- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by NSAreject
- Jun 28, 2006, 09:55 PMKockstar,
You are obviously not worth the time-of-day; you are probably a disgruntled polygrapher. The point of the article, is that getting an exception is not easy, and I am sure that most private contractors would not be willing to go that route - thus, I would consider it, generally, to be a clearance killer. My boss, even being a high-level program manager, had a difficult time getting cleared. Think and say, as you may. Yes, I am stupid, for playing into your hand...
You are obviously not worth the time-of-day; you are probably a disgruntled polygrapher. The point of the article, is that getting an exception is not easy, and I am sure that most private contractors would not be willing to go that route - thus, I would consider it, generally, to be a clearance killer. My boss, even being a high-level program manager, had a difficult time getting cleared. Think and say, as you may. Yes, I am stupid, for playing into your hand...
Posted by kockstar
- Jun 28, 2006, 03:55 PMQuote from: NSAreject on Jun 28, 2006, 02:20 PMKockstar,
Well, then debate it with:
http://www.securityinstruction.com/ADR/dcid64/dcid64T.htm
Personnel Security Standards and Procedures Governing Eligibility for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)
5. Personnel Security Standards.
a. The individual requiring access to SCI must be a US citizen.
b. The individual's immediate family must also be US citizens.
6. Exceptions to Personnel Security Standards.
c. Exceptions to the US citizenship requirement for individuals to be accessed to SCI and their immediate family members shall require certification of a compelling need. This exception should be based upon a specific national security requirement and a certification of compelling need.
Screw you !
see how stupid you are... read section c. Statments of compelling need basicly cover people who have foriegn born spouses.. thanks for posting that to prove how wrong you are... no wonder you name is Reject. you tried to post that it was a "clearance killer" haha how dumb and informed can you be to post that and then post the regulation that proves your comment wrong.
Posted by NSAreject
- Jun 28, 2006, 02:20 PMKockstar,
Well, then debate it with:
http://www.securityinstruction.com/ADR/dcid64/dcid64T.htm
Personnel Security Standards and Procedures Governing Eligibility for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)
5. Personnel Security Standards.
a. The individual requiring access to SCI must be a US citizen.
b. The individual's immediate family must also be US citizens.
6. Exceptions to Personnel Security Standards.
c. Exceptions to the US citizenship requirement for individuals to be accessed to SCI and their immediate family members shall require certification of a compelling need. This exception should be based upon a specific national security requirement and a certification of compelling need.
Screw you !
Well, then debate it with:
http://www.securityinstruction.com/ADR/dcid64/dcid64T.htm
Personnel Security Standards and Procedures Governing Eligibility for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)
5. Personnel Security Standards.
a. The individual requiring access to SCI must be a US citizen.
b. The individual's immediate family must also be US citizens.
6. Exceptions to Personnel Security Standards.
c. Exceptions to the US citizenship requirement for individuals to be accessed to SCI and their immediate family members shall require certification of a compelling need. This exception should be based upon a specific national security requirement and a certification of compelling need.
Screw you !
Posted by kockstar
- Jun 26, 2006, 12:40 AMQuote from: NSAreject on Jun 24, 2006, 03:10 PMMy boss married a foreign national and had to get a, "letter of compelling need", in order to get his CIA clearance.see its not a requirement as you stated.. its not a "clearance killer" as you stated... it can be done...
Quote from: NSAreject on Jun 24, 2006, 03:10 PM
The first question, from recruiters with private contractors is, "are all your immediate family members US citizens ?". On my SF86, for the CIA, I had to list all of my immediate family members, plus our Parents, as US citizens.
The reason thats the first question is they have to see how many people they have to clear or investigate..
you dont know what your talking about. stop giving out bogus information.. its not "clearance killer"... It can be done..
Posted by NSAreject
- Jun 24, 2006, 03:10 PMKockstar,
Screw you - I worked for NSA for many years, and now for the CIA. Intel agencies require that immediate family members be US citizens. My boss married a foreign national and had to get a, "letter of compelling need", in order to get his CIA clearance. The first question, from recruiters with private contractors is, "are all your immediate family members US citizens ?". On my SF86, for the CIA, I had to list all of my immediate family members, plus our Parents, as US citizens.
