AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

In an article titled, "FBI seeks to rebuild its image," (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/nation/3298893.htm) Chris Mondics of the Philadelphia Inquirer Washington bureau reports that Roger L. Trott, chief of the FBI's agent training unit, asserts that nearly half of FBI agent applicants who pass preliminary tests don't pass the polygraph:

Quote
...The bureau expects to hire only about 5 percent of the 20,000-plus people who have submitted applications since the beginning of the year.

Applicants are tested on analytical math and communications skills. Trott says that nearly half the applicants who survive the written tests and the interviews typically don't pass the polygraph on past drug use, potential security risks, and other issues.

If Trott is right, then the percentage of FBI applicants who fail to pass the polygraph is up sharply from an earlier figure of about 20%. Perhaps, with the surge in applications following the events of 11 September 2001, the FBI has decided that it can afford to arbitrarily disqualify more applicants based on polygraph chart readings.

Note: The above-linked article is no longer available on Philly.com. A PDF printout is attached.

The FBI polygraph failure rate is now above 50%, according to Joe Bross, who is in charge of recruiting at FBI HQ. Mr. Bross is quoted in a 23 December 2002 Washington Times article by Ann Geracimos titled, "A special kind of education" (http://dynamic.washtimes.com/twt-print.cfm?ArticleID=20021223-8724669):

Quote"Some think they can get over on the polygraph because it isn't an exact science," says Joe Bross, acting chief of the applicant process section. "We knock out more than one of every two [with the polygraph]."

According to the FBI website, Joe Bross, who is also the commander of American Legion Post 56 (http://www.fbi.gov/al/post.htm), may be contacted by e-mail to jbross@fbi.gov or by phone at (202) 278-2436.

Are applicants for special agent hire less honest than those who apply as linguists? That seems to be what the FBI's polygraphers believe, since "only" 20% of linguist applicants are failing the polygraph, compared with over 50% of special agent applicants!

In today's (27 Dec. 2002) Washington Post, Susan Schmidt and Allan Lengel report in an article titled,
"Help Still Wanted: Arabic Linguists" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41812-2002Dec26?language=printer):

Quote"It takes 10 people in the front door to get one person out the other end," said Margaret Gulotta, head of language services for the FBI.

Gulotta said that 65 percent of applicants fail the bureau's language test; 20 percent can't pass a required polygraph and and 10 percent are eliminated for security reasons. All told, she said, the FBI has hired 286 translators and linguists since Sept. 11, 2001, in all languages, for both full-time and contract positions.

George,  Grow up and stop the  :'(  So you can't be a junior G-Man. 8)  

QuoteGeorge,  Grow up and stop the    So you can't be a junior G-Man.  

Is this the most substantive thing that you can contribute to this discussion?

 ;), Gino, why I am just responding like all 95% of all posters to this web site do....  Whine, cry , and telling everyone how they were wronged by the world; and then try to make it sound important.  

Gee I wish I could have everything I want. Gee I wish the big bad government would give me more handouts.  I think I'm good, therefore, I should be given all that I wish for.  ::)   When they finally pull their heads out of their @#$s  :o and realize that there is more to life than whimpering about how life is not fair these folks may actualy get a life!

I really don't care about polygraph one way or the other, I stumbled on to this site and have been increasingly PO'd at the ME, ME, ME attitude of the posters.  Imagine what good could be done if the wasted energy put into this site were pointed towards Real problems in the world.

Till next time.  :D  

Quote from: Fed-Up! on Dec 29, 2002, 07:51 PM
;), Gino, why I am just responding like all 95% of all posters to this web site do....  Whine, cry , and telling everyone how they were wronged by the world; and then try to make it sound important.  

Gee I wish I could have everything I want. Gee I wish the big bad government would give me more handouts.  I think I'm good, therefore, I should be given all that I wish for.  ::)   When they finally pull their heads out of their @#$s  :o and realize that there is more to life than whimpering about how life is not fair these folks may actualy get a life!

I really don't care about polygraph one way or the other, I stumbled on to this site and have been increasingly PO'd at the ME, ME, ME attitude of the posters.  Imagine what good could be done if the wasted energy put into this site were pointed towards Real problems in the world.

Till next time.  :D  

So you know nothing about this issue or the people who contribute here.

Ah, well, at least you admit it.

Skeptic

Skeptic (or maybe I should say George),

Who said I don't know anything about the issue or the people who contribute?  Not I.  I said, "I really don't care about polygraph one way or the other".

The point of my post was to state the obvious, The majority of posters to this site feel that the world owes them.  Alas , you dear Skeptic will take this and twist it to match that underlying theme:  ME, Me, Me!!!

Quote from: Fed-Up! on Dec 29, 2002, 08:23 PM
Skeptic (or maybe I should say George),

Only if you want to depict yourself as an even more obvious fool than you already have.

QuoteWho said I don't know anything about the issue or the people who contribute?  Not I.  I said, "I really don't care about polygraph one way or the other".

That's funny...most people who don't care about an issue don't bother to learn about it.  Perhaps you are a polygrapher?  That would explain the hostility and lack of empathy for people impacted by the device.

QuoteThe point of my post was to state the obvious, The majority of posters to this site feel that the world owes them.

I'm sorry you don't feel those who are wronged should attempt to do something about it.  For the record, many people here (such as myself) have nothing personal to gain by eliminating the polygraph.  But that little detail won't get in the way of you posting your simplistic drivel, will it?

Yeah, you've bothered to spend a lot of time here.

QuoteAlas , you dear Skeptic will take this and twist it to match that underlying theme:  ME, Me, Me!!!

Oh, no.  Much more fun to talk about you and your obviously clueless posts.

Skeptic

QuoteGino, why I am just responding like all 95% of all posters to this web site do....  Whine, cry , and telling everyone how they were wronged by the world; and then try to make it sound important.  

I do not remember George Maschke, the person you assailed in your message, ever making such a post.

QuoteI really don't care about polygraph one way or the other, I stumbled on to this site and have been increasingly PO'd at the ME, ME, ME attitude of the posters.

Your reference to the art of polygraphy via the awkward use of the word "polygraph" in the abstract suggests otherwise.

QuoteImagine what good could be done if the wasted energy put into this site were pointed towards Real problems in the world.

There are some of us who feel that the use of a façade—namely polygraphy-- as the cornerstone of our nation's counter-intelligence policy is a real-world problem. National security is too important to be left to an unreliable procedure that falsely accuses many individuals while liars cognizant of the trickery behind the "test" manage to easily avert suspicion.

Damn Gino, you must be an attorney.  You have that legal ease double-talk all worked out.  I never "assailed" George.  I do belive George did tell the world he was wronged; check out Capt Smith's harangue

http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml
      
       Correct me if I'm wrong, that is George isn't it? (Don't lie)

As to my referencing to the "art of polygraphy" via the awkard use of the word "polygraph".... I say tomato, you say tomoto.  You understood what I was saying; I say again, you must be an attorney.

Skeptic, Clueless posts?  No more than you are.  I have a clue and I do feel empathy for those impacted by the device; however, life does go on.  You stated that you have nothing personal to gain by eliminating the polygraph, same here.  But that little detail won't get in the way of you, as well, posting your pompous, arrogant, simplistic foolishness either.  ;)

Quote from: Fed-Up! on Dec 30, 2002, 07:39 PM
Skeptic, Clueless posts?  No more than you are.

I suppose I can play that game, too.  "I know you are, but what am I?"

Of course, the difference is that your posts truly are clueless.

QuoteI have a clue and I do feel empathy for those impacted by the device; however, life does go on.

Empathy, huh?  Let us revisit your deeply-empathic, near-magical insight into "those impacted by the device":

"George,  Grow up and stop the [crying] So you can't be a junior G-Man."

"Gino, why I am just responding like all 95% of all posters to this web site do....  Whine, cry , and telling everyone how they were wronged by the world; and then try to make it sound important."

"The point of my post was to state the obvious, The majority of posters to this site feel that the world owes them."

I think the casual reader is quite capable of judging your level of "empathy" without any help from us :)

Again, I urge readers to consider what undergoing a subjective polygraph session with a judgemental individual such as "Fed-up!" as polygraph administrator would entail.  There would be no appeal, no redress if he or she decided he or she didn't like you and should fail.

Polygraph screening should be abolished, period.
Skeptic

QuoteI suppose I can play that game, too.  "I know you are, but what am I?"

Of course, the difference is that your posts truly are clueless.

OK Pee Wee  :D  We must agree to disagree!  Are you sure its not Septic rather than Skeptic?

QuoteI think the casual reader is quite capable of judging your level of "empathy" without any help from us

The casual reader of this sight?  The casual readers to this sight have a life, a job, and a realist outlook on life and do/will know that I truly am empathic to those who are deserving.  Those who find it necessary to call the world a bully and believe that we all have the right to have everything we wish for will not.  

We do not have the right to "have" everything we wish for, but we do have the chance to try and fail or succeed.  If polygraphy (for you Gino  ;D ) is so evil, how/why do people pass tests every day and move on with life? (Please don't give me the "They all used Counter Measures" line.)

Lets see, 25 job positions open up at a PD or Fed Agenecy and 1000 people apply for the job.  Gee if I follow the logic on this sight, all 1000 should get the job.  I guess that means 40 people will each share one of the 25 positions because it would not be right to disqualify 975 of the applicants. (Yeah, right)

As I have eluded to in my past postings, life is not fair, it is just life.  False Positives are not fair, true, but neither is life.  

Courts make mistakes and innocent folks go to jail, some times for life.  I guess we should abolish the Court system in the US as well!
(just using the logic that is taught here)

I most eagerly await the next onslaught of verbal judo from the kind and empathic (or is it pathetic) crew here in George and Gino's Wonderland.   :)

Quote from: Fed-Up! on Dec 30, 2002, 09:39 PM


OK Pee Wee  :D  We must agree to disagree!  Are you sure its not Septic rather than Skeptic?

Would you believe you're the first one to come up with that?

QuoteThe casual reader of this sight?  The casual readers to this sight have a life, a job, and a realist outlook on life and do/will know that I truly am empathic to those who are deserving.  Those who find it necessary to call the world a bully and believe that we all have the right to have everything we wish for will not.

Perhaps in "Fed-up"'s existential world, people who are injured due to known defective products are also "whiners" when they go after the manufacturer, as are those who are denied employment because of blatant racial discrimination, etc.  Fortunately, most of us don't live there.  It's not a pleasant place.

QuoteWe do not have the right to "have" everything we wish for, but we do have the chance to try and fail or succeed.  If polygraphy (for you Gino  ;D ) is so evil, how/why do people pass tests every day and move on with life? (Please don't give me the "They all used Counter Measures" line.)

It's always easier to address arguments that have never been made, isn't it?

QuoteLets see, 25 job positions open up at a PD or Fed Agenecy and 1000 people apply for the job.  Gee if I follow the logic on this sight, all 1000 should get the job.  I guess that means 40 people will each share one of the 25 positions because it would not be right to disqualify 975 of the applicants. (Yeah, right)

Unfortunately, you are not following the logic on this site.

QuoteCourts make mistakes and innocent folks go to jail, some times for life.  I guess we should abolish the Court system in the US as well!
(just using the logic that is taught here)

No one here has ever said the polygraph should be abolished solely because it isn't perfect.  That's your straw man; you burn it.

(It would be wonderful if most people would bother to read this site before commenting on its contents.  Sadly, as seems the case here, many come with an axe to grind, with little interest in addressing the material at hand.)

