Readers,
A thread was started many moons ago about the recording of polygraph operations. This could be audio only or video and audio. I believe a recording would have avoided what I went through because at a minimum, it showed obvious violations of "accepted polygraph procedures."
Now before anyone jumps on my case, I am not saying that polygraph procedures are accurate or acceptable per se. I am reaching out to examinees and examiners.
Would you or do you have a concern with recording of such examinations as to defend the use of polygraphs and justify their results? As an examinee, would you have a problem with the exam being recorded?
There seems to be no movement by examiners or government to go in this direction but I see little reason not to personally.
Pros and cons, let's hear them.
Regards.
Fair Chance,
there has been an effort to mandate recording of polygraph examinations. The ASTM has recently updated its standard to require recordings in order to be within the published standards.
On the other hand, many states, local jurisdictions and most federal agencies prohibit recording of interviews. I don't know why. I think it is more a management/policy issue than an individual examiner issue. But, it is being looked at.
I, as well as many other ethical examiners believe in recording examinations. It protects the examinee and examiner alike.
For the record, I record all examinations, in their entirety. Thanks for bringing this topic up for discussion.
Sackett
QuoteI, as well as many other ethical examiners believe in recording examinations. It protects the examinee and examiner alike.
That's strange, you stated in a post awhile back that you are against the test subject recording a test, since it could be used against the examiner.
TC
Quote from: Fair_Chance on Mar 22, 2008, 05:27 AMQuoteI, as well as many other ethical examiners believe in recording examinations. It protects the examinee and examiner alike.
That's strange, you stated in a post awhile back that you are against the test subject recording a test, since it could be used against the examiner.
TC
No, go back an re-read it. I said; I am against the
examinee recording tests, because once the test is over and the examinee leaves, there is no control over the dissemination of the recording or any effort to ensure that it is used in a responsible manner.
Many things happen in a polygraph that the untrained, ignorant layman would not, on the surface of the process, understand (not unlike many on this board). Snipits and sound bites taken from an examination could very well be used unethically in order to sway opinion on an issue; UNLIKE the examiner who records examinations for later use by legal, administrative or judicial authority.
Sackett
QuoteNo, go back an re-read it. I said; I am against the examinee recording tests, because once the test is over and the examinee leaves, there is no control over the dissemination of the recording or any effort to ensure that it is used in a responsible manner.
Polygraphers are capable of the very same thing.
QuoteMany things happen in a polygraph that the untrained, ignorant layman would not, on the surface of the process, understand (not unlike many on this board). Snipits and sound bites taken from an examination could very well be used unethically in order to sway opinion on an issue; UNLIKE the examiner who records examinations for later use by legal, administrative or judicial authority.
TRANSLATION: We don't want the "shenanigans" pulled by us polygraphers exposed to the public. We have something to "hide".
Mr Cullen,
1st part: improbable but true. But, examiners do not have the same intent or motive. Our desire would be to present the whole test with an explanation of the process, not just soundbites taken out of context for the purposes of swaying the opinion of the listener.
2nd part: Poor translation on your behalf. What secrets? What shenanigans? Isn't everything you need to know about polygraph but were afraid to ask, right here in George's book? Then sir, what could WE possibly be doing that would qualify as underhanded? I guess it has something to do with the "soapbox-Kool aide" mentality; ::)
I'll let it go now...
Sackett
Sackett
There have been posters to these threads relaying horrow stories about their polygraphers. There were in the face confrontations by the polygrapher screaming, cursing, name calling, etc., at the examinee and I don't believe for a moment that they were lying.
If the examination was forced to be recorded, do you believe this type of polygrapher would alter the recording? I firmly do. With that kind of mentality, he is out to protect himself NOT the examinee. I don't believe in a one way street. The examinee should be afforded self protection. They should, at least, be able to have a lawyer behind the one way mirrow with audio capabilities. This would not be an interference to the polygrapger's test. I'll bet, if protection of this nature was allow, there would be fewer false positives.
Quote from: Fair_Chance on Mar 21, 2008, 11:12 PMReaders,
A thread was started many moons ago about the recording of polygraph operations. This could be audio only or video and audio. I believe a recording would have avoided what I went through because at a minimum, it showed obvious violations of "accepted polygraph procedures."
Now before anyone jumps on my case, I am not saying that polygraph procedures are accurate or acceptable per se. I am reaching out to examinees and examiners.
Would you or do you have a concern with recording of such examinations as to defend the use of polygraphs and justify their results? As an examinee, would you have a problem with the exam being recorded?
There seems to be no movement by examiners or government to go in this direction but I see little reason not to personally.
Pros and cons, let's hear them.
Regards.
The APA already has in their procedural guidelines that all polygraphs should be recorded. For PCSOT polygraph it is in the APA PCSOT model, JPCOT, and other model guidelines.
My advice to anyone taking a polygraph is clear. If the examiner does not have a working camera in the room, run, don't walk away.
I record all examinations, and will never perform an examination without a camera.
— I record all examinations, and will never perform an examination without a camera.
Do you provide a copy to the test subject?
Do you record all phases (Pretest interview, test, post test interrogation)?
Wish I had video of my tester claiming the test to be 98% accurate.
TC
Quote from: Fair_Chance on Mar 22, 2008, 04:43 PMSackett
There have been posters to these threads relaying horrow stories about their polygraphers. There were in the face confrontations by the polygrapher screaming, cursing, name calling, etc., at the examinee and I don't believe for a moment that they were lying.
If the examination was forced to be recorded, do you believe this type of polygrapher would alter the recording? I firmly do. With that kind of mentality, he is out to protect himself NOT the examinee. I don't believe in a one way street. The examinee should be afforded self protection. They should, at least, be able to have a lawyer behind the one way mirrow with audio capabilities. This would not be an interference to the polygrapger's test. I'll bet, if protection of this nature was allow, there would be fewer false positives.
