Has anyone been through the polygraph screening at either agency (Cia/Nsa) in the wake of the Hanssen case? Thanks.
Just went through. Complete farce. Wish I'd known about this site before hand. I told 100% truth and they said I was deceptive. I used to have a lot of faith in the poly. NOT NOW!
Did you get the job?
I took the NSA one a few weeks ago. Was told I had "weak" areas and am being re-tested next week. I'm so glad I found this site before my re-test.
I went through the CIA polygraph as a contractor in the wake of the Hanssen case, and I made the mistake of trusting the system. Big mistake! My security clearance for the CIA was denied purely on the basis of polygraph results.
I found this especially ironic since I am a military intelligence officer in the reserves. I was actually called up in support of operations after Sept 11, and was serving in an intelligence position when I received notice of the denial. When I recently returned from duty, I found that unemployment was the CIA's Memorial Day present for me.
While I plan on appealing this decision, it is especially difficult to do since polygraph records are exempt in their entirely from the Freedom of Information and the Privacy Act. Essentially, a large portion of the government's records for these decisions CAN NOT EVER BE SEEN by private citizens. The last time I heard about something this insane was in a Kafka book.
DupedbyCIA,
I can relate with your situation as the exact same thing happened to me (read my statement in the Personal Statements section for the whole gory story). Though, I think later this summer, many an eyebrow in our Judiciary branch will be raised when NAS announces its results on its polygraph study. That should put a lot of things in perspective for the public at large.
False +
False +
This is Norman again. Question regarding your poly experience - how long did it take to find out that you didn't pass the poly?
Thanks
Norman,
Although your question was not directed to me, I think if you read False +'s statement on the Personal Statements (http://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml) page, you'll see that by the end of his interrogation it was made abundantly clear to him that he had not passed.
George,
Thank you for referring Norman to my statement. I wasn't sure how to include a hyperlink to my statement..
Norman,
George is correct in that as soon as the examiner finished cycling through his questions 3 times, he rose from his chair and completely changed his tone. It was probably a little over an hour into the process, a process which ended 4.5 hours later, all to find out if I had used marijuana once or not. In the end, I was assessed to be a drug (all sorts) abuser and a dealer too (the examiner also made a reference to rape early on ..)
False +
Wow - Maybe I didn't tank after all. I'm still pissed off, though.
Norman.
Hey false +,
I took the NSA poly awhile back.
Anyway, the bottom line in taking a counter intelligence poly is to NEVER, NEVER, EVER make an admission. I don't care what they do or say!
After my third test, the idiot picked up her chair, put it right in front of my chair, then starting yelling at me. I started laughing. Seriously! I cracked up. I thought it was such a joke!
Believe it or not, they let me be retested! I failed of course. I found out later that the retest (which they never intended to let me pass) was simply set up to satisfy the people on the OPS side that really wanted me hired, and wanted me to get another chance.
Anne,
It's interesting to read what you say, because many times, I have wished I could turn back the clock, put myself back in that examinee chair, all to mock my examiner knowing the process is a sham, just as you did. Instead, I tried remaining forthright, which of-course only prolonged the agony for me.
One of my NSA polyliars retesters, a Mr. Ligenfelter, had the nerve to say that the test is 99% accurate! He even drew a cheesy pie chart. "So you gotta get everthing out, so nothing is bugging you."
While he is telling me this I am thinking, based on an independent, scientific experiment, or are you pulling that one out of your ass?!
It was interesting, because this was a retest. I had discovered this site and others between the time I first tested, and was gullible. So I was well informed on their tricks. One of course being to totally convince the testee of the tests virtual invinciblilty.
The key, though, is MAKE NO ADMISSIONS OF ANY KIND. If you do, they will use it against you.
Anne Anonomous:
Just out of curiosity, how did you do on the second exam? Did you try any of the countermeasures?
Quote from: Anne Nonomous on Jun 16, 2002, 05:25 AM
Hey false +,
I took the NSA poly awhile back.
Anyway, the bottom line in taking a counter intelligence poly is to NEVER, NEVER, EVER make an admission. I don't care what they do or say!
What about in the pre-employ screening test? What if one (hypothetically) has fairly recently downloaded software/music from one's college network (most likely a felony -- you'd be suprised how many college students are felons)) and since destroyed it, after realizing doing that sort of thing was really not kosher? Would it be wise to admit it? Would the disclosure end eligibility for a position in the NSA or CIA?
What about if one doesn't know whether a background check might turn up someone who will mention it? Could failing to disclose it likely result in prosecution (I assume it could mean not getting the position)?
