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:
How many states are in the United States? (numeral):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Mar 30, 2010, 12:30 PM
Reporter Jeff Stein, now with the Washington Post, discusses the Prouty case in his SpyTalk column. See, "The haunting of Nada Prouty, a counterterrorism heroine":

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/03/haunting_of_nada_prouty.html

See also David Ashenfelter's article, "Lawyer goes to bat for Nada Prouty, suits threatened over terrorist spy remarks," in the Detroit Free Press:

http://www.freep.com/article/20100330/NEWS06/3300355/1322/Lawyer-goes-to-bat-for-Nada-Prouty-suits-threatened-over-terrorist-spy-remarks
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Mar 29, 2010, 09:47 AM
On Sunday, 28 March 2010, CBS 60 Minutes aired a story about Nada Prouty that included an in-depth interview with her. 60 Minutes also spoke with the CIA officer who conducted a security review after she became the target of an FBI investigation. Prouty denies having improperly accessed FBI computer systems, and as I've mentioned before, there's no evidence that she committed espionage:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6341542n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

Sadly, polygraphy, which failed in the FBI hiring process, was again relied upon by the CIA in its attempt to determine whether Prouty had compromised sensitive information. Bob Grenier, the former head of the CIA's counterterrorism section, emphasized that the investigation involved "multiple polygraphs." And 60 Minutes showed the text of a letter that the CIA sent to prosecutors. The following is a transcription that I've prepared (emphasis added):

QuoteMr. Kenneth Chadwell
Resident U.S. Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Eastern District of Michigan
211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001
Detroit, Michigan 48226-3211

Re: Nada Prouty

Dear Mr. Chadwell:

This letter is to inform you that the CIA conducted a debriefing of Nada Prouty which began on 28 January 2008, and included a polygraph interview. Mrs. Prouty was fully cooperative during both processes.

The Agency did not identify any information that Mrs. Prouty or engaged in unauthorized contact with a foreign intelligence service or terrorist organization.

Sincerely,

[signed]
Charles S. Phalen, Jr.
Director of Security

In any event, allegations that Nada Prouty was a Hizballah spy seem to be completely unsupported by evidence, and it doesn't seem to me that the cause of justice was served by her prosecution.

Extra video, not included in the broadcast segment, is available on CBSNews.com:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/26/60minutes/main6335794.shtml?tag=currentVideoInfo;segmentTitle
Posted by WJ
 - Jan 06, 2008, 02:16 PM
Quote from: nopoly4me on Jan 06, 2008, 12:28 PM
Quote from: 120F450 on Jan 06, 2008, 11:34 AM
Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 19, 2007, 09:05 PMHave you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides.  The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph?  It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get.

When one believes that polygraph, the background investigation, or psychological eval, etc, is going to catch all those who are not qualified, then there's a problem.

This is just one data point.  When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph.  Why then the reverse?

We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some.  We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer.  Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss.
At least you're being honest.  The two polys I took the polygrapher told me that "the machine does not lie".  What a bunch of BS.  Telling someone that they are being deceptive and knowing that the machine is "not perfect" is dishonest to say the least.  This is why the machine should no longer be used.

Seriously????   "The machine does not lie"
Mr. Mashke, you have a PHD. Are you acknowledging that you were convinced that a mechanical device is capable of sentient behavior or has some malevolent cranium obsessed hammer accosted you in your sleep?

Sancho Panza

You know what I mean.  It is obvious that the devious polygraphers were implying that the machine is never wrong.  Wow...it is very interesting that you are so intimidated.
Posted by SanchoPanza
 - Jan 06, 2008, 12:28 PM
Quote from: 120F450 on Jan 06, 2008, 11:34 AM
Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 19, 2007, 09:05 PMHave you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides.  The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph?  It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get.

When one believes that polygraph, the background investigation, or psychological eval, etc, is going to catch all those who are not qualified, then there's a problem.

This is just one data point.  When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph.  Why then the reverse?

We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some.  We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer.  Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss.
At least you're being honest.  The two polys I took the polygrapher told me that "the machine does not lie".  What a bunch of BS.  Telling someone that they are being deceptive and knowing that the machine is "not perfect" is dishonest to say the least.  This is why the machine should no longer be used.

Seriously????   "The machine does not lie"
Mr. Mashke, you have a PHD. Are you acknowledging that you were convinced that a mechanical device is capable of sentient behavior or has some malevolent cranium obsessed hammer accosted you in your sleep?

