After repeatedly visiting this site over the last year or so, I finally decided to put in my two cents. You will obviously infer that I am one of practitioners of polygraph, so often labeled as evil on this site. Which brings me to my first point. The most passionate contributors to this site often throw around the word ad hominem to describe the pro-polygraph views posted. By no means am I defending most of these posts -- in fact I usually cringe when reading them, knowing full well that they will do nothing but fuel the passions of a Beech Trees, per se. However, surely, anyone can see the irony in this assertion. This site (not only the message posts) is filled with personal attacks and unsubstantiated generalizations. Polygraph examiners are called uneducated, dishonest, greedy, authoritarian, unethical, idiotic... So, this finger pointing using latin learned in pre-law 101 is equal to:
Kettle this is Pot, message over.
Pot this is kettle, send message, over.
You're black, out.
Secondly, while we are discussing the rules of intellectual argument...you argue from the general to the specific to prove a point, not specific to general. That is called stereotyping, or just plain prejudice. My point is that the assertion that "my polygrapher did me wrong so they must all be a bunch of boorish pigs," is not a valid argument.
I'm basically telling you to can the fingerpointing BS and get on to the substance and thus I will do the same. I will try to stick to mere facts or my own personal beliefs of such.
There are three factors in the success of any examination: the examiner, the examination, and the examinee.
A word first about examiners. There are three categories, Federal, State/Local, Private. Within them there are those that deal with screeening, criminal investigations, counter-intelligence, or a combination of all. Different jurisdictions have different requirements. However, most in the Federal system are working on or possess graduate degrees, and many in the other areas have moved from the Federal arena. The vast majority are experienced law enforcement or counter intel agents. These are people who passed stringent tests to prove their integrity and have devoted themselves to their country. They could make much more, no doubt outside, and could live much more comfortably. And contrary to a post I read, most would not only have jobs if not for polygraph, many would be special agents in charge, chiefs of police, etc. I don't doubt that you may have run into a dolt, or an unethical purveyor of this profession. I have met them and sought to weed them out. But do not question the integrity or patriotism of the whole just because of your experience. Do you condemn all police officers when you see videos of apparent excessive force? Separate emotion from fact. The fact is, examiners have nothing to gain from your passing or failing. A false positive is what I least want since I would not get a confession from an innocent person (I'm good, but not that good) and thus would be unable to reolve a felony investigation. This is why we work so hard to ensure proper results, an effort you most criticize here (ie the pre-test).
The examination. This will get you licking your lips I'm sure. Sorry, I'm not going to get in to validity or accuracy here. I'll just say it's much better than chance. Keep in mind that I only deal with felony investigations, so you'll never see me at your application interview. It's an investigative tool and the results alone are only used if it's NDI (usually NDI results eliminates the examinee as a suspect -- any ethical concerns if what this site claims is true? ???) A DI without confession is useless and I don't mind that. Ultimately all evidence types are less than 100%--DNA shows the subject was present, but does it prove he pulled trigger or that sex was forcible? Video can be altered or omit important preceding/proceding events. And they are used in court!!! My goodness -- www.antiDNA.com!!!!
Lastly the examinee. Some may actually think into it too much or be overly emotional, know too much, or just be plain unsuitable physically or psychologically. But overall, the problem one has with passing is withholding information he feels is relevant. Many an inconclusive exam has turned into an NDI on second series, after an admission of some small tidbit is revealed. I took an exam and was bordering on the feelings of this site, angered that I would have to reveal transgressions of my youth. But I did it, and as you know, some of the things the examiner did not want to know, but I made him suffer through it. The nicest thing he did was to "lie" to me and ensure I could be seen as not being a criminal or a spy.
Finally, rather than spending the vast resources of intellect and funds many of the contributors to this site exhibit, on bashing polygraph, why not spend them on trying to find something better. Or at least push your government to find something better. In these times your government is not going to eliminate its tools. So why not help those in our profession (LE and intelligence) get better tools to protect your nation and your communities.
Enough said here and don't be surprised if I don't respond to any of your responses -- I know I'll never convince most of the die hard contributors to this site regarding the usefulness of polygraph. However, I will continue to enjoy reading the discussion on this site and will chime in if it gets interesting.
Public Servant:
I'm glad you contributed to the site. It's important to understand opposing views.
No doubt George and others will address your points more thoroughly, but you wrote:
QuoteThe examination. This will get you licking your lips I'm sure. Sorry, I'm not going to get in to validity or accuracy here. I'll just say it's much better than chance
This is one of the main thrusts of this web site: exposing the fact that the polygraph has never been proven to work at better than chance levels, and unless that happens, it should not be relied upon. If the device is invalid, then no amount of education, patriotism, or virtue on the part of the examiner can save it.
Just as you correctly point out the error of leaping to conclusions based on one experience, you must also admit that your personal experience, and whatever statistics you have personally compiled over the years using the polygraph, cannot be asserted as representative of polygraph validity in general.
Public Servant,
Please do not take any offense by this, but it is suprising (and suspect) that a person of your position and stature has yet to gain a satisfactory command of the English language, both in form and substance.
Public Servant,
QuoteAfter repeatedly visiting this site over the last year or so, I finally decided to put in my two cents. You will obviously infer that I am one of practitioners of polygraph, so often labeled as evil on this site.
Actually, polygraphers are not often labelled as "evil" on this site. While many of us, myself included, question the ethical standards of the polygraph profession, that is not to say that we believe that polygraphers are fundamentally bad people. I most certainly don't. Nonetheless, the actions of well-intentioned people can result in considerable "evil." Take, for example, the case of (now retired) U.S. Navy petty officer Daniel M. King and his polygraph interrogation(s) by Naval Criminal Investigative Service Special Agent Robert Hyter, which you'll find documented in Chapter 2 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml).QuoteWhich brings me to my first point. The most passionate contributors to this site often throw around the word ad hominem to describe the pro-polygraph views posted. By no means am I defending most of these posts -- in fact I usually cringe when reading them, knowing full well that they will do nothing but fuel the passions of a Beech Trees, per se. However, surely, anyone can see the irony in this assertion. This site (not only the message posts) is filled with personal attacks and unsubstantiated generalizations. Polygraph examiners are called uneducated, dishonest, greedy, authoritarian, unethical, idiotic... So, this finger pointing using latin learned in pre-law 101 is equal to:
Kettle this is Pot, message over.
Pot this is kettle, send message, over.
You're black, out.
The term "ad hominem" is more a term of logic than of law. According to
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, the term, which literally means "to the man," has been attested to in the English language as early as 1598 and means:
"
1 : appealing to a person's feelings or prejudices rather than his intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to his contentions"
"Ad hominem" quite aptly characterizes many of the arguments presented here by supporters of polygraphy. For example, in response to Dr. Drew Richardson's Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942), wherein Dr. Richardson challenged the polygraph community to demonstrate it's claimed ability to detect polygraph countermeasures, a polygraph advocate using the monicker "the boys" posted:
QuoteSorry, I guess we were sleeping.....just noticed that Drew Richardson is identified as "top FBI polygraph expert"....just how did he rise to such a lofty position?....I have it on good information that he conducted few polygraph examinations in the field and caused the FBI more problems then he was worth...and they ultimately removed him from his polygraph position...I think th term thatw as used was that he was considered a "pariah". Maybe you might want to consider removing his "credentials" on your homepage?
Dr. Drew C. Richardson,
Laboratory Division
The foregoing is a classic example of the
argumentum ad hominem. For more on this fallacial form of argument, see, for example this excerpt (http://www.skepdic.com/ch5samp.html) from Robert T. Carroll's
Becoming a Critical Thinker (http://www.skepdic.com/ctinfo.html).Certainly, polygraph advocates are not the only ones who have succumbed to the temptation to substitute ad hominem attacks for rational argument. But I think that a critical review of the debates here over polygraph validity, policy, procedure, and countermeasures would show that, with a few notable exceptions (like Dr. Gordon H. Barland, J.B., and L72cueak) the pro-polygraph side has offered little more than ad hominem arguments against our reasoned criticisms.
QuoteSecondly, while we are discussing the rules of intellectual argument...you argue from the general to the specific to prove a point, not specific to general. That is called stereotyping, or just plain prejudice. My point is that the assertion that "my polygrapher did me wrong so they must all be a bunch of boorish pigs," is not a valid argument.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Who argues from the general to the specific? And about what?
You correctly note that "my polygrapher did me wrong so they must all be a bunch of boorish pigs" is not a valid argument. (Isn't that going from the specific to the general and not the other way around?) But this is not really an argument that anyone is seriously making here.
QuoteI'm basically telling you to can the fingerpointing BS and get on to the substance and thus I will do the same. I will try to stick to mere facts or my own personal beliefs of such.
You'll find many of us here more than willing to discuss polygraph issues with you on their merits. Regrettably, this is a debate from which the polygraph community has largely shrunken.
QuoteThe examination. This will get you licking your lips I'm sure. Sorry, I'm not going to get in to validity or accuracy here. I'll just say it's much better than chance.
You can say that polygraphy is "much better than chance," but peer-reviewed research has yet to establish this. Because CQT polygraphy lacks both standardization and control, it is not possible to establish a meaningful validity rate for it. (This is, perhaps, a topic for a different message thread.)
QuoteIt's an investigative tool and the results alone are only used if it's NDI (usually NDI results eliminates the examinee as a suspect -- any ethical concerns if what this site claims is true?
If the results are NDI (no deception indicated), how do you know that the subject did not simply lie and use countermeasures? Because of polygraphy's lack of proven validity and vulnerability to countermeasures, I think that there are indeed both rational concerns and ethical implications when suspects are eliminated on the basis of polygraph chart readings.
QuoteA DI without confession is useless and I don't mind that.
This candid admission seems logically inconsistent with your assertion that polygraphy is "much better than chance."
QuoteUltimately all evidence types are less than 100%...
Our criticism of CQT polygraphy is not that it is "less than 100%," but rather that
it has no validity whatsoever as a diagnostic test.QuoteLastly the examinee. Some may actually think into it too much or be overly emotional, know too much, or just be plain unsuitable physically or psychologically. But overall, the problem one has with passing is withholding information he feels is relevant.
The belief that the subject who fails to pass "is withholding information he feels is relevant" must be a comforting one for the polygrapher contemplating the ethics of his profession. This way, the polygrapher need never worry about the ethical implications of his having falsely accused someone of deception:
it's the subject's fault, because he must have been withholding something. But I think this sort of rationalization (through an unfalsifiable ad hoc hypothesis) is an exercise in self-delusion.
QuoteFinally, rather than spending the vast resources of intellect and funds many of the contributors to this site exhibit, on bashing polygraph, why not spend them on trying to find something better. Or at least push your government to find something better. In these times your government is not going to eliminate its tools. So why not help those in our profession (LE and intelligence) get better tools to protect your nation and your communities.
I think that our work to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse is a worthy enough goal. Real harm is being caused to individuals, public safety, and national security as a result of misplaced faith in the pseudoscience of polygraphy.
QuoteEnough said here and don't be surprised if I don't respond to any of your responses -- I know I'll never convince most of the die hard contributors to this site regarding the usefulness of polygraph.
Actually, you cannot know that others will never be convinced of an argument. This is something you can only know of yourself.
I, for one, am quite convinced that polygraphy can be
useful as an interrogation aid. Naive and gullible subjects sometimes confess or make admissions they might not have made absent the polygraph. But the scientific evidence for polygraphy is less than compelling.
Latin 101,
OK, you are absolutely correct. I tend to ramble, my typing and grammar may need some work (especially at the hour I wrote that post) and I improperly used "per se."
However, with your obvious mastery of linguistics, you surely realized you were providing an example of ad hominem argument for me.
No offense taken, by the way. I'll try to proof read from now on. Does neatness count?
George,
I knew I could count on you to bring up some well thought out responses.
First of all, just a short word about ad hominem argument. I agree that often the pro-polygraph posts here utilize personal attack rather than substance. My only point was that it goes both ways. As you exclude some pro poly contributors from this label, I would agree that you, Gino, and Mark stick to the substance avoid personal attack for the most part. However, many other anti poly contributors (often, but not limited to, one time contributors) do use this style. And, the material outside this message board, is overwhelmingly one sided and is predominately prejudicial to the character of the persons who suport poly in any way.
Reference General to specific: I realize I was unclear here. I was trying to say that it is only logical to argue from the general to the specific, not specific to general. My point is that a few specific experiences seem to fuel the generalized beliefs of many of the contributors to this site. I understand the emotion involved here, but thought, not emotion, leads to logical discourse.
Both sides could site research to support our opposing views. And both of us would likely cling to the research with the results which support our views. The unfortunate fact is that with psychology, unlike physics things do not always fit into a nice formula and clinical studies can not exactly emmulate life. The main problem with determining validity and accuracy of polygraph is determining ground truth. The clinical applications can do this better, but people do not behave or respond the same in a controlled environment. I am far from qualified to go into detail about research. I'll leave that for the Dr. Barland's of the world. I have neither the time, resoources, nor the expertise.
My only assertion, in saying a DI w/o confession is useless, is that in most jurisdictions, the DI result alone would not be utilized in court. Having an obvious interest in justice, I would want corroborative evidence to build a case, even if it was admissible.
When you say I am trying to justify my own ethical decisions (sorry I did not use the quote key when I started this), it seems you may be questioning my character, which you yourself spoke against. However, I am secure with my ethical decisions, because I have seen the results of my toils. Persons have confessed to murder, child sex assault, and many other felonies. The confessions were substantiated with other corroborative evidence and the world is now a little safer for my family and yours. I have also seen people exonerated as the result of NDI and after elimination from suspicion, the true culprit found, or the accuser recants. I have also seen persons who may have been innocent bring more suspicion on themselves after being caught using countermeasures. And if, by chance, you did train a criminal well enough to beat me, then it's not on my conscience, but perhaps on yours.
I have to go now. The family awaits and I will be travelling again. To Mark, sorry I did not respond directly, but thanks for the response. To Latin 101, I ran out of time for proof reading (one or two words?) so please excuse my abuse of the English Language.
Quote from: Public_Servant on Jul 16, 2002, 09:14 AM
Both sides could site research to support our opposing views. And both of us would likely cling to the research with the results which support our views. The unfortunate fact is that with psychology, unlike physics things do not always fit into a nice formula and clinical studies can not exactly emmulate life.
As someone with a psychology background, let me point out that the above is a non sequitur: yes, psychology is one of the "soft" sciences, but it is
still a science, complete with falsifiable hypotheses/theories and non-confounded evidence. In fact, it is on the grounds of psychological standards for testing (validity and reliability) that the most devastating critiques of polygraphy "testing" are made: polygraphy has all the validity and reliability of a good Tarot card reading.
Quote
When you say I am trying to justify my own ethical decisions (sorry I did not use the quote key when I started this), it seems you may be questioning my character, which you yourself spoke against. However, I am secure with my ethical decisions, because I have seen the results of my toils. Persons have confessed to murder, child sex assault, and many other felonies.
I'm sure none of us would want any of the above criminals to go free. It should be noted, though, that torture also produces sometimes accurate confessions to the above crimes, as well. Clearly, the ends do not necessarily justify the means.
Quote
The confessions were substantiated with other corroborative evidence and the world is now a little safer for my family and yours.
Which is wonderful. Too bad that a failed polygraph alone, even without corroborative evidence, is frequently enough to damage or destroy someone's career, relationships, and other parts of their lives.
Public Servant,
You wrote, among other things:
Quote...the material outside this message board, is overwhelmingly one sided and is predominately prejudicial to the character of the persons who suport poly in any way
Please don't hesitate to specifically point out anything on AntiPolygraph.org that you believe to be untrue, misleading, or otherwise unfair.
QuoteMy only assertion, in saying a DI w/o confession is useless, is that in most jurisdictions, the DI result alone would not be utilized in court. Having an obvious interest in justice, I would want corroborative evidence to build a case, even if it was admissible.
Do you mean to say then, that a DI (deception indicated) outcome, absent a confession from the subject, actually has some diagnostic value (even though the polygrapher's diagnosis may not be admissible in court)?
QuoteWhen you say I am trying to justify my own ethical decisions (sorry I did not use the quote key when I started this), it seems you may be questioning my character, which you yourself spoke against.
What I had actually written is the following:
QuoteThe belief that the subject who fails to pass "is withholding information he feels is relevant" must be a comforting one for the polygrapher contemplating the ethics of his profession. This way, the polygrapher need never worry about the ethical implications of his having falsely accused someone of deception: it's the subject's fault, because he must have been withholding something. But I think this sort of rationalization (through an unfalsifiable ad hoc hypothesis) is an exercise in self-delusion.
It was not my purpose to question your character, but rather the premise, which you seem to have espoused, that when a subject fails to pass a polygraph examination, it is because he "is withholding information he feels is relevant." Adoption of this premise relieves the polygrapher of the burden of dealing with the ethical (and rational) considerations that would otherwise be involved when he accuses a subject of deception and embarks upon a "post-test" interrogation.
There is no rational basis for the belief that a subject's failure to pass a polygraph examination necessarily indicates that he/she has withheld any information that he deems relevant. I think it's self-evident that the subject who (quite reasonably) is more concerned about the consequences of not being believed with regard to the relevant questions than with regard to the "control" questions is not likely to pass.
The polygrapher who accuses subjects who fail to pass of deception and conducts a "post-test" interrogation will necessarily end up falsely accusing innocent subjects. I think that this has important ethical ramifications that the polygraph community seemingly prefers to ignore.
(It's also worth noting that, even by the theory of "control" question "test" polygraphy, subjects who
pass are presumed to be withholding information that they
believe is relevant, since they have presumably been misled into believing that the probable-lie "control" questions are actually relevant.)
The premise that a subject's failure to pass means that he is withholding information that he believes is relevant is a dangerous delusion. This delusion seem to be widespread amongst the polygraph community, and I suspect that it is a factor affecting the behavior of (perhaps) well-meaning polygraphers who have gone on to extract false confessions, as NCIS Special Agent Robert Hyter apparently did from CTR1 Daniel M. King. (Again, see Chapter 2 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for details.)
