Minnesota Sex Offender Program Declares Polygraph Information "Contraband"

[George W. Maschke]

A document on the Minnesota Department of Human Services website defines polygraph information as "contraband on the grounds of Minnesota Sex Offender Program facilities," specifically prohibiting:

material or information related to polygraphs, including publications or information on how to "beat" or "pass" a polygraph. This includes countermeasure material a client could use in an attempt to appear nondeceptive when the client's physiological responses are being monitored during a polygraph examination, including but not limited to: books, magazines, audio or videos describing countermeasure techniques.

Does it sound to you like the polygraph community really thinks that countermeasures don't work and that polygraph operators can readily detect them?

[Bill_Brown]

George,

This law allows for the offender to be violated if he/she researches methods to defeat polygraph, it does not say the methods work, simply that it is considered "contraband".  This would be a violation of the treatment rules and would subject the individual to revocation.  When caught using countermeasures the individual would be violated and subject to incarceration for the term of probation in most cases.  It simply discourages the research or use of countermeasures. 

I am not ignorant enough to say all countermeasures do not work, most are detectable or ineffective unless one is practiced and proficient in their usage.  My advise is simply don't use them. 

[George W. Maschke]

Bill,

You say most countermeasures are detectable. I say you're blowing smoke. Please prove me wrong.

If polygraphy actually worked and were robust against countermeasures, then the Minnesota Sex Offender Program wouldn't make learning the truth about polygraphy a thought crime; it would instead encourage it.

George

[Bill_Brown]

George I have caught numerous persons using countermeasures and they do admit to it.  I cannot prove you wrong, how would an examiner know. without doubt, if an examinee was utilizing CM if there is no confession to utilizing them?  If you alter breathing, create pain or employ similar type CM's, the are evident to properly educated examiners.  We do study the differences in "normal" and generated responses using CM's.   Do we catch them all?  I'm sure we do not. 

[George W. Maschke]

Bill,

You could prove me wrong if you could provide evidence that countermeasures can be detected. Anecdotes about those you've accused of countermeasures who subsequently confessed do not prove that you can actually "detect" countermeasures. If a polygraph operator accuses enough examinees of employing countermeasures, some will eventually make admissions.

You claim, "f you alter breathing, create pain or employ similar type CM's, the[y] are evident to properly educated examiners."

Well, where is the evidence for that? There are no studies that support this viewpoint. On the contrary, the available research supports the opposite view: that even experienced polygraphers who are vigilant for potential countermeasures and have foreknowledge of what countermeasures might be employed are unable to detect them.

[Annabelle]

Hi george.

Just to let you know to let the public know that an examiner in the UK is putting videos on youtube explaining in detail how they work.
One is online and they will all be done by the end of the year. Look at forestpolyrearch.co.uk and check the vidoes on youtube.
Best wishes
Anny

[Annabelle]

sorry i typed it wrong

it is
forestpolyresearch

[poly passer]

I agree with George Maschke on this one.  Everyone I know that has taken a polygraph, myself included, gets accused of using countermeasures.  It is part of the polygraph procedure, to accuse people of stuff and see what they will confess to.  George is right.  If you accuse enough people of using countermeasures, some people will admit to it.  Others won't.  Polygraphers are merely fishing in this regard.

I will tell you that the BEST countermeasures to use are mental ones.  I mean really, common sense will tell you that if a person is biting their tongue, holding their breath, or doing something else physical but doing it incorrectly that it can be spotted. I can look at a person and see if they are biting their tongue sometimes.  And those tubes they put around your chest monitor breathing, so if you don't employ countermeasures correctly, you can screw up.  The reason polygraphers haven't come out with some sort of public report or video showing how they detect these things are because once they give away their detection method and show what the magical charts look like from someone using these countermeasures, then everyone will switch to a different countermeasure to try to beat the polygraphers.

Mental countermeasures work best, because nobody can read your mind.  Which is why the polygraph doesn't work.  Frankly, if you think about how much you want to kill someone the entire polygraph session, or think about sex, or all the dirty deeds you've done and not been caught for, you can appear to be having a "reaction" the entire time. 

Anyway, I encourage everyone to use mental countermeasures if you choose to.  They are the safest to use and less likely you will screw up.  Read TLBTLD, and make sure you properly employ mental countermeasures.  Trust me, they work.  They worked for me.

;-)

[Bill_Brown]

If a polygraph operator accuses enough examinees of employing countermeasures, some will eventually make admissions.

I do not accuse persons of CM usage unless the tracings show they are using CM's. This would be about one in five examinees.  If an admission is obtained further testing is afforded the individual and IF there are no CM usage in the second round, I have a good test. 

On the contrary, the available research supports the opposite view: that even experienced polygraphers who are vigilant for potential countermeasures and have foreknowledge of what countermeasures might be employed are unable to detect them.

What research are you taking about?  I have not seen this research.  I would like to read it and be more informed. 

[George W. Maschke]

Bill,

How, in your view, might the tracings show that they are using countermeasures?

The polygraph countermeasure research to which I refer above is by Charles R. Honts and co-authors. You'll find citations (and article abstracts) in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

[Bill_Brown]

George,

The study you are referring too is from the late 80's.  We have advanced in detection of CM's.  I will not elaborate on the specifics of the tracings that I personally look at, however there has been other research done more recently that demonstrates use of CM's causes innocent persons to fail and the CM's are apparent when the individual is not schooled in the use of them.  Dr. Richardson would be able to properly employ CM's in my humble opinion. 

[Ex Member]

We have advanced in detection of CM's.

If there were distinguishable attributes which separate countermeasure induced responses from "normal" ones, it would be easy for software developers to write a program to alert the operator to the use of countermeasures. This has not transpired, despite decades of research by the DODpi. Sir, countermeasures are not detectable and I must agree with George that you are blowing smoke. You guys can B.S. your examinees, but here you must show provenance if you wish to be credible.