DIA Polygraph Countermeasure Case Files Leaked 114
George Maschke writes AntiPolygraph.org (of which I am a co-founder) has published a set of leaked Defense Intelligence Agency polygraph countermeasure case files along with a case-by-case analysis. The case files, which include polygraph charts and the exact questions used, suggest that the only people being "caught" trying to beat the polygraph are those using crude, unsophisticated methods that anyone who actually understood polygraph procedure and effective countermeasures (like, say, a real spy, saboteur, or terrorist) would ever use. AntiPolygraph.org has previously published polygraph community training materials on countermeasures that indicate they lack the ability to detect countermeasures like those described in our free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (PDF) or in former police polygraph examiner Doug Williams' manual, How to Sting the Polygraph. Williams, who was indicted last year after teaching undercover federal agents how to pass a polygraph, is scheduled to stand trial on May 12 in Oklahoma City.
Kangaroo Court! (Score:1)
A clear violation of 1st Amendment rights. Ah, well... It's what people want
Re: (Score:3)
No people want to feel like they are safe at the revocation of all freedoms.
Feeling safe is the most important thing to them. Help me feel safe Government! Bad people are allowed to buy electronics without a license! Bad people can build things! They must be TERRORISTS!
Save us from the people that have an IQ above 100 oh holy government!
Dumb people want security Smart people want freedom.
Sadly the smart are outnumbered by the dumb 3 to 1
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Save us from the people that have an IQ above 100 oh holy government!
[...]
Sadly the smart are outnumbered by the dumb 3 to 1
Your grasp of statistics confirms which group you belong to, Lumpy.
Re:Kangaroo Court! (Score:5, Insightful)
It is funny you're calling people "dumb," since your comment doesn't at all have any connection to the story or the events in the story.
This story is not about any of the things you talk about. It is about a guy selling anti-polygraph training, which itself is indisputably legal in the US, and who was also advertising his service as a way to defraud the FBI. That part is totally illegal, and doesn't implicate the "war or terror," or any supposed balancing between security and freedoms. Instead, it balances the freedom of the FBI to set their hiring practices against a person accused of advertising a service to assist people in tricking the FBI into hiring people they don't want to hire, and who their policies would successfully reject without this guy's services.
This particular story is about data that was leaked in relation to the case that shows that his services are probably highly effective, because everybody the government has caught cheating the test were really bad at cheating it. The test is obviously stupid and is an ineffective hiring practice. However, that in no way changes the fraudulent nature of this individual's accused actions.
Moral of the story: if you're offering innocent services, and your target demographic are criminals, don't actually advertise that your intent is to assist criminal behavior. Plausible deniability is a vital part of any attempt to do business in "grey areas." Grey areas rarely exist naturally. Being in a grey area implies that your actual intent is something illegal, but you're doing it in a way that can't be punished. In the case of assisting fraud, you just have to be subtle enough that you might have meant something else. If you think you're in a grey area but then you come right out and say what your honest intent is, well gee, now you just shined a spotlight and made it black and white.
Sadly, the ignorant outnumber the literate by at least an order of magnitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's absurd. That is like saying it isn't stealing if it turns out you didn't need it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it is productive is not in any way implicated in this case.
It is like the guy that got arrested for stealing rennet from a farmer. Once the cops told he stole something useless and without resale value, he thought it lessened his crime. But it didn't.
There is no moral argument where fraud becomes less bad if you were tricking somebody with a policy you dislike.
However stupid polygraphs are, fraud is still however bad fraud ever is.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Adding wrongs together don't make rights.
It does not matter if what the FBI is doing is also literal fraud. It isn't, they're the ones paying the employee, not the other way around, and they clearly tell applicants about the policy.
Fraud "on the ____ people" is not legal "fraud," it is just literary hyperbole. But even if it was the same word as the legal jargon word "fraud," it simply would not help him at all.
Re: (Score:2)
But... your very advice is fraudulent. By giving the advice you have given, you possibly help criminals helping criminals to do their job better.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not offering to assist anyone in a plot. I'm just providing general information about the subject, for informational purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's not a court...
