Polygraph Counter-countermeasure Techniques

[Twoblock]

Hey DADDY-O

Some questions:

1. How many months did it take you to calculate these
     percentages?

2. What is the percentage of posters who used counter-
    measures and beat the poly. Or, are you calling them
    liars?

3. My main purpose in here is attempting to expose  
     corruption. Do I fall into the 10% scary column? To
     some, I am damn scary.

4. Do you have the guts to help me force our piliticains
     to take and pass a polygraph in order to keep their
     jobs? Hell, I can answer that. NO

5. If our elected officials would be forced to take a
    polygraph, how many polygraphers do you think    
    would take their payoffs to pass them. Don't say
     none. That would make you look silly.

6. Do you think they would use countermeasures?

7. What fear caused you to make the silly post and label
     George the enemy? Enemy to who, polygraphers?

[DADDY-O]

WOW,

My post had no profanity, spoke only the truth and it was removed from the recent post page.  I wonder why.  The truth hurts George

Two-Block
If only one molester beat a test with this information ann ruined several kids lives would it be worth it?

[Marty]

WOW,

My post had no profanity, spoke only the truth and it was removed from the recent post page.  I wonder why.  The truth hurts George

Two-Block
If only one molester beat a test with this information ann ruined several kids lives would it be worth it?

The ten most recent posts refers to threads. It is the 10 most recently posted threads which seems a logical way to do it.

-Marty

[Twoblock]

DADDY-O

If you have spent enough time on these boards to calculate percentages, then you have seen my posts concerning child molesters. I am for any means in which LE apprehends and convicts "guilty" molesters. That means gaining confessions with the polygraph. However, you know as well as I that there have been quite a number of false convictions and those are being released due to DNA evidence, recantations, etc. But to come on here and categorically percentage label everyone who posts to these boards is wrong. You know nothing about the posters here, but your (and other polygrapher's) puntitive attitude causes your mouth to overload your ass. Why can't all of you be like Public Servant, whose stock is pretty high on my ticker tape, and debate the issues, not demean others and admit errors are made. Public Servant gets overheated at times. So do I and most everyone else.

There is a lot of posters here that will disagree with you that federal agencies don't hand out info to state, county and city LE on failed polys. If you are not a federal polygrapher, which I suspect you are, how did you gain all that info about George. If you are not a FBI polygrapher then you have proven, by your condemnation of George, that failed polys are banded about between LE agencies.

Lastly - Are you going to respond to my question about fighting political corruption with me?

[George W. Maschke]

Before I respond to Daddy-O's post, I would note that he has provided an example of what is perhaps the most widespread counter-countermeasure: simply attempting to deter countermeasure use by confidently (but falsely) claiming that polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures.

Daddy-O,

You write:

1)  20% of the posts seem to revolve around individuals who have been convicted of molesting children.  The are not coming to learn about the polygraph, they are actively seeking ways to beat the polygraph so they can continue to MOLEST CHILDREN!  Children who will go on to repeat this cycle.

Except for one instance of a polygraph supporter posing as a child molestor, I recall only two posters on this board who have acknowledged having been convicted of a sex offense against a child. And I don't recall any posts by anyone "actively seeking ways to beat the polygraph so they can continue to molest children."

2)  20% of the posts revolve around people who are utterly confused about polygraph and by reading the TLBTLD are only lessing the effect of the questions that are to their benefit.  These people are mistakely led to think that people in LAW ENFORCEMENT do not want anyone else hired and the cards are stacked against them and that they will be a false positive.  A false positive which will serve as a scarlet letter procluding from all further employment.

It is hardly surprising that individuals who are confused about polygraphy would post questions. That is to be expected, and indeed, one of the key purposes of this message board is to provide answers to those with questions about polygraphy.

It is neither my position, nor AntiPolygraph.org's, that people in law enforcement do not want anyone else hired. However, as I have explained elsewhere, the polygraph process is indeed inherently biased against the truthful, because the more candidly one answers the "control" questions, and as a consequene experiences less stress when answering them, the more likely one is to fail. We don't argue that anyone taking a pre-employment polygraph examination is destined to fail, but the risk is quite significant. Nor do we argue that a false positive is a scarlet letter that will preclude (note spelling) one from all employment. However, a false positive outcome with one agency can most definitely have an adverse effect on one's ability to gain employment with others.

