I took a pre-employment polygraph for a law enforcement position in California. The examiner claimed that I had trouble with a question regarding "criminal sexual behavior."
He/she insisted that I confess and that if it was not too serious he/she could advocate for me. I refused to make any admissions because I have never engaged in any illegal sexual act.
I informed the examiner that I have severe hypertension, and suggested that this condition might have caused a false positive reading. In addition, I told the examiner that a close relative of mine was molested as a child and that perhaps this was the result of my reaction.
The examiner abruptly cut me off and indicated that he/she was 100 percent certain that I was being deceptive. After several minutes of badgering by the examiner, I ended the post test interrogation and went home.
About two weeks after the exam, I got a call from my employer notifying me that I was being placed on paid administrative leave. I work with abused children and the polygraph examiner filed a report with local law enforcement and county and state licensing agencies.
In the report, the examiner claimed that I had made an admission about: "being sexually stimulated when a child gives me a hug" and the examiner wrote that I verbalized being "fearful that a local licensing agency would be notified."
I did not make these statements.
As a result of the examiner's lies, I have now been on paid administrative leave for a month (losing hundred in overtime pay). In addition, the local police sent two detectives to my home to question me. Also, state and local social service agencies are conducting investigations which include interviewing current and former clients and coworkers.
These investigations are being conducted solely based on the examiner's report. There are no clients making any allegations and in over 12 years on the job, I have never been investigated for sexual misconduct.
I strongly want this examiner to be held accountable for filing a false report. What are my options?
P.S..... the examiner accused me of using countermeasures during the exam and screamed at me twice while I was connected to the device. Both times the examier shouted, "Watch you breathing, or I'll stop the test!" Could this have been an attempt by the examiner to manipulate the results?
You should read the Lie Behind the Lie Detector and follow its advice regarding contacting relevant agencies.
Beyond that, your case is particularly egregious and outrageous. I strongly recommend consulting an attorney (specializing in employment law). Based on what you wrote, you have a strong case. If you want accountability, you are going to have to drive it yourself. Don't wait for or depend on the agencies involved.
Thanks for your response! I am currently looking into my legal options and will take all appropriate steps to hold those responsible accountable! This includes, but is not limited to filing civil lawsuits against the examiner and the county that employed such an uneducated, dogmatic, individual!
True Libertarian,
I agree with Mark: if you want accountability, you'll have to be the driving force behind it yourself. I think it would be prudent to promptly consult with one or more lawyers about your legal options. Beyond this, some other ideas come to mind:
Make sure that your employer learns the truth about polygraphs. You might print out for your supervisor(s) copies of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector as well as Prof. William G. Iacono's recent article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis (http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml) and Dr. Drew C. Richardson's 1997 Senate testimony (http://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-statement.shtml) that polygraph screening "is completely without any theoretical foundation and has absolutely no validity."
Are you a member of a union (or other protective association)? If so, contact your representative(s) about what has happened to you.
Demand that the agency involved release all information regarding your application for employment (including your polygraph interrogation) in accordance with the California Public Records Act (http://www.thefirstamendment.org/capra.html).
Consider going public. Your polygrapher's slander has probably already caused clients and co-workers (and perhaps friends and relatives) to wonder whether you are some kind of criminal. You might wish to publicly set the record straight by calling the newsroom of your local newspaper(s) and television and radio news stations about your experience (and naming names).
By screaming at you during the "test" and instructing you to "watch your breathing," your polygrapher was definitely attempting to manipulate the charts (by altering your respiratory tracings). What is less clear is why your polygrapher would do this.
A True Libertarian,
I completely agree with Mark Mallah's assessment. Your experience, as you have described it (I take it at face value unless given reason to do otherwise), can be categorized as nothing less than egregious and outrageous. An outline of the contained absurdities would include the following:
1. There is no reason to expect any validity whatsoever in a screening exam focusing on issues dealing with criminal sexual behavior. Because your hypertension and relative's experience are completely irrelevant to the lack of general validity with this sort of testing there should be absolutely no burden of responsibility placed on you to explain why an invalid test produces inaccurate results.
