I am currently in the final stages of the hiring process for Las Vegas Metro Police department. The job at this point rests solely on my ability to pass the polygraph. I am scared to death to take this after all the horror stories I have heard from friends who have taken the test before, as well as some of the testimonies on here. I have spent much time and much money on this job, and I want it more than anything right now.
My question is, does has anyone on this board ever taken their polygraph test, and does anyone have an advice for me?
Thank you
Matt
Quote from: valleyheat14 on Apr 15, 2006, 07:13 PMI am currently in the final stages of the hiring process for Las Vegas Metro Police department. The job at this point rests solely on my ability to pass the polygraph. I am scared to death to take this after all the horror stories I have heard from friends who have taken the test before, as well as some of the testimonies on here. I have spent much time and much money on this job, and I want it more than anything right now.
My question is, does has anyone on this board ever taken their polygraph test, and does anyone have an advice for me?
Thank you
Matt
Matt,
You will find this website chock full of folks who have taken and failed polygraph examinations. In fact, this site was started by a guy who took and failed a pre-employment polygraph examination.
Some of these folks failed because they lied and are now appalled that the government was allowed to perform such an intrusive test.
Others failed because they are legitimate victims of something called a "false positive" result. False positives do happen, but I believe they are far more rare than the people on this site would have you believe.
You say you are "scared to death," about taking a polygraph examination. I understand. I was also terrified when I took my first polygraph examination. I was mostly afraid because I was hiding a childhood mistake. I failed the exam, I was caught.
Luckily, the examiner talked to me and gave me a chance to redeem myself. I told the truth and passed the next examination. That was 17 years ago. I am now a senior officer on my department, a detective, and a state licensed polygraph examiner. My present and future are secure.
My advice? Tell the examiner the truth. Tell him/her everything. Pass the test, and see your dream come true...
Good luck; my friend...
Nonombre
Matt,
Parts of what NoNombre says are 100% right on, I do not advocate lying or using countermeasures for the purpose of hiding anything illegal, especially where LE officers are concerned. What I do advocate is your ability to be educated and informed on the polygraph procedure. And to not become a victim of a scorious examiner with the intent of eliminating you from the job market. NoNombre and other polygraphers who come to this site will admit readily that there are examiners without ethics who practice their voodoo. FBI ones of particular note. Pull down the Lie Behind The Lie Detector, thoroughly read it (takes about 3 hours, with repeated study of chapters 3 & 4) and be prepared to go into the interrogation with knowlege and purpose. The knowlege alone will remove most of the fear & anxiety that the polygrapher needs to make the machine work. Be honest and be prepared. Best advice I can give you.
Regards .....
valleyheat14,
If telling the truth would guarantee passing a polygraph test, as nonombre simplistically suggests, this website would not exist. The fact of the matter, however, is that polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis (http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml), and many truthful persons are wrongly branded as liars (http://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml) and disqualified from the hiring process based on polygraph results. In fact, the "control question test" format commonly used in pre-employment polygraph screening depends on the secret assumption that even people the department would like to hire will be less than honest when answering the so-called "control" questions. The more candidly one answers the control questions, and as a consequence feels less stress when answering them, the more likely one is to fail. Nonombre knows this, but chose not to mention it.
As EosJupiter pointed out, you'll find polygraphy explained in detail in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf). Chapter 3 exposes the trickery on which the "test" actually depends, and Chapter 4 provides suggestions for reducing the risk of a false positive outcome.
For past discussion of the LVMPD's pre-employment polygraph process, see the message thread Las Vegas Metro's poly (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1385.msg11033#msg11033).
I like to thank everyone for their response and help on this issue. Right after I posted this I found that message thread. Even though it was started nearly 3 years ago, there hiring process has stayed the same. After reading that Metro's polygraph is terrible, I was further put at unease due to the fact that I could be totally honest and fail the test. It is a shame that honest people fail, and liars can easily pass the test. My friend took the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department polygraph last year. He told the truth, they said he was deceptive, he was disqualified. I do not see how a test, which is inadmissable in court, can be used to screen an applicants validity on statements he has made in his application when he has not even had his background investigated yet.
