- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Inspector Gadget
- Jan 21, 2003, 11:03 PMDear Skeptic
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions. It is much appreciated on this end. As far as this
particular opportunity goes, if it dosn't work out, it's their loss. I am pretty content in my present job and
I am a highly skilled individual in certain aspects of enforcement work that are desirable at this point in
time. Unlike a lot of people, I was actually sought out by this particular agency through contacts I had
in my area of expertise.
I also understand the need for security processing. It is not the goal I object to - it is the means used
to achieve it.
That said, I too found a lot of the experience to be demeaning and upsetting to a large extent. I also think that the entire process, particularly polygraph, is discriminatory to people who have hardcore real-life experience.If I were the typical 22 year old kid (which I was at one time) that is dragged in for this stuff I would haveaced it in no time becuase I had no life experience. I am a lot more jaundiced, having seen some foul s***t but I also place a lot more value on things like truth, other people, and my good name, than a green kid can be expected to. It certainly works against certain ethnicities, particularly blacks. Having visited this agency a LOT over the years I will say that most of minorities, blacks in particular, I have seen appear to be tokens or people hired for language ability or some other hard-to-obtain skill, or working at the food concession. This is not a reflection of any group's abilities - it is, however, a reflection of the hurdles that many people with "unusual" (e.g., non christian, urban, non-white, foreign, etc.) backgrounds need to overcome to fit into the round hole of security processing. Bias of this sort should not be tolerated and the maxim that the "polygraph is color-blind", while true in the sense that the machine works the same on all people, does not dispell the bias and prejudice that characterizes much of the process, which is highly reenforced by the punishment and humilation factor inherent in polygraph exam. I recently read a magazine article about polygraphy. The next month there appeared a letter to the editor in response to that article by a police officer. In the most telling commentary I have ever seen on polygraphy, the officer said something like this:
"In my entire career I never beat a confession out of anyone and I will not beat one out of someone with a machine..."
I might add that the human resources involved in this process were articulate, concerned, hard-working, and helpful insofar as I could determine. This represents a waste of the first order. These people are skilled
interrogators (way better than me...) and could probably manage better without the prop of the box serving
as a limit to their insight.
Again, Best Wishes - Gadget
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions. It is much appreciated on this end. As far as this
particular opportunity goes, if it dosn't work out, it's their loss. I am pretty content in my present job and
I am a highly skilled individual in certain aspects of enforcement work that are desirable at this point in
time. Unlike a lot of people, I was actually sought out by this particular agency through contacts I had
in my area of expertise.
I also understand the need for security processing. It is not the goal I object to - it is the means used
to achieve it.
That said, I too found a lot of the experience to be demeaning and upsetting to a large extent. I also think that the entire process, particularly polygraph, is discriminatory to people who have hardcore real-life experience.If I were the typical 22 year old kid (which I was at one time) that is dragged in for this stuff I would haveaced it in no time becuase I had no life experience. I am a lot more jaundiced, having seen some foul s***t but I also place a lot more value on things like truth, other people, and my good name, than a green kid can be expected to. It certainly works against certain ethnicities, particularly blacks. Having visited this agency a LOT over the years I will say that most of minorities, blacks in particular, I have seen appear to be tokens or people hired for language ability or some other hard-to-obtain skill, or working at the food concession. This is not a reflection of any group's abilities - it is, however, a reflection of the hurdles that many people with "unusual" (e.g., non christian, urban, non-white, foreign, etc.) backgrounds need to overcome to fit into the round hole of security processing. Bias of this sort should not be tolerated and the maxim that the "polygraph is color-blind", while true in the sense that the machine works the same on all people, does not dispell the bias and prejudice that characterizes much of the process, which is highly reenforced by the punishment and humilation factor inherent in polygraph exam. I recently read a magazine article about polygraphy. The next month there appeared a letter to the editor in response to that article by a police officer. In the most telling commentary I have ever seen on polygraphy, the officer said something like this:
"In my entire career I never beat a confession out of anyone and I will not beat one out of someone with a machine..."
I might add that the human resources involved in this process were articulate, concerned, hard-working, and helpful insofar as I could determine. This represents a waste of the first order. These people are skilled
interrogators (way better than me...) and could probably manage better without the prop of the box serving
as a limit to their insight.
Again, Best Wishes - Gadget
Posted by Skeptic
- Jan 21, 2003, 09:28 PMQuote from: Inspector Gadget on Jan 21, 2003, 06:21 PM
Hey folks
I just underwent the latest in a series of polys with a national security agency. I am a job seeker.