2. No polygraph examiner in the absence of a corroborated confession or other irrefutable evidence is 100 per cent sure of anything. One who simply has the results of a polygraph-screening exam is most assuredly not sure of anything.
3. Anyone who believes a polygraph examiner will likely be an advocate for an examinee that makes admissions (whether true or false) needs to have his head examined. Although I am sorry to hear that you had to endure such nonsense, I am equally glad to hear that you ended the charade soon after becoming convinced of the folly foisted upon you.
4. I am (and so should every American be) highly incensed by the continuing litany of claimed false admissions/confessions alleged to have been attributed to examinees by polygraph examiners. This is a claim that has come to my attention several times through this site and elsewhere. PDD-Fed, Polycop, Public Servant, et al, is there any doubt with this sort of recurring examinee testimony that EVERY single polygraph examination conducted in this country should be audio and videotaped?
5. No examiner has ever demonstrated any ability to reliably detect countermeasures. Beyond that, and of a more fundamental concern, is that few, if any, practicing polygraphers have any real knowledge of respiratory physiology. Without an understanding of the many and complex factors affecting respiration rate and volume (central, peripheral, and chemical factors, et al), various physiological and pathological conditions leading to apneustic breathing, etc, and how all these various factors may play out during a polygraph exam, no polygraph examiner has any business commenting to an examinee about respiration. The notion of being told to "watch your breathing" is particularly absurd. Essentially you are being told to control your breathing (presumably the last thing a countermeasure-frightened polygraph community would want) only in a manner pleasing to the polygraph examiner and producing tracings that he is comfortable with.
I hope that you will keep us informed as you seek to fight the travesty that you've described. Best Wishes,
Drew Richardson
Mark, George, and Dr Richardson:
Thank you for all the advice and feedback. I truly appreciate it.
I received notice on 9/23/02 that both state and county agencies have concluded their investigations. They concluded that the allegations were unfounded. I met with my employer and will return to work on Wednesday 9/25/02.
Once again thank you. I intend to follow all recommendations and will keep you all informed of the end results.
A True Libertarian
Quote from: A True Libertarian on Sep 24, 2002, 05:19 PMI received notice on 9/23/02 that both state and county agencies have concluded their investigations. They concluded that the allegations were unfounded. I met with my employer and will return to work on Wednesday 9/25/02.
Sir,
I hope you will ask your employer what sanctions they will bring against your accuser for lying to them about you. Barring that, I hope you will explore civil litigation against your polygraph interrogator and his employer.
Thank you for the feedback!
I am exploring civil litigation. I have an attorney very interested in the case. The case would include two counties and employees from both, including the examiner. In addition, I have requested assistance from the ACLU.
I will keep you posted.
::) Civil litigation looking good!
I hope that my case sends a message to the pro-polygraph community!
Mark my words... any polygraph examiner who thinks that they can lie, or file false reports that indicate that admissions were made will be held accountable; lol!
I am tempted to to name the county involved, but I have been advised not to by my attorney.
Correct me if I am wrong, to the best of my knowledge, any peace officer who files a false report may be charge with a felony!
True Libertarian,
I hope your case sends a message not only to the polygraph community, but to the community at large. When you're ready to file a claim (assuming the county involved declines an initial out-of-court settlement), we'd be happy to post the full text of your complaint and any supporting documentation here on AntiPolygraph.org. For examples of filings from other polygraph-related cases, see the Polygraph Litigation (http://antipolygraph.org/litigation.shtml) page.
I'm not sure what the California Penal Code says regarding peace officers who willfully file false reports, but it seems that disciplinary action of some kind is warranted against your polygrapher (and perhaps others in his/her agency).
George,
Thanks for your reply. I hope that my case has an impact on the community at large as well.
