Accused of FBI Pre-Employment Polygraph Countermeasures:
Please pardon my lengthy post. Although I made every attempt to keep this as short as possible; it still turned out to be book. Short of leaving out important aspects of the experience and process, I included what I thought should be told.
My story:
The following is a true story (my personal experience) of how the FBI went to great lengths to seek me out, recruit me; only to be failed by the system itself, not the polygraph machine. I can only hope this travesty does not happen to anyone else; but regrettably, until we can put a stop to pre-employment polygraph screening it most certainly will. I hope my personal experience will be testimony for others to "beware" of a failed system. It can and will happen to you, as well as many inocent others. This is a true injustice.
The FBI recruited me back in December 2001. I promptly completed the application process (FD-140) and submitted my package within a couple of weeks. On 7/1/02, I received an official letter "conditional appointment" informing me that I had been selected for the position previously applied for.
From that point, things moved very quickly. I was almost immediately scheduled for my medical exam, physical fitness test, fingerprinting, drug test, polygraph and background investigation.
Due to the nature of my present job; I currently have a DoD (Red Badge) TS/SAR/4, DISCO/DSS issued Security Clearance with Nuclear Weapons Generation Area access, w/escort authorization. With that being said, I simply assumed the background investigation would be nothing much more than formality, wrong!
Following the drug test and finger printing process, I was then scheduled for my polygraph exam. The polygrapher administering my exam was known as "an old hat", meaning that he had been around the bureau for a long time.
The polygrapher knew that the bureau was aggressively recruiting me. I was not your typical applicant hoping for a job with the FBI. I already knew exactly which field office I would be assigned, knew exactly what I was going to be doing, and knew actually "why" they were recruiting me. I tell you all this because I was naive enough to believe it all meant something. Didn't mean squat!
Once we started the first poly, the polygrapher did not administer any "stem-test". He quickly reviewed the questions that he was going to ask; and he further remarked that this would be very quick, and very easy. The polygraph exam itself was a very simple "CQT" question test. He asked me three (3) sets of questions on two (2) different series of questions. One set of questions was about drug use, stealing, etc., and the second set of questions was regarding being a spy, selling secrets, etc. Keep in mind that both sets of questions was blatantly obvious CQT in nature. Again, he asked me the same 10 – 12 questions three times in a mixed random order. At the end of the test, he told me that he did not see any problems anywhere in either set of questions. He ran six (6) charts total on me. There was no "post-test" interrogation, and he (polygrapher) quickly told me that I did fine. He then walked me back to my applicant processor's desk, and informed him/her that I did fine. He openly gave them all a "thumbs-up", and remarked to everyone in the room that I did fine, no problems noted.
He then turned to me and told me; "I'm not suppose to tell you this, but you did perfectly fine", no problems on either set of charts. However, he further informed me "the charts had to be sent to the DC lab for a final QC check". Then he said, "this is just a formality", and "not to worry, you passed".
I left on a natural high. Knowing that I was merely a couple of weeks from receiving an official start date. For all practical purposes, I was an employee with the FBI. I couldn't wait to get home and tell my wife that I had completed my FBI applicant process, and would soon be starting to work for the bureau.
I even called the FBI field office that was recruiting me and told them that I had taken and passed the poly. They were all very happy, and all of the SA's congratulated me. I was finally in; or at least, so I thought!
Later in the following week, I received a phone call from the FBI field office applicant coordinator, informing me that my polygraph result had came back from the DC lab as "inconclusive". I was then told the FBI wanted to re-test me. When I questioned as to why the inconclusive result, I was told not to worry. I was told the problem seemed to be some type of "glitch" with the polygraph machine.
I was told that this time there would be a different polygrapher to administer the exam. I thought nothing further of it, and confirmed I would return for the re-test.
The second test was then scheduled for the following week. (Approximately one week between the first and second polygraph exam) Upon reporting for the re-test, I was again greeted by the "same" polygrapher, thinking I was going to have a different polygraphist. However, this time, he was not such a nice guy. I could immediately tell something was not right. He made no effort to shake my hand as before, and did not entertain any "chit-chat". He also acted as though he was very angry and upset about having to administer a re-test. I could sense something was seriously wrong.
Immediately upon entering the polygraph examination room, he informed me the reason for my re-test was due to the Washington DC unit "suspecting" countermeasures on the first polygraph test. He told me, and this is a quote; "you did too good to be true" on the first test. He then launched into this accusatory speech about countermeasures. He was relentless and insisting that I tell him what I had read, bought, and/or who had coached me on polygraph countermeasures.
I steadfastly held to my denials, and admitted to nothing. He then instructed me to write a statement explaining that I had not used any polygraph countermeasures. After I wrote the statement, he then began the pre-test interview, and reviewed the questions he would be asking me on the 2nd test.
This time, he repeated the exact same two (2) question series as before, except that ALL "CQT" questions had been obviously removed. There were absolutely no control questions at all, this time the question's were all relevant/irrelevant. Also, he asked me the same questions three (3) times in random order on each chart. The big difference this time was the addition of an entire set of 10/12 questions on countermeasures. The first two sets of questions were exactly the same questions as I was asked on the first polygraph exam; with the exception of the removal of all CQT questions. On the third set of countermeasure questions, he asked me another 10/12 relevant/irrelevant questions strictly related to the use of countermeasures.
All throughout the countermeasure questions, he would ask me what was I thinking about on that particular question, this was obviously a ploy to make me nervous, as I was thinking nothing about the question. He would also tell me (during the "in-test" phase) that something obviously bothered me on certain countermeasure questions. Again, this was his ploy to make me think I was responding to certain questions he was asking me.
Following the third series of questions, (the countermeasure questions) I was subjected to a very hostile "post-test" interrogation where I was accused of lying on the 2nd test. He also accused me of employing countermeasures on the first polygraph exam. He even tore the chart from the polygraph machine and confronted me with the charts. My response was; if you can see all these obvious signs of deception and countermeasures on this test, then why didn't you detect them on the first polygraph? I asked him why it took the FBI DC polygraph unit to recognize and point-out any "suspected" countermeasures used during my first test? Of course, he had no good response to my question.
