- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by TopGman
- Nov 12, 2003, 01:06 PMBig deal. A leech is tenacious too.
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 12, 2003, 01:27 AMQuote from: Batman is a moron on Nov 11, 2003, 08:57 PMThis post is for Batman and Saidme. You guys seem to be a couple of first class degenerates. If you two jerkoffs are so for the polygraph, then why do you spend so much time and effort on this antipolygraph website. Oh I know, its because you both know that your so called science is bogus. Why the hell else would someone post over 150 times(Batman), or over 300 times(Saidme). You want to talk about a lost cause, look in the mirror. All the crap you both spew on this site doesn't convince anyone that your pitiful belief in the polygraph holds any weight. I'll bet you two morons feel real important. At least George has the balls to expose polygraphy for the nonsense it is. If you two want to compare notes, I'll bet my lunch money George's resume far exceeds either of yours.
As much as I may sympathize with the above sentiment, I personally find arguments much more valuable when they involve at least a little bit of non-ad-hominem material. Sticking to the issues will get us much farther.
I disagree vehemently with both Batman and Saidme. Nevertheless, I do have some respect for the fact that they've hung in on several arguments despite being badly outnumbered. Regardless of the quality of their reasoning or arguments, I will give them points for tenaciousness.
Skeptic
Posted by Batman is a moron
- Nov 11, 2003, 08:57 PMThis post is for Batman and Saidme. You guys seem to be a couple of first class degenerates. If you two jerkoffs are so for the polygraph, then why do you spend so much time and effort on this antipolygraph website. Oh I know, its because you both know that your so called science is bogus. Why the hell else would someone post over 150 times(Batman), or over 300 times(Saidme). You want to talk about a lost cause, look in the mirror. All the crap you both spew on this site doesn't convince anyone that your pitiful belief in the polygraph holds any weight. I'll bet you two morons feel real important. At least George has the balls to expose polygraphy for the nonsense it is. If you two want to compare notes, I'll bet my lunch money George's resume far exceeds either of yours.
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 11, 2003, 07:01 AMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Nov 11, 2003, 04:11 AMThe expansion of the DoD polygraph program envisaged in the House version of the defense appropriations bill for FY 2004 has passed a House-Senate conference and is now a done deal.
The annual cap of 5,000 polygraph screening examinations in the Department of Defense will be lifted, and the DoD will no longer be required to file an annual report to Congress on its polygraph program.
The conference report's provisions for the DoD polygraph program are available here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/defauth.html#1041
A number of the DoD's annual polygraph program reports to Congress, which the DoD will no longer be required to provide, are available here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/
I note that the DoD deliberately misled Congress as to the findings of the National Academy of Sciences when they wrote:
"Finally, it is important to note that the NRC Report also concluded that the polygraph technique is the best tool currently available to detect deception and assess credibility. "
In fact, the NAS report said that no other techniques have been shown to "outperform the polygraph" when it comes to detection of deception (not the assessment of credibility). Of course, the NAS report also indicated a few things DoD might reasonably have been expected to note in a complete report to Congress:
1) The polygraph has never caught a spy. In fact, the NAS report specifically mentions that those spies who have been caught were stopped by traditional investigative methods.
2) The polygraph has not been shown to add any incremental validity (predictive value) regarding determination of security risks. This is a very damning assessment that alone should call into question the use of the polygraph. It means that simply claiming the polygraph is the "best tool currently available to detect deception" is like saying "standing on one foot is the best tool currently available for making people live past 150 years old". If the best tool you have doesn't do the job and has significant negative ramifications, then what does it mean to claim that it's the best?
3) False positives remain a problem.
Such deliberate distortions of the NAS report findings raise serious questions regarding the motivation of the DoD in this matter. Given the damning nature of the report's conclusions and the fact that DoD chose to ignore them in favor of one line taken out of context, one can only speculate that factors other than national security are taking priority in today's DoD security screening process. Their assessment, as reported to Congress, is clearly not an honest one.
skeptic
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 11, 2003, 04:11 AMThe expansion of the DoD polygraph program envisaged in the House version of the defense appropriations bill for FY 2004 has passed a House-Senate conference and is now a done deal.
The annual cap of 5,000 polygraph screening examinations in the Department of Defense will be lifted, and the DoD will no longer be required to file an annual report to Congress on its polygraph program.
The conference report's provisions for the DoD polygraph program are available here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/defauth.html#1041
A number of the DoD's annual polygraph program reports to Congress, which the DoD will no longer be required to provide, are available here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/
The annual cap of 5,000 polygraph screening examinations in the Department of Defense will be lifted, and the DoD will no longer be required to file an annual report to Congress on its polygraph program.
