Vegas Polygraph

[nonombre]

Just wondering Tarlain,

What do you do for a living?  I am not being a smart ass here.  I would really like to know...

Nonombre

[Tarlain]

I had to think about whether I should answer this question.  Then I wondered why I was evening debating with myself...and it hit me.  I don't TRUST you.  

My occupation is extremely unique and would stick out like a sore thumb if my future mindreaders were to peruse this site.  So for the sake of my fun, I guess that will have to suffice.

I do my job because I enjoy helping people overcome illness...and love patient care.  I find it appalling that others spend the "bulk" of their time lying to these same people...while looking down upon them for refusing to lay their souls bare before you.  It baffles the mind.

edit:  i'm not a doctor or rn...before that assuming mind begins.  it really is quite unique.

[nonombre]

I had to think about whether I should answer this question.  Then I wondered why I was evening debating with myself...and it hit me.  I don't TRUST you.  

My occupation is extremely unique and would stick out like a sore thumb if my future mindreaders were to peruse this site.  So for the sake of my fun, I guess that will have to suffice.

I do my job because I enjoy helping people overcome illness...and love patient care.  I find it appalling that others spend the "bulk" of their time lying to these same people...while looking down upon them for refusing to lay their souls bare before you.  It baffles the mind.

edit:  i'm not a doctor or rn...before that assuming mind begins.  it really is quite unique.

Interesting; thank you...

Nonombre

[Twoblock]

Tarlain

I don't think a mike will cause any interference with the machine. There is nothing about the machine that is sensitive to radio frequency.

Did you notice that Nonombre didn't answer your question about recording his tests? Could be because maybe he's a Fed. and not state or local polygrapher as he has allowed. Seems like I read where Fed polygraphers do not allow audio or vidio.

I'm glad I dig gravel and blast holes in mountains for a living. If Nonombre would ever visit my mine, I would let him get experience in real hard, dirty and honest work.

[retcopper]

Tarlain:

Since you like "funny" things here's something to think about.  In my state its a violation of the wiretap laws to tape anothers conversation without advisng that person beforehand.

[Twoblock]

Retcopper

That was before 9/11. Since then the Feds wire tap any one they want without a court order.

I don't know what's your state but, I think if the recording is used "only" to protect ones self, honesty and integrity it is not against the law. Technically, a recording device is not a wire tap. PI's use recording devices all the time without a court order.

Tarlain may want to just use the recording for his own knowledge about the polygraph. In that case, he's legal. Particularly if he isn't caught. I record political speaches, that I attend, so I can put the facts in their face when they don't come through with their promises. When they are elected, they don't give a damn how much they are recorded.

[quickfix]

In case anyone is interested, under federal law, electronic monitoring/recording is covered under Title 18, USC, the federal Wiretapping Investigative Monitoring Eavesdropping Activities (WIMEA) Act;  an overview can be viewed at

www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/98-326.pdf

[Tarlain]

"It is a federal crime to wiretap or to use a machine to cature the communications of others without court approval, unless one of the parties has given their prior consent."


Am I missing something?  Would not I qualify as "one of the parties" giving consent?  

For the record though, this is why I asked.  I felt that these shady people might force me to sign away my right to record my own voice.

[Twoblock]

quickfix

Thanks for posting the link.

I had read the section on public speakers (politicians), before I started recording them, to be sure I was legal. Besides, most of the time, there is a TV camera or radio or both recording the speaker.

I haven't read the whole thing yet, but it appears that the secret words are "disclosure" and "commerce". If the information gathered is never revealed, is there a law broken? I'll study it more closely later.

[Tarlain]

I have sought the opinion of a lawyer (friend of a friend type of thing).  I was told that I am absolutely allowed to record any conversation(s) I have.  Polygraphers are NOT allowed to require you to turn off any recording devices.  Lastly, I was told that if discovered, the odds I end up being "deceptive" will be 110% regardless of how I answer (no surprise).

I am still unable to find any legal document or precedent that states or implies that it is unlawful for me to record my own conversations.

