- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Jun 24, 2002, 06:32 PMQuote from: beech trees on Jun 24, 2002, 03:41 PM
What criminal repurcussions-- if any-- can result from a government agency failing to address your request within the 20 day limit?
In all likelihood, none. FOIA's timetables are routinely violated, and it's just accepted the the govt. doesn't have the resources to meet the deadlines.
Posted by beech trees
- Jun 24, 2002, 03:41 PMGeorge,
What criminal repurcussions-- if any-- can result from a government agency failing to address your request within the 20 day limit?
What criminal repurcussions-- if any-- can result from a government agency failing to address your request within the 20 day limit?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 24, 2002, 11:51 AMTanya Lane of the DSS Freedom of Information and Privacy Act office e-mailed me confirming receipt of the appeal and giving notice of an anticipated delay in processing it:
QuoteYour request is currently being processed in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552). We must inform you however, that due to a significant number of pending requests, a final determination within the statutory time period (20 days), may not be possible.
This request will be processed in a multitrack processing system based
and processed on a first-in, first-out concept.
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Jun 21, 2002, 03:36 PMPolycop,
You are nothing but a coward, making childish taunts from behind the safety of your "polycop" pseudonym. Everyone can see that it's all just a big act.
By the way, I respect the privacy needs of people on this site who post under a pseudonym. But they are not demanding that others reveal themselves as polycop has demanded, and they are not using their anonymity as a shield, behind which to hurl insults.
You are nothing but a coward, making childish taunts from behind the safety of your "polycop" pseudonym. Everyone can see that it's all just a big act.
By the way, I respect the privacy needs of people on this site who post under a pseudonym. But they are not demanding that others reveal themselves as polycop has demanded, and they are not using their anonymity as a shield, behind which to hurl insults.
Posted by beech trees
- Jun 21, 2002, 11:38 AMQuote from: Polycop on Jun 20, 2002, 01:21 PMAw c'mon Capt. Jones, after making a number of very reasonable arguments in your FOIA request, the attitude you choose to display in this last paragraph is not going to win you any friends in the DSS FOIA office. Didn't anyone ever teach you that you will get more with sugar than with vinegar?
Now say, "Pretty Please."
Polycop
After reading Polycop's acerbic, hubristic 'helpful' taunts, I was reminded of something Honoré de Balzac once wrote:
Bureaucracy is a giant mechanism operated by pygmies.
Petty, small-minded bureaucrats like Polycop were no doubt part of the original impetus for the passing of the Freedom of Information Act. The light we shed on the pseudo-scientific fraud of polygraphy causes the power-hungry, desperate polygrahers to shriek and howl in pain, much like like those subterranean albino eyeless newts dragged squirming to the Earth's surface. These irrational, boorish posts we're seeing are those final outbursts from the shrinking population of Polygrapher infernaleis, var. habenae quisquiliarum*.
There is no doubt here that DoDPI is witholding the requested information because of the source of the request. None of the information is classified, and the argument that dissemintion of the testing procedures and scoring method might somehow allow examinees to circumvent agency rules, policies, or statutes is specious at best and at worst clearly illustrates the fallibility of the polygraph as a diagnostic tool-- the polygraph is fundamentally based in trickery and deceit.
Sorry polycop, no jackboot-lickers here.
Dave
*Infernal Interpreter of Many Writings, variety 'Government Trash'
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 21, 2002, 06:59 AMI note that in the two months since I began this message thread, none of our "forensic psychophysiologist" friends have been able to cite any science-based forensic test whose standardized techniques and procedures are kept secret from the public.
If the standardized techniques and procedures of other forensic tests are available for public scrutiny, why should those of "forensic psychophysiology" (polygraphy) be shrouded in official secrecy?
If the standardized techniques and procedures of other forensic tests are available for public scrutiny, why should those of "forensic psychophysiology" (polygraphy) be shrouded in official secrecy?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 20, 2002, 01:34 PMDave,
Under the Freedom of Information Act, an agency is granted 20 work days to make a determination on an appeal.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, an agency is granted 20 work days to make a determination on an appeal.
Posted by beech trees
- Jun 20, 2002, 01:25 PMGood show George, nicely done. Is there a set time limit in which they must respond?
Dave
Dave
Posted by Polycop
- Jun 20, 2002, 01:21 PMMr. Maschke,
In the FOIA request to DSS that you document on this website, your last paragraph reads as follows,
"...Please release the withheld portions of the Federal PDD Handbook...If, however, you determine that DoDPI's unclassified standardized techniques and procedures for conducting polygraph examinations are somehow too dangerous for the American people to know, then I suggest that you order the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute to promptly cease and desist from representing polygraphy to be a "forensic" technique, for by withholding those standardized techniques and procedures, you will have tacitly acknowledged that "psychophysiological detection of deception" is not a forensic science, but a pseudoscientific fraud."