QuoteI most eagerly await the next onslaught of verbal judo from the kind and empathic (or is it pathetic) crew here in George and Gino's Wonderland.   :)

Fed-up, you're not even a speed bump.  OTOH, it sure seems like this site is oddly important to you -- especially since you don't care either way about the polygraph.

Skeptic

Skeptic,

Quote[OK Pee Wee    We must agree to disagree!  Are you sure its not Septic rather than Skeptic?

Would you believe you're the first one to come up with that?

Do you believe in Santa Clause? The latter does seem to fit your Web personality.  I believe BatMan christened you "septic"
Correct me if I error..._{I'm sure you will}

QuotePerhaps in "Fed-up"'s existential world, people who are injured due to known defective products are also "whiners" when they go after the manufacturer, as are those who are denied employment because of blatant racial discrimination, etc.  Fortunately, most of us don't live there.  It's not a pleasant place.

Now you are speaking apples and oranges.  Physical injury due to defective products and blatant racial discrimination do not compare.  But then you have a tendency to look at the world through your own particular brand of rose colored glasses; as do we all.

QuoteWe do not have the right to "have" everything we wish for, but we do have the chance to try and fail or succeed.  If polygraphy (for you Gino   ) is so evil, how/why do people pass tests every day and move on with life? (Please don't give me the "They all used Counter Measures" line.)

It's always easier to address arguments that have never been made, isn't it?

Or in your case it is easier to ignore the question.  I readily admit that False positives exist.  They exist in all factes of life in one manner or another.... Deal with them and move on.  Now answer my question:  How do you explain that so many "pass" the test while others fail?

QuoteLets see, 25 job positions open up at a PD or Fed Agency and 1000 people apply for the job.  Gee if I follow the logic on this sight, all 1000 should get the job.  I guess that means 40 people will each share one of the 25 positions because it would not be right to disqualify 975 of the applicants. (Yeah, right)


Unfortunately, you are not following the logic on this site.

But I am, Skeptic, sadly I am.  You just see the tree, not the entire forest.

QuoteCourts make mistakes and innocent folks go to jail, some times for life.  I guess we should abolish the Court system in the US as well! (just using the logic that is taught here)

No one here has ever said the polygraph should be abolished solely because it isn't perfect.  That's your straw man; you burn it.

(It would be wonderful if most people would bother to read this site before commenting on its contents.  Sadly, as seems the case here, many come with an axe to grind, with little interest in addressing the material at hand.)

I have no axe to grind, and I have read the site prior to commenting.  I believe I am addressing the material at hand when I say the majority of posters to this site are A. Crying in their beer over opportunity lost.  B.  Looking for a way to game the system.

QuoteFed-up, you're not even a speed bump.  OTOH, it sure seems like this site is oddly important to you -- especially since you don't care either way about the polygraph.

Now, now don't go making assumptions.  You flatter your self.  This site is not oddly important to me.  I find it an ammusing way to spend my free time during the Holiday slump in business.  When I become bored with the mindless drivel I'll just look else ware for another type of diversion.  Now take this post and twist as you do so well.

Quote from: Fed-Up! on Dec 31, 2002, 01:42 AM
Skeptic,

Do you believe in Santa Clause? The latter does seem to fit your Web personality.

I'm sorry you think so...I, of course, did not come here trolling for attention by simultaneously insulting a large number of good, patriotic people who have lost their livelihood and/or career dreams to a device the NAS recently derided as a detriment to national security.

QuoteNow you are speaking apples and oranges.  Physical injury due to defective products and blatant racial discrimination do not compare.

So do you see the recipients of those practices as "whiners" who "think the world owes them something", or not?  And if not, on what grounds do you differentiate between those situations and those falsely accused/disqualified due to the polygraph?

QuoteOr in your case it is easier to ignore the question.  I readily admit that False positives exist.  They exist in all factes of life in one manner or another.... Deal with them and move on.

No one here has ever claimed most people pass due to countermeasures, Fed-up.

QuoteNow answer my question:  How do you explain that so many "pass" the test while others fail?

As the title of this thread indicates, it is hardly accurate to say that "so many" pass.  For the FBI, your odds are about as good as a coin flip.  For other agencies, that ratio is probably different, depending upon how "sensitive" they wish the "test" to be.

The NAS report discussed this in detail -- I invite you to read it.

QuoteBut I am, Skeptic, sadly I am.  You just see the tree, not the entire forest.

Let me help you out, then.  You claimed that "the logic of this site" indicates that "all 1000 applicants" to "25 federal positions" should get jobs.  I invite you to please post any statement from this site that says or implies this.

Of course, most applicants will not get jobs.  But the decision should be based on real qualifications, not on a thoroughly discredited process that falsely claims to detect "truthfulness", yet actually amounts to nothing more than a roll of the dice.

Why on earth would you want it otherwise?

QuoteI have no axe to grind, and I have read the site prior to commenting.  I believe I am addressing the material at hand when I say the majority of posters to this site are A. Crying in their beer over opportunity lost.  B.  Looking for a way to game the system.

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion.  I am, of course, free to think that the sky in your world is a different shade of pink.

QuoteWhen I become bored with the mindless drivel I'll just look else ware for another type of diversion.  Now take this post and twist as you do so well.

May I suggest www.freerepublic.com.  No reasoning ability required, and you'll find lots of commiseration about all those "whiners" who want the world and the Government to give them a handout.

Skeptic

Fed-up,
I've gone back over your posts (I do that sort of thing) on the off-chance that I've just misinterpreted your words.  After careful consideration, I have to admit that I really have no idea what your problem is.

Whatever it may be, it seems obvious that it runs deeper than anything with which we can help you, and in any case has very little to do with this site or its participants.

It's been semi-fun engaging in "verbal judo" (as you put it) with you (you're obviously a skilled arguer), but that really isn't the reason I'm here.

If you want to join in a rational discussion of the polygraph and its impact, please feel free to do so.  Otherwise, have a nice life.

Happy Holidays,
Skeptic

Quote from: Skeptic on Dec 31, 2002, 05:40 AM
If you want to join in a rational discussion of the polygraph and its impact, please feel free to do so.  Otherwise, have a nice life.

Happy Holidays,
Skeptic

Dear Skeptic,

Good words to live and post by.  I have been posting less due to the fact that some people just need to vent and really do not want, expect, or understand any opinion other then their own (this could be said about two polarized parties of any discussion).

Regards.

Skeptic,

QuoteI've gone back over your posts (I do that sort of thing) on the off-chance that I've just misinterpreted your words.  After careful consideration, I have to admit that I really have no idea what your problem is.

Whatever it may be, it seems obvious that it runs deeper than anything with which we can help you, and in any case has very little to do with this site or its participants

I have no "problem", it is just my opinion that many of the posters to this site whine (or release frustration) as to how they were wronged.  Again, that is my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. :o

I would love to engage in a conversation about polygraph; however, every time I read one here, it seems that both sides are vastly separated via a strong emotional tie to the subject.  

I have read the NAS report and I understand polygraph (both the pro and con).  The NAS report addressed Validity, but not Utility.  Do screening exams do any good?  That is a question that no one can answer; and no one on this site appears to be concerned with.  Validity can be quantified, but how does one quantify Utility?

Yes I realize that many individuals are identified with a False positive on screening exams.  Yes some of those people more than likely have had their dreams shattered.  I empthize with them, but life is not always fair.  In my opinion a lot of folks here seem to have forgotten that.  

Ban screening exams, that is one way to solve the problem; however, what about the individuals that are correctly identified by the screening exam?  Many have.  Those who say that the polygraph has never identified a spy truly know not of what they speak.  I can state with certainty that it has occurred; however, I am prohibited from disclosing the details.  Does our National Security policy solely rest on screening polygraphs?  Not hardly.  The polygraph is but one tool used in the process.  Take it from one who works in that arena.

QuoteMay I suggest www.freerepublic.com.  No reasoning ability required, and you'll find lots of commiseration about all those "whiners" who want the world and the Government to give them a handout.

Quid pro quo Skeptic, does not a large amount of commiseration occur here as well?

On another note:

QuotePosted by: Fed-Up! Posted on: 12/30/02 at 16:39:04
Damn Gino, you must be an attorney.  You have that legal ease double-talk all worked out.  I never "assailed" George.  I do belive George did tell the world he was wronged; check out Capt Smith's harangue

http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml
     
     Correct me if I'm wrong, that is George isn't it? (Don't lie)

Any one care to respond to that one?   Twist a way!

Quote from: Fed-Up! on Dec 31, 2002, 02:24 PM
Yes I realize that many individuals are identified with a False positive on screening exams.  Yes some of those people more than likely have had their dreams shattered.  I empthize with them, but life is not always fair.  In my opinion a lot of folks here seem to have forgotten that.  

Dear Fed-Up!,

Since we are talking about FBI polygraph policy, I propose that at a minimum, an investigation be performed on any allegations brought up by the polygraph procedure and the whole process be videotaped.

In the past, people have placed their feet or hands inside moving lawnmower blades.  Any normal person would argue that it takes a perfect idiot to do so.  The manufacturers tried placing decals on the housing warning a person not to do so.  This did not work so an automatic cut-off and brake were installed.  People can still bypass this system by wrapping the handle release with a bungee cord.  They at least tried to decrease the chance of injury.

Can we at least try to improve the current system?  Let's try to decrease the chance of injury to reputations and career aspirations.  The FBI is resistant to even the slightest change in their "fool proof" system.  They insist that it is 100% accurate in determining who they will and will not hire.  

Occasional, accidental, "friendly fire" is one thing. Repeating premeditated ignorance of known problems and shortcomings without re-evaluation of the process involved is stupidity

Regards.

Quote from: Fed-Up! on Dec 31, 2002, 02:24 PM
I have read the NAS report and I understand polygraph (both the pro and con).  The NAS report addressed Validity, but not Utility.  Do screening exams do any good?  That is a question that no one can answer; and no one on this site appears to be concerned with.  Validity can be quantified, but how does one quantify Utility?

Finally, something that we can discuss.

I must disagree with the above.  The NAS report specifically addressed both utility and validity (see, for example, section titled "Validity and Utility", NAS report pp. 2-13 to 2-19).

The conclusion of that section reads as follows:

"The utility benefits claimed for the polygraph, even though many of them are logically independent of its validity, depend indirectly on the polygraph being a highly valid indicator of deception.  In the long run, evidence that supports validity can only increase the polygraph test's utility and evidence against validity can only decrease utility.  The scientific evidence for the ability of the polygraph test to detect deception is therefore crucial to the test's usefulness.  The evidence on validity is discussed in Chapters 3, 4, and 5."

It should also be noted that the NAS report specifically addressed issues such as the mythology surrounding the polygraph and countermeasures, both of which directly impact the polygraph's utility.

QuoteYes I realize that many individuals are identified with a False positive on screening exams.  Yes some of those people more than likely have had their dreams shattered.  I empthize with them, but life is not always fair.  In my opinion a lot of folks here seem to have forgotten that.  

It would be impossible for someone to "have their dreams shattered" by a false positive if the issue were one of utility only.  Clearly, polygraph validity is an important factor upon which utility depends.  Thus, an inability to "quantify utility" is hardly a damning indictment of the NAS's findings vis-a-vis polygraph screening -- the utility of the polygraph, as it is used, is obviously overestimated, due to mistaken beliefs about its validity.

And really, "life isn't fair" is a specious argument -- one can always cry this in defense of any wrongheaded practice.

Skeptic

Fed-up,

You write in part:

QuoteI would love to engage in a conversation about polygraph; however, every time I read one here, it seems that both sides are vastly separated via a strong emotional tie to the subject.

