Doug Williams Polygraph Trial Discussion Thread

[George W. Maschke]

Marisa Taylor of the McClatchy Washington Bureau has an article about Doug Williams' indictment here:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/11/14/246957_in-leak-crackdown-ex-cop-indicted.html

[The Watcher]

If George Maschke goes away (or dies), then who will run Antipolygraph.org?

[George W. Maschke]

No threats, just want to be there to greet him!  And Chad Dixon copped a plea because he knew he was going to be convicted and wanted a shorter sentence.  I'm not sure what your point is, Oklahoma or Virginia, it was still a federal case.

We'll try to arrange your cell to be next to Doug's.

Of what crime do believe me to be guilty?

[quickfix]

The same one Chad Dixon was convicted of.

[Ex Member]

The same one Chad Dixon was convicted of. 

Setting yourself up for a defamation suit quickfix? Looks like you just may be on the docket as well.

[The Watcher]

If George Maschke goes away (or dies), then who will run Antipolygraph.org?

Thanks for posting this, it shows me you're a clown instead of someone whose input is worthy of reading. 

It was a serious question.  I have an anti-polygraph stance just like George.  I like this site.  I'm seriously wondering if there is a back-up administrator or moderator on here.  If the feds take away Doug and George, there will be no more anti-polygraph websites.  This site would get filled with spam and/or hacked, that that would be the end of it.

George, do you have someone designated as a backup to run this site if you are no longer able to do so?

[quickfix]

Hey Arkhangelsk:  you gotta find me first!!!  BTW, I don't want any harm to come to George, but the Watcher did ask a valid question:  what does happen to this website if George is, say, incapacitated?

[George W. Maschke]

George, do you have someone designated as a backup to run this site if you are no longer able to do so? 

If there are any volunteers who are familiar with web site administration, I'd be interested in hearing from you, preferably by secure means.

[Ex Member]

Sorry Watcher, I jumped to the wrong conclusion. I take back the clown remark.

Quickfix, it's simply a matter of doing a trace or ping on your IP address.

Spewing out immature remarks is diverse from falsely accusing someone of committing federal crimes...think before you post.

[quickfix]

ping away buddy!  I can cloak myself in the First Amendment too.

[Ex Member]

The trial will definitely set some kind of precedence one way or the other; even if convicted, he will probably appeal.

[George W. Maschke]

Here are articles on the indictment of Doug Williams from Ars Technica and Mashable, respectively:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/polygraph-com-owner-accused-of-training-customers-to-beat-the-polygraph/

http://mashable.com/2014/11/14/polygraph-dot-com-doug-williams/

[Ex Member]

I read the indictment; it's very shoddy work. They were able to convince the grand jury, but I think Doug will prevail at trial--I hope he doesn't plead.

[George W. Maschke]

Ars Technica has some great reader comments on the news of Doug Williams' indictment. Here are some samples:

Modern Major General Thanatos writes:

I'm not sure what is more asinine, using polygraphs as an employment requisite or preventing people from talking about how to beat polygraphs.

to which dfjdejulio replies:

Reminds one of the anticircumvention measures in the DMCA, doesn't it?

"Yes, we know that this copy protection is horrible and easy to defeat, but if you provide tools that, among their other uses, can be used to circumvent it, you are now breaking the law."

feldon30 writes:

How the fuck is this a crime? Is this North Korea?

adipose writes:

The polygraph is used as a scare tactic more than anything. Reassuring people that it can be beaten is the first step away from that fear. That can't be allowed!

Evan E writes:

This reminds me of a story Feynman used to tell (it's in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman). He figured out how to get into many of the safes at the Los Alamos project - some he could actually pick, and others it was easy to guess the combinations (since it was a bunch of physicists, pi or e being a combination was common). He brought this to the attention of the military admins in charge, and their responses was to issue a memo essentially saying "Do not let Prof. Feynman near any of the safes".

If you're relying on a test that can be defeated this easily (and often registers false positives just because people are nervous while taking the test), the problem is with your test, not with the testees.

Matt Bieneman writes:

When will the people who are selling the polygraph machines & training courses to the government be prosecuted for fraud as well? Their actions are much more obviously fraudulent. The not only cost the government money, but they are seriously endangering national security because the government relies on these machines to screen people for security clearances, rather than spending the money on some kind of meaningful security checks. The polygraph tests are only capable of stopping rank amateurs, and then with no better accuracy than a coin flip. The real spies are guaranteed to pass the test because they are prepared for it.

adamrussell writes:

From Geo Orwell's 1984:
"The thing that he was about to do was to open a diary. This was not illegal (nothing was illegal, since there were no longer any laws), but if detected it was reasonably certain that it would be punished by death, or at least by twenty-five years in a forced-labour camp."

This is not about diaries - its about rule of law. Without laws you can be arrested for just doing something they dont want you doing. It seems like lately courts have started bending laws to make sure that anyone that is doing something "against common decency" he can be arrested for it. Its a slippery slope that leads to a nightmare.

[George W. Maschke]

It's significant, I think that the only "crimes" that the government alleges against Doug Williams are those it conceived, funded, and staged-managed. And this is so despite the fact that the U.S. government has a list of nearly 5,000 of his customers and had well over a year to investigate those customers.

I think this is a pretty clear case of the U.S. government abusing its investigatory and prosecutorial powers to stifle speech it dislikes. See the post about Doug's indictment on the AntiPolygraph.org News blog.

I also note that in the "criminal cover sheet" attached to the indictment (2.6 mb PDF), the government recommends that Doug be subject to an unsecured bond in the amount of $10,000. So there is no attempt to keep him in pre-trial detention.

A post I wrote for Slashdot.org made the front page yesterday, and there is a lengthy comments section.

In addition, the Ars Technica article mentioned above has been posted to Reddit, where there is also a comments section.

Reader opinion seems to be running strongly against the government's actions in this case.