Is It a Crime to Provide or Receive Polygraph Countermeasure Training?

[Ex Member]

The fiction that cm's are for use by the truthful has been exposed. 

Your point is valid; I admit that countermeasures could be used by some with nefarious intentions. 

[Doug Williams]

The fiction that cm's are for use by the truthful has been exposed. 

Your point is valid; I admit that countermeasures could be used by some with nefarious intentions. 

The word "countermeasures" can only be used to describe polygraph chart manipulation by the subject of a polygraph "test" when two conditions are met: 1) The polygraph "test" must be proven to be 100% accurate and reliable as a "lie detector", and 2) the person is attempting to deliberately lie.  There is never a case where BOTH of these conditions are met.

In other words, you could only claim "countermeasures" are being used to thwart the polygraph operator's ability to detect deception IF the polygraph is able to detect deception accurately 100% of the time and that that deception would be detected were it not for the use of "countermeasures" by a person intent on being deceptive.

But, since many people know that just telling the truth only works half the time - i.e. the US Supreme Court, and the NAS report, among others, saying it is no more accurate than the toss of a coin - then a prudent person would try to mitigate the very strong probability of being falsely branded as a liar by learning how to produce a "truthful" chart.  That would not be using "countermeasures" - that would be using common sense! 

And in honor of PAILFACE, here are some more of those emoticons you love so much....

8-) :-?   :-/

[Fair Chance]

Dear Mr. Williams,

The rumors of your demise have been  greatly exaggerated (Gee, did someone like Mark Twain say that already?).

An awful trickbag that this sticky-wicket has been caught in. Admit that countermeasures exist and by default, admit that the test can be beaten. Try to claim that "countermeasures" can be detected seems counterproductive in the fact that using them would be useless and need no defense or mention.

The failure ratio of new applicants is approaching 70% for applications requiring clearances with letters.  My goodness, we are throwing away seven out of ten applicants without even starting a background check.

The Emperor does not have to worry about not having any clothes because there are not people to witness and watch the parade!

The only reason that this is not a problem is because the government is not hiring at this point.

The trust in our government is at an all time low. The blind trust placed in a polygraph examination is being questioned.  The charade is difficult to justify.

Wow, hard to think that the agencies still have such blind trust in this gizmo.  I guess we need more security breaches to prove that the polygraph will not prevent the next leak.

Regards.

[Aunty Agony]

Posters to this forum who try to present a reasoned argument, supported by evidence or at least testimony, only to face what purport to be responses but are in fact mere argument-like noises, must wonder what overall effect is on the hearts and minds of lurkers and casual readers.

George, Doug, Arkhangelsk, Sergeant1107: be not discouraged. As a neutral and somewhat disinterested observer, I must say that I find the arguments by Arkhangelsk and the points raised by Sergeant1107 to be reasonable and credible, while the unsupported assertions by quickfix and pailryder are bald and unconvincing blather.

-AuntyAgony.

[pailryder]

Aunty Agony

Please cite a specific post where I made unsupported assertions.

[quickfix]

Quickfix, are you finally stepping up to the countermeasure challenge? 

Arkhangelsk:  no professional examiner would take this "challenge" seriously;  it would be nothing more than a carny sideshow;  it doesn't meet the criteria for a valid exam.  There is no crime under investigation, no applicant pending employment, so there are no consequences for the outcome of such a "challenge". 

[Doug Williams]

Quickfix, are you finally stepping up to the countermeasure challenge? 

Arkhangelsk:  no professional examiner would take this "challenge" seriously;  it would be nothing more than a carny sideshow;  it doesn't meet the criteria for a valid exam.  There is no crime under investigation, no applicant pending employment, so there are no consequences for the outcome of such a "challenge". 

The whole concept of the polygraph being used as a "lie detector" is "nothing more than a carny sideshow"!  This is an excerpt from my book, FROM COP TO CRUSADER:  THE STORY OF MY FIGHT AGAINST THE DANGEROUS MYTH OF "LIE DETECTION".

