- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by steincj
- Dec 19, 2002, 01:16 AMSecondChance,
I respect your position. I do believe that there is a fire that burns in me because of this, and I'll do what I can until I hit every dead end there is. Maybe then will I bow down to the "I can't make a difference in this noble effoert attitude." But for now, I'll continue the fight.
Your point on taking a personal day -- well taken. I hope that some day you can maybe find a scheduling difference between the you and the Feds (a holiday that you get and they don't, maybe?). But I can't see how you could possibly pass up the opportunity to get back in the chair.
As far as the second poly goes, well, I hate to see your defeatist attitude regarding it. Just because everyone says that you're doomed to fail a second chair ride means you will. How many people who pass the second time around are going to post on this site?
And if you do fail the second time around, document it, and ask for a third. It will only be the FBI polygraph community digging their grave even deeper, as far as I'm concerned.
Chris
I respect your position. I do believe that there is a fire that burns in me because of this, and I'll do what I can until I hit every dead end there is. Maybe then will I bow down to the "I can't make a difference in this noble effoert attitude." But for now, I'll continue the fight.
Your point on taking a personal day -- well taken. I hope that some day you can maybe find a scheduling difference between the you and the Feds (a holiday that you get and they don't, maybe?). But I can't see how you could possibly pass up the opportunity to get back in the chair.
As far as the second poly goes, well, I hate to see your defeatist attitude regarding it. Just because everyone says that you're doomed to fail a second chair ride means you will. How many people who pass the second time around are going to post on this site?
And if you do fail the second time around, document it, and ask for a third. It will only be the FBI polygraph community digging their grave even deeper, as far as I'm concerned.
Chris
Posted by SecondChancePoly
- Dec 18, 2002, 04:50 PMWell, I like to check-up on this site every week or so during lunch to see how the effort is going, and with the recent NAS proclamation, I'd say that everything is moving in a positive direction.
Chris,
I had a chance to read your personal ordeal, and I feel terrible about what happened to you. I also held a TS before and after my FBI experience. What I think you're feeling right now is the same way we all felt for the first four months after our polygraph ordeal. You're wondering how this could happen, where did this left-hook-to-the-jaw come from, and what can I do about it? Well, this site is an excellent place to help facilitate a healing process. And I believe that in two or three months from now, you will better understand where you can and cannot make a difference in this noble effort.
In response to your distain for me, you have to understand that it's not the hectic hours that I work, or the private sector money that keeps me from fighting this insanity. I do whatever I can, whenever I can, but I cannot let the ridiculousness of polygraph distract me from making a living and being successful in my life. You should know, like other contributors to this site, that fighting City Hall is a long and arduous process. If you rush in with a hothead instead of calculating your moves, you are immediately discrediting yourself and the end result of that chosen path is hatred and bitterness. I think you just need some more time to cool off a bit (like we all had to) and then you'll be able to focus your energy more efficiently into this campaign.
As far as getting back in the chair: One, taking a personal day while still being new to a firm is frowned upon. Two, I have read some posts of individuals who have taken the second FBI poly and said it was one of two things. #1: A Countermeasure Detection Laboratory (with you as the guinea pig) #2: Just a quick-failure routine so that you will shut your mouth and leave the FBI alone.
I think one of Mark's old acquaintances said it best, "Telling the FBI they're wrong is like telling a mother she has an ugly baby."
Good Luck!
Chris,
I had a chance to read your personal ordeal, and I feel terrible about what happened to you. I also held a TS before and after my FBI experience. What I think you're feeling right now is the same way we all felt for the first four months after our polygraph ordeal. You're wondering how this could happen, where did this left-hook-to-the-jaw come from, and what can I do about it? Well, this site is an excellent place to help facilitate a healing process. And I believe that in two or three months from now, you will better understand where you can and cannot make a difference in this noble effort.
In response to your distain for me, you have to understand that it's not the hectic hours that I work, or the private sector money that keeps me from fighting this insanity. I do whatever I can, whenever I can, but I cannot let the ridiculousness of polygraph distract me from making a living and being successful in my life. You should know, like other contributors to this site, that fighting City Hall is a long and arduous process. If you rush in with a hothead instead of calculating your moves, you are immediately discrediting yourself and the end result of that chosen path is hatred and bitterness. I think you just need some more time to cool off a bit (like we all had to) and then you'll be able to focus your energy more efficiently into this campaign.
As far as getting back in the chair: One, taking a personal day while still being new to a firm is frowned upon. Two, I have read some posts of individuals who have taken the second FBI poly and said it was one of two things. #1: A Countermeasure Detection Laboratory (with you as the guinea pig) #2: Just a quick-failure routine so that you will shut your mouth and leave the FBI alone.
