countering the polygraph

[Mark Mallah]

I think the ethics of countermeasures deserves some serious consideration and discussion.  I have to say that I have never been comfortable with the idea of countermeasures, and much prefer the total honesty approach.

George, since you mentioned that the total honesty approach is ethically preferable to countermeasures, perhaps you can expand on your reasoning.

One of the problems, probably the main problem, with countermeasures is that it forces you to live a lie.  For as long as one is in law enforcement, and even thereafter, you must always lie when asked about it.  This raises an ethical red flag in my book.

The ethically superior position is to stand behind whatever you do, unashamedly, without need to hide it from anyone, and seek to shape the consequences, accepting what one must accept.  There are exceptions to this of course, such as when personal safety is involved, but I don't believe a polygraph screening rises to that level.  Yet even in a dangerous situation, after the danger has passed, there is no shame in admitting that you lied to a criminal in order to protect yourself and/or others.

I understand that foregoing countermeasures exposes one to risk of random error, but again, I think it ethically superior to combat that risk by exposing the fraud behind the polygraph, such as George has done tirelessly, rather than "countermeasuring" it.  From a personal standpoint, I would have rather gone through my ordeal than live with the discomfort and dissonance of having employed countermeasures.  In many ways not using countermeasures worked very much to my disadvantage (I didn't even know what a countermeasure was back then), but in this battle on this site and these boards and out there in the non-cyber world, I would much prefer to be right where I am.  Had I "passed" the polygraph with countermeasures, I doubt I would be too exercised about the polygraph, and I suspect that's true for many others.

The fact that the polygraph examiner lies to and deceives the subject is not, in and of itself, a reason to lie.  I think there are ethically superior ways to expose their lies.

Ironically, countermeasures mask the polygraph's true nature and artificially prop its accuracy by "passing" people who should "pass".

At some point it may be possible for examiners to detect countermeasures.  It's clear that they have not proven they can, and from what I can tell, probably proceed on hunches and supposed "irregularities" in the charts.  I got accused of countermeasures because the examiner didn't like my breathing.

But, it's not hard to imagine that they will some day, with more advanced instrumentation, be able to detect countermeasures.  If and when that day comes, the polygraph is still equally invalid, and screening in particular should be abolished just the same, and probably all CQT too, whether they can detect countermeasures with 0% accuracy or 100% accuracy.

(I'll be out tomorrow (Wednesday) so won't be able to post)

[George W. Maschke]

Mark,

You ask:

George, since you mentioned that the total honesty approach is ethically preferable to countermeasures, perhaps you can expand on your reasoning.

My reasoning in this regard is based on the principle that candor is generally preferable to dissumulation (which is required to a certain extent when one chooses to employ countermeasures).

I also agree with you that "the fact that the polygraph examiner lies to and deceives the subject is not, in and of itself, a reason to lie." But this fact does help to put the ethics of countermeasure use in proper context. Honesty is a two-way street. If our government expects honesty from applicants for employment, it should not resort to a patently fraudulent and unreliable method like polygraph screening in the hiring process.

[Skeptic]

I think the ethics of countermeasures deserves some serious consideration and discussion.  I have to say that I have never been comfortable with the idea of countermeasures, and much prefer the total honesty approach.

George, since you mentioned that the total honesty approach is ethically preferable to countermeasures, perhaps you can expand on your reasoning.

One of the problems, probably the main problem, with countermeasures is that it forces you to live a lie.  For as long as one is in law enforcement, and even thereafter, you must always lie when asked about it.  This raises an ethical red flag in my book.

The ethically superior position is to stand behind whatever you do, unashamedly, without need to hide it from anyone, and seek to shape the consequences, accepting what one must accept.  There are exceptions to this of course, such as when personal safety is involved, but I don't believe a polygraph screening rises to that level.  Yet even in a dangerous situation, after the danger has passed, there is no shame in admitting that you lied to a criminal in order to protect yourself and/or others.