FTFS(!):
Williams... is scheduled to stand trial on May 12 in Oklahoma City.
Really?
Re: (Score:1)
He's on trial for being stupid. If he had just stuck with "I can teach you how to beat a polygraph test", he would be still be fine.
But [allegedly], he claimed he could help one or more people specifically beat a FBI polygraph test, and presumably there is an antiterrorist law about how you can't help someone lie to the FBI when they are required to tell the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Which would imply the fbi thinks the polygraph test has merit when they really shouldn't.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sure the FBI is aware of the limitations of the polygraph test.
But it was dumb of him to tell an FBI agent he would help the person lie to the FBI.
Re: (Score:2)
It might've been dumb of him given the current climate, but that doesn't mean he was wrong. If the polygraph is bogus, then he's not helping anyone to lie to the fbi. The fbi is guilty of using pseudoscience to fish out lying.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not a "yelling fire in a crowded theater" situation involving immediate clear ha
Re: (Score:2)
No, absolutely not. That is, frankly, moronic. You haven't even read a basic article about this case.
He's not accused of helping people beat polygraphs. He's not accused, as you say, of "exposing polygraphy as a pseudoscience."
He's accused of actually advertising specifically that he can help people beat an FBI polygraph that is part of a hiring process. That is clearly fraud.
There are lots of people selling the same information as him. It is totally legal. The difference is that the others are advertising
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on -- that's baloney. The Feds can dream up any reason they want to go after people they don't like. The free book linked to in the summary gives advice to CIA/NSA/FBI test takers too, no different than what is being prosecuted. You seem to fail to understand that a tool of our tyranny is for the Feds to _say_ you have the right to X -- and then nail your ass for some seemingly irrelevant violation of A. The advantage of our massive criminal code base for tyranny, is that the Feds can take you d
Re: (Score:2)
I think his argument is that he's advertising that he will prevent false positives, not that he will suppress actual positives. That's little different than advertising that you can help prevent audits -- by making sure the forms are filled out correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure his lawyer will want to argue all that now, but my advice to you is to read the transcript of the recording from the other story about it. He was bragging about his past success in bold, unambiguous terms, in the context of promising to help somebody pass.
And the technique isn't about filling out forms, you put a tack in your shoe and use it to throw off the baseline measurements. You also do certain core exercises during those baselines, when you're supposed to be sitting still and relaxing. When
Re: (Score:2)
technically, a kangaroo court would violate 4th amendment due process rights.
Re: (Score:1)
Well yes, the indictment itself is a violation of due process. He has to spend money and time to defend his clearly defined rights. There should be a counter suit for compensation.
Re: (Score:1)
Just to repeat my earlier post, my understanding is that he is on trial not for teaching people how to beat a polygraph test, but for claiming he would teach one or more people specifically how to beat a FBI polygraph test.
Re: (Score:1)
claiming he would teach one or more people specifically how to beat a FBI polygraph test.
Perfectly within the rights protected under the 1st Amendment.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not exactly sure what he volunteered/was goaded into saying, but it could be a reasonable limitation of the 1st amendment that you can't help someone intentionally lie to the FBI...
Re: (Score:1)
You can't go around implying 'limitations' that are not written into the law. And you sure as hell shouldn't be able to lock up people over it.
Re: (Score:2)
He's not on trial for what he said. He's on trial for what he tried to do : Fraudulently subvert federal security.
Fuck all to do with the first amendment.
Re: (Score:1)
What he was going to do was speak. It has everything to do with the 1st.
Re: (Score:2)
So by your logic I can legally promise to pay someone a few thousand dollars to kill you, because I'm just using words?
Luckily the law disagrees.
Re: (Score:1)
You can promise anything. If you want the law to reflect something else you need to put it in writing, in the constitution. The 1st Amendment codifies free speech into law. The triggerman is responsible for his actions. He alone make the choice to take the money and pull the trigger. What you are offering up is no different than the *I was just following orders* routine.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's not saying that the hitman is innocent. He's saying that the hitman and his employer are both guilty.
