- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by ILGA_RITA
- Apr 24, 2006, 09:36 PMSEEKING cesium_133. i am assuming you are canadian. i am. like to start another topic to hear your story. not alot of canadians on this site. would like to exchange info. thanks.
Posted by retcopper
- Apr 24, 2006, 01:48 PMTarlain:
I couldn't care less if you believe me or not about the wiretap law in Pa. Your postings are so disjointed and convoluted that I will not try to answer your questions. But, I have a question for you: What knowledge and experience do you have that makes you qualified to discuss the polygraph and to call me liar?
I couldn't care less if you believe me or not about the wiretap law in Pa. Your postings are so disjointed and convoluted that I will not try to answer your questions. But, I have a question for you: What knowledge and experience do you have that makes you qualified to discuss the polygraph and to call me liar?
Posted by Tarlain
- Apr 22, 2006, 03:55 PMhttp://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c03p01.html
"Of the 50 states, 38, as well as the District of Columbia, allow you to record a conversation to which you are a party without informing the other parties you are doing so. "
quickfix,
thank you for the link. i believe this quote ends the debate. i will have to check to find out what my state/local law allows.
this also explains why Linda Tripp was allowed to tape record Monical Lewinsky from my previous arguement (wash d.c.)
"Of the 50 states, 38, as well as the District of Columbia, allow you to record a conversation to which you are a party without informing the other parties you are doing so. "
quickfix,
thank you for the link. i believe this quote ends the debate. i will have to check to find out what my state/local law allows.
this also explains why Linda Tripp was allowed to tape record Monical Lewinsky from my previous arguement (wash d.c.)
Posted by Twoblock
- Apr 22, 2006, 09:11 AMquickfix
Go ahead and beat the dead horse with those links. They are providing me with much case law research in a new area.
Thanks again, Bud.
Go ahead and beat the dead horse with those links. They are providing me with much case law research in a new area.
Thanks again, Bud.
Posted by quickfix
- Apr 21, 2006, 11:26 PMNot to beat a dead horse, but the following link will provide solid answers to questions about surrepticious tape recording; it is the First Amendment Handbook, and Chapter 3 covers recording:
www.rcfp.org/handbook
www.rcfp.org/handbook
Posted by Tarlain
- Apr 21, 2006, 07:23 PMQuote from: Tarlain on Apr 21, 2006, 05:27 PMretcopper,
I find your last statement very odd. Why would it bother you if you were "taped" without your knowledge? If I understand your background correct, you are a public servant. Integrity should be your foundation. It does not seem to fit...that a person of high integrity would do anything different if others could view their behavior. I'm not sure if that makes sense. But in my occupation, it is certainly assumed that all my actions would be identical regardless of whether there is a hard copy of my behavior. The fact you actually care if other people know what you do when you feel you are alone with someone is unsettling to me.
Of course, I carry myself each day as if each of my actions is being judged by a higher authority. Maybe the judgement of God makes man's judgement pale in my mind. Just my thoughts...
retcopper-
please explain to me exactly which part of that was "immature." After looking back, I fail to see how any of that LACKS maturity. The fact you think integrity and/or faith shows immaturity concerns me. Or was this just a form of mud slinging to cover up the fact you get upset when people find out who you are in private?
Quick fix was concerned about his good reputation damaged by a person lying about his character/actions.
You on the other hand are worried about your ACTUAL actions. There is a huge difference here.
To be abundantly clear to you and Nonombre. I have every reason to believe that my attitude and actions are very similar whether I am being "taped" (which is often the case during high acuity cases for the team I work with). It is only responsible to realize you are accountable for your own actions. I am sorry if that is your definition of immaturity.
Posted by Tarlain
- Apr 21, 2006, 07:07 PMI'll have to humbly accept your disagreement. I do not feel I am immature. The professionals that I engage with every day do not feel that way either to the best of my knowledge. I do not see any reason to be concerned if someone records my conversations. Who cares? If I say it out loud...to another person, there is always the good chance, it will become common knowledge. Most of us learn this facet of life around the 3rd grade.
Under many circumstances, it would be illegal (hippa laws, 3rd party wiretapping, etc)...but I disagree with you about it being illegal to for me to tape my own conversations. Feel free to insult me all you want, but the fact is, you are the one lying on a regular basis...and afraid of others finding out what you are saying to the people while performing your job(s).
retcopper,
Please show me SPECIFICALLY where it says in your state of PA that an individual can not record a conversation that he/she is a participant. You keep throwing that out there like it is fact...because you say so. But at least show me you are not making that up since you continue to base your entire arguement on something that does not even apply where I live (or the other 3 states I have lived in). This should be quite easy to do for a seasoned professional like yourself.