He then left the examination room for about 45 minutes to fax my charts to DC, and left me in the room alone to contemplate my fate. When he returned, he continued to interrogate me about the use of countermeasures, and I persistently stuck to my denials.
At the conclusion of the interrogation, he told me I had failed the second polygraph test on the countermeasure questions only. And also, he told me the only way he "could help me" was for me to admit to him what I had read, or who had coached me on how to use countermeasures. I did not admit to anything unethical, and/or to the use of any polygraph countermeasures during the first test, or the second test.
The funny thing about my entire FBI pre-employment polygraph experience is: although I was "suspected" of using countermeasures, the polygrapher or the DC unit never could or would tell me precisely what method of countermeasures they suspected me of employing. In fact, the polygrapher initially told me that I had passed the first polygraph. Meaning, he did not see or detect any signs of deception and/or countermeasures.
Although the DC unit suspected that I had used countermeasures, I still passed the polygraph exam itself. In fact, the polygrapher personally told me that I "did too good to be true". My response to this; have you stopped for a second to consider, I was simply telling the truth? He then replied; "no one does that good".
I was recently told by a "FBI source" that works in/around the Washington DC polygraph unit that I clearly passed both polygraph exams; although, they told me that I had failed. The reason they failed me was due to their "suspicion" of countermeasure use, "not actual proof". Although there is not a single thread of evidence that I used polygraph countermeasures, they can still "deem" the final results as "not within acceptable parameters" if they do not believe the actual charts of their own polygraph instrument.
Just recently, I was again told that I actually passed both polygraph exams with an excellent score. Although, DC steadfastly holds to their suspicion that I employed polygraph countermeasures, they actually failed me due to nothing more than mere suspicion. I later received another letter telling me that my polygraph results were "not within acceptable parameters", and thus, I was disqualified from further consideration for FBI employment.
As of this posting, (10/16/02) the status of my "failed" polygraph results, and rejected FBI application are under protest.
I have written several Senators, Congressmen, sent a letter of protest to the Director of the FBI; and filed a FOIA requesting any/all related information with regard to my two-polygraph test's.
There are certain aspects of my personal experience that I cannot openly discuss here on this website or message board. However, at such a time when I can openly discuss all sensitive aspects of my experience, I will share all details openly on this message board.
For obvious reasons, I cannot identify the actual field office, polygrapher that tested me, or my real name. This bad experience could potentially compromise my current career, as I have now been accused of using polygraph countermeasures. That's not something anyone would want to flaunt to his or her current employer. Thanks FBI, what an incentive... recruit me, then accuse me of countermeasures, then throw me back to the wolves...
This goes to show that there is no "sure method" of detecting what is, and what is not, polygraph countermeasures. They (the FBI) never even slightly attempted to hint at what they thought I might have done to "beat the polygraph".
You would think they could at least say; AH HA!!!!! Right there... "Pointing at the polygraph charts"... you squeezed your anal sphincter right there... see it... But not so!
If you are simply "suspected" of employing polygraph countermeasures, even if they cannot prove their suspicions, they will rule your polygraph results as "not within acceptable parameters", and that's the end of your FBI application process. Case closed... end of story.
I will continue to post any additional news as it relates to my personal experience.
Good luck to all.
Respectfully,
Triple x
Mr. x_X_x,
Welcome to the message boards. I have quoted your post in its entirety so that others who might not delve more deeply than the 'Recent Posts' button will still have an opportunity to read about your incredible debacle. I have a question if I may: It is unclear what you knew about CQT polygraphy and countermeasures prior to your FBI exam. Were you in fact cognizant of 'the lie behind the lie detector', and did you in fact employ any countermeasures? If so, I would be curious what countermeasures you employed.
You may wish to be circumspect in your replies as polygraphers definitely monitor these discussions.
Quote from: x_X_x on Oct 16, 2002, 11:42 PM
Accused of FBI Pre-Employment Polygraph Countermeasures:
Please pardon my lengthy post. Although I made every attempt to keep this as short as possible; it still turned out to be book. Short of leaving out important aspects of the experience and process, I included what I thought should be told.
My story:
The following is a true story (my personal experience) of how the FBI went to great lengths to seek me out, recruit me; only to be failed by the system itself, not the polygraph machine. I can only hope this travesty does not happen to anyone else; but regrettably, until we can put a stop to pre-employment polygraph screening it most certainly will. I hope my personal experience will be testimony for others to "beware" of a failed system. It can and will happen to you, as well as many inocent others. This is a true injustice.
The FBI recruited me back in December 2001. I promptly completed the application process (FD-140) and submitted my package within a couple of weeks. On 7/1/02, I received an official letter "conditional appointment" informing me that I had been selected for the position previously applied for.
From that point, things moved very quickly. I was almost immediately scheduled for my medical exam, physical fitness test, fingerprinting, drug test, polygraph and background investigation.
Due to the nature of my present job; I currently have a DoD (Red Badge) TS/SAR/4, DISCO/DSS issued Security Clearance with Nuclear Weapons Generation Area access, w/escort authorization. With that being said, I simply assumed the background investigation would be nothing much more than formality, wrong!
Following the drug test and finger printing process, I was then scheduled for my polygraph exam. The polygrapher administering my exam was known as "an old hat", meaning that he had been around the bureau for a long time.
The polygrapher knew that the bureau was aggressively recruiting me. I was not your typical applicant hoping for a job with the FBI. I already knew exactly which field office I would be assigned, knew exactly what I was going to be doing, and knew actually "why" they were recruiting me. I tell you all this because I was naive enough to believe it all meant something. Didn't mean squat!