Re: (Score:1)
For examples, please see every Supreme Court ruling in free speech cases.
Precisely my point. All those cases should be reversed. The law is explicit and precise. They can be wrong, like when they upheld the property rights of slave owners.
Re: (Score:1)
Really? Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is fine? Going into a bank and saying "give me all your money or I'll kill you" is fine? I'll give you $50000 to kill my wife?
It's all good until you actually pull out the weapon, sign on the dotted line, hand over the cash?
Re: (Score:1)
Strawman's on fire!
Re: (Score:1)
I'll help you lie.
I'll help you lie to the FBI.
Re: (Score:1)
You are saying the SC is completely wrong on this and that all those statements are perfectly fine. That you have to actually do something besides talk to actually do something wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Fraud was never part of "freedom of speech," and it is no implication. It is explicit. He's not accused of saying words, he's accused of assisting illegal actions. Fraud, specifically.
Did you really think that if you make sure to only speak words, that your actions can't amount to a crime? If somebody says, "Give me all the money in the till or I'll kill you all," did you presume there is no crime unless he actually kills somebody?
Did you really think that if you lie to the bank about your name and informat
Re: (Score:1)
Where/are his methods not effective? Where is the fraud? Words are not action.
Re: (Score:2)
The fraud is the person applying to be an FBI agent, who is telling them that they agree to the conditions and the polygraph testing, and then practice how to trick them in violation of their hiring conditions. It is true that the test doesn't detect lies, but unless you intentionally learn how to fool the test, you'll have to tell the truth anyways.
So what his customers are doing is plainly fraud. There is no way around it. If they were really against the test, they'd just refuse to take it, and not work a
Re: (Score:2)
He literally told somebody that his service can help beat the FBI hiring test, and that that indeed is what many of his customers have successfully used it for.
It isn't just helping somebody lie, which would be a smaller crime, but helping people fraudulently obtain employment.
If he had instead said, "well, no, I can't help you break the law, but I can still help you learn about beating a polygraph for informational purposes, so that you understand what the test is really about," then he'd be fine.
Intent is
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of wiggle room there. In spite of what the FBI would have us believe, the polygraph frequently gives false positives as well as false negatives. Many people taking the test fear it will give a false positive and might well went training/coaching on making sure it doesn't do that.
It isn't fraud as long as you just want it to read truthful when you are truthful.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't fraud as long as you just want it to read truthful when you are truthful.
If you agree to the test, and then intentionally cheat the test, in order to gain something you would not otherwise get, then that is fraud.
It does not matter if you don't respect the test. The fraud has nothing to do with the quality of the test.
It isn't hard to understand what it means to be truthful. The fraud isn't just happening during the test. The main part of the fraud is agreeing to take the test, and agreeing to the rules, and signing in to take the test, knowing that you're conspiring to secretly
Re: (Score:2)
If you agree to run a marathon, is there an implication that you may not also train for the run? Would running for the weeks leading to the marathon be cheating?
When you agree to a subject matter test, is it cheating if you study?
Re: (Score:2)
You're just creating straw men. *yawn*
If you offer a service to help people cheat at the marathon, and you admit that is what your service is for, then yes it makes you an accomplice to fraud.
If you agree not to do certain training, whether it is anti-polygraph training, or taking performance-enhancing-drugs, then violating that agreement in order to get or keep a job is fraud.
If you're lying in order to get/keep a job/money, that is fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
If you offer coaching for a marathon, you are doing nothing wrong. Nor is the runner who hires you.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't what I said, though. You're having some comprehension issues.
And it is not a reasoned metaphor for this situation.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it *IS* what I said that you apparently didn't comprehend the first time.
Re: (Score:1)
It's the difference between "I will train you to do X" and "I will train you to do X so you can do Y, which is illegal"
Re: (Score:2)
You meant I'll train you to do x, or I'll show you Y OS you can do ex
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What, are you a kangaroo?