I think one of Mark's old acquaintances said it best, "Telling the FBI they're wrong is like telling a mother she has an ugly baby."
Good Luck!
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 14, 2002, 04:29 PMQuote from: steincj on Dec 13, 2002, 11:16 PM
As the FBI goes, I have to disagree. If they wanted less applicants to do background checks on, they could just skip the polygraph and raise the Phase II (interview) cutoff score. This way, less people would pass Phase II and move on.
Good point.
QuoteI think someone, somewhere, within the Bureau, truly believes that the pre-employment polygraph is a good thing. Yet the Bureau doesn't do pre-employment psych tests. I guess we know why there's someone in the Bureau who thinks the pre-employment polygraph is a good thing . . .
As they say, in any organization people tend to rise to their level of incompetence. In a politically-conscious bureacracy, I would imagine this is doubly true.
On another note, I just found out last night that the State Department's diplomatic security service doesn't polygraph.
Skeptic
Posted by steincj
- Dec 13, 2002, 11:16 PMQuote from: Skeptic on Dec 13, 2002, 05:44 PM
I wasn't intending to boast about my field or education. I believe I was well-qualified for that job, and that the NSA (and other Agencies) are missing out on qualified, patriotic people who would otherwise do good work for them, solely thanks to the polygrah.
Skeptic,
No need to worry. You didn't seem to boast at all. You were proving a point with mere fact. We all talk about our backgrounds and how we are very qualified for the jobs we applied for. That's what makes this site special - so many qualified people, all derailed by the same madness.
QuoteI think it's used less for its accuracy than for its political utility and economy. If you can randomly weed out a fair number of applicants cheaply, and claim the rejection is based on something other than chance, you save a large amount of cash that would have been spent on a thorough background check.
As the FBI goes, I have to disagree. If they wanted less applicants to do background checks on, they could just skip the polygraph and raise the Phase II (interview) cutoff score. This way, less people would pass Phase II and move on.
I think someone, somewhere, within the Bureau, truly believes that the pre-employment polygraph is a good thing. Yet the Bureau doesn't do pre-employment psych tests. I guess we know why there's someone in the Bureau who thinks the pre-employment polygraph is a good thing . . .
Chris
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 13, 2002, 05:44 PMQuote from: steincj on Dec 13, 2002, 04:19 PM
Skeptic,
My only point in addressing you in my post was to thank you for empathizing with my position. I think that thank you was lost in my disdain for SecondChancePoly, though . . .
It wasn't, and I think at least one part of my prior post may come off as other than I intended. I wasn't intending to boast about my field or education. I do have other career opportunities available to me, even though my first choice would have been the NSA. And I believe I was well-qualified for that job, and that the NSA (and other Agencies) are missing out on qualified, patriotic people who would otherwise do good work for them, solely thanks to the polygrah.
But at this point, I don't have a lot invested in a career that depends upon a "passed" polygraph. For that, I feel both fortunate and angry that anyone would.
I have sincere admiration for you and others on this site for your years of public service, dedication and expertise, and anger that this process has rewarded you for that with such an unfounded, wrongful accusation based on nothing more than voodoo. From what you've said, you have done this country proud, and that's something that the polygraph can never take from you.
More and more people realize all the time that the polygraph is bogus, and that people such as yourself have been wrongly accused. You're not alone.
QuoteAs far as the "choir boys" and "dirty fingernails," I think we all can agree that using a polygraph as a pre-employment screening tool is probably not providing the most accurate returns in applicant suitablility as the employer beleives it is.
I think it's used less for its accuracy than for its political utility and economy. If you can randomly weed out a fair number of applicants cheaply, and claim the rejection is based on something other than chance, you save a large amount of cash that would have been spent on a thorough background check.
Skeptic
Posted by steincj
- Dec 13, 2002, 04:19 PMSkeptic,
My only point in addressing you in my post was to thank you for empathizing with my position. I think that thank you was lost in my disdain for SecondChancePoly, though . . .
As far as the "choir boys" and "dirty fingernails," I think we all can agree that using a polygraph as a pre-employment screening tool is probably not providing the most accurate returns in applicant suitablility as the employer beleives it is.
But with a steady stram of applicants to fill the places of those deemed "deceptive," employers will never know what they are missing.
Chris
My only point in addressing you in my post was to thank you for empathizing with my position. I think that thank you was lost in my disdain for SecondChancePoly, though . . .
As far as the "choir boys" and "dirty fingernails," I think we all can agree that using a polygraph as a pre-employment screening tool is probably not providing the most accurate returns in applicant suitablility as the employer beleives it is.
