- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by John M.
- Mar 21, 2019, 02:28 PMLooks like ol' H.R. 2213 has been resurrected and is now called H.R. 1609: To amend the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 to authorize certain polygraph waiver authority, and for other purposes.
Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), is the Sponsor.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1609
Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), is the Sponsor.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1609
Posted by John M.
- Jan 07, 2019, 11:19 AMRon
For further info, see Dr. Richardson's testimony to US Senate - https://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-25-10-99.shtml
Is the use of the EyeDetect system even covered by the EPPA? Theoretically, you could spread rumors that it will eventually be used in every case - everywhere there was ever a question of truthfulness.
QuoteBeing easier has nothing to do with the accuracy or validity of a test that is fundamentally flawed.
I suppose the Eye Detect is easier from what I read and have heard about.
For further info, see Dr. Richardson's testimony to US Senate - https://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-25-10-99.shtml
Is the use of the EyeDetect system even covered by the EPPA? Theoretically, you could spread rumors that it will eventually be used in every case - everywhere there was ever a question of truthfulness.
Posted by Ronald S
- Jan 07, 2019, 11:10 AMGeorge
I was not aware of this. It appears the polygraph lobby was able to get polygraph nominated as the primary device.
Since Senator Romney from Utah he is probably helping the company as most politicians give strong support to the base.
If CBP wants this technology bad enough, someone will pull the right strings to make it happen.
I was not aware of this. It appears the polygraph lobby was able to get polygraph nominated as the primary device.
Since Senator Romney from Utah he is probably helping the company as most politicians give strong support to the base.
If CBP wants this technology bad enough, someone will pull the right strings to make it happen.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 07, 2019, 10:57 AMQuoteRumor came from mid level CBP employees. Eye Detect is going to be used as to reduce polygraph backlogs.
Note that the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 specifically mandates polygraph screening:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s3243/text/enr
For CBP to substitute EyeDetect for polygraphy would be a direct violation of the law. I would be interested in any additional details you might learn about this.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 07, 2019, 10:49 AMQuoteIn taking a polygraph many years ago, I recall my heart murmurs created a problem for the examiner. Exam was called non conclusive.
I guess the Eye Detect takes into account such health problems.
EyeDetect, like polygraphy, has not been shown to reliably detect lies at better than chance levels of accuracy under field conditions. There are no studies on the effects of health problems on either of these two pseudosciences.
Posted by Ronald S
- Jan 07, 2019, 10:26 AMGeorge
I did not mention that Idaho State Police adopted the Eye Detect for the employee screening process. Apparently this is the same thing CBP is trying to do.
The following link is the announcement that appears to be in sync with Idaho State Police announcing the usage.
https://converus.com/blog/idaho-state-police-job-applicants-say-eyedetect-reduces-stress-of-hiring-process/
In taking a polygraph many years ago, I recall my heart murmurs created a problem for the examiner. Exam was called non conclusive.
I guess the Eye Detect takes into account such health problems.
I did not mention that Idaho State Police adopted the Eye Detect for the employee screening process. Apparently this is the same thing CBP is trying to do.
The following link is the announcement that appears to be in sync with Idaho State Police announcing the usage.
https://converus.com/blog/idaho-state-police-job-applicants-say-eyedetect-reduces-stress-of-hiring-process/
In taking a polygraph many years ago, I recall my heart murmurs created a problem for the examiner. Exam was called non conclusive.
I guess the Eye Detect takes into account such health problems.
Posted by Ronald S
- Jan 07, 2019, 10:18 AMGeorge
Rumor came from mid level CBP employees. Eye Detect is going to be used as to reduce polygraph backlogs.
One of them that was hired in past times waited a long time to take a polygraph and almost signed on with a state agency.
I suppose the Eye Detect is easier from what I read and have heard about.
Rumor came from mid level CBP employees. Eye Detect is going to be used as to reduce polygraph backlogs.
One of them that was hired in past times waited a long time to take a polygraph and almost signed on with a state agency.
I suppose the Eye Detect is easier from what I read and have heard about.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 07, 2019, 10:10 AMQuoteI do not think that anyone takes Beto serious.
CBP has so many problems with the polygraph program already.
The Eye Detect system is supposed to be replacing the polygraph to some degree from the rumors around DC.
