- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Twoblock
- Oct 20, 2002, 02:59 AMFair_Chance
When I go into an opponent's pool hall I pick up the biggest que stick in the place with which to fight. As far as rules go, when you file under a certain authority, your opponent has to play by the rules of stated authority (s). or attempt to have said authority thrown out. That's where a good "Memorandum of Law" helps you stay the course.
If I wasn't to old, I would apply to the FBI, CIA,etc. just so I could the jerk that called me a liar into the court room. You see, I also play by my set of rules which are just as nasty as theirs.
When I go into an opponent's pool hall I pick up the biggest que stick in the place with which to fight. As far as rules go, when you file under a certain authority, your opponent has to play by the rules of stated authority (s). or attempt to have said authority thrown out. That's where a good "Memorandum of Law" helps you stay the course.
If I wasn't to old, I would apply to the FBI, CIA,etc. just so I could the jerk that called me a liar into the court room. You see, I also play by my set of rules which are just as nasty as theirs.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Oct 19, 2002, 11:07 PMDear Twoblock:
When you file legal action against the Federal Government or State Governments, a huge amount of special restrictions and laws apply.
You have to remember, you are going into the local pool hall and house rules apply. The bad part is that the house decides which rules it wants to play by and they are often not explained to out-of-towners.
I admire your spirit and certainly would celebrate any triumphs you can have in this area.
When you file legal action against the Federal Government or State Governments, a huge amount of special restrictions and laws apply.
You have to remember, you are going into the local pool hall and house rules apply. The bad part is that the house decides which rules it wants to play by and they are often not explained to out-of-towners.
I admire your spirit and certainly would celebrate any triumphs you can have in this area.
Posted by Twoblock
- Oct 19, 2002, 10:45 PMTo all of you who have been branded a liar by government agencies and which brand seems to stay with you, the following seems apparent to me.
1. You have been liabelously slandered.
2. You have a legal right, in the courts, to make the liable
perpetrators prove each and every charge of lying.
3. It they can't prove their charges, then they are liable for
actual and punitive damages.
4. I know of the class action lawsuit filed be Mark Zaid. Does it
ask for monetary damages? If not, when the suit is won,
each should file their own personal action. Nothing gets
attention like a lawsuit.
5. Slander encompasses LE as well as others.
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
I am in the mining business and ( for my own protection) have studied federal law, by computer, for four years and still studying. Twice I have, pro se, gone against some pretty good lawyers and won. Working on another.
The reason for the above paragraph is to show that one person can make a difference if that person has the intestinal fortitude to go against that intity which does you wrong. If I had been slandered as you have, the water wouldn't get cold before I hit them with a suit. Jurisprudence, in federal courts, should be about the same whether it's a slander or mining suit.
1. You have been liabelously slandered.
2. You have a legal right, in the courts, to make the liable
perpetrators prove each and every charge of lying.
3. It they can't prove their charges, then they are liable for
actual and punitive damages.
4. I know of the class action lawsuit filed be Mark Zaid. Does it
ask for monetary damages? If not, when the suit is won,
each should file their own personal action. Nothing gets
attention like a lawsuit.
5. Slander encompasses LE as well as others.
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
I am in the mining business and ( for my own protection) have studied federal law, by computer, for four years and still studying. Twice I have, pro se, gone against some pretty good lawyers and won. Working on another.
The reason for the above paragraph is to show that one person can make a difference if that person has the intestinal fortitude to go against that intity which does you wrong. If I had been slandered as you have, the water wouldn't get cold before I hit them with a suit. Jurisprudence, in federal courts, should be about the same whether it's a slander or mining suit.
Posted by Skeptic
- Oct 19, 2002, 09:37 PMQuote from: Marty on Oct 19, 2002, 08:13 PM
LOL
Please, never confuse the taste of blood for victory. Good luck, Skeptic.
-Marty
I never do.
Skeptic
Posted by Marty
- Oct 19, 2002, 09:37 PMQuote from: Fair_Chance on Oct 19, 2002, 09:21 PM
Whoa Marty!