Screw you - I worked for NSA for many years, and now for the CIA. Intel agencies require that immediate family members be US citizens. My boss married a foreign national and had to get a, "letter of compelling need", in order to get his CIA clearance. The first question, from recruiters with private contractors is, "are all your immediate family members US citizens ?". On my SF86, for the CIA, I had to list all of my immediate family members, plus our Parents, as US citizens.
Posted by kockstar
- Jun 24, 2006, 01:41 PMQuote from: NSAreject on Apr 14, 2006, 05:44 PMRelatives, with non-US citizenship , for NSA
and CIA, are clearance killers.
Not true.... you dont know what your talking about.
Posted by WebPics
- May 02, 2006, 11:37 PMOPP
if you're in DOD, whether mil or civ, then you know there are levels of sacrifice in everything done in service to the nation. we're not in it for the money, there are more regs, rules, laws that apply than the normal citizen or even gov't employee that works a normal lazy cush job--you know the ones---you go to their desk for service and either either enjoying comp time, training, or gone home early.
we take these jobs on knowing the restrictions, knowing the reason for them and the higher standard. i live with the perspective on life that i have nothing to hide and anyone can ask me anything anytime. so nothing bothers me. it's good you are honest with yourself to question whether this is what you want.
what you might consider, if they have not already ask you, is what would you do if a foreign and hostile intellgience agency seized one of your wife's relatives in an attempt to bribe, blackmail, or force you to work for them. if you can stand and reason that they're either going to kill them or several others as well as put national security in jeopardy and select loyalty to our country and its security, then you should have no problem. that is not to say it will be an easy decision or one that you'll second guess for a lifetime if the worst occurs. again, it is a weight we CHOOSE or CHOOSE NOT to live with.
Read the following books and maybe it will help you decide: By Way of Deception, Gideon's Spies, and Profits of War; all about the Isreali Mossad. Also, recommend WIDOWS...has 3 authors, 2 with same name; difficult to find, but may also influence your decision.
C/I polys are easy and no problem if you have not done any of the things they ask; and if you have, you have an opportunity to explain and put in context. the one that would be a flare is contact with foreign persons since your relatives would introduce you to other foreigners while visiting. mind your P&Qs with them, don't talk anything of your job, take mental notes to report, get more info from them than they do you to help with your contact report, report on arrival back, and answer honestly.
i have had several undesired foreign "sales pitches" and it has not impacted my C/I poly. reported all to proper authorities upon occurrance, reported all those and foreigners I come in contact with.
AND, WHOEVER PUT THE POLITICAL B.S. BELOW OPP'S QUESTION AND SATURATED HIS BLOGG IS A HAIRY, UNWIPED CHAFFING ASSHOLE.
- j
if you're in DOD, whether mil or civ, then you know there are levels of sacrifice in everything done in service to the nation. we're not in it for the money, there are more regs, rules, laws that apply than the normal citizen or even gov't employee that works a normal lazy cush job--you know the ones---you go to their desk for service and either either enjoying comp time, training, or gone home early.
we take these jobs on knowing the restrictions, knowing the reason for them and the higher standard. i live with the perspective on life that i have nothing to hide and anyone can ask me anything anytime. so nothing bothers me. it's good you are honest with yourself to question whether this is what you want.
what you might consider, if they have not already ask you, is what would you do if a foreign and hostile intellgience agency seized one of your wife's relatives in an attempt to bribe, blackmail, or force you to work for them. if you can stand and reason that they're either going to kill them or several others as well as put national security in jeopardy and select loyalty to our country and its security, then you should have no problem. that is not to say it will be an easy decision or one that you'll second guess for a lifetime if the worst occurs. again, it is a weight we CHOOSE or CHOOSE NOT to live with.
Read the following books and maybe it will help you decide: By Way of Deception, Gideon's Spies, and Profits of War; all about the Isreali Mossad. Also, recommend WIDOWS...has 3 authors, 2 with same name; difficult to find, but may also influence your decision.