I guess there are something people like us just will never understand.
In response to our pal the polygrapher, who plans to improve his voodoo science with help from George... (hmm... if he's looking to make the test much more accurate, standardized, etc., what does that say about the test as currently constructed?):
>>...In fact, this site was started by a guy who took and failed a pre-employment polygraph examination.<<
Without trying to speak for him, check the other posts, nonombre. Said founder asserts he was one of your "rare" false positives, and I support him on that...
>>False positives do happen, but I believe they are far more rare than the people on this site would have you believe.<<
Even one is too many, and there exists no reasonable recourse for a false positive. Thus, you have a pseudoscience falsely screwing people, and we don't even know which ones. Is that what we want?
Remember, there are false negatives, too. Aldrich Ames pulled off two of these, one while under active investigation for spying! How did he do it? His Russkie handlers said to relax. Period. He did, he skewed the test, and he kept on passing secrets for however long...
>>...I was also terrified when I took my first polygraph examination. I was mostly afraid because I was hiding a childhood mistake. I failed the exam, I was caught.<<
Now, interrogators tell you that they always want the truth, but as is mentioned in TLBTLD (read it 3 times), if you're truthful on control questions (which this "mistake" business seems to be), you're more likely to fail as a result. Plus, all truthful responses make it such that there is no comparison capability between truths and nontruths whatsoever, as if that concept even mattered. Coming full circle, physiological responses to "lies" on control questions are never some form of diametric opposite of a "truthful" trace, especially to a relevant question but also to any other control question, as the two types of questions are different. One you know to be important, and the other you may well know not to be. Following me on this? :)
>>Luckily, the examiner talked to me and gave me a chance to redeem myself. I told the truth and passed the next examination. That was 17 years ago.<<
I don't believe this for a second. Confess, and be saved! I am your salvation! Here is your chance to lay bare your sins to me, the polygrapher priest! I can absolve you in the name of the Pneumograph, and of the Sphygmomanometer, and of the Finger Sweat Doohickie, Amen!
>>My advice? Tell the examiner the truth. Tell him/her everything. Pass the test, and see your dream come true...<<
Tell them you know their shell game, or better: tell them you've read all about the poly, every facet. You did so to be better prepped, which would not be a lie. Be polite, but do it. It'll throw them off, for they'll know that YOU know their interrogation techniques. Just my advice.
>>Good luck, my friend...<<
The polygrapher is never your friend. Even if I, for example, had to pass a poly to get a job, did so, and then worked with the polygrapher as part of that job, I would grow eyes in the back of my head to watch him. And he wouldn't be coming to any barbecues I have. I don't have personal relationships with snake oil salesmen...
Quote from: cesium_133 on Apr 17, 2006, 08:41 PMAnd he wouldn't be coming to any barbecues I have....
Aw, c'mon cesium. Not even one single barbecue? How about if I bought the beer? ;D
Regards,
Nonombre
Nonombre: better yet, you bring the Axciton, I'll bring the Lafayette.
Quote from: quickfix on Apr 17, 2006, 10:17 PMNonombre: better yet, you bring the Axciton, I'll bring the Lafayette.
Better yet, I'll bring a Limestone. I really like the sampling rate...
AND
I'll still bring the beer ;D
Regards,
Nonombre
I'm willing to bet it's easier to knowingly LIE and pass this instrument. Telling the truth is far more likely to get someone like me in trouble.
I plan on telling my wizards that I have never studied polygraphy, etc. If I "confessed" to all I know, can you imagine how quickly I would be branded a liar, cheater, drug using, child molesting, seal beating, flower stomping, puppy kicking jerk? Yeah...I'll be sticking with the cm's thank you very much.
edit: and if anyone gives me a suggestion on how to tape my session without getting caught, i'd be happy to post them, pass or fail.
