- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by J.B. McCloughan
- Oct 13, 2002, 03:25 AMGino,
Although I agree with some of your assertions, I believe several of your points error on the side of personal opinion, rather than factual data.
First:
What wealth of evidence are you referring to when you make this statement?
Are you referring to polygraph screening or polygraph in general?
Are you speaking of CQT or all polygraph test formats?
The NAS was quite adamant to separate specific issue testing from screening. If one reads the report, they will see why. The polygraph is an instrument. Although polygraph is often a generalized term used, it should not be so generalized as to not include information about the test format and the application for which it is being used for.
Second:
With your inclusion of the word "criminals" in this statement, I assume this to be another opined statement? There is no statistical data to support your assumption, nor any general information that would indicate a speck of truth to it, with regards to criminal specific issue testing. Please point me to the referenced material that indicates criminals have passed a polygraph by way of countermeasure use.
Although I agree with some of your assertions, I believe several of your points error on the side of personal opinion, rather than factual data.
First:
Quote
People sincerely want to believe that the polygraph is an accurate detector of truth and deception (despite the tremendous wealth of evidence to the contrary).
What wealth of evidence are you referring to when you make this statement?
Are you referring to polygraph screening or polygraph in general?
Are you speaking of CQT or all polygraph test formats?
The NAS was quite adamant to separate specific issue testing from screening. If one reads the report, they will see why. The polygraph is an instrument. Although polygraph is often a generalized term used, it should not be so generalized as to not include information about the test format and the application for which it is being used for.
Second:
Quote
Until more people (including politicians) realize just how flawed these "tests" are (they serve to insulate spies and criminals from suspicion because they are easily passed using countermeasures), we will not see a legislative solution. Hopefully the NAS report will cause some people to wake up and smell the coffee.
With your inclusion of the word "criminals" in this statement, I assume this to be another opined statement? There is no statistical data to support your assumption, nor any general information that would indicate a speck of truth to it, with regards to criminal specific issue testing. Please point me to the referenced material that indicates criminals have passed a polygraph by way of countermeasure use.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Oct 12, 2002, 12:04 PMGINO,
Thank you for the concise opinion. A tremendous amount of arguement in very few words.
I have to admire all of the "fish" in this "school" for swimming against the political currents for so long without tiring.
This website is a testament of how deeply some people have been affected by the "dark" side of polygraph.
I am bothered about this because I am a law officer. I have seen many short comings in our system. As a law officer, I cannot pick and choose what policies I believe in or enforce or I could end up questioning all orders and laws. This could lead me to applying laws that I only believe in (which is completely against the Constitution). I do not blindly follow orders but their are so many gray areas to get lost in.
An Executive Branch Order is obviously the best and fastest way to go about it.
I would attack this issue on the NAS report that we are "giving spies who pass this test a free ticket" to our sensitive information. No politician whats to be accused of that!
Thank you for the concise opinion. A tremendous amount of arguement in very few words.
I have to admire all of the "fish" in this "school" for swimming against the political currents for so long without tiring.
This website is a testament of how deeply some people have been affected by the "dark" side of polygraph.
I am bothered about this because I am a law officer. I have seen many short comings in our system. As a law officer, I cannot pick and choose what policies I believe in or enforce or I could end up questioning all orders and laws. This could lead me to applying laws that I only believe in (which is completely against the Constitution). I do not blindly follow orders but their are so many gray areas to get lost in.
An Executive Branch Order is obviously the best and fastest way to go about it.
I would attack this issue on the NAS report that we are "giving spies who pass this test a free ticket" to our sensitive information. No politician whats to be accused of that!
Posted by G Scalabr
- Oct 12, 2002, 12:35 AM Fair_Chance,
Welcome to the discussion.
There are many reasons for the increased reliance on polygraph screening. First, agencies like the polygraph because it encourages admissions. It provides powerful leverage for interrogators, primarily because naive and gullible subjects, fearing that the polygraph will detect the slightest hint of deception, will often make admissions that they might not otherwise make. Those innocent persons who are falsely accused in the process are considered acceptable losses. With more applicants than positions, this is not a problem for the bureaucrats involved in the hiring process.
