Accused of polygraph countermeasures

[Marty]

I can only assume, that the bureau has not paused for a second to consider that I possibly may have been telling the truth...

No. As you know, to easily pass a CQT, absent countermeasures, requires that you NOT tell the truth. At least not tell the truth on the controls!  Of course you can't exactly suggest you know that.....

What a farce that must have been.

-Marty

[George W. Maschke]

Marty,

"Farce" is a very apt word for describing the situation of an informed individual facing a polygraph interrogation. As Drew Richardson mentioned regarding polygraph screening in an internal FBI memo to the then director of the FBI crime lab, "a technique which has no diagnostic value would require such a universal bluff and disinformation campaign as to be impractical, if not comical, to continue over a period of time...." (emphasis added)

The polygraphers' bluff has been called. It's time to end the farcical charade that is polygraph screening.

[Skeptic]

Marty,

"Farce" is a very apt word for describing the situation of an informed individual facing a polygraph interrogation. As Drew Richardson mentioned regarding polygraph screening in an internal FBI memo to the then director of the FBI crime lab, "a technique which has no diagnostic value would require such a universal bluff and disinformation campaign as to be impractical, if not comical, to continue over a period of time...." (emphasis added)

The polygraphers' bluff has been called. It's time to end the farcical charade that is polygraph screening.

The situation will simply get worse and worse over time.  As desirable, intelligent applicants increasingly come to polygraph sessions with background knowledge of its fraudulent nature and effective countermeasures, it will become increasingly difficult to acquire competent, capable people into positions of trust.  

Even if the current intolerable false-positive rates of candidate rejection (now well-known, thanks if nothing else to the NAS report) aren't incentive enough to stop polygraph screening--IMHO, a product of straightforward incompetence on the part of security personnel--the eventual inability to hire or retain people of even average intelligence and curiosity should do the trick.

Skeptic

[Marty]

Even if the current intolerable false-positive rates of candidate rejection (now well-known, thanks if nothing else to the NAS report) aren't incentive enough to stop polygraph screening--IMHO, a product of straightforward incompetence on the part of security personnel....

Skeptic

Sadly it is not the result of incompetence.  The polygraph community simply does not consider a high rate of false positives as "intolerable" but just as the cost of doing business. Obviously they don't take joy in it but see no alternative. The NAS report didn't say anything they didn't already know even if lawmakers and the general public may not have known.

-Marty

[George W. Maschke]

Marty,

You write in part:

The polygraph community simply does not consider a high rate of false positives as "intolerable" but just as the cost of doing business....

Note that this is a cost for which the polygraph community has not hithertofore been held liable.

[Marty]

George,

It will be interesting to see if the class action attys will take this on. Since employment screening is pretty much limited to govt or govt mandated private sector programs, it won't be as attractive financially as other opportunities. I'm sure you will keep us informed about events here.

Perhaps the political liabilities will be more productive, but in the wake of 9-11, cries of "national security" will provide cover given the widespread ignorance and belief in the workability of the polygraph extant.

Improving public polygraph "literacy" is the key factor facilitating the rest of this. This has the adverse consequence of likely reducing the tool's effectiveness as a criminal interrogation tool. Interrogations can be and are abused but the issue of corruption of investigative processes is quite broad and is not polygraph specific.

The polygraph community would be quite wise to eliminate job screening in order to salvage the other uses where arguably it has been of some benefit, at least in the case of naive subjects. I doubt they will choose to voluntarily do so though.

-Marty

[Skeptic]

Sadly it is not the result of incompetence.  The polygraph community simply does not consider a high rate of false positives as "intolerable" but just as the cost of doing business. Obviously they don't take joy in it but see no alternative. The NAS report didn't say anything they didn't already know even if lawmakers and the general public may not have known.

-Marty

I'm sure they see things this way.  To my mind, however, such irrational conclusions indicate "incompetence", and more than that, a dereliction of duty.

Or perhaps I'm simply feeling fiesty and particularly unforgiving today.

Skeptic

[Skeptic]

George,

It will be interesting to see if the class action attys will take this on. Since employment screening is pretty much limited to govt or govt mandated private sector programs, it won't be as attractive financially as other opportunities. I'm sure you will keep us informed about events here.

Isn't Mark Zaid already doing this?  I hope the NAS report gives him some fresh ammunition.

Perhaps the political liabilities will be more productive, but in the wake of 9-11, cries of "national security" will provide cover given the widespread ignorance and belief in the workability of the polygraph extant.

This can, of course, work both ways.  It's only because of the "polygraph mystique" that the public has condoned increased use of polygraph screening.  If that mystique is shattered and faith in the polygraph is fingered as a national security liability, the tides can change very quickly.

Improving public polygraph "literacy" is the key factor facilitating the rest of this. This has the adverse consequence of likely reducing the tool's effectiveness as a criminal interrogation tool. Interrogations can be and are abused but the issue of corruption of investigative processes is quite broad and is not polygraph specific.

This may be a difficult issue, given the statistics-based rationale behind the NAS's findings:  a lot depends upon the prevalence of the guilty among a tested population.