Many of us are eager to discuss polygraph matters on a rational level. But prior to your latest post, you seem to have limited yourself to ad hominem taunts.

QuoteI have read the NAS report and I understand polygraph (both the pro and con).  The NAS report addressed Validity, but not Utility.  Do screening exams do any good?  That is a question that no one can answer; and no one on this site appears to be concerned with.  Validity can be quantified, but how does one quantify Utility?

The question is not whether screening exams do any good. Certainly they do, in those cases where, for example, an unqualified applicant makes disqualifying admissions. This saves the hiring agency both time and money. The more appropriate question is, does the good done by screening exams outweigh the harm? I submit that it does not, and would echo Dr. Drew C. Richardson's testimony before the U.S. Senate (http://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-statement.shtml) that "claims of cost effectiveness, and the utility of polygraph screening are altogether wrong, reflect misplaced priorities, and lead to activities that are damaging to individuals and this country."

We've documented some of the harm that has resulted from misplaced governmental reliance of polygraphy in Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml). Documenting such harm is also the purpose of this message thread: more than half of otherwise qualified FBI special agent applicants are being permanently disqualified (and blacklisted from other federal employment) based on a procedure that (as you know, having read the NAS report) has no validity. Doesn't this bother you?

Apparently not. It seems that it is instead our public documentation of the harm that polygraph screening is causing to individuals and our country that bothers you.

QuoteYes I realize that many individuals are identified with a False positive on screening exams.  Yes some of those people more than likely have had their dreams shattered.  I empthize with them, but life is not always fair.  In my opinion a lot of folks here seem to have forgotten that.

Those of us who are involved in the antipolygraph movement are well aware that "life" is not always fair. But the unfairness associated with polygraph screening is completely unnecessary and avoidable (through the abolishment of polygraph screening).

QuoteBan screening exams, that is one way to solve the problem; however, what about the individuals that are correctly identified by the screening exam?  Many have.  Those who say that the polygraph has never identified a spy truly know not of what they speak.  I can state with certainty that it has occurred; however, I am prohibited from disclosing the details.  Does our National Security policy solely rest on screening polygraphs?  Not hardly.  The polygraph is but one tool used in the process.  Take it from one who works in that arena.

The National Academy of Sciences polygraph review panel found no evidence that any spy has ever been caught by a polygraph screening "test." This panel held a meeting (which was closed to the public) at the offices of the CIA polygraph unit. Given Dr. Katherine Laskey's emphatic statement at the NAS press conference held on 8 Oct. 2002 that no spy had ever been caught by a routine polygraph screening "test," it would seem that the CIA polygraph unit mentioned no such cases to the NAS.

QuoteGeorge did tell the world he was wronged; check out Capt Smith's harangue

http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml
 
  Correct me if I'm wrong, that is George isn't it? (Don't lie)

It is my general practice not to comment on the authorship of anonymous or pseudonymous writings. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

A couple of comments to Fed-Up, and others who share his opinions:

"Life is unfair"- Of course life is unfair.  But we do what we can when we can to minimize unfairness and injustice.  That seems to me an incontrovertible principle.  Doesn't it to you?  If a store clerk gives you insufficient change because his cash register is malfunctioning, do you walk away and say nothing because "life is unfair," or do you seek the correct amount of change and urge him to fix his cash register?

We're whiners- If you ask for the correct change in the above example, are you a whiner?  Calling us whiners reveals an inability or unwillingness to address the very real and concrete problems with the polygraph, and is an intellectually bankrupt argument.

The truly important questions do not concern the moral character of those posting here, but the diagnostic value of the polygraph, its costs and benefits, and whether it should be abolished or not, why or why not.

Quote from: George W. Maschke on Dec 31, 2002, 05:06 PM

The National Academy of Sciences polygraph review panel found no evidence that any spy has ever been caught by a polygraph screening "test." This panel held a meeting (which was closed to the public) at the offices of the CIA polygraph unit. Given Dr. Katherine Laskey's emphatic statement at the NAS press conference held on 8 Oct. 2002 that no spy had ever been caught by a routine polygraph screening "test," it would seem that the CIA polygraph unit mentioned no such cases to the NAS.

I can think of no good reason why the NAS, with several panel members possessing security clearances, would not have been given information that contradicted the notion the polygraph has never caught a spy.  Such information could easily have been boiled down to a statement in the NAS report that spies have been caught by the polygraph without violating any secrecy concerns.  Furthermore, it definitely would have been in the counterintelligence/DoDPI community's best interest to have refuted that particular line.

IMHO the fact that the NAS was not given this information makes any claim that spies have been caught extremely suspect.

Skeptic

Skeptic!!!!...tell m it ain't so!...Just when I had thought I was dealing ith a rational and reasonable person! You do not have a great deal of experience with how information is classified do you? That obviously is a rhetorical question because if you choose to challenge the status of classified material, you would know why the information was not passed to NAS.  What was passed to them should have precluded the NAS member from making the statement that she did...but alas, it did not and now there are those who believe what she said based solely on her academic credentials.  It is indeed unfortunate that under the guise of academic freedom, Dr. Fienberg either did not, or worse, chose not, to "encourage" her to not make such a statement, or to retract the statement.  Fortunately, there are much wiser people and they KNOW she "misspoke".  No doubt, some of the antipolygraph "army" will jump onthis and demand "proof"....but you may be reasonably sure that such "proof" (as they call it) will not be forthcoming....that is why polygraph works as well as it does.  You can't let all of the information out now can you.  Even in a democracy, there must be things withheld to protect the masses (Hmmm sounds like somthing TJ would have said...you think BT?)

Guest

Since I have not seen a responding post to my question that a lie was told to the NAS when asked about counter-countermeasures (yes, we have them but they are classified. Then when pressed, the answer was no, we do not have counter-countermeasures), can we guess that this classification falls into the realm of "yes we catch spies with the polygraph"?

National Security LE expects applicants to tell the truth. Then after they are hired, they are requireed to lie to protect the masses??!! Give us a break. Why can't they be truthful? Lies to protect the masses is BS. Tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. If people can't take the truth, they are wimps. I am damn tired of being lied to by people on our payroll.

So be as truthful to the applicant being polygraphed as you expect him to be with you and let the chips fall where they may. What's wrong with that picture??

 

Quote from: guest on Jan 02, 2003, 03:34 PM
No doubt, some of the antipolygraph "army" will jump onthis and demand "proof"....but you may be reasonably sure that such "proof" (as they call it) will not be forthcoming....that is why polygraph works as well as it does.  You can't let all of the information out now can you.  Even in a democracy, there must be things withheld to protect the masses (Hmmm sounds like somthing TJ would have said...you think BT?)

Dear Guest,

I am only an "army of one" but someone has obviously forgot to share any of this "super top secret perfect procedure" with one line staff special agent polygraph examiner from the FBI.  After one inconclusive exam, the second examiner was absolutely certain that I was using "countermeasures."  I sent one letter concerning his "perfect procedure" and was granted a third exam.  I passed the third.   If the information concerning polygraph countermeasures is so perfect, why was I found innocent after being confirmed guilty?  It does not make sense since I did not have polygraph knowledge during the first two exams and choose not to use countermeasures during my last one.

Only the "super big boys" must have this information.  How big is the "inner circle"?  I am intrigued by the "X" files style of this posting.

One thing is painfully obvious, no private polygraph examiner can have access to this information since it is so top secret and hush-hush.  Why do they advertise countermeasure training seminars when all of this is so "hush-hush"?

If my posting seems vague, just reread yours and maybe it will make sense.

Regards.

Quote from: guest on Jan 02, 2003, 03:34 PM
Skeptic!!!!...tell m it ain't so!...Just when I had thought I was dealing ith a rational and reasonable person! You do not have a great deal of experience with how information is classified do you? That obviously is a rhetorical question because if you choose to challenge the status of classified material, you would know why the information was not passed to NAS.  What was passed to them should have precluded the NAS member from making the statement that she did...but alas, it did not and now there are those who believe what she said based solely on her academic credentials.  It is indeed unfortunate that under the guise of academic freedom, Dr. Fienberg either did not, or worse, chose not, to "encourage" her to not make such a statement, or to retract the statement.  Fortunately, there are much wiser people and they KNOW she "misspoke".  No doubt, some of the antipolygraph "army" will jump onthis and demand "proof"....but you may be reasonably sure that such "proof" (as they call it) will not be forthcoming....that is why polygraph works as well as it does.  You can't let all of the information out now can you.

I admit I'm having a hard time following you.  Am I correct that you are basically saying the information was given to the NAS (under the stipulation that only general conclusions, not specific classified spy-catching details, should be made public) and the NAS lied about it?

That's a strong accusation, and one that, unfortunately, I would indeed require proof of one sort or another to support.

Alternatively, are you saying that the information was not passed on?  Several members of the NAS panel obtained security clearances precisely so they could view such classified material.  Could you explain for us why it would have been withheld from them anyway?

QuoteEven in a democracy, there must be things withheld to protect the masses (Hmmm sounds like somthing TJ would have said...you think BT?)

No one is saying that information vital to national security should be made public.  However, as Twoblock has pointed out, far from merely "misstating" that the polygraph has never caught a spy, the NAS also specifically stated that they were misled about the existence of countermeasure studies supposedly classified at the "Secret" level.  I suppose this was also a lie?

IMHO, polygraphers seem to have a track record of bluffing, which doesn't help their credibility one bit in this regard.  The fact that polygraph methodology stipulates that polygraphers must be professional liars doesn't help, either.

The alternative is that the NAS has somehow managed to acquire a reputation of extreme respectability despite being stocked with liars who will forge science as it suits them.

Which should we believe?

Skeptic

You are correct!...I AM confused...by your reply to my posting.  My original reply to Skeptic (and your input is certainly welcomed) concerned the statement made by the NAS staffer about "no spy had ever been caught"...a statement which GM and others seem to want to hang their hat on.  It had nothing to do with your particular examination.  Not knowing any of the details, I cannot and will not comment on that test.  I thought your comment about
"super top secret perfect procedure" was a bit sarcastic (I thought we were trying to stay away from this kind if behavior?).  I re-read my original posting and it did not seem vague...can you advise?

Skeptic,

While the way the polygraph "works" is now an open secret, readily available to anyone interested, there is no such clarity re countermeasures, and that was certainly reinforced by the NAS report.

However, I do believe the study of countermeasure detection (or lack thereof) would be more amenable to measurement and scientific protocol. The only reason most of this is classified is that most is gov. funded and they are now predisposed (Kleiner, 2002) not to share the results with the wider polygraph community. There is nothing fundamental that prevents non classified CM research - other than funding.  Not all funds have to be government funds.

-Marty

This reply is primarily addressed to Skeptic:

I cannot really answer your question in the manner which you posted it because I was not there when the NAS was at the CIA. Therefore I would not say that they were given certain information and then they chose to lie about it (not nice to put words in my mouth). I wouldn't go so far as to say that they "lied", but I have to wonder how they could have made such a statement when I strongly suspect they were told things that SHOULD have made the statement they made at the very least incorrect.