Once we started the first poly, the polygrapher did not administer any "stem-test". He quickly reviewed the questions that he was going to ask; and he further remarked that this would be very quick, and very easy. The polygraph exam itself was a very simple "CQT" question test. He asked me three (3) sets of questions on two (2) different series of questions. One set of questions was about drug use, stealing, etc., and the second set of questions was regarding being a spy, selling secrets, etc. Keep in mind that both sets of questions was blatantly obvious CQT in nature. Again, he asked me the same 10 – 12 questions three times in a mixed random order. At the end of the test, he told me that he did not see any problems anywhere in either set of questions. He ran six (6) charts total on me. There was no "post-test" interrogation, and he (polygrapher) quickly told me that I did fine. He then walked me back to my applicant processor's desk, and informed him/her that I did fine. He openly gave them all a "thumbs-up", and remarked to everyone in the room that I did fine, no problems noted.
He then turned to me and told me; "I'm not suppose to tell you this, but you did perfectly fine", no problems on either set of charts. However, he further informed me "the charts had to be sent to the DC lab for a final QC check". Then he said, "this is just a formality", and "not to worry, you passed".
I left on a natural high. Knowing that I was merely a couple of weeks from receiving an official start date. For all practical purposes, I was an employee with the FBI. I couldn't wait to get home and tell my wife that I had completed my FBI applicant process, and would soon be starting to work for the bureau.
I even called the FBI field office that was recruiting me and told them that I had taken and passed the poly. They were all very happy, and all of the SA's congratulated me. I was finally in; or at least, so I thought!
Later in the following week, I received a phone call from the FBI field office applicant coordinator, informing me that my polygraph result had came back from the DC lab as "inconclusive". I was then told the FBI wanted to re-test me. When I questioned as to why the inconclusive result, I was told not to worry. I was told the problem seemed to be some type of "glitch" with the polygraph machine.
I was told that this time there would be a different polygrapher to administer the exam. I thought nothing further of it, and confirmed I would return for the re-test.
The second test was then scheduled for the following week. (Approximately one week between the first and second polygraph exam) Upon reporting for the re-test, I was again greeted by the "same" polygrapher, thinking I was going to have a different polygraphist. However, this time, he was not such a nice guy. I could immediately tell something was not right. He made no effort to shake my hand as before, and did not entertain any "chit-chat". He also acted as though he was very angry and upset about having to administer a re-test. I could sense something was seriously wrong.
Immediately upon entering the polygraph examination room, he informed me the reason for my re-test was due to the Washington DC unit "suspecting" countermeasures on the first polygraph test. He told me, and this is a quote; "you did too good to be true" on the first test. He then launched into this accusatory speech about countermeasures. He was relentless and insisting that I tell him what I had read, bought, and/or who had coached me on polygraph countermeasures.
I steadfastly held to my denials, and admitted to nothing. He then instructed me to write a statement explaining that I had not used any polygraph countermeasures. After I wrote the statement, he then began the pre-test interview, and reviewed the questions he would be asking me on the 2nd test.
This time, he repeated the exact same two (2) question series as before, except that ALL "CQT" questions had been obviously removed. There were absolutely no control questions at all, this time the question's were all relevant/irrelevant. Also, he asked me the same questions three (3) times in random order on each chart. The big difference this time was the addition of an entire set of 10/12 questions on countermeasures. The first two sets of questions were exactly the same questions as I was asked on the first polygraph exam; with the exception of the removal of all CQT questions. On the third set of countermeasure questions, he asked me another 10/12 relevant/irrelevant questions strictly related to the use of countermeasures.
All throughout the countermeasure questions, he would ask me what was I thinking about on that particular question, this was obviously a ploy to make me nervous, as I was thinking nothing about the question. He would also tell me (during the "in-test" phase) that something obviously bothered me on certain countermeasure questions. Again, this was his ploy to make me think I was responding to certain questions he was asking me.
Following the third series of questions, (the countermeasure questions) I was subjected to a very hostile "post-test" interrogation where I was accused of lying on the 2nd test. He also accused me of employing countermeasures on the first polygraph exam. He even tore the chart from the polygraph machine and confronted me with the charts. My response was; if you can see all these obvious signs of deception and countermeasures on this test, then why didn't you detect them on the first polygraph? I asked him why it took the FBI DC polygraph unit to recognize and point-out any "suspected" countermeasures used during my first test? Of course, he had no good response to my question.
He then left the examination room for about 45 minutes to fax my charts to DC, and left me in the room alone to contemplate my fate. When he returned, he continued to interrogate me about the use of countermeasures, and I persistently stuck to my denials.
At the conclusion of the interrogation, he told me I had failed the second polygraph test on the countermeasure questions only. And also, he told me the only way he "could help me" was for me to admit to him what I had read, or who had coached me on how to use countermeasures. I did not admit to anything unethical, and/or to the use of any polygraph countermeasures during the first test, or the second test.
The funny thing about my entire FBI pre-employment polygraph experience is: although I was "suspected" of using countermeasures, the polygrapher or the DC unit never could or would tell me precisely what method of countermeasures they suspected me of employing. In fact, the polygrapher initially told me that I had passed the first polygraph. Meaning, he did not see or detect any signs of deception and/or countermeasures.
Although the DC unit suspected that I had used countermeasures, I still passed the polygraph exam itself. In fact, the polygrapher personally told me that I "did too good to be true". My response to this; have you stopped for a second to consider, I was simply telling the truth? He then replied; "no one does that good".
I was recently told by a "FBI source" that works in/around the Washington DC polygraph unit that I clearly passed both polygraph exams; although, they told me that I had failed. The reason they failed me was due to their "suspicion" of countermeasure use, "not actual proof". Although there is not a single thread of evidence that I used polygraph countermeasures, they can still "deem" the final results as "not within acceptable parameters" if they do not believe the actual charts of their own polygraph instrument.
Just recently, I was again told that I actually passed both polygraph exams with an excellent score. Although, DC steadfastly holds to their suspicion that I employed polygraph countermeasures, they actually failed me due to nothing more than mere suspicion. I later received another letter telling me that my polygraph results were "not within acceptable parameters", and thus, I was disqualified from further consideration for FBI employment.