The conference report's provisions for the DoD polygraph program are available here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/defauth.html#1041
A number of the DoD's annual polygraph program reports to Congress, which the DoD will no longer be required to provide, are available here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 27, 2003, 02:32 PMGeorge
I would say your efforts have fallen on deaf ears had I believed anyone heard. I liken your efforts to that of Mr Bill (old SLN skit) taking on the steam roller.
I would say your efforts have fallen on deaf ears had I believed anyone heard. I liken your efforts to that of Mr Bill (old SLN skit) taking on the steam roller.
Posted by orolan
- Jul 27, 2003, 11:44 AMMore screening exams = more screwups = more people who know how invalid the polygraph is for screening = more public exposure of the problem.
Bring it on. Let's get a law passed requiring everybody in government to take annual screening polygraphs, starting with the White House and Congress.
Bring it on. Let's get a law passed requiring everybody in government to take annual screening polygraphs, starting with the White House and Congress.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 27, 2003, 05:59 AMThe version of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2004 passed by the U.S. Senate omits the polygraph program revisions that had been included in Section 1041 of the House-passed bill.
The House-passed bill may be downloaded here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/lrs/docs/HR1588-House_passed.pdf
The Senate-passed bill may be downloaded here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/lrs/docs/HR1588-Senate_passed.pdf
The House-passed bill may be downloaded here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/lrs/docs/HR1588-House_passed.pdf
The Senate-passed bill may be downloaded here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/lrs/docs/HR1588-Senate_passed.pdf
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 24, 2003, 04:57 AMHere is the accompanying report language (from House Report 108-106) on this section:
QuoteSECTION 1041--CODIFICATION AND REVISION OF DEFENSE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
POLYGRAPH PROGRAM AUTHORITY
This section would remove existing limits on the number of polygraph
examinations that the Department of Defense may administer in any fiscal
year. Under the current program established in section 1121 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (P.L.
100-180) and amended in section 1073(d)(5) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (P.L. 105-85), no more than 5,000
polygraph examinations may be conducted per fiscal year. Section 1041
would expand the categories of individuals who may be required to
undergo polygraph examinations. These two categories include persons who
are applying for positions within the Department and persons who are
assigned or detailed to the Department. This section would also instruct
the Secretary of Defense to institute a process to monitor responsible
and effective application of polygraphs within the Department of
Defense. In lieu of the existing reporting requirement, this section
would require the Secretary to make information on the use of polygraphs
available to the congressional defense committees.
Posted by Boy1der
- May 23, 2003, 11:59 PMWholly useless Batman! That's what I think of the "anti" crowd's message, although their efforts are somewhat comical. 
Might I suggest a goober repellant, oh caped one?
Might I suggest a goober repellant, oh caped one?Posted by Batman
- May 23, 2003, 08:00 PMVery interesting George. I see your anti-polygraph message is really getting through! Keep up the good work.
Batman
Batman
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 23, 2003, 03:53 AMUpdate: The provisions of the House bill have survived a House-Senate conference committee and are slated to become law. Scroll down for the latest news. - 11/11/03
Under the defense authorization bill approved by the House of Representatives yesterday, thousands of additional Department of Defense (DoD) employees and contractors could be subjected to polygraph screening beginning this October. Those working in information technology positions appear to be first in line for more polygraphs.
Brushing aside the National Academy of Sciences' recent report, The Polygraph and Lie Detection that found polygraph screening to be completely invalid, and even a danger to national security, DoD hinted in its Polygraph Program Report for FY 2002 that it would ask Congress to lift the current statutory cap of 5,000 counterintelligence-scope polygraph (CSP) examinations per year:
Congress seems prepared to go along. Under the National Defense Authorization Act for 2004, which passed on a 361-68 vote, the previously established limit of 5,000 counterintelligence-scope polygraph examinations per year is eliminated:
Here is the text of the section to be repealed:
Prior to the imposition of the current annual limit of 5,000, DoD had conducted upwards of 10,000 such examinations per year.
The foreseeable result of this proposed policy change is that thousands of additional DoD employees and contractors may be subjected to the pseudoscientific ritual of polygraph screening, especially those in information technology positions.
Under the defense authorization bill approved by the House of Representatives yesterday, thousands of additional Department of Defense (DoD) employees and contractors could be subjected to polygraph screening beginning this October. Those working in information technology positions appear to be first in line for more polygraphs.
