(https://antipolygraph.org/graphics/hal-martin.jpg)
Harold Thomas Martin, III
On 27 August 2016, NSA contractor Harold Thomas (Hal) Martin, III of Glen Burnie, Maryland was arrested (https://cryptome.org/2016/10/martin-001-016.pdf) based on probable cause to believe that he improperly removed and retained at his home terabytes of top secret NSA documents.
According to the
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/nsa-suspect-is-a-hoarder-but-a-leaker-investigators-arent-sure.html), Martin had been taking home classified material "since the late 1990s."
The
Wall Street Journal reports (http://www.wsj.com/articles/former-mentor-recalls-nsa-contractor-as-torn-affected-by-war-1475766247), citing U.S. Representative C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger as its source, that Martin passed at least one polygraph "test."
Counterintelligence-scope polygraph examinations typically include a question along the lines of "Have you deliberately mishandled any classified information?"
It appears likely that the Martin case represents yet another failure of polygraph screening.
Interestingly, Martin's ex-wife, Elizabeth Martin (http://www.advancedpolygraph.com.au/Elizabeth-Martin.htm), is a retired law enforcement officer working as a polygraph operator in Australia. According to BuzzFeed (https://www.buzzfeed.com/sheerafrenkel/man-arrested-for-allegedly-stealing-classified-documents-fro), the Martins once owned a Lexus with license plate "POLYGRAPH."
No surprise. Snowden passed his too. And all the leakers and insider threats passed their polygraph. Or...maybe once they are hired you can't really "fail" a polygraph. Which begs the question: When you are doing a pre-employment poly and get a "deception indicated", you don't get hired. When you are already employed in the IC and have a "deception indicated", but don't make an admission, what happens? I know you don't get fired, nor do you lose your clearance. So then what?
Poly means nothing. As a polygraph victim myself, I am on a quest to inform everyone how to beat it, no matter what they are hiding. Don't make admissions or confessions to anything. Relax and realize it is all a fishing expedition and interrogation and the polygraphers don't know anything. Think shocking thoughts on various sets of relevant questions if you have the relevant/irrelevant test. Think shocking thoughts on control questions if you have the relevant/control test. Cooperate and make a good impression and play the games during the pre and post test, smile, and win! Cheat it and beat it, because it is a stupid machine that deserves to be beat by everyone, no matter what.
I am reminded of the statement made by Mr. Clapper about the need to expand polygraph testing. He said it was needed "to stop the next Edward Snowden". I asked how the polygraph could stop the next Edward Snowden when it didn't stop the first Edward Snowden - who passed two polygraph tests.
The Hal Martin case emphasizes once again the insanity of polygraph testing and proves the definition of insanity which is continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Stop the insanity of polygraph "testing"!
Whoa, it's a ghost! I thought Doug Williams was dead...err...I mean in jail?! If this is the real Doug, when did you get out and how much time did you have to serve?
QuoteWhoa, it's a ghost! I thought Doug Williams was dead...err...I mean in jail?! If this is the real Doug, when did you get out and how much time did you have to serve?
Doug is regrettably still in prison. I'm in communication with him via e-mail. I forwarded him this message thread and posted his reply on his behalf.
I'm surprised they let Doug have communication with you, George, or anything to do with antipolygraph.org while in prison since was sent to prison for teaching how to beat the poly.
QuoteI'm surprised they let Doug have communication with you, George, or anything to do with antipolygraph.org while in prison since was sent to prison for teaching how to beat the poly.
Doug Williams was not sent to prison for teaching how to beat the poly.
Doug Williams was persecuted by a rogue bureau of the U.S. government for being popular and effective. Unfortunately he was entrapped into conspiring and abetting lying to due authorities. This gave his powerful enemies the leverage to impose a conviction and send him to jail.
Naturally, any convict is going to be monitored lest he continue to commit similar crimes while incarcerated. I'm sure that Doug is no exception, and he is closely watched to prevent him hatching additional plots to conspire and abet lying to due authorities from inside the joint.
But his jailers do not care about any of this polygraph stuff because, as far as the DOJ is concerned, it has nothing to do with his conviction.
No one can be sent to prison for teaching how to beat the poly, since teaching how to beat the poly is not a crime.
Aunty just likes to keep the public record accurate.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Oct 08, 2016, 03:00 PMDoug Williams was not sent to prison for teaching how to beat the poly.