You also mention your success in getting dangerous criminals to confess:
Quote...I am secure with my ethical decisions, because I have seen the results of my toils. Persons have confessed to murder, child sex assault, and many other felonies. The confessions were substantiated with other corroborative evidence and the world is now a little safer for my family and yours. I have also seen people exonerated as the result of NDI and after elimination from suspicion, the true culprit found, or the accuser recants.
I think it's undeniable that the polygraph can be
useful in obtaining confessions. But it is a mistake for a polygrapher to allow his successes in obtaining confessions to delude him into the belief that he actually has the ability to detect deception. David T. Lykken discusses this phenomenon at pp. 70-71 of
A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., Plenum Trade, 1998):
QuoteHow Polygraph-Induced Confessions Mislead Polygraphers
It is standard practice for police polygraphers to interrogate a suspect who has failed the lie test. They tell him that the impartial, scientific polygraph has demonstrated his guilt, that no one now will believe his denials, and that his most sensible action at this point would be to confess and try to negotiate the best terms he can. This is strong stuff, and what the examiner says to the suspect is especially convincing and effective because the examiner genuinely believes it himself. Police experience in the United States suggests that as many as 40% of interrogated suspects do actually confess in this situation. And these confessions provide virtually the only feedback of "ground truth" or criterion data that is ever available to a polygraph examiner.
If a suspect passes the polygraph test, he will not be interrogated because the examiner firmly believes he has been truthful. Suspects who are not interrogated do not confess, of course. This means that the only criterion data that are systematically sought--and occassionally obtained--are confessions by people who have failed the polygraph, confessions that are guaranteed to corroborate the tests that elicited those confessions. The examiner almost never discovers that a suspect he diagnosed as truthful was in fact deceptive, because that bad news is excluded by his dependence on immediate confessions for verification. Moreover, these periodic confessions provide a diet of consistently good news that confirms the examiner's belief that the lie test is nearly infallible. Note that the examiner's client or employer also hears about these same confessions and is also protected from learning about most of the polygrapher's mistakes.
Sometimes confessions can verify, not only the test that produced it, but also a previous test that resulted in a diagnosis of truthful. This can happen when there is more than one suspect in the same crime, so that the confession of one person reveals that the alternative suspect must be innocent. Once again, however, the examiner is usually protected from learning when he has made an error. If the suspect who was tested first is diagnosed as deceptive, then the alternative suspect--who might be the guilty one--is seldom tested at all because the examiner believes that the case was solved by that first failed test. This means that only rarely does a confession prove that someone who has already failed his test is actually innocent.
Therefore, when a confession allows us to evaluate the accuracy of the test given to a person cleared by that confession, then once again the news will almost always be good news; that innocent suspect will be found to have passed his lie test, because if the first suspect had not passed the test, the second person would not have been tested and would not have confessed.
And as veteran polygrapher Leonard H. Harrelson writes in
Lietest: Deception, Truth and the Polygraph (Jonas Publishing, 1998):
QuotePolygrams [polygraph charts] are polygrams. They measure and record physiological reactions. And they do so very well, but one cannot look at a polygram and say, "That is a lie." It may be a reaction, but no one can say that it is a lie. An examiner may interpret a reaction to be a lie, but in actual practice, the examiner is also observing the subject, listening to verbal explanations, and making a judgment about the person's truthfulness. Some examiners are simply better at this than others.
Because of their experience in talking with people and their success in obtaining confessions, polygraph examiners may come to feel confident about making a determination of truth or deception based on their charts. Indeed, if a person is reacting, it is the examiner's job to determine why and to obtain a confession if they believe that deception is the cause of the reactions. But without a confession, polygrams are still just polygrams.
You also wrote:
Quote...if, by chance, you did train a criminal well enough to beat me, then it's not on my conscience, but perhaps on yours.
Before launching AntiPolygraph.org and publishing
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, we did think through the ethics of making information on polygraph countermeasures readily and freely available via the Internet. Our purpose was certainly not to help criminals to get away with their crimes, but rather to help the innocent to protect themselves against the kinds of abuse that we've documented in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. There is, regrettably, no way for us to make this information available to the innocent alone: it must necessarily be made available to everyone. Of course, the countermeasure information we provide here can only help criminals to the extent that government places any reliance on these pseudoscientific "tests."
You didn't address the question I put to you in my earlier post, "If the results are NDI (no deception indicated), how do you know that the subject did not simply lie and use countermeasures?" I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.
George, I have a few comments about a recent post you made. You said,
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jul 19, 2002, 09:12 AM
Before launching AntiPolygraph.org and publishing The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, we did think through the ethics of making information on polygraph countermeasures readily and freely available via the Internet. Our purpose was certainly not to help criminals to get away with their crimes, but rather to help the innocent to protect themselves against the kinds of abuse that we've documented in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. There is, regrettably, no way for us to make this information available to the innocent alone: it must necessarily be made available to everyone. Of course, the countermeasure information we provide here can only help criminals to the extent that government places any reliance on these pseudoscientific "tests."
George,
Disregarding for the moment any arguement regarding the probability of success in the use of countermeasures, I have a fundlemental problem with your repeated implications that this site does not knowingly assist criminals to avoid detection.
I do not have the time to research the entire message board right now, but I know that in the last several months I have read many posts by people who have openly admitted to having committed all sorts of criminal acts and were writing to you and others on this site to help them "beat" the polygraph in order to avoid detection and prosecution. You and others on this site responded in each and every case. by helping these criminals.
In fact, at this very moment at least one of the message boards on this site has been completely taken over by registered sex offenders who are using this site to discuss stratigies to keep their ongoing exploitation of others (to include innocent children) beyond the abilities of the authorities to detect and deal with.
You distance yourself from these goings on by claiming "Our purpose was certainly not to help criminals to get away with their crimes..." That is much like the statements made by the leader of a well known white racist hate group, who after one of his most faithful followers killed numerous minorities said, "The church ...neither condones violence or unlawful activities, nor do we promote or incite them." Yet that is EXACTLY what this leader condones and encourages. He believes that by making that statement, he absolves himself of any liability.
George, you are distancing yourself from the criminals your site draws, much like Hale does, but you are still KNOWINGLY providing tools that you and your followers BELIEVE will assist the GUILTY in escaping prosecution.
You justify your behavior by saying, "...the countermeasure information we provide here can only help criminals to the extent that government places any reliance on these pseudoscientific "tests.""
Your arguement therefore is, if a criminal (such as a sex offender) were to be able to successfully use your methods to escape detection and thereby be able to victimize others, you would feel no guilt or responsibility, because it was the government's "fault" for relying on the polygraph (that otherwise would have perhaps caught this criminal and prevented more victimization if it were not for the methods YOU taught him).
George, one thing that you and I are in agreement about is that the Internet is indeed a powerful information tool. As you know, there are websites dedicated to all sorts of things. In fact, just last night, I found websites that taught me how to "beat" a urinaylsis test. The position of the folks on that site is that the urinaylsis test is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and therefore they are "justified" in providing that information. (Remember that, next time you get on an airplane wondering if the pilot "beat" his urinaylsis test.)
I found web sites that taught me how to ruin someone's credit, build a bomb, acquire guns, seduce small children, and get away with all these things. In EVERY case, the sites completely justified their activities, much as you and your followers do.
George, I am no lawyer, but I must believe there is civil and criminal case law out there that addresses injury caused by individuals who provide information that enables one to engage in, or escape detection from criminal activity that has victimized others. In fact, I can think of several scenerios that would apply to the information provided on this site.
Anyway, just a little "food for thought."
Polycop
Polycop,
You wrote:
QuoteDisregarding for the moment any arguement regarding the probability of success in the use of countermeasures, I have a fundlemental problem with your repeated implications that this site does not knowingly assist criminals to avoid detection.
What I've said is that it is not our purpose to help criminals get away with their crimes. Certainly, the polygraph countermeasure information available here could be of use to criminals seeking to beat a polygraph "test." But our consistent advice to anyone -- innocent or guilty -- is to refuse to submit to any polygraph interrogation in the context of a criminal investigation and to seek legal counsel.
QuoteI do not have the time to research the entire message board right now, but I know that in the last several months I have read many posts by people who have openly admitted to having committed all sorts of criminal acts and were writing to you and others on this site to help them "beat" the polygraph in order to avoid detection and prosecution. You and others on this site responded in each and every case. by helping these criminals.
At your leisure, please cite some of these alleged cases.
QuoteIn fact, at this very moment at least one of the message boards on this site has been completely taken over by registered sex offenders who are using this site to discuss stratigies to keep their ongoing exploitation of others (to include innocent children) beyond the abilities of the authorities to detect and deal with.
You are referring to the Post-Conviction Polygraph Programs (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?board=13.0) forum. This forum, like the others on AntiPolygraph.org, is uncensored. But I am not aware that anyone has used this forum "to discuss stratigies [sic] to keep their ongoing exploitation of others (to include innocent children) beyond the abilities of the authorities to detect and deal with." Again, at your leisure, please provide some examples.
QuoteYou distance yourself from these goings on by claiming "Our purpose was certainly not to help criminals to get away with their crimes..." That is much like the statements made by the leader of a well known white racist hate group, who after one of his most faithful followers killed numerous minorities said, "The church ...neither condones violence or unlawful activities, nor do we promote or incite them." Yet that is EXACTLY what this leader condones and encourages. He believes that by making that statement, he absolves himself of any liability.
George, you are distancing yourself from the criminals your site draws, much like Hale does, but you are still KNOWINGLY providing tools that you and your followers BELIEVE will assist the GUILTY in escaping prosecution.
Polycop, I think your likening of me to the racist "Reverend" Matt Hale, and, by implication, of AntiPolygraph.org to the "World Church of the Creator," (http://www.wcotc.com/) is absolutely outrageous.
The purpose of AntiPolygraph.org is to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse. Real harm is being done to many innocent individuals as a result of our government's misplaced faith in this pseudoscience. Our system of law is supposedly rooted in the principle that we would sooner see ten guilty individuals go free than to see one innocent person wrongly convicted. But based on pseudoscientific polygraph chart readings alone, our federal, state, and local governments are, on an annual basis, peremptorily and falsely branding thousands of innocent individuals as liars and denying them due process. Do you have a problem with this, Polycop? I sure as hell do. And it is for this reason that we have made reliable information about effective polygraph countermeasures freely available via the Internet.
I don't deny that the information provided here could also be useful to criminals, but again, that is not our purpose in making this information (which was to a large extent already public) freely available.
QuoteYou justify your behavior by saying, "...the countermeasure information we provide here can only help criminals to the extent that government places any reliance on these pseudoscientific "tests.""
Your arguement therefore is, if a criminal (such as a sex offender) were to be able to successfully use your methods to escape detection and thereby be able to victimize others, you would feel no guilt or responsibility, because it was the government's "fault" for relying on the polygraph (that otherwise would have perhaps caught this criminal and prevented more victimization if it were not for the methods YOU taught him).
It would trouble me to learn that the countermeasure information we provide here on AntiPolygraph.org had assisted a criminal in escaping prosecution, and that the criminal had gone on to victimize others.
But I would not regret having helped to expose polygraphy for the pseudoscientific fraud that it is, including providing information on polygraph countermeasures.
I think the public interest is best served by the truth about polygraphy being made publicly known.
QuoteGeorge, one thing that you and I are in agreement about is that the Internet is indeed a powerful information tool. As you know, there are websites dedicated to all sorts of things. In fact, just last night, I found websites that taught me how to "beat" a urinaylsis test. The position of the folks on that site is that the urinaylsis test is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and therefore they are "justified" in providing that information. (Remember that, next time you get on an airplane wondering if the pilot "beat" his urinaylsis test.)
I found web sites that taught me how to ruin someone's credit, build a bomb, acquire guns, seduce small children, and get away with all these things. In EVERY case, the sites completely justified their activities, much as you and your followers do.
Again, I think your likening of AntiPolygraph.org to websites of the kind you describe above is simply outrageous.
A more appropriate comparison of AntiPolygraph.org's dissemination of information on polygraphy would be to Phil Zimmermann's (http://www.philzimmermann.com/) dissemination via the Internet of free and powerful encryption software in the form of his Pretty Good Privacy (http://www.pgpi.org) (PGP) application. Mr. Zimmermann's software made it possible for individuals to communicate using strong encryption that, it seems likely, the U.S. Government is unable to crack.
Certain individuals in the U.S. Government considered the information Mr. Zimmermann freely disseminated to be dangerous. And Mr. Zimmermann was investigated for, but never charged with, criminal violation of a U.S. law regulating the export of munitions (encryption being considered a form of "muntion" under the law).
Mr. Zimmermann has come under criticism on the ground that his free software could be used by criminals, including terrorists, narcotraffickers, etc., to hide their communications from law enforcement. And indeed, his PGP software could undeniably be used to that end. But PGP also serves an important civic purpose, which Mr. Zimmermann addresses in his essay, "Why I wrote PGP." (http://www.philzimmermann.com/essays-WhyIWrotePGP.shtml)
In the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001, a
Washington Post reporter erroneously reported that Zimmermann was "overwhelmed with feelings of guilt" as the inventor of PGP. Zimmermann eloquently defended his work in an announcement titled, "No Regrets About Developing PGP." (http://www.philzimmermann.com/news-Response_WashPost.shtml)
Similarly, we have no regrets about making information about polygraphy, including polygraph countermeasures, publicly and freely available.
QuoteGeorge, I am no lawyer, but I must believe there is civil and criminal case law out there that addresses injury caused by individuals who provide information that enables one to engage in, or escape detection from criminal activity that has victimized others. In fact, I can think of several scenerios that would apply to the information provided on this site.
Anyway, just a little "food for thought."
Your food for thought has little nutritive value, and seems more an attempt to vilify and silence us through intimidation. Which is about the best you and your cohorts in the polygraph community can hope for, since you seem to be unable to counter our arguments against polygraphy on a rational level.
Ref,
Taking for granted that you do have the background you profess, I would not challenge your assertions regarding psychology as a whole. My own credentials in psychological theory and research at this time are meager at best.
However my assertion in my previous post is that the difficulty in proving the validity of polygraph is that we can not always know what the truth is. Likewise, in a controlled environment where ground truth is known, the degree of effectiveness is diminished by the lack of realism to the subjects.
I suppose a better comparison to psychology would be the therapist feeling he has located the cause of a patient's problems. How does he know absolutely that he has found the issue that triggered the problem. There is no way of telling what ground truth is here. All he or she can do is base their work on the best of their training and ability. Thankfully usually they are successful. However, if therapists of differing psychological philosophies saw the same patient they may have completely different ideas regarding the root of the problem. Since even the patient likely may not know the true cause, only the therapist with the best treatment results could actually claim to have the problem identified.
And, yes many of the opponents of polygraph are Phd's and PsyD.'s. They have good perspective in the inability to establish ground truth in such research. However, many of the strongest proponents of polygraph have are psychology professionals. They also have good perspective on what good psychological research is in comparison to say physics research. And they see the success it has had over the years. The word most often used is robust. And the practice has been around for the better part of a century and continues to develop based on sound research.
The difficulty in establishing ground truth may be the reason why results of polygraph research are open for personal interpretation, and often you see the same researchers always reporting new research with results supporting the views they established in previous research. If you follow poly studies, the same people seem to always have results discrediting polygraph, while some might seem to consistently report the opposing result.
The argument that this practice of polygraph much stop because a few people may be adversely affected is like saying we must not enforce laws because we risk arresting the wrong person. Or we need to end our national defense program because we risk hurting persons other than our enemies. We live in a less than perfect world -- at least at this time -- so we must prioritize and do the best we can.
George,
I think poly cop did an excellent job of addressing the issue of ethics here. It's not that we believe you will be successful in training someone to beat us, but if you believe you can...
I'd like to believe that someone of your background and obvious education would have thought through this whole thing a little more. Enough said.
I will now address your question: "If the results are NDI (no deception indicated), how do you know that the subject did not simply lie and use countermeasures?"
First of all it would be silly for anyone in the poly community to tell you how we identify countermeasures. Would anyone in the intelligence community provide an al Qaeda member information on how we collect intelligence. We adjust to the Doug Williams and George Maschke's as they arise, but to tell you how would only escalate the race. It would be ridiculous, you have countermeasures, now we develop counter-counter measures, and then you counter- counter-countermeasures and so on. We are not going to help you out. Unfortunately we are advesaries on this topic. (Perhaps we could find common ground elsewhere -- over a beer after I retire.)
Suffice to say, there is no 100% way to know that an NDI was not resulting from countermeasures. However, I have caught them before, and I use methods to prevent, disrupt, and identify countermeasures. I've never read an account of one of my tests on this site in which someone was bragging about having "beaten" the test. In fact, I see very few of such posts in comparison to the number of visitors to this site and the number of exams conducted every day.
However, you might, perhaps, be good enough to get one by me. There are other methods of verifying an NDI, both by examiner and case investigator. Suffice to say that an NDI does not automatically stop an investigation and preponderence of evidence will decide what investigative findings are reported. And ultimately the prosecutor will decide if there is PC to proceed with prosecution, insufficient evidence, or reason to unfound. This will be done based on ALL evidence available. Bottom line is that nearly ALL of my NDI exams (as well as my DIs) have been supported by thorough investigation.
Which answers to your assertion that confessions delude examiners. Any good investigator (not just examiner) looks for good investigative corroboration of findings before making investigative conclusions. No piece of evidence proves anything in a vaccuum. Any good agency ensures that thorough investigation precedes and follows examinations, regardless of results. It's not questioning the validity of polygraph, it's just good police work.
Lastly, to believe that huge responses to certain questions slightly overtaking a nearly as significant consistent response to relevant issues will absolutely tell the examiner someone is truthful, shows only a basic understanding of analysis of CQT exams -- not a clear grasp on the theory of psychological set. Suffice to say a well trained, experienced examiner not only understands it, but knows what it looks like in its pure form. You do this enough, you usually see when something's not quite right. See the earlier portion of this post to explain why I will not expound.
Polycop,
I think what George is trying to say is that he does not necessarily want to help criminals (I hope not anyway). However, in their quest to discredit polygraph they are attempting two (seemingly incompatible) assertions.