I can understand that there are peope (some of whom reside on this site) that do not like polygraph.  That is their right to feel the way that they do.  But the reality is that whether you like it or not, the polygraph has provided (and will continue to provide)  a valuable service to the general public.  There are others who have not fared well in the conduct of a polygraph test.  I willagree that perhaps some of them ran afoul of an poorly trained examiner.  Not all examiners are the best that they can be...but then again not all doctors are the best either.  A weak excuse, I will grant you, but I have always been an advocate for strong licensing requirements (private and government) to demand quality control and peer review.  If there is a "bad" test, then let's find out why and take corrective action.  Just the same as if there was a porrly done operation.  You want tomake surd that the doctor possesses the knowledge necessary to do the operationin the first place and if he doesn't train him/her.  If they are incapable of training, "encourage" them to persue another career.  Just being adamant about ending a program that HAS been reasonably successful isn't the answer. IMHO, and opinion is just what it is, having a system like polygraph is still better than having a Gestapo come and search your home without the benefit of a legal warrant or whatever the same system would be in a Communinst environment. Of course any discussionof this typemust end with a question about what are the alternatives to this system, which the criticis called flawed?  Despite their willingness to select portions of the NAS study and put it in the little "quote" boxes, I have yet to  note anyone from the antipolygraph side coment about the stament made by th4e NAS that reads (QUOTE) "some alternatives to the polygraph show promise, but NONE (empahsis added) have been shown to OUTPERFORM (empahsis added) (and note that at least IMHO, the term "outperform" connotes there is some significant performance...and not NONE as the favorite term often being thrown around) the polygraph.  NONE (empahsis added) shows ANY (empahsis added) promise of supplanting the polygraph for screening purposes in the near term".  Now when you consider this statement in its entirety, made by the NAS, can you possibly think that they were castigating the polygraph completely?  IMHO these scientists were doing what scientists do best, comtemplating the creation of soemthign different to replace what already exists.  They were saying it is good, but they were not necessarily (in every aspect) saying it was bad either.  They left themselves some wiggle room.  Yes, I know I am rambling, so I will cut it off here for you to consider.  I do not expect to win you over in this venue, but maybe it will be some food for thought.

Quote from: Guest on Jan 02, 2003, 06:02 PM
This reply is primarily addressed to Skeptic:

I cannot really answer your question in the manner which you posted it because I was not there when the NAS was at the CIA. Therefore I would not say that they were given certain information and then they chose to lie about it (not nice to put words in my mouth).

It's not my intent to misquote you.  I'm trying to get at what you were saying.

QuoteI wouldn't go so far as to say that they "lied", but I have to wonder how they could have made such a statement when I strongly suspect they were told things that SHOULD have made the statement they made at the very least incorrect.

I think one consideration that may cause some confusion on this issue is whether the polygraph itself has ever caught a spy.  This means that a person was screened, deception was indicated (when there was no other evidence prior to the screen indicating that the person was a spy) and subsequent investigation, based on the polygraph findings, verified that the screenee was indeed involved in espionage.  

For this I would not include pre-test admissions of involvement in espionage or admissions in post-test interrogations where no deception was actually indicated.  In these cases, the polygraph would be used not as a lie detector but as an interrogation prop -- certainly something for which it can be valuable, but a separate issue from whether the device itself has ever caught a spy.

QuoteI can understand that there are peope (some of whom reside on this site) that do not like polygraph.  That is their right to feel the way that they do.  But the reality is that whether you like it or not, the polygraph has provided (and will continue to provide)  a valuable service to the general public.

I believe a cost-benefit analysis would find otherwise, and I think this is the conclusion the NAS also came to.  In fact, they specifically found that reliance on the polygraph was a detriment to national security.

QuoteIMHO, and opinion is just what it is, having a system like polygraph is still better than having a Gestapo come and search your home without the benefit of a legal warrant or whatever the same system would be in a Communinst environment.

Of course.  However, I don't think those are the only two choices we face.

QuoteOf course any discussionof this typemust end with a question about what are the alternatives to this system, which the criticis called flawed?  Despite their willingness to select portions of the NAS study and put it in the little "quote" boxes, I have yet to  note anyone from the antipolygraph side coment about the stament made by th4e NAS that reads (QUOTE) "some alternatives to the polygraph show promise, but NONE (empahsis added) have been shown to OUTPERFORM (empahsis added) (and note that at least IMHO, the term "outperform" connotes there is some significant performance...and not NONE as the favorite term often being thrown around) the polygraph.  NONE (empahsis added) shows ANY (empahsis added) promise of supplanting the polygraph for screening purposes in the near term".  Now when you consider this statement in its entirety, made by the NAS, can you possibly think that they were castigating the polygraph completely?

Actually, there's been some discussion here on that.  If you consider that statement in context, the NAS was not referring to the polygraph and any alternatives vis-a-vis counterintelligence in general; rather, it was specifically referring to methods of lie detection.  In other words, they were not attempting to say the polygraph must stay because there's no good alternative, or even whether better methods of counterintelligence exist; instead, they were narrowly addressing whether anything better has been found to detect lies.  They concluded that nothing has.

With regard to the polygraph's place in counterintelligence, they not only found that reliance upon it is a significant flaw in our national security, but also that it adds no incremental value to other counterintelligence methods.

QuoteI do not expect to win you over in this venue, but maybe it will be some food for thought.

Of course.  I vastly prefer this to trading barbs.

Skeptic

Quote from: Guest on Jan 02, 2003, 05:31 PM
I thought your comment about
"super top secret perfect procedure" was a bit sarcastic (I thought we were trying to stay away from this kind if behavior?).  I re-read my original posting and it did not seem vague...can you advise?

Dear Guest,

That comment did come off in the posting as being sarcastic, I will do better next time.  My frustration is about how many polygraph experts constantly state that there is a "higher authority" that has "top men" on this information. It keeps reminding me of the government agents stating to "Indiana Jones in the Raiders of the Lost Ark" about how they have "top men" working on research concerning its power only to show a picture of the Ark going into some huge warehouse.

I would like to know at least which agency is suppose to have all of this knowledge and why everyone in the government is not using them as a resource (or at least the FBI in my case since I would have been dealing with "top secret" information which would require such review)?

Regards.

I am not sure I am qualified to answer your question, but I will try nonetheless.  At the risk of sounding sarcastic myself, just who are these "many polygraph experts" who are saying this about research. There isn't (or shouldn't be) anything so secret about research to warrant such a statement.  It sounds as if you are encountering people who simply do not know the scope of research being done and are making such statements out of hand.  That being said, the follwing is offered for your information.


 I can tell you that research i in the discipline of lie detection has been over the past fairly dismal, and probably (just my opinion here)  because no one ever saw a need to research something that had been relatively accepted.  I am guessing that anyone who expressed an interest in research (at least for the most part)came from within the practice. Notwithstanding what many of those who criticize polygraph would say, folks like Gordon Barland and Frank Horvath have done a lot to advance the concept of scientific inquiry in the field of lie detection.  My exposure to researchers has helped me learn that unless their JOB is research, unless there is something in it for them, they are unlikely to express any interest.  I guess I can see their point because it might be admirable to be philanthropic, but being so doesn't pay the bills or put food on the table.  

In trying to get some answers to your question, I learned that in 1994, there was a paper published. The title was "Redefining Security"  Particularly, you should read Chapter 4 and some of the personal statements in the appendices.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/jsc/

which was headed by a professor from USC named Dr. Jeffrey Smith.  

http://www.usc.edu/dept/ise/faculty/Smith.html

I also found it interesting to read his statement which he made before the Senate Judiciary Commitee in 2001.  He acknowledges then, as he did when he headed the Commission that the polygraph process is an imperfect science (there isn't much that IS perfect) but it appears that things have been done that perhaps weren't being done before.  Your question concerning research is answered in this study.  There was a recommendation of the Joint Security Commission that the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute is engaged in an active and robust research program. From what I was able to learn, they have been and are doing just that.  They actively solicit what are called Broad Area Grants for new and original research in the area of lie detection.  Sadly, there is little money available for such research and I would think that even the academic researchers would realize that no money = no research.  Unfortunately, I think that many of their efforst are stymied by the lack of funds.  In the early days of federal polygraph, there was no internal research program.  Slowly, but surely, a research entity was developed.  Yes, there were people like Shiela Reed employed there (there was a television show some time back that spoke of her being fired from that job) and Charles Honts (the professor who speaks of countermeasures and damns screening polygraph, but suppoorts use in the specific issue world (countermeassures notwithstanding) - perhaps because he has a business in this realm??  Gordon Barland brought a new dimension into federal polygraph and indeed today, many polygraph examiners ar being encouraged to seek higher academic degrees and are becoming more involved in research within their own field.  This concept that polygraph examiners are sitting back and doing nothing just isn't so and I for one think that (and there are exceptions to be sure) most polygraph examiners are enthused about participating in scientific inquiry of their choisen profession. Okay I have gone on much longer than I expected to. I hope I have provided you with some information that addresses your concerns.  Unfortunately, I have observed when people provide extended remarks (as I have), there are those who will dissect every word and "demand" reponses.   I do not have that luxury, but I think that all in all, polygraph is not getting a fair shake here and they do not seem to have a champion.
  
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/042501_smith.html

P.S. By the way, the Commissioners came from very respected backgrounds,(just like the NASpanel members) and were headed by a very respected USC professor named Dr. Jeffrey Smith, who addressed Congress during the Hansen debacle.  Oddly, I was unable to find anything on this site about that and reading it would show that there have been tremendous changes made to polygraph as a result of this study.  So for your reading enjoyment, here are the links for you to review. It is hoped, as I have tried to do, this will generate some meaningful dialogue and not, as Skeptic has said, trading barbs.

 
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/042501_smith.html

Dear Guest,

I currently work for the Department of Justice in Law Enforcement (for over ten years) and I have over the years read certain sections of the website (I did not know at the time exactly where the information was from but I recognized much of it from previous reading).

I am very much aware of the need for security since it is the main function of my position.  I am also very aware of the cost constraints in these fiscal times.  Your answers were as concise as possible considering the issue of the question I posed.

My contention concerning the "50%" FBI failure rate:  I would have been one of the percentage as I was accused only on FBI polygraph interpretation.  I saw none of the reasoning provided in your website references used in "evaluation" of my "total security risk ".  There was no common sense involved.  I have had a secret clearance for over eight years in the military with an honorable discharge.  I have had a sensitive clearence in the Department of Justice for over ten years in security electronics.  My background paperwork was bland and complete (no red flags).  No one had any common sense because "they" (my polygrapher and his review team in Washington,D.C.) interpreted my pre-screening charts to be using "countermeasures".  Too much emphasis is being placed on the polygraph results in these clearances without reasonable skepticism.

More importantly, why would they not contact my current employer and check upon my trustworthiness in my current postition since they are most confident of their evaluation?  My employer would ask what information that they are basing their conclusion on.  After three background checks, over ten years of loyal service, and good appraisals,  my employer has far more reason to trust me than not.  Why does the government not save some money and call other agencies and use existing information as suggested in your website links?

In most of the websites, cost versus results is a very big factor.  Money is not unlimited.  I just become upset about the lack of "common sense" as your weblinks constantly stress.  I am talking about the FBI in my case.  

I cannot find a reasonable polygraph examiner who would use strictly polygraph results with no other information to make an employment decision. This is exactly what the FBI does.

I realize that you might not have time to respond but I appreciated your dialogue.

Respond.

Guest,

First, I'd like to welcome you to this message board. You might wish to consider registering: it won't compromise your anonymity and will give you the option of editing your posts. You can create a free, anonymous e-mail account with ZipLip.com for this purpose if you like. Your views are very welcome here.

That said, I'd like to comment on something you wrote earlier that I find...troubling. Following my observation that National Academy of Sciences polygraph review panel member Dr. Katherine Laskey had emphatically stated that no spy had ever been caught through a routine polygraph screening "test," and my observation that the NAS panel had been briefed by the CIA's polygraph unit, you wrote:

QuoteWhat was passed to them should have precluded the NAS member from making the statement that she did...but alas, it did not and now there are those who believe what she said based solely on her academic credentials.  It is indeed unfortunate that under the guise of academic freedom, Dr. Fienberg either did not, or worse, chose not, to "encourage" her to not make such a statement, or to retract the statement.  Fortunately, there are much wiser people and they KNOW she "misspoke".