But with a steady stram of applicants to fill the places of those deemed "deceptive," employers will never know what they are missing.
Chris
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 13, 2002, 04:02 PMQuote from: steincj on Dec 13, 2002, 03:22 PM
Fair Chance, Mark, Skeptic, George, et at.,
This quote says it all. We know how we feel about the polygraph and its usage. Our goal on this site is to inform ohters about how a piece of machinery can destroy a person's life.
It is not about the job. It is not about the money. It is about the person who had their dignity stripped from them and negative label applied on the basis of "junk science."
I have to question SecondChnacePoly once again. He doesn't care about clearing his name. He cares more about his 70 hour work week and all the money his new job brings in more than a chance to clear his name. His anger toward the FBI will dissipate, because he is focused on himself. But I think we all agree that we should be the last to suffer like this -- that's why this site is here. No one should have to go through what we went through.
Although my experiences with the NSA polygraph were extremely unplesant, I can't group myself with you guys. For all I know, I would have gotten the job, and the polygraph accusations were a bluff. I was never actually turned down for the position. Furthermore, given my field (electrical engineering) and education, I have many, many career opportunities. I don't have an ongoing public service career that will suffer from the NSA polygraph (should I find out in the future that my name was publicly tarnished, however, that will be a different matter).
I would have worked enthusiastically for the 'Agency and done good work. But it just wasn't worth the mental and emotional hell of a looming polygraph every five years, especially with other options available (even if less satisfying).
My main focus here is righting an ongoing wrong perpetrated on outstanding public servants such as yourselves, and ending a practice that I feel is a detriment to our national and societal interests.
QuoteAn agency based on bureaucracy that only accepts choir boys as agents is doomed to remain bureaucratic.
The ironic thing is that, given the things you are expected to lie about on a CQT, they aren't looking for choir boys. They're looking for good, naive applicants who take their polygraph on a lucky day (though perhaps they don't think of it this way).
QuoteIt's when you get a little dirt under your nails that you realize that bureaucracy isn't effective to completing the mission. I got through my years of Army Intelligence fighting bureaucracy to get results, and I was extremely successful. I guess the FBI isn't interested in success . .
Considering the number of people we have come through this site with all sorts of innane FBI polygraph experiences, I'm not sure the FBI knows what it wants.
Skeptic
Posted by steincj
- Dec 13, 2002, 03:22 PMQuote from: Fair Chance on Dec 11, 2002, 12:53 AM
The people who are negatively affected by the polygraph become extremely motivated. You may take my possessions and money but do not try to impune my reputation or integrity. My reputation and integrity are worth far more to me than any career or income because they are what I am most proud of in life. I will fight to my grave to gain them back if I think that they were unjustly taken.
Fair Chance, Mark, Skeptic, George, et at.,
This quote says it all. We know how we feel about the polygraph and its usage. Our goal on this site is to inform others about how a piece of machinery can destroy a person's life.
It is not about the job. It is not about the money. It is about the person who had their dignity stripped from them and negative label applied on the basis of "junk science."
I have to question SecondChnacePoly once again. He doesn't care about clearing his name. He cares more about his 70 hour work week and all the money his new job brings in more than a chance to clear his name. His anger toward the FBI will dissipate, because he is focused on himself. But I think we all agree that we should be the last to suffer like this -- that's why this site is here. No one should have to go through what we went through.
Again I ask, how many more innocent, dedicated Americans have to suffer? As far as the FBI cares, enough so that they have the perfect applicant.
An agency based on bureaucracy that only accepts choir boys as agents is doomed to remain bureaucratic. It's when you get a little dirt under your nails that you realize that bureaucracy isn't effective to completing the mission. I got through my years of Army Intelligence fighting bureaucracy to get results, and I was extremely successful. I guess the FBI isn't interested in success . .
Chris
Posted by Fair Chance
- Dec 11, 2002, 12:53 AMQuote from: Chris_Stein on Dec 10, 2002, 08:43 PM
Regardless of the errors made (by the FBI), the accusations were still unacceptable. The fact that I have been labeled a spy and traitor to my counrty is unbelievably demeaning, especially to a proud veteran. Something has to be done.
Dear Chris,
I have been in your polygraph seat and know the anger of being faithful to this country for so many years and have a Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Examiner of the same country accuse you of not being truthful and faithful to America (in my case, accused of breathing countermeasures). All of these accusations being only based on a polygraph. The FBI does not spend one dime to actually investigate any of the accusations which they assume are 100% accurate because they assume the polygraph is flawless.