First they are asserting that it could be difficult for someone to be truthful and pass. Then they are saying it is easy for a deceptive person to pass. Since they have not proven the former to anyone (and may bring suspicion on themselves), they hope to compile some list of persons claiming to have beaten the polygraph. They do the latter under the guise of helping those claiming to be affected by the first assertion, hoping to justify the possible uses by socially unacceptable types.
Fortunately, I doubt there will be much success from either front of attack.
George,
Nothing personal intended. I am sure you and your colleagues have differing reasons for your crusade -- be it some true moral belief or a bad experience. However, if you were to look outside this site for opinion, I am sure you would find a vast majority (not just polygraphers!) who would question your assertions, your methods and your justification. As Polycop said, it may be a victim's rights lawyer. I wouldn't rest everything on your quoted precedence. This is much more specific and could by a skilled attorney be exposed as accessory to a crime. Besides, in a civil case the standards for proof are much less than in criminal court. In other words someone may go after your assumingly hard earned dollars. (Seems with all of your time and effort here, you must have plenty -- must not have needed that job with the bureau or whomever.) But we are working hard to ensure no victim is further victimized as a result of countermeasures utilized by a criminal, so in that vein, we are helping you avoid repurcussions!
Polycop/Public Servant,
The notion of civil liability regarding the teaching of countermeasures is an interesting latest ploy of the pro-polygraph community albeit a bit far fetched. More fundamental is the question of civil liability associated with the practice of polygraphy and its error. Do you think the government polygraph examiners who conducted polygraph exams of Aldrich Ames and Ana Montes, etc. should be held accountable through civil suits as a result of the tremendous damage these and other spies (false negative polygraph results) caused following their polygraph exams? How about the numerous polygraph examiners (via polygraph screening) who have ruined the careers and lives of those who have told their stories on this site? Any thoughts?
Polycop/Public Servant:
There is something wrong with a law enforcement tool (be it polygraphy or anything else) that victimizes ten innocent people for every guilty one caught, such as, say, physical torture. Assuming you agree with that statement in principle, that is why ultimately, the main issue here is the accuracy of the polygraph.
If we are correct in our assertion that many (hard to say exactly how many, but it's too many) innocent people are victimized for every one guilty person caught, then I believe you have to abandon polygraphy and focus on other investigative tools.
And the innocent people victimized deserve better--countermeasures are one way to protect them.
If the polygraph people are correct that the true accuracy rate (absent countermeasures) is akin to a urine test, a DNA test, or the like, then you are correct that countermeasures should not be promoted, just as we would not teach a druggie how to beat a urine test. If I knew that my experience (see my personal statement http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-002.shtml) was an aberration, and that criminals, spies, and terrorists were also caught using the polygraph, thus protecting myself and my family in the long run, I could accept my misfortune. But because I know that Aldrich Ames, Ana Belen Montes, and others passed the polygraph (Ames without any sophisticated countermeasures), I remain outraged that I and others were victimized for no good reason at all.
As George has pointed out, the polygraph has never been proven to work at better than chance levels. Until the polygraph profession can prove otherwise, it should be abandoned.
I do not agree that a criminal passing a polygraph by using countermeasures learned on this site is tantamount to us enabling him to go free. The polygraph is not the only method of interrogation. Other interrogational methods yield confessions too, without risking false positives. In addition, the indictment and conviction of any criminal depends on physical, testimonial, and/or documentary evidence, of which a polygraph interrogation would only be one part. If criminals are going free because they are passing polygraphs by using countermeasures, that is a very poor reflection of that particular investigation. And, convictions can be had without a confession. My guess is that most are. As you know, the jails are full of people professing their innocence.
Mark,
You write in part:
Quote...the main issue here is the accuracy of the polygraph....If the polygraph people are correct that the true accuracy rate (absent countermeasures) is akin to a urine test, a DNA test, or the like, then you are correct that countermeasures should not be promoted, just as we would not teach a druggie how to beat a urine test...
You are quite correct and your logic is flawless. As one (perhaps one of the few in the country) who has both conducted a polygraph exam and a urinalysis exam, I can tell you that there is absolutely no, and I repeat, no comparison between the two in terms of underlying theory, scientific control, accuracy, and reliability. The very well understood principles of chemistry and physics that make urinalysis possible also make this form of analysis superior in every regard to control question (CQT) polygraphy (and particularly so in a screening context). To even mention the two together in similar contexts is a great disservice to those who perform these routine but valuable examinations that are an integral part of clinical medicine and forensic toxicology.
Drew,
Thanks for your comments, and for pointing out the scientific chasm between polygraphy and urine tests.
QuoteThe very well understood principles of chemistry and physics that make urinalysis possible also make this form of analysis superior in every regard to control question (CQT) polygraphy (and particularly so in a screening context). To even mention the two together in similar contexts is a great disservice to those who perform these routine but valuable examinations that are an integral part of clinical medicine and forensic toxicology.
My aim in mentioning the two in the same context was not to compare them as peers, but to distinguish the two (i.e. I knew urine tests; they were a friend of mine; polygraphy, you're no urine test), and to say to polygraphy that IF you should prove yourself as worthy as urine tests (which it has not to date), then we should stop encouraging polygraph countermeasures, just as there is no need for countermeasures on urine tests.
Sorry that did not come through clearer, and I hope this clarifies my original point.
Mark,
No one here advocates torture and if you could see my interviews you would see it is very much the opposite. In the same vein, you can not seriously say that polygraph has a 10 to 1 failure rate. And in most cases a polygraph alone is hardly the end all in an investigation.
You speak of a handful of victims of false positives and a handful of false negatives. While each and every case is a big deal and perhaps tragic in its own right, it pales in comparison to the many success stories (both NDI and DI). I wish I could share with you many of the success stories, but obviously each case is at a minimum held in confidentiality. If it could be possible, I would love to have you spend a few weeks observing my exams and seeing the results. I'm sure the cop in you would see the usefulness when you saw this investigative tool applied properly. That is the key, proper application and oversight by the agency utilizing polygraph.
Here is the bottom line of where I take issue with this site:
If the creators of the site really believe the countermeasure methods they endorse would work regardless of the situation, then they believe it is worth assisting murderers, rapists, terrorists and the like, in pursuit of their goal of ensuring no one has to endure a screening polygraph again. A long stretch for avenging a lost employment opportunity-- to do so at the risk of allowing these people to continue to offend. Also seems immoral to influence a person who is innocent, or withholding non-incriminating (or non-eliminating) information into using countermeasures. When they are caught it renders further suspicion upon them and compromises their integrity.
Ultimately, if you want to stop the negative effects of the few false positives or inconclusive exams, work ethically and constructively. Call for reform and new methods, but do not attempt to assist criminals, spies, or terrorists; or compromise the integrity of otherwise innocent persons.
Quote from: Mark Mallah on Jul 21, 2002, 01:56 AM
Drew,
Thanks for your comments, and for pointing out the scientific chasm between polygraphy and urine tests.
My aim in mentioning the two in the same context was not to compare them as peers, but to distinguish the two (i.e. I knew urine tests; they were a friend of mine; polygraphy, you're no urine test), and to say to polygraphy that IF you should prove yourself as worthy as urine tests (which it has not to date), then we should stop encouraging polygraph countermeasures, just as there is no need for countermeasures on urine tests.
Sorry that did not come through clearer, and I hope this clarifies my original point.
Mark,
Actually, you made it perfectly clear that polygraph "tests" and urine tests are not comparable when you wrote, "If the polygraph people are correct that the true accuracy rate (absent countermeasures) is akin to a urine test, a DNA test, or the like, then you are correct that countermeasures should not be promoted, just as we would not teach a druggie how to beat a urine test."
It was Polycop who had earlier analogized the two when he/she wrote:
QuoteGeorge, one thing that you and I are in agreement about is that the Internet is indeed a powerful information tool. As you know, there are websites dedicated to all sorts of things. In fact, just last night, I found websites that taught me how to "beat" a urinaylsis test. The position of the folks on that site is that the urinaylsis test is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and therefore they are "justified" in providing that information. (Remember that, next time you get on an airplane wondering if the pilot "beat" his urinaylsis test.)
Public Servant,
I'd like to comment on a number of things you wrote above. In your reply to "Ref" you wrote:
QuoteAnd, yes many of the opponents of polygraph are Phd's and PsyD.'s. They have good perspective in the inability to establish ground truth in such research. However, many of the strongest proponents of polygraph have are psychology professionals. They also have good perspective on what good psychological research is in comparison to say physics research. And they see the success it has had over the years. The word most often used is robust. And the practice has been around for the better part of a century and continues to develop based on sound research.
The majority view amongst the relevant scientific community is that "control" question "test" (CQT) polygraphy is not based on scientifically sound psychological principles or theory. And there is virtual unanimity amongst them that the CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's responses to the "control" questions.
That polygraphy has been around for the better part of a century does not speak to its validity: the pseudoscience of phrenology (http://www.skepdic.com/phren.html) survived well over a century.
And while you say that polygraphy "continues to develop based on sound research," the fact remains that CQT polygraphy is
completely lacking in any genuine, standardization and control, which are prerequisites for a scientifically sound diagnostic test. (As Drew mentioned, there is no comparison between a polygraph "test" and a urinalysis test in terms of underlying theory, scientific control, accuracy, and reliability, which is a point he expanded on in his discussion of scientific control and polygraphy (http://antipolygraph.org/nas/richardson-transcript.shtml#control) at the 17 October 2001 public meeting of the National Academy of Sciences' polygraph review committee.)
You also wrote to "Ref":
QuoteThe argument that this practice of polygraph much stop because a few people may be adversely affected is like saying we must not enforce laws because we risk arresting the wrong person. Or we need to end our national defense program because we risk hurting persons other than our enemies. We live in a less than perfect world -- at least at this time -- so we must prioritize and do the best we can.
It's more than a few people who are being adversely affected by polygraphy: it's many thousands, every year, especially applicants for law enforcement and national security positions. And I think it could be argued that the entire U.S. population is adversely affected by our government's faith in the pseudoscience of polygraphy when double agents like Czech spy Karel F. Kocher, Soviet spy Aldrich H. Ames, Chinese spy Larry Wu-tai Chin, and Cuban spy Ana Belen Montes easily "pass" while innocent persons like Mark Mallah and CTR1 Daniel M. King become the targets of Kafkaesque espionage investigations simply because they "failed to pass." Our reliance on polygraphy, especially polygraph screening, is undermining, not enhancing, our national security.
Addressing me, you wrote:
QuoteI think poly cop did an excellent job of addressing the issue of ethics here. It's not that we believe you will be successful in training someone to beat us, but if you believe you can...
I'd like to believe that someone of your background and obvious education would have thought through this whole thing a little more. Enough said.
Do you really believe that Polycop's analogy comparing me with "Reverend" Matt Hale of the "World Church of the Creator" (http://www.wcotc.com/) is an apt one? After visiting that organization's website and actually listening to Hale's latest "sermon," (http://www.rahowa.org/wphour/wphour39.ram) I find Polycop's analogy even more outrageous.
You also wrote:
QuoteI will now address your question: "If the results are NDI (no deception indicated), how do you know that the subject did not simply lie and use countermeasures?"
First of all it would be silly for anyone in the poly community to tell you how we identify countermeasures. Would anyone in the intelligence community provide an al Qaeda member information on how we collect intelligence. We adjust to the Doug Williams and George Maschke's as they arise, but to tell you how would only escalate the race. It would be ridiculous, you have countermeasures, now we develop counter-counter measures, and then you counter- counter-countermeasures and so on. We are not going to help you out. Unfortunately we are advesaries on this topic. (Perhaps we could find common ground elsewhere -- over a beer after I retire.)
When I asked how you can tell if a subject who passes used countermeasures or not, I didn't mean to ask you to reveal any trade secrets. I know the polygraph community frequently claims to have the ability to detect countermeasures of the kind described in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml), but there is no convincing evidence that you have any better-than-chance method for detecting such countermeasures. The fact that the American Polygraph Association quarterly,
Polygraph, in its 30-year history, has not published a single article detailing such a methodology, and that no one in the polygraph community has had the courage to step up to Drew Richardson's
polygraph countermeasure challenge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942) (174 days and counting) strongly suggests that that community has no reliable method for detecting such countermeasures, and knows that to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge would expose their inability to detect countermeasures.
I'd also note that the answer to your question, "Would anyone in the intelligence community provide an al Qaeda member information on how we collect intelligence?" is, regrettably, "Yes." For example, senior NSA officials showed off NSA's electronic eavesdropping capabilities to high-ranking visitors (who had absolutely no need to know) by playing intercepts of Osama bin Ladin's satellite telephone conversations with his mother in Syria. As a result of NSA's willfull mishandling of highly classified information, news of this capability eventually leaked, and bin Ladin stopped using the satellite phone.
Of course, your point is that intelligence sources and methods should be protected. I would agree with you that there are indeed sources and methods that should legitimately be kept secret. But it's worth bearing in mind that virtually nothing about polygraphy is secret, as I pointed out recently in an appeal (http://antipolygraph.org/foia/foia-010-3.shtml) of the Defense Security Service's decision not to release portions of DoDPI's polygraph handbook under the Freedom of Information Act.
It is perhaps worth noting here that the Al Qa'idah organization has studied polygraph countermeasures (http://antipolygraph.org/news/polygraph-news-007.shtml#rohde-17-11-01).
You also wrote:
QuoteSuffice to say, there is no 100% way to know that an NDI was not resulting from countermeasures. However, I have caught them before, and I use methods to prevent, disrupt, and identify countermeasures. I've never read an account of one of my tests on this site in which someone was bragging about having "beaten" the test. In fact, I see very few of such posts in comparison to the number of visitors to this site and the number of exams conducted every day.
Not only is there no 100% way to know that an NDI was not the result of countermeasures,
there is no better-than-chance way to know this. It's not surprising that no criminals have posted to this message board bragging about having beaten the polygraph. (Why do you put "beaten" in quotation marks, as if the polygraph can't really be beaten?) Such persons would have nothing to gain from such behavior. In the vast majority of cases where a suspect beats a polygraph "test," the polygrapher will never know.
QuoteHowever, you might, perhaps, be good enough to get one by me. There are other methods of verifying an NDI, both by examiner and case investigator. Suffice to say that an NDI does not automatically stop an investigation and preponderence of evidence will decide what investigative findings are reported. And ultimately the prosecutor will decide if there is PC to proceed with prosecution, insufficient evidence, or reason to unfound. This will be done based on ALL evidence available. Bottom line is that nearly ALL of my NDI exams (as well as my DIs) have been supported by thorough investigation.
Which answers to your assertion that confessions delude examiners. Any good investigator (not just examiner) looks for good investigative corroboration of findings before making investigative conclusions. No piece of evidence proves anything in a vaccuum. Any good agency ensures that thorough investigation precedes and follows examinations, regardless of results. It's not questioning the validity of polygraph, it's just good police work.
You had earlier written that "usually NDI results eliminates [sic] the examinee as a suspect." Are you now acknowledging that passing a polygraph "test"
cannot reliably eliminate an examinee as a suspect? And with regard to DI (deception indicated) outcomes, what do you think of Len Harrelson's claim that without a confession, polygrams are just polygrams?
I think perhaps you've missed the point regarding how confessions mislead polygraphers regarding their ability to detect deception... It is not surprising that nearly all of your NDI exams have been "supported" by thorough investigation. If there were compelling evidence against a suspect, there would have been little need for a polygraph "test" in the first place. It's hardly surprising that most who pass the polygraph are never proven guilty.
QuoteLastly, to believe that huge responses to certain questions slightly overtaking a nearly as significant consistent response to relevant issues will absolutely tell the examiner someone is truthful, shows only a basic understanding of analysis of CQT exams -- not a clear grasp on the theory of psychological set. Suffice to say a well trained, experienced examiner not only understands it, but knows what it looks like in its pure form. You do this enough, you usually see when something's not quite right. See the earlier portion of this post to explain why I will not expound.
The "theory of psychological set" in the context of CQT polygraphy, a notion promoted by Cleve Backster, is something that has been discussed at length in the open polygraph literature.
On a final note, I'd be interested in your views on what I think is one of the most important issues you raised. You suggested that a subject's failure to pass means that he is withholding information that he believes is relevant. As I've explained above, I think this notion is an extremely dangerous delusion. Could you (or anyone else) explain the basis for your belief? How do you know that a subject's failure to pass means that he is withholding information that he believes is relevant, and not simply that he is more concerned about the consequences of not being believed with regard to the relevant questions than with regard to the "control" questions?
Quote from: Public_Servant on Jul 15, 2002, 12:50 PMYou will obviously infer that I am one of practitioners of polygraph, so often labeled as evil on this site.
Setting the record straight: Not by me, not any other [antipolygraphy] poster whom I can recall. Gee, not even a paragraph in and the defamatory lies have begun. Does this bode well for the rest of your post? To reiterate, no one from the anti-polygraph community on this board has ever called a polygrapher 'evil'.
QuoteThe most passionate contributors to this site often throw around the word ad hominem to describe the pro-polygraph views posted.
No, we use the term 'ad hominem' to describe the specious retorts, character attacks, harsh invective, and generally childish taunts and jibes the pro-polygraph community uses on this board in lieu of actual 'views' on the questions raised on this board. When an actual viewpoint is given it is met with logical debate.
QuotePolygraph examiners are called uneducated, dishonest, greedy, authoritarian, unethical, idiotic... So, this finger pointing using latin learned in pre-law 101 is equal to:
Kettle this is Pot, message over.
Pot this is kettle, send message, over.
You're black, out.
Uneducated: I don't recall anyone ever labeling their polygraph interrogator uneducated here, although the sweeping observations have been made that one does not need a college degree in order to enroll in an eight week course in polygraphy. If you wish to label someone who lacks a college degree but has passed an eight week course 'educated', I suppose that's your business. Obviously observations about someone's education must be made on an individual basis-- my own polygraph interrogators were both well educated, scholastically speaking, and were both very experienced polygraphers.
Dishonest: Insofar as polygraphers lie before, during, and after a polygraph interrogation (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=255.msg1142#msg1142) about the nature of the test and often as well as the results of the test, yes polygraphers are dishonest.