Sorry, I doubt many of the stories reported on this board. But, for the fact of embellishment, some may be true...
Having said that, recording examinations is what keeps the examiner ethical, straight and in accordance with his training. I wouldn't give a test without recording it.
The problem with attorneys is they never want to give up control due to the monetary aspect of doing so. If an attorney was "behind the glass" they could easily interupt the process because they hear something they haven't heard before and want to know what's up, what's going on and how do they control it. This interferes with the process of the polygraph and while I usually give that option, once they interfere, the test is over and it takes away sometimes, the only manner of proving they didn't do what they are suspected of.
Sackett
Sackett
The horrow stories posted here doesn't need any frosting or decorating. Most of the stories were from first time posters, while researching polygraph, happened on to this site and had no reason what so ever to lie. They probably posted on Polygraph Place and you immediately deleted it.
It's not at all ethical or legal for an "in your face" polygrapher to curse an examinee. And one that would do that would certainly alter recordings. They don't give a tinkers damn about the rights or feelings of the examinee and they also know that the APA doesn't deal out sanctions for bad conduct.
Lawyers would interfere from behind the glass ?? That buckett has a hole in it. I doubt that any of them, if allowed to be "behind the glass" would refuse to sign a paper stating that if they interfered in any way the test is over, the examinee will be considered flunked and there will be no return of fees. Interference can be controlled and I think you know that. My opinion is that the polygraph industry can't handle a level playing field. It appears that the polygrapher thinks he has to have total control, even over the examinee's mind, or there can't be a test. How far off am I? Hell, If I had total controll over a person, I could make him scratch flees with his hind leg.
I believe you would get more truthful and accurate results by conducting one run through and then give the test - leaving off the card tricks, I'm the best there is, me and this machine are 95% accurate bs. Also furnish the charts when they are requested and a willingness to pay for them. That's harder than pulling hen's teeth.
Thanks for the interest to all who are posting.
My vison of recording is to have it certified similar to what happens in current court reporting processes. A special program indicates if the original is altered or edited in any way. The result is a "certified true copy". These programs are on the market, heavily tested, and reliable. The different agencies use similar certified recorders when they wire tap and record phone conversation for trial.
The cost is not that much and it would significantly reduce the "she says, he says" arguments. There is technology to cut down many appeals and accusations.
Just can't see why we are not taking advantage of stuff that exist off the shelf.
Regards.
You posted: "The horrow stories posted here doesn't need any frosting or decorating. Most of the stories were from first time posters, while researching polygraph, happened on to this site and had no reason what so ever to lie. They probably posted on Polygraph Place and you immediately deleted it."
Oh yes they do. That is, why it is an "anti" polygraph board. If people posted their real experiences, we probably would not have half the alleged postings/problems purported here... Why? Because, most of them probably do not them to the level they report here...
If they posted on Polygraphplace.com, they would get an honest responsive answer to their honest question. Would it be what is expected here? Probably not! Nothing ever seems to be... But, one thing stated, we examiners will provide truthful answers to real (truthful) questions.
Sackett
Quote from: Fair_Chance on Mar 22, 2008, 09:31 PMQuote from: Fair_Chance on Mar 22, 2008, 04:43 PMSackett
There have been posters to these threads relaying horrow stories about their polygraphers. There were in the face confrontations by the polygrapher screaming, cursing, name calling, etc., at the examinee and I don't believe for a moment that they were lying.
If the examination was forced to be recorded, do you believe this type of polygrapher would alter the recording? I firmly do. With that kind of mentality, he is out to protect himself NOT the examinee. I don't believe in a one way street. The examinee should be afforded self protection. They should, at least, be able to have a lawyer behind the one way mirrow with audio capabilities. This would not be an interference to the polygrapger's test. I'll bet, if protection of this nature was allow, there would be fewer false positives.
Sorry, I doubt many of the stories reported on this board. But, for the fact of embellishment, some may be true...
Having said that, recording examinations is what keeps the examiner ethical, straight and in accordance with his training. I wouldn't give a test without recording it.
The problem with attorneys is they never want to give up control due to the monetary aspect of doing so. If an attorney was "behind the glass" they could easily interupt the process because they hear something they haven't heard before and want to know what's up, what's going on and how do they control it. This interferes with the process of the polygraph and while I usually give that option, once they interfere, the test is over and it takes away sometimes, the only manner of proving they didn't do what they are suspected of.
Sackett
The only good thing about Sackett is that the more he talks the more he buries himself and the Poligraph industry.
Now, not only can he detect "Guilt" with "answer anyalisis" but he also would have you be denied your own attorney in a poligraph!!
Also the fact that he "doubts many of the stories reported on this board" shows his complete ingnorance in the verified short comings of Poligraph's.
Keep talking man!!!!.
I am just surprized that some other examiner on here does not try to shut him up. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Sackett
See how you are. You know nothing about those posters yet you label them liars. Have you completed your mind reading project?
How about the rest of my post? How far off am I?
Can't comprehend your second paragraph.
You also know nothing of the posters. You assume, possibly incorrectly, because it fits your view of the world that ALL the people here complaining about the way they were treated are being, in fact, truthful. Well, you assume that as long as their not pro-polygraph, anyway... awful fair of you!
Sackett
Quote from: sackett on Mar 28, 2008, 11:07 AMYou also know nothing of the posters. You assume, possibly incorrectly, because it fits your view of the world that ALL the people here complaining about the way they were treated are being, in fact, truthful. Well, you assume that as long as their not pro-polygraph, anyway... awful fair of you!
Sackett
Well, Yes I guess your right and this board could be filled with people that come on here to just come up with untrue stories but then of course that would apply to you too Sackett we don't know that anything you say is true either.
So lets not get caught up in that. I think most readers can work through what they can or cannot believe and what is probably true.
