- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 18, 2008, 09:14 AMQuote from: 353B3C3D520 on Oct 17, 2008, 10:34 PMTo assert that the words "anyone" and "criminals" are synonymous in the English language is beyond preposterous.You are being absurd.
I did not assert that anyone and criminals are synonymous. Inclusive and synonymous are not the same thing. You would think an academian would know the difference.
Quote from: 353B3C3D520 on Oct 18, 2008, 12:01 AMThe advice we give to criminal suspects is crystal clear and runs 1.5 pages:
Wow really that much? Your Chapter on Countermeasures runs over 41 pages. OH EXCUSE ME if you subtract 1.5 pages of plausible deniability it's only 39.5 pages on how to lie and cheat on a polygraph exam.
Your silly contention reminds me of a scene in the movie 1941 where Dan Akroyd is giving Ned Beatty detailed step by step instructions on how "NOT" to fire an anti-aircraft gun.
Bomb making manuals and lockpicking manuals have their disclaimers too.
Example: from the Anarchists Cookbook site
QuoteNOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmaster of this site and associated businesses do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational and entertainment purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.
I think the phrase "Certain Exemptions" in your quote from the Department of Labor Web Page certainly conflicts with the phrase OUTLAWED in the US in 1988 for everyone but government employees. Actually there are exemptions for pre-employment tests in certain private industries and they are permitted throughout the private sector when an employer suffers an economic loss, providing the rules set out in the act are followed.
from http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs36.pdf
QuoteThe Act also includes limited exemptions where polygraph tests (but no other lie detector tests) may be administered in the private sector, subject to certain restrictions:I don't really see how you can argue that something this"permitted" can be "Outlawed" by any common definition of the word.
• To employees who are reasonably suspected of involvement in a workplace incident that results in economic loss to the employer and who had access to the property that is the subject of an investigation; and
• To prospective employees of armored car, security alarm, and security guard firms who protect facilities, materials or operations affecting health or safety, national security, or currency and other like instruments; and
• To prospective employees of pharmaceutical and other firms authorized to manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances who will have direct access to such controlled substances, as well as current employee who had access to persons or property that are the subject of an ongoing investigation.
It's almost like arguing that Police Searches are outlawed simply because the constitution requires that a warrant be obtained or an exception articulated.
Sancho Panza
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 18, 2008, 08:13 AMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 18, 2008, 12:04 AMUsing your same logic, an attorney who tells the general public that it is often wise to ask for a lawyer rather than submitting to a police interview should be denigrated for advising people to conceal criminal activity.I disagree.
Advising a client to lie is NOT the same as advising him to keep his mouth shut.
If a lawyer is certain that his client intends to commit perjury, the lawyer must first attempt to persuade the client to testify truthfully. If the client still intends to lie, the lawyer must threaten to reveal the client's intent to commit perjury to the judge. If the threat of disclosure does not alter the client's plan, then the lawyer must do whatever is necessary to prevent the commission of perjury by his client, including, but not limited to, disclosing his client's intent to lie to the judge. If he coaches his client on how to lie effectively he has aided an abetted a perjury.
I would think a police officer woudl know the difference.
Sancho Panza
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Oct 18, 2008, 12:04 AMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 17, 2008, 10:30 PMHe isn't providing a product he is providing advice. Lawyers and Physicians are held accountable for their advice through malpractice actions.
Using your same logic, an attorney who tells the general public that it is often wise to ask for a lawyer rather than submitting to a police interview should be denigrated for advising people to conceal criminal activity. I disagree.
I think George has made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions that he believes examinees have an ethical responsibility to tell the truth on all relevant questions.
If the polygraph functioned as touted by the pro-polygraph crowd there would be no need for any innocent examinees to contemplate countermeasures in order to help protect from the very real possibility of a false-positive.
If the APA (or anyone else) ever comes up with an instrument that reliably detects truth or deception the problem of offering advice to truthful people that can also be used by liars will cease to exist.