[nonombre]

Tarlain

Did you notice that Nonombre didn't answer your question about recording his tests? Could be because maybe he's a Fed. and not state or local polygrapher as he has allowed. Seems like I read where Fed polygraphers do not allow audio or vidio.

I'm glad I dig gravel and blast holes in mountains for a living. If Nonombre would ever visit my mine, I would let him get experience in real hard, dirty and honest work.

Sorry for not answering the question (It wasn't on purpose).   As to whether I would allow an examinee to record the examination, truth is I have never run into this as a polygraph examiner.

I do remember years ago during one of my first interrogations as a detective, a suspect quite smugly pulled a tape recorder out of his pocket and placed it on the table.  My old crusty partner picked up the recorder, popped out the tape, and handed it back to the suspect, then conducted the interrogation.  I immediately realized that the suspect's actions was nothing more then a vain attempt to gain some "control" of the interview, which naturally any good cop would never allow.

If you have read my posts, you know that I record all my polygraph examinations and those tapes are available to the suspect's defense attorney, therefore I would not allow the suspect to produce his own recording device.  Once again, not because of the recording itself, since I record the inerview anyway, but mostly to deny the individual the "control" he is clearly seeking.

This response is probably not going to be popular, but it is my first reaction to the question.

Regards,

Nonombre  

[Tarlain]

I appreciate your response.  While I completely understand the reason you don't allow a person to record his/her own copy of the session (for control, etc), it still appears that the individual was not treated fairly.  If he was their voluntarily, he has every right to record the session.  If you don't like that, you can ask him to leave.  If the person was being detained, he should have just refused (to avoid losing control).  

Nonombre,
While I realize this is not a question you would prefer to answer, I would appreciate an answer to the original question.  

Is there any law that prohibits a person from "secretly" recording their own pre-employment polygraph.  Do you "ask" your subjects to sign some form of waiver preventing this, etc.?

Seeing that I'm not willing to commit a serious crime to take a polygraph  ...the cheapest alternative is to just apply for jobs that require them  .

Again, thanks for the first answer.  In case I've never been clear, I have no problems with polygraphs that are used for criminal investigations (though I believe nobody would take them if the pre-employment versions were stopped).

[Twoblock]

Tarlain

I think the lawyer is correct in part. However, if the polygrapher knows you are going to record the session, there will not be a poly just as Nonombre said.
This will apply whether or not the polygrapher records. BTW, recordings can easily be redacted.

I stick by my suggestion to covertly record your session and learn from it. If you fail, you will know exactly what to do the next time and YOU will be in control. As Nonombre indicated, when they lose control they lose the battle. That is why they hate this website so much.

Just a caution. You cannot make the recording public. You can say "the session went like this", making no reference to the recording, but relating every minute detail.

[Tarlain]

I continue to disagree.  

Let me offer an example.  There is a trashy show called "Cheaters" that video/audio records people cheating on their significant other.  The person who is cheating never has any idea they are being recorded.  The entire show is based off the idea that the person is unaware they are being recorded.  I admit that they blur out the faces at times...but they always play the audio.  As long as the one of the individuals consent to doing the recording, they run with it...regardless of whether both parties are consenting.

I'm not sure if that makes sense.  Why do you believe that I am not allowed to make my own conversations public?  If memory serves me correct, didn't Linda Tripp tape Monica Lewinsky (without her knowledge)?  I definately remember  hearing the tapes.  I don't every remember hearing anything about that being illegal (since Linda Tripp was recording her own conversation).  Why would the press be allowed to play them if it were unlawful?

edit:  on further thought...the entire tv show "Cops" is taped.  I doubt they are getting permission as they barge in people's doors.  But since they have the permisson of one of the parties...it's fine as long as they don't wrongly damage somebody's reputation or good name.

[polyscam]

From time to time on the tv program "COPS" you will notice a blurred image.  The folks on "COPS" have to obtain a signed release from every suspect shown.

The amazing thing is, the majority sign the release.  "Hey look mom, I'm getting arrested for stealing a car and loading it with drugs."  The chance to be seen on tv appears to be hard to pass up.

I have always understood the laws of recording to be as follows:  audio: consent of one party; video: consent of one party; audio & video: consent of both parties excluding security cams.