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Thanks
Quote from: VeryCuriousOne on Jun 23, 2002, 11:51 PM
What about in the pre-employ screening test? What if one (hypothetically) has fairly recently downloaded software/music from one's college network (most likely a felony -- you'd be suprised how many college students are felons)) and since destroyed it, after realizing doing that sort of thing was really not kosher? Would it be wise to admit it? Would the disclosure end eligibility for a position in the NSA or CIA?
What about if one doesn't know whether a background check might turn up someone who will mention it? Could failing to disclose it likely result in prosecution (I assume it could mean not getting the position)?
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Thanks
VeryCuriousOne,
The NSA DOES NOT care if you downloaded music in college. Please tell the examiner what is on your mind and he will word the polygraph test questions to exclude that area of concern. I wish you much luck in your test and your new career...
Polycop...
Quote from: Polycop on Jun 24, 2002, 11:04 AMThe NSA DOES NOT care if you downloaded music in college. Please tell the examiner what is on your mind and he will word the polygraph test questions to exclude that area of concern. I wish you much luck in your test and your new career...
If the NSA doesn't care, why should he make the admission? NEVER make damaging admissions to polygraphers, they have aptly demonstrated on this board that their reputations are made and broken by how many confessions they coerce. USE countermeasures after practicing them.
Dave
Quote from: beech trees on Jun 25, 2002, 01:31 PM
If the NSA doesn't care, why should he make the admission? NEVER make damaging admissions to polygraphers, they have aptly demonstrated on this board that their reputations are made and broken by how many confessions they coerce. USE countermeasures after practicing them.
Dave
OK, well, NOW I'm confused.
From what I've heard, people downloading software (not distributing or running massive bulletin boards) were not really the target of the laws that make it a felony. Also, you have to establish willfulness, and if you thought you had to be making money off the deal, and destroyed the copies you had when you found out that wasn't true, lack of willfulness may come into the picture. So maybe it's a felony, but its a felony that millions (maybe tens of millions) of people have committed through Napster, Kazaa and other file sharing methods.
Anyway, in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, copying music might be seen as one of the things a person might react to in a control question, since it's so common. I'm not sure I trust Polycop, either, but really, wouldn't this be the sort of minor admission one could make to a pre-test control question? If the NSA or CIA are looking for people who've never downloaded music or software (especially tech people) they're going to have a mighty small applicant pool.
VCO
VCO,
You asked:
QuoteI'm not sure I trust Polycop, either, but really, wouldn't this be the sort of minor admission one could make to a pre-test control question?
While beech trees is right that one should
never make damaging admissions to polygraphers, the downloading of MP3s over the Internet for personal use is not likely to be considered substantive. To illustrate the point, in the 1990s the question, "Did you ever violate a software copyright law?" was included on a list of DoDPI's acceptable
directed-lie "control" questions for the Test for Espionage and Sabotage.
Making minor, non-substantive admissions, such as having downloaded MP3s, can help to avoid the appearance of stonewalling that a complete denial, say, of ever having taken something that did not belong to you would create.
Quote from: VeryCuriousOne on Jun 25, 2002, 03:44 PMOK, well, NOW I'm confused.
Don't be. :)
QuoteFrom what I've heard, people downloading software (not distributing or running massive bulletin boards) were not really the target of the laws that make it a felony. Also, you have to establish willfulness, and if you thought you had to be making money off the deal, and destroyed the copies you had when you found out that wasn't true, lack of willfulness may come into the picture. So maybe it's a felony, but its a felony that millions (maybe tens of millions) of people have committed through Napster, Kazaa and other file sharing methods.
Let's set aside the legality/illegality question of your past actions for a moment and address the heart of the matter. Unless you wrote somewhere in your application form and questionaire that you downloaded music in possible violation of copyright laws, YOU set the tone for your reactions to questions concerning illegal past activity, not the polygrapher.
George has an excellent suggestion. Should your polygraph interrogator lie to you and bluff that you're having some sort of reaction to the sets of questions regarding criminal activity, at that point you could really reflect for a few moments and say words to the effect that you downloaded some music from the Internet once, and could that be the problem? [Earnest look].
QuoteAnyway, in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, copying music might be seen as one of the things a person might react to in a control question, since it's so common. I'm not sure I trust Polycop, either, but really, wouldn't this be the sort of minor admission one could make to a pre-test control question? If the NSA or CIA are looking for people who've never downloaded music or software (especially tech people) they're going to have a mighty small applicant pool.