Of course he was. He pled guilty.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Oct 08, 2016, 03:00 PMDoug Williams was persecuted by a rogue bureau of the U.S. government for being popular and effective. Unfortunately he was entrapped into conspiring and abetting lying to due authorities.
It's prosecuted, not persecuted, and wasn't entrapped, he was a willing participant.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Oct 08, 2016, 03:00 PMNo one can be sent to prison for teaching how to beat the poly, since teaching how to beat the poly is not a crime.
Really? I suppose Chad Dixon was also railroaded.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Oct 08, 2016, 03:00 PMAunty just likes to keep the public record accurate.
Accurate according to you, fantasy to the real world.
Let us now see if quickfix can form a single cogent argument in support of a single coherent fact:
Quote from: quickfix on Oct 08, 2016, 03:30 PMHe pled guilty
To
what crime did Doug Williams plead guilty?
Quote from: nsa wannabe on Oct 07, 2016, 10:11 PMNo surprise. Snowden passed his too. And all the leakers and insider threats passed their polygraph. Or...maybe once they are hired you can't really "fail" a polygraph. Which begs the question: When you are doing a pre-employment poly and get a "deception indicated", you don't get hired. When you are already employed in the IC and have a "deception indicated", but don't make an admission, what happens? I know you don't get fired, nor do you lose your clearance. So then what?
Poly means nothing. As a polygraph victim myself, I am on a quest to inform everyone how to beat it, no matter what they are hiding. Don't make admissions or confessions to anything. Relax and realize it is all a fishing expedition and interrogation and the polygraphers don't know anything. Think shocking thoughts on various sets of relevant questions if you have the relevant/irrelevant test. Think shocking thoughts on control questions if you have the relevant/control test. Cooperate and make a good impression and play the games during the pre and post test, smile, and win! Cheat it and beat it, because it is a stupid machine that deserves to be beat by everyone, no matter what.
Congratulations on your decision to embark on such a noble quest. I am in my 37th year of this same quest. But a word of caution - my quest has landed me in federal prison. See my post on George's blog entitled OPERATION LIE BUSTERS - A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE (https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2016/04/26/operation-lie-busters-a-travesty-of-justice/).
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Oct 08, 2016, 05:12 PMTo what crime did Doug Williams plead guilty?
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2015/05/14/u-s-v-doug-williams-day-2-doug-williams-pleads-guilty/
It's right here in George's own post.
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Oct 09, 2016, 03:45 AMBut a word of caution - my quest has landed me in federal prison.
You mean your crime, not your quest, cockroach. Now get back to your cell, visiting hours are over.
Quote from: quickfix on Oct 09, 2016, 09:29 AMQuote from: AuntyAgony on Oct 08, 2016, 05:12 PMTo what crime did Doug Williams plead guilty?
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2015/05/14/u-s-v-doug-williams-day-2-doug-williams-pleads-guilty/
It's right here in George's own post.
No, it isn't. The post describes the second day of the trial, during which the crime was not named.
If you don't know the answer, just say you don't know the answer.
To
what crime did Doug Williams plead guilty?
if you did your homework YOU would already know.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/owner-polygraphcom-sentenced-two-years-prison-training-customers-lie
Is the answer Mail Fraud and Witness tampering? It sounds like Aunty is right. Teaching how to beat the poly is not a crime. The feds had to come up with some other charges to get Doug.
Can someone explain exactly what Doug did that constitutes Mail Fraud and Witness Tampering?
The title of the article in the link above that quickfix posted is misleading. It says down the page that Doug pled guilty to mail fraud and witness tampering. There is no crime against teaching how to beat the poly. Thats good news. I'm going to start telling people how to beat it too. Put polygraphers out of business, like that asshole quickfix.
Quote from: quickfix on Oct 09, 2016, 11:58 AMif you did your homework YOU would already know.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/owner-polygraphcom-sentenced-two-years-prison-training-customers-lie
Well, I wouldn't know from reading that post. It's just a mendacious announcement from the Department of Justice describing some of Doug's actions and ineptly trying to pretend that they are all crimes.
If you don't know the answer, its all right to just say you don't know the answer.
To
what crime did Doug Williams plead guilty?
Quickfix,
How do you suppose Hal Martin, who reportedly had been collecting classified documents at his home since 1999, was able to pass a polygraph screening test?
George, the operative word here is "suppose"; do you know for sure it was 1999? Do you know for sure Martin took a polygraph with NSA (or anyone else), and if so, was it after he began rat-holing classified material or before? Polygraph cannot predict future actions, only verify actions taken in the past. Media reports are not always initially complete or accurate.