If rumors are accurate this will certainly impact the CBP Program
Ron
Ron,
Beto O'Rourke is no longer a member of the House of Representatives and H.R. 2213, on which he voted "aye," did not pass or even come to a vote in the Senate.
What specific rumors have you heard about EyeDetect?
Posted by Ronald S
- Jan 05, 2019, 10:48 PMI do not think that anyone takes Beto serious.
CBP has so many problems with the polygraph program already.
The Eye Detect system is supposed to be replacing the polygraph to some degree from the rumors around DC.
If rumors are accurate this will certainly impact the CBP Program
Ron
CBP has so many problems with the polygraph program already.
The Eye Detect system is supposed to be replacing the polygraph to some degree from the rumors around DC.
If rumors are accurate this will certainly impact the CBP Program
Ron
Posted by John M.
- Dec 25, 2018, 12:12 PMSeveral articles have surfaced recently that discuss this Bill in relation to Beto's support for it.
It's sad to see our politicians weaponize the use of the polygraph. Come to think of it, could this be why the government got an exemption to the EPPA in the first place?
There are many things in this article that deserve comment.
One of the polygraph believers' overused statistics is that in seven years, "144 current or former CBP employees were arrested or indicted for corruption-related activities." So, with 60,000 employees, this represents .0003 of the work force annually. How does this compare with other Federal Agencies?
https://capitalandmain.com/beto-vs-democrats-texas-lawmaker-frequently-voted-to-help-trump-and-gop-1220
Some excerpts:
Polygraph tests have been part of CBP's efforts to confront the corruption and misconduct that have plagued the agency in recent years. A 2012 Government Accountability Office report found that between 2005 and 2012, "144 current or former CBP employees were arrested or indicted for corruption-related activities." The report noted that CBP uses polygraph tests as part of employment background checks "to mitigate the risk of employee corruption and misconduct" — and it recommended that the agency consider expanding the tests. The report specifically noted that CBP internal affairs officials were expressing "concerns about the suitability of the officers and agents hired during [employment] surges because most of these officers and agents did not take a polygraph examination."
n April of 2017, the Trump administration issued a memo pushing for authority to waive the polygraph tests in order to expedite the hiring of thousands of new CBP agents. Critics immediately raised red flags — the American Immigration Lawyers Association said it was a plan "to water down hiring standards." Tom Jawetz, the Center for American Progress' Vice President for Immigration, told Univision that "many agents brought on beforehand who had not gone through a polygraph were cooperating with cartels and subject to corruption." James Tomsheck, the CBP's former head of internal affairs, called the idea of waivers "preposterous" in light of what the polygraph tests had been finding.
Compared to other law-enforcement agencies, "a larger number of people failed the exam, but the admissions of the applicants who failed the exam were hair-raising," Tomsheck told The Nation. "The most shocking, frankly terrifying, were the many applicants who admitted that they were infiltrators. That they actually worked for a drug-trafficking organization and had for some period of time. They had been directed to apply for the job solely for the purpose of feeding information back to the criminal organization they worked with."
Two days after the Trump administration's memo, Republicans introduced legislation to allow the polygraph tests to be waived. The bill — which did not even get a committee hearing — was authored by Arizona Republican Rep. Martha McSally, an immigration hardliner and supporter of a border wall. During the floor debate, she described the measure as a necessary step to "provide CBP with immediate relief so they are able to quickly, yet judiciously, hire officers and agents."
Democrats adamantly objected. New Mexico Democratic Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham — the chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus — said "eliminating the critical polygraph requirements for certain CBP applicants only undermines our Nation's safety, given this agency's historic connection to organized crime, drug cartels, and corruption." She asserted that "no other federal law enforcement agency in the country—not the FBI, DEA, ATF, or Secret Service—makes any exceptions to their polygraph exam."
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., declared: "Anyone who votes for this bill is voting to support and implement Donald Trump's views on immigration, his desire to militarize our southern border, and his fantasy of a mass deportation force. You cannot spin it any other way. If we want to lower the standards for screening and hiring CBP officers, eliminate checks that could help weed out candidates with criminal histories or criminal intentions, and water down the integrity of this important national security source, this bill is for you."