Of course, only make minor, non-substantive admissions.
Quote from: beech trees on Jun 25, 2002, 04:54 PM
George has an excellent suggestion. Should your polygraph interrogator lie to you and bluff that you're having some sort of reaction to the sets of questions regarding criminal activity, at that point you could really reflect for a few moments and say words to the effect that you downloaded some music from the Internet once, and could that be the problem? [Earnest look].
Of course, only make minor, non-substantive admissions.
I would think you could use that in a couple of ways, either as a minor in-test admission (especially with an R/I test) or during the pre-test regarding control questions.
I read Jane's account of her NSA interview -- looks like they use both a probable-lie CQT and R/I (perhaps for a re-test?).
Skeptic
Do you guys (George et. al) have any reason to believe, based upon correspondence or other evidence, that there is any truth to the notion that polygraphers currently doing screening polygraphs for intelligence agencies can detect correctly-done TLBTLD countermeasures at better than chance levels? In other words, have you received any reliable reports of a means to detect (technologically or otherwise) puckering, etc.?
I ask because of some of the repeated posts on this board by polygraphers talking about "classified" methodology for CM detection. Surely, such classified methodology would have caught CM users going through screening?
Skeptic
Quote from: Skeptic on Jun 25, 2002, 07:07 PM
Do you guys (George et. al) have any reason to believe, based upon correspondence or other evidence, that there is any truth to the notion that polygraphers currently doing screening polygraphs for intelligence agencies can detect correctly-done TLBTLD countermeasures at better than chance levels? In other words, have you received any reliable reports of a means to detect (technologically or otherwise) puckering, etc.?
They cannot, because the countermeasures as described in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector are indistinguishable from 'genuine' (non-augmented) responses. I too was a doubting thomas until I experienced my second polygraph interrogation. The polygrapher had the latest and best polygraph equipment-- including sensor pads right under my butt-- and he was quite experienced in the 'profession'. I puckered like Dale Earnhardt in Turn 3 and passed with flying colors.
QuoteI ask because of some of the repeated posts on this board by polygraphers talking about "classified" methodology for CM detection. Surely, such classified methodology would have caught CM users going through screening?
It's all bluff Skeptic.
Quote from: Skeptic on Jun 25, 2002, 07:07 PM
Do you guys (George et. al) have any reason to believe, based upon correspondence or other evidence, that there is any truth to the notion that polygraphers currently doing screening polygraphs for intelligence agencies can detect correctly-done TLBTLD countermeasures at better than chance levels? In other words, have you received any reliable reports of a means to detect (technologically or otherwise) puckering, etc.?
As of today (25 June 2002), the answer to both questions is, "No."
How does the appeal process worked? If the CIA denied the FOIA, can you appeal without the polygraph results? Did anyone ever passed an appeal the last 40 years????
<<DupedbyCIA
Re: Cia/Nsa polygraph
« Reply #4 on: 05/25/02 at 10:19:45 »
While I plan on appealing this decision, it is especially difficult to do since polygraph records are exempt in their entirely from the Freedom of Information and the Privacy Act.>>
Somebody asked if I failed my second poly. Yes, of course I failed. What were they going to do, make the first polygrapher look bad. As I said, NSA's security people and the hiring committe had gotten into a major pissing contest over me. They only retested me to satisfy the hiring board.
BTW, the format they used was the RCT (relavant control test). There were four relevant CI test questions. IOW, the relevant questions WERE THE CONTROL QUESTIONS. They are looking to see if you react to any ONE of the questions, MORE than the others.
One thing that is not being discussed about the NSA polygraph process is the importance of the PRE TEST INTERVIEW. This is were they go over your application with a fine tooth comb, especially in the areas of foreign contacts...etc. They are fishing for information they can use against you later on. DON'T be overly talkative, and do not answer open ended questions. Just answer their questions with as few words as possible, and be right to the point. If they ask open ended or vagues questions, make them be more specific.
ann nounomous-
Was the same format used on both the first and second test? Or was only the second test RCT?
Quote from: ann nounomous on Jul 05, 2002, 05:45 AM
BTW, the format they used was the RCT (relavant control test). There were four relevant CI test questions. IOW, the relevant questions WERE THE CONTROL QUESTIONS. They are looking to see if you react to any ONE of the questions, MORE than the others.
Ann,
So, basically, all questions were "fishing" control-type questions? Do you recall what the specific questions were? I'm afraid I've never heard of a "RCT" format before.