The real problem, as I see it, is not that the polygraph makes mistakes (which information you could disseminate widely without destroying the concealed information upon which the polygraph depends).  The real problem is that the public believes the polygraph detects lies, which means people tend not to take the error rates into account.  As I see it, the only way to dispel this myth and put the polygraph's accuracy into correct perspective is to let the public "in on the secret", which will simultaneously destroy whatever leverage the polygraph has towards generating reactions concominant with lying.

It should also be noted that, while the NAS did conclude that SI polygraphy has results "well above chance", it was still highly critical both of the quality and quantity of the research done on this and other issues, and of the generalizability of laboratory research to field work.

Skeptic

[George W. Maschke]

I'm sure they see things this way.  To my mind, however, such irrational conclusions indicate "incompetence", and more than that, a dereliction of duty.

Or perhaps I'm simply feeling fiesty and particularly unforgiving today.

Skeptic

Skeptic,

No, you're simply being brutally honest. The cowardly silence of polygraph screening advocates (like Gordon H. Barland) when tough questions have been put to them, and actions such as the polygraph community's manoeuvers to withhold countermeasure studies from the National Academy of Sciences, speaks to a witting complicity in propagating a fraud and dereliction of duty to country.

[George W. Maschke]

Skeptic,

Isn't Mark Zaid already doing this?  I hope the NAS report gives him some fresh ammunition.

Yes, Mark Zaid is indeed representing a number of plaintiffs who are suing the federal government over its reliance on polygraph screening. These cases have survived the government's request for summary judgment, and are now in the discovery phase.

This can, of course, work both ways.  It's only because of the "polygraph mystique" that the public has condoned increased use of polygraph screening.  If that mystique is shattered and faith in the polygraph is fingered as a national security liability, the tides can change very quickly.

The NAS report should go a long way toward shattering the mystique of the polygraph for anyone who would take the time to read it. Unfortunately, the number of individuals actually doing so is likely to be quite small.

One of the goals of AntiPolygraph.org is to inform the public about "the lie behind the lie detector" and shatter the mystique of the polygraph. We have made progress toward that end, especially among those who are subject to polygraph screening. I think it is only a matter of time before the spread of the news reaches critical mass and the polygraph house of cards collapses.

It should also be noted that, while the NAS did conclude that SI polygraphy has results "well above chance", it was still highly critical both of the quality and quantity of the research done on this and other issues, and of the generalizability of laboratory research to field work.

Note that the NAS conclusion that polygraph "tests" can differentiate between truth and deception in specific incidents at levels "well above chance" was heavily caveated. It assumes a population of subjects who are uninformed about "the lie behind the lie detector" and untrained in countermeasures. Moreover, the NAS found no convincing evidence that polygraphy has any intrinsic ability to detect deception: its ability to differentiate between truth and deception at levels above chance in certain contexts may well depend on the subjects' belief in the polygraph and in their ignorance of effective countermeasures.

[Fair Chance]

Dear Skeptic,

You hit the nail on the head about "lack of knowledge."  The polygraph community places more emphasis on confession rate.  Anyone who reads all of these threads on this website knows more then most polygraph operators.

I have to agree that the government does not care two hoots about getting "quality people."  I think that they discover them by accident after they are hired.  They need warm bodies and as long as they have people applying, throwing away applicants will never "affect their careers."

I am a government worker who takes great pride in my work.  I have paid for all of my degrees.  The government truly does not care if I am highly educated.  I do.  I am a small cog on a huge colossal gear that keeps moving despite itself.

My point:  Politicians and government appointees only care when they or their careers are personally affected.  Votes, money, or bad publicity are probably the most significant motivators.

Antipolygraph.org is on the right track with the publicity.  Convince the American Public that this is more risk than assurance against terrorism and you will see quick results.

Clog the arteries of the agencies using these practices with appeals until the grease that keeps the gears moving dries up and makes them squeak.  This is a long term fight.  Nothing worth accomplishing happens overnight.

[Marty]

Or perhaps I'm simply feeling fiesty and particularly unforgiving today.

Skeptic

LOL

Please, never confuse the taste of blood for victory. Good luck, Skeptic.

-Marty

[Fair Chance]

Whoa Marty!

You have been very scientific and analytical about this webpage until this last posting.

You are adding a little bit of personal emotion to this last zinger.

Easy big Guy!

[Marty]

Whoa Marty!

You have been very scientific and analytical about this webpage until this last posting.

You are adding a little bit of personal emotion to this last zinger.

Easy big Guy!

ROFLMAO.  Yup, I am as emotional as the next guy. The difference here is that my interest in the polygraph wars is not personal and I think most everyone here has a personal interest, either as a user, victim, or potential victim.  I am none of these nor do I expect to be, rather, I am just a curious, intrigued, bystander blessed (or cursed) with more curiosity than most.

Good luck to you as well, fair_chance! There are those I think have been unfairly screwed and it does in fact bother me, as analytic as I may seem to be.

-Marty

[Skeptic]

LOL

Please, never confuse the taste of blood for victory. Good luck, Skeptic.

-Marty

I never do.  

Skeptic