On another topic, perhaps you should explain to Aunty Agony that Mail Fraud and Witness Tampering are the federal crimes that Doug Williams pleaded guilty to, since he/she can't seem to/doesn't want to read the DOJ press release I posted above.
Can someone tell me what exactly did Doug do that constitutes witness tampering and mail fraud? What do those chargea have to do with teaching people how to pass a poly? It seems that if teaching how to pass a poly was a crime, Doug would have been charged with that. Hence, teaching poly beating is not a crime, correct?
The
New York Times, citing unnamed government officials reports that Martin had been taking home classified materials since the late 1990s. So 1999 would be the no-later-than date for his mishandling of classified information:
Quotehttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/nsa-suspect-is-a-hoarder-but-a-leaker-investigators-arent-sure.html
...
Harold T. Martin III, the contractor arrested by the F.B.I. on Aug. 27, brazenly violated basic security rules, taking home a staggering quantity of highly classified material. He had been doing this undetected, agency officials were chagrined to learn, since the late 1990s....
According to the same article, Martin began working for NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton in 2009.
The Daily Beast reports (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/05/nsa-thief-worked-with-elite-hacker-squad.html) that Martin worked for the NSA's highly compartmented Tailored Access Operations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailored_Access_Operations) unit. It's a safe bet that Martin was required to pass a polygraph examination in connection with his NSA contract work, and this would be
after having hoarded classified documents for a decade.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Oct 08, 2016, 03:00 PMDoug Williams was not sent to prison for teaching how to beat the poly
Quote from: quickfix on Oct 08, 2016, 03:30 PMOf course he was. He pled guilty.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Oct 08, 2016, 05:12 PMTo what crime did Doug Williams plead guilty?
Quote from: quickfix on Oct 10, 2016, 07:50 AMMail Fraud and Witness Tampering are the federal crimes that Doug Williams pleaded guilty to
So you agree with me, then.
As I said, Aunty just likes to keep the public record accurate.
QuoteIt seems that if teaching how to pass a poly was a crime, Doug would have been charged with that. Hence, teaching poly beating is not a crime, correct?
Correct.
Only the indictment itself is a true bill of the facts. All other announcements, press releases, and blog postings from John Schwartz (CBP), Fred Ball (CBP), Leslie Caldwell (DOJ), Brian Kidd (DOJ), James Finch (FBI), or quickfix are steaming piles of digested grass.
I cannot help wondering how much overlap there is between the security violations of Harold T. Martin III and the similar security violations of Hilary R. Clinton.
As far as we know, neither miscreant harbored treasonous intent nor expected to profit from the activity; and in neither case is the breach known to have caused significant harm to the United States nor given aid or comfort to its enemies.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Oct 10, 2016, 11:36 AMAll other announcements, press releases, and blog postings from John Schwartz (CBP), Fred Ball (CBP), Leslie Caldwell (DOJ), Brian Kidd (DOJ), James Finch (FBI), or quickfix are steaming piles of digested grass.
And that's what convicted felon Dougy will have slopped on to his tray for dinner in the prison chow hall!
Quote from: George_Maschke on Oct 10, 2016, 01:45 AMHow do you suppose Hal Martin, who reportedly had been collecting classified documents at his home since 1999, was able to pass a polygraph screening test?
All references to Hal Martin describe him as independently curious, and deeply interested in detecting pathologies such as PTSD via direct histological examination of a patient's behavior -- the same techniques used by military and police interrogators, and so crudely mechanized by the polygraph.
Martin's ex-wife Elizabeth is a formidible person (https://au.linkedin.com/in/elizabeth-martin-0492b631) who served in military and civilian police, and in 1996 became a highly trained and thoroughly certified polygrapher. I can't find when they were divorced but she evidently had at least some contact with him until 1999.
This means he had roughly three years to pump her about how the polygraph works.
If they were on speaking terms, and as she had no reason to suspect he might someday so spectacularly shatter government security protocols, she probably shared so much information with him that he could have written another
How To Sting The Polygraph or even
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
So -- he had no need for his own Doug Williams or Dan Mangan -- just pillow talk.
Aunty,
The same thought occurred to me, and I suspect Elizabeth Martin has already been questioned regarding what information about polygraphy she imparted to her ex-husband, Hal.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Oct 11, 2016, 12:53 AMSo -- he had no need for his own Doug Williams or Dan Mangan -- just pillow talk
Aunty, let me be clear: I do not teach, coach or provide advice on countermeasures.