Sackett
You are correct about me not knowing the posters either. Doesn't have anything to do with pro or anti. There have been some that posted about their trials and troubles at the hands of their polygrapher and how they were falsely failed that I immediately pegged as being untruthful because of the way they explained it. As it turned out, I was right. Others have been polygraphers posting as anti's that I immediately pegged as polygraphers and, yes, as it turned out, I was right. It's not fair to judge all false positives as liars when their experiences jibe.
I try to be fair in my discussions with polygraphers until they start with the smart-ass snippets, like the one who suggested that I re-apply (implying that I failed a test) and then I dramatically respond just like you people do in coming to the defence of all polygraphers thinking they are not capable of wrong decissions regardless. As I have posted before, I took one long before EPPA, purposely lied (hell I knew CMs then) passed, got the job and raised the company's profits 16% the first year. Didn't get compensated for my hard work so I utilized my middle finger and left.
...and what about the "anti" posters, posting as multiple personalities here. In other words, trying to make this board look active with many posters and victims, when in fact, there are VERY few...?
Sackett
Sackett
I don't condone falsehoods from EITHER side. If a post isn't blantant enough for me to decide (only a personal suspicion), I PM George for further info. If my suspicion is unfounded, I let it go. I don't automatically jump up and accuse them of being liars, turncoats, etc., like most polygraphers who visit this site because I can't confirm it and neither can you. All of you seem to feel that, by doing this, it is helping your cause. I personally feel that it is hurting your cause. I have learned from this site that, if I was to ever have to take a pre-employment polygraph, I would go in with the feeling that this guy/gal is going to treat me with unethical, rude, and maybe illegal behavior and I would be prepaired. I guarantee you I would beat you. This is the message that most of you leave in your posts. Given, a few of you are not like this, but how would I know what kind of personality I was going to meet?
"...and what about the "anti" posters, posting as multiple personalities here". Can you back up that statement with percentages of many against VERY few with true facts or are you guessing again?
Quote from: sackett on Mar 30, 2008, 02:33 PMSackett
I don't condone falsehoods from EITHER side. If a post isn't blantant enough for me to decide (only a personal suspicion), I PM George for further info. If my suspicion is unfounded, I let it go. I don't automatically jump up and accuse them of being liars, turncoats, etc., like most polygraphers who visit this site because I can't confirm it and neither can you. All of you seem to feel that, by doing this, it is helping your cause. I personally feel that it is hurting your cause. I have learned from this site that, if I was to ever have to take a pre-employment polygraph, I would go in with the feeling that this guy/gal is going to treat me with unethical, rude, and maybe illegal behavior and I would be prepaired. I guarantee you I would beat you. This is the message that most of you leave in your posts. Given, a few of you are not like this, but how would I know what kind of personality I was going to meet?
"...and what about the "anti" posters, posting as multiple personalities here". Can you back up that statement with percentages of many against VERY few with true facts or are you guessing again?
You make an interesting statement. Especially given that every examiner on this board has been attacked as liars, unethical charletons, rude and criminal in nature and actions. Many of the anti posters here are caught up in a fanatical cause. That's OK, you'll attack me as doing the same, when all I do is my job. Difference is, you took a test, apparently failed and now crusade against it; while I perform them and make my living from them and successfully I might add.
If you don't "get" a statement, you PM George? That's not seemingly unbias on your part; therefore, your intentions and purpose are obvious.
This site is not about any truth, but how to attack polygraph and make it less viable. Call it a conspiracy, call it a crusade, call it freedom of information, call it a chat room, I don't care. Problem is, as previously stated to Mr Cullen, it is NOT going to go away! The minimal efforts here hardly have any effect on the use of polygraph as a whole, while examiners are in fact working hard to get standardized and more professional. This site does in fact help in that effort.
As for pre-employment testing. Examinees who come for pre-employments who "play" around in the test or display an attitude, will most likely not get the job they desparately want and probably worked hard for. So who's really tricking and being dishonest to whom...?
With only one recent claim that CM's worked (ie, sniper; and even he admitted he didn't really need them...) where are the many examinees who I (and others like me) catch on a fairly frequent basis?
Let's agree to disagree!
Sackett
P.S. As for "anti" poster imposters? Yes, it is apparent, but no, I can't prove it to you. Read the typos, misspellings and stories and they are clearly made by more than one, BUT, many are also as obviously repeated by the same, under a different name. As for providing proof of anything. Can you provide me proof that examiners can not identify CM's better than "chance"? Or better, can you provide me proof that CM's actually work? Empty challenges, by either side, mean nothing.
Sackett
Re: Your first paragraph. Do you skim read? You should read for detail. I said that I took ONE (1) pre-employment poly, purposely lied (because I didn't believe in them then but was too busy for a crusade then), passed and got the job. I really didn't want the job, but in any undertaking I do my very best. I have been successfully self employed since 1972. Never have and wouldn't apply for a government job. (Take that back. I volenteered for the Navy, spent 4 years and loved it). No need what so ever for an employment poly. Yet, you are the second polygrapher to accuse me of doing so and failing. Why do you do that?
I may have, but I don't remember ever personally attacking you i.e. calling names making wild accusations, etc. I have probably over-dramatized a few of my responses to you even though you are one of the more decent polygraphers to use these boards. Also, I believe you do the best job that you can in what ever you do and would never accuse you of failing a poly that you didn't take. Ha.
At any rate, I agree with you that the polygraph will be around for awhile. Probably until we force poluted-crats and federal judges to take one and pass it to accept or retain their jobs. If that ever happens the poly will go away.
I really have fun here, but the time has come for fun to stop and work to begin. Therefore I will not be monitoring these board much for the next 5 months. Maybe for another few days. If that's case, all have a good summer. You too, Sackett. I have no hard feelings toward you personally.
Quote from: sackett on Mar 30, 2008, 12:11 PM...and what about the "anti" posters, posting as multiple personalities here. In other words, trying to make this board look active with many posters and victims, when in fact, there are VERY few...?
