- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 02, 2003, 02:09 AMMr. Smith,
You write:
Of course, if polygraph countermeasures did not exist, it stands to reason that your polygrapher would not have accused you of attempting to beat the polygraph. But countermeasures "exist" -- or are possible -- because of the inherent weaknesses of polygraphy, which I think you'll understand after reading through Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
The existence of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector may well have put some polygraph examiners "on a hair trigger," as you put it. The establishment of AntiPolygraph.org in September 2000, and our making detailed countermeasure information freely available, has helped to make countermeasures a hot issue in the polygraph community. The topic of countermeasures, which was once largely ignored, is now a recurring theme on the seminar agendas of most polygraph associations.
But it would be wrong to equate the existence of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector with the existence of countermeasures. Gino Scalabrini and I did not invent the countermeasures we've described in the book. They're based on unclassified, open sources for which we've provided citations. Moreover, accusations of attempted polygraph countermeasures were not uncommon well before the advent of AntiPolygraph.org. One of the most common accusations was of "controlled breathing" (especially breathing "too slowly").
The system is indeed broken, and we're trying to fix it through the passage of a Comprehensive Employee Polygraph Protection Act that would completely eliminate polygraphy (and other pseudoscientific forms of "lie detection") from the American workplace. You'll find documentation of some of the harm that a misplaced institutional faith in polygraphy has caused to both individuals and to our national security in Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
I would like to think that your faith in the FBI to revisit your case is not misplaced. But past experience provides little ground for confidence. Nonetheless, it is important to exhaust all administrative avenues of appeal that may be available.
You write:
Quote1. I blame the existence of "countermeasures" for giving my examiner a reason to be suspicious. Maybe if they didn't exist I would have been given the benefit of the doubt. I have yet to read the "Lie Behind the Lie Detector", but it's existence might put examiners on a hair trigger.
Of course, if polygraph countermeasures did not exist, it stands to reason that your polygrapher would not have accused you of attempting to beat the polygraph. But countermeasures "exist" -- or are possible -- because of the inherent weaknesses of polygraphy, which I think you'll understand after reading through Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
The existence of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector may well have put some polygraph examiners "on a hair trigger," as you put it. The establishment of AntiPolygraph.org in September 2000, and our making detailed countermeasure information freely available, has helped to make countermeasures a hot issue in the polygraph community. The topic of countermeasures, which was once largely ignored, is now a recurring theme on the seminar agendas of most polygraph associations.
But it would be wrong to equate the existence of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector with the existence of countermeasures. Gino Scalabrini and I did not invent the countermeasures we've described in the book. They're based on unclassified, open sources for which we've provided citations. Moreover, accusations of attempted polygraph countermeasures were not uncommon well before the advent of AntiPolygraph.org. One of the most common accusations was of "controlled breathing" (especially breathing "too slowly").
Quote2. I blame the system. One reason I want to work for the FBI is their reputation as an organization dedicated to justice and the principles of the best legal system in the world. Yet so far this polygraph process seems arbitrary, vindictive, and lacking in transparency or appeal procedures. Due process is not just a concept for selective application. It is an idea that is (or should be) universal, and it's a slippery slope once it is denied to citizens.
The system is indeed broken, and we're trying to fix it through the passage of a Comprehensive Employee Polygraph Protection Act that would completely eliminate polygraphy (and other pseudoscientific forms of "lie detection") from the American workplace. You'll find documentation of some of the harm that a misplaced institutional faith in polygraphy has caused to both individuals and to our national security in Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
I would like to think that your faith in the FBI to revisit your case is not misplaced. But past experience provides little ground for confidence. Nonetheless, it is important to exhaust all administrative avenues of appeal that may be available.
Posted by jd1
- Feb 01, 2003, 11:20 PMThis sounds almost exactly like my experience with the FBI. I'm doing some research on how to appeal, and will post anything helpful.
Maybe it would be interesting if this site started polling people to see what their experiences are. I envision a matrix with "Polygraph Session" on one side and "Result" on the other. Might be useful to see how prevalent these false results are.
Maybe it would be interesting if this site started polling people to see what their experiences are. I envision a matrix with "Polygraph Session" on one side and "Result" on the other. Might be useful to see how prevalent these false results are.
Posted by Marty
- Feb 01, 2003, 08:56 PMQuote from: Mr_Smith on Feb 01, 2003, 08:12 PM
it's tempting to play the blame game. I will succomb to that temptation.
LOL, That is funny - and clever.
Quote
I blame the existence of "countermeasures" for giving my examiner a reason to be suspicious. Maybe if they didn't exist I would have been given the benefit of the doubt. I have yet to read the "Lie Behind the Lie Detector", but it's existence might put examiners on a hair trigger.