Departments and agencies do not share this information.  IT IS ILLEGAL!  People who apply for these jobs cast a wide net and if they are in the 3-5% false postive percent range they will still hook up with one of the several thousand other law enforcement agencies.

While agencies that rely on polygraph screening might not share polygraph results with private companies, they most certainly do share polygraph results amongst themselves. It is not illegal.

In addition, given polygraphy's lack of scientific underpinnings and the high polygraph failure rates associated with pre-employment polygraph screening (~50% in the FBI and LAPD, for example), your posited 3-5% false positive rate is almost certainly grossly understated.

3)  30% of the people who come to this site are those who have criminal behavior they are trying to hide.  Criminal behavior which in my experience includes attempted murder, rape, armed robbery, and many cases of child molestation.  All of which would not have come to light if not for polygraph.  People who would have been sworn in and patrolled the streets today.

No doubt, some who visit AntiPolygraph.org have done something that would disqualify them from certain positions that require polygraph screening. Your conclusion that 30% of those who visit AntiPolygraph.org are trying to hide criminal behavior is entirely conjectural however. (More than 99% of visitors to this website never post on the message board.)

In any event, AntiPolygraph.org has made countermeasure information publicly available and free not to help liars beat the system, but to help honest, law-abiding persons protect themselves against the high risk of a false positive outcome that is associated with the pseudoscience of polygraphy. We cannot make this information available to those who legitimately need it without also making it available to everyone.

4)  20% are those who have nothing to hide but hear alleged horror stories about the polygraph.  Being screamed at, tortured, etc.  This doesn't happen!  Most departments tape there tests for this reason and project oversight exists.  After reading this, the person becomes scared and makes a giant leap of faith. They think there is only way to pass the testis to:
COMMIT CONTERMEASURES!!!!!

I am not aware that anyone here has claimed that they were tortured during a polygraph examination. The only allegations of physical pain being inflicted of which I am aware involve over-inflated pressure cuffs. And while it is not the norm, instances of polygraphers screaming at subjects are documented. See, for example, the public statement of Bill Roche.

For those facing a pre-employment polygraph "test," the risk of a false positive outcome is significant. Countermeasure use is a rational choice for reducing that risk. You speak of "committing" countermeasures as if it were a crime. It's not.

Unfortunately, they get caught.  Instead of obtaining thier dream job the research has been their demise.  People say CM's are not caught.  They are caught VIRTUALLY ALL THE TIME.  People that have nothing to hide are now disqualified.

No polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect countermeasures. When you say that countermeasures are caught "virtually all the  time," you are lying -- falsely asserting that which you cannot possibly know.

If you truly believe that you can reliably detect polygraph countermeasures, then why not accept Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge?

If you have nothing to hide, met the departments guidelines and tell the truth you will pass the polygraph.

Lies such as the foregoing will not fly anymore, Daddy-O. As the National Academy of Sciences has affirmed, polygraph screening is completely invalid. Who do you think you're fooling?

The unknown 10% are the real scary part.  What are their intentions? Are they using the information obtained on this site, through TLBTLD, and William's to try and obtain access to intelligence agencies.

As I alluded to earlier, neither you nor I know the motivations of more than 99% of those who visit AntiPolygraph.org. It is certainly possible that spies, saboteurs, terrorists, and other criminals will exploit information made available on this website to fool America's intelligence agencies. All the more reason not to rely on the polygraph.

As for your cowardly attack on my patriotism and insinuation that I am some kind of foreign agent, shame on you.

[Fair Chance]

Before I respond to Daddy-O's post, I would note that he has provided an example of what is perhaps the most widespread counter-countermeasure: simply attempting to deter countermeasure use by confidently (but falsely) claiming that polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures.

George,

In a nutshell, this statement agrees with the behavior of my second polygraph experience.  I was completely truthful, had no knowledge of this website or polygraph procedures at the time, and was accused of using countermeasures with absolute certainty.