QuoteSecondly, while we are discussing the rules of intellectual argument...you argue from the general to the specific to prove a point, not specific to general. That is called stereotyping, or just plain prejudice. My point is that the assertion that "my polygrapher did me wrong so they must all be a bunch of boorish pigs," is not a valid argument.
I don't recall anyone making such an argument. It's important to point out the horrendous stories of abuse of power found in the Personal Statements (http://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml) section of this website, however. For me, 'critical mass' has long since been reached and I am quite comfortable condemning the profession of polygraphy
in toto.
QuoteI'm basically telling you to can the fingerpointing BS and get on to the substance and thus I will do the same. I will try to stick to mere facts or my own personal beliefs of such.
When fingerpointing achieves my goals of the abolishment of polygraphy and the air of legitimacy it now enjoys, I will point all I want, as vigorously as possible.
QuoteThe fact is, examiners have nothing to gain from your passing or failing.
Are you asserting that a polygrapher's reputation is not borne upon the number of confessions he or she elicits?
QuoteA false positive is what I least want since I would not get a confession from an innocent person (I'm good, but not that good) and thus would be unable to reolve a felony investigation.
You completely dismiss here the phenomena of false confessions.
QuoteThis is why we work so hard to ensure proper results, an effort you most criticize here (ie the pre-test).
Is it a critisism to merely point out the true nature of the pre-test interview is (among other things) to jack up the nerves of the examinee? Is it a criticism to point out the simple and complex lies polygraphers as a whole spew during the pre-test interview?
QuoteThe examination. This will get you licking your lips I'm sure. Sorry, I'm not going to get in to validity or accuracy here. I'll just say it's much better than chance.
Ok, I'll just say it's no better than chance. You're welcome to prove your assertion.
QuoteLastly the examinee. Some may actually think into it too much or be overly emotional, know too much, or just be plain unsuitable physically or psychologically.
So if one is too intellectual or introspective, too passionate, too well-educated, or most incredibly, built physically improperly or mentally 'unsuitable', the polygraph won't work? Gee, is there anyone in the US populace who DOESN'T belong in one of the above-cited demographics? And would a potential polygraph examinee get a pass on his polygraph interrogation if he laid claim to one or more of the characteristics you mention above? Or, would you simply conclude he or she was 'trying to hide something' and thus heighten your suspicions of that person, further prejudicing the examination?
QuoteBut overall, the problem one has with passing is withholding information he feels is relevant. Many an inconclusive exam has turned into an NDI on second series, after an admission of some small tidbit is revealed. I took an exam and was bordering on the feelings of this site, angered that I would have to reveal transgressions of my youth. But I did it, and as you know, some of the things the examiner did not want to know, but I made him suffer through it.
If the examiner did not want to know, then why did it have some bearing on the outcome of your exam? Also, do you derive comfort from knowing that even after your confessions, your polygrapher still assumes you're lying?
QuoteThe nicest thing he did was to "lie" to me and ensure I could be seen as not being a criminal or a spy.
Thanks, but I'll pass on such benificent largess.
QuoteFinally, rather than spending the vast resources of intellect and funds many of the contributors to this site exhibit, on bashing polygraph, why not spend them on trying to find something better.
Although it might be an intellectual strain on you to contribute here, I find it enjoyable, relaxing, and totally worth the time it takes to compose replies such as this one. By my count you are the third of fourth pro-polygraph contributor who has suggested we of the opposition direct our energies elsewhere. Now why would that be?
QuoteOr at least push your government to find something better. In these times your government is not going to eliminate its tools. So why not help those in our profession (LE and intelligence) get better tools to protect your nation and your communities.
We're doing just that. As a counterintelligence screening tool, polygraphy is a thundering dud. Let me make this point extemely clear. Polygraphers bear part of the responsibility for the damage to our intelligence and military community as wrought by Ana Montes, Brian Regan, Robert Hansen, Aldrich Ames, etc. Think about that, Public Servant. Because your compatriots have sold a worthless bill of goods to our elected officials and the bureaucrats in charge, men and women have died as a result of your fraud. Innocent men and women have been falsely accused, their careers ruined and their personal lives destroyed while the *truly* guilty have escaped detection.
QuoteEnough said here and don't be surprised if I don't respond to any of your responses -- I know I'll never convince most of the die hard contributors to this site regarding the usefulness of polygraph. However, I will continue to enjoy reading the discussion on this site and will chime in if it gets interesting.
Welcome.
Drew,
You wrote:
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Jul 20, 2002, 10:24 PM
...As one (perhaps one of the few in the country) who has both conducted a polygraph exam and a urinalysis exam, I can tell you that there is absolutely no, and I repeat, no comparison between the two in terms of underlying theory, scientific control, accuracy, and reliability...To even mention the two together in similar contexts is a great disservice to those who perform these routine but valuable examinations that are an integral part of clinical medicine and forensic toxicology.
Drew, I am afraid that Dale Gieringer, Ph.D., very much disagrees with you. Now I know that this web-site is "Anti-polygraph.org and not "anti-whizquiz.org. But I smile at the fact that all the anti urinalysis bozos make ALL the same arguments against drug testing that the people on this website make against polygraph.
Please read the following from Dr. Gieringer article: "A paper for the Drug Policy Foundation Published in "Strategies for Change: New Directions in Drug Policy (1992)"
URINALYSIS: AN UNPROVEN TECHNOLOGY
"Despite the public support for drug testing, urinalysis is a remarkably unproven technology. Were urinalysis a life-saving new drug, it would have had to undergo years of painstaking premarket testing in order to meet FDA regulations, requiring it to be proven fully "safe and effective" in rigorous, double-blind studies. Yet the fact is that urinalysis has been imposed on millions of American workers involuntarily without so much as a single scientifically controlled study to show that it is a safe or effective means of promoting workplace safety...."
I just LOVE his statement, "urinalysis has been imposed on millions of American workers involuntarily without so much as a single scientifically controlled study to show that it is a safe or effective means of promoting workplace safety."
SOUND FAMILIAR???????
How about "False Positives"? Yep, it seems that is a problem too:
"...The important question remains whether false positives may be caused by lab error. Early surveys of drug testing labs reported remarkably high error rates. However, industry and government have taken steps to insure against false positives for the sake of public credibility and liability...given the profusion of unregulated labs, higher error rates may well be common. It should be noted that even if false positives occur in as few as one in 100,000 tests, hundreds of Americans per year can expect to be falsely branded as illicit drug users."
Oh my God! Does that mean that innocent people might be unfairly accused? Quick, we better call for the complete ban of all Urinalysis tests!!!
The good doctor also freely discusses Uninalysis countermeasures. Please read from the same article:
"A more reliable, if ethically dubious, way to foil urine tests is to furtively tamper with the sample. One popular trick is to adulterate the sample with one of a number of household products that are known to interfere with the common EMIT test so as to produce a false negative for marijuana. (10) Popular adulterants include detergent, salt, bleach and Drano crystals, which can be concealed under the fingernails. However, such substances may be detectable by sight or smell by diligent lab technicians. A more sophisticated, less easily detected adulterant is currently sold on lthe underground market. (11) and has been proven to be quite reliable at producing false negatives for marijuana (the manufacturer was compelled to move operations when the Texas legislature passed a bill outlawing sale of urine adulterants)."
Gee, innocent unfairly accused? The guilty able to get away by using countermeasures? You know George Maschke was quite insulted when I compared this site to any one of the hundreds of anti-urinaylsis sites, opting instead to compare himself to some genious who invented a cryptologic algorithm (Now that's a surprise). Nonetheless, I believe the comparison is still alot closer to the "Ban the piss-tests" sites. After all, if it walks like a duck.....
Polycop
Polycop,
Clearly I take exception to that which you have quoted from Dr. Gieringer. Urine screens can be used to screen thousands of substances that may be introduced into the body, obviously some screens performed more (depending on the nature and identity of the analyte) reliably than others. Urine screening done properly (involving both screening and confirmatory examinations) is both extremely accurate and reliable. For these reasons, critical decisions are made in hospital emergency rooms based on it and this evidence is routinely admitted in federal, state, and local courtrooms across the country. In fact, unlike polygraph examinations, which are widely believed to have little diagnostic value, I am not aware of any court which rejects forensic toxicological examinations in general and the results of urinalysis in particular.
Furthermore, as a forensic toxicologist, both my colleagues and I were held to an extremely high standard that apparently does not apply to practitioners of CQT polygraphy. If we were ever shown to have made a mistake that we testified to in court, our careers as forensic experts would have been over. Polygraph mistakes are so routine as to result in no particular individual accountability with the usual polygraph-community answer being I wish we could show you all the good things we have done. Again, I repeat, any comparisons (suggestions of similarity) between the accuracy, validity, and the degree to which the American public can trust the results of CQT polygraphy versus urinalysis are quite ludicrous and misleading.
I gather that you claim no particular knowledge about the subject you speak (urinalysis) and therefore any basis for making the comparisons you suggest/assert with CQT polygraphy. I would be happy to discuss and/or debate this subject with any subject matter expert you might persuade to join this dialogue.
Quote from: polycop on Jul 19, 2002, 12:48 PMI do not have the time to research the entire message board right now, but I know that in the last several months I have read many posts by people who have openly admitted to having committed all sorts of criminal acts and were writing to you and others on this site to help them "beat" the polygraph in order to avoid detection and prosecution. You and others on this site responded in each and every case. by helping these criminals.
I'm sorry, but I just can't find any posts like those to which you're referring above. At the most, various posters intent on a career in law enforcement have asked about various minor transgressions in their past that may or may not disqualify them from becoming officers of the law. The most alarming post I can recall was one fellow who had smoked marijuana as recently as six months prior to his post. Regardless, the 'party line' among the antipolygraph community when responding to those types of queries seems to be:
1. Be honest in your application about prior bad acts, or prior acts of malfeasance that would concern your employer.
2. Don't believe your polygrapher when he says honesty is enough to pass a polygraph.
2a. Because the results of a polygraph interrogation are wholey unreliable, use countermeasures to ensure an NDI result.
QuoteIn fact, at this very moment at least one of the message boards on this site has been completely taken over by registered sex offenders who are using this site to discuss stratigies to keep their ongoing exploitation of others (to include innocent children) beyond the abilities of the authorities to detect and deal with.
That is an outrageous, outlandish, and inflammatory lie polycop. Nowhere on this website do posters trade 'helpful hints' or strategy about how to exploit anyone. I invite you to use your customary tactic of torturing language, twisting meanings, and making blind inferences to prove otherwise-- Fiction seems to be an area in which you shine, so by all means step up to the plate and try to prove your above lies.
QuoteYou distance yourself from these goings on by claiming "Our purpose was certainly not to help criminals to get away with their crimes..." That is much like the statements made by the leader of a well known white racist hate group, who after one of his most faithful followers killed numerous minorities said, "The church ...neither condones violence or unlawful activities, nor do we promote or incite them." Yet that is EXACTLY what this leader condones and encourages. He believes that by making that statement, he absolves himself of any liability.
To borrow a phrase from your fellow propolygrapher, Eastwood, "you suck" polycop. It was only a matter of time before your camp paraded out the Nazi hate playing card. Comparing the goals of the abolishment of polygraphy as a screening tool (and in many cases in its use as a criminal investigation tool) to those of a white supremacist is just vile.
QuoteGeorge, you are distancing yourself from the criminals your site draws, much like Hale does, but you are still KNOWINGLY providing tools that you and your followers BELIEVE will assist the GUILTY in escaping prosecution.
In adition to being hateful, prejudiced and inflammatory offal, this appears to me to be a admission tantamount that the types of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) are undetectable, unbeatable, and powerful. Since you have argued repeatedly that is is easy to detect countermeasures, I must ask, are you lying now, or were you lying then? If countermeasures are so easily detected, as you have repeatedly boasted you have caught the 'swaggering misinformed' in the course of your work, whaddaya care what we espouse or advise?
QuoteYou justify your behavior by saying, "...the countermeasure information we provide here can only help criminals to the extent that government places any reliance on these pseudoscientific "tests.""
Your arguement therefore is, if a criminal (such as a sex offender) were to be able to successfully use your methods to escape detection and thereby be able to victimize others, you would feel no guilt or responsibility, because it was the government's "fault" for relying on the polygraph (that otherwise would have perhaps caught this criminal and prevented more victimization if it were not for the methods YOU taught him).
Again, you appear quite hypocritical in your wild accusations.
If countermeasures are so easily detected, as you have said before, I ask you again, whaddaya care? If anything, I would think you would
want guilty suspects to visit this site, attempt to use these atrociously transparent countermeasures, be caught by you and your ever-so-bright peers, and thus be even more intimidated into confessing their crimes.
QuoteI found web sites that taught me how to ruin someone's credit, build a bomb, acquire guns, seduce small children, and get away with all these things. In EVERY case, the sites completely justified their activities, much as you and your followers do.
All of the activities noted above, if engaged in, are already illegal, polycop. Do you blame match manufacturers for arson, or the arsonist? Do you blame lock and hinge manufacturers or the home invader who breaks the door down? Do you blame bullet makers or the criminal who shoots them into the bodies of others? Do you blame the makers of fertilizer or the bomber who uses it as an explosive agent? For that matter, do you hold The Department of Defense responsible for making public The Department of Defense Polygraph Institute Interview and Interrogation Handbook (http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-interrogation.pdf), thus enabling and empowering citizens to understand and avoid the linguistic traps interrogators use as part-and-parcel of their trade? Is the Department of Defense guilty-- civilly and criminally liable-- because criminals might read the manual and avoid detection during an interrogation?
QuoteGeorge, I am no lawyer, but I must believe there is civil and criminal case law out there that addresses injury caused by individuals who provide information that enables one to engage in, or escape detection from criminal activity that has victimized others. In fact, I can think of several scenerios that would apply to the information provided on this site.
Laughable. For one who is so quick to challenge another's knowledge of the law, your dearth in knowledge of same is ludicrous.
QuoteAnyway, just a little "food for thought."
I found it to be bland left-overs, reheated so often as to be completely unpalatable.
Public Servant,
QuoteNo one here advocates torture and if you could see my interviews you would see it is very much the opposite. In the same vein, you can not seriously say that polygraph has a 10 to 1 failure rate. And in most cases a polygraph alone is hardly the end all in an investigation.
It should be the case that the polygraph is not the end-all in an investigation. If other aspects of an investigation reveal evidence, that, let's say, overwhelmingly contradicts the polygraph interpretation, then clearly the other evidence should prevail. However, I believe the practice is the opposite. As long as an individual has been deemed deceptive by the polygraph, no amount of contradictory evidence can shake off the polygraph finding. It is touted as an investigative tool, but the practice is that it is an investigative determinant. Not your fault, and maybe you believe it should be otherwise, but in my experience with the FBI (in my own case and the others I am aware of), that is the reality. It is generally the investigative determinant with someone who "passes" too, because no further investigation will be conducted.
Agreed on torture, and I have no reason to believe that the examinations you administer are anything but professional. You should be aware though, that many people on this site (myself included) have endured examiners who are abusive, insulting, mocking, and deliberately distort words to spin them into damaging admissions. I believe this accounts for some of the passion displayed here. Is it the case that these type of examinations are an aberration? From what I know, I regrettably conclude otherwise.
On the failure rate: I am hoping that the NAS study clarifies this. If anyone has any statistics on this, please let me know. But be aware that David Raskin (a polygraph proponent) wrote in 1986 ("The Polygraph in 1986", Utah Law Review, I forgot the date but I can get it if you want) that with counterintelligence scope polygraph screenings, 89-96% of those found deceptive would be wrongly suspected.
Polycop,
You wrote in part:
QuoteGee, innocent unfairly accused? The guilty able to get away by using countermeasures? You know George Maschke was quite insulted when I compared this site to any one of the hundreds of anti-urinaylsis sites, opting instead to compare himself to some genious who invented a cryptologic algorithm (Now that's a surprise). Nonetheless, I believe the comparison is still alot closer to the "Ban the piss-tests" sites. After all, if it walks like a duck.....
It was not my purpose to compare my intelligence with Phil Zimmermann's. (Note that Zimmermann, while highly gifted in his own right, did not
invent the cryptographic algorithms used in PGP: he merely
implemented them in a software application.) But our action in making information about polygraph countermeasures publicly available is comparable to Mr. Zimmermann's action in making strong encryption publicly available in some relevant respects:
1) Both actions serve a legitimate civic purpose: information on polygraph countermeasures enables law-abiding persons to protect themselves against the very real danger of a false positive polygraph outcome; strong encryption enables law-abiding persons to protect the privacy of their communications;
2) Both actions were done without any profit motive: both the information on AntiPolygraph.org and Zimmermann's PGP software are free;
3) In both cases, the information (or software) provided could also be exploited by criminals.
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Jul 21, 2002, 01:47 PM
Polycop,
Clearly I take exception to that which you have quoted from Dr. Gieringer....obviously some screens performed more (depending on the nature and identity of the analyte) reliably than others...
Urine screening done properly (involving both screening and confirmatory examinations) is both extremely accurate and reliable...
Furthermore, as a forensic toxicologist, both my colleagues and I were held to an extremely high standard that apparently does not apply to practitioners of CQT polygraphy. If we were ever shown to have made a mistake that we testified to in court, our careers as forensic experts would have been over....
Again, I repeat, any comparisons (suggestions of similarity) between the accuracy, validity, and the degree to which the American public can trust the results of CQT polygraphy versus urinalysis are quite ludicrous and misleading.
I gather that you claim no particular knowledge about the subject you speak (urinalysis) and therefore any basis for making the comparisons you suggest/assert with CQT polygraphy....
Drew,
Let me start with your last statement first. All I know about the urinalysis test is what I read on the Internet (Just like for most people, all they know about Polygraph is what they read on the Internet.) So, in the area of urinalysis testing, you are MUCH more knowledgable than I will ever be.
My point is this: Let's say someone was offered a job and told that for the first time in their life, they were to have to take a urine test. Out of curiosity (or concern), they do some research and stumble upon the site I quoted from. The information they read tells them that the urine test is "inaccurate," "leads to false positives," and the best way to assure they pass was to engage in some sort of "countermeasures". They are then caught in the process of trying to "beat" their drug test (Or if not actually "caught" was possibly acting "suspicious" enough that the prospective employer simply hired the next guy...)