I understand that foregoing countermeasures exposes one to risk of random error, but again, I think it ethically superior to combat that risk by exposing the fraud behind the polygraph, such as George has done tirelessly, rather than "countermeasuring" it.  From a personal standpoint, I would have rather gone through my ordeal than live with the discomfort and dissonance of having employed countermeasures.  In many ways not using countermeasures worked very much to my disadvantage (I didn't even know what a countermeasure was back then), but in this battle on this site and these boards and out there in the non-cyber world, I would much prefer to be right where I am.  Had I "passed" the polygraph with countermeasures, I doubt I would be too exercised about the polygraph, and I suspect that's true for many others.

The fact that the polygraph examiner lies to and deceives the subject is not, in and of itself, a reason to lie.  I think there are ethically superior ways to expose their lies.

Ironically, countermeasures mask the polygraph's true nature and artificially prop its accuracy by "passing" people who should "pass".

At some point it may be possible for examiners to detect countermeasures.  It's clear that they have not proven they can, and from what I can tell, probably proceed on hunches and supposed "irregularities" in the charts.  I got accused of countermeasures because the examiner didn't like my breathing.

But, it's not hard to imagine that they will some day, with more advanced instrumentation, be able to detect countermeasures.  If and when that day comes, the polygraph is still equally invalid, and screening in particular should be abolished just the same, and probably all CQT too, whether they can detect countermeasures with 0% accuracy or 100% accuracy.

As I see it, there are two primary purposes to advocating countermeasures.  Number one, helping the innocent to ensure a correct outcome on a polygraph (surely, a messy situation at best).  Number two, to bring increased pressure and attention towards eliminating a fraudulent, counterproductive and dangerous procedure that amounts to a security flaw and violation of civil rights.  I agree that the main problems with the polygraph are completely independent of widespread knowledge of countermeasures, but spreading knowledge about countermeasures shines a brighter light upon them and helps to rob polygraph proponents of their "utility" smokescreen.

Personally, I believe lying about countermeasure use and nothing else is justified and ethical, given the circumstances and the alleged purpose of the polygraph in the first place.  But I think we all agree here that the ethically preferable choice (and one that perhaps brings the most pressure towards ending the use of the polygraph) is the "total honesty" approach.

I must also admit that, in my case, I did not feel completely comfortable with lying about countermeasures, which is why I chose to reveal my knowledge when specifically asked about it.  But given the nature of the polygraph, I will not fault someone else ethically for choosing to lie regarding countermeasure knowledge and/or use.

Skeptic

[Fair Chance]

This thread has transformed into an ethics discussion on "countering the polygraph."

I have recently been forced to make this decision in my last polygraph.  I quickly made my mind up that I was not going to use countermeasures but I do not have as much to lose as many other applicants of being labeled deceptive.

1. My currrent federal law enforcement employer does not use the polygraph nor will the introduction of stand alone polygraph results disqualify me from performing my mission.

2.  I have developed a long history of security background checks and life history which would negate any accusations if investigated.

3.  I like my job but a job is just a job.  There is so much more to life.  The hiring authority only has as much power over my life as I am willing to give them.

My second polygraph from hell experience (posted on other threads) was caused by an extremely aggressive examiner who I believe was irritated that I did not "live, breath, and dream" of being employed by the FBI.   I was there for a job interview.  I think that the Special Agent had lived his life for his job and expected all applicants to do the same.  

I believe the "ethics" in my case of the FBI have more to do with the moral and ethical considerations of their applicant process.

I BELIEVE THAT IT IS UNETHICAL AND LACKING COMPLETE INTEGRITY FOR THE FBI TO BASE ANY HIRING DECISION STRICTLY ON POLYGRAPH RESULTS WITHOUT CORROBORATED EVIDENCE.

I believe it is the option for any agency to use any hiring procedure which has integrity in its action.  The polygraph exam used in the current way by the FBI has no integrity.