That is a good point and I think you are right that examiners are increasingly looking for "countermeasures." That also means that DQ's are possibly going up due to the cumulative effect of false positives AND false accusations of countermeasures from naive examinees. Kleiner's manual reports countermeasures require more than just information to be effective, but some degree of practice.
CQT's effectiveness, such as it is, depends on ignorance and lies. The examiner lies to the examinee re the "control" questions and the examinee won't recognize the lie if she is ignorant about how the polygraph works. And on top of that, in order to get a good reading on a CQT the examinee is expected to lie.
I'm starting to think phrenology might make more sense.
-Marty
Posted by Mr_Smith
- Feb 01, 2003, 08:12 PMClearly there is more to this polygraph thing than I ever imagined. In a time like this, where my dreams are being crushed, it's tempting to play the blame game. I will succomb to that temptation.
1. I blame the existence of "countermeasures" for giving my examiner a reason to be suspicious. Maybe if they didn't exist I would have been given the benefit of the doubt. I have yet to read the "Lie Behind the Lie Detector", but it's existence might put examiners on a hair trigger.
2. I blame the system. One reason I want to work for the FBI is their reputation as an organization dedicated to justice and the principles of the best legal system in the world. Yet so far this polygraph process seems arbitrary, vindictive, and lacking in transparency or appeal procedures. Due process is not just a concept for selective application. It is an idea that is (or should be) universal, and it's a slippery slope once it is denied to citizens.
That said, I still have faith the the Bureau will revisit my case. It's the only way to continue to respect the process.
1. I blame the existence of "countermeasures" for giving my examiner a reason to be suspicious. Maybe if they didn't exist I would have been given the benefit of the doubt. I have yet to read the "Lie Behind the Lie Detector", but it's existence might put examiners on a hair trigger.
2. I blame the system. One reason I want to work for the FBI is their reputation as an organization dedicated to justice and the principles of the best legal system in the world. Yet so far this polygraph process seems arbitrary, vindictive, and lacking in transparency or appeal procedures. Due process is not just a concept for selective application. It is an idea that is (or should be) universal, and it's a slippery slope once it is denied to citizens.
That said, I still have faith the the Bureau will revisit my case. It's the only way to continue to respect the process.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 01, 2003, 04:58 PMMr. Smith,
I am very sorry to learn of your experience. Such bogus accusations of attempted polygraph countermeasures are not uncommon. Polygraphers expect "normal" individuals to breath at a rate of 15-30 breaths (in and out) per minute. Individuals who breath more rapidly or slowly than this may be accused of attempting to manipulate the "test" by controlling their breathing.
You are right to feel completely wronged: you were. Not only have you been falsely accused of attempted polygraph countermeasures, but you now have a permanent FBI HQ file that accuses you of such. This false accusation could quite possibly preclude you from ever holding a security clearance with any federal agency.
At this point, it is important that you appeal your polygrapher's decision in writing. Your letter (send it by certified, return-receipt mail) will become part of your FBI HQ file, and will show that you have not simply accepted your polygrapher's accusation. That said, I think that your prospects of clearing your name are poor. I am not aware of any instances where an FBI applicant accused of attempted countermeasures has successfully appealed. This may in part be explained by the FBI polygraph unit's need to maintain the fiction that it can reliably detect countermeasures.
For an understanding of how polygraph "testing" works (and doesn't: it's a pseudoscientific fraud), see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. You'll find an explanation of polygraph countermeasures in Chapter 4.
You may also wish to consider joining the plaintiffs represented by attorney Mark S. Zaid <ZaidMS@aol.com> who are suing the federal government over its pre-employment polygraph policies.
You'll find filings from these pending cases on AntiPolygraph.org's Polygraph Litigation page. Apart from e-mail, you can contact Mr. Zaid at (202) 223-9050.
It may be some small consolation to know that about 50% of FBI special agent applicants who make it as far as the polygraph are presently being accused of deception and/or attempted countermeasures and permanently barred from FBI employment. You'll find public statements from some who have been so accused on AntiPolygraph.org's Public Statements page. (If you would be willing to help document polygraph abuse by making such a statement of your own, please contact AntiPolygraph.org by e-mail to info@antipolygraph.org.)
I am very sorry to learn of your experience. Such bogus accusations of attempted polygraph countermeasures are not uncommon. Polygraphers expect "normal" individuals to breath at a rate of 15-30 breaths (in and out) per minute. Individuals who breath more rapidly or slowly than this may be accused of attempting to manipulate the "test" by controlling their breathing.
You are right to feel completely wronged: you were. Not only have you been falsely accused of attempted polygraph countermeasures, but you now have a permanent FBI HQ file that accuses you of such. This false accusation could quite possibly preclude you from ever holding a security clearance with any federal agency.