Unfortunately, this person may have been quite innocent of any drug activity. Still, they have just lost a job because they listened to bad advice. The fact is, whether or not anyone on this site believes the polygraph examiners that post here, we DO catch people attempting countermeasures all the time. I for one, don't claim to catch them all, and I am sure I have probably been "beat." However, if even ONE otherwise honest examinee is caught attempting what is taught and encouraged on this site, and suffers as a result, then in my mind they have received very bad advice indeed (Just like the person who is stupid enough to take the advice of the anti-urinalysis sites) .
Now, it just so happens that I believe urinalysis testing to be highly accurate, more accurate than CQT polygraph testing for sure. (Remember, like you, I am a HUGE fan of GKT/CIT testing). The reason I have made an issue about urine testing, is that the anti-urinalysis arguments are EXACTLY the same as the anti-polygraph and the opponents of urinalysis are just as dedicated to their cause.
Lastly, I have testified many times in judicial and administrative hearings concerning polygraph results (Yes, as you know they are admissible in some cases) and I can tell you that just like any other Forensic Examiner, If I was ever shown to have made a mistake (or lied) to what I testified to in court, my career also would also "have been over." The courts are not particularly tolerant of anyone's mistakes....
Polycop...
Quote from: Polycop on Jul 22, 2002, 01:05 PMThe fact is, whether or not anyone on this site believes the polygraph examiners that post here, we DO catch people attempting countermeasures all the time. I for one, don't claim to catch them all, and I am sure I have probably been "beat." However, if even ONE otherwise honest examinee is caught attempting what is taught and encouraged on this site, and suffers as a result, then in my mind they have received very bad advice indeed
Ah yes, the mythical legions of swaggering misinformed who stroll into your 'polygraph lab' with a copy of The Lie Behind The Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) under their collective arm.
When asked to produce
any example of your ability to detect countermeasures, you have repeatedly ignored the requests or declined to do so-- instead you insist you absolutely, positively can detect countermeasures, you have done so many times, and anyone who attempts them has a good chance of being 'caught' by you. When your bluff is called again, you beg off and say words to the effect that you can't describe how you do it, but if we were there in real time you could 'show' us-- I guess the entirety of the English language isn't up to the job that simple finger-pointing at the poly chart and-- what, grunts and clicks?-- can do. Fine, for the second time I suggest backing up your assertions by getting out your Big Red Pen, scanning charted examples of countermeasures and sending them to George, whom I am almost certain will be happy to post them. Get a hotmail account, access it through an anonymizing proxy, and send the proof. NOTE: Telling me you
really, truly, abso-positively-lutely can detect countermeasures will not suffice as a response, polycop. Neither will shrill accusations of felonious behavior on my part nor the outrageous attempts to link this website to pedophilia.
QuoteLastly, I have testified many times in judicial and administrative hearings concerning polygraph results (Yes, as you know they are admissible in some cases) and I can tell you that just like any other Forensic Examiner
In what fields of science have you been deemed a Forensic Expert by the courts?
Dave
P.S. Please stop the strawman argument re: scientific validity of urinalysis. We're here to debate the scientific validity of the polygraph , not the ability of medical doctors and technicians to detect the components of urine samples.
Polycop,
You write in part:
Quote...Now, it just so happens that I believe urinalysis testing to be highly accurate, more accurate than CQT polygraph testing for sure...
I couldn't agree more fully with you!
I believe the discussion that we have engaged in regarding urinalysis and the comparison between the accuracy of urinalysis vs that of CQT testing has demonstrated a very valuable point. Yes, these two as well as other things can be made to seem six of one and a half dozen of the other, all the same, and all apples from the same barrel. This can be done only, and I repeat ONLY, if the common denominator for said examination is ignorance. If serious inspection and intellectual honesty are involved, true and significant differences can and will be revealed allowing for the quoted conclusion that you have come to with regard to the aforementioned comparison...
Regards,
Drew Richardson
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Jul 22, 2002, 02:43 PM
Polycop,
You write in part:
I couldn't agree more fully with you!
I believe the discussion that we have engaged in regarding urinalysis and the comparison between the accuracy of urinalysis vs that of CQT testing has demonstrated a very valuable point. Yes, these two as well as other things can be made to seem six of one and a half dozen of the other, all the same, and all apples from the same barrel. This can be done only, and I repeat ONLY, if the common denominator for said examination is ignorance. If serious inspection and intellectual honesty are involved, true and significant differences can and will be revealed allowing for the quoted conclusion that you have come to with regard to the aforementioned comparison...
Regards,
Drew Richardson
Drew,
I have no problem agreeing that urinaylsis testing is more accurate than CQT polygraph. I really believe that it is. From my experience, I would say that CQT polygraph testing is 85 to 95 percent accurate, and I suspect that urine testing falls in the 97% plus range. Funny though, I know for a fact that in many agencies, they use polygraph to confirm urinaylsis results, when those results have been challenged for some reason.... I have done many, many urinaylsis polygraph exams and I have found that 98% of those tests result in a deceptive finding and the VAST majority of those folks confess.
Gee, I hope the polygraph & the urinalysis were not BOTH wrong.... :'(
Polycop
Polycop,
As you suggest, I think it's a bit silly to be confirming urinalysis results with polygraph exams. It's a bit like confirming Radar Doppler (weather forecasting) results with a wet finger in the air. That having been said, if I were a member of the CQT polygraph community, I would take all the urinalysis confirmations I could get my hands on...a sure fire way to raise the batting averages in the accuracy realm... Cheers
Drew Richardson
George,
Sorry it took me so long to reply. I'll limit myself to some of your last post to me since this thread seems to have overrun its course.
Ref this question:
Do you really believe that Polycop's analogy comparing me with "Reverend" Matt Hale of the "World Church of the Creator" (http://www.wcotc.com/) is an apt one?
I do not think anyone is comparing you to these types of outrageous views. I do concur with the point he was trying to make that often information found on the internet, to include this site, could be detrimental to the persons using it and to others. The point is, if you really believe a criminal could avoid detection, then you do not care that you could with enable criminals to continue to re-offend. The news has been dominated recently by a murderer who had been previously acquitted for other child sex assault offenses. And thus he was free to rape and kill a five year old. Don't think polygraph was involved in the previous investigation in this case, but you seek to provide all persons, to include felons, with a possible tool to wrongfully obtain exculpatory evidence. Doubt it will work, but that is an ethical flaw, from where I sit, regardless of what good intentions you claim.
I would also address this assertion:
The fact that the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, in its 30-year history, has not published a single article detailing such a methodology, and that no one in the polygraph community has had the courage to step up to Drew Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942) (174 days and counting) strongly suggests that that community has no reliable method for detecting such countermeasures, and knows that to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge would expose their inability to detect countermeasures.
To answer such challenges or publish such material in public periodicals would obviously provide new information for counter-counter-countermeasures (and the process would become as redundant and tedious as that sounds).
You also said:
You had earlier written that "usually NDI results eliminates [sic] the examinee as a suspect." Are you now acknowledging that passing a polygraph "test" cannot reliably eliminate an examinee as a suspect? And with regard to DI (deception indicated) outcomes, what do you think of Len Harrelson's claim that without a confession, polygrams are just polygrams?
An NDI would eliminate suspicion altogether in cases where little else is available to suggest guilt. For example a "he said, she said" sex assault where neither accused or accuser is more credible. Other evidence would not be ignored however in any case. That was my point. Thorough investigation is the key. For me a confession is the end all, since where I work, the charts are not admissible in court. A question I'd ask you, perhaps for another thread, do you oppose obtaining of confessions or accepted interrogation techniques?
And finally in reference to this:
On a final note, I'd be interested in your views on what I think is one of the most important issues you raised. You suggested that a subject's failure to pass means that he is withholding information that he believes is relevant.
Perhaps it is not a good scientific study, but my experience has proven that most of my inconclusive exams, and some of my DI exams, end in post test admissions ammounting to less than the offense being investigated. After these admissions, an NDI second series often follows corroborating both the admissions (and my assertion).
I want to say that I am flattered that my initial ramblings developed into such in depth discussion. Contrary to my first post, I may continue to chime in with my two cents, now and then.
Public_Servant,
Let me reduce this to its simplest form. We would have you (the polygraph community) stop the victimization of innocent polygraph examinees and the risking of the national security via the utilization of polygraph screening techniques. Until such time as that occurs, we will do what we can (which may well include actions that reduce your ability to bluff the guilty) to bring that end to pass. To borrow loosely from another context...the rain, of necessity, falls upon both the wicked and the righteous. Regards,
Drew Richardson
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Jul 25, 2002, 11:35 AM
Public_Servant,
Let me reduce this to its simplest form. We would have you (the polygraph community) stop the victimization of innocent polygraph examinees and the risking of the national security via the utilization of polygraph screening techniques. Until such time as that occurs, we will do what we can (which may well include actions that reduce your ability to bluff the guilty) to bring that end to pass. To borrow loosely from another context...the rain, of necessity, falls upon both the wicked and the righteous. Regards,
Drew Richardson
And with that simple statement, Drew, George, Gino, Beechtrees, anonymous, and the others on this site have just completely absolved themselves of any guilt or responsibility in ANY of the damage they have caused the innocent applicants for criminal justice or intelligence related employment in this country. The applicants we dismiss daily for attempted polygraph countermeasures. The irony of course, is that they have not hurt the ones they sought to. They have hurt the innocent.
Congratulations....
Polycop
Polycop,
You make the following reference:
Quote...The applicants we dismiss daily for attempted polygraph countermeasures....
If you and others are in fact dismissing people daily for attempted countermeasures, then you (not we) are creating a second group of victims (the first being those falsely accused of deception via polygraph exams). You certainly (absent admissions of such) cannot detect polygraph countermeasures reliably and demonstrably. If you believe me to be wrong, and you meet my previously stated qualification of being someone whose skills and background would be recognized and unquestioned by the national polygraph community, perhaps you might care to be the first to accept my publicly stated challenge.
You further state:
Quote...The irony of course, is that they have not hurt the ones they sought to...
Although this reference is unclear, I suppose it refers to those you listed within your last post. If so, it is completely wrong (not only the conclusion which I previously referred to but the stated assumption as well)...we have no desire to hurt anyone in our efforts to prevent the victimization that we see (to include even those who are responsible for the victimization).
Regards,
Drew Richardson
Public Servant,
It's good to hear from you again. Please don't be concerned about the length of any discussion thread. I think as long as rational discourse and exchange of views continues on a topic, then it remains worthwhile. There's no notional limit on the number of posts in any one message thread.
You wrote in part:
QuoteRef this question:
Do you really believe that Polycop's analogy comparing me with "Reverend" Matt Hale of the "World Church of the Creator" is an apt one?
I do not think anyone is comparing you to these types of outrageous views. I do concur with the point he was trying to make that often information found on the internet, to include this site, could be detrimental to the persons using it and to others. The point is, if you really believe a criminal could avoid detection, then you do not care that you could with enable criminals to continue to re-offend. The news has been dominated recently by a murderer who had been previously acquitted for other child sex assault offenses. And thus he was free to rape and kill a five year old. Don't think polygraph was involved in the previous investigation in this case, but you seek to provide all persons, to include felons, with a possible tool to wrongfully obtain exculpatory evidence. Doubt it will work, but that is an ethical flaw, from where I sit, regardless of what good intentions you claim.
Perhaps Polycop did not actually mean to liken me to Matt Hale of the "World Church of the Creator," though if such were the case, he made an unfortunate choice for his analogy...
The ethical choice we've made in making polygraph countermeasure information publicly available is that the resultant good will outweigh the bad. It seems that you and I attribute different weights to the harm being done to innocent people as a result of reliance on polygraphy, harm that I and others associated with this website have experienced firsthand. You seem to downplay that harm. In the words of William Shakespeare, "He jests at scars, that never felt a wound."
That CQT polygraphy has no grounding in the scientific method, but is instead a pseudoscientific fraud in the same league as phrenology and graphology, is also an important factor in my ethical considerations.
I'm in complete agreement with what Drew wrote above on this topic. The end of stopping the victimization of innocent polygraph examinees and the risking of the national security via the utilization of polygraph screening techniques justifies the means we are using to bring that end to pass.
Let's move on...
QuoteI would also address this assertion:
The fact that the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, in its 30-year history, has not published a single article detailing such a methodology, and that no one in the polygraph community has had the courage to step up to Drew Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge (174 days and counting) strongly suggests that that community has no reliable method for detecting such countermeasures, and knows that to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge would expose their inability to detect countermeasures.
To answer such challenges or publish such material in public periodicals would obviously provide new information for counter-counter-countermeasures (and the process would become as redundant and tedious as that sounds).
Sorry, but I don't buy it.
Polygraph has published articles that might be considered quite sensitive, including a detailed description of the screening procedure used by the National Security Agency. The more plausible explanation for
Polygraph never having published any article detailing any methodology for the detection of sophisticated countermeasures is that
none exists.Note that with regard to Drew Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942), there would be no need for any polygrapher accepting the challenge to divulge the method by which the countermeasures were detected.
QuoteYou also said:
You had earlier written that "usually NDI results eliminates [sic] the examinee as a suspect." Are you now acknowledging that passing a polygraph "test" cannot reliably eliminate an examinee as a suspect? And with regard to DI (deception indicated) outcomes, what do you think of Len Harrelson's claim that without a confession, polygrams are just polygrams?
An NDI would eliminate suspicion altogether in cases where little else is available to suggest guilt. For example a "he said, she said" sex assault where neither accused or accuser is more credible. Other evidence would not be ignored however in any case. That was my point. Thorough investigation is the key. For me a confession is the end all, since where I work, the charts are not admissible in court. A question I'd ask you, perhaps for another thread, do you oppose obtaining of confessions or accepted interrogation techniques?
I would suggest, for the reasons explained in Chapter 1 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml), that
CQT polygraph chart readings have no diagnostic value whatsoever.QuoteAnd finally in reference to this:
On a final note, I'd be interested in your views on what I think is one of the most important issues you raised. You suggested that a subject's failure to pass means that he is withholding information that he believes is relevant.
Perhaps it is not a good scientific study, but my experience has proven that most of my inconclusive exams, and some of my DI exams, end in post test admissions ammounting to less than the offense being investigated. After these admissions, an NDI second series often follows corroborating both the admissions (and my assertion).
You're absolutely right that what you describe above is not a good scientific study. For example, you (presumably) systematically exclude from your sampling those who pass, since they don't get "post-test" interrogations. If you interrogated those who pass, too, you might get a similar number of "admissions amounting to less than the offense being investigated."
Your notion that those who fail to pass must be withholding information they believe to be relevant has no rational basis, and, to the best of my knowledge, has not been borne out empirically through peer-reviewed scientific research. Again, I suggest that great harm can result from this seemingly widespread delusion held by members of the polygraph community.
I believe we are talking past each other here in some respects, and should define the debate a bit more. As we know, there are polygraph screening exams, and specific incident exams.
In screening exams, where the base rate is so low, I think it's clear that for every guilty person the polygraph accuses (and thus excludes from employment, or investigates as a spy), many more innocent people will suffer. The reality is that the polygraph has not caught any spies (arguably, and very generously to the polygraph, one or two), but we know that at least hundreds have been unfairly excluded from employment, and hundreds within the CIA have had their careers ruined by false accusations from polygraph screenings (see, e.g. Gabriel Schoenfeld's response--scroll down-- to my letter in Commentary Magazine http://www.commentarymagazine.com/letters.htm#C.) And spies have passed the polygraph, the polygraph serving as an "enabler" of their spying. Countermeasures in this context seem entirely justified to protect the innocent.
Specific incident examinations present a different context. My guess is that most of the subjects appearing in the polygraph chambers of Public Servant and Polycop are there because prior investigation legitimately cast suspicion on them (assuming prior investigation was not a polygraph screening exam). In this context, the base rate is enormously higher. Depending on the quality of the investigation leading up to these polygraph exams, perhaps 75% of them are guilty, and it is in the public's interest to have these people locked up. A confession serves that purpose. In a perfect world, we would not want these people to be using countermeasures, but, alas, as Drew states, the rain falls on both the wicked and the righteous. And why should many innocent people suffer in order that guilty people not have a particluar tool, which, if employed, will not exonerate them, but only force law enforcement to attempt to obtain a confession and/or convict them through other means, whereas for the innocent accused, the polygraph is determinative?
All of which leads me to a first step, interim solution: polygraph screenings should be abolished. They don't work, and never have. The polygraph community should distance themselves from it (some already have, e.g. Honts, Raskin, I believe JB too) in order to establish some credibility.
If that is accomplished (even if it is not), the National Academy of Sciences should undertake a scientific look at specific incident polygraphs, and our debates here can exclude screenings.
Mark,
Bravo. At last, I do see the criminal investigator shining through. I would agree that the more specific the issue, the more effective polygraph is (which goes back to my assertion of withholding information deemed relevant, since broader questions cover more seemingly ambiguous material). I would argue that polygraph is very effective in criminal investigation, especially when accompanied by thorough investigation (accomplished before the examination) and good professional oversight. I would also argue that criminal specific examinations are less susceptible to countermeasures. While you might be able to enhance reaponse to controls (regardless if it looks natural or not), you can NOT eliminate response to relevant questions. And guarenteed, a felon is going to respond to the relevant questions! --Unfortunately, I probably just gave George a sigh of relief regarding the ethical issues I raised.
While I would not agree that screeening should be abolished, I would agree that there are many more variables in that environment. Not my area of interest, and hope to never end up there. However, I think it is still a useful tool. Adjudicators need to look at the totality of the background invetigation, not just the exam, and ensure they keep the examination results in context. Again, the results of the exam, especially an inconclusive, should not be the determining factor alone. You would likely be surprised how many felons, spies, and even terrorists are identified (and confess) after screening exams. The ones I know of are NOT public information -- something I'm sure you understand. Of course its hearsay, obviously not my personal experience.
That's all I will say about screening since it is not may area of expertise. So the bad news is that I may run out of things to comment on, since the focus seems to be on screening exams.
George reference:
"He jests at scars, that has not felt a wound."