Sackett
And who would these people be, praytell?
Quote from: sackett on Mar 30, 2008, 02:57 PMP.S. As for "anti" poster imposters? Yes, it is apparent, but no, I can't prove it to you. Read the typos, misspellings and stories and they are clearly made by more than one, BUT, many are also as obviously repeated by the same, under a different name. As for providing proof of anything. Can you provide me proof that examiners can not identify CM's better than "chance"? Or better, can you provide me proof that CM's actually work? Empty challenges, by either side, mean nothing.
My experiences in failing three polygraphs despite being completely truthful in all of them have proven to my satisfaction that polygraphs are not reliable detectors of truth or deception.
QuoteMy experiences in failing three polygraphs despite being completely truthful in all of them have proven to my satisfaction that polygraphs are not reliable detectors of truth or deception.
Well, they have to make a living.
Besides, got anything better to replace it?
Blah! Blah! Blah!
P.S. How do you KNOW you were telling the truth? :-/
They claim a 95-98% accuracy rate. What are the chances you were in that exceptional 3-5% on THREE SEPARATE TESTS.
I find that hard to believe!
Kind of fell off of the thread here.
Polygraph users do not like the idea that someone could "cherry-pick" sound bites from an exam to take a question out of context and make the exam looked like it was rigged.
Polygraph examinees do not like the idea of having examiners "cherry-pick" reactions and treating them as "deception" bases solely on personel perception or prejudice.
I cannot find any economic reason to not record an exam with "edit proof" technology to ensure that questions or answers are not taken out of context.
Recordings should be available for all exams and make me question any examiner who refuses to do so.
All posting polygraph examiners state they would record all exams yet so many still do not citing weak excuses about "privacy." Polygraph questions are very intrusive and no examiner ever respects any ones right to not answer on the basis of privacy.
All exams should be audio recorded at a minimum. End of debate.
Regards.
Fair Chance,
I think you make some very good points in that no real professional should fear their test being video taped and/or audio taped as to show the event later to authorized concerned parties. One does however give up certain privacy rights when applying for a job that pays via taxpayer money, but ofcourse those areas that an examiner may no go into are covered by labor law in both federal and your respective State statutes / or labor case law.
The_Wolf
Sackett seems to have a problem answering my questions so I wonder, since you seem to be a fairly straight shooter, if you might give it a shot.
Earlier on this thread I ask him "How far off am I". To date no response.
Sackett
Only you can answer my direct question of "Why do you do that" in response to your apparent accusation that I took a pre-employment poly and failed. This after I had explained that I took one (only ONE), passed and got the job.
To asnwer you question "Does CMs really work)? Yes they really do work. I used them and passed with flying colors on my ONE test in the 1960s.
twoblock,
yes, I do skim read. Reason is, much of the blustery garbage I read here is just that. I'm interested in intelligent discussions not hearing about the whining and complaining about how bad my profession is.
Opinions are like, well, you know the rest...
Having said that, I recognize you took one test, way, long time ago and that you reportedly used CM's. OK. Times change and so do (slowly) the ability of examiners. When you took your test, grandfathering of training was still acceptable. No longer.
What question are you saying I failed to answer? I'll bet I answered it somewhere here and you might be just as guilty of skim reading...
Sackett
P.S. I agree. No anomosity. Have a good summer and "see" you when you get back.
QuoteI'm interested in intelligent discussions not hearing about the whining and complaining about how bad my profession is.
Then the following might be of interest to you:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084369
TC
Quote from: sackett on Apr 02, 2008, 07:05 PMQuoteI'm interested in intelligent discussions not hearing about the whining and complaining about how bad my profession is.
Then the following might be of interest to you:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084369
TC
Hey Sackett,
You may want to click on the above link and read what they have to say about "your profession" and us "whiners"
Here is a little bit of it to get you started:
Polygraph Accuracy,
Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test
Mr Cullen,
I have now read it. Interesting information, but what point are you trying to make?
Sackett
Quote from: notguilty1 on Apr 02, 2008, 10:42 PMMr Cullen,
I have now read it. Interesting information, but what point are you trying to make?
Sackett
Yes, very interesting isn't it? I think all that read it can see the point even if you can't or.... won't :o
QuotePolygraph Accuracy,
Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test
POPPYCOCK!
Those are the ravings of lunatic scientific researchers hell bent on the destruction of this country! They know nothing!
The results of polygraph testing, if subjected to the rigors of the industries "statement analysis" algorithms, are highly accurate. Accuracy is even higher, when the results are then run through statistical screens which are corelational to the standard deviation of a cow's rectum.
TheNoLieGuy4U???
(http://www.polygraphplace.com/specialist/images/header.gif)
Quote from: notguilty1 on Apr 03, 2008, 12:46 AMQuote
The results of polygraph testing, if subjected to the rigors of the industries "statement analysis" algorithms, are highly accurate. Accuracy is even higher, when the results are then run through statistical screens which are corelational to the standard deviation of a cow's rectum.
Excuse me...But, you forgot about the holy grail of polygraph research validation, PEER REVIEW! In order for any study to have validity, a bunch of trade school graduates must read the study whilst having a beer and deem it worthy. Of course, forget about replicating any polygraph study, because there are too many variables to replicate any polygraph study. Forgot about real live Ph.D. scientists scrutinizing the study, it is PEER REVIEW that is important!
Statement analysis, just like body language and other nonverbal indicators, are improperly given entirely too much weight by some people. None of them should be deciding factors in determining a person's guilt or innocence; none of them should even be the deciding factor in making an arrest or eliminating someone as a suspect. They are simply indicators and nothing more.
Some things are simply not quantifiable. You can analyze a person's written statement up and down and come to the conclusion they are lying, but that doesn't mean they are. And it certainly doesn't mean that they are lying about the matter under investigation.