I thought you might be interested in the fact that when I told the examiner and SO that I had visited this site they were very unhappy and sternly reminded me of countermeasures and their consequences (which, by the way, I wouldn't have had the stones to do with THAT agency and despite their threats they couldn't do anything but DQ me anyway). Then they regained their composure and went on with it.
I actually felt I was treated fairly, had a good examiner, and think I made it despite the fact that I was as nervous as s***t like always. I never did anything they were interested in anyway but I have a latently guilty conscience (raised jewish?) and have been involved in some messy drug, criminal and national security stuff in my present law enforcement position, which I have been in for almost 15 years. I found the following unusual though so maybe you can tell me if I have a MISTAKEN impression that I made it this time - which will be the last no matter what happens.
First off - this was more than my second poly (I don't want to say how many I have had in case the examiner reads this and makes me). Does this indicate a true desire to take me on board or are they fishing on something I said before. Mind you, I copped to nothing unusual beyond the sort of things you encounter in my kind of work on a regular basis. No dope, a couple minor security violations, and (as you can see here) too much web surfing at work on the slow days.
I had three polys with NSA. I understand this isn't uncommon with desirable candidates (not to toot my own horn, or anything). After admitting to countermeasure knowledge, I doubt you'll have another polygraph, but I don't think you'll necessarily be DQ'ed (if they feel they've gotten enough out of you).
I actually think that the best time to admit to countermeasure knowledge with the NSA is after you've had a couple of polys and been called back for more -- especially since (in my experience) they don't directly ask about countermeasure knowledge on the first poly. I have a feeling its sort of a "what we don't know won't hurt us" sort of thing -- countermeasure knowledge is so ubiquitous these days among anyone with a modicum of curiousity and web-surfing savvy (pretty much the sort of people they want working there) that I don't see they have much choice.
Note to NSA: It's time to give up this antiquated witch hunt. You're losing more and more good people to it; the cat's out of the bag, and can't be put back in.
QuoteSecond - Toward the end they began to ask me what sounded suspiciously like the sort of questions your site reports are used to validate results. For example
"We have a diverse office so have you ever discriminated against anyone? (Answer- yes of course, then came requests for acutal incidents which I gave (who cared?) )"
"Have you ever broken a reg at your job for convenience (Answer - no , but I admitted to the fact that in the interest of what is right I have engaged in specific minor breaches - who hasn't out in the street)"
"Do guilty feelings impair your ability to function (answer - no, otherwise I would not have sat through these exams)
I didn't face those questions. Perhaps that's due to the type of job for which you're applying and your employment history.
QuoteDo these questions indicate a that they are just sewing up loose ends prior to a DQ? Or did I pass and they are just asking more questions. I did not think that these questions were part of the deal, no examiner ever asked me these before, and had nothing to do with the task at hand as far as I could see.
I wouldn't assume a DQ at all. I realize things are likely constantly changing in the NSA polygraph program, but I believe these days they mainly use the poly for what they can leverage out of you. If you've had several polys without making a disqualifying admission, you quite possibly have nothing to worry about.
QuoteThird - They said that some questions were settled at earlier polygraphs and that I was fine. They promised they would not ask about those and they did not. Is this unusual?
That's what happened with me, as well.
QuoteDespite the fact that this was an uncomfortable experience for me I can truly say that I was not mistreated. In fact each examiner, in my opinion, really went out of their way to help me pass and explained to me what was going on every step of the way. While I continue to doubt anything but an incidental connection between guilt and metabolic functions, the process is a deterrent that seems designed to weed out people who will be non-conformist or basically a pain in the ass. These examiners were good people who would probably do well in other jobs, which I would recommend.
Thanks to all - Gadget
I'm glad you had such a good impression of the process and the people. For myself, I genuinely liked one out of three of my polygraphers. I don't think I'd really want to know the other two in real life.
I found the process very traumatic emotionally and psychologically. Perhaps I simply don't do well in interrogations, or I badly over-analyzed the whole thing. I, too, tend to have a very guilty conscience, which didn't help.
Regardless, best wishes for the future, and let us know how things turn out.
Skeptic
Posted by Inspector Gadget
- Jan 21, 2003, 06:21 PMHey folks
I just underwent the latest in a series of polys with a national security agency. I am a job seeker.
I thought you might be interested in the fact that when I told the examiner and SO that I had visited this site they were very unhappy and sternly reminded me of countermeasures and their consequences (which, by the way, I wouldn't have had the stones to do with THAT agency and despite their threats they couldn't do anything but DQ me anyway). Then they regained their composure and went on with it.
