security.
Posted by Jeffery
- Aug 08, 2005, 10:20 AMIn my opinion, the "careful examination" would apply if MJ were smoked 30 times. 300? Wow!
Posted by honeysuckle
- Aug 08, 2005, 04:58 AMYou're probably right, however the only statement I could find from them is:
http://www.cia.gov/employment/student.html
By the time my clearance would go through it'll be close to two years since I've used MJ and 5-7 years since any of the "hard" stuff, which I've only used once or twice. I have no intention of lying to the CIA. I'll put it down as it is and if that's no good, then so be it. It should be an easy screen for them if thats the case.
http://www.cia.gov/employment/student.html
QuoteTo be considered suitable for Agency employment, applicants must generally not have used illegal drugs within the last twelve months. The issue of illegal drug use prior to twelve months ago is carefully evaluated during the medical and security processing.
By the time my clearance would go through it'll be close to two years since I've used MJ and 5-7 years since any of the "hard" stuff, which I've only used once or twice. I have no intention of lying to the CIA. I'll put it down as it is and if that's no good, then so be it. It should be an easy screen for them if thats the case.
Posted by Jeffery
- Aug 07, 2005, 09:39 PMYou're kidding, right? I'd say you are wasting your time. Even if you cheat the polygraph (as opposed to using CM's to protect yourself) the BI will probably find a friend of a friend that will dime you out.
Posted by honeysuckle
- Aug 07, 2005, 09:18 PMI'm in a similar situation as confusednow...
I work for a Federal contractor and there is talk of putting me through a TS clearance with the CIA. My record is clean as a whistle however I smoked a decent amount of pot in college and stopped when I graduated (actually 3 months before but there was that one time in December 04...
). That puts me currently at 9 months--probably 10-11 months by the time my SP-86 will be submitted. Id estimate I smoked 300 times in the past 7 years, similar to confused. In addition I did ecstacy twice (once in 99 and once in 01) and LSD once in late 1999 or early 2000.
I'm assuming there are no stated drug abuse critera determining at exactly what usage level at one can be trusted with information "which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to national security" or determined to be a national security risk
.
I'd just like to know if I'm wasting my time going through with this now or if I should just wait a few months or a year or two...
I work for a Federal contractor and there is talk of putting me through a TS clearance with the CIA. My record is clean as a whistle however I smoked a decent amount of pot in college and stopped when I graduated (actually 3 months before but there was that one time in December 04...
). That puts me currently at 9 months--probably 10-11 months by the time my SP-86 will be submitted. Id estimate I smoked 300 times in the past 7 years, similar to confused. In addition I did ecstacy twice (once in 99 and once in 01) and LSD once in late 1999 or early 2000. I'm assuming there are no stated drug abuse critera determining at exactly what usage level at one can be trusted with information "which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to national security" or determined to be a national security risk
.I'd just like to know if I'm wasting my time going through with this now or if I should just wait a few months or a year or two...
Posted by mustbaliar
- Jun 19, 2005, 02:54 AMConfused,
There are tons of theories out there as to why the govt still uses polygraphs for screening purposes--and I've gone through every single one of them in my mind to try to make sense of everything. I'm still at square one. I'd believe your theory a little more if perhaps the polygraph was the FIRST step in a long, drawn-out process. But I spent a lot of my precious personal time and work time (leave) to make it through all the steps leading up to the polygraph and background investigation. Not to mention that the FBI must have used lots of resources and money to take me (and other applicants) through all those steps. If the purpose of the poly is to just "weed out" (nice word choice) applicants then why wouldn't they just do it at the beginning to get it over with and save money and time? Or just flip a coin?
I think they believe the poly is a useful device, or they want people to think they believe that. At this point, even if they wanted to discontinue use of the polygraph for screening purposes, it would essentially mean they are admitting their use of the poly has been wrong all this time... and that hundreds of polygrapher's jobs and salaries have been a waste. I would guess that the govt isn't about to do that unfortunately. The show must go on.
There are tons of theories out there as to why the govt still uses polygraphs for screening purposes--and I've gone through every single one of them in my mind to try to make sense of everything. I'm still at square one. I'd believe your theory a little more if perhaps the polygraph was the FIRST step in a long, drawn-out process. But I spent a lot of my precious personal time and work time (leave) to make it through all the steps leading up to the polygraph and background investigation. Not to mention that the FBI must have used lots of resources and money to take me (and other applicants) through all those steps. If the purpose of the poly is to just "weed out" (nice word choice) applicants then why wouldn't they just do it at the beginning to get it over with and save money and time? Or just flip a coin?
I think they believe the poly is a useful device, or they want people to think they believe that. At this point, even if they wanted to discontinue use of the polygraph for screening purposes, it would essentially mean they are admitting their use of the poly has been wrong all this time... and that hundreds of polygrapher's jobs and salaries have been a waste. I would guess that the govt isn't about to do that unfortunately. The show must go on.
Posted by confusednow
- Jun 19, 2005, 01:07 AMmustbelair,
Bases on everything I read on the polygraph I won't be surprised if the agencies use it weed people out.
What I mean by that is I heard for example the CIA receives 3000 resumes a month (so about 36000 a year). Numbers are classifies but people believe the have about 22000 working for them in total (pre 9/11). Of the 36000 that apply they must probably only hire a 1000 a year.