Polygraph, CVSA, and to a lesser extent, statement analysis (SCAN), all attempt to lend an air of scientific credibility to what is essentially the examiner's feeling as to whether the subject is being truthful or not. The end result is no more scientific than that of the patrol officer who interviews someone on the street and decides they are lying because their eyes looked this way, their body position was that way, and their story could only be told in one direction without any pauses. But because of the pseudoscientific trappings surrounding the polygraph and other forms of "deception detection" the opinion of the polygraph examiner is incorrectly deemed more accurate.
If recording exams is so great, why don't government agencies do it? Just curious.
Quote from: 41687965680D0 on Apr 05, 2008, 09:39 PMIf recording exams is so great, why don't government agencies do it? Just curious.
Many do! What government agencies are you talking about?
Sackett
Quote from: notguilty1 on Apr 08, 2008, 10:49 PMQuote from: 41687965680D0 on Apr 05, 2008, 09:39 PMIf recording exams is so great, why don't government agencies do it? Just curious.
Many do! What government agencies are you talking about?
Sackett
The APA recommends that all polygraph exams be audio recorded. Many polygraphers use that fact to argue that the organization supports very rigorous standards and claim the same for themselves when they record their own exams. Well, if it is good to record exams, it follows that it is not good to not record exams. It's hard to argue against recording exams since without such a record it's hard to figure out when the polygrapher wasn't following proper procedures or was conducting an exam that was shoddy by even official standards.
As for which government agencies don't record exams, the one HQed at the Hoover Building, for one. I also am given to understand that several others also don't record their exams. Why not?
To possibly save some time let me point out the following. If someone asks "Why did party A do action X?" you usually can't answer that with "Well, Party B did action Z!" Or with "I like pretzels", for that matter. (Note: This isn't a criticism of Sackett's last post; it's to head off what appears to be a common discussion technique often employed by polygraphers who are--for our own good, I'm sure--trying to manipulate others. Another technique is to try and make this discussion about me and to parse my own statements instead of simply answering the question: Why do many gov't agencies not record their poly sessions when no less a body than the august APA says they should?)
FairChance,
Just a little over 2 years ago, I proposed (on this site) recording polygraphs without the knowledge of the polygraph/interogator. I have since...applied for an le job, took the civil service test, physical exam, polygraph, psych eval, completed the training and am happily employed (best career change ever).
I have very strong opinions against polygraph use as a hiring tool. Myself and others had very little problems "passing." I have yet to meet anyone from my academy who claims to have been 100% honest. And on a side note, many instructors made many jokes about the "honest" people who made damning admissions because of their belief in the poly.
But in regards to this thread. A cell phone and memory card is all you need to get a recording of your polygraph. Only one party has to be aware of the recording...and since you are one of the persons involved, you can record anything you say or do.
The polygraph is a sham. I lied about completely irrelevant stuff just to amuse myself over the course of many hours. I was happily employed and considered most of the hiring process a "fun" diversion from my normal job. My polygrapher was extremely abrasive, deceiving, almost abusive, etc...and I just laughed at him until he finally told me that everything turned out ok and "they'd let me know..."
I truly wish I could post my poly...just so everyone could hear how ridiculous the whole thing was. I am completely certain that many people experience the same thing I did...but for whatever reason, the tea leaves did not turn out the same fate.
I could care less if they used polygraph to interrogate people...but it should be criminal to use it in a hiring process of a public service job. It is basically a legalized way to discriminate against people.
edit:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3082.msg21405#msg21405
^^^
the post from 2 years ago...i would have never guessed how much life could change. it is so funny to me that people actually believe they can hook a piece of picture frame wire to my finger, a garden hose to my chest, and become a god of my brain. it's all a sham. flip a coin...for those that must suffer this fate...just go in and have fun with them...you'll probably pass with flying colors.
When I was a young man, my best friend applied for and was hired by the Idaho State Police. They had just instituted the polygraph requirement, and up until that time, he regularily smoked dope. But, he passed the poly anyway, and when I asked him about it, (I had by that time, already failed my first one, despite telling the truth), he said he just lied. He has smoked dope as little as one week prior.
Of course, I knew that it was bogus, but his experience certainly confirmed it.
Gary Ridgway also said he just lied, didn't do anything special, just lied.
QuoteI could care less if they used polygraph to interrogate people...but it should be criminal to use it in a hiring process of a public service job. It is basically a legalized way to discriminate against people.
It IS illegal except for LE and TS jobs with the federal government.
QuoteMy polygrapher was extremely abrasive, deceiving, almost abusive, etc...and I just laughed at him until he finally told me that everything turned out ok and "they'd let me know..."
Can you elaborate a little. Did he lie about the accuracy of the test? How was he abusive? One of the purposes of this forum is to expose this type of crap.
Thanks.
TC
Tarlain,
be careful suggesting people secretly record their examination. That activity is covered by state laws and they vary, state to state. If caught in violation, or try it in a state that requires BOTH parties, YOU the examinee go to jail.
Did you record your exam? If so, please post it. I'd love to hear this supposed "abrasive, deceiving, almost abusive, etc.." behavior and how you simply and brazenly "laughed at him..."