C/I polys are easy and no problem if you have not done any of the things they ask; and if you have, you have an opportunity to explain and put in context. the one that would be a flare is contact with foreign persons since your relatives would introduce you to other foreigners while visiting. mind your P&Qs with them, don't talk anything of your job, take mental notes to report, get more info from them than they do you to help with your contact report, report on arrival back, and answer honestly.
i have had several undesired foreign "sales pitches" and it has not impacted my C/I poly. reported all to proper authorities upon occurrance, reported all those and foreigners I come in contact with.
AND, WHOEVER PUT THE POLITICAL B.S. BELOW OPP'S QUESTION AND SATURATED HIS BLOGG IS A HAIRY, UNWIPED CHAFFING ASSHOLE.
- j
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Apr 29, 2006, 12:53 PMQuote from: retcopper on Apr 25, 2006, 03:37 PMSergeant, I am not calling you a liar because you were told you failed your exams but maybe some outside issues regarding the test affected your results. If you were telling the truth and I have no reason to believe you weren't, then it is my opinion the polygrpaher was wrong and not the instrument.
Retcopper,
If a subject is telling the complete truth and still fails because of "outside issues" doesn't that indicate the polygraph is not a useful process for detecting deception? The criteria for passing a polygraph exam should consist solely of answering all questions in a truthful manner. If the subject does that they should pass every single time.
Answering all questions truthfully is exactly what I did. My answers didn't change from test to test, since when you are telling the truth it is easy to be consistent. Apparently there were different "outside issues" on my first three polygraphs, since I failed each one for different reasons.
In my first polygraph the examiner concluded I was lying when I stated I had never used or sold cocaine. In my second exam whatever "issues" I had with cocaine had apparently been resolved, but I apparently had issues with fighting and assaulting people. By my third polygraph I was apparently a thief, but had gotten over whatever issues I'd had with cocaine and assaults. In my fourth exam, the same examiner who failed me because I supposedly stole things concluded I was not being deceptive about anything. It seems to me that a scientifically valid test would have replicable results; if I continued to show "issues" during each test every time I was asked about cocaine I would probably have a little more faith in the process.
For the record, I was completely truthful in all of the tests. I know that for a fact.
I fully understand that you and the rest of the visitors to this message board can't possibly know whether I was telling the truth during my four polygraphs. Apparently the examiner I had in each of those tests didn't know either. The examiners guessed whether I was being truthful or deceptive based on who-knows-what. Three times they guessed wrong and once they guessed correctly. Since I know I was being completely truthful I can conclude that the polygraph is not a valid method of detecting deception.
Posted by retcopper
- Apr 28, 2006, 04:33 PMFairchance:
You're right. The cost is minimal. I can't believe any agency would not utilize the tapes.
Have a good weekend.
You're right. The cost is minimal. I can't believe any agency would not utilize the tapes.
Have a good weekend.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Apr 28, 2006, 11:34 AMDear retcopper,
I have long agreed that videotaping(to include audio) can be beneficial to the examiner and examinee. Such recording can be done economically (DVD burning camaras are not expensive, four hours of high quality recording can be done on one CD and physical storage should not be an issue). Putting aside polygraph validity, this should be a no-brainer which could settle many a contested exam.
Whether or not the exam should exist in the first place, well, we will let that to the other posts.
Regards.
I have long agreed that videotaping(to include audio) can be beneficial to the examiner and examinee. Such recording can be done economically (DVD burning camaras are not expensive, four hours of high quality recording can be done on one CD and physical storage should not be an issue). Putting aside polygraph validity, this should be a no-brainer which could settle many a contested exam.
Whether or not the exam should exist in the first place, well, we will let that to the other posts.
Regards.
Posted by retcopper
- Apr 28, 2006, 11:11 AMAllegedliar:
As I stated before I strongly believe in the use of video/audio recordings of all poly sessions to back up any claims of misconduct on the part of examinee or examiner. You don't believe in the accuracy of the polygraph and I respect that. But poly and anti poly folks will amost always agree on the evidence provided by the tapes.
As I stated before I strongly believe in the use of video/audio recordings of all poly sessions to back up any claims of misconduct on the part of examinee or examiner. You don't believe in the accuracy of the polygraph and I respect that. But poly and anti poly folks will amost always agree on the evidence provided by the tapes.
Posted by retcopper
- Apr 28, 2006, 10:26 AMTwoblock:
You are absolutley correct. An examinee should be able to obtain copies of their charts and video/audio tapes. I don't have a problem with it and it seems to me that every agency should make them available at the examinees request..