Same goes for the FBI, read earlier they get 20000 applications a year and hired about 760 of those.
I am sure many more of the applicants are qualified that theye can hire and to avoid lawsuits challenging why they hired person X instead of Y they just use to polygraph to eliminate applicants, knowing they do not have to explain themelves.
Many applicants to law enforcement are generally fulfilling a calling (need to help people etc.) and would challenge rejections based on the qualifications if they could (accountants for example probably have no such calling is more willing to accept a rejection, knowing there are plenty of other accounting jobs).
SO, basically they could be using the polygraph just to eliminate people without having to worry about dealing with persistent applicants.
Just a thought that accured to me.
Futher eveidence of this might be the fact that the retest pass rate is so pathetically low.
If the poly is so erratic (heard numbers from 45% false positives to even the best number of 10% false positives - so pick 25% as an acceptable false positive rate)....you would expect people to pass the second time much more frequently that seems to be happening.
Anyway, the whole thing seems like a lottery to me and I am amazed this stuff is allowed in America....the problem is not enough people (or people they are close to) are affected by it so Americans do not care.
Bases on everything I read on the polygraph I won't be surprised if the agencies use it weed people out.
What I mean by that is I heard for example the CIA receives 3000 resumes a month (so about 36000 a year). Numbers are classifies but people believe the have about 22000 working for them in total (pre 9/11). Of the 36000 that apply they must probably only hire a 1000 a year.
Same goes for the FBI, read earlier they get 20000 applications a year and hired about 760 of those.
I am sure many more of the applicants are qualified that theye can hire and to avoid lawsuits challenging why they hired person X instead of Y they just use to polygraph to eliminate applicants, knowing they do not have to explain themelves.
Many applicants to law enforcement are generally fulfilling a calling (need to help people etc.) and would challenge rejections based on the qualifications if they could (accountants for example probably have no such calling is more willing to accept a rejection, knowing there are plenty of other accounting jobs).
SO, basically they could be using the polygraph just to eliminate people without having to worry about dealing with persistent applicants.
Just a thought that accured to me.
Futher eveidence of this might be the fact that the retest pass rate is so pathetically low.
If the poly is so erratic (heard numbers from 45% false positives to even the best number of 10% false positives - so pick 25% as an acceptable false positive rate)....you would expect people to pass the second time much more frequently that seems to be happening.
Anyway, the whole thing seems like a lottery to me and I am amazed this stuff is allowed in America....the problem is not enough people (or people they are close to) are affected by it so Americans do not care.
Posted by mustbaliar
- Jun 18, 2005, 11:53 PMNot sure what to tell you here. I have NEVER used any drug of any type and stated such in my application (not the CIA), but was still accused of being a drug user/buyer/seller/manufacturer/importer/exporter/kingpin based on the genius of the polygraph.
Just be honest, that's all you can/should do.
Just be honest, that's all you can/should do.
Posted by confusednow
- Jun 18, 2005, 05:11 PMA few months ago I decided to apply to the CIA (I never thought they would take me but took a shot anyway, not expecting to hear anything back).
I have worked abroad and have a valid passport, and low and behold I got a call from a recruiter (clandestine services and liked the fact that i had a foreign passport!), saying to expect a letter within 3 weeks that will direct me to a hotel for an "info session" and interview.
Anyway, now that I actually got a response from them and the possibility of working for them becomes more reallistic I decided to look in to what the requirements are and what is involved in getting hired.
Seems getting Security Clearance is totally seperate from getting in with the CIA.
The CIA drug use policy says clean for one year - no problem.
However, the SF-86 form asks about drug use the last 7 years.
I have used MJ quite frequently over the last 6 years until i moved to a different state (where I didn't know anyone who was using MJ) and stopped (hence being clean for the last 13 months and will be even longer by the time all this is processed.
I have to guess my use, but I would say I used MJ 4 times a month (weekends basically) on average.
Multiply that by 6 years I would have to say I used MJ about 300 times in that period!
Now, I am not gonna lie becuase I never was expecting to hear from the CIA anyway and my livelyhood doesn't depend on getting this job.
Question is: I am curious what kind of usage people admitted to and still got Security Clearance? I figure my chances are pretty slim but I am still curious.
Thanks
I have worked abroad and have a valid passport, and low and behold I got a call from a recruiter (clandestine services and liked the fact that i had a foreign passport!), saying to expect a letter within 3 weeks that will direct me to a hotel for an "info session" and interview.
Anyway, now that I actually got a response from them and the possibility of working for them becomes more reallistic I decided to look in to what the requirements are and what is involved in getting hired.
Seems getting Security Clearance is totally seperate from getting in with the CIA.
The CIA drug use policy says clean for one year - no problem.
However, the SF-86 form asks about drug use the last 7 years.
I have used MJ quite frequently over the last 6 years until i moved to a different state (where I didn't know anyone who was using MJ) and stopped (hence being clean for the last 13 months and will be even longer by the time all this is processed.
I have to guess my use, but I would say I used MJ 4 times a month (weekends basically) on average.
Multiply that by 6 years I would have to say I used MJ about 300 times in that period!
Now, I am not gonna lie becuase I never was expecting to hear from the CIA anyway and my livelyhood doesn't depend on getting this job.
Question is: I am curious what kind of usage people admitted to and still got Security Clearance? I figure my chances are pretty slim but I am still curious.
Thanks