Posted by G Scalabr
- Oct 18, 2008, 12:01 AMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 17, 2008, 10:30 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Oct 17, 2008, 02:09 PMIf a person murders somebody with a knife, is the knife manufacturer complicit in that murder?He isn't providing a product he is providing advice. Legal immunity does not in my opinion insulate him from moral or ethical responsibilty for his words and actions. Does this bother him? I think not.
But if you ask most people if lying or cheating is wrong they will tell you that it is. Based on his writings Dr. Maschke does not think that way.
This situation would be more akin to attempting to provide a means of getting away with the murder after it was committed.
Why don't you go back and read his whole book and calculate how much space he devotes to encouraging the reader to tell the truth versus how much space he devotes to telling the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity in order to cheat the testing process.
Sancho Panza
The advice we give to criminal suspects is crystal clear and runs 1.5 pages:
From pp 122-124
QuoteIf You Are Suspected of a Crime
If you have been asked to submit to a polygraph examination in
connection with a criminal investigation, "just say no!" You should
not submit to any polygraph "test." (In most cases, the fact that
you refused to submit to a polygraph "test" will not be admissible
polygraph countermeasures 123
as evidence in court.) Instead, you should get a lawyer. If for some
reason your lawyer advises you to submit to a police polygraph
interrogation, ask him to read this book. Just like a majority of the
public at large, many lawyers are simply ignorant of the true nature
of the polygraph process. If, after reading this book, your lawyer
still advises you to submit to a polygraph "test," you should probably
fire your lawyer. You have little to gain by submitting to a polygraph
interrogation and much to lose: if you "pass," the police may well
continue to suspect you regardless; if you "fail," it will only confirm
their suspicions, and news of your "failure" may well be leaked to
the local media to smear you.
As John A. Larson, a pioneer of polygraphic lie detection lamented:
I originally hoped that instrumental lie detection would become
a legitimate part of professional police science. It is little more
than a racket. The lie detector, as used in many places, is nothing
more than a psychological third-degree aimed at extorting confessions
as the old physical beatings were. At times I'm sorry I ever
had any part in its development.24
Top-flight defense attorneys never let their clients submit to a polygraph "test"
conducted by the police or any other authority. In the
few cases where clients are polygraphed (most notably high profile
cases where the client is being tried in the media), the attorney
makes arrangements to hire a private polygrapher. The "test" is
conducted in private, and the results, which are protected by
attorney-client privilege, are released only if the client "passes."
This was the protocol used by the attorneys for O.J. Simpson, John
and Patsy Ramsey, and Gary Condit. The Ramseys and Condit
"passed," and their results were therefore made public. Mr. Simpson
apparently fared worse, and his results were never made public.
24Cited in J.H. Skolnick, "Scientific Theory and Scientific Evidence: An Analysis
of Lie Detection," The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 70 (1961), pp. 694, 728. Cited in
Lykken (1998) at pp. 28Ð29.
(After word got out that Mr. Simpson had been polygraphed by a
124 the lie behind the lie detector
private examiner, the official explanation was that he was hooked
up to the polygraph to see how it works, but that no actual "test"
was conducted.)
In addition to our writing, we have counseled many accused persons here on this forum.
We have never wavered in our advice that criminals suspects refuse a polygraph under any circumstances. We make it very clear that while polygraph results are not admissible in court, any confession during the "test" is likely to be. Moreover, we underscore the point that the latter is the primary goal in polygraphs of criminal suspects, and that all questioning is done without the suspect's attorney present.
I don't know how we could be more persuasive to the criminal element that they should not attempt to lie through and/or cheat the polygraph process--they should never get anywhere near it!
QuoteBut if you ask most people if lying or cheating is wrong they will tell you that it is. Based on his writings Dr. Maschke does not think that way.Polygraph examiners definitely will--despite the fact that they earn their livelihoods from a pseudoscientific fraud that is predicated on these very activities. This makes them twice as guilty in my book--not only do they engage in lying and cheating (for a living!), but they lie and cheat about not doing it . . .