Perhaps I have not felt the wound that you believe you have as a result of polygraph. But I know that if I had, I would not be on some crusade to help anyone and everyone pass a polygraph. So the fact that you did not get a job justifies seeking to help anyone to include felons, beat poly. Seems a bit shaky to me, but I am willing to agree to disagree. That horse is dead by this point I'd say.
Final word would be advice to the innocent coming into my office. Don't risk making yourself look guilty by getting caught using countermeasures. I work hard to ensure the results come out correctly. I do not have time to waste doing a post test interview on someone who is not guilty, and thus I have nothing to gain from getting DI or Inc results from an innocent person. I also do not have time to waste trying to determine why someone claiming to be innocent is sabotaging his own chance at exhoneration with countermeasures. For those seeking advice for screening exams, I'm sure the screening community would share these views.
Public Servant,
You wrote in part:
QuoteI would also argue that criminal specific examinations are less susceptible to countermeasures. While you might be able to enhance reaponse to controls (regardless if it looks natural or not), you can NOT eliminate response to relevant questions. And guarenteed, a felon is going to respond to the relevant questions!
How can you know that a felon is going to necessarily respond significantly to the relevant questions?
You cannot know this.And how can you know that the innocent suspect, fearful the consequences of not being believed regarding the accusatory relevant questions, will not respond significantly when truthfully answering them?
Again, you cannot know this.QuotePerhaps I have not felt the wound that you believe you have as a result of polygraph. But I know that if I had, I would not be on some crusade to help anyone and everyone pass a polygraph. So the fact that you did not get a job justifies seeking to help anyone to include felons, beat poly. Seems a bit shaky to me, but I am willing to agree to disagree. That horse is dead by this point I'd say.
Perhaps its worth noting that for several years after I became a victim of polygraph screening, I kept my silence. I researched polygraphy and understood that it is a pseudoscientific fraud, but I did absolutely nothing about it. It was only after discovering the magnitude of the false positive problem, and realizing that many more persons are being victimized than I had previously imagined, that I felt compelled to take a public stance against polygraph screening (including providing countermeasure information so that the innocent may protect themselves against this kind of abuse).
QuoteFinal word would be advice to the innocent coming into my office. Don't risk making yourself look guilty by getting caught using countermeasures....
My final word of advice to the innocent (as well as the guilty) would be not to come into your office at all to be polygraphed in the context of any criminal or administrative investigation. This advice is also found in Chapter 4 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Public_Servant,
You wrote in part:
Quote...While I would not agree that screening should be abolished, I would agree that there are many more variables in that environment. Not my area of interest, and hope to never end up there. However, I think it is still a useful tool. Adjudicators need to look at the totality of the background investigation, not just the exam, and ensure they keep the examination results in context...
I maintain the following: It is not sufficient to let your colleagues in the screening world do as they wish based on the hearsay passed on to you, nor to continue to figuratively scratch their back while they scratch yours. This "test" is not a function of the good intentions nor or the professionalism of the examiner performing it. Neither will overcome the error associated with this nonsense. Polygraph error in this realm is not a function of individual malpractice but the total hucksterism associated with the application itself. It is neither a tool (except in the sense of a wrecking ball or a dull meat cleaver) nor is it useful in any clearly demonstrable sense other than as a full-employment aid to the polygraph community. Polygraph people need to understand that this application is completely theoretically unsound and for the time being largely causes serious harm in the realm of and to applicant examinees. Mark Mallah, to whom you addressed your last reply, will be glad to let you know about the error that occurs in the world of counterintelligence screening as well.
I maintain that unless you, specific-issue polygrapher, remove this cancer from your midst, that you too will be eventually touched by it. And to the same, it is not enough to wash your hands of the matter and say let the adjudicators take care of it. As you are undoubtedly aware, the Bureau and various other groups end an applicant process with a deceptive polygraph examination without any investigative corroboration. There is no meaningful adjudication and you cannot pass such a suggestion off to the victims of this site with a clear conscience.
You mention this being a test with "many more variables". That sounds very academic. I am an academic and have a serious appreciation for such. The truth of the matter is that all such variables lead one to conclude that this "test" is unsound and nonsense at best and, more likely and unacceptably, the cause of great harm justified with various imagined and contrived benefits. You are your brother's keeper, specific-issue polygrapher--do what you can to end this foolishness--if not, you share the responsibility for these victims' plight (which is anything but academic to them) and, no doubt, will eventually pay the price for your complicity. Regards,
Drew Richardson
George,
I'm not blowing off the rest of your last post, I just think we will never come to agreement regarding whether the posting of countermeasure techniques is ethical. Further coverage would amount to simple banter.
However, regarding the last advice you provided, which I have also read in both editions, leads me back to an earlier question I posed. Do you think it is wrong for interviews to be conducted to elicit admissions from criminal suspects who have waived their rights? And, beyond that, is it wrong to conduct specific issue polygraphs on persons who consent (and often request it)? Your advice makes you sound as if you are either a defense attorney afraid to inherit a case he cannot win, or someone who opposes the suspect interview altogether--another excellent, accepted tool for resolving criminal investigations.
Also, George, I want you and the others to know I am not making light of your situations (taking your word that you should have been NDI). Not to be cocky or condescending, but being confident in my ability to properly apply the technique, I believe that had I (or poly cop, I would venture), been your first examiner you would have been NDI, if you really were not withholding relevant information.
Public Servant,
I have no in-principle objection to law enforcement officers interrogating suspects. However, I do believe that as a safeguard against abuse (or any allegation of abuse), all such interrogations, including those involving polygraphs, should be videotaped, or at least audiotaped, from beginning to end, and that a copy of the tape should be provided to the interogee on demand.
Drew,
Just to set the record straight (forgive me if there was sarcasm intended and I missed it) I have not yet attained sufficient formal education to be considered an academic (as was pointed out by Latin 101 at the beginning of this thread). Someday perhaps.
I comprehend what you are saying, but convincing me that polygraph has absolutely no place in screening, in any form, will be as successful as any attempts on my part to get you to embrace polygraph as a whole. But then as I said, screening is not my area of expertise.
Would I be correct to say that you do not oppose specific issue use of the polygraph? I have seen you seemingly support the GKT on past postings. Do other formats have a legitimate use in specific issue testing (to include CQT), in your opinion? I'd like to hear your honest opinions, not just the party line (as you implored me to step away from).
Lastly, do you believe any method of detecting deception will ever be developed that will meet your standards for all of the uses of today's polygraph? I'm not talking about VSA, either. -- Either other methods of the using the polygraph or methods monitoring brain activity. I'm sure you have become familiar with many of the developing technolgies and techniques. I'd like to know if you, or others oppose the purpose of the polygraph all together, or just oppose it on the basis of accuracy and validity.
Quote from: Public_Servant on Jul 26, 2002, 06:01 AMFinal word would be advice to the innocent coming into my office. Don't risk making yourself look guilty by getting caught using countermeasures. I work hard to ensure the results come out correctly. I do not have time to waste doing a post test interview on someone who is not guilty, and thus I have nothing to gain from getting DI or Inc results from an innocent person. I also do not have time to waste trying to determine why someone claiming to be innocent is sabotaging his own chance at exhoneration with countermeasures. For those seeking advice for screening exams, I'm sure the screening community would share these views.
1. Here is quintessential Public_Servant hubris. Hey, listen up:
EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO COMES THROUGH YOUR DOOR IS, AS A MATTER OF LAW, INNOCENT. You call yourself a public servant? Well, I'm the public, so start serving me by understanding that simple Constitutional fact. Unless you are interrogating a felon about the incident for which he has already been convicted, the man sitting in your chair is INNOCENT. I'm not saying he or she hasn't commited the criminal acts, I'm saying for the purposes of your polygraph interrogation that person is innocent until proven guilty, deemed so by a jury of his peers in a court of law.
Innocence or guilt, as a matter of law, is proven in a COURT OF LAW, not in your polygraph chair. Since the vast majority of courts have ruled that polygraph results are not admissable, the only reason you exist as a polygrapher is as a sort of 'super interrogator', in which case those who have actually commited the crimes to which they are suspect are absolutely protected against self-incrimination and would be well-advised to understand the trickery and deceit you regularly employ as this super interrogator, whether you like it or not. Innocent suspects are well-advised to understand the trickery and deceit you regularly employ as this super interrogator, whether you like it or not.
Lastly, why have you repeatedly made reference to those examinees whom you have caught using countermeasures and yet will not offer up one scintilla of proof as to who they are, what countermeasures they used, and how you detected those countermeasures? Since you won't answer the question directly, I am forced to ask WHY won't you answer? Can it be that you cannot detect countermeasures, that your assertions otherwise are lies, and this is all a desperate attempt to save the ruination of your power and career?
Beech Trees,
Wow, as usual a post with rather hostile overtones. However, you are correct, each person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And if you really understand my posts, you would see that I firmly believe that the court, not the exam, is the deciding factor in guilt. And...many of the persons walk out of my office with more support for their claim of innocence.
SUPER -- gee, thanks.
You might have been a "victim" of an incorrect polygraph result, but you have obviously never been a victim of crime. You would like to empower felons with knowledge to help them get away with their crimes -- not just on the subject of polygraph, but all attempts to obtain the truth?! Every suspect interview I've done, the person has been advised of his rights. And in a poly, he gets a second advisement of his right to refuse. And you want to put up more blocks to law enforcement?!
I think I sufficiently addressed why specifics on detecting countermeasures are not discussed. And I think you will see, I have not claimed to be able to catch all countermeasures, just that I have done so.
I know this will raise your BP, and it's off topic, but... why is your flag yellow? I have seen various renditions of this flag, but I do not recall it in yellow. It's almost offensive to my patriotic soul. Does the color mean anything or are the colors to choose from, limited. I really want to know, I'm not just pulling your chain.
Beech Trees, Public Servant,
It should be borne in mind that the common law concept of "presumption of innocence" merely means that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and nothing more. (See my short essay on this topic titled, "Innocent Until Proven Guilty?" (http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/people/maschke/innocent.html))
Quote from: Public_Servant on Jul 26, 2002, 12:41 PMWow, as usual a post with rather hostile overtones. However, you are correct, each person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And if you really understand my posts, you would see that I firmly believe that the court, not the exam, is the deciding factor in guilt.
Your posts don't seem to corroborate that, but fine, point taken.
QuoteYou might have been a "victim" of an incorrect polygraph result, but you have obviously never been a victim of crime.
I don't know anyone in the US who has not been a victim of crime. I'm not sure why you would infer that whether or not I have been a victim of crime should influence my opinion that polygraphy is a pseudo-scientific fraud, or that it has some bearing on the validity of that assertion, but fine. In point of fact in my life I have been burglarized, and have had three violent crimes attempted-- two strong arm robbery attempts (one in Washington, DC the other in Chicago) and one attempted home invasion.
QuoteYou would like to empower felons with knowledge to help them get away with their crimes -- not just on the subject of polygraph, but all attempts to obtain the truth?! Every suspect interview I've done, the person has been advised of his rights. And in a poly, he gets a second advisement on his right to refuse. And you want to put up more blocks to law enforcement?!
No, I want to abolish the use of polygraphy as it is currently practiced, based on the lack of scientific validity and certain Constitutional issues.
A 'felon' who has already commited the criminal act has already 'gotten away with it'.
QuoteI know this will raise your BP, and it's off topic, but... why is your flag yellow? I have seen various renditions of this flag, but I do not recall it in yellow. It's almost offensive to my patriotic soul. Does the color mean anything or are the colors limited. I really want to know, I'm not just pulling your chain.
A complete discussion of the symbology of the rattlesnake in pre-Revolutionary times, as well as its use in various flags, banners, and battle-standards would be somewhat lengthy and probably not of interest to most readers here. Suffice to say that the rattlesnake appears several times in flags and standards prior to its first noted appearance on a yellow field, this in 1775 on the drums of Marines mustered to accompany the Continental Navy in its mission to seize British cargo ships laden with arms that were destined for the the British troops under General Howe. A member of the Sons of Liberty, Christopher Gadsden, also was a part of the Marine committee who originally mustered the previously-mentioned Marine force. Gadsden and the Continental Congress chose Esek Hopkins as the commander-in-chief of the Navy. The flag that Hopkins used as his personal standard on the Alfred is the one seen accompanying my posts-- it's commonly referred to as the Gadsden Flag or the Hopkins Flag.
It's generally accepted that Hopkins' flag was presented to him by Christopher Gadsden, who felt it was especially important for the commodore to have a distinctive personal standard. Gadsden also presented a copy of this flag to his state legislature in Charleston. This is recorded in the South Carolina congressional journals, from which I quote:
Col. Gadsden presented to the Congress an elegant standard, such as is to be used by the commander in chief of the American navy; being a yellow field, with a lively representation of a rattle-snake in the middle, in the attitude of going to strike, and these words underneath, "Don't Tread on Me!"I cannot speculate why the Colonel chose yellow, except that he was hearkening back to the Continental Marines' drums.
Nice essay George. Yes, I agree with all you wrote there, which is why I point out 'as a matter of law'. In other words, the state has not yet proven its charge or suspicions, thus under the color of law the person is innocent of the charges, not necessarily the bad act.
For public servant, rather than non-sequitur questions on American history, could you be compelled to answer my question:
Lastly, why have you repeatedly made reference to those examinees whom you have caught using countermeasures and yet will not offer up one scintilla of proof as to who they are, what countermeasures they used, and how you detected those countermeasures? Since you won't answer the question directly, I am forced to ask WHY won't you answer? Can it be that you cannot detect countermeasures, that your assertions otherwise are lies, and this is all a desperate attempt to save the ruination of your power and career?
In a stirring Patrick Henryesque post, Drew has issued challenge number 2:
Specific issue polygrapher, remove this cancer (polygraph screenings) from your midst.
Drew, thanks for that impassioned post, which resonated with me tremendously. I think every victim of polygraphy thanks you.
QuoteAnd guarenteed, a felon is going to respond to the relevant questions!
Let's say you are correct. How do you know that an innocent person, fearing the consequences of being disbelieved, or recognizing this as the most important question, will not also respond? I just noticed that George asked this of you too. I should have known better than to think George might have missed something.
QuoteBravo. At last, I do see the criminal investigator shining through
Polygraph screenings should be a criminal investigator's nightmare. The harm done has been tremendous. The polygraph can't be singularly faulted for the espionage of an Aldrich Ames, Ana Belen Montes, or a Larry Wu Tai Chin, but it has enabled them to get away with it. Having "passed", they carried on their merry way.
In my own case, the FBI was bogged down in a 2 year, intense investigation of me. On a personal level, it was very upsetting, stressful, invasive, embarrassing, humiliating, disruptive, unjust, frustrating, et al. But the cost was greater than just my own personal suffering. The FBI was diverted for two years chasing the wrong person. By wasting their time and being diverted for 2 years, the direct beneficiaries were the real criminals (such as Robert Hanssen).
Mark,
I am in complete agreement with you. Drew's last post is eloquently stated and quite to the point. I'm grateful for the public stance he has courageously taken on the issue of polygraph screening, not just here, but in numerous public fora during the many years that he has had the courage to speak out honestly about the problems of polygraph screening.
Public Servant, you said
Quote from: Public_Servant on Jul 26, 2002, 11:41 AM
George,
I believe that had I (or poly cop, I would venture), been your first examiner you would have been NDI, if you really were not withholding relevant information.
Interesting observation. You know George posted his "story" on one of the other anti-polygraph sites (He posted as "Capt. Jones"). I have read that story over a couple of times and have come to the opinion that there may have been real problems in the way his first exam was administered, the choice of comparison questions used, and most importantly the obvious and absolute lack of rapport between the examiner and the examinee from the minute the examinee (George) walked in the room.
Public Servant, we both know that in order for a polygraph exam to go smoothly, the examinee must have some amount of trust in the process and the examiner. From what I read, George decided in about the first 3 seconds that he had no trust in anything that particular examiner had to say (not George's fault, apparantly the examiner said some things right off that George knew not to be true and that understandably spooked him). Bottom line, how does a examiner set comparisons (designed to get the truthful through the test) if the examinee does not believe a thing the examiner says?
You should really read the "Capt Jones" letter. In one way, George was probably his own worst enemy in that room, but in another way, the examiner who tested him may have made some real mistakes. Bottom line:
We may have created this monster.... :-/
Polycop
Polycop,
You are quite correct! I have said openly that the "antipolygraph man of the year" for the last couple of years running is the guy who wrongly found George Maschke to be deceptive during his applicant exam. I know who that individual is, a well known now-retired FBI agent and former Bureau polygraph examiner, but for privacy sake, will not reveal his name on this board. Should he care to defend his examination though, I'm sure we would all be glad to hear his commentary...
QuoteIn one way, George was probably his own worst enemy in that room
Doesn't it seem problematic that in a test designed to distinguish the truthful from the deceptive, a truthful person could be his own worst enemy and inadvertently contribute to the test branding him a liar?
Quotewe both know that in order for a polygraph exam to go smoothly, the examinee must have some amount of trust in the process and the examiner.
How can you know if the examinee truly trusts the process and the examiner? I bet many examinees do not communicate their mistrust or skepticism because they do not want to alienate the examiner and hurt their chances. I communicated my reservations about the polygraph to a few different examiners (before I knew anything about it other than that I was falsely accused by it previously). Admittedly, I communicated my reservations conservatively because I did not want to alienate the examiners. The examination went on, and I was falsely accused.
To my knowledge, nobody reconsidered the DI result based on my reservations about the process. To stand behind what you say here, you would have to acknowledge that where an examinee truly does not trust the process, and that information becomes known to the examiner, the results are of no value, no?
QuoteWe may have created this monster....
George, I think you should take this as a compliment. :)
Public Servant has written regarding polygraph subjects:
QuoteSome may actually think into it too much or be overly emotional, know too much, or just be plain unsuitable physically or psychologically...
And Polycop has written:
Quote...we both know that in order for a polygraph exam to go smoothly, the examinee must have some amount of trust in the process and the examiner...