I actually felt I was treated fairly, had a good examiner, and think I made it despite the fact that I was as nervous as s***t like always. I never did anything they were interested in anyway but I have a latently guilty conscience (raised jewish?) and have been involved in some messy drug, criminal and national security stuff in my present law enforcement position, which I have been in for almost 15 years. I found the following unusual though so maybe you can tell me if I have a MISTAKEN impression that I made it this time - which will be the last no matter what happens.
First off - this was more than my second poly (I don't want to say how many I have had in case the examiner reads this and makes me). Does this indicate a true desire to take me on board or are they fishing on something I said before. Mind you, I copped to nothing unusual beyond the sort of things you encounter in my kind of work on a regular basis. No dope, a couple minor security violations, and (as you can see here) too much web surfing at work on the slow days.
Second - Toward the end they began to ask me what sounded suspiciously like the sort of questions your site reports are used to validate results. For example
"We have a diverse office so have you ever discriminated against anyone? (Answer- yes of course, then came requests for acutal incidents which I gave (who cared?) )"
"Have you ever broken a reg at your job for convenience (Answer - no , but I admitted to the fact that in the interest of what is right I have engaged in specific minor breaches - who hasn't out in the street)"
"Do guilty feelings impair your ability to function (answer - no, otherwise I would not have sat through these exams)
Do these questions indicate a that they are just sewing up loose ends prior to a DQ? Or did I pass and they are just asking more questions. I did not think that these questions were part of the deal, no examiner ever asked me these before, and had nothing to do with the task at hand as far as I could see.
Third - They said that some questions were settled at earlier polygraphs and that I was fine. They promised they would not ask about those and they did not. Is this unusual?
Despite the fact that this was an uncomfortable experience for me I can truly say that I was not mistreated. In fact each examiner, in my opinion, really went out of their way to help me pass and explained to me what was going on every step of the way. While I continue to doubt anything but an incidental connection between guilt and metabolic functions, the process is a deterrent that seems designed to weed out people who will be non-conformist or basically a pain in the ass. These examiners were good people who would probably do well in other jobs, which I would recommend.
Thanks to all - Gadget
I just underwent the latest in a series of polys with a national security agency. I am a job seeker.
I thought you might be interested in the fact that when I told the examiner and SO that I had visited this site they were very unhappy and sternly reminded me of countermeasures and their consequences (which, by the way, I wouldn't have had the stones to do with THAT agency and despite their threats they couldn't do anything but DQ me anyway). Then they regained their composure and went on with it.
I actually felt I was treated fairly, had a good examiner, and think I made it despite the fact that I was as nervous as s***t like always. I never did anything they were interested in anyway but I have a latently guilty conscience (raised jewish?) and have been involved in some messy drug, criminal and national security stuff in my present law enforcement position, which I have been in for almost 15 years. I found the following unusual though so maybe you can tell me if I have a MISTAKEN impression that I made it this time - which will be the last no matter what happens.
First off - this was more than my second poly (I don't want to say how many I have had in case the examiner reads this and makes me). Does this indicate a true desire to take me on board or are they fishing on something I said before. Mind you, I copped to nothing unusual beyond the sort of things you encounter in my kind of work on a regular basis. No dope, a couple minor security violations, and (as you can see here) too much web surfing at work on the slow days.
Second - Toward the end they began to ask me what sounded suspiciously like the sort of questions your site reports are used to validate results. For example
"We have a diverse office so have you ever discriminated against anyone? (Answer- yes of course, then came requests for acutal incidents which I gave (who cared?) )"
"Have you ever broken a reg at your job for convenience (Answer - no , but I admitted to the fact that in the interest of what is right I have engaged in specific minor breaches - who hasn't out in the street)"
"Do guilty feelings impair your ability to function (answer - no, otherwise I would not have sat through these exams)
Do these questions indicate a that they are just sewing up loose ends prior to a DQ? Or did I pass and they are just asking more questions. I did not think that these questions were part of the deal, no examiner ever asked me these before, and had nothing to do with the task at hand as far as I could see.
Third - They said that some questions were settled at earlier polygraphs and that I was fine. They promised they would not ask about those and they did not. Is this unusual?
Despite the fact that this was an uncomfortable experience for me I can truly say that I was not mistreated. In fact each examiner, in my opinion, really went out of their way to help me pass and explained to me what was going on every step of the way. While I continue to doubt anything but an incidental connection between guilt and metabolic functions, the process is a deterrent that seems designed to weed out people who will be non-conformist or basically a pain in the ass. These examiners were good people who would probably do well in other jobs, which I would recommend.
Thanks to all - Gadget