I believed that I was accused to defend the inconclusive first polygraph exam and emotionally "jack me up" to conclusively show responses which would fail me.  In my case, this backfired on the examiner.

Regards.

[PolyCop]

...AntiPolygraph.org has made countermeasure information publicly available and free not to help liars beat the system, but to help honest, law-abiding persons protect themselves against the high risk of a false positive outcome that is associated with the pseudoscience of polygraphy. We cannot make this information available to those who legitimately need it without also making it available to everyone.
.[/i]

The above quote from George Maschke the author of this website, seems hauntingly similiar to the quote below from today's Fox News regarding the manufacturer of a device designed to "beat" the urinaylsis test.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99577,00.html

"...The device, reusable and available in five flesh colors, is sold by California-based Puck Technology for $150. A prosthetic penis is attached to an undergarment resembling a jock strap and connects to a pouch containing dehydrated urine. Water is added to the pouch and a heat pack can be attached to keep the urine close to body temperature.

Company owner Dennis Catalano has sold the device and one designed for women for about four years, mainly through an Internet site. He said what he does is legal.

"How people choose to use it is beyond our control," he said. "But we manufacture this and sell it for people who believe we still have a semblance of privacy in this country." "

Catalano:  "How people choose to use it is beyond our control."

Maschke:  "....We cannot make this information available to those who legitimately need it without also making it available to everyone."

Hmmm, birds of a feather

PolyCop

[Marty]

The above quote from George Maschke the author of this website, seems hauntingly similiar to the quote below from today's Fox News regarding the manufacturer of a device designed to "beat" the urinaylsis test.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99577,00.html

PolyCop,

There aren't that many similarities. Drug testing is actually based on scientific principles and has a very low false positive rate, unlike polygraph screening. Further, drug testing doesn't require the "donee" be deceived in order for the test to "work."  Comparing the "art" of polygraphy screening with the science of drug screening is a stretch at best and it is clear a lot of damage is being done in screening when the results of such screening are done after a long application process and are an absolute determination in rejecting candidates. Absent these effects I believe you have a reasonable ethical case though I think the burden on those supressing information has to be quite high.

-Marty

[Mr. Truth]

Is there any doubt that urine testing can detect the presence of drugs? No. Is there any doubt that polygraph testing can detect deception? Yes.

How often do clean tests result in a positive reading? The error rate is measurable, can be replicated, and can be reduced via additional testing. The error rate is minimal. How often do truthful answers on a polygraph result in deception indicated? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of the time, but let's be generous and use the claim of 90% accuracy, leaving an error rate of 10%. Am I getting thru to you, PolyCop?

[George W. Maschke]

Axciton has joined Lafayette in offering a piezoelectric sensor pad for sale. Axciton's "Advanced Motion Sensor Pad" is illustrated below (click on image for larger view):

[Ted Seals]

That is exactly what they had on the seat during my polygraph.  When I sat on it, the computer beeped.  Wow, so maybe the pad actually was supposed to catch countermeasures. :-/

[George W. Maschke]

Another counter-countermeasure that seems to be in use is the following: during the pre-test phase, the polygrapher will deliberately refer to one or more irrelevant questions as "control" or "comparison" questions in an attempt to mislead the examinee. If the examinee then shows strong reactions to any of these irrelevant questions, the polygrapher infers that countermeasures have been used.

The polygrapher may also apply "time bars" to such irrelevant questions in an attempt to make them appear more like "control" questions. An example of a time-barred irrelevant question would be, "Between 1996 and 2000, did you attend Georgetown University?"

[JB Dawson]

George, if polygraph examiners can't detect countermeasures such as those described in TLBTLD, why would they run such tests?  

[JB Dawson]

I mean the silent answer test and the yes test you described...

[George W. Maschke]

JB Dawson,

I think that the rationales for the "silent answer test" and the "yes test" are adequately explained in the citations I've provided in the first message in this thread.

However, the mere fact that polygraphers may believe such techniques useful for deterring/detecting countermeasures is no evidence, let alone proof, that they can actually detect the kinds of countermeasures described in TLBTLD. Indeed, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to reliably detect such countermeasures.