As of this posting, (10/16/02) the status of my "failed" polygraph results, and rejected FBI application are under protest.
I have written several Senators, Congressmen, sent a letter of protest to the Director of the FBI; and filed a FOIA requesting any/all related information with regard to my two-polygraph test's.
There are certain aspects of my personal experience that I cannot openly discuss here on this website or message board. However, at such a time when I can openly discuss all sensitive aspects of my experience, I will share all details openly on this message board.
For obvious reasons, I cannot identify the actual field office, polygrapher that tested me, or my real name. This bad experience could potentially compromise my current career, as I have now been accused of using polygraph countermeasures. That's not something anyone would want to flaunt to his or her current employer. Thanks FBI, what an incentive... recruit me, then accuse me of countermeasures, then throw me back to the wolves...
This goes to show that there is no "sure method" of detecting what is, and what is not, polygraph countermeasures. They (the FBI) never even slightly attempted to hint at what they thought I might have done to "beat the polygraph".
You would think they could at least say; AH HA!!!!! Right there... "Pointing at the polygraph charts"... you squeezed your anal sphincter right there... see it... But not so!
If you are simply "suspected" of employing polygraph countermeasures, even if they cannot prove their suspicions, they will rule your polygraph results as "not within acceptable parameters", and that's the end of your FBI application process. Case closed... end of story.
I will continue to post any additional news as it relates to my personal experience.
Good luck to all.
Respectfully,
Triple x
x_X_x,
I'm sorry to hear of what you apparently endured and now suffer the consequences of, but I believe your detailed and well-documented account will be very useful for others to read and to learn from. Assuming your account to be accurate you have given very good indirect evidence of what has been suggested on this board and site for some time. There are NO counter-countermeasures for suspected manipulations of CQT polygraph examinations. As you have well described the only counter-countermeasure is the run and bluster technique. If polygraphers are forced to abandon their bread and butter for an RI exam whenever they are in a guess mode regarding countermeasures is it any wonder the NAS panel declared this exam to be a danger to national security. Thank you for this valuable insight.
Again, as beech trees has suggested, I hope all readers will take the time to read x_X_x's original post and story.
XXX,
Quote from: x_X_x on Oct 16, 2002, 11:42 PM
Accused of FBI Pre-Employment Polygraph Countermeasures:
The polygraph exam itself was a very simple "CQT" question test. He asked me three (3) sets of questions on two (2) different series of questions. One set of questions was about drug use, stealing, etc., and the second set of questions was regarding being a spy, selling secrets, etc. Keep in mind that both sets of questions was blatantly obvious CQT in nature.
...........
This time, he repeated the exact same two (2) question series as before, except that ALL "CQT" questions had been obviously removed.
Could you please indicate how many distinct "Control" questions were asked?
Quote
There were absolutely no control questions at all, this time the question's were all relevant/irrelevant. Also, he asked me the same questions three (3) times in random order on each chart. The big difference this time was the addition of an entire set of 10/12 questions on countermeasures. The first two sets of questions were exactly the same questions as I was asked on the first polygraph exam; with the exception of the removal of all CQT questions. On the third set of countermeasure questions, he asked me another 10/12 relevant/irrelevant questions strictly related to the use of countermeasures.
All throughout the countermeasure questions, he would ask me what was I thinking about on that particular question, this was obviously a ploy to make me nervous, as I was thinking nothing about the question. He would also tell me (during the "in-test" phase) that something obviously bothered me on certain countermeasure questions.
It looks like they may have decided that your responses to the control questions were too consistent and strong. It's likely that most naive subjects given a CQT will respond differently to each control Q depending on how sensitized they are about the subject. For instance people generally are concerned more about either lying or theft. Perhaps you were flagged by also being a more experienced and skilled individual. It is obvious from your writing. Many sophisticated persons these days will take advantage of internet resources to inform themselves and the DC office will no doubt consider any apriori facts to identify the probability of countermeasures.
Also, I think a part of this was information gathering. I suspect they are VERY concerned over countermeasure use and it looks very much like the second test was designed to add to their database. Trying to find metrics that identify likely countermeasure usage must be high priority.
I would say based on the first examiner's results that identification of countermeasures is itself erratic.
-Marty
Quote from: Anonymous on Oct 17, 2002, 02:03 AM
x_X_x,
I'm sorry to hear of what you apparently endured and now suffer the consequences of, but I believe your detailed and well-documented account will be very useful for others to read and to learn from. Assuming your account to be accurate you have given very good indirect evidence of what has been suggested on this board and site for some time. There are NO counter-countermeasures for suspected manipulations of CQT polygraph examinations. As you have well described the only counter-countermeasure is the run and bluster technique. If polygraphers are forced to abandon their bread and butter for an RI exam whenever they are in a guess mode regarding countermeasures is it any wonder the NAS panel declared this exam to be a danger to national security. Thank you for this valuable insight.
Anonymous makes an excellent point. And although XXX did not explicitly deny using countermeasures in his account, it is important to note that, aside from the well-known bias against truthful persons already known, polygraphs evidently now include another one: panicking polygraphers desperate to catch easy-to-do countermeasures. I would imagine the problem is even worse with R/I testing.
So the key to passing a polygraph and gaining a position of trust and integrity in the law-enforcement/intelligence community appears to be: don't be too truthful or too fallacious; be
just right (you get to figure out where that point is). And, of course, pray that nothing makes you nervous or upset at the wrong time.
Aw, heck, if they're going to accuse you of countermeasures, anyway, why not learn and employ them?
Skeptic
Skeptic,
Quote from: Skeptic on Oct 17, 2002, 06:40 PM
So the key to passing a polygraph and gaining a position of trust and integrity in the law-enforcement/intelligence community appears to be: don't be too truthful or too fallacious; be just right
Of course. I'll go further and emphasize the point that in a CQT, passing REQUIRES the control questions elicit a stronger response than the relevant ones, an unlikely occurance when one is truthful on the control questions.