I informed the FBI examiner in my case that I had read the NAS report and agreed that specific incident and GKT might have uses with further research.  I also informed him that I believed a pre-employment polygraph, without corroborated evidence normally obtained by an investigation, was useless.

My last sentence is a summary of all of my ethical and scientific feelings about the FBI's use of the polygraph.

As I read many of my postings, this summary has been the core of my arguments and  source of frustration after my polygraph experience.

[Anonymous]

To all,

Before we lose ourselves once again in self righteous proclamations about the ethics of deception, let's focus for a moment on where that deception occurs.  The following was written in a different thread by Dr. Richardson discussing polygraph deception with a polygrapher quite some time ago.  I think it is worth posting again for those who may not have seen it and for those who seem to have lost appreciation for where the bulk of deception in the polygraph suite and  the responsibility for that deception lies.

...     You are to be congratulated for your candor and thanked for furthering these on-going discussions.  For the present, without much elaboration (I plan to start a new thread regarding polygraph "examiner" deception), I would like to simply characterize that which you describe as "...examiner lies during the conduct of an interview..." and list certain of those deceptions.  Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement.  Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:

(1)      A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner's background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects.  In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.

(2)      The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the "stim" test, more recently referred to as an "acquaintance" test.


(3)      Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.

(4)      Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.


(5)      Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.

(6)      A host of misrepresentations that are made as "themes" and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.


(7)      The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other...

This listing is not offered as complete (nor in any way are the surrounding thoughts fully developed) but merely as a starting point for the following commentary and recommendation.   You have stated that court opinions have been written which sanction the use of deception on the part of law enforcement officers.  Agreed.  I would suggest for your consideration the following points:

(1)      The deceptions cited in such decisions are generally isolated to specific actions/conversations occurring within specific investigations, not pandemic and not necessary to the day-to-day general and routine practices of law enforcement officers.

(2)      The decisions you might cite clearly refer to law enforcement officers.  On what basis would you extend this "license to lie" to civilian polygraph examiners conducting polygraph exams related to purely administrative, commercial, or domestic subjects or even to polygraphers hired by the accused in a criminal matter? ...

[Skeptic]

To all,

Before we lose ourselves once again in self righteous proclamations about the ethics of deception, let's focus for a moment on where that deception occurs.  The following was written in a different thread by Dr. Richardson discussing polygraph deception with a polygrapher quite some time ago.  I think it is worth posting again for those who may not have seen it and for those who seem to have lost appreciation for where the bulk of deception in the polygraph suite and  the responsibility for that deception lies.

Anonymous,
While there can be no argument that Dr. Richardson is completely correct in his analysis, I think Mark is saying (if I may be so bold) that being lied to does not justify lying yourself.

I'm not sure I agree with him completely on that, and I think the larger purpose of the background investigation/polygraph has to be taken into consideration.  But I just wanted to clarify his argument as I see it.  If I misstated it, I invite him to correct me.

Skeptic

[Anonymous]

Skeptic,

I understand the point of view that Mark was expressing, but I must respectfully take exception to that point of view.  As Mark would know from his role as a former FBI agent, when an undercover agent works with thugs he may well (perhaps will be compelled to) have to adapt his own behavior in an otherwise unpleasant and unacceptable manner in order to associate with and interact successfully with such.  I would suggest that the role of a polygraph examinee who is familiar with the deception of polygraphy, has any sense of self preservation, and while interacting (i.e., taking a polygraph exam) with a polygraph examiner is not unlike that of the aforementioned undercover agent.

[Mark Mallah]

In the Drew Richardson quote cited by Anonymous, Drew does indeed make a devastating indictment of the polygraph, with which I wholeheartedly agree.  And yet, I still believe that one's ethical choices must flow from bedrock principles, and not turn on whether others are ethical or not.