Posted by G Scalabr
- Oct 17, 2008, 10:34 PMQuoteYou provide your book and techniques free of charge to ANYONE. I think the term anyone would necessarily include criminals wouldn't it?Using this definition, you are correct in that we are providing information to criminals. Glock is also furnishing firearms to criminals. Microsoft and Apple are providing technology and GM is providing transportation—all to the most dangerous of hardened professional criminals.
To assert that the words "anyone" and "criminals" are synonymous in the English language is beyond preposterous.
QuoteOK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activityAs we have made clear numerous times, our preferred advice is that readers refuse to submit to evaluation by polygraphy, or use the "complete honesty" approach.
Still, considering all of the deception inherent in the polygraph process, I don't see an ethical issue with the person being tested engaging in the same behavior as the examiner, albeit to a lesser degree. I see it as no more egregious than telling a used car salesman that I have found a better price on a comparable vehicle elsewhere after he plays the game of visiting the manager to see "how low he can go."
The analogy is apropos because both car sales and polygraphy are processes fraught with deception.
Let's not forget that the bedrock of the CQT (more properly called the "probable lie" test) involves the polygraph operator himself misleading the person being tested into lying on "control" questions.
This deception is set up by fooling the examinee into believing that he is being "tested" on these questions and that if he lies when answering them, he will fail. In actuality, if one answers them completely truthfully, he will fail.
These two deceptions are the cornerstone of CQT polygraphy. This is not your polygraph suite. Our readers know that those who pass the CQT even with the highest scores are assumed by the polygrapher to be untruthful on roughly 1/3 of the questions in the "test."
To argue that we "offer suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity" is beyond silly, again, unless you use your warped definitions where the words "anyone" and "criminals" can be used interchangeably and McDonald's is thus guilty of providing food to criminals.
If you know of a way that we can reach innocent people without giving criminals the potential to misuse the information we provide, please let me know.
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 17, 2008, 09:19 AMWhat published moral or ethical code permits an adherant to lie or cheat, just because they suspect that they suspect someone is lying to them?For starters, the CQT polygraph operator's code of ethics . . .
Sancho Panza
QuoteNow that I have answered your question with quotes and page numbers, could you please attempt to explain your blatantly false assertion that polygraph[y] is a process which was OUTLAWED in the US in 1988 for everyone but government employees
From the US Department of Labor's Web site:
The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) generally prevents employers from using lie detector tests, either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment, with certain exemptions. Employers generally may not require or request any employee or job applicant to take a lie detector test, or discharge, discipline, or discriminate against an employee or job applicant for refusing to take a test or for exercising other rights under the Act. In addition, employers are required to display the EPPA poster in the workplace for their employees.
When an act of Congress "prevents employers from [engaging in polygraphy],"one can reasonably conclude that the process has been outlawed for those in the private workplace (at least when traditional definitions of words in the English language are employed).
Do you know of any valid diagnostic tests where the US Department of Labor requires notification to all employees via a poster hung conspicuously in an area of congregation that asking one to submit is generally prohibited, and that no consequences are allowed to be levied against those who refuse ?
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 17, 2008, 10:30 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Oct 17, 2008, 02:09 PMIf a person murders somebody with a knife, is the knife manufacturer complicit in that murder?He isn't providing a product he is providing advice. Lawyers and Physicians are held accountable for their advice through malpractice actions. Dr. Maschke still enjoys the benefits of the First Amendment in a country he has chosen to leave. Legally he is not responsible for someone's use of his protected speech. Legal immunity does not in my opinion insulate him from moral or ethical responsibilty for his words and actions. Does this bother him? I think not. But if you ask most people if lying or cheating is wrong they will tell you that it is. Based on his writings Dr. Maschke does not think that way.
