The Truth About the Polygraph, According To the NSA 452
An anonymous reader writes "The NSA (the secretive intelligence agency that brought you wholesale warrantless wiretapping) has produced a public relations video about its polygraph screening program titled 'The Truth About the Polygraph.' But is the NSA telling the truth? AntiPolygraph.org provides a critique (video)."
Polygraph (Score:3)
Re:Polygraph (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a reason why in Canada they're not considered an instrument reliable for court. But the RCMP use it for hiring you. Yep just gonna go over here...
Re:Polygraph (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same situation down here, too. Police forces and various government offices use polygraphs while hiring. It makes sense, really. They want to make sure that you can lie convincingly. I'm not really sure the purpose of putting sociopaths in power, though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not really sure the purpose of putting sociopaths in power, though.
Like begets like.
They should switch to FMRI. (Score:3, Insightful)
The polygraph is an outdated technology which can be easily fooled.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're being sarcastic right? Using FMRIs for specific lie-detection is just as useless.
The only point of polygraphs is that they're a *psychological* interrogation tool, used to induce people into confessing to things by making them think the interrogator actually knows they told a lie. All that matters is that the interrogee believes the test has some effect - the actual technology used is irrelevant.
No known technology has been proven to have any significant efficacy at detecting lies under scientific co
Re:Polygraph (Score:4, Insightful)
Or that you actually were a good boy, so you'd be more likely to obey whatever daddy NSA tells you to do.
Oh come on, everyone knows that the NSA means No Such Agency. [wikipedia.org] Its just a figment of your imagination...
Re:Polygraph (Score:5, Funny)
I saw a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
I think he's from the NSA.
Re:Polygraph (Score:4, Interesting)
Not allowed for court in the US either, though police do use it during their investigations.
Really, all you need is to convince the person you're investigating that it works ... then if they refuse|agree to take a polygraph they're probably guilty|innocent.
Re:Polygraph (Score:5, Informative)
Really, all you need is to convince the person you're investigating that it works ... then if they refuse|agree to take a polygraph they're probably guilty|innocent.
Actually, as AntiPolygraph.org pointed out, it convinces people to submit to an interrogation without a lawyer. Standard interrogation techniques can get you to confess to things (sometimes to things you're not guilty of). They can also collect information that they can use against you in combination with other (mis)information.
See the Youtube video of a law school class by law professor James Duane http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646# [google.com]. (Or see http://flexyourrights.com/ [flexyourrights.com])
Duane said, don't talk to the police if you're innocent. Don't talk to the police if you're guilty. Don't talk to the police without a lawyer.
You can tell the complete truth, and make a true statement that can be used against you to convict you.
Like: "I never liked the guy."
Or: "I was in the next town." Then they finds a witness who honestly thinks she saw you near the scene of the crime, and they use that to impeach your credibility.
Re:Polygraph (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't talk to the police if you are innocent or guilty and without a lawyer...good advice.
Don't take a poly from the agency you'd like to work for? Terrible advice.
Re:Polygraph (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to work for the agency, you don't have any choice. Go ahead.
But as AntiPolygraph.org documented, many of the organizations that give you a polygraph make get it wrong, make false accusations, and reject applicants because of false positives. The operators are even under an incentive to reject people, even falsely. Once you get rejected from one agency for failing a lie detector test, you're blackballed from others.
AntiPolygraph.org had a story like that about a guy who applied to a police department in Texas. The examiner accused him of lying, the police department rejected him, and he couldn't do anything about it.
The other thing I would point out was that the NSC in the video required its employees or applicants to sign a statement that their test was "voluntary." That was a lie. It was coerced. If you didn't take the test, you wouldn't get the job.
One of the most annoying things about the procedure is that the whole thing is full of deception and unfairness. They even force you to lie.
You can make your own decision. I wouldn't work for an organization like that. It's not what I'm after in life. What can they offer? You can work in places that are honest.
Re:Polygraph (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't take a poly from the agency you'd like to work for? Terrible advice.
At risk of sounding like one of those asshole girls, "if they would discriminate against me, then I don't want to work for them" (because fundamentally, I have a right to)
NO!