As a full member of the American Polygraph Association, I serve primarily as a polygraph consultant and examiner who strives to preemptively reduce victimization by educating consumers -- both primary and secondary -- about the risks, realities and limitations of the polygraph "test."
I continue to administer polygraph "tests" in select cases, and conduct QA reviews of polygraph exams.
Perhaps you had me confused with Chad Dixon?
Quote from: danmangan on Oct 11, 2016, 05:39 AMPerhaps you had me confused with Chad Dixon?
I guarantee you that Dan Mangan and Chad Dixon occupy very different localities in Aunty's world model.
Aunty, in your world model, are the APA's home-grown researchers and statisticians legitimate scientists?
Quote from: danmangan on Oct 11, 2016, 08:25 PMAunty, in your world model, are the APA's home-grown researchers and statisticians legitimate scientists?
If by "legitimate scientists" you mean "persons who are legally permitted to label themselves as scientists", then yes, I'm sure there are a few BS and MS degrees among them. People take academic degrees for a variety of reasons, most of which have to do with living indoors and not starving.
But if by "legitimate scientists" you mean "persons who truly practice science", then no, I've seen no evidence of that. (Uness you insist on allowing "scientist" to include "sometimes a scientist", that is, "person who might be practicing science somewhere else but is definitely not using science to study the polygraph as a lie detector".)
Science is a rigidly defined and highly disciplined way of examining the world and making predictions about it. A necessary and important part of its discipline is not caring what answer you get. The instant you conceive a preference for one fact over another, you rip the foundations out of the whole process.
But proponents of the polygraph as a lie detector need certain facts to be true; therefore there can be no true scientists among them.
As far as experiments go, I'm sure any scientist could tell you how to answer the question, "Can the polygraph be used to tell if a person is lying?"
The method is simple. Using data gathered in the field (where liars suffer real consequences), tally the number of subjects who pass and the number who fail. Independently, tally the number who were lying and the number who were honest. This would yield four categories:
Liar who passed (false negative)
Liar who failed (detected liar)
Honest who passed (detected honest)
Honest who failed (false positive)
(If the count of 'false negative' and 'false positive' is small, and the count of 'detected liar' and 'detected honest' is large, the test is good. If the ratio "false negative"/"detected honest" nearly matches the ratio "detected liar"/"false positive", the test is worthless.)
The problem with this experiment is that the second independent observation, the number who were lying vs. the number who were honest,
has never been done. Millions of public sector applicants have been subjected to "lie detector" based interrogations. No one --
no one -- knows how many of them were lying.
Many polygraph proponents have put a number to the effectiveness claims for their methods, and attempted to support that number by correlating the pass-fail observation with some other observation. Invariably they are referring, one way or another, to the number of confessions obtained during the post-test interrogation.
But the post-test confessions are an indicator only of the skill and rapaciousness of the examiner; the best interrogators can make their victims say anything. They are in no way an independent observation of whether the subject was lying or honest. These confessions
are part of the test.
I believe that building a picture of how many polygraph subjects have actually lied would be extremely difficult and would require a well-funded long-term study by some very patient and dedicated scientists. (Real scientists, not merely legitimate ones.) So far, no such body of data exists.
So we have the first observation, the number who passed vs. the number who failed, but we have nothing to correlate it with. No claims about the effectiveness of the polygraph lie detector can be made without such a correlation. Any scientist would know this and would not venture to make such a claim.
Anyone who says the effectiveness of the lie detector has been measured is
wrong. Anyone who says he is a scientist and also says the effectiveness of the lie detector has been measured is
a liar.
Now, another necessary and important part of science discipline is not lying. So to answer your question: No, there are no scientists among the APA's home-grown researchers and cargo-cult statisticians.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Oct 12, 2016, 09:57 PMAnyone who says the effectiveness of the lie detector has been measured is wrong. Anyone who says he is a scientist and also says the effectiveness of the lie detector has been measured is a liar.
Now, another necessary and important part of science discipline is not lying. So to answer your question: No, there are no scientists among the APA's home-grown researchers and cargo-cult statisticians.
