NSA Polygraphers Named

[polyscam]

All of you chastizing George need to take a deep breath and relax.  Okay, names are posted which are otherwise available by request.  Yes, you are correct in what I believe to be your assumption many would not make such a request.  However, these are only names.  No other identifiable information is available: no addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, etc.  With the millions of Americans in our population many share exact and similar names, hundreds and even thousands.  Also, it is not as if cover operatives have been compromised.

[mustbaliar]

Posting these names does not hurt anyone, nor does it endanger anyone.  With the power of the internet, a person can find just about anything.  Using zabasearch.com, for instance, one can learn that Lorry L. Ginovsky's birthmonth is February 1954.  You could probably dig deeper and find out the purchase history of his/her property, too.  The point is that it's all out there.  Take a few minutes and put your own names in that search engine or even google and see what you find.  I was surprised to find my name in a couple places that I had either forgotten or didn't know about.  Enjoy.

[nonombre]

Madsen points out that the directory is marked "For Official Use Only." Which means it's unclassified. None of the personnel on the roster are undercover agents.

Indeed, two of the NSA polygraphers named (Lorry Ginovsky and Daniel Baxter) are officers of the Maryland Polygraph Association and have publicly listed not only their names, but also their home and personal e-mail addresses as well as their office phone number: (410) 854-6363.

While I appreciate the security concerns expressed by NoNombre, I believe they are greatly overstated.

Mr Maschke,

I thought you used to be in the federal government?  If you were then please explain to us exactly which part of "For Official Use Only " you do not understand?  Since when does a private, special interest website constitute an "Official Use?"  I am confused...

Next point, I am pretty sure the Maryland Polygraph Association does not publicially advertise these polygraph examiners as being agents of the NSA.  In fact, though I have not tried it, I bet if you were to call the telephone number you spoke of, the person answering the telephone would not identify the line as being an NSA phone.  Wanna put a small wager on this?  I am pretty sure I would win.

Face it Mr. Maschke, you have played a role in publically identifying U.S. intelligence officers on the internet (By the way, what beef do you have with the non-polygraphers you also helped to "out?").  I am afraid your passion for your "cause" has once again interfered with your good judgement...

In my humble opinion...

Nonombre
 

 

[polyscam]

Mr Maschke,

I thought you used to be in the federal government?  If you were then please explain to us exactly which part of "For Official Use Only " you do not understand?  Since when does a private, special interest website constitute an "Official Use?"  I am confused...

Next point, I am pretty sure the Maryland Polygraph Association does not publicially advertise these polygraph examiners as being agents of the NSA.  In fact, though I have not tried it, I bet if you were to call the telephone number you spoke of, the person answering the telephone would not identify the line as being an NSA phone.  Wanna put a small wager on this?  I am pretty sure I would win.

Face it Mr. Maschke, you have played a role in publically identifying U.S. intelligence officers on the internet (By the way, what beef do you have with the non-polygraphers you also helped to "out?").  I am afraid your passion for your "cause" has once again interfered with your good judgement...

In my humble opinion...

Nonombre

Again I state...public information.  Perhaps you would prefer censorship for such information, thankfully however our constitution protects us from such shrouded secrecy.  If you truly have a concern in regard to the availability to this information your concerns would better be voiced to the US Government or more specifically the NSA.  It seems to me that this is an attack of sorts simply because of your strong disagreemnet with the authors of this site (i.e. this post).  Your argument is moot.

[George W. Maschke]

Mr Maschke,

I thought you used to be in the federal government?  If you were then please explain to us exactly which part of "For Official Use Only " you do not understand?  Since when does a private, special interest website constitute an "Official Use?"  I am confused...

I very clearly understand the meaning of "For Official Use Only." Perhaps you do not, so I'll explain it. Within the Department of Defense (the parent agency of the NSA), the designation "For Official Use Only" is sometimes used to mark information that may be exempt from disclosure under under the Freedom of Information Act. Information designated "For Official Use Only" is by definition unclassified.

Next point, I am pretty sure the Maryland Polygraph Association does not publicially advertise these polygraph examiners as being agents of the NSA.  In fact, though I have not tried it, I bet if you were to call the telephone number you spoke of, the person answering the telephone would not identify the line as being an NSA phone.  Wanna put a small wager on this?  I am pretty sure I would win.