Your post is a fantasy. But, please; do go on..... ::)
Sackett
T.M. Cullen,
The interrogator that did my polygraph had without question read all of my background information, reference letters, etc. He almost immediately bombarded me with the supposed accuracy of the polygraph equipment. I'm sure I appeared unconvinced. He tried to tell me about how the Mayos Clinic has studies proving blah blah blah...I informed him it was Mayo...not Mayos. I also encouraged him to show me the "definitive" study...I was never shown one. He moved on to outstanding debt I "may" have. I have no debt...no credit cards, no loans...i own my car and rent my house. After a while I got mad and told him to just run the damn credit report...I refuse to argue about something he could figure out on his own...and he responded..."have you ever felt attracted to animals?" The whole thing was incredibly ignorant. All this occurs with the "examiner" leaving, returning, leaving, returning. One time, he ripped my book out of my hand because I was COMMANDED to stop reading the book when he left the room...he'd put it in the corner...I'd get up (how dare me)...and go get it when he left. blah blah...it went on for many hours...and then the conclusion was I seemed ok and I never heard from them again. I just received a letter for the next stage of the application process. If the damn thing worked it wouldn't take over 3 hours of interrogation before the 10 minute game on the laptop. You would also think the machine would catch the fact that I admitted to a small theft as a child...which never occurred. At the time, it just seemed like I better throw something out there before I had to go down a new road of poly-wrath. Anyhow, I have no interest in arguing with the pro-poly group here. I'm sure it is scary to have people attack your livelihood. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous. Mind reading...with a laptop ;D
sackett,
you must be right...i am all about fantasy. i have completely no idea what you do or who you are...but apparently you know me. if i post the mp3 of my poly, it would take about 2 seconds to figure out who I am and what agency hired me. you don't really expect me to do that? The examiner felt the need to use my name (usually first name) far far more times than I care to count....and when he used my last name...he would purposely mis-pronounce it. It is simple and phonetic...you have to "try" to screw it up. Keep in mind...I interrogate people everyday. Every person I talk to lies to the police. I understand why these techniques work. I just don't agree with doing it to applicants as a way to discriminate against them without cause. I understand the value of having an honest and talented applicant pool to pick from. I also understand why and how the poly is successful...and it is without a doubt very good at convincing people to tell the truth. It just is not FAIR. I'm always told to just "do the right thing." But polygraphs are inherantly dishonest...and not the right thing. Not to mention, they brand good, honest people as liars because of various reasons totally unrelated to the truth. Either way, good luck to you. I sleep well at night with my "fantasy." It is sad to watch the pro-poly people attack every one around in a hope to defend the profession. I will only ask one thing of you...please do something constructive for us...and post the states that make it criminal for a person to record their own conversation. There is not a state anywhere around me that has a law that you stated. Instead of trying to scare people (I realize this is a hard habit to break), why don't you just inform them. Until then, I will do as I please and encourage people to live as if they still have the right to record their own conversations without obtaining permission from the state government (I know it isn't a federal code...and I'm sure it is unconstitutional if it is a state code).
"Brazenly,"
Tarlain
Tarlain,
Sackett is correct about state laws varying on the consent requirement for the taping of conversations. See the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press article "Can We Tape? A Practical Guide to Taping Phone Calls and In-Person Conversations in the 50 States and D.C." (http://www.rcfp.org/taping/)
QuoteIt seems to me you are someone who really didn't want the job they were willing to discuss.
I got the call from the FBI a year after I received my rejection letter, so it wasn't "the job" they wanted to discuss. They said they wanted to discuss "issues of national security", and "some things that came out during the poly".
QuoteYou stated, "Polygraphers lie all the time. Did your polygrapher lie at all?"
All 4 polygraphers I dealt with lied. Even the one who tested me when I passed the poly the first time I applied at NSA.
Many have reported being lied to during the polygraph process.
You are a polygrapher, so there it is highly probable you lie when conducting your polygraphs.
If it makes you feel better, I don't think polygraphers are any more deceptive than used car salespersons.
Quote from: 5B72637F72170 on Apr 09, 2008, 12:20 AMQuote from: notguilty1 on Apr 08, 2008, 10:49 PMQuote from: 41687965680D0 on Apr 05, 2008, 09:39 PMIf recording exams is so great, why don't government agencies do it? Just curious.
Many do! What government agencies are you talking about?
Sackett
The APA recommends that all polygraph exams be audio recorded. Many polygraphers use that fact to argue that the organization supports very rigorous standards and claim the same for themselves when they record their own exams. Well, if it is good to record exams, it follows that it is not good to not record exams. It's hard to argue against recording exams since without such a record it's hard to figure out when the polygrapher wasn't following proper procedures or was conducting an exam that was shoddy by even official standards.
As for which government agencies don't record exams, the one HQed at the Hoover Building, for one. I also am given to understand that several others also don't record their exams. Why not?
To possibly save some time let me point out the following. If someone asks "Why did party A do action X?" you usually can't answer that with "Well, Party B did action Z!" Or with "I like pretzels", for that matter. (Note: This isn't a criticism of Sackett's last post; it's to head off what appears to be a common discussion technique often employed by polygraphers who are--for our own good, I'm sure--trying to manipulate others. Another technique is to try and make this discussion about me and to parse my own statements instead of simply answering the question: Why do many gov't agencies not record their poly sessions when no less a body than the august APA says they should?)
Is anyone going to answer my question? If recording exams is so awesome, and advocated by the American Polygraph Association, why don't all government agencies do so? Maybe I should add this to my list of "unanswerable questions"?
lethe,
there are thousands of government agencies at various and different levels (i.e. local, county, state and federal) using polygraph. You demand an answer to your question, then why don't you ask each and every one of them the question. This, rather than waiting for someone here to answer for them all, then accusing examiners of not answering your question.
IOW, only representitives from that particular agency can answer your question, so stop asking it in such a broad manner, then throwing a temper tantrum when your question is not answered... :'(
Sackett
Sackett, would you say that all polygraphs--private, law enforcement, and government--should be audio and video recorded? (The records need not be kept for all time, just for a reasonable amount of time so that the exam can be reviewed if issues come up)
If not, then you think the APA recommendation is too much? If yes, then you think that the agencies that don't record the exams are wrong, right? Either way, you've got to condemn someone who is using the polygraph. Pick one.
Quote from: 173E2F333E5B0 on Apr 23, 2008, 12:15 AMSackett, would you say that all polygraphs--private, law enforcement, and government--should be audio and video recorded? (The records need not be kept for all time, just for a reasonable amount of time so that the exam can be reviewed if issues come up)
If not, then you think the APA recommendation is too much? If yes, then you think that the agencies that don't record the exams are wrong, right? Either way, you've got to condemn someone who is using the polygraph. Pick one.