This is sheer lunacy and madness. No thinking logical person can justify assasinating someone's integrity only based on polygraph interpretation. The FBI examiner in this case is judge, jury, and executioner of careers and worst yet, reputations, of people with no other source of verification.
I have and will try to keep an open mind to specific incident testing, GKT, and other uses of polygraphs but until the use of polygraphs for pre-screening and screening stops, anyone associated with polygraphs will suffer by association. The baby will eventually get thrown out with the bathwater.
Why do I say this? The people who are negatively affected by the polygraph become extremely motivated. You may take my possessions and money but do not try to impune my reputation or integrity. My reputation and integrity are worth far more to me than any career or income because they are what I am most proud of in life. I will fight to my grave to gain them back if I think that they were unjustly taken.
You are not alone, Chris.
Regards.
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Dec 10, 2002, 08:51 PMChris,
I also, like Skeptic, read your story with great interest. And I agree with him, the fact that the foreign contact question was discussed before the poly, that you thought you made a mistake on it, and felt bad about that supposed mistake, would certainly pre-condition you to react more strongly to that question.
But even were that not the case, the polygraph may still have falsely accused you, as it is prone to doing.
After reading your story I am just disgusted at the idiocy. The FBI has this lame-brained obsession with "foreign contacts", as if all foreign contacts are created equal, as if foreign contacts in the Balkans during our intervention there(as you had) are the same as foreign contacts in Saddam's inner circle. Yes we must ensure that applicants are not agents of foreign governments, but use a little common sense.
Clearly the candidates with the best chances are those who have never travelled outside the U.S., and know no foreigners, so that these "foreign contact" questions never come up. But that is not the best pool; it should also include people with the kind of foreign experience you had, especially now with terrorism a priority. Your experience suggests that the FBI is not serious, but absorbed in its own parochialism.
Anyway, I am sorry to hear of your experience. Best of luck with your career ambitions.
I also, like Skeptic, read your story with great interest. And I agree with him, the fact that the foreign contact question was discussed before the poly, that you thought you made a mistake on it, and felt bad about that supposed mistake, would certainly pre-condition you to react more strongly to that question.
But even were that not the case, the polygraph may still have falsely accused you, as it is prone to doing.
After reading your story I am just disgusted at the idiocy. The FBI has this lame-brained obsession with "foreign contacts", as if all foreign contacts are created equal, as if foreign contacts in the Balkans during our intervention there(as you had) are the same as foreign contacts in Saddam's inner circle. Yes we must ensure that applicants are not agents of foreign governments, but use a little common sense.
Clearly the candidates with the best chances are those who have never travelled outside the U.S., and know no foreigners, so that these "foreign contact" questions never come up. But that is not the best pool; it should also include people with the kind of foreign experience you had, especially now with terrorism a priority. Your experience suggests that the FBI is not serious, but absorbed in its own parochialism.
Anyway, I am sorry to hear of your experience. Best of luck with your career ambitions.
Posted by steincj
- Dec 10, 2002, 08:43 PMSkeptic,
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I have to say that I was truly in shock when I was informed of my "mistake." After processing so many SF 86 and EPSQ forms with the military, I thought I might have been careless on my FD-140 with the FBI. It did make me more nervous, and I started to worry about how many more mistakes I could have made.
Regardless of the errors made (by the FBI), the accusations were still unacceptable. The fact that I have been labeled a spy and traitor to my counrty is unbelievably demeaning, especially to a proud veteran. Something has to be done.
Chris
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I have to say that I was truly in shock when I was informed of my "mistake." After processing so many SF 86 and EPSQ forms with the military, I thought I might have been careless on my FD-140 with the FBI. It did make me more nervous, and I started to worry about how many more mistakes I could have made.
Regardless of the errors made (by the FBI), the accusations were still unacceptable. The fact that I have been labeled a spy and traitor to my counrty is unbelievably demeaning, especially to a proud veteran. Something has to be done.
Chris
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 10, 2002, 04:38 PMQuote from: Chris_Stein on Dec 07, 2002, 10:40 PM
I too am awaiting some sort of reply form the FBI regarding my appeal to my failure. I don't think that they will be willing to re-test me, though, since my polygrapher accused me of being a spy.
It has only been a month since the FBI recieved my appeal letter, and I'm already out looking for another job (career). Since my intelligence background and TS clearance is marrerd by this false accusation, I basically have to start over.
But SecondChance, I have to totally disagree with you. Take a personal day and get back on that machine. Clear your name, let the FBI get all excited that you will move on in the process, and then write them a letter resigning form the application process, telling them that you don't want to work for an agency with such a lack of integrity.