These attributes ascribed to CQT polygraphy by two of its practitioners are also common to the cold reading (http://www.skepdic.com/coldread.html) technique practiced by psychics (http://www.skepdic.com/psychic.html), palm readers (http://www.skepdic.com/palmist.html), and other assorted charlatans. ;)
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jul 27, 2002, 10:26 AM
These attributes ascribed to CQT polygraphy by two of its practitioners are also common to the cold reading (http://www.skepdic.com/coldread.html) technique practiced by psychics (http://www.skepdic.com/psychic.html), palm readers (http://www.skepdic.com/palmist.html), and other assorted charlatans. ;)
Oh c'mon George, I don't know about that. I would instead equate the necessity of some amount of faith in the polygraph process as more closely kin to the faith that somebody must have in their counselor in order for their counseling to be of some help to them. Like polygraph examiners, a counselor's success is based in some degree on their patient. Like polygraph examiners, counselors are involved in an imperfect (and quote soft) science, and like polygraph examiners, counselors do make mistakes. Like counselors, we polygraph examiners try to learn from our mistakes and do a better job next time. That is what being a professional is all about...
Polycop.... :)
Quote from: Mark Mallah on Jul 26, 2002, 09:29 PM
Doesn't it seem problematic that in a test designed to distinguish the truthful from the deceptive, a truthful person could be his own worst enemy and inadvertently contribute to the test branding him a liar?
To stand behind what you say here, you would have to acknowledge that where an examinee truly does not trust the process, and that information becomes known to the examiner, the results are of no value, no?
Mark,
You make some good points here. I would suggest though that as a result of all the Vilification of polygraph examiners on this site, otherwise truthful subjects are walking into polygraph labs (Beechtrees HATES that term..:) ready to "do battle" instead of allowing the examiner to build some trust, prepare the subject for the exam, listening to directions, cooperating, and otherwise getting through the testing process. Polygraph examiners want good applicants and we do everything necessary to make sure the right people are hired.
You know, I am regularly thanked by applicants who were surprised at how painless the testing process actually was. It is not always the nightmare that many of the residents of this site endured (rightly or wrongly)...
Polycop
Polycop,
In your last reply to Mark Mallah you write:
Quote...You know, I am regularly thanked by applicants who were surprised at how painless the testing process actually was....
I would suggest that
if you conducted no exam at all and passed/cleared all your examinees that: (1) you would likely be thanked by more people, and (2) you would have adopted a procedure which has no less diagnostic value than the one you are currently using (assuming you are screening applicants with either a CQT or RI test).
For all practical purposes, as opposed to the daily nightmare that exists for applicants, I believe my suggested scenario is what basically happens with the federal government's counterintelligence screening of on-board employees and contractors. Because of the high probability of false positives and grave and immediate consequences to polygraph examiners who would routinely and wrongly condemn their coworkers, I believe otherwise deceptive exam results are largely overlooked with employee-examinees. Mr. Mallah, although the exception, was one of the few whose results were not overlooked.
Please note this important distinction: I can easily believe that the examiners involved in Mr. Mallah's examination(s) and the accompanying "quality control" review correctly (according to industry standards) scored his polygraph exam charts. The problem lies not in the scoring but in the fact that this application is so completely lacking in validity that his exam results had no bearing on truth and reality.
The only difference between Mr. Mallah's (and similar cases) versus the great number of ignored employee-examinee results is that his examiners likely threw the standard caution to the wind because their agency was looking for a spy at the time. Unfortunately, those examiners involved with Mr. Mallah's examination likely overlooked the fact that
a change in the exigency of the circumstances is NOT, and I repeat is NOT, accompanied by a change in the validity of the diagnosis. Regards,
Drew Richardson
p.s. I believe I owe you an answer regarding the use of CQT exams in connection with specific-incident investigations and with regard to my thoughts regarding concealed information tests. Because these are both areas involving many important sub-issues, I have yet to decide how to answer the question both meaningfully and within a post of reasonable length. Please excuse my delay while I consider how best to approach the matter...
Polycop,
You wrote:
QuoteOh c'mon George, I don't know about that. I would instead equate the necessity of some amount of faith in the polygraph process as more closely kin to the faith that somebody must have in their counselor in order for their counseling to be of some help to them. Like polygraph examiners, a counselor's success is based in some degree on their patient. Like polygraph examiners, counselors are involved in an imperfect (and quote soft) science, and like polygraph examiners, counselors do make mistakes. Like counselors, we polygraph examiners try to learn from our mistakes and do a better job next time. That is what being a professional is all about...
I think your analogy of polygraphy to counseling (you didn't specify what kind) is a poor one: polygraphy lays claim to being a science-based diagnostic test; counseling does not. And although you and other polygraphers may earnestly attempt to learn from your mistakes, no amount of such endeavor can compensate for CQT (or R/I) polygraphy's complete lack of any genuine diagnostic value whatsoever.
How can you know whether a subject has the requisite faith in the polygraph process? The inescapable truth is,
you can't. This is just one of many uncontrolled (and uncontrollable) variables that may affect the outcome of a polygraph chart reading.
You say that polygraphy is "an imperfect (and quote soft) science." But the truth is that it is not a science at all, for the reasons explained at greater length in Chapter 1 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.Addressing Mark you wrote:
QuoteYou make some good points here. I would suggest though that as a result of all the Vilification of polygraph examiners on this site, otherwise truthful subjects are walking into polygraph labs (Beechtrees HATES that term.. ready to "do battle" instead of allowing the examiner to build some trust, prepare the subject for the exam, listening to directions, cooperating, and otherwise getting through the testing process. Polygraph examiners want good applicants and we do everything necessary to make sure the right people are hired.
Perhaps it is not any "Vilification" (with a capital "V") of polygraphers that leads truthful examinees to trust neither their polygrapher nor the process, but the fact (increasingly understood by those subjected to polygraph screening) that CQT polygraphy is a
pseudoscientific fraud that fundamentally depends on the polygrapher lying to and deceiving the person being "tested."
I think the argument is well-taken that
all polygraph screening examinations are administered in bad faith, as they involve the polygrapher knowingly misrepresenting the procedure to the subject. This being the case, how can the subject who knows how the "test" actually "works" have any faith in either the polygrapher or the polygraph process?
Beech Trees,
Your choice of icon for your posts was obviously well researched and I assume has some personal meaning to you (either by association with the person, state, or organization). I consider myself somewhat of a history buff, and while I have seen many versions of the "Don't tread on me" banner, I had never seen this color scheme. I was expecting another scathing response but you disappointed me. The point I was going to make is; you deliver your message much better when you leave the emotion out.
Quote
Lastly, why have you repeatedly made reference to those examinees whom you have caught using countermeasures and yet will not offer up one scintilla of proof as to who they are, what countermeasures they used, and how you detected those countermeasures? Since you won't answer the question directly, I am forced to ask WHY won't you answer? Can it be that you cannot detect countermeasures, that your assertions otherwise are lies, and this is all a desperate attempt to save the ruination of your power and career?
Quote
First of all, as I have said repeatedly, it would obviously be counterproductive for me to inform anyone how I recognize countermeasures (see numerous previous posts on this thread). And you want me to name persons?! Ye who claims he is championing the rights of the downtrodden polygraph examinee, wants me to violate their confidentiality. Violating the confidentiality of an investigation and the privacy of the examinee would be the only threat to my career here. See my earlier post (perhaps the one that started this thread) to see if I believe my career rises and falls with polygraph. I am a law enforcement officer -- a damned good one I might add-- and could continue to be such with or without my present duties. Oh, and Power?! Ha! He thinks I seek power. I'd say my pseudonym here should surely show that no one in my position has power. Next you'll be suggesting I am wealthy! I will borrow from a post by my colleague on another thread...that is funny, Beech Trees.
Quote from: Polycop on Jul 27, 2002, 11:14 PMLike polygraph examiners, a counselor's success is based in some degree on their patient. Like polygraph examiners, counselors are involved in an imperfect (and quote soft) science, and like polygraph examiners, counselors do make mistakes. Like counselors, we polygraph examiners try to learn from our mistakes and do a better job next time. That is what being a professional is all about...
What members of the 'counseling' field (be it social service, psychology, psychiatry, etc.) would be unleashed upon their patients after eight weeks of education? What counselor would, upon being taken at their word that the contents of discussions is sacrosanct, run gleefully to their employer with uncorroborated, potentially damaging admissions?
I know counselors. Some of my best friends are counselors. You, polycop, are no counselor. Delude yourself as you see fit, but you insult the integrity of those fields I mention above when you bloviate that a polygrapher is like a counselor.
QuoteI would suggest though that as a result of all the Vilification of polygraph examiners on this site, otherwise truthful subjects are walking into polygraph labs (Beechtrees HATES that term..
Another mischaracterization of me-- congratulations. I don't hate the term 'polygraph lab' as much as I (knowing the truth about yon carpetbagging flim-flamming hucksters) hold the term up for derisive laughter, scorn, and ridicule. Just like a scam artist, you seek to cloak your profession in an air of scientific validity that it will never possess otherwise.
Quoteready to "do battle" instead of allowing the examiner to build some trust, prepare the subject for the exam, listening to directions, cooperating, and otherwise getting through the testing process. Polygraph examiners want good applicants and we do everything necessary to make sure the right people are hired.
One thing is certain, polycop: When the truly prepared examinees stroll through your door and into your polygraph lab, you won't have a bloody clue about it.
Mark,
I went back and read your account again (it's been about a year since I last did so). Again having only your side of the story, and not knowing what caused your section to suddenly be asked to submit to examination, I would definitely say the cart was put before the horse. As some of our previous posts discussed, we agree (I think), that the polygraph is more suited when the issue is very specific. Thus, thorough investigation should be done first. In your account, it seems a test was given just for peace of mind, then they launch a "major" investigation. Perhaps there were some indicators that someone was leaking information (as we now know there was a spy within the FBI at the time), but if it was a random exam then I do not agree with the methodology. To me, even a pre-employment exam should follow a thorough background investigation. Updating Clearance Exams, should follow updated background investigations. Of course, some in the screening business would argue the deterent value of random exams for those holding a clearance. They also would disagree with my version of the degree of specificity necessary. I know a lot of good screeners and I'd leave that to them to argue.
Your case seems to fall along the lines of supporting proper oversight and appropiate utilization. Many within the polygraph community would agree with that. As Poly Cop said,
Quote
We may have created this monster....
Quote
Those of us within polygraph know that poor exams, poor examiners, and poor utilization bring disredit on polygraph as a whole. We also know that some agencies do a good job at ensuring polygraph is used properly, others do not.
Quote
p.s. I believe I owe you an answer regarding the use of CQT exams in connection with specific-incident investigations and with regard to my thoughts regarding concealed information tests. Because these are both areas involving many important sub-issues, I have yet to decide how to answer the question both meaningfully and within a post of reasonable length. Please excuse my delay while I consider how best to approach the matter...
Quote
Drew,
This was a question posed on of one of my posts. I look forward to your input. I would suggest starting a new thread. I will look for one started by you on this topic. I have no doubts, you will find the appropriate approach to initiate good, intellectual conversation.
Poly Cop,
I was familiar with which scenario was George's, but it has been a while. I re-read it and would agree, there were problems with all three variables, examiner, examinee, and exam.
With all fairness to the examiner, I am only addressing this in reference to George's account. I do not have the examiner's side.
The examiner seemed unable to connect with the examinee. He was unable to build rapport, and his apparent attempts at displaying authority came across as arrogance and deceipt. These cripled his ability to effectively apply psychological set.
I know little else about the exam except the controls and relevants as given in the account. I don't like the the controls much, one in particualr. I also don't like having a relevant with "Other than.." I believe controls are very effective when they have to be modified to this, so why would I want a control to have this. Also don't want relevants and controls to begin with the same words. The response could occur because the examinee was expecting the opposite question.
Lastly, the examinee was obviously difficult. First of all, he was highly intelligent and likely made pulled no punches in letting the examiner know this. The pre-test was probably both, the examiner and the examinee trying to out think the other. Secondly, he was distrustful and liklely questioned everything rather than following along during crucial parts of the pre-test. He also was somewhat familiar with CQT, and thus may have been dismissive of control material. Lastly, this was a guy with a lot of experience in the intelligence field. Well travelled and likely well versed in the intelligence collection. And this brings me back to a question George posed (and though this was addressed to poly cop, this is mostly for you George). With this much contact with foreign nationals, and intelligence agents (I'm speaking of authorized contact), their was likely something associated by the examinee with the relevant questions. Perhaps not something he was withholding, but something causing true mental insight instead of just the simple thought process of saying no.
In closing I would make two apologies. First to the examiner, in this case. I do not do these types of tests, so I may be way off in my assessment of examiner and exam. I also lacked his side of the story and documentation of the exam.
Lastly, to George. I knew which account was yours, but I avoided saying so in respect for your privacy. However, I saw no complaint in your post following poly cop's post to me so I assumed you acquiesed in the name of discourse. If not, I apologize.
Public Servant,
Our interlocutor Polycop seems to take an impish delight in identifying me as the author of the "Captain Jones" (http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml) statement, as he first did in a taunt posted to the message thread, Can a Forensic Test Be Secret? (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=544.msg2837#msg2837) As a general rule, I do not comment on the authorship of anonymous or pseudonymous writings, and I have decided not to make an exception with regard to Polycop's gibes.
Public_Servant,
With regard to George's examination, I will repeat what I have said in a more general reference elsewhere: Albeit (as far as I know) completely in error, those exam results have absolutely nothing to do with examiner error (individual malpractice), but with the overwhelming grand hucksterism that exists with the application itself. That application has absolutely no basis in theory, fact, or otherwise. The examiner associated with that error is someone touted as a role model not only by his own former agency, but by other agency(s) as well. If he is guilty of any degree of malpractice, then heaven help the rest of the cadre and, more importantly, their associated examinees.
Parenthetically, although largely irrelevant and hardly satisfying, your suggestion that George's intelligence/counterintelligence background had something to do with the exam error witnessed is clearly an insufficient explanation. George has indicated in other communications that he was additionally erroneously found to be DI with regard to drug issues on the lifestyle portion of that exam.
I do not know whether George had confidence and trust in his examiner at the time of the exam in question. This is largely a function of whether he understood then what he so clearly understands and articulates now. EVERY examinee that understands the weaknesses, deception, etc. that accompany CQT polygraph screening is not only justified BUT INTELLECTUALLY COMPELLED TO HAVE A LACK OF TRUST IN HIS EXAMINER AND THE EXAM PROCESS IN WHICH HE IS INVOLVED. Regards,
Drew Richardson
Quote from: polycop on Jul 26, 2002, 07:06 PMInteresting observation. You know George posted his "story" on one of the other anti-polygraph sites (He posted as "Capt. Jones"). I have read that story over a couple of times and have come to the opinion that there may have been real problems in the way his first exam was administered, the choice of comparison questions used, and most importantly the obvious and absolute lack of rapport between the examiner and the examinee from the minute the examinee (George) walked in the room.
The polygraphers here are simply ripe with excuses when it comes to the individual anecdotes of abuse here recorded. The polygrapher administered the test 'wrong', the polygrapher chose the wrong 'comparison questions', the polygrapher failed to establish 'rapport' (failed to dupe the examinee, you mean?)... the polygraph wasn't reviewed by 'quality control' strenuously enough.... blah blah blah.
QuotePublic Servant, we both know that in order for a polygraph exam to go smoothly, the examinee must have some amount of trust in the process and the examiner.
So now we have to add 'trust' to the lengthy list of attributes an examinee must possess in order for an exam to have merit. And let's not forget the list of attributes an examinee may NOT have for a polygraph exam to have merit:
Some may actually think into it too much or be overly emotional, know too much, or just be plain unsuitable physically or psychologically.To sum up the pro-polygraph side's points to date: if one has the misfortune of having a polygrapher administer the test 'wrong', the polygrapher chooses the wrong 'comparison questions', the polygrapher fails to establish 'rapport', or if you the potential examinee is too intellectual or too introspective, too passionate, too well-educated, or most incredibly, simply built physically 'wrong' or just plain mentally 'unsuitable', the polygraph won't work. Your career is stopped dead in your tracks, or irrevocably derailed, you are now suspected of espionage, your family life and reputation are now ruined-- but hey, your polygraph counselor is there to help you friend, so step right up and buy another bottle of P.D.D.'s Finest Snakeoil-- it cures all manner of internal and external ailments! Consumed in its liquid form as a preventative and curative of all immunological and pathological disorders of the humoristic system including cancer, heart disease, flambago and rubatitis. Yeah--gee.... gimme some of that. I would love to place my entire future employment, my career, my professional or personal reputation into the hands of hucksters such as these.
Sickening and saddening that our government places trust into the hands of these men.
Quote from: Public_Servant on Jul 28, 2002, 10:18 AMFirst of all, as I have said repeatedly, it would obviously be counterproductive for me to inform anyone how I recognize countermeasures (see numerous previous posts on this thread). And you want me to name persons?! Ye who claims he is championing the rights of the downtrodden polygraph examinee, wants me to violate their confidentiality. Violating the confidentiality of an investigation and the privacy of the examinee would be the only threat to my career here.
I guess I've been labouring under the false impression for quite some time that arrests, trials, and convictions are all a matter of public record. Thanks for setting me straight on that one.
No one said you had to violate the sanctity of an ongoing investigation-- but that's an excellent way to weasel out of my challenge that you lend validity to your claims that you can and have repeatedly detected countermeasures such as those recommended and discussed in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf). Should you have been motivated to prove your gratuitous assertions, you could have simply contacted any of the examinees whom you caught using countermeasures and asked permission to post the specifics of their polygraph, you could have urged any of the examinees whom you thought amendable to such a notion to simply stop by here and tell how they were caught, or you could be like George Maschke's polygraph interrogator and simply gossip about the test and the results, as several from the pro-polygraph side have reported has occurred.
Public Servant,
You wrote:
QuoteYour case seems to fall along the lines of supporting proper oversight and appropiate utilization...
Those of us within polygraph know that poor exams, poor examiners, and poor utilization bring disredit on polygraph as a whole. We also know that some agencies do a good job at ensuring polygraph is used properly, others do not.
I think the above principles you cite are sound and unarguable. I also agree with you that in my case, the cart was put before the horse.