This situation would be more akin to attempting to provide a means of getting away with the murder after it was committed.
What you call "explicitly for the benefit of INNOCENT people", I consider an occasional disclaimer and careful choice of words used to provide an escape argument or plausible deniability for his "lie coaching behavior'. Why don't you go back and read his whole book and calculate how much space he devotes to encouraging the reader to tell the truth versus how much space he devotes to telling the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity in order to cheat the testing process.
FYI countermeasures and lying gets a whole chapter.
If you cannot understand the concept of deduction by chain of inference detailed in my earlier post, futher explanation probably won't help you.
Sancho Panza
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Oct 17, 2008, 02:09 PMQuoteAre you asserting that the techniques that you publish in your book DON'T WORK if used by criminals?
If a person murders somebody with a knife, is the knife manufacturer complicit in that murder?
TC
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Oct 17, 2008, 02:06 PMCullen
SP
None of the quotes from TLBLD in that post have anything to do with concealing "criminal activity". If the person being tested is innocent, how could they be "concealing criminal activity"?
OTOH, if they are guilty, and lie about an actual crime, then they are concealing criminal activity.
In fact, the author makes ALL of these suggestions explicitly for the benefit of INNOCENT people about to undergo a polygraph interrogation, to protect themselves from falsely being branded deceptive. So how is it criminal activity? Would a PA prosecute such a person under these circumstances? Concealing criminal activity IS a crime, isn't it?
TC
QuoteToday at 4:21am:
Can you please point out to us which portion of the book (page nr?) that provides "ways and means to attemptto conceal criminal activity"?Or are you just fibbing again?
And pleeeeaaase!Don't give us one of your long, convoluted posts.A page number will suffice.
SP
Quote
Please see my response to Mr. Scalabrini. I'm sorry if it is too long and convoluted for you to understand but he asked for quotes.
None of the quotes from TLBLD in that post have anything to do with concealing "criminal activity". If the person being tested is innocent, how could they be "concealing criminal activity"?
OTOH, if they are guilty, and lie about an actual crime, then they are concealing criminal activity.
In fact, the author makes ALL of these suggestions explicitly for the benefit of INNOCENT people about to undergo a polygraph interrogation, to protect themselves from falsely being branded deceptive. So how is it criminal activity? Would a PA prosecute such a person under these circumstances? Concealing criminal activity IS a crime, isn't it?
TC
Posted by GreenEarth
- Oct 17, 2008, 10:27 AM"If a person lies to a conman who is himself lying and trying to cheat them, then the conman is not in a very good position to complain about it."
I do not understand the bickering. Officers of the law are admitted to lie to suspects during interrogations of a crime If I getting all this right, polygraphers are said to be thrwarting the truth about so-called control/comparisions and even expect folks to lie on them to compare to relevant. Why do polygraphers protest so much if it is OK for them to be be deceptive during the "PROCESS".
We have been lied to by Congress by elected "OFFICIALS" Financial Institutions our companies and generally lied to by folks WE put in CHARGE!
Who is leading by example? The rest of the world needs to know....
I do not understand the bickering. Officers of the law are admitted to lie to suspects during interrogations of a crime If I getting all this right, polygraphers are said to be thrwarting the truth about so-called control/comparisions and even expect folks to lie on them to compare to relevant. Why do polygraphers protest so much if it is OK for them to be be deceptive during the "PROCESS".
We have been lied to by Congress by elected "OFFICIALS" Financial Institutions our companies and generally lied to by folks WE put in CHARGE!
Who is leading by example? The rest of the world needs to know....
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 17, 2008, 09:19 AMQuote from: PhilGainey on Oct 17, 2008, 04:21 AMCan you please point out to us which portion of the book (page nr?) that provides "ways and means to attemptto conceal criminal activity"?Or are you just fibbing again?Please see my response to Mr. Scalabrini. I'm sorry if it is too long and convoluted for you to understand but he asked for quotes.