Sancho Panza
Posted by WJ
 - Jan 06, 2008, 11:34 AM
Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 19, 2007, 09:05 PMHave you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides.  The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph?  It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get.

When one believes that polygraph, the background investigation, or psychological eval, etc, is going to catch all those who are not qualified, then there's a problem.

This is just one data point.  When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph.  Why then the reverse?

We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some.  We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer.  Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss.
At least you're being honest.  The two polys I took the polygrapher told me that "the machine does not lie".  What a bunch of BS.  Telling someone that they are being deceptive and knowing that the machine is "not perfect" is dishonest to say the least.  This is why the machine should no longer be used.
Posted by nopolycop
 - Nov 20, 2007, 10:24 AM
Quote from: nopoly4me on Nov 20, 2007, 09:27 AM
QuoteWhat happened to the old adage "It is better that 100 guilty people go free, than one innocent convicted?"  This is what drives our criminal justice system, and why people are only convicted upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  But, it is okay to "convict" someone of being a liar, drug dealer, thief, etc. based on what the pre-employment polygraph procedure results are.  Which, as we know, is simply one man's opinion based on some squiggly lines on a computer screen.

Nobody is "convicted" during a pre-employment test, so you're way off base here.  To call them "squiggly lines" is a bit of an oversimplification.  You assume - with no science to back it up - that all those who claim to be false positives actually are.  Some will be, yes, as that's the problem with an imperfect test.  However, as I've said elsewhere (and can't continue to explain), because polygraph is better than chance, the process is more fair to the truthful than it would be without polygraph.

Mr. C.

When a person is told by a police or national security agency that he is lying, and summarily removed from further consideration for a job, and then is branded a liar and the results of that error ridden polygraph is then used to ban him from further jobs, and then when there is no way for a person to prove he was in fact telling the truth, I would equate that with being wrongfully convicted of a crime.

The criminal justice system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of a crime, but only the opinion of someone who spent 8 weeks or so in a trade school to brand a person for life.

Of course, not all claimed false positives are in fact false positives, but when the polygraph field itself admits to somewhere between an 80 to 95 percent or so false positive rante, (read "the poly was wrong"), and when we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of applicants, then it is a very serious problem.


I'll stand by my assertions and opinion, and while they are not backed by science, at least they are logical.
Posted by Barry_C
 - Nov 20, 2007, 09:27 AM
QuoteWhat happened to the old adage "It is better that 100 guilty people go free, than one innocent convicted?"  This is what drives our criminal justice system, and why people are only convicted upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  But, it is okay to "convict" someone of being a liar, drug dealer, thief, etc. based on what the pre-employment polygraph procedure results are.  Which, as we know, is simply one man's opinion based on some squiggly lines on a computer screen.

Nobody is "convicted" during a pre-employment test, so you're way off base here.  To call them "squiggly lines" is a bit of an oversimplification.  You assume - with no science to back it up - that all those who claim to be false positives actually are.  Some will be, yes, as that's the problem with an imperfect test.  However, as I've said elsewhere (and can't continue to explain), because polygraph is better than chance, the process is more fair to the truthful than it would be without polygraph.
Posted by 1904
 - Nov 20, 2007, 07:58 AM
Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 19, 2007, 09:05 PMHave you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides.  The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph?  It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get.

When one believes that polygraph, the background investigation, or psychological eval, etc, is going to catch all those who are not qualified, then there's a problem.

This is just one data point.  When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph.  Why then the reverse?

We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some.  We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer.  Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss.


I think that you and your ilk would catch more spies if you used the
'pin the tail on the donkey' method.
Posted by nopolycop
 - Nov 20, 2007, 01:07 AM
Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 19, 2007, 09:05 PM
This is just one data point.  When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph.  Why then the reverse?

We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some.  We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer.  Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss.

For one thing, the polygraph industry, (see PolygraphPlace) seems to be trying to convince people the polygraph is highly accurate.  I could copy and paste dozens of comments to back up my statement, but anyone can simply check out this assertion.

But, there is a much larger issue, that being the number or percentage of errors where the polygraph procedure brands someone a liar, when they are telling the truth.   What happened to the old adage "It is better that 100 guilty people go free, than one innocent convicted?"  This is what drives our criminal justice system, and why people are only convicted upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  But, it is okay to "convict" someone of being a liar, drug dealer, thief, etc. based on what the pre-employment polygraph procedure results are.  Which, as we know, is simply one man's opinion based on some squiggly lines on a computer screen.
Posted by nopolycop
 - Nov 20, 2007, 12:53 AM
Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 19, 2007, 09:05 PMHave you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides.  The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph?  It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get..