Tarlain
Do a little investigative work. Miniature mikes can be found with ease and they are powerful enough to reach a recording device in your vehicle. Radio Shack probably can fix you up. Find a PI in your phone book and he can tell you where to find one. He might even sell you one. You can tape it to any part of your body that you care to and if your polygrapher asks you to undress, call him a pervert and walk.
Wouldn't it be funny if the mic caused some interference with the "equipment." :D That sounds like an excellent idea. I was considering using my phone or palm pilot to record onto an SD card, but I like your idea better.
I think many people would feel much better if they could actually see/hear the nonsense that goes on in these interrogations.
Nonombre,
Do you prohibit your subjects from recording the sessions? Do they have any obligations to inform you that you are being recorded?
Notice that our pal nonombre (or No Name) didn't choose to refute my allegations or make an argument. He just laughed, made a cute comment, and went on about his business. If I had had my craft maligned, and such assertions were false, I would be hollering back, making a case for my job. Nothing here.
I think nonombre knows the lie behind the lie detector :) I think he knows that the LVPD or any other PD is silly and negligent for enlisting his services. I believe he knows that control questions are not controls at all, but ersatz comparisons dressed up to look like harmless but effective distinguishing factors.
I think he knows he tells falsehoods to examinees to get them confused and scared. I think he knows that R/I tests are even more of a joke than CQTs.
And I think he knows that I know his secrets. Oops... and that I hold his biofeedback machine and his profession in pure contempt... >:(
Quote from: cesium_133 on Apr 18, 2006, 06:56 AM...I think he knows that ...I hold his biofeedback machine and his profession in pure contempt... >:(
Okay, okay, fine, whatever you say,
But...
Why can't I come to the barbeque? ;D
Why would anyone want a professional liar at their barbeque? :-/
Just wondering Tarlain,
What do you do for a living? I am not being a smart ass here. I would really like to know...
Nonombre
I had to think about whether I should answer this question. Then I wondered why I was evening debating with myself...and it hit me. I don't TRUST you.
My occupation is extremely unique and would stick out like a sore thumb if my future mindreaders were to peruse this site. So for the sake of my fun, I guess that will have to suffice.
I do my job because I enjoy helping people overcome illness...and love patient care. I find it appalling that others spend the "bulk" of their time lying to these same people...while looking down upon them for refusing to lay their souls bare before you. It baffles the mind.
edit: i'm not a doctor or rn...before that assuming mind begins. it really is quite unique.
Quote from: Tarlain on Apr 18, 2006, 10:02 PMI had to think about whether I should answer this question. Then I wondered why I was evening debating with myself...and it hit me. I don't TRUST you.
My occupation is extremely unique and would stick out like a sore thumb if my future mindreaders were to peruse this site. So for the sake of my fun, I guess that will have to suffice.
I do my job because I enjoy helping people overcome illness...and love patient care. I find it appalling that others spend the "bulk" of their time lying to these same people...while looking down upon them for refusing to lay their souls bare before you. It baffles the mind.
edit: i'm not a doctor or rn...before that assuming mind begins. it really is quite unique.
Interesting; thank you...
Nonombre
Tarlain
I don't think a mike will cause any interference with the machine. There is nothing about the machine that is sensitive to radio frequency.
Did you notice that Nonombre didn't answer your question about recording his tests? Could be because maybe he's a Fed. and not state or local polygrapher as he has allowed. Seems like I read where Fed polygraphers do not allow audio or vidio.
I'm glad I dig gravel and blast holes in mountains for a living. If Nonombre would ever visit my mine, I would let him get experience in real hard, dirty and honest work.
Tarlain:
Since you like "funny" things here's something to think about. In my state its a violation of the wiretap laws to tape anothers conversation without advisng that person beforehand.
Retcopper
That was before 9/11. Since then the Feds wire tap any one they want without a court order.