Refusing to take a poly from anyone is the best choice you can make. Once you consent to the examination, there are two possibilities: you either pass and they believe you (neutral result compared to your position before) or you fail and they dismiss you (a result worse than you started at).
Refuse ALL polygraph tests, there is no empirical evidence to support them, and you should absolutely object to any of them that are offered. If the entity requesting the poly then declines to hire you, then you are better off, than if you consent and they fail you on the poly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, but you are worse off than if you consent and pass - which is the most likely result. And you are not much worse off when you fail than if you don't consent. They might add your failing result to your records, but they would probably also add the refusal to your records (troublemaker + potentially hiding something). If you don't want to consent to the test you are b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Placing yourself at risk of a false positive of a lie detector is not worth offsetting being flagged as uncooperative.
If you're worried about this, then point directly to the Green River Killer and point out that he passed a polygraph as well as numerous spies in the USA.
Then ask them why anyone being dishonest would want to point out that passing a lie detector test could still be lying.
State unconditionally your willingness to engage in prescreening interviews that do not violate your rights.
If they
Re:Polygraph (Score:4, Insightful)
You are right as to what it indicates. And parent poster was right as to the implications of that indication. If you cannot control your physiological reactions to different stress inputs, you're probably not the type they are looking for. Source of the stress is irrelevant.
I disagree that this "ability to control your physiological reactions" is relevant.
This is done as a screening process for national security secrets.
I am not mistaking terms. The tool is ineffective due to far too high rate of a false positive and false negative.
The polygraph is not given to gauge one's ability to control physiological responses in response to emotion, it is given to gauge a person's honesty while answering questions.
If a polygraph were used under different circumstances where its results were meaningful, then the tool would be effective, however:
The Polygraph is absolutely and unequivocally INEFFECTIVE at determining honesty.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Typically your options are to learn to live with the surrounding madness, or try to change it in some small way - whic
Re:Polygraph (Score:4, Interesting)
Gee, a Libertarian who distrusts a government agency AND polygraphs? No way!
They use the poly against the subjects as a placebo. The real evaluation comes from the interrogation. It's a good thing the agency is much smarter than you give them credit for, though.
Re:Polygraph (Score:5, Insightful)
I would refuse to take a polygraph test under any circumstances. Therefore, my cooperation has no correlation with my guilt or innocence.
By the way, why would I refuse to take such a test? Simple. It cannot help you in any way. They can take the things you say in the test and use them against you in court, but no matter how flawlessly you pass the test, as a defendant you cannot call on any of that testimony in the court room. Only the prosecution can call testimony from police interviews. So basically, it can hurt you, but it legally cannot help you at all.
Re:Polygraph (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. I'm neither guilty nor innocent, I'm not even connected to a crime and I will refuse to take a polygraph test if ever asked- for any reason.
It's the same when a cop pulls you over and asks to search the car or something. I always default to no you may not. They usually reply with something about something to hide and I reply that if they knew that, they wouldn't need my permission to nibshit through my stuff. I then ask if I'm free to go. Of course they will not find anything if they look, but I'm more worried about them finding something that wasn't there before they looked. If they are honest, then it won't be a problem. If they are not honest, then it's a door to escape the issues at their hand.
It might be a different story is there was some trust surrounding the officers enforcing the laws, but a fe bad apples spoiled that a long time ago and continue to keep it rancid today. The problem is that you cannot tell which are the good cops and which are the bad cops and it's best to just not take chances. Especially when they want to search you or pin something on you that you had nothing to do with.
Re:Polygraph (Score:4, Funny)
I've heard that story too, but the fact is that the photocopier lie detector has as much scientific evidence to support it as a Polygraph does.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Polygraph (Score:5, Funny)
They aren't using it to tell truth... (Score:5, Insightful)
Polygraphs are used as interrogation tools. The subject believes that they work and the polygrapher CAN see changes that can indicate that the person under scrutiny is having an issue with something. It's not a true false stoplight but it gives them an indication that something is on the subject's mind and they pursue it. At that point it's a guided interrogation with the polygrapher using indications from the machine to try and figure out if there's subterfuge going on. If the subject is able to provide reasonable explanation for the readings and what goes through their mind when queried then a good polygrapher will let it go. If they see enough of this kind of reading or they just get a hinky feeling they will make the subject come back for another reading until they feel like they have gotten the truth.