You have been very scientific and analytical about this webpage until this last posting.
You are adding a little bit of personal emotion to this last zinger.
Easy big Guy!
ROFLMAO. Yup, I am as emotional as the next guy. The difference here is that my interest in the polygraph wars is not personal and I think most everyone here has a personal interest, either as a user, victim, or potential victim. I am none of these nor do I expect to be, rather, I am just a curious, intrigued, bystander blessed (or cursed) with more curiosity than most.
Good luck to you as well, fair_chance! There are those I think have been unfairly screwed and it does in fact bother me, as analytic as I may seem to be.
-Marty
Posted by Fair Chance
- Oct 19, 2002, 09:21 PMWhoa Marty!
You have been very scientific and analytical about this webpage until this last posting.
You are adding a little bit of personal emotion to this last zinger.
Easy big Guy!
You have been very scientific and analytical about this webpage until this last posting.
You are adding a little bit of personal emotion to this last zinger.
Easy big Guy!
Posted by Marty
- Oct 19, 2002, 08:13 PMQuote from: Skeptic on Oct 19, 2002, 05:11 PM
Or perhaps I'm simply feeling fiesty and particularly unforgiving today.
Skeptic
LOL
Please, never confuse the taste of blood for victory. Good luck, Skeptic.
-Marty
Posted by Fair Chance
- Oct 19, 2002, 06:38 PMDear Skeptic,
You hit the nail on the head about "lack of knowledge." The polygraph community places more emphasis on confession rate. Anyone who reads all of these threads on this website knows more then most polygraph operators.
I have to agree that the government does not care two hoots about getting "quality people." I think that they discover them by accident after they are hired. They need warm bodies and as long as they have people applying, throwing away applicants will never "affect their careers."
I am a government worker who takes great pride in my work. I have paid for all of my degrees. The government truly does not care if I am highly educated. I do. I am a small cog on a huge colossal gear that keeps moving despite itself.
My point: Politicians and government appointees only care when they or their careers are personally affected. Votes, money, or bad publicity are probably the most significant motivators.
Antipolygraph.org is on the right track with the publicity. Convince the American Public that this is more risk than assurance against terrorism and you will see quick results.
Clog the arteries of the agencies using these practices with appeals until the grease that keeps the gears moving dries up and makes them squeak. This is a long term fight. Nothing worth accomplishing happens overnight.
You hit the nail on the head about "lack of knowledge." The polygraph community places more emphasis on confession rate. Anyone who reads all of these threads on this website knows more then most polygraph operators.
I have to agree that the government does not care two hoots about getting "quality people." I think that they discover them by accident after they are hired. They need warm bodies and as long as they have people applying, throwing away applicants will never "affect their careers."
I am a government worker who takes great pride in my work. I have paid for all of my degrees. The government truly does not care if I am highly educated. I do. I am a small cog on a huge colossal gear that keeps moving despite itself.
My point: Politicians and government appointees only care when they or their careers are personally affected. Votes, money, or bad publicity are probably the most significant motivators.
Antipolygraph.org is on the right track with the publicity. Convince the American Public that this is more risk than assurance against terrorism and you will see quick results.
Clog the arteries of the agencies using these practices with appeals until the grease that keeps the gears moving dries up and makes them squeak. This is a long term fight. Nothing worth accomplishing happens overnight.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 19, 2002, 06:31 PMSkeptic,
Yes, Mark Zaid is indeed representing a number of plaintiffs who are suing the federal government over its reliance on polygraph screening. These cases have survived the government's request for summary judgment, and are now in the discovery phase.
The NAS report should go a long way toward shattering the mystique of the polygraph for anyone who would take the time to read it. Unfortunately, the number of individuals actually doing so is likely to be quite small.
One of the goals of AntiPolygraph.org is to inform the public about "the lie behind the lie detector" and shatter the mystique of the polygraph. We have made progress toward that end, especially among those who are subject to polygraph screening. I think it is only a matter of time before the spread of the news reaches critical mass and the polygraph house of cards collapses.