XXX did not admit nor deny using countermeasures, however he did demonstrate strong knowledge of the test category (QCT) and so would know that a totally truthful response will likely get a poly fail.
-Marty
Marty,
With regard to your first question:
"How many distinct control questions were asked"?
Each of the two sets (1st test) of CQT questions contained about 6 to 8 actual control questions such as; have you ever stolen anything during your entire life, have you ever said anything rude about someone, have you ever told a lie to a loved one, etc, etc...
On the 2nd polygraph, (R/I) there were absolutely no controls at all. However, the polygrapher did try to "slip-in" a control stimuli effect when the test started by saying: "the test has now began" and again at the end by saying; "the test is now complete". The "control stimuli" concept/idea long believed by most polygraphers is that the stimuli will have basically the same effect as your basic control questions. They are hoping that you will respond to the control stimuli, so they will have something to compare against all the relevant questions.
With regard to your thoughts on my responses possibly being too strong as well as consistent: I'm hesitant to respond, as I acted as any normal individual and/or bureau candidate would. Simply meaning, I didn't discuss polygraph theory, the concept of CQT verses R/I, compare it to tarot card reading, crystal balls, voodoo, etc.. I'm not sure here what the DC polygraph lab "thinks" they detected as possible countermeasures. For the record, they (FBI) never officially told me via any letter that I failed due to countermeasures. One thing for certain, the actual polygrapher that administered the exam didn't detect anything. He actually told me I did fine, and went so far as to say; "I didn't see any problems at all on any of the questions". He thought (as did I) that I did perfectly fine.
Regarding the Internet resources and researching countermeasures:
The polygrapher definitely asked me all about that exact issue on the 2nd (retest) polygraph. He wanted to know what I had read about countermeasures, who I had talked to about countermeasures, who had coached me on countermeasure use, etc., etc... He had lots of questions regarding researching countermeasures on the Internet. Also, as documented in my initial post; he had me write a hand written statement as I set there stating that I have never researched polygraph countermeasures on the Internet, and/or anywhere else to include buying any books/text with regard to polygraph countermeasures. The FBI is definitely concerned about people educating themselves about polygraphy on the Internet. Without a doubt!
I completely agree with you regarding the 2nd test. I suspect it may very well have been "data collection" at its best. It was obvious that they had removed ALL CQT questions, and replaced them with all R/I questions.
He ran a total of nine (9) charts on me during the 2nd test. That included 3 sets of questions on each of the same question series as asked during my first test; plus, the addition of the countermeasure question series, which also included a three (3) question series asked in random order.
Good luck.
Respectfully,
triple_x
XXX,
Thank you for your quick response!
Quote from: x_X_x on Oct 17, 2002, 07:27 PM
Each of the two sets (1st test) of CQT questions contained about 6 to 8 actual control questions such as; have you ever stolen anything during your entire life, have you ever said anything rude about someone, have you ever told a lie to a loved one, etc, etc..
George or Drew, Doesn't this seem like a rather large number of distinct "control questions"? If I were working on countermeasure detection, I would expect a lower variance between CQ's relative to the relevants. The more CQ's there were, the more useable such a metric would be, statistically speaking. The value of such a metric depends on other factors such as the probably false assumption that these questions are independent but in any case may be a likely direction these guys are going in the effort to detect countermeasures.
XXX, I quite agree that it is something of a fishing expedition and indicates an increasing sensitivity to countermeasures that is obviously not yet widespread but may soon become so. Especially given that the "Old Hat" examiner clearly has had little experience with countermeasures.
-Marty
Dear xXx,
I recently went through two FBI test similar to yours. The examiner on the first one led me to believe that that if it was up to him, I would be passing. It came back inconclusive. My second polygraph was nothing more then a thinly veiled inquisition. They had already made up their mind that I was not passing. I am still under appeal and do not want to get into too much detail. I was quizzed up and down the flagpole also about where I was getting my information (I now know this was concerning "countermeasures") and maybe "we could work it out if you cooperate."
The polygraph community is now trying to prove what we had known for along time. They have no valid research or techniques to detect countermeasues.
When in doubt, bluff!
The race of lemurs going off the cliff is about to begin.
Fair_chance:
Do you remember roughly how many "Control" questions you were asked the first time? How did your experience differ from XXX's?
Thanks.
-Marty
Marty,
Yes, six to eight "control" questions sounds like a high number for a single chart collection (question series) in an FBI pre-employment polygraph examination. I would have expected about half that number, because each question series includes (to the best of my knowledge) only three relevant questions.
Marty/George,
Please allow me to better explain my comments as noted in my previous post:
With regard to my earlier reference that there were six to eight controls per set of questions, that was simply an approximation, not an absolute figure of speech. (My bad).
During my 1st polygraph exam, it merely seemed as though I was asked more controls than relevant questions. Although I don't remember exactly how many questions were control verses relevant; it's strictly my opinion that approximately half (possibly less) of all questions asked were of CQT in nature.
Regardless of the number of CQT questions asked per question series; whether there were six to eight, or, four to six controls asked; they were ALL blatantly easy to recognize and identify during the pre-test interview, as well as again during the "in-phase" exam.
On my first test, the polygrapher asked me two distinctly different sets of CQT questions, both consisting of 10/12 total questions.
I hope this better explains my previous reference.
Respectfully,
triple_x
For the record:
I have received many questions via email and private messages asking me if "I forgot" to say I employed polygraph countermeasures.
People want to know if I did or did not.
Although I strongly support this website, as well as "TLBTLD" which is readily available for download (free) also on this website, I did not "forget" to indicate if (I did or did not) use polygraph countermeasures.
I simply cannot and "will not" confirm nor deny if I employed polygraph countermeasures during either or both of my polygraph exams. The concern here should not be if I used them or not. The point of concern here should be:
1) If they (the FBI) can so easily identify polygraph
countermeasures, as they like to claim, then why didn't
the polygrapher detect them during my actual 1st
polygraph exam? According to the Washington DC FBI
polygraph lab; they "suspect" (but are not sure), that I
employed polygraph countermeasures.