Nonombre,
For clarity: I have absolutely no problem with other people finding out what I've said in conversation. If I said it out loud, what difference does it make if someone records it...unless I was trying to DECEIVE someone. Which is funny, since that is what it sounds like you 2 try to do on a regular basis.
quickfix,
most of this arguement has nothing to do with federal employees. i certainly did not bring that up. if you are truely concerned with people altering tapes (which is extremely detectable), all you would have to do is hold all tapes for a longer time. Certainly the inconvenience of holding a tape shouldn't impede on people's freedom...in this case to show the world the true behavior of many of these polygraph people.
and without dragging out the tin foil hats, please excuse me if i don't trust ANY govt to protect the authenticity of polygraph tests...the one where they lie to me over and over again. Give me a break.
Under many circumstances, it would be illegal (hippa laws, 3rd party wiretapping, etc)...but I disagree with you about it being illegal to for me to tape my own conversations. Feel free to insult me all you want, but the fact is, you are the one lying on a regular basis...and afraid of others finding out what you are saying to the people while performing your job(s).
retcopper,
Please show me SPECIFICALLY where it says in your state of PA that an individual can not record a conversation that he/she is a participant. You keep throwing that out there like it is fact...because you say so. But at least show me you are not making that up since you continue to base your entire arguement on something that does not even apply where I live (or the other 3 states I have lived in). This should be quite easy to do for a seasoned professional like yourself.
Nonombre,
For clarity: I have absolutely no problem with other people finding out what I've said in conversation. If I said it out loud, what difference does it make if someone records it...unless I was trying to DECEIVE someone. Which is funny, since that is what it sounds like you 2 try to do on a regular basis.
quickfix,
most of this arguement has nothing to do with federal employees. i certainly did not bring that up. if you are truely concerned with people altering tapes (which is extremely detectable), all you would have to do is hold all tapes for a longer time. Certainly the inconvenience of holding a tape shouldn't impede on people's freedom...in this case to show the world the true behavior of many of these polygraph people.
and without dragging out the tin foil hats, please excuse me if i don't trust ANY govt to protect the authenticity of polygraph tests...the one where they lie to me over and over again. Give me a break.
Posted by quickfix
- Apr 21, 2006, 06:11 PMsame here; amen
Posted by retcopper
- Apr 21, 2006, 06:07 PMQuickfix:
I definitely would expect the examinee to request permission from me to tape record the test. If I found out he surreptitiously recorede it I probably wouldn't arrest him for violating the wiretap statute but I would let him know in no uncertain terms that he violated the law.
Tarlain:
Your comments are immature. Nonombre summed it up nicely.
I definitely would expect the examinee to request permission from me to tape record the test. If I found out he surreptitiously recorede it I probably wouldn't arrest him for violating the wiretap statute but I would let him know in no uncertain terms that he violated the law.
Tarlain:
Your comments are immature. Nonombre summed it up nicely.
Posted by quickfix
- Apr 21, 2006, 05:48 PMRetcopper/Tarlain: let me clarify that I wouldn't have any objections to my exam being recorded by an examinee with prior knowledge; I would object if it were done covertly. As a federal employee, I am bound by DoD and federal regulations to advise examinees that all portions of the exam are subject to monitoring and recording, and the advisement is prominently posted in writing on the monitor room door; furthermore, to protect the examinee's privacy, only authorized individuals, such as other examiners, attorneys, and case agents, are allowed to monitor exams, and only if another examiner is present in the monitor room. If an examinee covertly records an exam, there is no telling what editing might be done afterward to make it appear something was/wasn't said. One could make the same argument against the examiner, but under regulation, we are bound to protect the tapes from alteration and release to unauthorized third-parties. If an examinee wanted to tape our session, I wouldn't object, but I would certainly ensure that our copy is held on to far longer than the typical 90 days.
Posted by nonombre
- Apr 21, 2006, 05:36 PMQuote from: Tarlain on Apr 21, 2006, 05:27 PMretcopper,
I find your last statement very odd. Why would it bother you if you were "taped" without your knowledge? If I understand your background correct, you are a public servant. Integrity should be your foundation. It does not seem to fit...that a person of high integrity would do anything different if others could view their behavior. I'm not sure if that makes sense. But in my occupation, it is certainly assumed that all my actions would be identical regardless of whether there is a hard copy of my behavior. The fact you actually care if other people know what you do when you feel you are alone with someone is unsettling to me....
Tarlain,
Put aside the whole polygraph/investigations situation for a moment . Do you mean to tell me that you would not be the least bit bothered if you found out that somebody (you didn't even know) secretly taped a conversation between you and that person?
Boy, you guys acuse us polygraphers of being sneaky and dishonest. At least we TELL you when you are going to be taped.
Posted by Tarlain
- Apr 21, 2006, 05:27 PMretcopper,
I find your last statement very odd. Why would it bother you if you were "taped" without your knowledge? If I understand your background correct, you are a public servant. Integrity should be your foundation. It does not seem to fit...that a person of high integrity would do anything different if others could view their behavior. I'm not sure if that makes sense. But in my occupation, it is certainly assumed that all my actions would be identical regardless of whether there is a hard copy of my behavior. The fact you actually care if other people know what you do when you feel you are alone with someone is unsettling to me.