O'Rourke opted to join Republicans in voting for the bill, which passed. In a statement after the vote, he echoed McSally's rationale for the legislation, asserting that to address staffing shortfalls, the bill was necessary to "help speed up the hiring process and provide the CBP Commissioner additional authorities to recruit and hire quality CBP officers and Border Patrol agents."
It's sad to see our politicians weaponize the use of the polygraph. Come to think of it, could this be why the government got an exemption to the EPPA in the first place?
There are many things in this article that deserve comment.
One of the polygraph believers' overused statistics is that in seven years, "144 current or former CBP employees were arrested or indicted for corruption-related activities." So, with 60,000 employees, this represents .0003 of the work force annually. How does this compare with other Federal Agencies?
https://capitalandmain.com/beto-vs-democrats-texas-lawmaker-frequently-voted-to-help-trump-and-gop-1220
Some excerpts:
Polygraph tests have been part of CBP's efforts to confront the corruption and misconduct that have plagued the agency in recent years. A 2012 Government Accountability Office report found that between 2005 and 2012, "144 current or former CBP employees were arrested or indicted for corruption-related activities." The report noted that CBP uses polygraph tests as part of employment background checks "to mitigate the risk of employee corruption and misconduct" — and it recommended that the agency consider expanding the tests. The report specifically noted that CBP internal affairs officials were expressing "concerns about the suitability of the officers and agents hired during [employment] surges because most of these officers and agents did not take a polygraph examination."
n April of 2017, the Trump administration issued a memo pushing for authority to waive the polygraph tests in order to expedite the hiring of thousands of new CBP agents. Critics immediately raised red flags — the American Immigration Lawyers Association said it was a plan "to water down hiring standards." Tom Jawetz, the Center for American Progress' Vice President for Immigration, told Univision that "many agents brought on beforehand who had not gone through a polygraph were cooperating with cartels and subject to corruption." James Tomsheck, the CBP's former head of internal affairs, called the idea of waivers "preposterous" in light of what the polygraph tests had been finding.
Compared to other law-enforcement agencies, "a larger number of people failed the exam, but the admissions of the applicants who failed the exam were hair-raising," Tomsheck told The Nation. "The most shocking, frankly terrifying, were the many applicants who admitted that they were infiltrators. That they actually worked for a drug-trafficking organization and had for some period of time. They had been directed to apply for the job solely for the purpose of feeding information back to the criminal organization they worked with."
Two days after the Trump administration's memo, Republicans introduced legislation to allow the polygraph tests to be waived. The bill — which did not even get a committee hearing — was authored by Arizona Republican Rep. Martha McSally, an immigration hardliner and supporter of a border wall. During the floor debate, she described the measure as a necessary step to "provide CBP with immediate relief so they are able to quickly, yet judiciously, hire officers and agents."
Democrats adamantly objected. New Mexico Democratic Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham — the chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus — said "eliminating the critical polygraph requirements for certain CBP applicants only undermines our Nation's safety, given this agency's historic connection to organized crime, drug cartels, and corruption." She asserted that "no other federal law enforcement agency in the country—not the FBI, DEA, ATF, or Secret Service—makes any exceptions to their polygraph exam."
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., declared: "Anyone who votes for this bill is voting to support and implement Donald Trump's views on immigration, his desire to militarize our southern border, and his fantasy of a mass deportation force. You cannot spin it any other way. If we want to lower the standards for screening and hiring CBP officers, eliminate checks that could help weed out candidates with criminal histories or criminal intentions, and water down the integrity of this important national security source, this bill is for you."
O'Rourke opted to join Republicans in voting for the bill, which passed. In a statement after the vote, he echoed McSally's rationale for the legislation, asserting that to address staffing shortfalls, the bill was necessary to "help speed up the hiring process and provide the CBP Commissioner additional authorities to recruit and hire quality CBP officers and Border Patrol agents."
Posted by Wandersmann
- Jan 12, 2018, 11:12 PMQuote from: sammorter on Jan 11, 2018, 02:55 PMAfter about three hours of intense interrogation, the polygraph operator left the room and made me sit - still all hooked up - for about 10 minutes.
John M - I've got you beat by a long shot. My first polygraph in May, 1986, I was in the torture chamber for 8 hours !!!!!! I had two toilet breaks, no lunch. I was often hooked up and left alone for an hour or two at a time. My 2012 nightmare was almost as bad. I was hooked up and left alone for over an hour. I feel a kinship to former Stasi prisoners at Hohenschoenhausen and KGP prisoners at Lubyanka. The Stasi and KGB a**holes are long gone, but our a**holes are still going strong.