Used properly by someone who has a clue and who is trained to look at more than just the silly screen or stylus, someone who can listen to the timber of the voice or other tells the process (not the machine) can work. Someone who is a pathological liar isn't going to get caught. Neither is a person who has a change of heart after the process which is why the process is done on a regular basis by places that care about keeping their employees "clean".
There ARE downsides. Some people have medical issues that provide goofy readings be it heart or sweat or breathing. Sometimes people are SO stressed out by the magic machine that they freak out and cannot give a good reading one way or the other. Some people are just guilty - about every freaking thing in the world! These kinds of folks aren't going to pass the testing easily, in fact they may never be able to pass and then I guess the employer has to make a judgement call. This is simply risk management and if you're Joe Blow secretary tough luck - you're toast! Oh, some drugs will screw with the machine too apparently so if you take those for whatever reason it's going to be weird, not sure what they do then. But if you're a normal well adjusted person and understand what's going on the test is not that big a deal.
Frankly places like the NSA are using these things correctly from what I'm told - devices to get employees to talk about things that concern them from a security standpoint, skeletons in the closet, etc.. The silly stuff you see on TV where they ask you long rambling questions that require something other than a yes or no - that's bullshit and done wrong. Any employer that wants you to undergo something like that isn't using a service that's worth a shit and it's not going to work out. Run don't walk from those - it's crap and they will pull who knows what out of their ass.
Re:Polygraph (Score:5, Insightful)
Except it's actually so bad for their intended use that it's a hindrance to their job, not a help.
Let's say you have a test for a virus that is 99% accurate, but 1% of the time, it gives a false positive (says someone has the virus, but doesn't). Let's also say that there are 1000 people that might be infected, but nobody is sure. All of them are tested, and on average, 10 of them will show up as false positives. That number can probably be delt with, perhaps with a more expensive (but more accurate) test, or maybe the treatment is no big deal (so they can just get an injection and go on).
OTOH, let's say that 1 million people might be infected. Test all of them and there ends up being 10,000 false positives. Now the costs of the more accurate test start rising. Perhaps the treatment is more dangerous or expensive (rabies shots used to be pretty nasty, for example), so you really don't want to use it on people who aren't really sick.
So your accuracy rates need to be in line with how many people are going to be screened. If its use is highly targeted, then a test that's 90% accurate might be OK. If it's more of a general screening, then it needs to go into the five-9's kind of accuracy, perhaps more.
Polygraphs are nowhere near 90% accurate. It's maybe 70% accurate, and has both false positives and false negatives. For general job screening, like the NSA is using it for here, that's nowhere near good enough. It might be good enough for police investigations as a way of seeing if they're on the right track, but there's a reason it's not considered admissible court evidence in the US.
Of course, all this is only focusing on the basic statistical issues. There's a whole other set of arguments surrounding privacy, which matter even if a future technology is 99.999% accurate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The rest of my comment lays out the logical basis for that statement. Citations are for underling facts, not reasonable conclusions from those facts.
If you want a citation for a specific fact, I can turn some up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that supposed to be a valid defense? A test which has apparently been universally decried as enormously inaccurate is being used to deny people employment. And like the guy said in the video, if you fail for applying to the NSA then you might not be able to gain employment for other government agencies because they keep the result on file.
Man I would totally fail a polygraph test. Look at this [wikipedia.org], it happens all the time. I bet if I were put into a one on one interrogation for an hour I would say whatever t
Re:Polygraph (Score:4, Interesting)
Umm, there isn't actually a big green or red light that lights up to say you lied. That chill? It probably moved a needle a little bit. Maybe the person asks deeper questions. Maybe you tell them how pissed off you get at the thought of someone harming national security and acting against the nation - you know the truth. The fact that NSA uses the polygraph is pretty well known, I think some other Govt offices use it too. If you are so freaked out by taking the test then the solution is simple - don't apply for those jobs where it's a requirement.