Re: (Score:2)
A clear violation of 1st Amendment rights. Ah, well... It's what people want
Fraud was never part of "freedom of speech." Never.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, actually he was trying to save those government agencies from their own stupdity. If professional criminals can pass the test as readily as psychopaths can, than exactly who are the fools, fooling, except themselves. So what is the court case going to be, a plea from the Fucking Bloody Idiots to help save them from their own stupidity (the lie detector test a way to ensure psychopath CIA agents can readily infiltrate the FBI to obstruct any investigations of criminal activity being conducted by the C
What a bastard (Score:5, Insightful)
He put a curse on my magic anti-unicorn rock and now it doesn't work. The bastard!
Re: (Score:2)
Cool! How many unicorns have you seen since?
Re: (Score:2)
mine still works.
but the anti magic starts failing when i add more acid into my drink
Re: (Score:2)
You don't really need that extra twist of lemon.
Did you mean "*n*ever use"? (Score:2)
The case files [...] suggest that the only people being "caught" trying to beat the polygraph are those using crude, unsophisticated methods that anyone who actually understood polygraph procedure and effective countermeasures [...] would ever use.
Did you mean "never use"?
Re: (Score:2)
The case files [...] suggest that the only people being "caught" trying to beat the polygraph are those using crude, unsophisticated methods that anyone who actually understood polygraph procedure and effective countermeasures [...] would ever use.
Did you mean "never use"?
Yes! Thank you.
Re:Crystal ball (Score:4, Interesting)
Hope they don't catch me cheating the magic crystal ball. They might send the leprechauns after me.
that's just it, right? the ultimate polygraph countermeasure is to understand it's a psychological trick to get you to confess to things you wouldn't have confessed to otherwise. if they get you to confess to something, then you "failed" the polygraph. If they can't manipulate a confession out of you, then the polygraph is "inconclusive". it's impossible to "pass" a polygraph test.
an exception may be one where a) the testers actually believe in the polygraph test themselves and b) they don't need a confession. like imagine a job interview at ABC Shizzface Company. some company head hocho dodo says we should do polygraph, so middle management dodo gets a consultant and totally believes anything the consultant tells him because he believes that polygraphs are objective truths. Then they don't need to get a confession, they just need to get any sense of unease and they will deny you the job.
If Polygraphs are infallible (Score:2, Informative)
Then why is someone on trial for teaching how to beat them? Makes no sense, unless they are beatable, in which case they are only security by obscurity - aka useless against a real threat.
Re: If Polygraphs are infallible (Score:1)
Something could be less than infallible, but still useful. e.g. bomb-sniffing dogs. And if someone ran around saying, "I'll train you to beat detection by bomb-sniffing dogs." then I could see how that would be worrisome. I didn't know someone could be indicted for that, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Polygraphs have no basis in reality. They're purely a psychological tool.
I find it confusing that one would be used during the federal hiring process. At least it tells me I wouldn't want to work there; anybody with recruitment processes that fucked up isn't someone I want to work for.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't seem to have a real grasp on what "real" means.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I should have been more explicit. The use of a polygraph as a means of verifying veracity has no basis in reality.
Re: (Score:2)
in which case they are only security by obscurity - aka useless against a real threat.
Security by obscurity does actually work a lot of the time. Just because it is not always effectively doesn't mean it's never effective.
Doug Williams - Polygraph Countermeasures? BS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Describing my training as teaching "countermeasures" so liars can pass the polygraph "test" is the same thing as describing the polygraph as a "lie detector"! Both descriptions are PURE, UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT! 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!
Why do polygraph operators tell people not to research the polygraph before they take their test? It is very simple - the only way they can intimidate people with the polygraph is to keep them ignorant about how it works. When polygraph operators say I teach people "countermeasures" in order for them to "beat the test". I simply say, that's bullshit, because polygraph operators routinely call truthful people liars - and my technique is the only way for honest, truthful people to protect themselves from being falsely accused of lying. Go to the MEDIA page and watch the CBS 60 MINUTES investigative report I helped to produce and see the proof yourself - three out of three polygraph operators called three different truthful people liars on a crime that never even happened! You may also enjoy watching me prove THE LIE DETECTOR IS BULLSHIT on Showtime's PENN & TELLER: BULLSHIT!
