Cia/Nsa polygraph

[Polycop]

What about in the pre-employ screening test?  What if one (hypothetically) has fairly recently downloaded software/music from one's college network (most likely a felony  -- you'd be suprised how many college students are felons)) and since destroyed it, after realizing doing that sort of thing was really not kosher?  Would it be wise to admit it?  Would the disclosure end eligibility for a position in the NSA or CIA?

What about if one doesn't know whether a background check might turn up someone who will mention it?  Could failing to disclose it likely result in prosecution (I assume it could mean not getting the position)?

Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Thanks

VeryCuriousOne,

The NSA DOES NOT care if you downloaded music in college.  Please tell the examiner what is on your mind and he will word the polygraph test questions to exclude that area of concern.  I wish you much luck in your test and your new career...

Polycop...

[beech trees]

The NSA DOES NOT care if you downloaded music in college.  Please tell the examiner what is on your mind and he will word the polygraph test questions to exclude that area of concern.  I wish you much luck in your test and your new career...

If the NSA doesn't care, why should he make the admission? NEVER make damaging admissions to polygraphers, they have aptly demonstrated on this board that their reputations are made and broken by how many confessions they coerce. USE countermeasures after practicing them.

Dave

[VeryCuriousOne]

If the NSA doesn't care, why should he make the admission? NEVER make damaging admissions to polygraphers, they have aptly demonstrated on this board that their reputations are made and broken by how many confessions they coerce. USE countermeasures after practicing them.

Dave

OK, well, NOW I'm confused.

From what I've heard, people downloading software (not distributing or running massive bulletin boards) were not really the target of the laws that make it a felony.  Also, you have to establish willfulness, and if you thought you had to be making money off the deal, and destroyed the copies you had when you found out that wasn't true, lack of willfulness may come into the picture.  So maybe it's a felony, but its a felony that millions (maybe tens of millions) of people have committed through Napster, Kazaa and other file sharing methods.

Anyway, in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, copying music might be seen as one of the things a person might react to in a control question, since it's so common.  I'm not sure I trust Polycop, either, but really, wouldn't this be the sort of minor admission one could make to a pre-test control question?  If the NSA or CIA are looking for people who've never downloaded music or software (especially tech people) they're going to have a mighty small applicant pool.

VCO

[George W. Maschke]

VCO,

You asked:

I'm not sure I trust Polycop, either, but really, wouldn't this be the sort of minor admission one could make to a pre-test control question?

While beech trees is right that one should never make damaging admissions to polygraphers, the downloading of MP3s over the Internet for personal use is not likely to be considered substantive. To illustrate the point, in the 1990s the question, "Did you ever violate a software copyright law?" was included on a list of DoDPI's acceptable directed-lie "control" questions for the Test for Espionage and Sabotage.

Making minor, non-substantive admissions, such as having downloaded MP3s, can help to avoid the appearance of stonewalling that a complete denial, say, of ever having taken something that did not belong to you would create.

[beech trees]

OK, well, NOW I'm confused.

Don't be.  

From what I've heard, people downloading software (not distributing or running massive bulletin boards) were not really the target of the laws that make it a felony.  Also, you have to establish willfulness, and if you thought you had to be making money off the deal, and destroyed the copies you had when you found out that wasn't true, lack of willfulness may come into the picture.  So maybe it's a felony, but its a felony that millions (maybe tens of millions) of people have committed through Napster, Kazaa and other file sharing methods.

Let's set aside the legality/illegality question of your past actions for a moment and address the heart of the matter. Unless you wrote somewhere in your application form and questionaire that you downloaded music in possible violation of copyright laws, YOU set the tone for your reactions to questions concerning illegal past activity, not the polygrapher.

George has an excellent suggestion. Should your polygraph interrogator lie to you and bluff that you're having some sort of reaction to the sets of questions regarding criminal activity, at that point you could really reflect for a few moments and say words to the effect that you downloaded some music from the Internet once, and could that be the problem? [Earnest look].

Anyway, in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, copying music might be seen as one of the things a person might react to in a control question, since it's so common.  I'm not sure I trust Polycop, either, but really, wouldn't this be the sort of minor admission one could make to a pre-test control question?  If the NSA or CIA are looking for people who've never downloaded music or software (especially tech people) they're going to have a mighty small applicant pool.

Of course, only make minor, non-substantive admissions.

[Skeptic]

George has an excellent suggestion. Should your polygraph interrogator lie to you and bluff that you're having some sort of reaction to the sets of questions regarding criminal activity, at that point you could really reflect for a few moments and say words to the effect that you downloaded some music from the Internet once, and could that be the problem? [Earnest look].

Of course, only make minor, non-substantive admissions.

I would think you could use that in a couple of ways, either as a minor in-test admission (especially with an R/I test) or during the pre-test regarding control questions.

I read Jane's account of her NSA interview -- looks like they use both a probable-lie CQT and R/I (perhaps for a re-test?).