I don't know what's your state but, I think if the recording is used "only" to protect ones self, honesty and integrity it is not against the law. Technically, a recording device is not a wire tap. PI's use recording devices all the time without a court order.
Tarlain may want to just use the recording for his own knowledge about the polygraph. In that case, he's legal. Particularly if he isn't caught. I record political speaches, that I attend, so I can put the facts in their face when they don't come through with their promises. When they are elected, they don't give a damn how much they are recorded.
In case anyone is interested, under federal law, electronic monitoring/recording is covered under Title 18, USC, the federal Wiretapping Investigative Monitoring Eavesdropping Activities (WIMEA) Act; an overview can be viewed at
www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/98-326.pdf
"It is a federal crime to wiretap or to use a machine to cature the communications of others without court approval, unless one of the parties has given their prior consent."
Am I missing something? Would not I qualify as "one of the parties" giving consent?
For the record though, this is why I asked. I felt that these shady people might force me to sign away my right to record my own voice.
quickfix
Thanks for posting the link.
I had read the section on public speakers (politicians), before I started recording them, to be sure I was legal. Besides, most of the time, there is a TV camera or radio or both recording the speaker.
I haven't read the whole thing yet, but it appears that the secret words are "disclosure" and "commerce". If the information gathered is never revealed, is there a law broken? I'll study it more closely later.
I have sought the opinion of a lawyer (friend of a friend type of thing). I was told that I am absolutely allowed to record any conversation(s) I have. Polygraphers are NOT allowed to require you to turn off any recording devices. Lastly, I was told that if discovered, the odds I end up being "deceptive" will be 110% regardless of how I answer (no surprise).
I am still unable to find any legal document or precedent that states or implies that it is unlawful for me to record my own conversations.
Quote from: Twoblock on Apr 19, 2006, 12:39 PMTarlain
Did you notice that Nonombre didn't answer your question about recording his tests? Could be because maybe he's a Fed. and not state or local polygrapher as he has allowed. Seems like I read where Fed polygraphers do not allow audio or vidio.
I'm glad I dig gravel and blast holes in mountains for a living. If Nonombre would ever visit my mine, I would let him get experience in real hard, dirty and honest work.
Sorry for not answering the question (It wasn't on purpose). As to whether I would allow an examinee to record the examination, truth is I have never run into this as a polygraph examiner.
I do remember years ago during one of my first interrogations as a detective, a suspect quite smugly pulled a tape recorder out of his pocket and placed it on the table. My old crusty partner picked up the recorder, popped out the tape, and handed it back to the suspect, then conducted the interrogation. I immediately realized that the suspect's actions was nothing more then a vain attempt to gain some "control" of the interview, which naturally any good cop would never allow.
If you have read my posts, you know that I record all my polygraph examinations and those tapes are available to the suspect's defense attorney, therefore I would not allow the suspect to produce his own recording device. Once again, not because of the recording itself, since I record the inerview anyway, but mostly to deny the individual the "control" he is clearly seeking.
This response is probably not going to be popular, but it is my first reaction to the question.
Regards,
Nonombre
I appreciate your response. While I completely understand the reason you don't allow a person to record his/her own copy of the session (for control, etc), it still appears that the individual was not treated fairly. If he was their voluntarily, he has every right to record the session. If you don't like that, you can ask him to leave. If the person was being detained, he should have just refused (to avoid losing control).
Nonombre,
While I realize this is not a question you would prefer to answer, I would appreciate an answer to the original question.
Is there any law that prohibits a person from "secretly" recording their own pre-employment polygraph. Do you "ask" your subjects to sign some form of waiver preventing this, etc.?
Seeing that I'm not willing to commit a serious crime to take a polygraph ;D...the cheapest alternative is to just apply for jobs that require them 8).
Again, thanks for the first answer. In case I've never been clear, I have no problems with polygraphs that are used for criminal investigations (though I believe nobody would take them if the pre-employment versions were stopped).
