- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Latin 101
- Jul 25, 2002, 03:25 AMListen,
I'm in the business and have extensive experience in background investigations (BI's). All of the previous contributors to this thread who have suggested the massive amounts of manpower needed to uncover the information in question are absolutely correct. People are people. The same way that you like to get a beer after work, or see your girlfriend/boyfriend, is the same way that people think and act in federal law enforcement/intelligence. Yes, most of us are highly dedicated, but to think that we really care whether or not you bought a dildo is ridiculous. Furthermore, I don't know of any agency that reviews your 'personal purchases.' The purpose of a credit check is to determine whether the applicant has maintained integrity on their debt. It is also a determining factor in whether the applicant is susceptible to bribes or coercion because of their financial woes.
But, this thread of conversation is a very important topic of discussion. This is because the Bill of Rights needs to be adhered to no matter how high the cost, but please do not create hysteria over a matter in which you have no previous or current experience.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sees thousands of applications per day. Less than twenty percent are granted an interview. Half of those remaining make to the BI process, and once the BI has begun, it is in the investigator's interest to adjudicate you (not gain admissions, like in the ridiculous art of polygraph).
Honestly, OPM (any agency) could care less. Most of the time, personnel managers are just trying to CYA [cover their ass]. They want to make to the end the day the same way that you and I do. To make the assumption that the board of examiners are a platoon of robocops, tirelessly trying to root out the seeds of moral decadence, is absurd!
BUT, once you are in the federal system, it is an entirely different situation.
It is in my summation that most novice 'message board' contributors to this website have no previous nor current experience in federal government (at least not the classified regions). Stop it! Stop creating paranoia because you can't back up your assertions because of your lack of experience.
I believe that the senior members of this important website will concur with my foregoing statements.
I'm in the business and have extensive experience in background investigations (BI's). All of the previous contributors to this thread who have suggested the massive amounts of manpower needed to uncover the information in question are absolutely correct. People are people. The same way that you like to get a beer after work, or see your girlfriend/boyfriend, is the same way that people think and act in federal law enforcement/intelligence. Yes, most of us are highly dedicated, but to think that we really care whether or not you bought a dildo is ridiculous. Furthermore, I don't know of any agency that reviews your 'personal purchases.' The purpose of a credit check is to determine whether the applicant has maintained integrity on their debt. It is also a determining factor in whether the applicant is susceptible to bribes or coercion because of their financial woes.
But, this thread of conversation is a very important topic of discussion. This is because the Bill of Rights needs to be adhered to no matter how high the cost, but please do not create hysteria over a matter in which you have no previous or current experience.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sees thousands of applications per day. Less than twenty percent are granted an interview. Half of those remaining make to the BI process, and once the BI has begun, it is in the investigator's interest to adjudicate you (not gain admissions, like in the ridiculous art of polygraph).
Honestly, OPM (any agency) could care less. Most of the time, personnel managers are just trying to CYA [cover their ass]. They want to make to the end the day the same way that you and I do. To make the assumption that the board of examiners are a platoon of robocops, tirelessly trying to root out the seeds of moral decadence, is absurd!
BUT, once you are in the federal system, it is an entirely different situation.
It is in my summation that most novice 'message board' contributors to this website have no previous nor current experience in federal government (at least not the classified regions). Stop it! Stop creating paranoia because you can't back up your assertions because of your lack of experience.
I believe that the senior members of this important website will concur with my foregoing statements.
Posted by Skeptic
- Jul 22, 2002, 11:25 PMJust thought I'd add my two cents here, based upon a little research.
Many ISP's such as Earthlink say they simply don't keep detailed logs of what their users do (who visits what web site, who downloads what file, etc.) in the first place. They're more interested in what external surfers do while visiting any of their own servers.
That's not to say they couldn't keep such customer records, but many seem to have policies requiring warrants before they'll do it -- keeping logs on customer surfing habits otherwise tends to provoke backlashes. The best recommendation is what Dave said: check with your ISP regarding their policy.