Still, perhaps the most important reason for the increased reliance on polygraphy is the fact that these "tests" allow bureaucrats to cover themselves in the inevitable situations where it turns out that a bad decision was made in hiring someone or granting a security clearance. Middle level bureaucrats like the ability to say "he passed the polygraph, don't blame me."
Unfortunately, I agree with you here. People sincerely want to believe that the polygraph is an accurate detector of truth and deception (despite the tremendous wealth of evidence to the contrary). Most debates on the polygraph are in terms of national security vs. civil rights. Unfortunately, it is normally assumed the polygraph is a positive contributor to security. As we can see from the NAS report, it isn't. Until more people (including politicians) realize just how flawed these "tests" are (they serve to insulate spies and criminals from suspicion because they are easily passed using countermeasures), we will not see a legislative solution. Hopefully the NAS report will cause some people to wake up and smell the coffee.
For someone who has not spent a lot of time dealing with this issue, you have hit the nail on the head rather quickly. Polygraphy does not affect many lives because a vast majority of the American public cannot legally be asked to submit to it. If Internet had been available during the 1980s before the passage of the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act (when polygraph screening and abuse was rampant in corporate America and everywhere else), I feel that the dynamic would have been quite different. A large number of those abused by polygraphers would have eventually located Internet sites like this one, found out the trickery behind these "tests," and become outraged. A far greater amount of media attention would have been generated. Polygraphers may very well have been on the run from lynch mobs. But, because so few people are affected by this issue, there is a marked lack public interest in seeing a new comprehensive polygraph protection act passed. This does, indeed, make the hope of a legislative solution difficult (but not impossible).
Welcome to the discussion.
QuoteWhy was the polygraph "pushed" ahead of background investigations? Why did it even start being used for pre-employment screening in the first place?
There are many reasons for the increased reliance on polygraph screening. First, agencies like the polygraph because it encourages admissions. It provides powerful leverage for interrogators, primarily because naive and gullible subjects, fearing that the polygraph will detect the slightest hint of deception, will often make admissions that they might not otherwise make. Those innocent persons who are falsely accused in the process are considered acceptable losses. With more applicants than positions, this is not a problem for the bureaucrats involved in the hiring process.
Still, perhaps the most important reason for the increased reliance on polygraphy is the fact that these "tests" allow bureaucrats to cover themselves in the inevitable situations where it turns out that a bad decision was made in hiring someone or granting a security clearance. Middle level bureaucrats like the ability to say "he passed the polygraph, don't blame me."
QuotePolitical opinion right now is to be tough on terrorism and homeland security. I have digested the NAS review. It is good science. Unfortunately, it does not always translate into good politics. The politicians are in no hurry to change the system.
Unfortunately, I agree with you here. People sincerely want to believe that the polygraph is an accurate detector of truth and deception (despite the tremendous wealth of evidence to the contrary). Most debates on the polygraph are in terms of national security vs. civil rights. Unfortunately, it is normally assumed the polygraph is a positive contributor to security. As we can see from the NAS report, it isn't. Until more people (including politicians) realize just how flawed these "tests" are (they serve to insulate spies and criminals from suspicion because they are easily passed using countermeasures), we will not see a legislative solution. Hopefully the NAS report will cause some people to wake up and smell the coffee.
QuoteI do not think enough people have been touched negatively by the polygraph (I personally think that one person is too much) to attract votes and attention to this issue.
For someone who has not spent a lot of time dealing with this issue, you have hit the nail on the head rather quickly. Polygraphy does not affect many lives because a vast majority of the American public cannot legally be asked to submit to it. If Internet had been available during the 1980s before the passage of the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act (when polygraph screening and abuse was rampant in corporate America and everywhere else), I feel that the dynamic would have been quite different. A large number of those abused by polygraphers would have eventually located Internet sites like this one, found out the trickery behind these "tests," and become outraged. A far greater amount of media attention would have been generated. Polygraphers may very well have been on the run from lynch mobs. But, because so few people are affected by this issue, there is a marked lack public interest in seeing a new comprehensive polygraph protection act passed. This does, indeed, make the hope of a legislative solution difficult (but not impossible).
Posted by Fair Chance
- Oct 11, 2002, 10:06 PMI have not seen much discussion on why the polygraph pre-screening use has "skyrocketed" in the 1990s. Everyone knows the obvious spy cases and the hysteria that have been caused by them.