Tarlain
I think the lawyer is correct in part. However, if the polygrapher knows you are going to record the session, there will not be a poly just as Nonombre said.
This will apply whether or not the polygrapher records. BTW, recordings can easily be redacted.
I stick by my suggestion to covertly record your session and learn from it. If you fail, you will know exactly what to do the next time and YOU will be in control. As Nonombre indicated, when they lose control they lose the battle. That is why they hate this website so much.
Just a caution. You cannot make the recording public. You can say "the session went like this", making no reference to the recording, but relating every minute detail.
I continue to disagree.
Let me offer an example. There is a trashy show called "Cheaters" that video/audio records people cheating on their significant other. The person who is cheating never has any idea they are being recorded. The entire show is based off the idea that the person is unaware they are being recorded. I admit that they blur out the faces at times...but they always play the audio. As long as the one of the individuals consent to doing the recording, they run with it...regardless of whether both parties are consenting.
I'm not sure if that makes sense. Why do you believe that I am not allowed to make my own conversations public? If memory serves me correct, didn't Linda Tripp tape Monica Lewinsky (without her knowledge)? I definately remember hearing the tapes. I don't every remember hearing anything about that being illegal (since Linda Tripp was recording her own conversation). Why would the press be allowed to play them if it were unlawful?
edit: on further thought...the entire tv show "Cops" is taped. I doubt they are getting permission as they barge in people's doors. But since they have the permisson of one of the parties...it's fine as long as they don't wrongly damage somebody's reputation or good name.
From time to time on the tv program "COPS" you will notice a blurred image. The folks on "COPS" have to obtain a signed release from every suspect shown.
The amazing thing is, the majority sign the release. "Hey look mom, I'm getting arrested for stealing a car and loading it with drugs." The chance to be seen on tv appears to be hard to pass up.
I have always understood the laws of recording to be as follows: audio: consent of one party; video: consent of one party; audio & video: consent of both parties excluding security cams.
So you would agree then that I could record my own conversations and do as I wish with them as long as they are not used for blackmail, extortion, etc.?
I'm certainly going to consult reliable counsel before such an event, but I still have not seen anything that implies I can not carry through with my recording.
The main point is that I want to post them to give people an idea of how the process works. Ignorance causes the greatest amount of fear if you ask me.
edit: as for the "Cops" show, they are still recording without permission. That part has to be legal. The only reason they are forced to get consent is because they are profitting off of the "actors" involved :P. If it is freely distributed, I do not think I have any reason to ask for consent.
As I am not well versed in the laws with regard to "taping" do not rely upon the information I provide as it is my understanding.
I see no reason, legally, why you could not audio record a polygraph exam. If one is seriously seeking employment, I would advise against it. If one if seeking information only, why not.
That being said, I believe the actual offering of such a recording would possibly violate "taping" law. Again, I have no reference and this is sheerly conjecture.
As far as "COPS" is concerned, digitized or other methods to obscure identity must be in place if consent is not received prior to public broadcast as "COPS" is non-news programming for public consumption. There is a difference between your local 6 o'clock news and COPS. The news is publicized information for the better good of the community versus COPS which is entertainment programming. What happens in San Antonio does not have a public impact on the folks in Boston. I believe a clandestine taping to be the same as COPS.
In Connecticut it is not illegal to record a conversation between you and another person, regardless of whether you tell the other they are being recorded.
The applicable statutes are:
CGS 53a-187
CGS 53a-188
CGS 53a-188
I can't seem to insert a hyperlink on the board this morning, so I'll have to post the whole URL: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap952.htm#Sec53a-187.htm. Just click on that one and scroll down the page to see the other two statutes.
You keep asking "am I allowed to record my own conversationn?" Of course you are. Just turn the tape recorder on when you start talking and have a ball listening to yourselff speak.