I think the above may well amount to libelous innuendo. You admit that you were not at the CIA briefing. And you maintain that you're not saying Dr. Laskey lied. Yet you strongly suggested it. Why did you put "misspoke" is quotation marks? I think the proper course of action would be for you to either substantiate your allegation against Dr. Laskey or retract it.

And who are these "much wiser people" who "KNOW she 'misspoke?'"

In the same post, you also wrote:

QuoteNo doubt, some of the antipolygraph "army" will jump onthis and demand "proof"....but you may be reasonably sure that such "proof" (as they call it) will not be forthcoming....that is why polygraph works as well as it does.

I am perplexed by that last statement. Did you really mean to say that polygraphy "works as well as it does" (however well that may be) because proof is lacking?

Let's suppose that a CIA polygrapher had indeed caught a spy using the polygraph. Here's a scenario: a CIA polygrapher is called in to screen a 27-year-old Iraqi male who contacted the American Embassy in Amman, Jordan and offered his services to the CIA. The polygraph charts strongly indicate deception when the man is asked "Did anyone direct you to approach the Americans?" and in a post-test interrogation, the subject confesses to having been sent by the Iraqi Mukhabarat (intelligence) to feed disinformation to the CIA. The quick-thinking young CIA agent who has been handling this source thinks this would be a good opportunity to double the agent against the Mukhabarat. He draws up a plan and sells it to his station chief, who gets approval from Langley. The source is now in Baghdad and is providing critical intelligence information that is believed to be highly reliable, some of which has been independently corroborated. Of course, the details of this operation are highly classified (codeword), and properly so.

But what harm could there be in giving the National Academy of Sciences polygraph review panel this "sanitized" version?: "A foreign national contacted a US embassy offering to provide information to the CIA. A polygrapher was called in to verify the man's story, and the charts indicated deception. In a post-test interrogation, the subject confessed to having been sent by a foreign intelligence service."

And a quick note, the Jeffrey H. Smith who was a member of the Joint Security Commission and who testified at the 25 April 2001 Senate hearing on polygraphy (at which I was present) is not the University of Southern California adjunct professor of industrial and systems engineering to whose webpage you provided a link. The Jeffrey H. Smith in question is a lawyer, and a former CIA general counsel. He's now employed with the Washington law firm of Arnold & Porter:

http://www.arnoldporter.com/attorneys.cfm?attorney_id=394

Sorry, but "Guest" is fine for me.  

George, I and probably others have grown quite weary of those veiled threats by you and a select few others.  Someone says something and you strive to silence them by implying that someone should sue over what what said.  How can you expect to have any exchange of information if you seek to silence dialogue through threats such as what you do....and all too frequently. Maybe I should just stop trying to offer any disagreement here and fold my cards and "go away"....like others have done.  Would that make you happy?  You will have won nothing.  You will have shown only that you are inflexible and completely unwilling to even entertain any opposing view.  If it makes you feel better, what was stated was an opinion. It was based on a presumption of what was most likely said. There was no desire or intent to libel or slander anyone.  Perhaps one could argue that the statement she made could alsoi be considered libelous if it were to have any afgfect on the livlihood of polygraph examiners. I am more inclined to think that what she said she fewlt she could say under the "protection" of the concept of academic freedom and that all to often is an over-used defense.  IMHO I would think it inconceivable that such a question (has the polygraph ever caught a spy) would not have been asked by NAS and surely a CIA answer would have precluded her statement.  But neither of us can address that because neither of us were there...so that leaves both of us just guessing.  The conclusion that I draw from that is somewhat different from what you believe.  Your privilege to believe what you will and my privilege to hold a different view.  You are right, I did not say that she lied.  I offered something for people to think about.  Perhaps, I was hoping that some panel member from NAS would read whjat was written and offer something either in support or in rebuttal.. You have no right to try to "buffalo" a retraction.  No allegation was made.  I believe she misspoke. Why did I put it in quotes?...I dunno..I just like quotes I guess...I have nothing to retract. The wiser people?...in my estimation, they know who they are.  They should come forward, but not in this forum....rather one that enjoys greater respectability. When you go onthe rampages that you do, you damage any credibility this site has.  Don't do that George, you have some good people here who can engage in meaningful debate. It is indeed odd that there are some pro-polygraphers and anti-polygraphers who can engage in this meaningful debate, but along comes their "leader" and destroys any willingness to debate.  I will end here only by acknowledging that you WERE correct about Dr. Smith and I apologize if I misled anyone. I jumped the gun believing that my name search was corerect.  I yeild to you inlight of the fact that you were there.  But this does not demean the "correct" Dr. Smith.  By the same token, I think you were wrong to NOT point out out that Dr. Smith was NOT employed by the CIA when he served on the committee.  You sort of left that little fact out. Perhaps you had hoped to have people think that the Commission was an "inside job".  It wasn't.  Have a good weekend!

Quote from: Guest on Jan 04, 2003, 01:59 AM
Sorry, but "Guest" is fine for me.  

George, I and probably others have grown quite weary of those veiled threats by you and a select few others.  Someone says something and you strive to silence them by implying that someone should sue over what what said.  How can you expect to have any exchange of information if you seek to silence dialogue through threats such as what you do....and all too frequently.

Really now. The legal comments (I don't think they rose to the level of threats)  are indeed largely spurious. As someone who knows a lawyer that has tracked down organized short sellers that grossly slandered a CEO in order to manipulate markets and has prosecuted john doe discovery to the poster's ISP back to their origin I can say showing libel on the net is a complex task and requires statements far more injurious than anything "guest" said - just to get discovery approved.

Secondly, reading "guest's" objectionable (if not realistically actionable) assertions, they seemed to me obvious opinion anyway. Given "guest's" checkered prior postings I was frankly surprised and pleased to see what later turned into a decent post. "Guest" should be encouraged to do more of that (absent the attacks and barbs which are somewhat fun but not really productive). It may be a while before we return to the quality of some of Barland's older posts but this site badly needs decent representation from the pro-polygraph community as George has done a pretty decent job on the "anti" side.

[added] Also, look at the attacks questioning George's patriotism and aluding to inside knowledge about his polygraph experiences. If one totes it up I think the pro-polygraph side comes out on the short end.

Also,  there is a pretty disgusting group of other folk that seem to come here looking for a fast way to "beat" the box.  My guess is that they are better "served" by Doug William's book which won't clutter their minds with technical or moral issues and get's right to the recipe in a jargon many may feel at home with.

-Marty

Guest,

It was not my intent to browbeat you (or any other poster) into silence. Nor did I mean to suggest that you might be sued for what you anonymously posted regarding Dr. Laskey when I wrote that it "may well amount to libelous innuendo." Upon re-reading my reply to you, I see how it may have left that impression, however. By "libelous" I simply meant "involving defamation through written means."

What you wrote about Dr. Laskey is defamatory if indeed her statement about the polygraph never having caught a spy in a routine screening examination is consistent with the information provided to the NAS. Since you have conceded that you were not at the CIA briefing, that you were "just guessing," and that you don't know why you put "misspoke" in quotes with regard to Dr. Laskey's remarks, I suggest we drop the matter and move on.

I am still interested in your reasoning on why the CIA would not have mentioned to the NAS any alleged success in catching spies with the polygraph, at least in some "sanitized" form (with classified details omitted). Or have I misunderstood your argument?

As for my mentioning that Jeffrey H. Smith is a former CIA general counsel, I merely mentioned it to distinguish him from the USC adjunct professor you had believed him to be (and because it was in that capacity that he was introduced as a witness at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on polygraphs). Nonetheless, as for the Joint Security Commission report being an "inside job," of this there can be little doubt. In fairness, I don't think the report was ever intended to be, or represented as being, an "outside" review. The Commission was established in 1993 by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey. Smith is a U.S. Military Academy graduate and former Army lawyer who served as Chief of the Clinton Transition Team at the Department of Defense. You correctly noted that the Commisioners came from respected backgrounds. But they were defense and intelligence community "insiders." Commissioner Ann Caracristi was a former deputy director of the NSA. Commissioner Anthony A. Lapham was a former CIA general counsel. Commissioner Larry D. Welch was a retired four-star general and former U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff. The list goes on. In addition, all the Commission staff members were drawn from CIA, DoD, NSA, and DOE. However, that the Commission was composed of, and staffed by, insiders does not necessarily impugn its findings, and I had no intention of suggesting that it does.

Guest,

I also feel compelled to say a word in defense of Sheila Reed and Charles Honts, both of whom were invited speakers at the NAS polygraph review panel's public hearings. You wrote:

QuoteYes, there were people like Shiela [sic] Reed employed there (there was a television show some time back that spoke of her being fired from that job) and Charles Honts (the professor who speaks of countermeasures and damns screening polygraph, but suppoorts use in the specific issue world (countermeassures notwithstanding) - perhaps because he has a business in this realm??

The television show you have in mind is no doubt the CBS 60 Minutes II segment "Final Exam" that aired on 12 December 2001. It said nothing of Dr. Reed having been fired. Here's the relevant excerpt from the transcript:

QuotePelley: Reed left the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute in 1996, and not on good terms, but no one who would talk to us questioned the quality of her work. Even scientists who are still with the Defense Polygraph Institute have their doubts about screening. Last summer, no less than the chief of research at the Institute told the national academy of sciences that polygraph suffers from what he called "an extreme dearth of research."

You'll find the entire transcript posted in the message thread, Poly Segment on 60 Minutes II, 12/12/01 (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=371.msg1698#msg1698).

With regard to Charles Honts, he doesn't just "speak" of countermeasures: he's one of a just handful of researchers to have done any meaningful research on countermeasures, and was the lead researcher of the only peer-reviewed studies on the subject. I don't see how his countermeasure research (including his finding that countermeasures can reduce the accuracy of the CQT) and his opposition to polygraph screening materially benefit his polygraph business. Moreover, I note that Dr. Honts left DoDPI (and went to the University of North Dakota) on grounds of principle, taking a substantial pay cut in the process.

If you disagree with anything that Drs. Reed or Honts have said with regard to polygraphy in general or polygraph screening in particular, then why not address these issues directly rather than calling into question their reputations and/or motives?

George,
It seems like the FBI phoned the Philly Inquirer to have the article deleted!  :o

Quote from: George W. Maschke on May 23, 2002, 05:05 AMIn an article titled, "FBI seeks to rebuild its image," (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/nation/3298893.htm) Chris Mondics of the Philadelphia Inquirer Washington bureau reports that Roger L. Trott, chief of the FBI's agent training unit, asserts that nearly half of FBI agent applicants who pass preliminary tests don't pass the polygraph:

If Trott is right, then the percentage of FBI applicants who fail to pass the polygraph is up sharply from an earlier figure of about 20%. Perhaps, with the surge in applications following the events of 11 September 2001, the FBI has decided that it can afford to arbitrarily disqualify more applicants based on polygraph chart readings.

Johnn,

I doubt it was anything so sinister as that. :)  Many newspapers routinely remove their free on-line content after a period of time.

But it has worked perfectly well for many years.  (50% figure/false positive info. way off.)  So what would be the purpose of changing it now?

Quote from: freaked-out on Mar 23, 2006, 01:31 PMBut it has worked perfectly well for many years.  (50% figure/false positive info. way off.)  So what would be the purpose of changing it now?