"I had studied the history of the men who created this insidious machine known as a "lie detector"; John Larson and Leonarde Keeler. Both of these men also suffered as a direct result of their association with and use of the so-called lie detector. John Larson, a serious scholar with a PhD in science, is credited with being the inventor of the "lie detector". He spent many years trying to prove
that the polygraph was scientifically valid as a method to detect deception. He was unsuccessful in doing that; and as a result, at the end of his life he went mad and fell into a deep state of despair.

Just before he died, Larson is quoted as saying, "Beyond my expectation, thru uncontrollable factors, this scientific investigation became for practical purposes a Frankenstein's monster, which I have spent over forty years in combating." Leonarde Keeler, Larson's protégé, and self proclaimed inventor of the first polygraph machine was later despised by Larson because he considered Keeler to be a shameless self promoter who had turned the polygraph into a carnival sideshow. Larson, who did not want to the polygraph to be widely used until he had tested it and proved that it was scientifically valid and reliable, was troubled by Keeler's unsupported claims that the polygraph could detect deception. In fact, near the end of his life, Larson was writing a book that he claimed would expose Keeler as a thief and a liar who had stolen the ideas of others, and put his name on a polygraph machine that he had not created. He planned to expose Keeler as con man who had turned the polygraph into a carnival sideshow, and a shameless self promoter who promoted his Keeler polygraph machine on "cheese-cake type news interviews"."

[Ex Member]

There is no crime under investigation, no applicant pending employment, so there are no consequences for the outcome of such a "challenge". 

Such is the case for all studies accomplished in polygraph research. You are tap dancing Quickfix; if you can indeed detect countermeasures, prove it and put us in our place once and for all.

[Ex Member]

What sank Mr. Dixon was the fact that he was guilty and admitted it! 

Pailryder, here is an example of your argument-like noise. It was a total dismissal of my previous point without any kind of counter-argument; it was sophomoric.

[pailryder]

Arkhangelsk

It is possible to give countermeasure training to someone without knowing a single detail about their intentions or past history. Not quarantining himself from the details was his downfall

I agree with your point.  If Mr Dixon had maintained deniability, he could have helped many more drug smugglers and child molesters without facing criminal charges.

[Ex Member]

If Mr Dixon had maintained deniability, he could have helped many more drug smugglers and child molesters without facing criminal charges. 

This is pure emotional speculation. A similar assertion could be made that if a sex offender feels confident that he will not be falsely accused of being a liar, he would be more positive about his treatment. Also, are drug smugglers really lining up to infiltrate the CBP? If the polygraph is indeed the panacea for crime, why not use it in all cases? Heck, maybe the NSA could just polygraph us all?

[Aunty Agony]

Heck, maybe the NSA could just polygraph us all?

Bite your tongue!

-AuntyAgony.

[Ex Member]

Arkhangelsk wrote on Yesterday at 3:13pm:
Heck, maybe the NSA could just polygraph us all?

Bite your tongue!

-AuntyAgony.

But then again, could they really know who is using countermeasures? Oh my, such a vexing conundrum it is...   8-)

[pailryder]

Arkhangelsk

are drug smugglers really lining up to infiltrate the CBP

Yes, Arkhangelsk.  Groups with members inside an institution often instruct outside friends, relatives, baby moms, or anyone looking to make a quick buck, to apply for any work, correctional, janitorial, food service, medical, anything to get a pipe line in and out and a leg up on the other gangs.

No one thinks of polygraph as a panacea to stop all crime, but over time it has proven to be an effective tool when properly used.

[Doug Williams]

PAILFACE says: "No one thinks of polygraph as a panacea to stop all crime, but over time it has proven to be an effective tool when properly used."

If that isn't a prime example of doublespeak, I've never seen it!  What does this mean? "over time it has proven to be an effective tool when properly used".  I can see that the polygraph is an "effective tool", if by "tool" you mean a psychological billy club that will coerce a person into confessing.  But how can something that is proven to be less than 50% accurate be "properly used"?

Oh, I almost forgot your favorite part!  I know how you love your emoticons PAILFACE - here you go little buddy...
:-?