Tarlain:
Ill repeat it again, the law in the state where I live prohibits the recording of a conversation of anohter without his or her consent.
retcopper,
in my state, it's against the law to walk on the lines of a sidewalk. it's also unlawful to fly kites during the crescent moon.
but seriously, where do you pull this information from and/or what state are you referring to? everytime you try to convince me it's illegal, my internal polygraph test goes bonkers ;D.
it strikes me as the same spiel with nothing to back it up. please do not take offense to my doubt, but at this point, i refuse to accept anything as truth without finding it in legal writing.
edit: thanks for the input from everyone.
CGS 53a-187 = "without the consent of either the sender or receiver"
CGS 53a-188 = "Knowing that he does not have the consent of the sender or receiver"
those quotes are pulled directly from the penal code. if the code stated "sender AND receiver"...then i would be out of luck. but it uses the word OR. and unless someone wants to revisit my Critical Thinking201 class with me, the word OR there means either party can grant permisson.
Twoblock:
You are correct. A recording device is not a "wire tap" device BUT it is prohibited under the "wiretap" statute of Pa.
Tarlain:
The wiretap section in the Crimes Code of PA prohibits the taping of another without their consent. Just last week the PA State Police removed vido cameras from school buseds because it was recording voice as well as video which is violation of the Crimes Code. Of course, you should listen to you lawyer's advice and do what he says.
Tarlain:
I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Fed Laws are different and each state probably has different applicable laws. Like I said, go by what your attorney tells you.
retcopper
It's sad to hear that your state is removing the vidio because of the audio part. Both need to be in place on school buses. That's a bad, bad code. In my state bus drivers are cursed and assaulted by students often. It's just another step in taking away control of kids from the school. Physical punishment has long been taken away from parents and schools. I believe that's why our jails and prisons are filling up. Kids today grow up not respecting parents, schools or anything else. I guess, however, that's why the polygrapher's chair is always busy. I'll guess again that you had rather not be so busy by law breakers who grew up like this.
How about working with people like me to get rid of politicians who believe they the only ones who should be in control.
Quote from: retcopper on Apr 20, 2006, 05:30 PMTarlain:
I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Fed Laws are different and each state probably has different applicable laws. Like I said, go by what your attorney tells you.
Federal and state/local law are indeed quite different, particularly when DoD is involved; within highly-protected facilities called SCIFs (Special Compartmented Information Facilities), it is unauthorized to bring in electronic equipment and media of any kind without the express consent of the facility commander. This includes cell phones, laptops, blackberries, and recording devices. All are subject to immediate confiscation if discovered. Incidentally, when one sets foot in a federal government facility or military installation, implied consent to search is given for your person, vehicle, or anything you are carrying. As far as recording exams, most DoD programs record their exams either by audio or video, or both. Traditional recordings (cassette tapes, vcr tapes, etc) are generally kept for about 90 days, then erased. They are kept in the event a complaint is received by an examinee against an examiner for allegations of inappropriate behavior, verbal abuse, etc. The recording is then reviewed by supervisory personnel to substantiate or refute the allegation(s). The newer polygraph equipment have built-in digital recorders and may be kept longer. During a DoD exam, the examiner is required under DoD regulations to advise examinees of the presence of recording devices, observation (one-way) mirrors, and any other external equipment. In my 20+ years in the profession, recording of a poly has never been an issue of contention by an examinee. Personally, I couldn't care less if someone had a recording device during their exam. We both know the exam is being recorded by me, so what's the difference. Only an abusive or unethical examiner would be concerned. I have more concern for an examinee bringing in a concealed weapon or illegal drugs into my room, which has in fact happened.
Thank for all the input. As far as the buses, I'd sign a parental consent to allow it. And if my son/daughter was not sitting with hands folded, quietly waiting for his/her bus stop, I would instantly be enforcing significant discipline.
Growing up as a military brat, I had not thought about the fact that we did agree to all the mentioned above when living on base housing, etc. If the polygraph is done in a govt building, I can see how this would pose a problem I had not considered. I absolutely understand why misc electronic and recording device would be prohibited. Unfortunately, I'm not sure where tests are normally done. I guess I'll find out in the future.
