- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by ftttf007
- Jun 20, 2002, 02:44 AMThe questions you refer to are control questions. The questions are applied per the polygraph book discussed on this website. However, investigators love it when subjects fry themselves through admissions on these questions.
Posted by doj2002
- Jun 14, 2002, 10:49 PMI think they touch on more than those three areas. They asked me about lying to or betraying the trust of a loved one, too. Also ask about cheating in high school and drinking habits.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jun 08, 2002, 02:48 AMfttt007,
You state:
Much of what you state in this paragraph I completely agree with. With regard to many people telling the truth and passing polygraph exams--yes, quite likely, however--undoubtedly more people who tell the truth would pass polygraph exams if they utilized appropriately chosen and effectively applied countermeasures. With regard to the last couple of sentences and alleged quandary/dilemma you pose, I truly believe that as our legal system is not prepared to convict the guilty at the expense of convicting the innocent (i.e., we have established a jury system that would likely acquit 10 guilty defendants before it would convict one innocent defendant) we can do no less with applicants for federal and other employment. We cannot allow the present polygraph screening system to continue and to do quite the opposite--which quite conservatively will have with counterintelligence tests 50 to 100 false positive results (wrongly accused individuals) for every true positive (correctly identified and properly accused (found deceptive) individual). Although this rate of false positives can and has been reduced somewhat because of the chaos that would ensue with the expected rates derived from accuracy and base rate considerations, the rate of false negatives goes up correspondingly, making it only a matter of time before we are confronted with the next Aldrich Ames or Ana Montes. These tests have little value and great associated costs to individuals. Justice and fair play will not allow such a situation to continue unchallenged. Viewed in this light, the decision that you describe as difficult is not really difficult at all...
You state:
Quote...The polygraph is fallible (often as accurate as flipping a coin), countermeasures are often very successful for an applicant who makes no derog. admissions, polygraph exams are interrogations, and the countermeasures offered on this site are very much accurate. These statements are factually based. However, the truth is the most reliable means of passing a "polygraph interrogation." Most people pass polygraphs and most people tell the truth. Many people "fail" a polygraph even while being truthful. A false positive is a bad thing, but so is the possibility of an individual with past undisclosed misdeeds working in a national security or public trust position. In my opinion, it is a difficult decision to determine which of these wrongs is worse...
Much of what you state in this paragraph I completely agree with. With regard to many people telling the truth and passing polygraph exams--yes, quite likely, however--undoubtedly more people who tell the truth would pass polygraph exams if they utilized appropriately chosen and effectively applied countermeasures. With regard to the last couple of sentences and alleged quandary/dilemma you pose, I truly believe that as our legal system is not prepared to convict the guilty at the expense of convicting the innocent (i.e., we have established a jury system that would likely acquit 10 guilty defendants before it would convict one innocent defendant) we can do no less with applicants for federal and other employment. We cannot allow the present polygraph screening system to continue and to do quite the opposite--which quite conservatively will have with counterintelligence tests 50 to 100 false positive results (wrongly accused individuals) for every true positive (correctly identified and properly accused (found deceptive) individual). Although this rate of false positives can and has been reduced somewhat because of the chaos that would ensue with the expected rates derived from accuracy and base rate considerations, the rate of false negatives goes up correspondingly, making it only a matter of time before we are confronted with the next Aldrich Ames or Ana Montes. These tests have little value and great associated costs to individuals. Justice and fair play will not allow such a situation to continue unchallenged. Viewed in this light, the decision that you describe as difficult is not really difficult at all...
Posted by ftttf007
- Jun 07, 2002, 07:09 PMMany federal security and law enforcement officers visit this site. Subjects often admit to having viewed this site in the first phase of a polygraph; it is a good idea for all security professionals to see what takes place on your site.
With repect to federal employment, I understand people may have reservations regarding polygraph examinations. Obviously, the polygraph is a tool used in making a suitability/security determination as part of a background investigation (BI). The purpose of the BI is to ensure that applicants for federal service are honest, have high integrity, and have made a full disclousure regarding past "inapproriate" behavior.
The FBI and DEA only touch on three areas in their polygraphs. Illegal use or sale of controlled substances, honesty in the application/security form (SF86), and couterintelligence. Very rarely do individuals fail for the latter two. Honesty on the application can be investigated and rarely would an applicant be labeled a spy.
Unfortunately, issues regarding past illegal drug use is often on a personal level; even the most thorough BI may not find sources who witnessed the subject of investigation use an illegal substance. This is primarily where the polygraph comes into play. Applicants, for whatever reason, often lie about past illegal drug use (Most of the time which would be mitigated due to age, recency of conduct, etc.).
I recently read an entry from an alleged Fed. He mentioned praying for the applicant to tell the truth and stopping the polygraph. His alleged behavior, while quite humorous (though perhaps not to the subject of the polygraph), is a scare tactic and part of a rather solid interrogation technique. His technique, if used, often brings out a confession. This is why the polygraph is so useful. People crack and tell the truth.
The polygraph is fallible (often as accurate as flipping a coin
, countermeasures are often very successful for an applicant who makes no derog. admissions, polygraph exams are interrogations, and the countermeasures offered on this site are very much accurate. These statements are factually based. However, the truth is the most reliable means of passing a "polygraph interrogation." Most people pass polygraphs and most people tell the truth. Many people "fail" a polygraph even while being truthful. A false positive is a bad thing, but so is the possibility of an individual with past undisclosed misdeeds working in a national security or public trust position. In my opinion, it is a difficult decision to determine which of these wrongs is worse.
With repect to federal employment, I understand people may have reservations regarding polygraph examinations. Obviously, the polygraph is a tool used in making a suitability/security determination as part of a background investigation (BI). The purpose of the BI is to ensure that applicants for federal service are honest, have high integrity, and have made a full disclousure regarding past "inapproriate" behavior.
The FBI and DEA only touch on three areas in their polygraphs. Illegal use or sale of controlled substances, honesty in the application/security form (SF86), and couterintelligence. Very rarely do individuals fail for the latter two. Honesty on the application can be investigated and rarely would an applicant be labeled a spy.
Unfortunately, issues regarding past illegal drug use is often on a personal level; even the most thorough BI may not find sources who witnessed the subject of investigation use an illegal substance. This is primarily where the polygraph comes into play. Applicants, for whatever reason, often lie about past illegal drug use (Most of the time which would be mitigated due to age, recency of conduct, etc.).
I recently read an entry from an alleged Fed. He mentioned praying for the applicant to tell the truth and stopping the polygraph. His alleged behavior, while quite humorous (though perhaps not to the subject of the polygraph), is a scare tactic and part of a rather solid interrogation technique. His technique, if used, often brings out a confession. This is why the polygraph is so useful. People crack and tell the truth.
The polygraph is fallible (often as accurate as flipping a coin
, countermeasures are often very successful for an applicant who makes no derog. admissions, polygraph exams are interrogations, and the countermeasures offered on this site are very much accurate. These statements are factually based. However, the truth is the most reliable means of passing a "polygraph interrogation." Most people pass polygraphs and most people tell the truth. Many people "fail" a polygraph even while being truthful. A false positive is a bad thing, but so is the possibility of an individual with past undisclosed misdeeds working in a national security or public trust position. In my opinion, it is a difficult decision to determine which of these wrongs is worse.