Tried Countermeasurs and Screwed Yourself? Sue Maschke and Scalabrini

[T.Cullen]

Evan S,

Do you have any credentials in the field of polygraphy?  Then you are just speculating, and have no business criticizing the polygraph.

This is the sort of answer we get here from polygraphers when asked simple questions, or relate our own personal experiences with the polygraph.  As far as they are concerned, even the NAS is not qualified to criticize or render conclusions regarding the legitimacy of the polygraph as a scientific tool!  Why?  They haven't any credentials in polygraphy!

Though they do cut and past doctored excerpts from the NAS report to suit their own purpose.

TC

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Evan S, finally someone of superior intelligence on the "anti-" side comes on this forum with something truly excellent.

I enjoyed reading the articles.  The Washington Post article really was disturbing. I've never heard of this type of abuse at the federal polygraph level.  There is supposed to be quality control, not just in each individual polygraph exam, but also in the oversight conducted by DODPI (now DACA) in annual inspections of all federal polygraph programs.

Unfortunately, the rivalries that exist between federal agencies in general might carry over into the polygraph arena. The problem is not so much with the examiners themselves, but with managers. There is supposed to be uniformity and consistency from one federal agency to another in the polygraph process, especially since all receive their training and certification from DACA, and annual inspections and required yearly refresher training are designed to ensure that this is so. However, at the management level, which usually consists of big egos who aren't polygraph examiners but rather administrators trying to get promoted, there are sometimes outside forces that can affect a program in a negative manner.

I'm more familiar with the FBI program than that of the "spooks" at CIA. I do know that NSA conducts periodical CI exams of its employees, and I've never agreed with this procedure. Once someone is proven (to the best ability of an agency) to be a qualified applicant with no known skeletons in his closet, he should not be subject to polygraph exams every year or, God forbid, several times a year.  You say that "Better background investigations and ongoing security education is the solution, and not polygraphs." I absolutely agree with you.  While the polygraph is a good screening tool at the entry level, I don't agree with its continued, periodical use with proven employees, and there has been some research regarding the utility of repeated polygraph exams.

The second article is a bit more dubious, since we aren't privy to the background of the former manager's story except from his own point of view. Retaliation?  Maybe and maybe not. But it's ironic, certainly.

Interesting that you would advocate "behavioral countermeasures" while not recommending mental or physical countermeasures.  Again, I agree.  If someone is truly one of the tiny minority who is a "false positive," I've stated before that you must defend your own integrity.

Thank you for posting something interesting, informative, and without portraying yourself as an expert in the polygraph process. Your opinion is valued, and I respect that. If only some of the more ignorant and vocal regulars on this forum could be more like you.

[George W. Maschke]

Nice try, George, but those are not likely possible explanations....

However unlikely they may be, each is more likely than your conjecture that I used "spontaneous" countermeasures. I didn't.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Fine, G.  Then you must have lied to every relevant question, right? Because that's the only other plausible explanation for failing every relevant question when we discount your naive speculation of examiner misconduct and unorthodox scoring methods.

[George W. Maschke]

Fine, G.  Then you must have lied to every relevant question, right?...

Wrong. I answered all relevant questions truthfully.

[T.Cullen]

I answered all relevant questions truthfully.

But how can you be sure?

TC

[Sergeant1107]

This makes more sense than your, George's and other "anti-" forum regulars' assumption that an innocent person needs to attempt countermeasures to ensure that he/she passes the polygraph exam.

You should probably reread at least some of my previous posts.

I have never suggested that anyone try to use countermeasures and I don't recall ever having written that my assumption is one cannot pass a polygraph without using countermeasures.

I also do not pass myself off as an expert, but I am tired of pointing that out to you since it has become clear you are here simply to troll and not engage in any serious discussion.

[Administrator]

It should be noted that the originator of this message thread, LieBabyCryBaby, who evidently hoped that this website might be silenced by means of a civil suit, is a federal law enforcement officer: Drug Enforcement Agency Special Agent Shawn Hacking. Several of his posts in this message thread originate from a DEA-registered IP address. It is not clear whether his posting here was sanctioned by the DEA. Special Agent Hacking has been banned following repeated violations of AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy.

[ecordy75]

No lawyer portrayal here, Cullen. But if I were an polygraph examinee foolish enough to have read TLBTLD and attempted its advice only to end up failing as a direct result, I'd consider suing George. As I said, the United States is a country where people can file a lawsuit about anything.  And they often win.

If that is the case, as you claim, then people have the First Amendment authority to free speech to say anything they want during a polygraph interview - whether interviewing for a job or a criminal suspect - and then they can sue someone for violating that legal authority.