The underlying issue of course is whether CQT polygraphy (either in the screening context or specific issue context) is a valid procedure. If it is, then then the quality controls you cite are important in refining and advancing the procedure for increased accuracy.
If a testing procedure is invalid to begin with (e.g. phrenology), then no amount of quality controls will be enough. I have tried to remove my own personal experience from this judgment (it could, theoretically, be an aberration, an isolated example, and/or caused by poor examiners) Based on my reading of Lykken, Raskin, Honts, and what Drew and George have cited and argued, I believe that polygraph screenings fall into this category of invalid procedure.
As to specific issue exams, I think polygraphy has some value (whereas I believe screenings should be abolished to the ash heap of history, immediately), but I'm not convinced of its validity overall, based on my reading. For my money, I'm anxious to see full fleged focused debate and discussion on just this topic (excluding screenings), and eagerly await Drew's comments and follow up reaction. I am sure you can produce success stories; maybe under the right conditions, with the right examiner, and with full knowledge of the WEIGHT which should be accorded the results, the specific issue exam is a valuable law enforcement tool. The question is whether the procedure has withstood rigorous scientific scrutiny, and from what I have seen so far it has not, though as I say, there are successes (confessions) within this category, and I suspect that it's possible to carve out a domain in which it is very valuable, even if we arrive at the place where we acknowledge it to be more art than science.
My sense is that many, if not most guilty people will react more strongly to the relevant question, though as George has pointed out, that still remains to be proven rigorously. However, I also believe that many innocent people will also react more strongly to the relevant question, and there's no way to tell the difference between the two groups.
I can't add anything to Drew's and George's very articulate points, but for what it is worth, I underwent several polygraphs with 5 different examiners. The only one I "passed" was my FBI applicant screening, but that was later rechacterized as me failing. So I failed every single polygraph I took (one was inconclusive), despite having told the truth. My examiner at FBIHQ was selected because, they told me, he was so experienced and able.
With this history, I thought there must be something physiologically or psychologically wrong with me that was causing me to fail when I told the truth. After I read Lykken, and discovered George and many others, my beliefs about polygraph changed dramatically.
So based on my own personal experience with several examiners, and all the literature I've read, and the discussions here, I have to conclude that it was not the individual examiners in my cases, but something about the method itself.
I realize you are only hearing my side of the story, and appreciate that. I too always want to get the other side(s) and think it's important to do so. But again, for what it is worth, despite lengthy and intense investigation in which I extended my complete cooperation and in which I was, essentially, an open book, none of the accusations leveled against me, and which I was found to be deceptive on the polygraph (drugs and espionage) were ever corroborated in the slightest way. If they had been, I am sure I would have been fired. I was exonerated and resigned, totally on my own initiative, without any prompting or encouragement from the FBI, with a clean record.
Regards...
Mark
Beech Trees,
When you are done with your name calling and character attacking, I suggest you go back to the beginning of this thread and read the first few posts between myself and George. When I said that persons of the anti-poly orientation on this site often resort to ad hominem argument, I should have just cited you. Your insistance on continuing to use this technique results in few of either side lending much credence to your posts. And despite your use of "fifty cent words," your hostile tone detracts from any sense of intellect you may hope to portray.
In your attack on my last post regarding the CPT JONES scenario, you claimed that my critique showed polygraphers (and it seemed you specified the two posting on this thread) were snake oil salesmen. Meanwhile, what I cited were the possible issues which may have adversely affected the outcome of the examination. Let's say we were talking about biopsies, and I was a pathologist explaining possible reasons why you were given a false positive result (they happen, you know). I cited error by the physician collecting the sample, the lab techs in applying the science, and some abnormalities of the patient. All of this would be noted in order to ensure we reduce future false diagnoses. Would you then call all persons involved in obtaining and analyzing biopsies, hucksters, based on my assessment? Again see my earlier post about the pitfalls of arguing from the specific to the general.
Oh, and, surely you know that there are limits to access of public records, when it comes to personal privacy, regardless if the investigation is on-going or not. The chances of getting someone who was investigated in a felony investigation (and may likely have legal counsel at this point) to agree to the use of their identity, are as likely as getting you to write a fair minded response to something written by myself or poly cop.
George,
I will assume then that you accept the apology. I will cite the exerpt utilizing the pseudonym in the future. And without your verification, I can not say for sure whether this was your exam or not. The identity of the author is obviously not important in using the piece for discussion.
Drew,
Just a few quick comments regarding your last post. I don't know if I would use the word malpractice, but I think that all the issues cited, to include those stemming from the examinee, should have been cited and handled by the examiner, for the sake of the examinee. Of course, it's easy for me to play Monday Morning QB.
Quote
The examiner associated with that error is someone touted as a role model not only by his own former agency, but by other agency(s) as well. If he is guilty of any degree of malpractice, then heaven help the rest of the cadre and, more importantly, their associated examinees.
Quote
Careful how you generalize just because this person was considered the elite (never heard of him myself but that's neither here nor there). I have a tendency to shy away from those proclaimed elite -- both persons and organizations. For my money, I'll go with the ordinary Joe slugging it out with no more desire than to do the right thing. These are the ordinary persons doing extraordinary work -- in any field--not the poster boys and girls.
Mark,
I'm glad we can find some common ground -- even if it is the slightest isthmus. This is vital for constructive discussion.
Most of my examinees endure a thorough investigation as well. However, by the time they get to me it is coming to a close, and this is their opportunity to bring it to an end, one way or another. And in my opinion, this is how it should be.
I also eagerly await the initiation of discussion on specific issue testing by Drew in response to my earlier post. I think we will ultimately find more agreement on the usefulness in this application and will possibly agree that validity / reliability is much greater than mere chance. Hopefully, some other persons with knowledge and expertise in this area will contribute as well. I am the first to admit I am challenged in the area of citing and evaluating research, both by circumstance and education.
I'll save further comment for the next thread on this topic.
Quote from: Public_Servant on Jul 28, 2002, 10:18 AM
Beech Trees,
Your choice of icon for your posts was obviously well researched and I assume has some personal meaning to you (either by association with the person, state, or organization). I consider myself somewhat of a history buff, and while I have seen many versions of the "Don't tread on me" banner, I had never seen this color scheme. I was expecting another scathing response but you disappointed me.
Sorry, I'm just now reading this part of your response. You were no doubt expecting a scathing response because your prior inquiry about the Gadsden Flag insinuated--what? Cowardice or unpatriotic impropriety on my part, because the field for the Gadsden Flag is yellow? You wrote:
QuoteI know this will raise your BP, and it's off topic, but... why is your flag yellow?... It's almost offensive to my patriotic soul.
Since your innuendo and smarmy attempt to attack my patriotism was argued from a point of total stupidity and lack of education on the subject, you received a pass, not a rebuke. Contrary to your assertion that such a question would raise my blood pressure, it merely reaffirmed for me and for other readers where your camp resides, and who guards it.
You of all people should know it is I, not you, who controls my blood pressure, as well as three other channels of physiological responses.
Ah, so finally I did get the insulting attack I was trying to evoke! Perhaps I do not control your BP, but I obviously can push the right buttons. At least when it comes to historical trivia, you can come up with a little substance -- but then when given the opportunity, you return with an attack on the person, not his argument.
Quote from: Public_Servant on Jul 29, 2002, 08:39 AMWhen you are done with your name calling and character attacking, I suggest you go back to the beginning of this thread and read the first few posts between myself and George. When I said that persons of the anti-poly orientation on this site often resort to ad hominem argument, I should have just cited you.
You really don't have a clue what an
ad hominem argument is, do you? Even after definitions and links about ad hominem arguments were posted you continue to make this meritless attack on me?
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An
Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Thus, I post the assertion that polygraphy is a pseudo-scientific fraud with no basis in science, and is worthless as a screening tool as it is wholey lacking in validity-- I back up my assertion by pointing to the *lack* of evidence to the contrary, in this case the total absence of peer-reviewed scientific literature showing that polygraphy is any more accurate than chance (this among many other pieces of evidence bolstering my assertion). I am met with accusations that I am a felon and salacious personal inquiries about my motivations to post my assertion. THAT is an argument ad hominem.
Calling the purveyors of a fraud 'hucksters' is not an ad hominem argument, it is a careful and accurate choice of word that deftly describes polygraphers. A huckster is one who uses aggressive, showy, and sometimes devious methods to promote or sell a product. I cannot think of a more accurate label for polygraphers, especially when considering the pre-test interview and the Stim Test, and any post-test interrogations.
QuoteAnd despite your use of "fifty cent words," your hostile tone detracts from any sense of intellect you may hope to portray.
I hadn't really thought about trying to 'portray intellect' here. Any hopes I have with regard to contributing here surround the abolishment of polygraphy as it is currently used by our local, state, and federal government agencies. You are not the first to mention 'hostility', but in my opinion you are confusing aggressive skepticism with hostility. When I am met with gratuitous assertions and ad hominem arguments, I reply with fervor, pointing out the ludicrousness of your side's tactics-- all to illustrate to the disinterested third parties or readers straddling the fence on the issue of polygraphy just how insane it is to trust people like you-- polygraphers-- with determining any part of the hiring process, the screening process, and in many cases the post-conviction process. Perhaps others in your aquaintance would meet the accusation of being a felon meekly and with little argument-- but not I. Perhaps others would cave when met with bluff and bluster about detecting countermeasures. Perhaps others would sit back and accept the inflammatory, worthless accusations from your side that George and the anti-polygraph movement are somehow akin to racist, neo-Nazi hate groups or that this board is a clearinghouse of information for pedophiles and other sex-offenders. Not me.
As an aside I do have to make the observation that I had no idea that members of the law enforcement community had such delicate feelings.
QuoteIn your attack on my last post regarding the CPT JONES scenario, you claimed that my critique showed polygraphers (and it seemed you specified the two posting on this thread) were snake oil salesmen. Meanwhile, what I cited were the possible issues which may have adversely affected the outcome of the examination.
And then I pointed out the absurdity that those cited externalizations should have any bearing on a scientifically grounded examination. It is also important to note that should an examinee cite any of those as reasons to question the validity of his or her impending polygraph he would in almost every instance be met with suspicion and accusations of guilt from the polygrapher. Can you imagine what a polygrapher would do or say if, as the bp cuff is about to be applied, the examinee said, "I'm sorry, I'm stopping the exam because I don't feel this test will yield a valid result owing to the fact that you the polygrapher have failed to establish a suitable rapport with me the examinee"?
If it is acceptable for YOU to make the assertion that failure to establish rapport will affect the validity of the test, then why is it not acceptable for the examinee to make the exact same claim?
I'll address your specious 'polygraphy is like a medical biopsy' simile in another post. Thus far polygraphy is like a metal detector, like a counseling session, and now like a medical biopsy. Sure it is.
Quote from: Public_Servant on Jul 29, 2002, 11:46 AM
Ah, so finally I did get the insulting attack I was trying to evoke! Perhaps I do not control your BP, but I obviously can push the right buttons. At least when it comes to historical trivia, you can come up with a little substance -- but then when given the opportunity, you return with an attack on the person, not his argument.
Rejoice in your hollow victory, servant of The People. I knew what you did and why you did it, thus any 'button pushing' was fruitless and really transparent-- which is why (as I have already pointed out) I chose to answer your question as to the legitimacy of the Gadsden Flag seen in my posts.
You had no 'argument' with regard to the Gadsden Flad, only a misguided notion that it would somehow be offensive to those with a 'patriotic soul'. If ignorance of our nation's rich history and the importance of the Gadsden Flag can be characterized as an 'argument' on your part, then certainly it can be further characterized as a stupid, uneducated one by me.
Quote
I hadn't really thought about trying to 'portray intellect' here
Quote
Very successful I'd say. However, you are the champ at trivia. While I am more versed in our nations history than you will ever know, you are correct I am not familiar with every single battle flag.
I'd say, thanks to Beech Trees, the conversation here has regressed to name calling. I'd say this thread has run its course. If you have something constructive to discuss, I may converse with you again in another thread.
Quote
Any hopes I have with regard to contributing here surround the abolishment of polygraphy as it is currently used by our local, state, and federal government agencies
Quote
With your techniques, you'll never convince anyone.
And if you believe it is not ad hominem to call someone names based on generalizations, or a person's beliefs, than you will forgive this assessment:
You are a pseudo-intellectual cloaked in a firm grasp of trivial facts, and sarcasm. Your inability to refrain from hostile attacks on all who disagree with you during what should be intelligent discourse, indicates a low self esteem. However, unlike you, I will not generalize by extending this assessment to your counter-parts. You stand alone on this one.
Later Pot, the kettle has better things to do with his time.
Quote from: Public_Servant on Jul 30, 2002, 11:03 AMVery successful I'd say. However, you are the champ at trivia. While I am more versed in our nations history than you will ever know, you are correct I am not familiar with every single battle flag.
Glad I could answer your questions about the famous Gadsden Flag then. The fact that those questions were couched in a sly affront at my patriotism rather color your insults later on in this post. If you don't like terse, tell-it-like-it-is replies, perhaps you should do a bit of reflection on your own writing style. In addition, in the future I hope you won't be surprised when, after insulting someone's knowledge of American history and their patriotism, you are met with a certain amount of tight-lipped invective in the response.
QuoteI'd say, thanks to Beech Trees, the conversation here has regressed to name calling. I'd say this thread has run its course. If you have something constructive to discuss, I may converse with you again in another thread.
I don't recall engaging in name calling in any of my posts. I do recall pointing out your ad hominem arguments and gratuitous assertions. I do recall describing the pseudo-science of polygraphy (and by necessity then, polygraphers in general) as 'hucksterism' and 'hucksters'. I do recall your compatriots comparing this website and George Maschke to neo-Nazi racist skinhead hate groups. So, lie about the nature of this discussion all you wish, and fall back on your tried-and-true method of misrepresenting, finger-pointing, and just plain whining-- the posts are here for all to see and make their own conclusions. At the end of the day, the facts remain the same:
1. You lie to polygraph examinees, and in return expect blind obeisance and faith in the process and your ability to divine truth from falsehood based on a brief interview, and on-the-spot creation of questions, and the scratchings from a polygraph. (Except of course in those cases where one has the misfortune of having a polygrapher administer the test 'wrong', the polygrapher chooses the wrong 'comparison questions', the polygrapher fails to establish 'rapport', or if you the potential examinee fail to trust, or are too intellectual or too introspective, too passionate, too well-educated, or most incredibly, simply built physically 'wrong' or just plain mentally 'unsuitable').... ad infinitum
2. You have failed to prove your gratuitous assertions that you can and have caught examinees using countermeasures.
3. In lieu of (2), you have failed to accept Dr. Richardson's countermeasures challenge.
4. You vacillate between a. exhorting potential polygraph examinees *not* to use countermeasures because you can catch them doing so and b. blaming George for threatening national security and the sanctity of ongoing criminal investigations because--why? When arguing from this latter viewpoint you validate the notion that countermeasures DO work and you are unable to detect them. You've left more than one person scratching their head with this little dichotomy.
QuoteWith your techniques, you'll never convince anyone.
Oh, ok (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=680.msg3824#msg3824)
QuoteYou are a pseudo-intellectual cloaked in a firm grasp of trivial facts, and sarcasm. Your inability to refrain from hostile attacks on all who disagree with you during what should be intelligent discourse, indicates a low self esteem. However, unlike you, I will not generalize by extending this assessment to your counter-parts. You stand alone on this one.
Ironic and slightly hypocritical of you when you asked me about the nature and origins of the flag seen in my posts. Rather thankless as well. In the future, I will remember that you use replies to off-topic questions as ammunition to insult the poster.
And, to reiterate, I have repeatedly tried to engage in you in intelligent discourse, asking you to back up your gratuitous assertions here. I should have known when, in your very first post, you wrote:
QuoteSorry, I'm not going to get in to validity or accuracy here.
Quote from: Public_Servant on Jul 30, 2002, 11:03 AM
You are a pseudo-intellectual cloaked in a firm grasp of trivial facts, and sarcasm. Your inability to refrain from hostile attacks on all who disagree with you during what should be intelligent discourse, indicates a low self esteem. However, unlike you, I will not generalize by extending this assessment to your counter-parts. You stand alone on this one.
Later Pot, the kettle has better things to do with his time.
Public Servant,
I don't know about you, but I have decided Beech Trees is just about the most entertaining guy I have ever read. I log into the site every day just to view the latest repetition of ignorance spewing forth from his keyboard. He makes me smile, he truly does...
As you know, the anti-poly folks who post to this site are outsiders looking in. They will always be outsiders looking in. This is one thing they cannot change and it drives them crazy. Anger, frustration, and jealousy is what motivates them, period. They will never have what they think they are entitled to, and they have focussed their sights on the group of people who have what they don't and as a result they blame for just about everything.
I just feel really sorry for the innocents they take with them and I truly hope their damage continues to be limited. Guys like BeechTrees are a lost cause and I do not know if I would continue to feed their delusions....
Polycop...
Polycop,
You write:
Quote...As you know, the anti-poly folks who post to this site are outsiders looking in. They will always be outsiders looking in. This is one thing they cannot change and it drives them crazy. Anger, frustration, and jealousy is what motivates them, period. They will never have what they think they are entitled to, and they have focused their sights on the group of people who have what they don't and as a result they blame for just about everything...
Quite to the contrary, the utter disdain I note in beech tree's posts regarding polygraph screening appears to be quite sincerely expressed and would indicate to me that the last place he would want to be is in your shoes, i.e., on the inside looking out. It appears to me that he is not only content with his role of critic-at-large on the outside looking in, but that he would welcome legions of others providing independent oversight (also from vantage point of from the outside looking in) to clean up and likely dismantle the world of polygraph screening. Am I wrong, beech??
Polycop,
With reference to your remarks to Public Servant:
QuoteAs you know, the anti-poly folks who post to this site are outsiders looking in. They will always be outsiders looking in. This is one thing they cannot change and it drives them crazy. Anger, frustration, and jealousy is what motivates them, period. They will never have what they think they are entitled to, and they have focussed their sights on the group of people who have what they don't and as a result they blame for just about everything.
What is it that you, Public Servant, and others in your "group" have that we ("the anti-poly folks") want but don't have?