If countermeasures are ethically justifiable, they should be so even if the examiner told no lies, but simply used a machine such as the polygraph that gets it wrong far too often.  Your thought on that, Anonymous? (and anyone else)

Turning that around a bit, what if the examiner was a liar but the test was as valid as a urine test?

With that in mind, I think the strongest justification for countermeasures is not that the examiner is a liar, but the self-preservation approach.  Why should one use the total honesty approach and risk being a martyr?  I do think there is a case to be made for this.  However, I still think it is an ethical compromise.

As Anonymous points out, there are definitely times when one must and should lie.  An undercover operation itself is a lie about identity, and lying is part of the process.  As I mentioned before, when confronted by a criminal, any type of lie is appropriate.  Many polygraph situations are, I believe, different though.  And even within the polygraph, I think it's a different ethical scenario if given a polygraph as a falsely accused murder suspect versus as an applicant.

[Skeptic]

In the Drew Richardson quote cited by Anonymous, Drew does indeed make a devastating indictment of the polygraph, with which I wholeheartedly agree.  And yet, I still believe that one's ethical choices must flow from bedrock principles, and not turn on whether others are ethical or not.

I agree.  But self-defense can be a bedrock principle, which would lead to the ethic that lying in order to defend oneself from fraud is an allowable, even necessary action (more on principles in a moment).

If countermeasures are ethically justifiable, they should be so even if the examiner told no lies, but simply used a machine such as the polygraph that gets it wrong far too often.  Your thought on that, Anonymous? (and anyone else)

I believe it is not enough to say, "I won't lie because it's wrong" -- that's not a principle so much as an internalization of a rule.  I think one needs to look at underlying principles that lead to the notion that lying is wrong in a given context.  The purpose of a background check/polygraph is to determine the suitability of a candidate for a given position, which includes requisite skills and abilities, behavioral tendencies (e.g. committment to keeping a secret, willingness to inform the employer of security problems and attempts at subversion, etc.), and situational considerations (e.g. what could be used to put pressure on the candidate to break faith with the employer? etc.).

Thus, in the context of a background check/polygraph, I believe the ethical purpose of candidate truthfulness is twofold.  First, to facilitate judgement regarding the general suitability of a candidate for a position of trust.  Second, to demonstrate a behavioral tendency to not withold important, relevant information from the employer.

Now, consider a part of the hiring process (the polygraph) that tends to lead to incorrect conclusions regarding the suitability of a candidate for a given position.  In order to facilitate the original purpose of the background investigation, one could make a very strong argument that it is ethically necessary to do what is possible to ensure a correct outcome on the polygraph, just as it is necessary to answer all relevant questions truthfully in a security interview.  In doing so, not only are you facilitating a correct judgement regarding your suitability, but you are demonstrating that the employer can trust you to deliver important, relevant information accurately and truthfully, and to prevent misunderstandings.  

By correcting a highly-flawed information-gathering procedure through the use of countermeasures, you are fulfilling your ethical responsibility to facilitate and cooperate fully with the very purpose of the background investigation, including the polygraph.

Skeptic

[George W. Maschke]

Mark,

You wrote, among other things:

Turning that around a bit, what if the examiner was a liar but the test was as valid as a urine test?

If the polygraph "test" were as valid as a urine test, any discussion of the ethics of polygraph countermeasures would be rendered moot by the fact that it would be unbelievably stupid to employ such. Polygraphers would be able to detect countermeasures with a very high degree of confidence simply by asking, "Did you employ countermeasures?"  

[Anonymous]

Mark,

You write:

...If countermeasures are ethically justifiable, they should be so even if the examiner told no lies, but simply used a machine such as the polygraph that gets it wrong far too often.  Your thought on that, Anonymous? (and anyone else)
...