And pleeeeaaase!Don't give us one of your long, convoluted posts.A page number will suffice.
Quote from: PhilGainey on Oct 17, 2008, 04:14 AMIf a person lies to a conman who is himself lying and trying to cheat them, then the conman is not in a very good position to complain about it.
It's like a "john" going to the police to report that some hooker, he hired illegally, has heisted his wallet!
What published moral or ethical code permits an adherant to lie or cheat, just because they suspect that they suspect someone is lying to them?
I accept the possibility that your knowledge of the interactions that occur between "hookers" and "Johns" exceeds my own, but I am aware of more than one arrest and successful prosecution of a "hooker" for theft, based on a complaint by a "John".
Sancho Panza
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 17, 2008, 09:08 AMMr. Scalabrini,
Are you asserting that the techniques that you publish in your book DON'T WORK if used by criminals? You provide your book and techniques free of charge to ANYONE. I think the term anyone would necessarily include criminals wouldn't it? Do you deny the simple logic that a criminal might read your book and and attempt to use its contents to conceal their criminal activity? I think that there is an undeniable chain of inference that proves the assertion. Deduction is an accepted form of argument in academia when supported by a articulable chain of inference.
Trying to deny that your book attempts to teach the reader ways and means to conceal criminal activity is like saying that lockpicking books don't teach burglars how to gain access to the houses they burgle or that bomb making manuals don't teach terrorists how to make bombs. Except of course, that lockpicking and bomb making manuals have a better chance of working.
As to the remainder of my assertion, Why Gino, I'm glad you asked,
In your book the following text appears at or near the locations noted.
How many quotes and page numbers do you need.?
Now that I have answered your question with quotes and page numbers, could you please attempt to explain your blatantly false assertion that Polygraph is
By the way, my assertion regarding research studies that I stiil refuse to provide stems from a challenge to an assertion by Dr. Maschke that the countermeasures he teaches in your book are undetectable. As of this date, your co-author has been unable to produce single research study that both (a) proved that the countermeasures he teaches are an effective means of passing a polygraph and are undetectable and (b) cited your book TLBTLD as the source of the advice or training for effective and undetectable countermeasures.
Would you care to respond? Hint: if both (a) and (b) cannot be satisfied, then the only correct response can only be"There isn't a single research study anywhere that will satisfy both (a) and (b). Hint #2 Citations in Chapter 4 of your book do not satisfy (b)
Sancho Panza
Are you asserting that the techniques that you publish in your book DON'T WORK if used by criminals? You provide your book and techniques free of charge to ANYONE. I think the term anyone would necessarily include criminals wouldn't it? Do you deny the simple logic that a criminal might read your book and and attempt to use its contents to conceal their criminal activity? I think that there is an undeniable chain of inference that proves the assertion. Deduction is an accepted form of argument in academia when supported by a articulable chain of inference.
Trying to deny that your book attempts to teach the reader ways and means to conceal criminal activity is like saying that lockpicking books don't teach burglars how to gain access to the houses they burgle or that bomb making manuals don't teach terrorists how to make bombs. Except of course, that lockpicking and bomb making manuals have a better chance of working.
As to the remainder of my assertion, Why Gino, I'm glad you asked,
In your book the following text appears at or near the locations noted.
QuoteBut don't tell your polygrapher that you've read this book or that you've done research on the Internet and visited such websites as
AntiPolygraph.org! Page 140 CONCEALING INFORMATION
QuoteInstead, provide a general answer to his question about what you know about polygraphy, such as: Page 140 SUGGESTING LIES TO TELL THE EXAMINER
I heard on T.V. that they're almost always accurate when
used by a skilled examiner. Is that right?
• A friend of mine in law enforcement said not to worry, just
go in and tell the truth, and you'll have no problem!
• I understand that polygraphs are a lot more accurate than
those voice stress analyzers. (Polygraphers generally hold the competing
voodoo science of Computerized Voice Stress Analysis
[CVSA] in utter contempt.)