My quick comment simply implies that the polygraph apparently doesn't do a very good job of catching spies.  How many people are spying right now, who have passed polygraphs?  And, how did they pass?  From my reading, it appears there seems to be an unhealthy reliance upon the polygraph to weed out undesirables from government law enforcement or security service.  What other explanation could there be for Prouty?  Her whole life was a lie, but apparently no one checked.  But, they DID giver her a polygraph.
Posted by Sergeant1107
 - Nov 19, 2007, 11:52 PM
Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 19, 2007, 09:05 PMHave you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides.  The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph?  It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get.

When one believes that polygraph, the background investigation, or psychological eval, etc, is going to catch all those who are not qualified, then there's a problem.

This is just one data point.  When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph.  Why then the reverse?

We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some.  We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer.  Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss.
The problem isn't that you catch some and miss some.  It is that the polygraph has no scientific basis, and as such it is incapable of detecting truth or deception.

If you screen people by simply arbitrarily disqualifying every second or third person, you will also catch some and miss some.  But I don't think anyone would be arguing that such a process, though imperfect, is better than nothing.

The problem is that, barring a confession, you have no idea if the person you just polygraphed was telling the truth or lying.  

I know you believe that you will catch more than you will miss, but I don't see any evidence to indicate that is true.  In my own experience, the polygraph was inaccurate 75% of the time.  Out of all the government employees screened via the polygraph, the truth is that no one involved in the screening process has the slightest idea if any one of those people lied about matters of substance on their polygraph.  All they can say is that they believe X% of the polygraphs were probably accurate.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Nov 19, 2007, 11:47 PM
Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 19, 2007, 09:05 PMHave you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides.  The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph?  It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get.

The value of those admissions must also be weighed against the harm done to the many individuals who will inevitably be falsely accused of deception when reliance is wrongly placed on an invalid test:

https://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml

QuoteWhen one believes that polygraph, the background investigation, or psychological eval, etc, is going to catch all those who are not qualified, then there's a problem.

Agreed. No vetting system will be perfect.

QuoteThis is just one data point.  When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph.  Why then the reverse?

The Prouty case is one of many data points. While no evidence that Prouty committed espionage against the United States has been made public, spies who have fooled the polygraph include:
Would you care to name any American turncoats caught by the polygraph? I can only think of one who is credibly alleged to have been so caught: Sharon Scranage, a CIA secretary who admitted to passing the identities of CIA employees to her Ghanaian boyfriend, who was an intelligence officer.

QuoteWe in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some.  We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer.  Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss.

It's not at all clear that polygraphy reliably works at better-than-chance levels of accuracy, especially when the person being "tested" understands that the "test" is a pseudoscientific sham and knows polygraph countermeasures. Comparing the list of spies who fooled the polygraph against the single spy who was arguably caught by it, it looks like you miss more than you catch.

It's high time that our government heeded the National Academy of Sciences' conclusion that "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies." The time to end our misplaced reliance on polygraph screening is now.
Posted by Barry_C
 - Nov 19, 2007, 09:05 PM
Have you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides.  The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph?  It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get.

When one believes that polygraph, the background investigation, or psychological eval, etc, is going to catch all those who are not qualified, then there's a problem.

This is just one data point.  When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph.  Why then the reverse?

We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some.  We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer.  Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss.
Posted by nopolycop
 - Nov 16, 2007, 01:38 PM
Since she has not been sentenced yet, she should cut a deal to discuss how she passed the poly, in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Of course, she would need to take another poly to confirm she was telling the truth.   :o
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Nov 16, 2007, 11:38 AM
Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Kit Bond (R-MO) have sent newly sworn-in Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey a letter with questions regarding the Prouty case, including one about the polygraph:

Quote4.  According to press reports, Prouty passed a polygraph examination. Are those reports accurate? If so, knowing what we know now, which questions, if any, should have indicated deception if the polygraph were accurately measuring Prouty's truthfulness?

As I mentioned in the first post of this message thread, Prouty would have been asked a question similar to: "Have you deliberately withheld any important information from your application?" (This is the precise language of one of the relevant questions I was asked on my 1995 FBI pre-employment polygraph.)