No, I do not have to "pick one", nor do I 'have to "condemn" an agency that doesn't record. Yes. I think polygraph examinations should be recorded and have stated so before, on this board.
I have heard many differing reasons why agencies do not record. Some I understand and agree with, others I do not. And even with that said, it is not my, albeit a humble one, position to correct it. I am just a practioner/examiner, NOT an officer of any association or administrator of any organization.
Sackett
Quote from: PhilGainey on Apr 23, 2008, 12:10 PMQuote from: 173E2F333E5B0 on Apr 23, 2008, 12:15 AMSackett, would you say that all polygraphs--private, law enforcement, and government--should be audio and video recorded? (The records need not be kept for all time, just for a reasonable amount of time so that the exam can be reviewed if issues come up)
If not, then you think the APA recommendation is too much? If yes, then you think that the agencies that don't record the exams are wrong, right? Either way, you've got to condemn someone who is using the polygraph. Pick one.
No, I do not have to "pick one", nor do I 'have to "condemn" an agency that doesn't record. Yes. I think polygraph examinations should be recorded and have stated so before, on this board.
I have heard many differing reasons why agencies do not record. Some I understand and agree with, others I do not. And even with that said, it is not my, albeit a humble one, position to correct it. I am just a practioner/examiner, NOT an officer of any association or administrator of any organization.
Sackett
Okay. That's fair.
But give us just one or two valid reasons for not recording exams. That's fair, isn't it? You claim that at least one such reason exists; it does not seem too much to require some evidence of that claim.
In reply to the question about recording tests. In my personal opinion, I believe they should be recorded. Everyone knows I think polygraghs are communist, so use a communist tactic against it.
Think about it, they're putting you in a room, you and the tester only. If the tester is bias or for whatever reason, i.e., doesn't like the way you are dressed, your skin color, the way you speak, etc. you get my drift. Polygraghers are just as human as the rest of us. So, I think if they are going to give these examines, there should be some kind of third party present. You must have a third person present during medical exams and numerous other things.
I believe if the examiner knows they are being "watched", he will keep his bais in check. And the examinee will feel more at ease and not so isolated and nervous.
Just a thought
Quote from: 5970617D70150 on Apr 23, 2008, 04:35 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Apr 23, 2008, 12:10 PMQuote from: 173E2F333E5B0 on Apr 23, 2008, 12:15 AMSackett, would you say that all polygraphs--private, law enforcement, and government--should be audio and video recorded? (The records need not be kept for all time, just for a reasonable amount of time so that the exam can be reviewed if issues come up)
If not, then you think the APA recommendation is too much? If yes, then you think that the agencies that don't record the exams are wrong, right? Either way, you've got to condemn someone who is using the polygraph. Pick one.
No, I do not have to "pick one", nor do I 'have to "condemn" an agency that doesn't record. Yes. I think polygraph examinations should be recorded and have stated so before, on this board.
I have heard many differing reasons why agencies do not record. Some I understand and agree with, others I do not. And even with that said, it is not my, albeit a humble one, position to correct it. I am just a practioner/examiner, NOT an officer of any association or administrator of any organization.
Sackett
Okay. That's fair.
But give us just one or two valid reasons for not recording exams. That's fair, isn't it? You claim that at least one such reason exists; it does not seem too much to require some evidence of that claim.
Lethe,
1) Policy established by the management, not examiners.
2) The agency doesn't want to run the risk of interview tactics being publicized.
3) the agency doesn't want to publicize it's test questions.
4) Storage problems ($$)
There is four off the top of my head.
Sackett
Quote1) Policy established by the management, not examiners.
Not a reason. Policies can be changed.
Quote2) The agency doesn't want to run the risk of interview tactics being publicized.
Or run the risk of having the "shenanigans" that go on during examinations made public. Examiners would be forced to clean up their act.
Quote3) the agency doesn't want to publicize it's test questions.
Why? Is the test is incapable of scientifically detecting deception if the questions are known beforehand? Besides, questions are already pretty much known. Example, with preemployment at the intel agencies (foreign contact question, disclosure of classified info...etc.)
Quote4) Storage problems ($$)
No such thing as a free lunch! Cost of doing business.
TC
Quote from: PhilGainey on May 21, 2008, 05:32 PMQuote1) Policy established by the management, not examiners.
Not a reason. Policies can be changed.
Not a reason to you. You obviously have never tried to change management opinion about something so engrained. I never said I agreed, just giving the answers Lethe asked for. Interesting Cullen, and of course I know this, nothing I answer will satisfy you, so I will stop trying to make sense with you since sense is not what you are about. I will no longer acknowledge your postings since it has nothing to do with opposing discourse, but sarcasm and attacks.
Quote2) The agency doesn't want to run the risk of interview tactics being publicized.
Or run the risk of having the "shenanigans" that go on during examinations made public. Examiners would be forced to clean up their act.
Your opinion. See above.
Quote3) the agency doesn't want to publicize it's test questions.
Why? Is the test is incapable of scientifically detecting deception if the questions are known beforehand? Besides, questions are already pretty much known. Example, with preemployment at the intel agencies (foreign contact question, disclosure of classified info...etc.)
Once again. Lethe asked me for an answer to something I said. I responded and you attack with examples of limited knowledge of bureaucratic processes. See above.
Quote4) Storage problems ($$)
No such thing as a free lunch! Cost of doing business.
Once again. Ignorance of reality keeps you running. See above. That is it! Have a nice life...
TC
Quote from: PhilGainey on May 21, 2008, 02:20 PM
Lethe,
1) Policy established by the management, not examiners.
2) The agency doesn't want to run the risk of interview tactics being publicized.
3) the agency doesn't want to publicize it's test questions.
4) Storage problems ($$)
There is four off the top of my head.