Note that the NAS conclusion that polygraph "tests" can differentiate between truth and deception in specific incidents at levels "well above chance" was heavily caveated. It assumes a population of subjects who are uninformed about "the lie behind the lie detector" and untrained in countermeasures. Moreover, the NAS found no convincing evidence that polygraphy has any intrinsic ability to detect deception: its ability to differentiate between truth and deception at levels above chance in certain contexts may well depend on the subjects' belief in the polygraph and in their ignorance of effective countermeasures.
QuoteIsn't Mark Zaid already doing this? I hope the NAS report gives him some fresh ammunition.
Yes, Mark Zaid is indeed representing a number of plaintiffs who are suing the federal government over its reliance on polygraph screening. These cases have survived the government's request for summary judgment, and are now in the discovery phase.
QuoteThis can, of course, work both ways. It's only because of the "polygraph mystique" that the public has condoned increased use of polygraph screening. If that mystique is shattered and faith in the polygraph is fingered as a national security liability, the tides can change very quickly.
The NAS report should go a long way toward shattering the mystique of the polygraph for anyone who would take the time to read it. Unfortunately, the number of individuals actually doing so is likely to be quite small.
One of the goals of AntiPolygraph.org is to inform the public about "the lie behind the lie detector" and shatter the mystique of the polygraph. We have made progress toward that end, especially among those who are subject to polygraph screening. I think it is only a matter of time before the spread of the news reaches critical mass and the polygraph house of cards collapses.
QuoteIt should also be noted that, while the NAS did conclude that SI polygraphy has results "well above chance", it was still highly critical both of the quality and quantity of the research done on this and other issues, and of the generalizability of laboratory research to field work.
Note that the NAS conclusion that polygraph "tests" can differentiate between truth and deception in specific incidents at levels "well above chance" was heavily caveated. It assumes a population of subjects who are uninformed about "the lie behind the lie detector" and untrained in countermeasures. Moreover, the NAS found no convincing evidence that polygraphy has any intrinsic ability to detect deception: its ability to differentiate between truth and deception at levels above chance in certain contexts may well depend on the subjects' belief in the polygraph and in their ignorance of effective countermeasures.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 19, 2002, 05:55 PMQuote from: Skeptic on Oct 19, 2002, 05:11 PM
I'm sure they see things this way. To my mind, however, such irrational conclusions indicate "incompetence", and more than that, a dereliction of duty.
Or perhaps I'm simply feeling fiesty and particularly unforgiving today.
Skeptic
Skeptic,
No, you're simply being brutally honest. The cowardly silence of polygraph screening advocates (like Gordon H. Barland) when tough questions have been put to them, and actions such as the polygraph community's manoeuvers to withhold countermeasure studies from the National Academy of Sciences, speaks to a witting complicity in propagating a fraud and dereliction of duty to country.
Posted by Skeptic
- Oct 19, 2002, 05:25 PMQuote from: Marty on Oct 19, 2002, 04:53 PM
George,
It will be interesting to see if the class action attys will take this on. Since employment screening is pretty much limited to govt or govt mandated private sector programs, it won't be as attractive financially as other opportunities. I'm sure you will keep us informed about events here.
Isn't Mark Zaid already doing this? I hope the NAS report gives him some fresh ammunition.
QuotePerhaps the political liabilities will be more productive, but in the wake of 9-11, cries of "national security" will provide cover given the widespread ignorance and belief in the workability of the polygraph extant.
This can, of course, work both ways. It's only because of the "polygraph mystique" that the public has condoned increased use of polygraph screening. If that mystique is shattered and faith in the polygraph is fingered as a national security liability, the tides can change very quickly.
QuoteImproving public polygraph "literacy" is the key factor facilitating the rest of this. This has the adverse consequence of likely reducing the tool's effectiveness as a criminal interrogation tool. Interrogations can be and are abused but the issue of corruption of investigative processes is quite broad and is not polygraph specific.
This may be a difficult issue, given the statistics-based rationale behind the NAS's findings: a lot depends upon the prevalence of the guilty among a tested population.