Aw c'mon Capt. Jones, after making a number of very reasonable arguments in your FOIA request, the attitude you choose to display in this last paragraph is not going to win you any friends in the DSS FOIA office. Didn't anyone ever teach you that you will get more with sugar than with vinegar?
Now say, "Pretty Please."
Polycop
In the FOIA request to DSS that you document on this website, your last paragraph reads as follows,
"...Please release the withheld portions of the Federal PDD Handbook...If, however, you determine that DoDPI's unclassified standardized techniques and procedures for conducting polygraph examinations are somehow too dangerous for the American people to know, then I suggest that you order the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute to promptly cease and desist from representing polygraphy to be a "forensic" technique, for by withholding those standardized techniques and procedures, you will have tacitly acknowledged that "psychophysiological detection of deception" is not a forensic science, but a pseudoscientific fraud."
Aw c'mon Capt. Jones, after making a number of very reasonable arguments in your FOIA request, the attitude you choose to display in this last paragraph is not going to win you any friends in the DSS FOIA office. Didn't anyone ever teach you that you will get more with sugar than with vinegar?
Now say, "Pretty Please."
Polycop
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 20, 2002, 12:31 PMAntiPolygraph.org's administrative appeal of DSS's decision to withhold portions of the Handbook was sent today (20 June 2002) and may be read on-line here:
http://antipolygraph.org/foia/foia-010-3.shtml
http://antipolygraph.org/foia/foia-010-3.shtml
Posted by Fred F.
- Apr 25, 2002, 10:53 PMGeorge,
After a brief examination of the document they sent you I would like to see the explanation of why they consider polygraph a "forensic science".
Also, I would be proud to have a "hand blocked" document. At least you know someone had to take the time to take the magic marker to the handbook.
I can't fathom the DoDPi calling polygraphy a "science-based forensic test". But until our voices get heard, those who believe that will and those of us who know the truth must spread the word farther.
Fred F.
After a brief examination of the document they sent you I would like to see the explanation of why they consider polygraph a "forensic science".
Also, I would be proud to have a "hand blocked" document. At least you know someone had to take the time to take the magic marker to the handbook.
I can't fathom the DoDPi calling polygraphy a "science-based forensic test". But until our voices get heard, those who believe that will and those of us who know the truth must spread the word farther.
Fred F.
Posted by beech trees
- Apr 25, 2002, 01:05 PMHi George,
It looks like they need a nice lawsuit. A good attorney would demand to see the standards of practice so that he might better prepare a civil suit against them.
It looks like they need a nice lawsuit. A good attorney would demand to see the standards of practice so that he might better prepare a civil suit against them.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 25, 2002, 11:11 AMCan a science-based forensic test depend on its standardized techniques and procedures being kept a secret from the public?
The Department of Defense Polygraph Institute's (DoDPI's) parent agency, the Defense Security Service (DSS), seems to think so. DoDPI presents polygraphy (which it terms "psychophysiological detection of deception") as a forensic discipline. But in response to AntiPolygraph.org's Freedom of Information Act request for the federal polygraph examiner handbook, DSS has invoked exemptions to withhold those portions of the handbook that set forth the standardized techniques and procedures for conducting polygraph examinations. DSS explains, in part:
DSS's response, along with those portions of the handbook that DSS did release, may be downloaded as a 1 MB PDF file at:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/federal-polygraph-handbook.pdf
Is anyone aware of any science-based forensic test whose standardized techniques and procedures are similarly kept secret from the public?
The Department of Defense Polygraph Institute's (DoDPI's) parent agency, the Defense Security Service (DSS), seems to think so. DoDPI presents polygraphy (which it terms "psychophysiological detection of deception") as a forensic discipline. But in response to AntiPolygraph.org's Freedom of Information Act request for the federal polygraph examiner handbook, DSS has invoked exemptions to withhold those portions of the handbook that set forth the standardized techniques and procedures for conducting polygraph examinations. DSS explains, in part:
QuoteThe information contained in the PDD Examiner Handbook, which is not generally known to the public, is designed solely to instruct law enforcement and national security investigators and does not "regulate the public." The material identifies specific applications of techniques and procedures used in polygraph matters and disclosure could enable circumvention of polygraph test [sic] by others. Accordingly, DSS is not going to release any information that could possibly benefit those attempting to reduce the effectiveness of the polygraph or violate the law and avoid detection.
DSS's response, along with those portions of the handbook that DSS did release, may be downloaded as a 1 MB PDF file at:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/federal-polygraph-handbook.pdf
Is anyone aware of any science-based forensic test whose standardized techniques and procedures are similarly kept secret from the public?