FWIW when I was younger I was subjected to what was surely an illegal interrogation by a security guy for a drugstore where I worked. This guy did everything but beat me with a rubber hose. He had already interrogated many of the other employees and one by one they were fired. I had been told that I wasn't under suspicion for the missing controlled drugs (!) and not to worry. But after this guy fired like 6 people my number was up. I was in a tiny room seated, he stood over me and yelled. He told me he had video, he had witnesses, he had proof I was stealing and why didn't I just admit it. This went on for WELL over an hour and I was maybe 19 at the time. I asked to see the video, I asked to have witnesses come forward, I denied having stolen anything because I hadn't. I was sweating and scared and thought he was going to send me to jail - he was threatening to do so. He threatened to take the green-card of one guy's mother to get him to admit to something. Finally after forever he slammed down a piece of paper and told me to sign it. I asked what it was and he told me it was my ticket to keep my job. That piece of paper really said that he hadn't physically beaten me or coerced me and I stupidly signed it and was allowed to leave. I should have refused and sued the crap out of them but I was terrified. I was the ONLY person that fucker interviewed that wasn't fired! They later found out who was stealing - it was one of the temp pharmacists. Dumb-ass should have known they do a COUNT of every single pill in the controlled cases regularly - hell *I* knew that!
I also went through an interrogation in junior-high when an item went missing in a class. They claimed that the "anonymous papers" turned in by everyone in the class during the investigation (wtf?!) had pointed to me and that they recognized the handwriting as being from trustworthy students blah blah. I hadn't done it, I said as much. They got down to "okay if you didn't steal it but wanted to where would you hide it" kinds of questions - I told them to goto hell. That was actually easier than the interrogation by the security guy even though this was TWO teachers in a small room berating me. My parents took care of that one, I was told that if they ever tried that again I was to walk right the heck out the front door and keep on trucking - they also reamed the administrators. That was 8th grade for kripes sakes and I remember it like it was today. That too was over an hour and in today's schools is probably deemed okay since they have checked in girls panties and whatnot for Advil.
My kid EVER gets into a situation like either of those I will come down on someone with a hammer, that shit can scar you for life!
Those kinds of interrogations are far worse than any polygraph could possibly be. If someone asking you a question about something you didn't do scares you so badly then dude you need to get a grip. If you didn't do it say no and stick to it, better yet tell them you want a lawyer. If you're that scared of a machine test required for a job then don't apply for jobs that require it - how hard is that?
If I ever had to take one.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If I ever had to take one.. (Score:4, Informative)
You do realize that even polygraph supports don't claim its truth detector right? The polygraph can at best detect the physiological changes that happen when a person is fabricating a response. If you really think the truth is however you answer that question as far as the polygraph is concerned you are being truthful, so I am not sure I understand what the point of your proposed exercise would be.
Re:If I ever had to take one.. (Score:5, Informative)
Penn & Teller did an episode about Lie Detectors, and included an interview with a former FBI (CIA?) interrogator. He said the lie detector is a farce and easy to fool. It's real purpose is to act as the "bad cop" to scare the criminal, while the person asking questions is the "good cop" just trying to save you from yourself.
It's all psychological, not mechanical. LINK - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9NSXy176oA [youtube.com]
.
Re:If I ever had to take one.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Polygraphs aren't lie detectors. They are used to assess truthfulness. Much of the magic is not in the machinery itself but in subjecting the person under assessment to unfamiliar, semi-stressful conditions while asking probing questions. It's basically a game of manipulation for the polygrapher.
Re: (Score:2)
Polygraphs aren't lie detectors. They are used to assess truthfulness.
So how does that work exactly, assessing if someone is telling the truth without saying whether they're lying?
Re:If I ever had to take one.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Which leads to two questions. (Score:5, Interesting)
#1. How accurate is the polygraph at measuring that?
The answer is - not very accurate. As has been noted before, if you don't care about a subject, the polygraph will NOT be able to show you lying about it.
#2. Are there other situations which would yield the same results?