2) One thing is for certain in my specific case; the
polygrapher absolutely did not detect any
countermeasures during my polygraph exams.
3) The polygrapher actually told me that I did fine; he went
on to tell me that I passed the test with no problems
noted on any of the two question series.
4) I was also told that he (the polygrapher) had to mail the
charts to the DC lab merely as a formality, for "QC
purposes" he added.
I can only assume, that the bureau has not paused for a second to consider that I possibly may have been telling the truth...
One can only sincerely hope; that the FBI is better at detecting and identifying terrorist than they are at detecting and identifying polygraph countermeasures with certainty.
I feel that if they are going to accuse you merely on suspicion alone, they should have to support their claim, and not hide the charts, notes, video, audio, etc., etc. resulting from the actual exam. It is an outrage when you have to write Senators, Congressmen and file various FOIA request for your own results to be made available to you. That alone is a flawed system.
I'm sure glad our federal government cannot prosecute and incarcerate suspects on as little evidence as they do with polygraphy. If they did, the jails and prisons would be packed full of innocent people.
In closing, I will leave you with this to ponder:
The actual polygrapher that administered my 2nd polygraph (retest) actually told me the following:
"no one does that good", "you did too good to be true".
And all this time, I thought that's what you were supposed to do... I did my best, I did the best I could do, and they failed me because in their own words; "I did too good to be true".
What an outrage!
Respectfully,
Triple_x
Marty,
Regarding my two FBI test as compared to xXx's similar fiasco:
I can easily remember both experiences in vivid detail (blame the burned-in memory on my law enforcement training!). The first was strictly by book without the stim test. The proceedure was exactly as the downloadable book at this website presents with the control questions modified slightly as described in the book (Besides what you told me...., Since xxxx year....., Besides "social" lies, etc.). Six strips, three sets, ten questions each, over three hours, two to three IRR, three or four control, and three or four R questions with a throw away R once in a while (listen to me, sounds like I been doing this for two years instead of two weeks!). Always ten total. As I look back upon it, I came back inconclusive because I did not react to anything at all! I was completely at ease with no fear. I did not even feel any stress at the "start" and "finish" of the test. I think the central office threw it back because they feared I was too tranquil for such a "stressful" event. Real stress is working two jobs, finishing off a degree, and having a child with a medical problem. Anything else is a cake walk!
During my second "event", the examiner was extremely aggressive and hostile in body language and verbage from the handshake on. He was doing everything he could to "jack me up." Little did he know that even without any polygraph information at all, I could see through his "act." He performed a stim test, tried to completely convince that polygraph is 100%. Four Strips, two sets (they gave me a pass on the national security), ten questions per strip were performed over two hours. The ratio of I,C,and R questions were identical to the first test with slightly reworded control questions. The big difference were the verbal attacks starting immediately after my first strip (remember, at this time, I had no knowledge of the polygraph proceedure and I was flying in the fog of ignorance). My breathing pattern was attacked. After the second set, I was warned that if I do not change my pattern, I was going to fail. I was accused of body movement after the third strip, and I had my method of answer (repeat last word of question and answer) changed during my last strip (obviously to compare it to the previous strip because the question order was not changed).
I was then subjected to "bad cop", "good cop","bad cop" for the last twenty minutes of my "interview." This guy used everything in the book to try and get me to start a dialogue. Little did he know, I had been completely honest, knew nothing about coutermeasures at the time. I actually believed that this was some type of psychological stress test to see if I would snap-out, walk-out, tell them to take the job and shove it, etc., etc. I truly believe at the end of the test, when he was giving his best ultimatum,that he was getting frustrated because I was staying so calm and cool. I was told before I left that my results were unacceptable (and I would not "explain" them so the application was stopped).
In both cases, I confessed to nothing of importance and did not sign anything except standard forms.
I have appealed the exam but I do not think I will get an "honest" retest in any case now. After reading xXx's experience, I believe that they will just use it once more as a "countermeasure" test case. I fully intend to tell them how much I know before the test this time. Unfortunately, they will conceive that to mean that I did have knowledge during the first two tests. At this point I do not care, I will let them know that I intend to use EVERY means possible to clear my integrity. They can keep the job, I want my integrity removed from a cloud of suspicion! After being a Union negotiator for many years in the government, I know paperwork and congressmen. It will take years but I will get my file cleaned!
Gotta get off my soapbox now before the national anthem starts playing!
Long winded answer for such a short question, Marty!
Quote from: Fair_Chance on Oct 18, 2002, 11:17 PM
I have appealed the exam but I do not think I will get an "honest" retest in any case now. After reading xXx's experience, I believe that they will just use it once more as a "countermeasure" test case. I fully intend to tell them how much I know before the test this time. Unfortunately, they will conceive that to mean that I did have knowledge during the first two tests. At this point I do not care, I will let them know that I intend to use EVERY means possible to clear my integrity. They can keep the job, I want my integrity removed from a cloud of suspicion! After being a Union negotiator for many years in the government, I know paperwork and congressmen. It will take years but I will get my file cleaned!
I like your attitude, fair_chance. That is exactly what I would do were I in your circumstance.
Do remember that the philosopy of hiring screens is that it's perfectly acceptable to reject a large number of false positive applicants if it prevents even a few "bad guys" so you are in the company of a large number of innocent people who have also been rejected. They know that. You know that. Your friends and associates should know that as well.
-Marty
Quote from: x_X_x on Oct 18, 2002, 10:40 PM
I can only assume, that the bureau has not paused for a second to consider that I possibly may have been telling the truth...
No. As you know, to easily pass a CQT, absent countermeasures, requires that you NOT tell the truth. At least not tell the truth on the controls! Of course you can't exactly suggest you know that.....
What a farce that must have been.