Skeptic

[Skeptic]

Do you guys (George et. al) have any reason to believe, based upon correspondence or other evidence, that there is any truth to the notion that polygraphers currently doing screening polygraphs for intelligence agencies can detect correctly-done TLBTLD countermeasures at better than chance levels?  In other words, have you received any reliable reports of a means to detect (technologically or otherwise) puckering, etc.?

I ask because of some of the repeated posts on this board by polygraphers talking about "classified" methodology for CM detection.  Surely, such classified methodology would have caught CM users going through screening?

Skeptic

[beech trees]

Do you guys (George et. al) have any reason to believe, based upon correspondence or other evidence, that there is any truth to the notion that polygraphers currently doing screening polygraphs for intelligence agencies can detect correctly-done TLBTLD countermeasures at better than chance levels?  In other words, have you received any reliable reports of a means to detect (technologically or otherwise) puckering, etc.?

They cannot, because the countermeasures as described in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector are indistinguishable from 'genuine' (non-augmented) responses. I too was a doubting thomas until I experienced my second polygraph interrogation. The polygrapher had the latest and best polygraph equipment-- including sensor pads right under my butt-- and he was quite experienced in the 'profession'. I puckered like Dale Earnhardt in Turn 3 and passed with flying colors.

I ask because of some of the repeated posts on this board by polygraphers talking about "classified" methodology for CM detection.  Surely, such classified methodology would have caught CM users going through screening?

It's all bluff Skeptic.

[George W. Maschke]

Do you guys (George et. al) have any reason to believe, based upon correspondence or other evidence, that there is any truth to the notion that polygraphers currently doing screening polygraphs for intelligence agencies can detect correctly-done TLBTLD countermeasures at better than chance levels?  In other words, have you received any reliable reports of a means to detect (technologically or otherwise) puckering, etc.?

As of today (25 June 2002), the answer to both questions is, "No."

[PROAc]

How does the appeal process worked? If the CIA denied the FOIA, can you appeal without the polygraph results? Did anyone ever passed an appeal the last 40 years?


<<DupedbyCIA
Re: Cia/Nsa polygraph
« Reply #4 on: 05/25/02 at 10:19:45 »    

While I plan on appealing this decision, it is especially difficult to do since polygraph records are exempt in their entirely from the Freedom of Information and the Privacy Act.>>

[ann nounomous]

Somebody asked if I failed my second poly.  Yes, of course I failed.  What were they going to do, make the first polygrapher look bad.  As I said, NSA's security people and the hiring committe had gotten into a major pissing contest over me.  They only retested me to satisfy the hiring board.

BTW, the format they used was the RCT (relavant control test).  There were four relevant CI test questions.  IOW, the relevant questions WERE THE CONTROL QUESTIONS.  They are looking to see if you react to any ONE of the questions, MORE than the others.

One thing that is not being discussed about the NSA polygraph process is the importance of the PRE TEST INTERVIEW.  This is were they go over your application with a fine tooth comb, especially in the areas of foreign contacts...etc.  They are fishing for information they can use against you later on.  DON'T be overly talkative, and do not answer open ended questions.  Just answer their questions with as few words as possible, and be right to the point.  If they ask open ended or vagues questions, make them be more specific.

[Guest]

ann nounomous-
Was the same format used on both the first and second test?  Or was only the second test RCT?

[Skeptic]

BTW, the format they used was the RCT (relavant control test).  There were four relevant CI test questions.  IOW, the relevant questions WERE THE CONTROL QUESTIONS.  They are looking to see if you react to any ONE of the questions, MORE than the others.

Ann,

So, basically, all questions were "fishing" control-type questions?  Do you recall what the specific questions were?  I'm afraid I've never heard of a "RCT" format before.

Also, was there any kind of a "stim" test, or were any irrelevant questions asked?  Were the questions in groups that were repeated several times?  If so, I'd think you actually faced some sort of R/I test.

Skeptic

[DupedbyCIA]

 >>How does the appeal process worked? If the CIA denied the
>> FOIA, can you appeal without the polygraph results? Did
>> anyone ever passed an appeal the last 40 years

Sorry about the delay in responding.  People do appeal successfully, but the rate is EXTREMELY low.  Either the CIA is perfect (which is a perfectly natural assumption ... NOT!) or they just don't like to admit their mistakes.  The process moves extremely slow, regardless.  I started the process six months ago and I have yet to hear anything further.  

Has anyone read Kafka's Trial?  Somehow it seems relevant .....

[George W. Maschke]

DupedbyCIA,

Your Kafkaesque experience has been shared by many others, too. See, for example, the Public Staments page on this website. If, at the appropriate time, you'd like to add a statement of your own, please contact us by e-mail to info@antipolygraph.org. By working together, and publicly exposing ongoing abuses, such at that which you are now suffering, we can hasten the day when polygraph screening is finally abolished.