The answer is - yes. Having a stress reaction to a question (even if you're telling the truth) will produce the same results as lying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And that invalidates the previous claim about how a polygraph works.
If it measures the responses to telling a lie, then it should be able to work no matter what the lie is.
Therefore, it does NOT accurately measure the responses of telling a lie.
You guys just do not get it, at all, because you have never had any kind of security clearance interview (poly or not)
The line of questioning is everything, the machine is just a tool to detect signs of stress the examiner can't already see. The machine doesn't pass/fail you, the examiner does.
How do you tell if someone is lying? Ask them the same questions different ways, at random points in the interview. Focus on subjects they are nervous about. It can be that fucking simple.
If you're all really geek
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
#2. Are there other situations which would yield the same results? The answer is - yes. Having a stress reaction to a question (even if you're telling the truth) will produce the same results as lying.
Notably, being falsely accused of a crime can be enough to cause a stress reaction on questions about the crime, simply because the person's scared half to death from the accusation and/or investigation. So the sheer fact that you've been accused of a crime can be enough to make you fail a polygraph trying to prove your innocence, thus bringing more suspicion against you.
Never, ever, take a polygraph as part of a police investigation. At best you'll have wasted time, at worst you'll make them even more co
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The polygraph detects stress responses, not lies.
If you were hooked up to a polygraph and someone asked if you bought milk the last time you were at the grocery store, that's unlikely to get much of a response.
On the other hand, let's say your favorite pet just died, and they asked you if you killed your recently deceased pet. You would have a big response, even if you aren't responsible. You'll probably be responding because of the grief and
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
subjecting the person under assessment to unfamiliar, semi-stressful conditions while asking probing questions..
So its like being abducted by aliens but with less anal probing and more question probing...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You've obviously never been in the custody of the NSA before.
Besides, they got all their interrogation and research tactics from the Grays, anyway. I know this since the voices in my head has telled me so.
Re:If I ever had to take one.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Much better to picture an embarrassing situation, tense a muscle group (toes and buttocks were popular, but now you can be asked to remove your shoes and can be sat on a pressure-sensitive mat to prevent these tricks).
Re: (Score:3)
Complete Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Penn & Teller taught a random woman who answered a Craig's List ad how to fake a polygraph response in less than 30 minutes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're not alone. I've noticed /. dropping my comments in the past few months as well. Sometimes they show up on my personal page but not on the discussion thread.
Re:Complete Bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
I posted about that earlier in response to this when it had no comments, but my comment has gone walkies..
Based on the test results, you're lying.
Re:Complete Bullshit (Score:4, Funny)
Non ACID-compliant databases are the current norm. So, be quiet!
Re:Complete Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy to fake a polygraph test when the stakes are low. Its much more difficult when your job or freedom are on the line. Not impossible, but certainly much more difficult than what Penn and Teller did.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmm, what would higher stakes do? Raise stress levels perhaps? Making the differences even harder to spot! Yeah, that's a great argument to make for invalidating their point.
Re:Complete Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
It's easy to fake a polygraph test when the stakes are low. Its much more difficult when your job or freedom are on the line. Not impossible, but certainly much more difficult than what Penn and Teller did.
I take an anticonvulsant drug [wikipedia.org] which is also prescribed as a mood stabiliser. Because I don't actually need mood stabilisation I get a double dose, so to speak. So I think there are a few normal drugs which when used in the right way would make it easier to stay cool, calm and collected in the situation you describe.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but the point is to measure lies not stress. If the person is stressed because their job or freedom is on the line, is it because they are falsely accused or guilty? I know I'd be pretty stressed out because I know mistakens happen and sometimes innocents get shafted. I'm not sure adding stress into the equation would make it harder to fake.
Re:Complete Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Penn & Teller taught a random woman who answered a Craig's List ad how to fake a polygraph response in less than 30 minutes.
I guess you refer to one of these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9NSXy176oA [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bScv6kfxRyE [youtube.com]
https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1247844645 [antipolygraph.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, as they say: "you don't beat the polygraph - you beat the polygraph examiner.
As others have also pointed out on this thread, the higher the stakes, the more likely you are to have autonomic responses.