Brushing aside the National Academy of Sciences' recent report, The Polygraph and Lie Detection that found polygraph screening to be completely invalid, and even a danger to national security, DoD hinted in its Polygraph Program Report for FY 2002 that it would ask Congress to lift the current statutory cap of 5,000 counterintelligence-scope polygraph (CSP) examinations per year:
QuoteExpansion of the CSP Program
Public Law 100-180 instituted an annual ceiling on the number of CSP examinations conducted by DoD. This annual ceiling has remained at the same level since 1991. Since that time, the Department has identified additional vulnerabilities and threats to classified information that did not exist over a decade ago. The broad based use of information technology systems, coupled with the development of information sharing capabilities over the internet and through other electronic media, require the updating of DoD information assurance policies and practices to keep pace with this emerging threat. DoD is considering the development and implementation of enhanced security requirements for information technology professionals with root access to DoD information systems. These enhanced security requirements may require a CSP polygraph examination for access to DoD information systems. Based on the number of information technology professionals assigned to DoD, an increase in the CSP ceiling to prior 1991 levels may be requested from Congress.[/size]
Congress seems prepared to go along. Under the National Defense Authorization Act for 2004, which passed on a 361-68 vote, the previously established limit of 5,000 counterintelligence-scope polygraph examinations per year is eliminated:
QuoteCongressional Record: May 21, 2003 (House)]
Page H4402-H4503
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). Pursuant to House Resolution
245 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 1588.
[...]
SEC. 1041. CODIFICATION AND REVISION OF DEFENSE
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE POLYGRAPH PROGRAM
AUTHORITY.
(a) Codification.--(1) Chapter 21 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after section 425 the
following new section:
``Sec. 426. Counterintelligence polygraph program
``(a) Authority for Program.--The Secretary of Defense may
carry out a program for the administration of
counterintelligence polygraph examinations to persons
described in subsection (b). The program shall be based on
Department of Defense Directive 5210.48, dated December 24,
1984.
``(b) Persons Covered.--Except as provided in subsection
(c), the following persons whose duties involve access to
information that has been classified at the level of top
secret or designated as being within a special access program
under section 4.4(a) of Executive Order 12958 (or a successor
Executive order) are subject to this section:
``(1) Military and civilian personnel of the Department of
Defense.
``(2) Personnel of defense contractors.
``(3) A person assigned or detailed to the Department of
Defense.
``(4) An applicant for a position in the Department of
Defense.
``(c) Exceptions From Coverage for Certain Intelligence
; Agencies and Functions.--This section does not apply to the
following persons:
[[Page H4455]]
``(1) A person assigned or detailed to the Central
Intelligence Agency or to an expert or consultant under a
contract with the Central Intelligence Agency.
``(2) A person who is--
``(A) employed by or assigned or detailed to the National
Security Agency;
``(B) an expert or consultant under contract to the
National Security Agency;
``(C) an employee of a contractor of the National Security
Agency; or
``(D) a person applying for a position in the National
Security Agency.
``(3) A person assigned to a space where sensitive
cryptographic information is produced, processed, or stored.
``(4) A person employed by, or assigned or detailed to, an
office within the Department of Defense for the collection of
specialized national foreign intelligence through
reconnaissance programs or a contractor of such an office.
``(d) Oversight.--(1) The Secretary shall establish a
process to monitor responsible and effective application of
polygraphs within the Department of Defense.
``(2) The Secretary shall make information on the use of
polygraphs within the Department of Defense available to the
congressional defense committees.
``(e) Polygraph Research Program.--The Secretary of Defense
shall carry out a continuing research program to support the
polygraph activities of the Department of Defense. The
program shall include--
``(1) an on-going evaluation of the validity of polygraph
techniques used by the Department;
``(2) research on polygraph countermeasures and anti-
countermeasures; and
``(3) developmental research on polygraph techniques,
instrumentation, and analytic methods.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of subchapter I
of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following
new item:
``426. Counterintelligence polygraph program.''.
(b) Conforming Repeal.--Section 1121 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (10
U.S.C. 113 note), is repealed.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2003.
Here is the text of the section to be repealed:
QuoteSECTION 1121 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS
1988 AND 1989
SEC. 1121. COUNTERINTELLIGENCE POLYGRAPH PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Limitation on Number of Examinations.--The number of
counterintelligence polygraph examinations that may be
administered [under this section--
[(1) may not exceed 10,000 during each of fiscal
years 1988, 1989, and 1990; and
[(2) may not exceed 5,000 during any fiscal year
after fiscal year 1990] under this section may not
exceed 5,000 during any fiscal year for which a
specific number is not otherwise provide by law.
(d) * * *
* * * * * * *
Prior to the imposition of the current annual limit of 5,000, DoD had conducted upwards of 10,000 such examinations per year.
The foreseeable result of this proposed policy change is that thousands of additional DoD employees and contractors may be subjected to the pseudoscientific ritual of polygraph screening, especially those in information technology positions.