You are correct that the Maryland Polygraph Association (MPA) does not publicly advertise that any of these polygraphers are employees of the NSA. However, quite a number of them do include their work address (at Fort Meade, Maryland) and phone number on the MPA's membership list. It's no big secret that the NSA is headquartered at Fort Meade.

Face it Mr. Maschke, you have played a role in publically identifying U.S. intelligence officers on the internet (By the way, what beef do you have with the non-polygraphers you also helped to "out?").  I am afraid your passion for your "cause" has once again interfered with your good judgement...

Yes indeed, I have played a role in publicly identifying NSA employees on the Internet. That was the whole point of my post, and I make no apology for it.

In the case of the NSA polygraphers, I think the public -- especially the many whom they have falsely accused of deception -- are entitled to know who these people are. I think these polygraphers should at least have this small measure of public accountability.

I have no personal beef with any employees of the NSA's Office of Personal Security. While I could have edited the graphic to exclude the names of non-polygraphers, considering the information is already public, doing so would have been pointless.

[Sergeant1107]

Nonombre has previous stated that George's publishing of methods one can use to beat a polygraph is similar to leaving a loaded shotgun on a subway platform and then claiming you are not responsible if someone picks it up and uses it.

It is therefore hardly surprising that he feels the publication of non-classified material which federal law makes freely available to anyone is also somehow an irresponsible act of some kind.

[whylie]

It is irresponsible

[polyscam]

It is irresponsible

No more, actually less, than continued use of polygraph testing which has been proven to be vulnerable in regard to accuracy.  The test can be effected by the examinee, examiner or procedure.  Continued use of a method so vulnerable to interference seems to be more irresponsible.

Why not go after every news outlet in the country.  They regularly report information which includes names of involved parties who may wish to remain anonymous.  Thankfully our forefathers had the vision and forsight to protect the American population from the censorship goons.

[Skeptic]

It is irresponsible

Can you specify how, exactly?  It's already been noted that this information is freely available and not classified.

[nonombre]

I very clearly understand the meaning of "For Official Use Only." Perhaps you do not, so I'll explain it. Within the Department of Defense (the parent agency of the NSA), the designation "For Official Use Only" is sometimes used to mark information that may be exempt from disclosure under under the Freedom of Information Act. Information designated "For Official Use Only" is by definition unclassified.

Mr Maschke,

Since I am not a federal employee, I do not claim to know much about the federal defination of "For Official Use Only."  However, I do know that in the local jurisdiction where I work, the term "For Official Use Only," means For Official Use Only.  I don't drive my grandmother to church in my police car which is "For Official Use Only."  I don't use my office computer to post on this website, because it is "For Official Use Only," and I don't give anyone department documents (unless under court order) because they are "For Official Use Only."

Now, according to what you have told us, "For Official Use Only" in the federal government actually means "MAYBE" For Official Use Only.

Okay, I don't know any better so I'll believe you, but to me it just don't pass the "stupid test."  No offense.

Nonombre :-/

[George W. Maschke]

Nonombre,

Members of the public are under no legal or moral obligation not to discuss or publish information merely because someone in a government agency has designated it to be "For Official Use Only." This is a fortiori the case when such information has previously been published, as was the NSA directory.

You may disapprove of my decision to post this information here, but the argument that I should not have done so because it was marked "For Official Use Only" is a very weak one.

[Skeptic]

Mr Maschke,

Since I am not a federal employee, I do not claim to know much about the federal defination of "For Official Use Only."

As I am a federal employee, let me assure you that George is correct: "FOUO" carries absolutely no obligation, legal or otherwise, for a private citizen to keep material under wraps.

[gelb disliker]

NoNombre

  why do you have such paranoia?  is someone after you?

[nonombre]

NoNombre

 why do you have such paranoia?  is someone after you?

Why do you think I am "paranoid?"  I don't understand.  Please explain yourself...

Nonombre

[gelb disliker]

Why do you think I am "paranoid?"  I don't understand.  Please explain yourself...

Nonombre

 The fact that you think that certain death would occur to these examiners.  These documents served a purpose, but seemingly you think that the said documents shouldn't be published here on the internet.  So it seems that this is so hush hush and no one should be allowed to view the names of these polygraph examiners.   I don't think these are any kind of double, secret, dark covert agents.   This was a roster of examiners and the order in which they serve.   Nothing else, but you seem flustered that Mr. Maschke published them.  Would you not consider your dear concern for these examiners somewhat paranoid?