So, let me emphasize this - I DON'T TEACH SO-CALLED "COUNTERMEASURES" - I simply teach people how to ALWAYS PASS by knowing how to show a perfect "truthful" polygraph chart! The word "countermeasures" is a word that has been misappropriated by polygraph examiners - it is used to describe what they say is a means to thwart their ability to detect deception. But polygraph operators have always maintained that they can tell when a person is using these so-called "countermeasures". If that is true, how can anyone use them "beat" the test? But, for the sake of argument, let me ask a few more pertinent questions: If people can indeed be taught to use "countermeasures" to "beat the test", wouldn't that prove the polygraph is not a "lie detector"? Does the validity and reliability of the polygraph test demand that the subjects of the test must be ignorant about how it works? If anyone could be taught how to produce and/or prevent a reaction on the polygraph at will, wouldn't that make the whole idea of a "lie detector" a fraud? And wouldn't polygraph operators have to admit their little machine is actually just a sick joke - and that the polygraph instrument is simply a prop used by an interrogator to frighten people into making admissions and confessions? And would it not be prudent for the government to quit wasting money on something that is nothing but a fraud and a con job? The fact is the answer to all these questions is a resounding YES!
Polygraph operators do not want to debate the validity of the polygraph as a "lie detector" because they will lose. And these con men certainly don't want to answer any of the questions I have posed! They know they cannot prove the polygraph is valid and reliable as a "lie detector", and they know they can't justify their actions - so they just say that people who
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is people DO believe a polygraph is "accurate" or it wouldn't be used to "weed out" suspects like it is. I watch Investigation Discovery all the time and I find it disturbing that a test that is invalid in a court is still use by police for this purpose. Things get worse if you refuse to take the test or, God forbid, request an attorney be present during questioning. Guilt is then further reinforced with a suspect that invokes those rights.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be "accurate" to "weed out" some percent of undesirable applicants.
Now, I agree it is an awful hiring practice, and probably not useful. But that doesn't mean any arrangement of words that are against it are automatically true.
It also doesn't make television a source of reliable information about the topic.
Nobody thinks it is "lie detector." They think it detects relative discomfort, and they have a gut feeling that that is somehow useful.
Just like, people don't think dogs are "criminal d
Re: (Score:2)
"That's the tallest guy I've ever seen. That ain't right."
"That person has wheels instead of using his legs. That ain't right."
"A big person carrying a little tiny person in a bag? That ain't right."
Re: (Score:2)
Right, that is why you're golden and the other guy is going away for a long time.
You pay attention to the language you use, and he honestly told people he was going to help them defraud the FBI.
Nobody thinks it is actually a "lie detector." It is more of a measurement tool for relative discomfort.
wow, great (Score:2)
it's so awesome seeing these old-timey side show barkers peddling snake oil from their wagons.
"my goodsh are the REEEAAL goodsh!"
"no god damnit he's a liar, he sells poison!"
"snake oil is the best poison money can buy!"
"see that, he's just after your money!"
"you heard it here first, folks, he's giving his away for FREE!"
"no wait a minute!"
Sigh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Most developed countries do not recognise a polygraph in court, or in science.
And haven't.
For centuries.
I wonder why the US still does.
Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the "real" effect of the polygraph is a 5% reduction in security, but the placebo effect from using it is 32%, then it would be a big winner.
Just making up numbers as a hypothetical. But it is easy for it to be bullshit and still have a rational reason that some jerk believes in.
Re: (Score:1)
They aren't recognized in any US courts.
Way to show your ignorance and bigoted bias.
Just saying.
Re: (Score:3)
> They aren't recognized in any US courts.
I'm afraid they are: the Supreme Court ruled that it's up to individual jurisdictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If I've read the documents, am I now a dissident? (Score:2)
I was reading the documents and went to download the software to read the polygraph results when I got "your ip has been logged ... software for ..." and I had left my referrer field on! Guess im now a registered dissident. oopsies!
Lie detectors are pseudoscience .. (Score:1)