-Marty
Marty,
"Farce" is a very apt word for describing the situation of an informed individual facing a polygraph interrogation. As Drew Richardson mentioned regarding polygraph screening in an internal FBI memo (http://www.antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-25-10-99.shtml) to the then director of the FBI crime lab, "a technique which has no diagnostic value would require such a universal bluff and disinformation campaign as to be impractical, if not comical, to continue over a period of time...." (emphasis added)
The polygraphers' bluff has been called. It's time to end the farcical charade that is polygraph screening.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 19, 2002, 06:50 AM
Marty,
"Farce" is a very apt word for describing the situation of an informed individual facing a polygraph interrogation. As Drew Richardson mentioned regarding polygraph screening in an internal FBI memo (http://www.antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-25-10-99.shtml) to the then director of the FBI crime lab, "a technique which has no diagnostic value would require such a universal bluff and disinformation campaign as to be impractical, if not comical, to continue over a period of time...." (emphasis added)
The polygraphers' bluff has been called. It's time to end the farcical charade that is polygraph screening.
The situation will simply get worse and worse over time. As desirable, intelligent applicants increasingly come to polygraph sessions with background knowledge of its fraudulent nature and effective countermeasures, it will become increasingly difficult to acquire competent, capable people into positions of trust.
Even if the current intolerable false-positive rates of candidate rejection (now well-known, thanks if nothing else to the NAS report) aren't incentive enough to stop polygraph screening--IMHO, a product of straightforward incompetence on the part of security personnel--the eventual inability to hire or retain people of even average intelligence and curiosity should do the trick.
Skeptic
Quote from: Skeptic on Oct 19, 2002, 03:13 PM
Even if the current intolerable false-positive rates of candidate rejection (now well-known, thanks if nothing else to the NAS report) aren't incentive enough to stop polygraph screening--IMHO, a product of straightforward incompetence on the part of security personnel....
Skeptic
Sadly it is
not the result of incompetence. The polygraph community simply does not consider a high rate of false positives as "intolerable" but just as the cost of doing business. Obviously they don't take joy in it but see no alternative. The NAS report didn't say anything they didn't already know even if lawmakers and the general public may not have known.
-Marty
Marty,
You write in part:
QuoteThe polygraph community simply does not consider a high rate of false positives as "intolerable" but just as the cost of doing business....
Note that this is a cost for which the polygraph community has not hithertofore been held liable.
George,
It will be interesting to see if the class action attys will take this on. Since employment screening is pretty much limited to govt or govt mandated private sector programs, it won't be as attractive financially as other opportunities. I'm sure you will keep us informed about events here.
Perhaps the political liabilities will be more productive, but in the wake of 9-11, cries of "national security" will provide cover given the widespread ignorance and belief in the workability of the polygraph extant.
Improving public polygraph "literacy" is the key factor facilitating the rest of this. This has the adverse consequence of likely reducing the tool's effectiveness as a criminal interrogation tool. Interrogations can be and are abused but the issue of corruption of investigative processes is quite broad and is not polygraph specific.
The polygraph community would be quite wise to eliminate job screening in order to salvage the other uses where arguably it has been of some benefit, at least in the case of naive subjects. I doubt they will choose to voluntarily do so though.
-Marty
Quote from: Marty on Oct 19, 2002, 04:07 PM
Sadly it is not the result of incompetence. The polygraph community simply does not consider a high rate of false positives as "intolerable" but just as the cost of doing business. Obviously they don't take joy in it but see no alternative. The NAS report didn't say anything they didn't already know even if lawmakers and the general public may not have known.
-Marty
I'm sure they see things this way. To my mind, however, such irrational conclusions indicate "incompetence", and more than that, a dereliction of duty.
Or perhaps I'm simply feeling fiesty and particularly unforgiving today.
Skeptic
Quote from: Marty on Oct 19, 2002, 04:53 PM
George,
It will be interesting to see if the class action attys will take this on. Since employment screening is pretty much limited to govt or govt mandated private sector programs, it won't be as attractive financially as other opportunities. I'm sure you will keep us informed about events here.
Isn't Mark Zaid already doing this? I hope the NAS report gives him some fresh ammunition.
QuotePerhaps the political liabilities will be more productive, but in the wake of 9-11, cries of "national security" will provide cover given the widespread ignorance and belief in the workability of the polygraph extant.
This can, of course, work both ways. It's only because of the "polygraph mystique" that the public has condoned increased use of polygraph screening. If that mystique is shattered and faith in the polygraph is fingered as a national security liability, the tides can change very quickly.
QuoteImproving public polygraph "literacy" is the key factor facilitating the rest of this. This has the adverse consequence of likely reducing the tool's effectiveness as a criminal interrogation tool. Interrogations can be and are abused but the issue of corruption of investigative processes is quite broad and is not polygraph specific.
This may be a difficult issue, given the statistics-based rationale behind the NAS's findings: a lot depends upon the prevalence of the guilty among a tested population.
The real problem, as I see it, is not that the polygraph makes mistakes (which information you could disseminate widely without destroying the concealed information upon which the polygraph depends). The real problem is that the public believes the polygraph detects lies, which means people tend not to take the error rates into account. As I see it, the only way to dispel this myth and put the polygraph's accuracy into correct perspective is to let the public "in on the secret", which will simultaneously destroy whatever leverage the polygraph has towards generating reactions concominant with lying.
It should also be noted that, while the NAS did conclude that SI polygraphy has results "well above chance", it was still highly critical both of the quality and quantity of the research done on this and other issues, and of the generalizability of laboratory research to field work.
Skeptic
Quote from: Skeptic on Oct 19, 2002, 05:11 PM
I'm sure they see things this way. To my mind, however, such irrational conclusions indicate "incompetence", and more than that, a dereliction of duty.
Or perhaps I'm simply feeling fiesty and particularly unforgiving today.