I, have contacted several agencies regarding my experience, in an attempt to seek accountability, against my polygraph examiner and his/her employer.
I have even sent an email to Skip Webb of the "American Polygraph Association." Mr. Webb responded to my complaint as follows:
"First you should determine if the interview was recorded. If so request the agency review the taped interview for the reported admissions. Second, I would need to know if the examiner is a member of the APA. If so you could file a grievance, but you would need evidence that the reported admissions made by you did not occur as alleged in the polygraph report."
I, appreciate Mr. Webb for taking the time to respond to my email; however, doesn't his response clearly express that the APA places the burden of proof on the examinee. Basically, Mr Webb is informing me that if my polygraph experience was not video taped that I cannot file a valid grievance.
This is an outrage and basically sends the message that a polygraph examiner has broad authority to: distort, manipulate, and even lie about the polygraph results in his/her written report.
Quote from: A True Libertarian on Oct 03, 2002, 08:50 AMI have even sent an email to Skip Webb of the "American Polygraph Association". Mr. Webb responded to my complaint as follows:
"First you should determine if the interview was recorded. If so request the agency review the taped interview for the reported admissions. Second, I would need to know if the examiner is a member of the APA. If so you could file a grievance, but you would need evidence that the reported admissions made by you did not occur as alleged in the polygraph report."
Oh darn, wouldn't it be a shame if justice could not be served, and the interview was not recorded? I'm sure Mr. Webb, upon hearing that unfortunate fact, will rush to introduce bylaws that *all* APA members must record via videotape all pre-interview, interview, and post-test interrogations and make available at reasonable costs copies to the test subject. Yeah, right.
I like how he insists you must prove a negative assertion, i.e., 'prove you didn't do it'.
Don't hold your breath Libertarian.... but good luck with your lawsuit.
Molon labe,
Dave
True Libertarian,
Your last post included the following:
Quote...Mr. Webb responded to my complaint as follows:
"First you should determine if the interview was recorded. If so request the agency review the taped interview for the reported admissions. Second, I would need to know if the examiner is a member of the APA. If so you could file a grievance, but you would need evidence that the reported admissions made by you did not occur as alleged in the polygraph report."...
With regard to the (at this point) hypothetical scenario you raise involving your polygraph examination and interrogation NOT having been recorded, Mr. Webb will have to answer for himself as to how he would view your then uncorroborated testimony and whether he believes this to be sufficient and compelling reason for requiring all such future encounters to be recorded. I personally and very strongly believe that EVERY examination should be recorded and that this should be taken as seriously and viewed as much a protected right as the administration and recording of an advice of rights and accompanying form(s) in a criminal matter.
I further believe, that if support for this position is not quickly forthcoming from general law enforcement, polygraph organizations such as the APA and teaching institutions such as DoDPI (which as far as I am aware and to their credit record all in-house examinations), the public should demand such through the following actions: (1) Consideration should be given in contemplated civil suits (such as the one you have alluded to in your case) to suing not only for wrongful determinations and actions stemming from inaccurate polygraph results and "made-up" confessions/admissions but for not providing the basic protection (from such abuse) afforded through routine audio/video recordings, and (2) grass-root signature petitions should be started all over the country getting referendums on the ballot mandating the use of, protection of, and reasonable availability (for protected parties) of such recordings.
I also believe that considerably more time, effort, and personnel resources should be expended by the polygraph community towards utilizing concealed information testing. This effort will yield at least two major benefits over presently and widely used lie detection formats: (1) This type of examination has a scientific basis for practice, has components of meaningful scientific control, and potentially offers a valid procedure/results suitable for introduction in trial matters through expert testimony in Daubert or Frye hearings, and equally importantly, and in the context of this thread, (2) will provide for testing whose public dissemination polygraph examiners would not need dread or fear as personally embarrassing should said dissemination become the norm through courtroom replay and any accompanying media coverage. This latter relative benefit is made possible because concealed information testing does not require or involve any of the deceit and misrepresentation inherent (even in the absence of contrived confessions/admissions) in many commonly utilized lie detection formats.