The real problem, as I see it, is not that the polygraph makes mistakes (which information you could disseminate widely without destroying the concealed information upon which the polygraph depends). The real problem is that the public believes the polygraph detects lies, which means people tend not to take the error rates into account. As I see it, the only way to dispel this myth and put the polygraph's accuracy into correct perspective is to let the public "in on the secret", which will simultaneously destroy whatever leverage the polygraph has towards generating reactions concominant with lying.
It should also be noted that, while the NAS did conclude that SI polygraphy has results "well above chance", it was still highly critical both of the quality and quantity of the research done on this and other issues, and of the generalizability of laboratory research to field work.
Skeptic
Posted by Skeptic
- Oct 19, 2002, 05:11 PMQuote from: Marty on Oct 19, 2002, 04:07 PM
Sadly it is not the result of incompetence. The polygraph community simply does not consider a high rate of false positives as "intolerable" but just as the cost of doing business. Obviously they don't take joy in it but see no alternative. The NAS report didn't say anything they didn't already know even if lawmakers and the general public may not have known.
-Marty
I'm sure they see things this way. To my mind, however, such irrational conclusions indicate "incompetence", and more than that, a dereliction of duty.
Or perhaps I'm simply feeling fiesty and particularly unforgiving today.
Skeptic
Posted by Marty
- Oct 19, 2002, 04:53 PMGeorge,
It will be interesting to see if the class action attys will take this on. Since employment screening is pretty much limited to govt or govt mandated private sector programs, it won't be as attractive financially as other opportunities. I'm sure you will keep us informed about events here.
Perhaps the political liabilities will be more productive, but in the wake of 9-11, cries of "national security" will provide cover given the widespread ignorance and belief in the workability of the polygraph extant.
Improving public polygraph "literacy" is the key factor facilitating the rest of this. This has the adverse consequence of likely reducing the tool's effectiveness as a criminal interrogation tool. Interrogations can be and are abused but the issue of corruption of investigative processes is quite broad and is not polygraph specific.
The polygraph community would be quite wise to eliminate job screening in order to salvage the other uses where arguably it has been of some benefit, at least in the case of naive subjects. I doubt they will choose to voluntarily do so though.
-Marty
It will be interesting to see if the class action attys will take this on. Since employment screening is pretty much limited to govt or govt mandated private sector programs, it won't be as attractive financially as other opportunities. I'm sure you will keep us informed about events here.
Perhaps the political liabilities will be more productive, but in the wake of 9-11, cries of "national security" will provide cover given the widespread ignorance and belief in the workability of the polygraph extant.
Improving public polygraph "literacy" is the key factor facilitating the rest of this. This has the adverse consequence of likely reducing the tool's effectiveness as a criminal interrogation tool. Interrogations can be and are abused but the issue of corruption of investigative processes is quite broad and is not polygraph specific.
The polygraph community would be quite wise to eliminate job screening in order to salvage the other uses where arguably it has been of some benefit, at least in the case of naive subjects. I doubt they will choose to voluntarily do so though.
-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 19, 2002, 04:10 PMMarty,
You write in part:
Note that this is a cost for which the polygraph community has not hithertofore been held liable.
You write in part:
QuoteThe polygraph community simply does not consider a high rate of false positives as "intolerable" but just as the cost of doing business....
Note that this is a cost for which the polygraph community has not hithertofore been held liable.
Posted by Marty
- Oct 19, 2002, 04:07 PMQuote from: Skeptic on Oct 19, 2002, 03:13 PMSadly it is not the result of incompetence. The polygraph community simply does not consider a high rate of false positives as "intolerable" but just as the cost of doing business. Obviously they don't take joy in it but see no alternative. The NAS report didn't say anything they didn't already know even if lawmakers and the general public may not have known.
Even if the current intolerable false-positive rates of candidate rejection (now well-known, thanks if nothing else to the NAS report) aren't incentive enough to stop polygraph screening--IMHO, a product of straightforward incompetence on the part of security personnel....
Skeptic
-Marty