On a side comment, it takes FOREVER to work your way through the hiring process of these LE applications! It's never taken me more than a couple weeks to apply/accept previous job offers. It's looking like I could be waiting months and months just to get to the polygraph part of the process (sheesh).
Anyhow, thanks again.
Fortunately the legislature is going to review the current wiretapping statute, the school bus issue and hopefully amend it to allow the audio portion. In the mean time many schools have disconnected the cameras and/ or have eliminated just the audio portion. Like Twoblock said, it is a sad commentary when some kids are a threat on the schoolbus.
Quickfix: Personally I dont have a problem with anyone taping one of my polygraph exams as long as it doesn't interfere with the process. What I do object to is speaking to someone in any kind of other situation where they tape your conversation without your knowledge. This happened a couple of times when I was a police officer. The complaintant would tape record us when we responded to her complaints about various things. The tape vindicated us when she tried to use it against us but the idea that someone tape records my conversation without my permission is unsettling.
retcopper,
I find your last statement very odd. Why would it bother you if you were "taped" without your knowledge? If I understand your background correct, you are a public servant. Integrity should be your foundation. It does not seem to fit...that a person of high integrity would do anything different if others could view their behavior. I'm not sure if that makes sense. But in my occupation, it is certainly assumed that all my actions would be identical regardless of whether there is a hard copy of my behavior. The fact you actually care if other people know what you do when you feel you are alone with someone is unsettling to me.
Of course, I carry myself each day as if each of my actions is being judged by a higher authority. Maybe the judgement of God makes man's judgement pale in my mind. Just my thoughts...
Quote from: Tarlain on Apr 21, 2006, 05:27 PMretcopper,
I find your last statement very odd. Why would it bother you if you were "taped" without your knowledge? If I understand your background correct, you are a public servant. Integrity should be your foundation. It does not seem to fit...that a person of high integrity would do anything different if others could view their behavior. I'm not sure if that makes sense. But in my occupation, it is certainly assumed that all my actions would be identical regardless of whether there is a hard copy of my behavior. The fact you actually care if other people know what you do when you feel you are alone with someone is unsettling to me....
Tarlain,
Put aside the whole polygraph/investigations situation for a moment . Do you mean to tell me that you would not be the least bit bothered if you found out that somebody (you didn't even know) secretly taped a conversation between you and that person?
Boy, you guys acuse us polygraphers of being sneaky and dishonest. At least we TELL you when you are going to be taped. :o
Retcopper/Tarlain: let me clarify that I wouldn't have any objections to my exam being recorded by an examinee with prior knowledge; I would object if it were done covertly. As a federal employee, I am bound by DoD and federal regulations to advise examinees that all portions of the exam are subject to monitoring and recording, and the advisement is prominently posted in writing on the monitor room door; furthermore, to protect the examinee's privacy, only authorized individuals, such as other examiners, attorneys, and case agents, are allowed to monitor exams, and only if another examiner is present in the monitor room. If an examinee covertly records an exam, there is no telling what editing might be done afterward to make it appear something was/wasn't said. One could make the same argument against the examiner, but under regulation, we are bound to protect the tapes from alteration and release to unauthorized third-parties. If an examinee wanted to tape our session, I wouldn't object, but I would certainly ensure that our copy is held on to far longer than the typical 90 days.
Quickfix:
I definitely would expect the examinee to request permission from me to tape record the test. If I found out he surreptitiously recorede it I probably wouldn't arrest him for violating the wiretap statute but I would let him know in no uncertain terms that he violated the law.
Tarlain:
Your comments are immature. Nonombre summed it up nicely.
same here; amen
I'll have to humbly accept your disagreement. I do not feel I am immature. The professionals that I engage with every day do not feel that way either to the best of my knowledge. I do not see any reason to be concerned if someone records my conversations. Who cares? If I say it out loud...to another person, there is always the good chance, it will become common knowledge. Most of us learn this facet of life around the 3rd grade.