Regards,
Drew Richardson
Of course use of concealed information tests is not possible in employment screening. OTOH, while CQT's in screening situations may not be easily validated, they have one major attribute. They can't very often be invalidated either. If an applicant is labeled DI with regard to drug usage, there is no way for her to prove she was not. So everyone is happy, except perhaps the applicant.
One of the more interesting rationalizations is the work by Martin and Terris (1991) that states that so long as the polygraph is, in reality, better than 50/50 at detecting deception, then it benefits the truthful applicant in situations where there are many more applicants than positions. Of course in making this hypothesis, they assume there is no consequence associated with not being hired per se. Another point is that the thresholds for DI should be raised for screening of current employees since being removed from a job is more clearly detrimental.
Seems to me it was reported that the DOE employees all "passed" their polygraphs. I guess they were all innocent AND false positived were fractions of a percent.
-Marty
Marty,
Although my mention of CIT exams was not the focus (the absolute necessity for audio/video recording of polygraph examinations was) of my last post or this thread, I believe you may have missed my point there. I would never suggest CIT exams (or any other) be done for employee, applicant, or other screening. This latter group of applications is nothing but a fishing expedition with no, and I repeat absolutely no, basis for practice. These types of exams should be altogether discontinued, and, as has been made the central focus of this site since its inception, should be banned by law through a Comprehensive Polygraph Protection Act, completing that which was begun in earnest (but not yet finished) with the EPPA. Relative to this thread and aside from potentially providing a valid diagnostic instrument to be used with specific issue testing, CIT exams would allow polygraphers to readily display to the world (through the aforementioned recordings) universally-acknowledged professional behavior leading to a valuable product . Quite apart from the issue of contrived admissions/confessions (which launched this thread), the conduct of commonly administered lie-detection exams, when publicly revealed, would likely always serve as a source of embarrassment for the polygraph community.
Drew,
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Oct 04, 2002, 12:45 PM
Marty,
Although my mention of CIT exams was not the focus (the absolute necessity for audio/video recording of polygraph examinations was) of my last post or this thread, I believe you may have missed my point there. I would never suggest CIT exams (or any other) be done for employee, applicant, or other screening.
I never expected you did Drew. Sure hope that wasn't implied. I was trying to demonstrate the intrinsic lack of accountability in screening CQT's as well as some of the more extreme rationalizations used in the pro polygraph community.
Raskin and Hont's, in Kleiner's "manual" discuss the CQT and are clearly uncomfortable with the deception involved in it, preferring the DLT for screening. I consider this better than the CQT since it is not deceptive. This is the part of the CQT that most disgusts me. Too bad the polygraph community continues to prefer the CQT. One of the advantages that community has is due to inadmissibility in court. If it was one suspects the CQT's basic deceptiveness would be outed rather quickly.
As for screening tests, employement screens, or outright voo-doo doesn't bother me. I tend to the libertarian perspective. I think an employer should be able to hire or fire for any reason, no matter how stupid. I also think an employee can do the same.
-Marty
Quote from: Marty on Oct 04, 2002, 03:13 PM
As for screening tests, employement screens, or outright voo-doo doesn't bother me. I tend to the libertarian perspective. I think an employer should be able to hire or fire for any reason, no matter how stupid. I also think an employee can do the same.
-Marty
I couldn't disagree more, Marty. The positions simply aren't even -- one entity is typically in a position of power, and the other is not. That fact is the whole reason we have employment laws in the first place.
Skeptic
Skeptic,
I know my attitude re employee-employer is unusual but I find many intelligent people view the relationship as one where the employer is somehow doing a favor by hiring the employee. Typically the opposite is true since employers tend to hire only when they see the employee as benefiting them more than the wage and overhead cost. People need to be more aware of the power they have. Of course this applies less in government jobs where such balances do not directly occur.