It's always possible that an agency could tap Internet traffic directly (e.g. at backbone routers). However, since the intelligence take would involve tremendous amounts of traffic looking for a very few packets, and since looking at the traffic going through exclusively domestic routers would raise serious 4th Amendment questions (unavoidably so if they confronted a job applicant with the intercepted information), I would bet it would be considered more trouble than it would be worth.
Of course, if you publicly post information (say on Usenet) about yourself, then I would think it would be open season. But you never know: Robert Hannson reportedly posted porn stories in newsgroups using his real name for years without drawing any suspicion to himself.
Agencies seem to have enough trouble making the time for traditional background investigations and tasking computers and their operators to look for serious targets without also piecing together whether a job applicant visited a web site about polygraphy. It's a big Internet.
Skeptic
Many ISP's such as Earthlink say they simply don't keep detailed logs of what their users do (who visits what web site, who downloads what file, etc.) in the first place. They're more interested in what external surfers do while visiting any of their own servers.
That's not to say they couldn't keep such customer records, but many seem to have policies requiring warrants before they'll do it -- keeping logs on customer surfing habits otherwise tends to provoke backlashes. The best recommendation is what Dave said: check with your ISP regarding their policy.
It's always possible that an agency could tap Internet traffic directly (e.g. at backbone routers). However, since the intelligence take would involve tremendous amounts of traffic looking for a very few packets, and since looking at the traffic going through exclusively domestic routers would raise serious 4th Amendment questions (unavoidably so if they confronted a job applicant with the intercepted information), I would bet it would be considered more trouble than it would be worth.
Of course, if you publicly post information (say on Usenet) about yourself, then I would think it would be open season. But you never know: Robert Hannson reportedly posted porn stories in newsgroups using his real name for years without drawing any suspicion to himself.
Agencies seem to have enough trouble making the time for traditional background investigations and tasking computers and their operators to look for serious targets without also piecing together whether a job applicant visited a web site about polygraphy. It's a big Internet.
Skeptic
Posted by Stealth
- Jun 15, 2002, 01:32 PMGeez. Lighten up; there was no implication of current active review of internet logs by government agencies in my posts. Given my unfamiliarity with the named intelligence agencies, the nature of their work, and the current security issues facing the country, I think the question was meritorious. I did not imply any surreptitious information gathering of the internet logs of applicants was actually going on. I simply asked if anyone knew if it was done. Re-read my posts if you interpreted them any differently. And nowhere in my posts are there "rumors that are being started" about any books.
Please take my preceeding posts literally. Interpreting them as having a hidden agenda or rumor-mongering would be incorrect. All I asked was if anyone knew if internet log review was being done, that's all - nothing more.
By the way, great site. I've printed and started reading The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. I hope to have more questions ensuing.
Please take my preceeding posts literally. Interpreting them as having a hidden agenda or rumor-mongering would be incorrect. All I asked was if anyone knew if internet log review was being done, that's all - nothing more.
By the way, great site. I've printed and started reading The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. I hope to have more questions ensuing.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jun 14, 2002, 11:59 AMMr. Williams is quite correct. Paranoia does run rampant within this thread. Point # 1: The Bureau has a difficult time monitoring the communications of known targets, e.g., organized crime figures, suspected terrorists, etc. The notion that they can (or even want/attempt to) successfully (whatever that is) monitor the communications and financial transactions of tens of thousands of "non-suspect" individuals (e.g., applicants) is pure nonsense. Point #2: The origins of the paranoia that exists in this thread and on occasion surfaces elsewhere may not be purely coincidental and happenstance. The polygraph community when confronted with the glaring weaknesses and shortcomings of polygraphy has several choices before it: (a) discuss, confront, and/or debate the substantive issues---almost never happens (do you really think the APA has the nerve and any intention of debating Mr. Maschke in a public forum???) (b) ignore the antipolygraph assertions and hope they will go away (frequently done), (c) make anonymous and personal attacks while ignoring the substance of the debate, and (d) provide anonymous disinformation (intentionally done, not just misinformation) designed to have potential polygraph examinees doubt their own common sense about what is right, fair, and in their own best interest. There are legitimate reasons for anonymity. That having been said, as a reader, be careful, even suspect, and question possible motivations for anonymous posts. And, yes, that applies to this one as well...