I do not maintain that the FBI's false positive rate is 50%. Rather, it is the overall failure rate that has been authoritatively reported to stand near 50%. However, considering the fact that polygraphy has no scientific basis and is without validity as a diagnostic test for deception, it is clear that a sizable portion of those accused of deception are being falsely accused.

It is grossly unfair to accuse people of deception and permanently disqualify them from employment based on voodoo science such as the polygraph. Our government's continued reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy is a national disgrace.

Quote from: freaked-out on Mar 23, 2006, 01:31 PMBut it has worked perfectly well for many years.  (50% figure/false positive info. way off.)  So what would be the purpose of changing it now?

freakedout,

Are you aware that HALF (that would be 50%) of the first class at the Academy subjected to polygraphs failed? They were given waivers, yet the agency pushed ahead with the policy, anyway. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something was wrong with the so-called testing procedure then and there's still a heck of a whole lot wrong with it now. Otherwise, there would be very little reason for this site to exist.  

Quote from: polyfool on Mar 23, 2006, 03:17 PM

freakedout,

Are you aware that HALF (that would be 50%) of the first class at the Academy subjected to polygraphs failed? They were given waivers, yet the agency pushed ahead with the policy, anyway. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something was wrong with the so-called testing procedure then and there's still a heck of a whole lot wrong with it now. Otherwise, there would be very little reason for this site to exist.  

I wonder...

How many of that 50% were in fact false positives?  How many failed because they lied about the relevant questions? Hmmm...

I fail 50-60% of the pre-employment examinees I run.  85% to 95% of those individuals subsequently provide substantial information, which confirms the polygraph results.  In many cases I take that information and run another exam with the new relevant questions worded around their admissions.  Many then pass and if the information was not disqualifying in the first place , they go onto the academy and a police career.

Now please don't take my information and present me with the same old tired argument of "What about the other 5% to 15%?  Gee, if you multiply that times all the police candidates who ever got disqualified because of polygraph, that means polygraph disqualified 157,237 innocent people!"

Have you ever considered that the vast majority of the 5% to 15% of the people who did not provide information, simply chose to not admit their lies?

And please don't answer with some tired old exercise in statistics, because that is not the real world.  The pimply-faced applicant with the bag of Marihuana in the glove compartment of his car parked outside the police station IS the real world.

And yes, that actually happened too.

Regards,

Nonombre

Nonombre,

Given your last post, I would like to ask your opinion (again) in regard to my pre-employment polygraph experiences.  First test I was deemed deceptive regarding a specific issue.  Second test, different agency, I was deemed truthful regarding the same specific issue.  I did not attempt countermeasures for either test.  Both were and remain police polygraph examiners.  With a complete 180 degree turn from one exam to the other, how can you hold on to the accuracy percentages in your post?  Please induldge me with your opinion.

Quote from: Brandon Hall on Mar 23, 2006, 08:50 PMNonombre,

Given your last post, I would like to ask your opinion (again) in regard to my pre-employment polygraph experiences.  First test I was deemed deceptive regarding a specific issue.  Second test, different agency, I was deemed truthful regarding the same specific issue.  I did not attempt countermeasures for either test.  Both were and remain police polygraph examiners.  With a complete 180 degree turn from one exam to the other, how can you hold on to the accuracy percentages in your post?  Please induldge me with your opinion.

Brandon,

That is a very good question.  I truly don't know what happened in your case.  I don't have a copy of your charts, I don't have the test questions were asked, and I don't have an audio or video tape of the exam (Yes, I am a huge supporter of video taping polygraph examinations).

Brandon, I never claim 100% accuracy in polygraph testing, but I give this process a whole lot more credit than the beating it takes on this website...

But then again, this is "Anti-polygraph.org" after all :-[

Regards,

Nonombre

Nonombre,

You write in part:

Quote
...I am a huge supporter of video taping polygraph examinations....

As I recall, you indicated in a previous post that you were a non-federal law enforcement polygrapher in the state of Virginia.  Do you videotape all of your exams?  If so, you, your municipality and/or the state of Virginia are to be congratulated for that practice.  Although such taping will not stop the quackery that stems from using a diagnostically invalid procedure for diagnosis, it will likely stop cold any unethical behavior and any misrepresentations about what takes place/has taken place during the examination on the part of either examiner or examinee.

George:  The people who have speculated that the failure rate is 50% are way off.

But good try.  

Polyfool:

You hit the nail on the head with that one.  But I would argue that this site should continue to exist for entertainment purposes.

Quote from: freaked-out on Mar 24, 2006, 12:23 PMGeorge:  The people who have speculated that the failure rate is 50% are way off.

But good try.  

Those who reported the FBI pre-employment polygraph failure rate to be about 50% were senior FBI employees seemingly in a position to know.

What do you believe the correct rate to be? And how do you know this?

"Seemingly" is right.  (Don't get me started!)

I wish I could tell you, but I can't.

I genuinely hope you can find out the truth one day.  It will make you feel much better about the use of polygraph for screening purposes.

And I know what you're going to say...  but, there was obviously some animosity (not saying it was you're fault) and it showed.  

Quote from: freaked-out on Mar 24, 2006, 01:11 PM...

I wish I could tell you, but I can't.

...

Why not?

Shouldn't you be asking "How can I get some official numbers?"

Quote from: freaked-out on Mar 24, 2006, 02:59 PMShouldn't you be asking "How can I get some official numbers?"

If you could answer that question, I'd be very interested in the answer. Please check your private messages on this board.

Quote from: Drew Richardson on Mar 24, 2006, 11:16 AMNonombre,

You write in part:

As I recall, you indicated in a previous post that you were a non-federal law enforcement polygrapher in the state of Virginia.  Do you videotape all of your exams?  If so, you, your municipality and/or the state of Virginia are to be congratulated for that practice.  Although such taping will not stop the quackery that stems from using a diagnostically invalid procedure for diagnosis, it will likely stop cold any unethical behavior and any misrepresentations about what takes place/has taken place during the examination on the part of either examiner or examinee.

Dr. Richardson,

My department videotapes every specific issue exam and audiotapes every screening test (less expensive that way)

I have absolutely no problem with this practice.  In fact, you have no idea how many subjects walk out of a polygraph examination conveniently forgetting what they said just minutes before.

For the hiring authority and in some cases the judge, the tape removes all doubt.

Regards,

Nonombre :)

Quote from: nonombre on Mar 23, 2006, 08:38 PM

 85% to 95% of those individuals subsequently provide substantial information, which confirms the polygraph results.

How do you know that the information they subsequently provided is what caused the failure?  

Some of my cleared coworkers have bragged about making up stuff to appease their polygraphers.  Given that polygraphers cut off examinees during the pre-test questions, the potentially dire consequences of failing a polygraph test, and the vagueness of the questions asked, it is not surprising that most people can provide additional information when asked about the questions again.  

Quote
Have you ever considered that the vast majority of the 5% to 15% of the people who did not provide information, simply chose to not admit their lies?

I guess you're a number 4 on my When polygraphers go home at night (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2947.msg20588#msg20588) thread.

QuoteThe pimply-faced applicant with the bag of Marihuana in the glove compartment of his car parked outside the police station IS the real world.

I live in the real world.  I have failed and passed polygraph exams, but never with a bag of marijuana in my car.  I'm glad that I have a more positive view of mankind that nonombre does.  I know many good people who have failed polygraph exams.  Nonombre probably does too, but lacks the mental strength to face this fact.



Keep in mind that nonombre has chosen to lie to and harass people for his career.  Nothing he or any other polygrapher says should be taken at face value.  Polygraphers will tell you whatever they think you need to hear in order to get a confession out of you.  Polygraph tests are utterly useless unless the polygrapher can succeed in his psychological games.

The original Philadelphia Inquirer article is still available but for a fee.  Like most major newspapers, web based research is a possible cash cow with a fee for usage.  The 50% failure rate was quoted from an FBI official who provided the number and rational.

Consider the pool of agent candidates that the FBI must filter even before the use of polygraph:  1. Must be under the age of 37 years (automatically removes half of the population).  2. Must have an approved four year degree (for arguments sake, let place this number at 50% elimination).  3. Must be at least 18 years of age (and in most cases 22 years in order to finish a four year degree).

Only the population between 22 years of age and 37 years of age can be considered resulting in an applicant pool that consist of about 20% of the total population.  The degree cuts that down to 10% of the population.

Of the 10% general population, they must not have used drugs (I know that the policy "allows" past drug usage but for effective purposes, these people will be eliminated whenever feasible).  They must have had no significant problems with the law.  They must desire govenment employment.  They must be willing to go through background checks and physicals.

The remaining pool is the type of applicant that all government agencies need and contractors desire.

Previous to the use of polygraph screening, the FBI had very little problems with employees being compromised.  The whole use of polygraph is a knee-jerk reaction by Congress and Agency leaders "to do something they can point to" when pressed about employees who were comprimised.  Easier to do something stupid like instituting the polygraph as a quick fix instead of correcting inadequate physical security and security policy flaws.  Oh my goodness, they just might have to admit they are fallible and fix something.

I have been properly corrected by polygraph proponents that the polygraph exam cannot in any way shape or form predict future behaviour when I have provide examples of employees who have been given polygraphs in the past and gone wrong.

Why are we eliminating one out of two people who make it to the final stages of the FBI application process with this instrument when it cannot predict future behavior and a background investigation is not performed to confirm polygraph information which is used to rescind a job offer?

We in government are shooting ourselves in the foot because we are slowly eliminating a huge amount of people from Federal employment based on unsubstantiated accusations by a device that the NAS has huge reservations about.

About a year ago I stated that the FBI was going to be in a crisis due to hiring procedures and their inability to keep talent in five years.  The timer is down to four years.  They cannot keep continuity in the technology ranks which has destroyed any hopes of getting a state of the art computer system accomplished.  Not only was the Trilogy project a 171 million dollar flop but they need over 400 million more dollars to come up with a proper solution.   Recent newspaper articles have stated that GAO found over $500,000 was wasted by CSC in inventory that was not even delivered but billed.  CSC has so far denied comment but might still be involved in the next FBI computer boondoogle.

The polygraph is destroying the FBI application process and as time goes by, my point will be validated.  No high quality scientific mind is going to accept polygraph results as the ultimate test of their integrity.

Regards.

Quote from: Onesimus on Mar 25, 2006, 04:02 AMKeep in mind that nonombre has chosen to lie to and harass people for his career.  Nothing he or any other polygrapher says should be taken at face value.  Polygraphers will tell you whatever they think you need to hear in order to get a confession out of you.  Polygraph tests are utterly useless unless the polygrapher can succeed in his psychological games.

So bitter, yet so sure of all the answers.  Mind clouded by a painfully egocentric view formed by negative life experiences..

Onesimus,  I am so sorry your life has not turned out as you had hoped... :'(

Nonombre,

Actually I am quite in favor of having both audio and video taping of exams with every polygraph examination, but if I had to have only one of the two it would definitely be the audiotape.  I want to hear how questions are reviewed in the pre-test of a CQT, I want to hear voice inflection as questions are being asked in the in-test phase, and I want to listen for the presence of any extraneous noises.  I recently testified against a polygraph exam and accompanying NDI result introduced by a trial adversary.  Amongst many problems that existed with this examination was the scoring of a control question response to a question that was asked as a loud bang occurred.  As obviously incorrect (even by industry standards) as it was to score such a response, neither I nor anyone else involved in the trial process would have known about such absent the listening to the audiotape of the exam in question.