Amen Aunty !!!!!! Well stated. What strikes me is that after every American schoolchild learns of the insanity of the Salem Witch Trials at the end of the 17th century there are millions of Americans who can not see that today's use of the polygraph is no different than what happened 300 + years ago in Massachusetts. Scientists studying the polygraph would have the same challenge that scientists would have trying to prove that a person born with a clubbed foot was actually a prodigy of the devil. One can't disprove it either even if one is a devout athiest. Therein is the heart of the problem. Both the witchburners and the polygraph examiners are dealing in a realm where nothing can be proven or dis-proven. The occasional, and I do mean occasional, confession of someone who falls for this B.S. is all they have to hang their hat on. Anyone who claims that a reaction to a relevant question can only be a lie and not caused by concern over failing a polygraph is the biggest liar of all time.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Oct 08, 2016, 05:12 PMLet us now see if quickfix can form a single cogent argument in support of a single coherent fact:
Highly doubtful! lol ;D
Quote from: George_Maschke on Oct 07, 2016, 05:55 AM
(https://antipolygraph.org/graphics/hal-martin.jpg)
Harold Thomas Martin, III
On 27 August 2016, NSA contractor Harold Thomas (Hal) Martin, III of Glen Burnie, Maryland was arrested(https://antipolygraph.org/forum/proxy.php?request=chrome-extension%3A%2F%2Fgmpljdlgcdkljlppaekciacdmdlhfeon%2Fimages%2Fbeside-link-icon.svg&hash=081b7fa6428036ef49d53af24371e8600f6319eb) based on probable cause to believe that he improperly removed and retained at his home terabytes of top secret NSA documents.
According to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/nsa-suspect-is-a-hoarder-but-a-leaker-investigators-arent-sure.html), Martin had been taking home classified material "since the late 1990s."
Has it ever been determined what his motivations for stashing documents at home were? This behavior would appear indicative of a "hoarding" or "pack rat" disorder, rather than espionage. :-/
Quote from: quickfix on Oct 08, 2016, 03:30 PM
Accurate according to you, fantasy to the real world.
Thanks for your annotations, Auntie.
Of course, it is important to understand that the IC works in a world of "fantasy" and of obfuscation of facts.
That is why there are some contentious people on this site! ;D
Kim Zetter reports for Politico that it was a tip from Russian computer security firm Kaspersky Lab that led to the identification and arrest of NSA contractor, hoarder of classified data, and polygraph beater Hal T. Martin III. Excerpt:
Quotehttps://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/09/russia-kaspersky-lab-nsa-cybersecurity-1089131
Exclusive: How a Russian firm helped catch an alleged NSA data thief
The U.S. has accused Kaspersky Lab of working with Russian spies. But sources say the company exposed a massive breach that U.S. authorities missed.
By KIM ZETTER
01/09/2019 05:01 AM EST
The 2016 arrest of a former National Security Agency contractor charged with a massive theft of classified data began with an unlikely source: a tip from a Russian cybersecurity firm that the U.S. government has called a threat to the country.
Moscow-based Kaspersky Lab turned Harold T. Martin III in to the NSA after receiving strange Twitter messages in 2016 from an account linked to him, according to two people with knowledge of the investigation. They spoke with POLITICO on condition of anonymity because they're not authorized to discuss the case.
The company's role in exposing Martin is a remarkable twist in an increasingly bizarre case that is believed to be the largest breach of classified material in U.S. history.
It indicates that the government's own internal monitoring systems and investigators had little to do with catching Martin, who prosecutors say took home an estimated 50 terabytes of data from the NSA and other government offices over a two-decade period, including some of the NSA's most sophisticated and sensitive hacking tools.
The revelation also introduces an ironic turn in the negative narrative the U.S. government has woven about the Russian company in recent years.
Under both the Obama and Trump administrations, officials have accused the company of colluding with Russian intelligence to steal and expose classified NSA tools, and in 2016 the FBI engaged in an aggressive behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit the company and get its software banned from U.S. government computers on national security grounds. But even while the FBI was doing this, the Russian firm was tipping off the bureau to an alleged intelligence thief in the government's own midst.
"It's irony piled on irony that people who worked at Kaspersky, who were already in the sights of the U.S. intelligence community, disclosed to them that they had this problem," said Stewart Baker, general counsel for the NSA in the 1990s and a current partner at Steptoe and Johnson. It's also discouraging, he noted, that the NSA apparently still hasn't "figured out a good way to find unreliable employees who are mishandling some of their most sensitive stuff."
"We all thought [Martin] got caught by renewed or heightened scrutiny, and instead it looks as though he got caught because he was an idiot," he told POLITICO.