Anyway I proffer that opinion not to change anyone's mind in that area but simply to make my posts re the polygraph more clear. Why do I somehow think there is a snowball's chance in hell I would ever be hired in government? Can't say I would blame em. :)
-Marty
Quote from: Marty on Oct 04, 2002, 06:52 PM
Skeptic,
I know my attitude re employee-employer is unusual but I find many intelligent people view the relationship as one where the employer is somehow doing a favor by hiring the employee.
Believe it or not, I don't consider your position that unusual. But then, I have a fair amount of experience with libertarians.
Typically, most employers (especially during economic downturns) have several more qualified applicants than they have positions. Considering the usual unemployment rate and the fact that most employers are far more organized than are employees, free market conditions tend to lead to employers having considerably more power than potential employees. This means they can name their "price" for employment.
Remember, most people didn't want to take polygraphs back when it was legal for private employers to use them in pre-employment screening. Yet their use was expanding. It took popular revolt in the form of legislation to stop polygraph abuse in the private sector, and it will probably take the same for government.
Skeptic
Quote from: Skeptic on Oct 05, 2002, 01:43 AM
Typically, most employers (especially during economic downturns) have several more qualified applicants than they have positions.
It's all relative. It's my experience that people vary enormously with respect to the specific skill set they have that an employer needs for any one job. The days of employees being assy line replaceable cogs is long gone.
When an employer can not combine invested capital and business goodwill with an employee's labor and produce incremental value that is the very definition of an unsustainable situation where "power" increasingly lies with the employer (since the employees are paid in excess of their generated value) but that "power" is inadvertant and temporary by definition.
Occasionally, corporations are looted by their more highly placed employees, ie management, but that is not the norm just as stock market bubbles are not common. Neither are rare though. Enron is an example of a company obliterated by a few employees. (It wasn't the owners, ie: shareholders) that screwed Enron.
-Marty
Good News to all who would like to send Skip Webb of the "American Polygraph Association" a private email. You may contact him at: skipwebb@earthlink.net
Please send Mr. Webb any feeback that you feel is approprite. I strongly encourage feedback that recommends that all APA members be required to video tape all aspects of a polygraph exam.
This, I hope, will put an end to granting examiner's unlimited power to write reports that include false admissions.
signed:
"The Man in Black" (A Fiend of, "True Libertarian")
Sorry, please edit the spelling of "appropriate" and "friend" of my last post.
However, do not forget to send Mr Webb feedback at: skipwebb@earthlink.net
Hi everyone:
There was an awesome article in the October 9th edition of the L.A. Times that detailed scientific data that suggest that polygraph testing is a fraud. Please go to LATIMES.com to view the article.
The article is by Charles Piller, a Times Staff Reporter. Please send Mr Piller his due praise and feel free to mention my post at antipolygraph.org, if you wish.
Thanks,
A True Libertarian
Quote from: A True Libertarian on Oct 10, 2002, 07:44 AM
Hi everyone:
There was an awesome article in the October 9th edition of the L.A. Times that detailed scientific data that suggest that polygraph testing is a fraud. Please go to LATIMES.com to view the article.
The article is by Charles Piller, a Times Staff Reporter. Please send Mr Piller his due praise and feel free to mention my post at antipolygraph.org, if you wish.
That article can be read here (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-sci-polygraph9oct09004433.story). Log in using
Username: newslinks1
Password: newslinks1
(To read the article one must first register. If you don't wish to do so feel free to use the information above.)
Fair use quote:
Quote"I don't think federal agencies stop and ask themselves how many spies have we caught with this--because the answer is 'none'--or how many people have been unfairly denied employment, because the answer is 'many.' "-- Steven Aftergood
For anyone wishing to contact Charles Piller, the author of the above-referenced L.A. Times article, his e-mail address is Charles.Piller@latimes.com.