Under many circumstances, it would be illegal (hippa laws, 3rd party wiretapping, etc)...but I disagree with you about it being illegal to for me to tape my own conversations. Feel free to insult me all you want, but the fact is, you are the one lying on a regular basis...and afraid of others finding out what you are saying to the people while performing your job(s).
retcopper,
Please show me SPECIFICALLY where it says in your state of PA that an individual can not record a conversation that he/she is a participant. You keep throwing that out there like it is fact...because you say so. But at least show me you are not making that up since you continue to base your entire arguement on something that does not even apply where I live (or the other 3 states I have lived in). This should be quite easy to do for a seasoned professional like yourself.
Nonombre,
For clarity: I have absolutely no problem with other people finding out what I've said in conversation. If I said it out loud, what difference does it make if someone records it...unless I was trying to DECEIVE someone. Which is funny, since that is what it sounds like you 2 try to do on a regular basis.
quickfix,
most of this arguement has nothing to do with federal employees. i certainly did not bring that up. if you are truely concerned with people altering tapes (which is extremely detectable), all you would have to do is hold all tapes for a longer time. Certainly the inconvenience of holding a tape shouldn't impede on people's freedom...in this case to show the world the true behavior of many of these polygraph people.
and without dragging out the tin foil hats, please excuse me if i don't trust ANY govt to protect the authenticity of polygraph tests...the one where they lie to me over and over again. Give me a break.
Quote from: Tarlain on Apr 21, 2006, 05:27 PMretcopper,
I find your last statement very odd. Why would it bother you if you were "taped" without your knowledge? If I understand your background correct, you are a public servant. Integrity should be your foundation. It does not seem to fit...that a person of high integrity would do anything different if others could view their behavior. I'm not sure if that makes sense. But in my occupation, it is certainly assumed that all my actions would be identical regardless of whether there is a hard copy of my behavior. The fact you actually care if other people know what you do when you feel you are alone with someone is unsettling to me.
Of course, I carry myself each day as if each of my actions is being judged by a higher authority. Maybe the judgement of God makes man's judgement pale in my mind. Just my thoughts...
retcopper-
please explain to me exactly which part of that was "immature." After looking back, I fail to see how any of that LACKS maturity. The fact you think integrity and/or faith shows immaturity concerns me. Or was this just a form of mud slinging to cover up the fact you get upset when people find out who you are in private?
Quick fix was concerned about his good reputation damaged by a person lying about his character/actions.
You on the other hand are worried about your ACTUAL actions. There is a huge difference here.
To be abundantly clear to you and Nonombre. I have every reason to believe that my attitude and actions are very similar whether I am being "taped" (which is often the case during high acuity cases for the team I work with). It is only responsible to realize you are accountable for your own actions. I am sorry if that is your definition of immaturity.
Not to beat a dead horse, but the following link will provide solid answers to questions about surrepticious tape recording; it is the First Amendment Handbook, and Chapter 3 covers recording:
www.rcfp.org/handbook
quickfix
Go ahead and beat the dead horse with those links. They are providing me with much case law research in a new area.
Thanks again, Bud.
http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c03p01.html
"Of the 50 states, 38, as well as the District of Columbia, allow you to record a conversation to which you are a party without informing the other parties you are doing so. "
quickfix,
thank you for the link. i believe this quote ends the debate. i will have to check to find out what my state/local law allows.
this also explains why Linda Tripp was allowed to tape record Monical Lewinsky from my previous arguement (wash d.c.)
Tarlain:
I couldn't care less if you believe me or not about the wiretap law in Pa. Your postings are so disjointed and convoluted that I will not try to answer your questions. But, I have a question for you: What knowledge and experience do you have that makes you qualified to discuss the polygraph and to call me liar?
SEEKING cesium_133. i am assuming you are canadian. i am. like to start another topic to hear your story. not alot of canadians on this site. would like to exchange info. thanks.