• I read in the paper that the polygraph has been constantly
improving with time and that the latest computerized polygraphs
are very reliable.
• When I was in grade school, a polygraph examiner came
and gave a demonstration to my class and showed us how the test
is done using my teacher as a volunteer. She lied about a card she
had picked from a deck, and the polygraph examiner caught her
lie and was even able to figure out exactly which card she had
picked!
• I heard it caught O.J. in a lie! (Virtually no one in the polygraph
community believes O.J. Simpson to be innocent of the
murder of his ex-wife, Nicole.)
Whatever answer you give, don't memorize and repeat the above
examples word-for-word. Page 140 SUGGESTING WHICH LIES TO USE AND OFFERING ADVICE ON HOW TO DELIVER THEM.
QuoteIf you do choose to submit to a polygraph for some other
reason (most likely as a pre-requisite for an employment process),
the most important step you can take to minimize the potential
for a negative outcome is to make no admissions. Page 197 CONCEALING INFORMATION Note this statement does not differentiate between what it is or isn't permissable to lie about
QuoteMake no admissions is also the rule if and when a polygrapher accuses you of using countermeasures. Page 197 IN OTHER WORDS IF THE EXAMINER ACCUSES YOU OF USEING THE TECHNIQUES TAUGHT ON ANTIPOLYGRAPH.ORG TO MANUFACTURE FALSE REACTIONS, LIE .
How many quotes and page numbers do you need.?
Now that I have answered your question with quotes and page numbers, could you please attempt to explain your blatantly false assertion that Polygraph is
Quotea process which was OUTLAWED in the US in 1988 for everyone but government employees
By the way, my assertion regarding research studies that I stiil refuse to provide stems from a challenge to an assertion by Dr. Maschke that the countermeasures he teaches in your book are undetectable. As of this date, your co-author has been unable to produce single research study that both (a) proved that the countermeasures he teaches are an effective means of passing a polygraph and are undetectable and (b) cited your book TLBTLD as the source of the advice or training for effective and undetectable countermeasures.
QuoteThe countermeasures we've discussed produce physiological responses that are indistinguishable from those that polygraphers believe to be associated with truth-telling concerning the relevant issues TLBTLD page 159.When he produces evidence of his assertion that satisfies both aspects, I will review the evidence and either produce a citation for my assertion or withdraw it.
Would you care to respond? Hint: if both (a) and (b) cannot be satisfied, then the only correct response can only be"There isn't a single research study anywhere that will satisfy both (a) and (b). Hint #2 Citations in Chapter 4 of your book do not satisfy (b)
Sancho Panza
Posted by G Scalabr
- Oct 17, 2008, 06:09 AMThis is another unsubstantiated assertion--just like your previous specious assertion about the existence of published studies demonstrating an ability of polygraphers to reliably detect countermeasures.
Quotes and corresponding page numbers please--I would especially like to see one for concealing criminal activity.
I know that polygraphy is not exactly associated with traditional academics. Still, on this forum, we like to follow traditonal rules of acdemic discourse. In academia, when you make a positive assertion, it is your responsibility to provide documentation supporting your claim--not the responsibility of others to "do research."
Quotes and corresponding page numbers please--I would especially like to see one for concealing criminal activity.
I know that polygraphy is not exactly associated with traditional academics. Still, on this forum, we like to follow traditonal rules of acdemic discourse. In academia, when you make a positive assertion, it is your responsibility to provide documentation supporting your claim--not the responsibility of others to "do research."
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 17, 2008, 05:12 AMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Oct 16, 2008, 01:21 PMDr. Maschke
I'm betting that you also sent a link to your book to the firefighters union so they could try to cheat on their tests.
Did You?? You better hurry because I'll bet Doug Williams is offering them on-site training.