There was another article by Charles Piller regarding the polygraph in the October 14th edition of the L. A. Times (page A20). Check it out at LATIMES.COM
Mr. Piller:
I got your email and only hope that you register and become a senior member of this web site.
Thanks again for reading my story!
"A True Libertarian"
P.S. I have world series tickets to all Angels home games. Thank God!! Without baseball, I do not know if I would have made it through this witch hunt!!
Libertarian:
If you are "A True Libertarian" then what is your complaint???
Most libertarians believe in giving very broad powers to employers! Your posts makes you out to be more like "A True Socialist!"
Quote from: Friend of Pete on Oct 19, 2002, 08:48 AM
Libertarian:
If you are "A True Libertarian" then what is your complaint???
Most libertarians believe in giving very broad powers to employers! Your posts makes you out to be more like "A True Socialist!"
Although we are ranging ever-farther from the topic, the above sentiment indicates you know absolutely nothing about libertarianism.
Friend of Pete,
A libertarian will generally give wide discretion and seek broad freedoms for individuals, not organizations or governments controlling individuals. This not withstanding, neither libertarian nor other honest Americans of any political persuasion or stripe will condone criminal activity, e.g., a polygraph examiner (or other government employee) attributing fabricated admissions/confessions to an individual during and as a result of the conduct of government business and related activities.
Friend of Pete:
I think that the posts by "Beech Trees" and "anonymous" strongly refute your assertions. Therefore, I need not further respond.
I agree that "Friend of Pete" has a distorted view of the libertarian movement! Those who are truly interested in the fight against misconduct by government officials and those who seek to promote individual rights should log onto the following links:
aclu.org
lp.org
and lets not forget: the cato institute website.
Quote from: Neil Peart on Oct 20, 2002, 04:15 AM
I agree that "Friend of Pete" has a distorted view of the libertarian movement! Those who are truly interested in the fight against misconduct by government officials and those who seek to promote individual rights should log onto the following links:
aclu.org
lp.org
rush.com
and lets not forget: the cato institute website.
Neil
Since we've strayed thoroughly off-topic:
although I applaud the inclusion of the ACLU's website in the above list (a "civil libertarian", not a "libertarian" organization), I also recommend those interested in bona-fide libertarianism read some material not written by libertarians themselves:
world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
Skeptic
Skeptic:
I agree that the ACLU may not be a "Libertarian" think tank. However, I included the organization as one of my links for many valid reasons. You cannot argue that some of the organization's view points support libertarian party objectives, such as: civil rights issues and the fight against the prohibition of drug laws?
Quote from: Neil Peart on Oct 20, 2002, 04:47 AM
Skeptic:
I agree that the ACLU may not be a "Libertarian" think tank. However, I included the organization as one of my links for many valid reasons. You cannot argue that some of the organization's view points support libertarian party objectives, such as: civil rights issues and the fight against the prohibition of drug and alcohol laws?
I agree completely that several objectives coincide. The rationales are very different, though.
Is the fact that we've now ventured into political philosophy again an indicator that the pro-polygraph types really have been scared off by the NAS report?
;)
Skeptic
Skeptic,
Our pro-polygraph friends have indeed been uncannily silent since Tuesday, 8 October...
;D
Yes George,
Are we watching the sunset on a beautiful day or are we just going through the eye of the hurricane?
Quote from: Fair_Chance on Oct 21, 2002, 12:40 AM
Yes George,
Are we watching the sunset on a beautiful day or are we just going through the eye of the hurricane?
Both are probably a bit dramatic. I would suspect that pro-polygraph types will be a bit sparse around here for a while. The NAS report pretty much ends real debate, at least on the topic of polygraph security screening.
However, there's a difference between online debate and real-world results.
Skeptic
Quote from: Skeptic on Oct 21, 2002, 03:38 AM
The NAS report pretty much ends real debate, at least on the topic of polygraph security screening.