Sackett
As previously pointed out, (1) is no reason at all. You can't say "It is okay to not record exams because management says it is okay."
That is circular reasoning.
As for (2) and (3), not wanting the information to get out, that seems pretty weak, since the person being interviewed could simply report what questions she was asked and how the procedure went. A few details might not be remembered clearly, but most will be, especially if people compare notes. Very little is gained towards these two ends, certainly not enough in my mind to justify the cost, which is not being able to effectively follow up on complaints and weeding out bad polygraphers or referring them for additional training.
As for (4), yeah; it'd cost some money. But the records need not be kept indefinitely. For most purposes, 90 days should suffice. If you had a problem with the exam, you need to tell them you want it reviewed within that time frame or you've waived the right. A few evidence boxes would probably suffice at most locations for storing this info for three months, especially with many departments keeping much of the data electronically. Besides, the APA says private practitioners should record exams and keep those recordings for at least some period of time. If they can do it, so can the gov't.
If you want to save money so badly, why not just hire a polygrapher fresh out of polyschool? He'd no doubt be cheaper to hire than an experienced veteran, like yourself. Oh, yeah, he'd probably not be as good and accuracy is kind of important; the savings wouldn't be worth the shoddier results.
Having recordings would allow problems to be properly investigated, often probably exonerating the examiner. Plus, higher-ups could randomly review the data for quality control purposes. You can't order out of a catalog without your phone call possibly "being recorded for quality assurance purposes," but you can be polygraphed without that!
Especially since it's pretty easy for an unscrupulous polygrapher to manufacture whichever result he wants, I would think that having some sort of record of what went on would be more important to you.
Police interrogator Jim Trainum speaks compellingly on why interrogations (which would implicitly include polygraph interrogations) should be videotaped:
Quotehttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-trainum24-2008oct24,0,7918545.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Opinion
The case for videotaping interrogations
A suspect's false confession to a murder opened an officer's eyes.
By Jim Trainum
October 24, 2008
I've been a police officer for 25 years, and I never understood why someone would admit to a crime he or she didn't commit. Until I secured a false confession in a murder case.
I stepped into the interrogation room believing that we had evidence linking the suspect to the murder of a 34-year-old federal employee in Washington. I used standard, approved interrogation techniques -- no screaming or threats, no physical abuse, no 12-hour sessions without food or water. Many hours later, I left with a solid confession.
At first, the suspect couldn't tell us anything about the murder, and she professed her innocence. As the interrogation progressed, she became more cooperative, and her confession included many details of the crime. The suspect said she had beaten the man to death and dumped his body by a river. She said she made purchases with the victim's credit card and tried to withdraw cash using his ATM card. Surveillance video from the ATM showed a woman who resembled the suspect, and an expert said the signature on the credit card receipts was consistent with the suspect's handwriting.
Even the suspect's attorney later told me that she believed her client was guilty, based on the confession. Confident in our evidence and the confession, we charged her with first-degree murder.
Then we discovered that the suspect had an ironclad alibi. We subpoenaed sign-in/sign-out logs from the homeless shelter where she lived, and the records proved that she could not have committed the crime. The case was dismissed, but all of us still believed she was involved in the murder. After all, she had confessed.
Even though it wasn't our standard operating procedure in the mid-1990s, when the crime occurred, we had videotaped the interrogation in its entirety. Reviewing the tapes years later, I saw that we had fallen into a classic trap. We ignored evidence that our suspect might not have been guilty, and during the interrogation we inadvertently fed her details of the crime that she repeated back to us in her confession.
If we hadn't discovered and verified the suspect's alibi -- or if we hadn't recorded the interrogation -- she probably would have been convicted of first-degree murder and would be in prison today. The true perpetrator of the crime was never identified, partly because the investigation was derailed when we focused on an innocent person.
The case was a turning point for me, personally and professionally. I still work as a police officer in Washington, but I also teach a class on interrogations and false confessions, and I work with law enforcement agencies nationwide to help them prevent false confessions.
I've learned that this is a nationwide problem. Of the 220 wrongful convictions in the U.S. that have been overturned based on DNA evidence, nearly 25% involved a false confession or false incriminating statements, according to the Innocence Project. In each of those cases, DNA proved that the confession was false.
Threats and coercion sometimes lead innocent people to confess, but even the calmest, most standardized interrogations can lead to a false confession or admission. Those who are mentally ill or mentally disabled may be particularly vulnerable, but anyone can be dazed when confronted by police officers who claim to hold unshakable evidence of one's guilt. Some confess to crimes because they want to please authority figures or to protect another person. Some actually come to believe they are guilty, or confess to do penance for some unrelated bad behavior. Innocent people come to believe that they will receive a harsher sentence -- even the death penalty -- if they don't confess.
Videotaping interrogations is proved to decrease wrongful convictions based on false confessions. When the entire interrogation is recorded, attorneys, judges and juries can see exactly what led to a confession. Police officers become better interviewers over time, as they review tapes of their interrogations, and confessions are easier to defend in court. The only police officers I've met who don't embrace recording interrogations are those who have never done it. Too many police officers still wrongly believe that recording interrogations will be logistically difficult and expensive, and that guilty suspects won't confess if they know they are being recorded.
More than 500 jurisdictions nationwide record interrogations, but only 10 states, plus the District of Columbia, mandate the practice. California's Legislature passed bills in 2006 and 2007 that would have required interrogations to be recorded. Both were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. A third bill died in committee this year. California legislators should not give up. They must make this issue a priority and pass legislation to make our criminal justice system stronger and more accurate.
It may be impossible to fully understand why innocent people confess to crimes they didn't commit. What is undeniable is that some do -- and that we need to enact reforms to prevent more wrongful convictions and ensure that the right people pay for these crimes.
Jim Trainum is a detective in Washington's Metropolitan Police Department.
i can think of no legitimate reason NOT to record polygraph examinations, interrogations or interviews
gary davis