I hadn't yet contacted the firefighters union when you posted. But I have now sent the following message to International Association of Firefighters Local 2665, which represents firefighters in eastern Missouri:
QuoteDear IAFF Local 2665 Members,
I'm a co-founder of AntiPolygraph.org, a non-profit, public interest website dedicated to exposing and ending waste, fraud, and abuse associated with the use of polygraphs and other purported "lie detectors."
The recently reported plan to force Normandy firefighters to submit to lie detector testing while no doubt well-intentioned, is ill-advised. The problem is that polygraphy has no scientific basis. The truthful often fail, while the deceptive can pass with the help of simple countermeasures that polygraphers have no demonstrated ability to detect.
The plan to force firefighters to submit to this pseudoscientific procedure has virtually zero chance of determining 1) whether a crime was committed and 2) if so, who committed it. But there is a very good chance that one or more innocent firefighters will wrongly fail and suffer adverse career consequences.
For more on polygraphy, and why it should have no place in the workplace, please see our book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, which may be downloaded as a PDF file here:
http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf
Sincerely,
George W. Maschke, Ph.D.
Co-founder,
AntiPolygraph.org
My purpose is not to encourage cheating, but rather to inform them about the dangers of polygraphy, especially in view of union head Dennis Murray's advice, "Take the lie-detector test and prove your innocence and move on," which bespeaks a lack of understanding of the risks involved.
QuoteWho do you think is more likely to take your advice and try countermeaures, an innocent person or someone who attempted to kill a man because of the color of his skin?
We don't know whether a crime was committed and if so, the race and motive of the perpetrator, or whether such perpetrator was a firefighter. In any event, a mandatory polygraph dragnet is the wrong way to go about answering these questions.
QuoteFor the record, I think fire district is wrong here. This investigation should be left in the hands of the police or FBI.
I fully agree.
QuoteI am also not sure that the fire district board or its employees would be considered an exempt government entity under the Employee Polygraph Protection Act.
From their web site:QuoteThe Normandy Fire Protection District is not governed by the City of Normandy nor any of the cities within its geographical boundaries; instead an independently elected three member Board of Directors manages and sets policies for the district.
The board seems to be more of a Co-Op than a government entity. Based on their web site I think they are subject to the same EPPA restrictions as any private employer.
No, the Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection District is a state entity, as is made abundantly clear on its budget page, and thus exempt from the provisions of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act.
QuoteIf they are not exempt, I seriously doubt the incident as described meets the standards required for employers testing employees. Even if the incident met EPPA standards, there doesn't seem to be any information that would justify testing 30 employees.
Agreed. The kind of polygraph dragnet planned by the Northeast department was outlawed by the EPPA. But as a governmental agency, the Northeast department is exempted from the law.
QuoteNo wonder John Grogan's name popped up in the story, He doesn't think he has to comply with EPPA, probably because he never finished polygraph school and has never been a licensed examiner.
I think the more likely explanation for John Grogan being mentioned in the story is that he was contacted by the reporter and asked for comment on the cost of performing 30 polygraph examinations. There is no indication that he was contacted by the Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection District.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Oct 17, 2008, 04:21 AMQuoteMr. Scalabrini, Considering your status as a co-author of a book (TLBTLD) that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity;
Can you please point out to us which portion of the book (page nr?) that provides "ways and means to attempt to conceal criminal activity"? Or are you just fibbing again?
And pleeeeaaase! Don't give us one of your long, convoluted posts. A page number will suffice.
TC
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Oct 17, 2008, 04:14 AMQuoteOne thing is for sure. If Dr. Maschke is successful in his quest in turning honest truthful people into liars and cheaters, then anytime a polygrapher accuses somebody who follows Dr. Maschke's instructions of lying or cheating on their exam, then they certainly won't be in a very good position to claim that they told the truth and failed or claim that they didn't cheat will they?
If a person lies to a conman who is himself lying and trying to cheat them, then the conman is not in a very good position to complain about it.
It's like a "john" going to the police to report that some hooker, he hired illegally, has heisted his wallet!
TC