Posted by John M.
- Jan 11, 2018, 02:55 PMBingo, Mr. Mangan. You wouldn't even believe how big the problem is at the federal level.
I'd bet that the majority of members on this site know the truth as well.
I remember... my second attempt at the polygraph was in a dark hotel room just off base. After about three hours of intense interrogation, the polygraph operator left the room and made me sit - still all hooked up - for about 10 minutes. Finally a new guy came in and ran through the questions again and again. And then, he got to interrogate me. After witnessing me have a breakdown, he confessed to me that he hated his job and was sorry for what he was doing.
Here's a question for all the APA members out there? How many of you actually have a conscience and are sorry for what you are doing?
But it's not just the "operators" that are to blame. Politicians and senior officials at all levels look the other way and allow the abuse to continue... but, I digress.
Currently, Skopos Labs gives this Bill a 41% chance of passing. I find it noteworthy that factors considered in the prediction include Government Operation and Politics.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr2213
I'd bet that the majority of members on this site know the truth as well.
I remember... my second attempt at the polygraph was in a dark hotel room just off base. After about three hours of intense interrogation, the polygraph operator left the room and made me sit - still all hooked up - for about 10 minutes. Finally a new guy came in and ran through the questions again and again. And then, he got to interrogate me. After witnessing me have a breakdown, he confessed to me that he hated his job and was sorry for what he was doing.
Here's a question for all the APA members out there? How many of you actually have a conscience and are sorry for what you are doing?
But it's not just the "operators" that are to blame. Politicians and senior officials at all levels look the other way and allow the abuse to continue... but, I digress.
Currently, Skopos Labs gives this Bill a 41% chance of passing. I find it noteworthy that factors considered in the prediction include Government Operation and Politics.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr2213
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jan 10, 2018, 10:28 PMQuote from: Wandersmann on Jan 10, 2018, 07:16 PMIt won't pass because the polygraph lobby is greasing their palms.
This is a most interesting comment that really strikes a chord with me.
When I first got into the polygraph field in 2004, I was told by a highly regarded long-time practitioner that the "test" was mainly about one thing: MONEY.
From what I've seen over the years, that old timer was right.
But, back then, being a freshly minted Backster-trained -- and APA-validated -- "dedicated to truth" forensic psycho-physiologist, I refused to believe him.
Now, over 13 years later, I have to say that sage insider observation was (and is) largely correct-- especially when it comes to PCSOT "te$ting."
I wish I had known then what I know now.
If anyone has any questions about the polygraph "te$ting" proce$$, please contact me.
I'll be happy to tell you the truth about the "te$t."
Telephone consultations are free, as I consider it a public service.
My contact info -- as well as links to articles revealing the truth about the polygraph "te$t" -- can be found at www.polygraphman.com.
Posted by Wandersmann
- Jan 10, 2018, 07:16 PMQuote from: sammorter on Jan 09, 2018, 02:45 PMI can't believe the poly lobby hasn't penetrated the McSally camp yet. Then again, I bet this Bill fails - any takers?
I won't take that bet John because I agree with you. It won't pass because the polygraph lobby is greasing their palms. They still have the problem of too many good applicants flunking the poly. I predict there will be a miracle occur in which applicants will start passing their polygraphs by huge numbers. The passing percentage will explode. Because it is pseudo-science and a fraud they can cook the books anyway they want. It's just like when high school physics students aren't getting the correct answers in the lab tests and then the students figure out what the correct answers should be. Miraculously, the lab results start to correctly fall in line.
Posted by John M.
- Jan 09, 2018, 02:45 PMRep. Martha McSally provides the Opening Statement to today's Homeland Security Committee meeting. A video of the meeting and text of the testimonies is here:
https://homeland.house.gov/hearing/line-border-security-agent-officer-perspective/
I can't believe the poly lobby hasn't penetrated the McSally camp yet. Then again, I bet this Bill fails - any takers?
https://homeland.house.gov/hearing/line-border-security-agent-officer-perspective/
I can't believe the poly lobby hasn't penetrated the McSally camp yet. Then again, I bet this Bill fails - any takers?