Posted by beech trees
- Jun 14, 2002, 09:56 AMQuote from: Fred F. on Jun 14, 2002, 12:29 AMDo you really think that LE agencies have the manpower to be checking on ones internet usage. Microsoft may download your usage figures everyday. But that is because they have unlimited resources.
I agree with Mr. Williams and will add this comment. Most agencies cannot afford to do a THOROUGH background investigation because of manpower and time constraints. That is why they put so much effort into the psuedo-science of polygraphy. Hey if the poly says the candidate is not worthy, so be it. That saves money for them and sends many good honest guys down the road.
I don't think my comments are in conflict with Mr. Williams. All I wrote was that if they did snoop applicant's IP logs, it would be unverifiable from here, and that despite *usually* needing a subpoena/warrant, the new Patriot Act enables broad, invasive powers for such agencies as the CIA and the FBI.
According to Gino, the FBI *does* check your credit history. I agree with George in his previous comment, it would most likely require the applicant coughing up his ISP somewhere in his application-- although, just to be the devil's advocate here, all it would take to get that info would be a glance at your credit history and/or phone logs.
Posted by Fred F.
- Jun 14, 2002, 12:29 AMBT, False + ,et al
Do you really think that LE agencies have the manpower to be checking on ones internet usage. Microsoft may download your usage figures everyday. But that is because they have unlimited resources.
I agree with Mr. Williams and will add this comment. Most agencies cannot afford to do a THOROUGH background investigation because of manpower and time constraints. That is why they put so much effort into the psuedo-science of polygraphy. Hey if the poly says the candidate is not worthy, so be it. That saves money for them and sends many good honest guys down the road.
I also wonder how many computer geniuses would actually want to work in LE? they make more money working for Microsoft
Fred F.
Do you really think that LE agencies have the manpower to be checking on ones internet usage. Microsoft may download your usage figures everyday. But that is because they have unlimited resources.
I agree with Mr. Williams and will add this comment. Most agencies cannot afford to do a THOROUGH background investigation because of manpower and time constraints. That is why they put so much effort into the psuedo-science of polygraphy. Hey if the poly says the candidate is not worthy, so be it. That saves money for them and sends many good honest guys down the road.
I also wonder how many computer geniuses would actually want to work in LE? they make more money working for Microsoft
Fred F.
Posted by Doug Williams
- Jun 13, 2002, 09:25 PMParanoia is certainly going full blast here! No they don't check on individual credit card purchases. But if you are that worried, I suggest you borrow a friend's card or send a money order.
I will tell you this. I have been selling manuals from my website since l996 and not one person has ever mentioned ever being asked or confronted about having purchased my manual by any agency or any police department.
The problem with all these annonymous posts is that you can't evaluate the source of the information given or the rumors that are being started. If you have any questions about my site I suggest you ask me.
I will tell you this. I have been selling manuals from my website since l996 and not one person has ever mentioned ever being asked or confronted about having purchased my manual by any agency or any police department.
The problem with all these annonymous posts is that you can't evaluate the source of the information given or the rumors that are being started. If you have any questions about my site I suggest you ask me.
Posted by beech trees
- Jun 13, 2002, 06:44 PMI'm fairly certain Doug has a large warning on his website about just such a possibility.
Posted by Not ME not ME
- Jun 13, 2002, 04:05 PMGreat I used my CC to purchase the poly book but now these damn agencies check your credit history. Give me a break.
That should also be in your guide not to buy stuff online concerning polys.
now what am i gonna do.
That should also be in your guide not to buy stuff online concerning polys.
now what am i gonna do.
Posted by beech trees
- Jun 13, 2002, 11:06 AMStealth,
It would take an extraordinary lapse in judgement and security for someone in the know to admit here that their agency surreptitiously snoops IP logs of their prospective hires. It also would be unverifiable.