At this point, it is important that you appeal your polygrapher's decision in writing. Your letter (send it by certified, return-receipt mail) will become part of your FBI HQ file, and will show that you have not simply accepted your polygrapher's accusation. That said, I think that your prospects of clearing your name are poor. I am not aware of any instances where an FBI applicant accused of attempted countermeasures has successfully appealed. This may in part be explained by the FBI polygraph unit's need to maintain the fiction that it can reliably detect countermeasures.
For an understanding of how polygraph "testing" works (and doesn't: it's a pseudoscientific fraud), see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. You'll find an explanation of polygraph countermeasures in Chapter 4.
You may also wish to consider joining the plaintiffs represented by attorney Mark S. Zaid <ZaidMS@aol.com> who are suing the federal government over its pre-employment polygraph policies.
You'll find filings from these pending cases on AntiPolygraph.org's Polygraph Litigation page. Apart from e-mail, you can contact Mr. Zaid at (202) 223-9050.
It may be some small consolation to know that about 50% of FBI special agent applicants who make it as far as the polygraph are presently being accused of deception and/or attempted countermeasures and permanently barred from FBI employment. You'll find public statements from some who have been so accused on AntiPolygraph.org's Public Statements page. (If you would be willing to help document polygraph abuse by making such a statement of your own, please contact AntiPolygraph.org by e-mail to info@antipolygraph.org.)
Posted by Fair Chance
- Feb 01, 2003, 04:54 PMMr. Smith,
I have felt your disappointment in the system. With the surplus of applicants competing for so few postions, the FBI seems to be accusing many people on weak or non-existent accusations.
The defense is that "life is not fair." "better to err on the side of caution," and "friendly fire happens."
It is such a shame that they must ruin reputations and an applicant's ability to apply for other federal jobs in the future as the cost of "friendly fire."
The polygraph, at the most, should only be used to adjudicate background investigations which have issues that cannot otherwise be addressed. This should be only a small percentage of applicants. The applicant should be given the option of refusing at this point without any negative impact on his record.
Placing the polygraph at the front end of the process does not provide any appeal process that is reasonable (guilty until proven innocent instead of the other way around).
Money is limited but so also is the good will of people who trust in their government to do what is ethically correct. The FBI should leave a good impression of itself even to those who it does not hire. These "rejectees" for the most part are still outstanding U.S. citizens and taxpayers who vote and can impress their veiws of an unfair agency responsible for enforcing the Constitution of the United States. The FBI cannot afford to lose the war of public relations and appearance of fairness just because they currently have a surplus of applicants.
Regards.
I have felt your disappointment in the system. With the surplus of applicants competing for so few postions, the FBI seems to be accusing many people on weak or non-existent accusations.
The defense is that "life is not fair." "better to err on the side of caution," and "friendly fire happens."
It is such a shame that they must ruin reputations and an applicant's ability to apply for other federal jobs in the future as the cost of "friendly fire."
The polygraph, at the most, should only be used to adjudicate background investigations which have issues that cannot otherwise be addressed. This should be only a small percentage of applicants. The applicant should be given the option of refusing at this point without any negative impact on his record.
Placing the polygraph at the front end of the process does not provide any appeal process that is reasonable (guilty until proven innocent instead of the other way around).
Money is limited but so also is the good will of people who trust in their government to do what is ethically correct. The FBI should leave a good impression of itself even to those who it does not hire. These "rejectees" for the most part are still outstanding U.S. citizens and taxpayers who vote and can impress their veiws of an unfair agency responsible for enforcing the Constitution of the United States. The FBI cannot afford to lose the war of public relations and appearance of fairness just because they currently have a surplus of applicants.
Regards.
Posted by Mr_Smith
- Feb 01, 2003, 03:46 PMHello All,
I just discovered this site after taking and apparently failing an FBI lie-detector test. I was accused of altering my breathing in order to beat the machine. I had no idea what the specific techniques were for trying to beat the machine, so I didn't even have enough information to intelligently argue with the examiner. She seemed very convinced (angry), and basically treated me like a criminal.
My question is this: is there any way that my normal breathing pattern could be mistaken for trying to manipulate the machine? I feel completely wronged, but still want to realize my life-long goal of serving my country with the FBI. If I get a re-test, is there any reason to think I won't be accused of the same thing again, given my breathing?
Thank you for your time.
I just discovered this site after taking and apparently failing an FBI lie-detector test. I was accused of altering my breathing in order to beat the machine. I had no idea what the specific techniques were for trying to beat the machine, so I didn't even have enough information to intelligently argue with the examiner. She seemed very convinced (angry), and basically treated me like a criminal.
My question is this: is there any way that my normal breathing pattern could be mistaken for trying to manipulate the machine? I feel completely wronged, but still want to realize my life-long goal of serving my country with the FBI. If I get a re-test, is there any reason to think I won't be accused of the same thing again, given my breathing?
Thank you for your time.