Also, was there any kind of a "stim" test, or were any irrelevant questions asked? Were the questions in groups that were repeated several times? If so, I'd think you actually faced some sort of R/I test.
Skeptic
>>How does the appeal process worked? If the CIA denied the
>> FOIA, can you appeal without the polygraph results? Did
>> anyone ever passed an appeal the last 40 years
Sorry about the delay in responding. People do appeal successfully, but the rate is EXTREMELY low. Either the CIA is perfect (which is a perfectly natural assumption ... NOT!) or they just don't like to admit their mistakes. The process moves extremely slow, regardless. I started the process six months ago and I have yet to hear anything further.
Has anyone read Kafka's Trial? Somehow it seems relevant .....
DupedbyCIA,
Your Kafkaesque experience has been shared by many others, too. See, for example, the Public Staments (http://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml) page on this website. If, at the appropriate time, you'd like to add a statement of your own, please contact us by e-mail to info@antipolygraph.org. By working together, and publicly exposing ongoing abuses, such at that which you are now suffering, we can hasten the day when polygraph screening is finally abolished.
I took a military CI polygraph at NSA in 1992, standard CQT with standard poly machine. Got yelled at for answering truthfully to one of the control questions "have you ever lied to an authority figure?".
Me? :o Ever lie to an authority figure?? ::) HELL YES...I don't know a SINGLE individual who never lied to their parents at least once.
But of course when I told my examiner this (later turns out he was enlisted military wearing a suit) he got all upset and convinced me to do what he wanted (lie) because that was a control question.
So of course I show 'deception' on that question and he goes back over it for about two hours. First he's yelling at me for breathing to deep (I take a deep breath about every fifth breath or so), then breathing too shallow, then for controlling my breathing (I wanted to slap the stupid git).
I passed...because I did what they wanted, I lied to a control question and got caught...and left the place feeling like I'd just been accused of murdering someone (lasted for at least a week).
Funny thing is, my recruiter had me lie about my pot use on my security questionnaire, but the poly never included any questions about drug use.
hey everyone... this is a great site and its good to know there are others out there... in about a week i'm aiming to fool the foolers and need some help... specifically... what questions should i anticipate being asked by the cia during the poly test? what procedures, tactics, info should i be aware of? any additional info would be great... help me be a step ahead... thanks
I took the first poly in mid July of '03 and failed. I took it again in July '04 and passed!!! I am in the process of moving. Thanks for all the info on the board but I have found it to be fictional as it was very straight forward. They just try to intimidate you. Its a shot in the dark. Never the less one of my dreams finally coming true. Good luck to all. :) ;D
Quote from: Jason Bourne on Jul 29, 2004, 10:52 PMThe info on this site...I have found it to be fictional.
You got that right Jason. George and his loser buddies specialize in fiction - especially the part about them being "falsely" accused of lying.
Quote from: Jason Bourne on Jul 29, 2004, 10:52 PMI took the first poly in mid July of '03 and failed. I took it again in July '04 and passed!!! I am in the process of moving. Thanks for all the info on the board but I have found it to be fictional as it was very straight forward. They just try to intimidate you. Its a shot in the dark. Never the less one of my dreams finally coming true. Good luck to all. :) ;D
Congratulations on passing the polygraph, and best wishes in your new career. But specifically what information on this board do you believe to be "fictional?"
Could you also explain in what sense your polygraph examinations were "very straight forward?" This seems inconsistent with your remark that "[t]hey just try to intimidate you. Its a shot in the dark."
Quote from: I-SMELL-BS on Jul 29, 2004, 11:21 PM...George and his loser buddies specialize in fiction - especially the part about them being "falsely" accused of lying.
ISBS,
I recall that in another message thread, you called me a liar (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1843.msg13899#msg13899). But when I challenged you (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1843.msg13900#msg13900) to back up your claim by pointing out what lie(s) I have supposedly told, you couldn't cite even one.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jul 30, 2004, 09:04 AM
ISBS,
I recall that in another message thread, you called me a liar (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1843.msg13899#msg13899). But when I challenged you (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1843.msg13900#msg13900) to back up your claim by pointing out what lie(s) I have supposedly told, you couldn't cite even one.
Don't like the word liar... well George how about some of these...cheat, con artist, con man, deceiver, deluder, dissimulator, equivocator, fabler, fabricator, fabulist, false witness, falsifier, fibber, jive turkey, maligner, misleader, perjurer, phony, prevaricator, promoter, storyteller, trickster. They all describe you George and you know it.