Unfortunately, it doesn't. It does expose what was well known (and accepted) within the polygraph community (high false positive rates). This is only new to the public at large. I hope the broader dissemination of this info changes things but am .... skeptical. One only has to look at how hard it is to get rid of things like facilitated communication, zero point energy (free energy fantasies), and cold fusion....
It also strongly encourages real, high quality, research which is sorely lacking. One can't be sure, a priori, of the results of such research.
-Marty
Marty,
Actually, the NAS panel suggests that more
polygraph research is not likely to significantly increase accuracy, stating at p. 8-2 (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309084369/html/168.html#pagetop):
QuoteFuture Potential The inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.
...which is academese for saying that "investment" in polygraph research is a waste of money.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 21, 2002, 05:25 AM
Marty,
Actually, the NAS panel suggests that more polygraph research is not likely to significantly increase accuracy, stating at ...which is academese for saying that "investment" in polygraph research is a waste of money.
I did NOT suggest more research was likely to increase accuracy, rather, it is needed because the research extant is so poorly done. It's just that one can not tell in advance what such research will yield. There is no reason to believe better research would show the polygraph more reliabile or less reliable than the current NAS estimates. The NAS report calls for more research to determine where if anywhere it moght prove of some value. Also, they note the lack of almost any work on countermeasures other than a few anecdotes and that they were stonewalled in this area.
-Marty
Marty,
QuoteI did NOT suggest more research was likely to increase accuracy, rather, it is needed because the research extant is so poorly done. It's just that one can not tell in advance what such research will yield....
I suspect the same might be said of the extant research on phrenology. A dearth of competent research on a technique with such a weak theoretical basis as polygraphic lie detection does not necessarily create a compelling need for such research. ;) Admittedly, such research may be of some interest from a pure science standpoint.
I don't recall the NAS describing phrenology as better than 50-50 at anything either. It doesn't even have placebo value which at least the polygraph can claim!
;D
-Marty
Quote from: Marty on Oct 21, 2002, 04:48 AM
Unfortunately, it doesn't. It does expose what was well known (and accepted) within the polygraph community (high false positive rates). This is only new to the public at large. I hope the broader dissemination of this info changes things but am .... skeptical. One only has to look at how hard it is to get rid of things like facilitated communication, zero point energy (free energy fantasies), and cold fusion....
Fair enough. Perhaps a better way to put it would be to note that the NAS report should realistically end debates of the type we've seen here at Antipolygraph.org (accuracy issues and countermeasure efficacy in screening applications). If anything, it will shift the debate to where it belongs: whether it is rational and just to continue using a technique with such obvious drawbacks.
Perhaps you are correct that those drawbacks were widely known within the polygraph community, and perhaps not. They certainly weren't unknown, but I have my doubts as to whether the average polygrapher knew the level of fraud in which he or she has been participating. One does not need a world-class background in science and statistics to become a polygrapher.
Skeptic
Of course, it must be borne in mind that the NAS polygraph panel's conclusion that polygraphy can differentiate truth from deception at levels above chance in naive populations untrained in countermeasures is completely consistent with the notion that polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud that depends for any success on a naive and gullible public.
;)
George:
As I have searched for all relevant data since the 8 October report, I have found nothing of merit from the pro-polygraphers. I had hopes of preparing arguments for their responses, but since the depate is pretty much ended, I suppose there will be no need.
:)
Seeker,
The polygraph community's strategy seems to be to say as little as possible and hope that the storm blows over, and that the findings of the NAS will go down the public "memory hole" (just as the findings of the 1983 Congressional Office of Technology Assessment eventually did).
However, a key difference between now and 1983 is that polygraph opponents are increasingly organized and vocal. Policy makers who would ignore the NAS's finding can expect to be held publicly accountable.
Ploygraphs are nearly 99% accurate based on my research. Perhaps, " A True Libertarian is a "True Liar?"
Dear Polydonotlie,
I know you have spent many years gathering your scientific studies to come up with your "99% accuracy rate" but the National Acadamy of Sciences examined all available evidence that was trustworthy and disagrees with your accuracy statement.