Since the passing of the truly heinous Patriot Act law enforcement agencies have broad powers that are now more than ever in conflict with the US Constitution. Believe me, if they want to do it, nothing is stopping them.
It would take an extraordinary lapse in judgement and security for someone in the know to admit here that their agency surreptitiously snoops IP logs of their prospective hires. It also would be unverifiable.
Since the passing of the truly heinous Patriot Act law enforcement agencies have broad powers that are now more than ever in conflict with the US Constitution. Believe me, if they want to do it, nothing is stopping them.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 13, 2002, 03:12 AMQuoteI'm sorry, I don't get it. What is the significance of $47.45? Please explain, as you've got my curiosity up.
That's the price of Doug Williams' manual, "How to Sting the Polygraph," which is marketed on http://www.polygraph.com.
I don't have firsthand knowledge of whether federal agencies review applicants' internet usage logs in making hiring decisions, but it seems highly unlikely. How would an agency even know what internet service provider(s) an applicant uses?
Posted by Stealth
- Jun 13, 2002, 03:03 AMQuote from: Gino J. Scalabrini on Jun 13, 2002, 01:54 AM
The FBI is also known to request the numbers of each of your credit cards and permission to look at your records. The ostensible purpose of this is to allow them to check for hidden debt (there is a belief that those in substantial debt are more susceptible to being bought off). Nonetheless, it is entirely possible that they may peruse your statements. I assume that they might be a little riled up if they found a certain charge for $47.45.
I'm sorry, I don't get it. What is the significance of $47.45? Please explain, as you've got my curiosity up.
I was just curious as to whether or not agencies like the NSA and CIA would go back through personal internet logs or not. I knew that they went through credit card histories, but I didn't know it was supposed to be for determining debt. I know of someone that applied to U.S. Customs, and he had made a purchase of a dildo at a porno shop a few years prior to his application. He purchased it for his girlfriend, but the recruiters questioned him at length about it. It's kind of funny, but I wouldn't have wanted to be in his shoes.
If anyone knows for sure whether or not internet logs are reviewed by hiring agencies (with or without a release) please post here. Thanks for the foregoing feedback.
Posted by G Scalabr
- Jun 13, 2002, 01:54 AMQuoteI believe beech_trees is correct. When you apply to such agencies, your security questionnaire actually contains a release form for your credit record, which you need to sign. The agency then supplies this form to a credit bureau (I assume).
The FBI is also known to request the numbers of each of your credit cards and permission to look at your records. The ostensible purpose of this is to allow them to check for hidden debt (there is a belief that those in substantial debt are more susceptible to being bought off). Nonetheless, it is entirely possible that they may peruse your statements. I assume that they might be a little riled up if they found a certain charge for $47.45.
For total anonymity, you can go to a library or university where PC users are not required to sign in and download The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to a floppy disk. If you are intent on purchasing something and want to be discreet about it, I suggest having someone else order it for you.
Posted by False +
- Jun 12, 2002, 11:29 PMStealth,
I believe beech_trees is correct. When you apply to such agencies, your security questionaire actually contains a release form for your credit record, which you need to sign. The agency then supplies this form to a credit bureau (I assume). For internet usage, there would either have to be a form specifically for that, or as beech trees said, a warrant or subpoena.
Of-course, it's not that great of a stretch, I would assume, for an agency like NSA to just go ahead and tap your line without asking anyone's permission. I suspect they've done it before.
I believe beech_trees is correct. When you apply to such agencies, your security questionaire actually contains a release form for your credit record, which you need to sign. The agency then supplies this form to a credit bureau (I assume). For internet usage, there would either have to be a form specifically for that, or as beech trees said, a warrant or subpoena.
Of-course, it's not that great of a stretch, I would assume, for an agency like NSA to just go ahead and tap your line without asking anyone's permission. I suspect they've done it before.
Posted by beech trees
- Jun 12, 2002, 08:55 AMMost of the larger ISP's expect a warrant before they turn over things such as that. You can call your internet provider and ask for their specific policy concerning releasing such information.
Dave
Dave