You are absolutley correct. An examinee should be able to obtain copies of their charts and video/audio tapes. I don't have a problem with it and it seems to me that every agency should make them available at the examinees request..
Posted by quickfix
- Apr 27, 2006, 10:26 PMQuote from: allegedliar on Apr 27, 2006, 07:15 PMGeorge, I understand your point, but I am just cynically playing devil's advocate for the polygraphers. There seems to be an inherent contradiction in their position.Not intending to cut ahead of George, I'd like to cite two real-life incidents where the video tapes played a significant role. In one instance, an examiner was reported by someone as behaving in an unethical manner. The video tapes substantiated the allegation. An additional review of past exam videos going back three months further revealed the examiner had been conducting the same unethical practice in virtually every exam. The examiner's certification was revoked, and
Were a polygrapher subjected to supposedly false claims, why would he or she not then be willing to again rely on the polygraph to dispute such claims, instead of turning to audio / visual recording equipment?
After all, I thought the polygraph was supposed to be the definitive, objective technical means they relied upon to detect lies in the first place. If a polygraph did what it is purported to do, there would then be no need for audio or video recorders.
The polygraphers' support for the use of alternative technical means in their sessions seems to undermine the purported omniscience and effectiveness of the polygraph.
But I suppose that if allegations of lies about a polygrapher's conduct in a polygraph session were followed up by yet even more polygraph sessions to settle those charges, we would all be caught up in a vicious circle that really would show the insanity of the polygraph.
Of course, the polygraph "professionals" wouldn't want that. I just think their use of audio or video recordings in sessions shows them to be hypocrites and that their magical machine cannot be relied upon to show us the truth.
(s)he was fired.
In another instance, a female examinee provided a sworn statement alledging that the examiner required her to remove her blouse and brassiere so that he could properly attach the pneumograph tubes. When the tape showed that no such conduct occurred, her civil service employment was promptly terminated.
Posted by quickfix
- Apr 27, 2006, 10:12 PMTwo-block:
As far as the federal government goes, an individual can request anything related to him/her under a FOIA request. Cost is minimal, and often fee-free. Individuals do request, and receive, copies of their polygraph reports on a routine basis. The tapes and charts are generally not available after about 90 days, as they are not required to be maintained beyond that. Tapes are degaussed and reused for future exams. FOIA regs also contain a number of provisions under which certain information is exempt from release and disclosure. Not sure if tapes/charts fall under any of those exemptions. Don't know the guidelines in the LE world.
As far as the federal government goes, an individual can request anything related to him/her under a FOIA request. Cost is minimal, and often fee-free. Individuals do request, and receive, copies of their polygraph reports on a routine basis. The tapes and charts are generally not available after about 90 days, as they are not required to be maintained beyond that. Tapes are degaussed and reused for future exams. FOIA regs also contain a number of provisions under which certain information is exempt from release and disclosure. Not sure if tapes/charts fall under any of those exemptions. Don't know the guidelines in the LE world.
Posted by Twoblock
- Apr 27, 2006, 07:16 PMquickfix and retcopper
One more question to be answered and I'll let this subject go.
Can you give a reason why an examinee can't get a copy of his tapes and charts even when the examinee offers to withstand the cost of reproduction? Seems to me, if the popygrapher is confident that he made the right call on the exam, he shouldn't have anything to hide. If the examinee feels/knows that he told the truth to all questions and still failed, he should have the right to further review by an outside/independant quality control system. It's called "checks and balancies" in which I firmly believe. Wouldn't this give the polygraph industry a little more validity? I can't recall any other industry that has such a closed circuit system.
One more question to be answered and I'll let this subject go.
Can you give a reason why an examinee can't get a copy of his tapes and charts even when the examinee offers to withstand the cost of reproduction? Seems to me, if the popygrapher is confident that he made the right call on the exam, he shouldn't have anything to hide. If the examinee feels/knows that he told the truth to all questions and still failed, he should have the right to further review by an outside/independant quality control system. It's called "checks and balancies" in which I firmly believe. Wouldn't this give the polygraph industry a little more validity? I can't recall any other industry that has such a closed circuit system.