I urge you to Fed-Ex your reports to them as they will eventually do even more studies.
Are you sure you do not have a little brother named "george"?
The quality of pro-polygraph community contribution(s) since the release of the NAS polygraph report has reached such consistent lows as to make one wonder if the Captain(s) of this sinking ship of fools have abandoned the rats and yeomen to their figurative watery graves...
Quote from: Anonymous on Oct 28, 2002, 09:40 AM
The quality of pro-polygraph community contribution(s) since the release of the NAS polygraph report has reached such consistent lows as to make one wonder if the Captain(s) of this sinking ship of fools have abandoned the rats and yeomen to their figurative watery graves...
Anonymous,
Well put :)
Skeptic
Thanks everyone for all the support. I truly appreciate it. I will keep you all updated!
This is a modified post. My father passed away recently, and in my opinion, it was due to my polygraph experience (my experiences and investigation snowballed and lead to his death). I gave more specific details in my original post; however, I have chosen to delete most of the specifics due to legal reasons.
In my original post, I honored my father as a veteran and a civil servant. He was both and deserved to die in a much more dignified matter.
If you were honest during the polygraph test, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about
Polyman,
A True Libertarian has already been vindicated, no thanks to the polygraph; what remains to be seen is how the polygrapher who fabricated an admission will be held accountable.
Thanks for your support!
Please see my previous post that explains modifications that I have made to this posting.
I'm sorry to hear about your loss. Losing a loved one can be devastating
But what does one have to do with the other? Were you wrongly accused of molestation to?
I would love to chat with you about this and find out exactly what occurred. I will not however discuss this in an open forum.
I just want to know three things? 1.What were you charged with 2. What does the examiner have to do with your fathers death? 3. What department , if you can say, did this occur.
Larry,
I'm deeply saddened to learn of your father's tragic death and the cascading series of events that led to it. I can only begin to imagine the anguish you and your family must be going through.
Have you contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (http://www.aclu-sc.org/)? I think there are troubling aspects of your case (foremost among them, the polygrapher's fabricated admission) that have serious civil rights implications. Information on how the ACLU accepts cases is available here (http://www.aclu-sc.org/litigation/docket.html).
No he hasn't because the entire posting is suspect.
Larry,
Upon re-reading this message thread from the beginning, I see that you mentioned in a post on 25 October that you had indeed contacted the ACLU. Were they able to help in any way? Their website mentions that although they cannot provide referrals to individual attorneys, they "can mail you appropriate referrals to other agencies which may be of help."
polylawman:
I was charged with nothing; I just had an elevated reading with a question that pertained to criminal sexual activity during a pre-employment polygraph examination. Due to my employment with children, the examiner filed a child abuse report against me that indicated that I made some admissions during the post-test interogation. I did not make any admissions.
As a result of the examiner's false report, I had to endure a six week investigation and was placed on administrative leave by my employer. There were no victims. I was investigated soley based on the polygraph examiner's lies (no children had made any allegations against me). I was eventually cleared. The investigation came back UNFOUNDED.
As to your question regarding the department involved, it was Probation. I had already been offered a "conditional offer of employment" and had already passed all other backround and reference requirements. However, the "conditional offer of employment" was recinded due my examiner's false report that listed admissions that I never made.
In addition, you were wrong about your reply to George. I have contacted the ACLU of So. California and was told that my case has merit. Although, the ACLU did not elect to take the case, they did provide me with referrals.
Now I have a few questions for you: 1) Have you read the "National Academy of Sciences" report on the polygraph and do you dispute it's findings? If so, please explain how your 6-8 week polygraph certification course makes you more qualified than the Phd educated scientists who concluded that polygraph exams are unreliable, 2) How many innocent individuals have you sent to jail, and how many honest men and women have you played a part in denying employment to based soley on a polygrah chart?
George:
I truly appreciate your support and feedback!
Larry