I'm with nonombre. I smell bitterness, resentment... obviously polygraphs can only be as good as the equipment used and the examiner's technique. Some universal testing procedure (a step-by-step guide outlining the types of questions/duration of test/interpretation of test/etc...) would defeat the purpose of the polygraph. I'm no expert, but Brandon Hall's argument (about the "degree turn from one exam to the other") is incomplete without clarification of the issue he was referring to; prior test performances are irrelevant, ESPECIALLY when you are interviewing with different agencies. For each agency & each respective test, can you provide a contextual basis for the issue you were questioned about? Definitions of deceit, from what i understand about polygraph analysis, and the subsequent physiological responses to particular questions depend on the context/line of interrogation posed by the examiners...
I may be wrong, but isn't the polygraph test implemented in order to assist in verifying your background, serving as a compliment to your background check? for ex., If you lived with your friends (who had a few run-ins with the law for possession/distribution or something) in college, never got into any documented trouble yourself, a polygraph is the only real way to resolve slight discrepancies between the results of your Bck Check & agency suspicions of your possible criminal involvement (i.e., turning a blind eye to drug use in your house, etc)...besides serving as a general tool to weed out bad potential applicants, the polygraph -or even the mere threat of the polygraph- clarifies your character for those charged with evaluating your employability.

Dear Random Poster,

In regards to the FBI pre-screening polygraph "exam", you are 100% incorrect on your assumption that the exam is a supplement to the background check.  In almost all cases, the FBI will not even start the background check until the applicant "passes" the polygraph exam.

Very much a "Catch-22" situation.

Not all posters on this site are "whiners".  Most have been falsely accused by a government entity that they trust to give them "due process" not only under the law but in the spirit of the law.  They are shocked and appalled by the treatment that they receive at the hands of "justice".

Regards.

Quote from: RandomPoster on Jul 21, 2006, 09:39 PMI may be wrong, but isn't the polygraph test implemented in order to assist in verifying your background, serving as a compliment to your background check?

You are absolutely wrong.  The polygraph at the federal level is an absolute pre-requisite to beginning the background investigation.  The same applies for many local agencies.

Perhaps I'd be less bitter if I didn't pass polygraphs at different agencies asking the same questions.  So tell me am I a drug dealing foriegn spy as the FBI stated in their polygraph?  Or am I an upright honest person as other federal agencies stated after a different polygraph exam.

Well, I suppose people with a 'devil may care' attitude about their prospective employment might have a high polygraph pass rate though they may not turn out to be very conscientious employees.

Has anyone ever conducted a study of the pass rate for humans who are independently wealthy who apply for responsible but low paying government positions?  

Perhaps we could get Paris Hilton and her friends to apply for positions as FBI investigators.  If we don't learn anything, perhaps we could sell the movie rights...

Lloyd

Quote from: RandomPoster on Jul 21, 2006, 09:39 PM...besides serving as a general tool to weed out bad potential applicants, the polygraph -or even the mere threat of the polygraph- clarifies your character for those charged with evaluating your employability.

Well Sir,

You have failed miserably to convince anyone that is part of this debate.
Failed to convince them that the polygraph is nothing but a prop, and the
use of this prop is a gross violation of human rights.
I am very concerned that you have elevated the polygraph to the status
of a 'character detector'.  There is no such thing as the perfect person - ie
one that fits the model as required by the FBI et al. not even the people that
developed the 'required model' could satisfy their own requirements; of this
I am sure.

My friend, As Lloyd's byline says, 'It has been counted and counted, weighed and
divided' - the polygraph is NOT a lie detector and it is not a character detector.

Quote from: George_Maschke on Dec 27, 2002, 11:57 PMGeorge,  Grow up and stop the  :'(  So you can't be a junior G-Man. 8)  

You're an idiot.  Why are you even on this website?  You must be a polygrapher trying to justify his existence.  I don't know how you guys sleep at night.  Your profession is a disgrace to America and our government.

Quote from: Drew_Richardson on Dec 27, 2007, 11:39 AM

Quote from: George_Maschke on Dec 27, 2002, 11:57 PMGeorge,  Grow up and stop the  :'(  So you can't be a junior G-Man. 8)  

You're an idiot.  Why are you even on this website?  You must be a polygrapher trying to justify his existence.  I don't know how you guys sleep at night.  Your profession is a disgrace to America and our government.

Wow Stop!  There is nothing quite like the way you jump right in with a timely response.  Just 5 years later. Did it take you that long to figure out your "witty reply"?


Sancho Panza

Quote from: Drew_Richardson on Dec 27, 2007, 01:52 PM

Quote from: Drew_Richardson on Dec 27, 2007, 11:39 AM

Quote from: George_Maschke on Dec 27, 2002, 11:57 PMGeorge,  Grow up and stop the  :'(  So you can't be a junior G-Man. 8)  

You're an idiot.  Why are you even on this website?  You must be a polygrapher trying to justify his existence.  I don't know how you guys sleep at night.  Your profession is a disgrace to America and our government.

Wow Stop!  There is nothing quite like the way you jump right in with a timely response.  Just 5 years later. Did it take you that long to figure out your "witty reply"?


Sancho Panza

Yes, I'm quick.  It took me that long to calm down enough to respond.  

I didn't even bother to read the date.  I can't believe people have been on this site for 5 years, especially someone like you, who obviously wasn't screwed over by the polygraph.  I can kind of see why it would be hard for people who've been shafted by the polygraph to let it go, but what's your deal.  Why do you care?

Quote from: Drew_Richardson on Dec 28, 2007, 02:38 PM

Quote from: Drew_Richardson on Dec 27, 2007, 01:52 PM

Quote from: Drew_Richardson on Dec 27, 2007, 11:39 AM

Quote from: George_Maschke on Dec 27, 2002, 11:57 PMGeorge,  Grow up and stop the  :'(  So you can't be a junior G-Man. 8)  

You're an idiot.  Why are you even on this website?  You must be a polygrapher trying to justify his existence.  I don't know how you guys sleep at night.  Your profession is a disgrace to America and our government.

Wow Stop!  There is nothing quite like the way you jump right in with a timely response.  Just 5 years later. Did it take you that long to figure out your "witty reply"?


Sancho Panza

Yes, I'm quick.  It took me that long to calm down enough to respond.  

I didn't even bother to read the date.  I can't believe people have been on this site for 5 years, especially someone like you, who obviously wasn't screwed over by the polygraph.  I can kind of see why it would be hard for people who've been shafted by the polygraph to let it go, but what's your deal.  Why do you care?

Well Stop, I could explain to you why I think that this site provides aid and comfort to criminals and the enemies of our country. I could point out the founder co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity.  
I could point out that the founder of this site ENCOURAGES opposing points of view or I could state  that he fails to give proper weight to recent information that seems to indicate that the procedures he teaches may cause innocents to fail polygraph tests, but you probably wouldn't read or even try to comprehend any of it.

What I don't understand is why someone like you ,who feels that they have been so betrayed and screwed over by their employer would continue to work for them.  It really sounds a bit masochistic.

So to put it in simple terms: As long as you continue to provide the WHINE, I'll bring the cheese and crackers.

Sancho Panza

     I am willing to consider the other point of view on most issues and acknowledge that you make some valid points.  I agree that this website may increase the number of innocents failing the polygraph.  Talking to other employees who have failed the polygraph also seems to increase the liklihood that a person will fail.  Don't you think that if the test is that vulnerable to suggestion or information means that there is a problem?  If it was an accurate and valid method, just obtaining information shouldn't change the result for anyone.  Are you willing to consider the other point of view?  
    I don't feel that I have been nothing but screwed over by my employer.  I have been proud to serve my country for 22 years and want nothing more than to continue to do so.  I love my work and many of the people who I work with.  To suggest that I should leave my profession because of a gross injustice that I was perpetrated against me, doesn't make a lot of sense.  I could just walk away and keep my complaints to myself, but that would be the coward's way out.  I'm sure the abusers (polygraphers) would prefer that I just shut up and let them go on abusing decent law abiding government workers.      
    I want to keep others from being subjected to this sort of injustice.  Nothing in the world would ever change for the better if everyone just put their tail between their legs and skulked away.  I didn't do anything wrong.  I have served faithfully and put my life in jeapordy on several occasions for my job and I (and others) should not have to be subjected to verbal abuse.  
    The U.S. is wasting millions of dollars on a program that just doesn't protect our security.  In addition to causing a lot of good people a lot of pain, the polygraph isn't even effective for employment screaning.  Congress just wants to throw money at this program so they can say that something is being done.  
    Unfortunately many of the people who gravitate to the field of polygraphy are sadists who enjoy hurting others.  The things that occured during my second polygraph were inexcusable.  Murder suspects aren't interrogated as viciously as I was.  They actually have rights, federal workers have no rights.  No American should ever be subjected to that type of interrogation without probably cause.  I suppose you think the Bill of Rights is just a bunch of whining?
    Maybe ploygraphers are under too much pressure to come up with something.  I don't know why anyone in the government would be willing to treat people the way they do.  I truly wouldn't be able to live with myself if I engaged in that kind of behavior.  
    Would you at least admit that you are a polygrapher?

You label polygraphers as sadists and abusers then ask me to tell you that I am a polygrapher to give you the satisfaction of applying a label. If you must have a label for me, make one up. I do not intend to provide you one.

You say you have a problem with polygraph, but in reviewing your posts you seem to really have a problem with the way you claim to have been treated by one or two polygraphers. You claim to have been strapped to a chair. I have never heard of that happening to anyone before.    This evening, I checked a couple of polygraph machine sites, Lafayette and Axiton They sell special chairs but they don't seem to come with straps to hold someone in place. Did you exaggerate?

Throughout your posts you say that you have been a Federal Employee for 22, 21, and 18 years and say that you have been in Law Enforcement for 17 years. That might be worthy of some clarification.

You claim to want to keep others from being subjected to some sort of injustice, but what are you really doing towards that end. Did you file a Civil Service complaint? Did you contact your congressman? Did you write a strongly worded official memo to anyone with the authority to address your situation?

What are you doing here? The effort generated by persons opposed to polygraph on THIS SITE certainly doesn't have a very impressive record on changing the law. Instead they choose to try to turn your coworkers into liars while simultaneously providing information that they all but guarantee can be effectively used by child molesters to avoid the consequences of their actions. The founder of this site even co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity. I strongly object to the fact that he provides help to molesters and refuses to admit it while attempting to hide this insidious activity behind the first amendment.

Did you come here to vent? You've done that. Why do you think you dug up a five year old post and called Fed-Up an idiot? How exactly will that help accomplish your goal of keeping others from being subjected to injustice?

IF you were treated poorly by a polygrapher, you need to address THAT issue which really doesn't really have anything to do with polygraph as a whole.

Sancho Panza

The original point of this post was that the FBI failure rate is nearly 50%.  How do we know if that is high - or perhaps even too low?

Quote from: Drew_Richardson on Jan 03, 2008, 08:53 PMThe original point of this post was that the FBI failure rate is nearly 50%.  How do we know if that is high - or perhaps even too low?

While we cannot know what percentage of FBI applicants answer relevant questions untruthfully during their pre-employment polygraphs, because polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml) (indeed, it hasn't been proven through peer-reviewed research to reliably differentiate between liars and truth-tellers at better-than-chance levels of accuracy under field conditions), it is reasonable to suppose that a significant portion of the roughly 50% of FBI applicants who fail the polygraph are false positives.

According to the FBI, we are a nation of perverts, child abusers, pedophiles, pot smokers, and terrorists.
To the letter...