Skeptic
Skeptic,
No, you're simply being brutally honest. The cowardly silence of polygraph screening advocates (like Gordon H. Barland) when tough questions have been put to them, and actions such as the polygraph community's manoeuvers to withhold countermeasure studies from the National Academy of Sciences, speaks to a witting complicity in propagating a fraud and dereliction of duty to country.
Skeptic,
QuoteIsn't Mark Zaid already doing this? I hope the NAS report gives him some fresh ammunition.
Yes, Mark Zaid is indeed representing a number of plaintiffs who are suing the federal government over its reliance on polygraph screening. These cases have survived the government's request for summary judgment, and are now in the discovery phase.
QuoteThis can, of course, work both ways. It's only because of the "polygraph mystique" that the public has condoned increased use of polygraph screening. If that mystique is shattered and faith in the polygraph is fingered as a national security liability, the tides can change very quickly.
The NAS report should go a long way toward shattering the mystique of the polygraph for anyone who would take the time to read it. Unfortunately, the number of individuals actually doing so is likely to be quite small.
One of the goals of AntiPolygraph.org is to inform the public about "the lie behind the lie detector" and shatter the mystique of the polygraph. We have made progress toward that end, especially among those who are subject to polygraph screening. I think it is only a matter of time before the spread of the news reaches critical mass and the polygraph house of cards collapses.
QuoteIt should also be noted that, while the NAS did conclude that SI polygraphy has results "well above chance", it was still highly critical both of the quality and quantity of the research done on this and other issues, and of the generalizability of laboratory research to field work.
Note that the NAS conclusion that polygraph "tests" can differentiate between truth and deception in specific incidents at levels "well above chance" was
heavily caveated. It assumes a population of subjects who are uninformed about "the lie behind the lie detector" and untrained in countermeasures. Moreover, the NAS found no convincing evidence that polygraphy has any intrinsic ability to detect deception: its ability to differentiate between truth and deception at levels above chance in certain contexts may well depend on the subjects' belief in the polygraph and in their ignorance of effective countermeasures.
Dear Skeptic,
You hit the nail on the head about "lack of knowledge." The polygraph community places more emphasis on confession rate. Anyone who reads all of these threads on this website knows more then most polygraph operators.
I have to agree that the government does not care two hoots about getting "quality people." I think that they discover them by accident after they are hired. They need warm bodies and as long as they have people applying, throwing away applicants will never "affect their careers."
I am a government worker who takes great pride in my work. I have paid for all of my degrees. The government truly does not care if I am highly educated. I do. I am a small cog on a huge colossal gear that keeps moving despite itself.
My point: Politicians and government appointees only care when they or their careers are personally affected. Votes, money, or bad publicity are probably the most significant motivators.
Antipolygraph.org is on the right track with the publicity. Convince the American Public that this is more risk than assurance against terrorism and you will see quick results.
Clog the arteries of the agencies using these practices with appeals until the grease that keeps the gears moving dries up and makes them squeak. This is a long term fight. Nothing worth accomplishing happens overnight.
Quote from: Skeptic on Oct 19, 2002, 05:11 PM
Or perhaps I'm simply feeling fiesty and particularly unforgiving today.
Skeptic
LOL
Please, never confuse the taste of blood for victory. Good luck, Skeptic.
-Marty
Whoa Marty!
You have been very scientific and analytical about this webpage until this last posting.
You are adding a little bit of personal emotion to this last zinger.
Easy big Guy!
Quote from: Fair_Chance on Oct 19, 2002, 09:21 PM
Whoa Marty!
You have been very scientific and analytical about this webpage until this last posting.
You are adding a little bit of personal emotion to this last zinger.
Easy big Guy!
ROFLMAO. Yup, I am as emotional as the next guy. The difference here is that my interest in the polygraph wars is not personal and I think most everyone here has a personal interest, either as a user, victim, or potential victim. I am none of these nor do I expect to be, rather, I am just a curious, intrigued, bystander blessed (or cursed) with more curiosity than most.
Good luck to you as well, fair_chance! There are those I think have been unfairly screwed and it does in fact bother me, as analytic as I may seem to be.
-Marty
Quote from: Marty on Oct 19, 2002, 08:13 PM
LOL
Please, never confuse the taste of blood for victory. Good luck, Skeptic.
-Marty
I never do. 8)
Skeptic
To all of you who have been branded a liar by government agencies and which brand seems to stay with you, the following seems apparent to me.
1. You have been liabelously slandered.
2. You have a legal right, in the courts, to make the liable
perpetrators prove each and every charge of lying.
3. It they can't prove their charges, then they are liable for
actual and punitive damages.
4. I know of the class action lawsuit filed be Mark Zaid. Does it
ask for monetary damages? If not, when the suit is won,
each should file their own personal action. Nothing gets
attention like a lawsuit.
5. Slander encompasses LE as well as others.
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
I am in the mining business and ( for my own protection) have studied federal law, by computer, for four years and still studying. Twice I have, pro se, gone against some pretty good lawyers and won. Working on another.
The reason for the above paragraph is to show that one person can make a difference if that person has the intestinal fortitude to go against that intity which does you wrong. If I had been slandered as you have, the water wouldn't get cold before I hit them with a suit. Jurisprudence, in federal courts, should be about the same whether it's a slander or mining suit.
Dear Twoblock:
When you file legal action against the Federal Government or State Governments, a huge amount of special restrictions and laws apply.
You have to remember, you are going into the local pool hall and house rules apply. The bad part is that the house decides which rules it wants to play by and they are often not explained to out-of-towners.
I admire your spirit and certainly would celebrate any triumphs you can have in this area.
Fair_Chance
When I go into an opponent's pool hall I pick up the biggest que stick in the place with which to fight. As far as rules go, when you file under a certain authority, your opponent has to play by the rules of stated authority (s). or attempt to have said authority thrown out. That's where a good "Memorandum of Law" helps you stay the course.
If I wasn't to old, I would apply to the FBI, CIA,etc. just so I could the jerk that called me a liar into the court room. You see, I also play by my set of rules which are just as nasty as theirs.