I couldn't agree with you more.  The reason and the justification for countermeasures stems from polygraphy's (screening's in particular)  lack of diagnostic validity and accompanying consequences which requires adopting a mode of self preservation (countermeasures) completely justified by the bedrock principle of self-defense as outlined by our friend, Skeptic.  The deception inherent in CQT polygraphpy is merely the icing on the cake if you will...just one more repugnant act which I suppose adds a degree of feeling as well as the obvious purpose to the required countermeasures.

[Mark Mallah]

Skeptic/Anonymous/George:

Thanks for the comments; good points.

We apparently agree that it's the error rate--and not the examiner's lies--that is the decisive factor.

I don't believe the examiner's deception, or any amount of venality on the part of the examiner, justifies countermeasures.  But protecting oneself against the high risk of a false positive outcome is a persuasive argument for countermeasures, and on those grounds, are ethically justified.

Given the need to continually lie about having used countermeasures, it's probably not the tactic I would choose.  And it does, in some way, indulge the process.

The ethically best option, as The Lie... states, is to refuse to take the test.  I realize that this is not always possible, particularly for applicants.  Those applicants should be aware though that the use of the polygraph is a direct reflection of the agencies using them.

[stopnik]

I just wanted to say that is an excellent point you raised -- about the use of the polygraph being a reflection of the agencies that use them. You are absolutely right -- but poly's are an unfortunate method that is used to screen candidates for some very rewarding occupations (FD, PD, etc.). That is why the use of countermeasures is so important -- so people can work around some of the ridiculous obstacles placed in their path (i.e.: polygraphs). Sometimes it is a reflection of "the system" more than a particular agency.

Keep on fighting!

[Mark Mallah]

I just wanted to say that is an excellent point you raised -- about the use of the polygraph being a reflection of the agencies that use them. You are absolutely right -- but poly's are an unfortunate method that is used to screen candidates for some very rewarding occupations (FD, PD, etc.). That is why the use of countermeasures is so important -- so people can work around some of the ridiculous obstacles placed in their path (i.e.: polygraphs). Sometimes it is a reflection of "the system" more than a particular agency.

I agree, there is definitely a distinction between the occupation and the agency.  Law enforcement and intelligence can be wonderful and rewarding occupations, and needless to say, vitally important.  

Then there are the law enforcement and intelligence organizations.  Whether those organizations function effectively is a separate issue.

My main point is that now, especially since the NAS report, it reflects very poorly on any organization that continues to use polygraph screening.  Chances are, their myopia and blinkered approach about this particular issue repeats itself in other areas too.  No organization is perfect, each has flaws, but when the evidence is so overwhelming, and the old approach is adhered to nevertheless, there's a problem.

[stopnik]

Very true. Unfortunately, I feel like we are living in a society that is quite blindly groping for an adequate solution to the events of 9-11. Notwithstanding the NAS report, I think most public safety agencies will begin to rely even more heavily on the polygraph as a screening tool. Because it gives some of these organizations with less than stellar records (read: FBI, CIA), a false sense of security and feeling like they are accomplishing something tangible (ruining the career aspirations of potential job candidates). Sort of like the old police adage that the only way to really site an officer's effectiveness is through the number of traffic citations they issue. For example, the FBI's reaction to the Hansen (sp?) espionage case was to begin polygraphing all employees! You really have to wonder about the mentality behind silly decisions such as that!

As for any deflectors – yes, I have an axe to grind. When I was an undergraduate in college, I interviewed with the CIA. I had to rank their polygraph process as the worst experience of my life. I had no knowledge of polygraphy (rhymes with polygamy!) and their "interrogation" techniques. Basically, I was accused of being a homosexual drug pusher! Talk about scary false positives. I can't possibly see the benefit of that whole process. There I was – young, well-educated, trilingual – and I was humiliated and rejected on the basis of that stupid machine! And to think federal agencies are suffering a dearth of qualified LEO and intelligence personnel – and they still use the polygraph (after Aldrich Ames, Robert Hansen, etc.) I really have to wonder what nimrods are running the system we live in? Just some letting off some steam....