FBI AGENT ARRESTED FOR ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE CRIMINAL CASE OF MAN MARRIED TO HIS MISTRESS

A 10-year veteran of the Federal Bureau of Investigation was arrested in Phoenix this morning after being named yesterday in an 18-count indictment that accuses him of having an improper sexual relationship with the wife of a man he investigated in two separate matters.

Joe L. Gordwin, 39, of Phoenix, was taken into custody without incident at the FBI Office in Phoenix. Gordwin is expected to make his initial appearance this afternoon in United States District Court in Phoenix.

Gordwin has been placed on administrative leave pending resolution of this matter.

According to the indictment, Gordwin engaged in an "improper intimate relationship" with the wife of a man he was investigating, in violation of federal law and FBI rules. The indictment alleges that he concealed the improper relationship from the FBI to preserve his position at the FBI, and that he also concealed the relationship from the Scottsdale Police Department and the Maricopa County District Attorney's Office, which were investigating and prosecuting the woman's husband. Gordwin allegedly sought a favorable plea agreement for his mistress' husband in connection with a 2005 robbery that Gordwin helped investigate for the purpose of convincing the husband not to disclose Gordwin's improper relationship with the woman.

The indictment specifically charges Gordwin with six counts of "honest services" wire fraud, five counts of making false statements to the FBI and seven counts of witness tampering. These charges carry a maximum statutory penalty of 285 years in federal prison.

The indictment outlines a scheme to defraud the FBI and the citizens of the United States that began in 2002 after Gordwin arrested a man identified in the indictment as B.M. as part of a gang investigation. After the arrest, Gordwin met B.M.'s wife and allegedly began having an affair with her. In early 2003, after discussing B.M.'s case with B.M.'s wife, Gordwin contacted Maricopa County prosecutors and suggested that an appropriate sentence in B.M.'s case was one year to 18 months in custody. B.M. was subsequently sentenced to 18 months.

Approximately two years later, in early 2005, Gordwin began providing Scottsdale Police with information about B.M., and Gordwin joined an investigation that led to B.M.'s arrest after an armed robbery of a Radio Shack. B.M.'s stepson was also arrested at this time.

In January 2005, Gordwin contacted an FBI confidential information (CI) and asked if he could identify the CI as the source of information given to authorities who were investigating B.M. The indictment alleges that Gordwin did so in an effort to conceal his ongoing relationship with B.M.'s wife, who was the true source of the information about B.M. and his criminal activities.

In the summer of 2005, Gordwin attempted to help his mistress' son, who also had been arrested in relation to the Radio Shack robbery and was in custody, by using the CI to help find a fugitive, whose arrest the son could take credit for, according to the indictment. At this time, Gordwin allegedly disclosed information about the CI to his mistress and facilitated a meeting between the CI and his mistress. The fugitive was arrested that summer, and Gordwin contacted a Maricopa County prosecutor to discuss a plea deal for the son. In the fall of 2005, the son pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation.

In October 2005, after being rebuffed by prosecutors who did not want to give a favorable plea deal to B.M., Gordwin allegedly became worried that B.M. would disclose Gordwin's ongoing relationship with B.M.'s former wife. At this point, Gordwin made partial admissions about the relationship to his supervisor. When speaking to his supervisor, Gordwin minimized the extent of the relationship, according to the indictment. Even after being ordered to stop seeing the woman, Gordwin allegedly met with her twice, on both occasions asking her to lie to investigators.

An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.

The case against Gordwin was investigated by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General. The case is being prosecuted by the United States Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, which was assigned the matter after the United States Attorney's Office in Phoenix was recused.

He passed his polygraph...

FBI AGENT ARRESTED FOR ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE CRIMINAL CASE OF MAN MARRIED TO HIS MISTRESS

A 10-year veteran of the Federal Bureau of Investigation was arrested in Phoenix this morning after being named yesterday in an 18-count indictment that accuses him of having an improper sexual relationship with the wife of a man he investigated in two separate matters.

Joe L. Gordwin, 39, of Phoenix, was taken into custody without incident at the FBI Office in Phoenix. Gordwin is expected to make his initial appearance this afternoon in United States District Court in Phoenix.

Gordwin has been placed on administrative leave pending resolution of this matter.

According to the indictment, Gordwin engaged in an "improper intimate relationship" with the wife of a man he was investigating, in violation of federal law and FBI rules. The indictment alleges that he concealed the improper relationship from the FBI to preserve his position at the FBI, and that he also concealed the relationship from the Scottsdale Police Department and the Maricopa County District Attorney's Office, which were investigating and prosecuting the woman's husband. Gordwin allegedly sought a favorable plea agreement for his mistress' husband in connection with a 2005 robbery that Gordwin helped investigate for the purpose of convincing the husband not to disclose Gordwin's improper relationship with the woman.

The indictment specifically charges Gordwin with six counts of "honest services" wire fraud, five counts of making false statements to the FBI and seven counts of witness tampering. These charges carry a maximum statutory penalty of 285 years in federal prison.

The indictment outlines a scheme to defraud the FBI and the citizens of the United States that began in 2002 after Gordwin arrested a man identified in the indictment as B.M. as part of a gang investigation. After the arrest, Gordwin met B.M.'s wife and allegedly began having an affair with her. In early 2003, after discussing B.M.'s case with B.M.'s wife, Gordwin contacted Maricopa County prosecutors and suggested that an appropriate sentence in B.M.'s case was one year to 18 months in custody. B.M. was subsequently sentenced to 18 months.

Approximately two years later, in early 2005, Gordwin began providing Scottsdale Police with information about B.M., and Gordwin joined an investigation that led to B.M.'s arrest after an armed robbery of a Radio Shack. B.M.'s stepson was also arrested at this time.

In January 2005, Gordwin contacted an FBI confidential information (CI) and asked if he could identify the CI as the source of information given to authorities who were investigating B.M. The indictment alleges that Gordwin did so in an effort to conceal his ongoing relationship with B.M.'s wife, who was the true source of the information about B.M. and his criminal activities.

In the summer of 2005, Gordwin attempted to help his mistress' son, who also had been arrested in relation to the Radio Shack robbery and was in custody, by using the CI to help find a fugitive, whose arrest the son could take credit for, according to the indictment. At this time, Gordwin allegedly disclosed information about the CI to his mistress and facilitated a meeting between the CI and his mistress. The fugitive was arrested that summer, and Gordwin contacted a Maricopa County prosecutor to discuss a plea deal for the son. In the fall of 2005, the son pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation.

In October 2005, after being rebuffed by prosecutors who did not want to give a favorable plea deal to B.M., Gordwin allegedly became worried that B.M. would disclose Gordwin's ongoing relationship with B.M.'s former wife. At this point, Gordwin made partial admissions about the relationship to his supervisor. When speaking to his supervisor, Gordwin minimized the extent of the relationship, according to the indictment. Even after being ordered to stop seeing the woman, Gordwin allegedly met with her twice, on both occasions asking her to lie to investigators.

An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.

The case against Gordwin was investigated by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General. The case is being prosecuted by the United States Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, which was assigned the matter after the United States Attorney's Office in Phoenix was recused.

 

Always someone elses fault hey George?  Have you ever actually failed at anything in your life or are you just a perpetual victim from other people holding you back?

Tron

George,

If you're wondering why the hostility, need look no further than identifiying someone on one of your posts.

Still pathetic.

Anyone can come on as a guest, "Fed-up!"

Why don't you register and let us really hammer you?

I took and PASSED every written exam for the FBI in 2000. In early 2001 I went downtown in NY City for the rest. I passed the interview and then flunked ONE question on the poly.

In High School I did smoke pot maybe 5-7 times. In college maybe another 7 times. The question is whether you smoked marijuana more than 15 times IN YOUR LIFE. Note that point.

They make you reconstruct your life ONLY from your 18th birthday NOT from the day you're born. If you count from my 18th birthday the number can NOT exceed 15 times IF that. They ran the test twice and bounced me out. I have been trapped in a job I HATE because of that for NINE years. I am NOT getting any younger.

HOW, without mortgaging the house to engage a lawyer can I go back and fight this? I am now an ABA-certified paralegal and can't get work doing THAT because I still haven't got a 4 year degree. I am less than 11 months from graduating possibly cum lauded or even magna cum laude with a dual degree in legal studies and criminal justice.

I have MORE qualifications than before and I want IN!!!!!

Any advice? Any advocacy groups who might help?

- The FBI's Most Unwanted >:(

And ANOTHER thing!!! While I was trying to get into the Bureau Bobby Hanssen was SELLING OUT THE COUNTRY to the RUSSIANS!!!!! They have the BRASS ONES to keep ME out!!

-The FBI's Most Unwanted >:(

Penn and Teller did it BEST on Bullsh!t on Showtime.

-The FBI's Most Unwanted :P

I was thinking about this the other day.  You mentioned Bob Hanssen.  All of the past spies have made it that much harder for the federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to give any measure of respect, trust, credibility or fair treatment to both, the new job seekers and their present employees.  I was reading up on Aldrich Ames, Nada Prouty, Jonathan Pollard, Johnny Walker, Edwin Wilson, Edward Howard, James J. Smith, and a number of others that I haven't even touched upon.  All of these people were on the "inside" and seriously damaged the intelligence community.  Guess what?  Our government has a very long memory.  If you look at history, it is easy to see why we are now paying the price for the betrayal that these people have done.  As a result, our government assumes from the onset, that anyone is a threat to national security unless it can be proven through an intrusive vetting process that they are "clear" to be trusted.  Thinking about it, working on the inside in the intelligence community must be an environment filled with an air of paranoia, focused stress, intimidation, and a kind of "reserved" trust that is constantly being verified through a number of tools that are known exclusively to the counter-intelligence arms of these agencies.  I think prior to the actions of these spies, the government was much more trusting (at least to the people who work for them).  It is not that way anymore and many innocent people are "sacrificed" for the perceived "greater good" of preventing another incident of penetration by a well-placed mole.  I think it is unfortunate and sad and wrong.  Trust is a two-way street.  It is something that will never be able to be reversed unless the political will is there.  The intelligence community is too powerful, and financially secure to reverse this course.  One thing I can say is that from what I experienced and have seen, I will never stop speaking out about it.  The public has not heard it all yet, because no one has that big of a voice.

The argument that the polygraph prioritizes national security over individual liberty is a really central one in this debate.  However, this argument is not supported by the evidence.

When the NAS Committee reviewed the scientific evidence on lie detection, they found no evidence that the polygraph (1) has a deterrent effect on possible spies, (2) has ever caught a spy, or (3)finds baseline truth much better than a coin toss. 

Rather, they found the polygraph is a national security threat, because (1) it gives these agencies a false sense of security, (2) it was historically used by the USG as a political loyalty test, and (3) its known abuses and limitations may keep some of the nation's best and brightest from seeking the positions where they are needed most. 

So if you want to prioritize national security over individual liberty, fine.  Look in my checking account.  Don't pretend you can look inside my heart. 

Hi George

I wanted to say you are doing a great public service.  It's incredible that tax money is still being financing these charlatans.  Looks like one of them took some exception to the truth - which is par for them.  Best of luck with it and can we please get government to stop paying these people?  Oracles with crystal balls would be more entertaining, cheaper and more effective. 

I just have to comment on this thread.

I went into my poly a bit sleep deprived and a little nervous (I really wanted the job). I was completely honest and my polygraph soothsayer accused me of everything from being a john, to drug use, to actually turning my words around.

I'm so disgusted and taken back by this I wouldnt accept employment with them even if they scrapped the poly and offered me the job tommorrow. This has to stop. That said i'm glad i'm not alone.