Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What is the last month of the year?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Aug 19, 2005, 03:50 PM
Quote from: NSAreject on Aug 19, 2005, 02:23 PMGeorge's new image, on his home page, must have
been taken from an NSA journal - looks like another
NSA fatty (including myself), with issues...  :)

The photograph to which you refer is actually taken from the website of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command:

http://www.cid.army.mil/mission2.htm
Posted by NSAreject
 - Aug 19, 2005, 02:23 PM
  George's new image, on his home page, must have
been taken from an NSA journal - looks like another
NSA fatty (including myself), with issues...  :)
Posted by NSAreject
 - Aug 10, 2005, 12:02 AM
George,

    Yes, she knew about your site, as most security
officers that I have talked with.  I get the same wrote
answer from most of them, and the same smug
attitude that NSA, "sits on the right-hand of God".
After working with NSA, CIA, and DoD Armed Services
personnel, I'll take the military any day.
Posted by polyrized
 - Aug 09, 2005, 12:02 PM
While I applaud the desire to weed out undesirable job applicants I have concerns over;

Using any means possible, including frank deception and misrepresentation, to do so.

Who decides what behavior is disqualifying and what are the avenues for appeal?  While there are published guidelines for how information should be adjudicated I am finding that different agencies may apply these guidelines differently and some may even ignore the spirit of them alltogether.  The grounds for appeal may be extremely limited or nonexistant.  And once collected the information never ever goes away.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Aug 09, 2005, 04:44 AM
NSAreject,

Was this SSO familiar with the information available on AntiPolygraph.org?

I think it should be abundantly clear to any informed person that a polygrapher's job is not "to help applicants get through the process." The opposite is true: the polygrapher's job is to get applicants to disclose potentially disqualifying information.
Posted by nonombre
 - Aug 08, 2005, 11:25 PM
Quote from: NSAreject on Aug 08, 2005, 07:43 PMI just talked with the SSO security officer at a company
in Bowie, Maryland, about NSA's full-scope poly; I told
her that I visited this site regularly, but she insisted that
NSA's polygraphers are there "to help applicants get
through the process".  Evidentually, NSA hired some
young polygraphers, that were later reassigned,
because they were abusive and had many complaints
filed against them.  So, I am supposed to believe her
crock-of-shit, and spill my guts to NSA, knowing they
will help me through it !   :D

Remember, NSA reject.  Success is: "one part altitude and nine parts attitude."

Nonombre
Posted by NSAreject
 - Aug 08, 2005, 07:43 PM
I just talked with the SSO security officer at a company
in Bowie, Maryland, about NSA's full-scope poly; I told
her that I visited this site regularly, but she insisted that
NSA's polygraphers are there "to help applicants get
through the process".  Evidentually, NSA hired some
young polygraphers, that were later reassigned,
because they were abusive and had many complaints
filed against them.  So, I am supposed to believe her
crock-of-shit, and spill my guts to NSA, knowing they
will help me through it !   :D