Of course, I carry myself each day as if each of my actions is being judged by a higher authority. Maybe the judgement of God makes man's judgement pale in my mind. Just my thoughts...
I find your last statement very odd. Why would it bother you if you were "taped" without your knowledge? If I understand your background correct, you are a public servant. Integrity should be your foundation. It does not seem to fit...that a person of high integrity would do anything different if others could view their behavior. I'm not sure if that makes sense. But in my occupation, it is certainly assumed that all my actions would be identical regardless of whether there is a hard copy of my behavior. The fact you actually care if other people know what you do when you feel you are alone with someone is unsettling to me.
Of course, I carry myself each day as if each of my actions is being judged by a higher authority. Maybe the judgement of God makes man's judgement pale in my mind. Just my thoughts...
Posted by retcopper
- Apr 21, 2006, 11:52 AMFortunately the legislature is going to review the current wiretapping statute, the school bus issue and hopefully amend it to allow the audio portion. In the mean time many schools have disconnected the cameras and/ or have eliminated just the audio portion. Like Twoblock said, it is a sad commentary when some kids are a threat on the schoolbus.
Quickfix: Personally I dont have a problem with anyone taping one of my polygraph exams as long as it doesn't interfere with the process. What I do object to is speaking to someone in any kind of other situation where they tape your conversation without your knowledge. This happened a couple of times when I was a police officer. The complaintant would tape record us when we responded to her complaints about various things. The tape vindicated us when she tried to use it against us but the idea that someone tape records my conversation without my permission is unsettling.
Quickfix: Personally I dont have a problem with anyone taping one of my polygraph exams as long as it doesn't interfere with the process. What I do object to is speaking to someone in any kind of other situation where they tape your conversation without your knowledge. This happened a couple of times when I was a police officer. The complaintant would tape record us when we responded to her complaints about various things. The tape vindicated us when she tried to use it against us but the idea that someone tape records my conversation without my permission is unsettling.
Posted by Tarlain
- Apr 20, 2006, 09:14 PMThank for all the input. As far as the buses, I'd sign a parental consent to allow it. And if my son/daughter was not sitting with hands folded, quietly waiting for his/her bus stop, I would instantly be enforcing significant discipline.
Growing up as a military brat, I had not thought about the fact that we did agree to all the mentioned above when living on base housing, etc. If the polygraph is done in a govt building, I can see how this would pose a problem I had not considered. I absolutely understand why misc electronic and recording device would be prohibited. Unfortunately, I'm not sure where tests are normally done. I guess I'll find out in the future.
On a side comment, it takes FOREVER to work your way through the hiring process of these LE applications! It's never taken me more than a couple weeks to apply/accept previous job offers. It's looking like I could be waiting months and months just to get to the polygraph part of the process (sheesh).
Anyhow, thanks again.
Growing up as a military brat, I had not thought about the fact that we did agree to all the mentioned above when living on base housing, etc. If the polygraph is done in a govt building, I can see how this would pose a problem I had not considered. I absolutely understand why misc electronic and recording device would be prohibited. Unfortunately, I'm not sure where tests are normally done. I guess I'll find out in the future.
On a side comment, it takes FOREVER to work your way through the hiring process of these LE applications! It's never taken me more than a couple weeks to apply/accept previous job offers. It's looking like I could be waiting months and months just to get to the polygraph part of the process (sheesh).
Anyhow, thanks again.
Posted by quickfix
- Apr 20, 2006, 07:57 PMQuote from: retcopper on Apr 20, 2006, 05:30 PMTarlain:
I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Fed Laws are different and each state probably has different applicable laws. Like I said, go by what your attorney tells you.
Federal and state/local law are indeed quite different, particularly when DoD is involved; within highly-protected facilities called SCIFs (Special Compartmented Information Facilities), it is unauthorized to bring in electronic equipment and media of any kind without the express consent of the facility commander. This includes cell phones, laptops, blackberries, and recording devices. All are subject to immediate confiscation if discovered. Incidentally, when one sets foot in a federal government facility or military installation, implied consent to search is given for your person, vehicle, or anything you are carrying. As far as recording exams, most DoD programs record their exams either by audio or video, or both. Traditional recordings (cassette tapes, vcr tapes, etc) are generally kept for about 90 days, then erased. They are kept in the event a complaint is received by an examinee against an examiner for allegations of inappropriate behavior, verbal abuse, etc. The recording is then reviewed by supervisory personnel to substantiate or refute the allegation(s). The newer polygraph equipment have built-in digital recorders and may be kept longer. During a DoD exam, the examiner is required under DoD regulations to advise examinees of the presence of recording devices, observation (one-way) mirrors, and any other external equipment. In my 20+ years in the profession, recording of a poly has never been an issue of contention by an examinee. Personally, I couldn't care less if someone had a recording device during their exam. We both know the exam is being recorded by me, so what's the difference. Only an abusive or unethical examiner would be concerned. I have more concern for an examinee bringing in a concealed weapon or illegal drugs into my room, which has in fact happened.