I was looking for some opinions on the following:
Why was the polygraph "pushed" ahead of background investigations? Why did it even start being used for pre-employment screening in the first place?
Possibly in an attempt to save money in budgets? The cost of one agent using one machine for one person in one day is far easier then having to spend weeks of agent time going out into the field. The political powers to be do not care about the few people who get falsely accused even if hard facts are lacking. As long as they have more people who are qualified then they need, "being fair" is not a priority (I believe Marty on this Website has alluded to this on quite a few postings).
The Philadelphia Police department has decided to stop using the polygraph. If anyone researches the articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer concerning police hiring, they could possibly deduce that they were having a hard time filling the quota and they could not afford to throw away qualified recruits strictly due to polygraph results. This change had nothing to do about the "validity" of the polygraph, they needed bodies.
The only way that this issue was raised in the Department of Energy and resolved could be traced back to the arguement that many scientist would rather quit then subject themselves to the polygraph. The scientist could not easily be replaced, the local politicians saw part of their local economy being affected, and the NAS review started (note that two local congressment were responsible for most of this effort).
Political opinion right now is to be tough on terrorism and homeland security. I have digested the NAS review. It is good science. Unfortunately, it does not always translate into good politics. The politicians are in no hurry to change the system. I do not think enough people have been touched negatively by the polygraph (I personally think that one person is too much) to attract votes and attention to this issue.
I believe a key factor will be the marriage of the NAS report to a lawsuit challenging the validity of polygraph screening and prescreening. If it starts costing the agencies involved money or prestige, the system might change. I work for the government and I believe in the government. I also know that the government is "reactive" not "proactive." In politics, "doing the right thing" in of itself is rarely enough to warrant change.
In agreement with Marty's earlier views, as long as there are more applicants to these agencies then they need, they have the power and will not want to voluntarily give up the polygraph, regardless of who tells them anything (except congress who controls their pursestrings or the Supreme Court who can state that they are violating law or the Constitution).
I do not profess that any of the above is absolutely true, just a start of the discussion. There are many of this website who have dealt with this issue much longer then I. I am trying to get up to speed.
I was looking for some opinions on the following:
Why was the polygraph "pushed" ahead of background investigations? Why did it even start being used for pre-employment screening in the first place?
Possibly in an attempt to save money in budgets? The cost of one agent using one machine for one person in one day is far easier then having to spend weeks of agent time going out into the field. The political powers to be do not care about the few people who get falsely accused even if hard facts are lacking. As long as they have more people who are qualified then they need, "being fair" is not a priority (I believe Marty on this Website has alluded to this on quite a few postings).
The Philadelphia Police department has decided to stop using the polygraph. If anyone researches the articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer concerning police hiring, they could possibly deduce that they were having a hard time filling the quota and they could not afford to throw away qualified recruits strictly due to polygraph results. This change had nothing to do about the "validity" of the polygraph, they needed bodies.
The only way that this issue was raised in the Department of Energy and resolved could be traced back to the arguement that many scientist would rather quit then subject themselves to the polygraph. The scientist could not easily be replaced, the local politicians saw part of their local economy being affected, and the NAS review started (note that two local congressment were responsible for most of this effort).
Political opinion right now is to be tough on terrorism and homeland security. I have digested the NAS review. It is good science. Unfortunately, it does not always translate into good politics. The politicians are in no hurry to change the system. I do not think enough people have been touched negatively by the polygraph (I personally think that one person is too much) to attract votes and attention to this issue.
I believe a key factor will be the marriage of the NAS report to a lawsuit challenging the validity of polygraph screening and prescreening. If it starts costing the agencies involved money or prestige, the system might change. I work for the government and I believe in the government. I also know that the government is "reactive" not "proactive." In politics, "doing the right thing" in of itself is rarely enough to warrant change.
In agreement with Marty's earlier views, as long as there are more applicants to these agencies then they need, they have the power and will not want to voluntarily give up the polygraph, regardless of who tells them anything (except congress who controls their pursestrings or the Supreme Court who can state that they are violating law or the Constitution).
I do not profess that any of the above is absolutely true, just a start of the discussion. There are many of this website who have dealt with this issue much longer then I. I am trying to get up to speed.