That's what I would do, well, if I got a second chance. And if I had a good job . . .
Chris
Chris,
I read your account with interest. I found your explanation of why you were accused of being a spy to be plausible. Another might be that, after making what you considered at the time a humiliating mistake on your security forms regarding foreign contacts, questions about that subject caused genuine nervous reactions. Or some combination of the two.
Either because of the number of applicants or the process, we do seem to get a lot of good people who ran into trouble on the FBI polygraph. I'm so glad that, as an American citizen, this device is being used to keep well-qualified people from serving in critical positions.
Skeptic
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 08, 2002, 07:18 PMQuote from: Fair Chance on Dec 08, 2002, 06:27 PM
Dear Skeptic,
Chris was accused of being a spy despite his many years of service in the government (information from another thread). My second polygraph operator did not like my "breathing pattern." I was ignorant of polygraph procedures during my first two exams. I let the polygraph operator know of my knowledge of polygraphs and I did not use countermeasures on my third exam. Chris nor I were accused of drug usage. I know The Lie Behind the Lie Detector but I do not think that two negatives equal a positive. My examiner is not being fully honest with me but I must take the higher ground and be honest with him. Some one has got to try to stop this madness. I will know the final results of my polygraph soon. I have always tried to do my job as faithfully as possible despite the repercussions. As I stated in my first few posts, I am used to doing the hard thing despite how it might affect my income or career. I want to look in the mirror every morning and be able to like the person that I see. It is not heroic. Sit through "Saving Private Ryan," "Blackhawk Down," and "The Longest Day," that is true heroism.
Regards
Fair Chance,
Your story is very similar to my own. After two R/I exams in which I received post-test interrogations, I was brought back for a third (one that gave me the impression that they were trying to wash me out). Only during the third test was I asked about knowledge of countermeasures and research into polygraphy, and I answered all questions honestly (perhaps foolishly so). My knowledge obviously did not please the polygrapher, who threatened me with dismissal if I used countermeasures.
Having heard nothing for a month and a half (despite repeated attempts at finding out my status) and after my extremely negative polygraph experiences (which i did not relish having to repeat every five years or so), I decided to pursue other avenues of employment.
Skeptic
Posted by Fair Chance
- Dec 08, 2002, 06:27 PMQuote from: Skeptic on Dec 08, 2002, 04:40 PMDear Skeptic,
It's also ridiculous that, were this an accurate determination of truth or falsehood, they would ever give a second test in the first place. The magical disappearance of a drug problem from one test to another should tell them something!
But then, maybe the stars weren't aligned correctly the first time.
I feel for you guys, and want you to know that all of us who have gone through polygraph sessions and been interrogated for alleged "reactions" know polygraph results have nothing to do with your integrity or truthfulness.
Skeptic
Chris was accused of being a spy despite his many years of service in the government (information from another thread). My second polygraph operator did not like my "breathing pattern." I was ignorant of polygraph procedures during my first two exams. I let the polygraph operator know of my knowledge of polygraphs and I did not use countermeasures on my third exam. Chris nor I were accused of drug usage. I know The Lie Behind the Lie Detector but I do not think that two negatives equal a positive. My examiner is not being fully honest with me but I must take the higher ground and be honest with him. Some one has got to try to stop this madness. I will know the final results of my polygraph soon. I have always tried to do my job as faithfully as possible despite the repercussions. As I stated in my first few posts, I am used to doing the hard thing despite how it might affect my income or career. I want to look in the mirror every morning and be able to like the person that I see. It is not heroic. Sit through "Saving Private Ryan," "Blackhawk Down," and "The Longest Day," that is true heroism.
Regards
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 08, 2002, 04:40 PMQuote from: Fair Chance on Dec 08, 2002, 12:46 PM
Unless you confessed or admitted to the accusations, they are just that, accusations. The whole situation that you are going through is upsetting to a person who is being completely honest. Hang in there and give it some more time. I am going on my third test with the FBI. The first was inconclusive and the second extremely accusatory like yours. I guess the third will be the tiebreaker. The prescreening CQT without any investigation or background is a roll of the dice. It is a shame that they have to drag your name through the mud with a test that even many professional polygraphers have trouble with using it in prescreening.
It's also ridiculous that, were this an accurate determination of truth or falsehood, they would ever give a second test in the first place. The magical disappearance of a drug problem from one test to another should tell them something!
But then, maybe the stars weren't aligned correctly the first time.
I feel for you guys, and want you to know that all of us who have gone through polygraph sessions and been interrogated for alleged "reactions" know polygraph results have nothing to do with your integrity or truthfulness.
Skeptic