I think if you practice with a machine, you can probably pull it off, but it's going to be harder with someone who REALLY understands how to use one....
One thing that does help in almost all circumstances (as I understand it) is a dose of Benzodiazepines.
Re: (Score:2)
Care to cite a reference?
I'd think that you'd have a higher level of stress, and thus a higher number of false positives too.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing that does help in almost all circumstances (as I understand it) is a dose of Benzodiazepines.
That would make for a great polygraph question. "Have you taken any Benzodiazepines to help cheat this test?"
Re:Complete Bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
But, in Soviet Russia, polygraph examiner beats YOU!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Penn & Teller taught a random woman who answered a Craig's List ad how to fake a polygraph response in less than 30 minutes.
For those interested, here are the videos of that: Part 1 [youtube.com] and Part 2./a. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, this is pseudo-science bullshit on a par with water-dowsing
WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the video is to calm prospective NSA employees, not speak to the legitimacy of the polygraph in general. Do I need literacy training or just the editors of /.?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not perfect, though, and they know it, which is why it's only part of the process. There are psychiatrists and other mental health experts as well as investigators who look to dig up anything that could affect the subject's integrity. It's a large and complex process, but the polygraph is generally considered to be the scariest part for first-timers.
A colleague used to work at the CIA, with Top Secret/SCIF clearance. He's told me a little about the process, including the polygraphs. The examiners t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, the machine isn't just a prop. Their questions are guided by indications from the machine. Come up as probably truthful not only based on what the machine shows, but also the tone and timbre of your voice, the way your eyes move, how questions are phrased... They have a whole gamut. You could be in good shape on all but the machine, but if the machine shows something questionable, they may well head further down that path.
According to the NSA... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:According to the NSA... (Score:4, Informative)
They expire only if they have an expiration date (which they frequently do). They can be rescinded or modified by the executive orders of future presidents, however. Reagan signed EO 12667, regarding access to presidential records, in 1989. It was revoked by Bush in 2001, and restored by Obama in 2009.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Emancipation Proclamation was one of Lincoln's Executive Orders. Has it expired?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Emancipation Proclamation (Score:3, Informative)
Re:According to the NSA... (Score:5, Informative)
The Emancipation Proclamation was one of Lincoln's Executive Orders. Has it expired?
Yes.
The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 only affected states then in rebellion against the United States. Wherever the Union armies marched from then on, slavery would die.
The Proclamation exempted border states like Kentucky which did not join the Confederacy, cities like New Orleans which had fallen early in the war, and the 48 counties of western Virgina which would form the state of West Virgina.
The formal end to slavery came with the Thirteenth Amendment, adopted in December 1865.
a placebo to make you believe your lies are seen (Score:5, Interesting)
Polygraphs are basically a placebo to make you believe that they can detect your lies. A lot of theater and psychology goes into helping enhance that belief - things like using 'scientific looking' equipment (the more complex the procedure the stronger your belief will be that it 'works'), having the questioner dress in labcoat (it enhances our authority belief), using escalations in authority (switching to a more 'experienced' examiner part way through), pointing to a random squiggle and claiming that it shows you lied on some vague question to convince you to change your answer and admit to something.
Re:a placebo to make you believe your lies are see (Score:5, Insightful)
So its just like a Scientology body thetan test machine?
Re:a placebo to make you believe your lies are see (Score:5, Interesting)
I like those. I did one of their "test" once. The guy talked to me, and asked lots of questions. I remained calm, and answered every one of them any way I wanted. The needle didn't move. After a few minutes, he began doubting the machine, and then questioned me on if I was operating it right. With the simple instructions "hold these loosely in your hands", there wasn't much for me to mess up. Since he had turned the sensitivity all the way up because he couldn't get a response, when he told me to hold them a little tighter, the needle shot all the way to the right. I suggested he turn the sensitivity down. :)
I held on a little tighter, and he adjusted the machine again, so it was now showing neutral. The questions resumed, and I didn't show any sort of reaction to any of the questions. He got real frustrated with me (Hey dude, reactionary mind. Practice what you preach.), and gave up on it. I guess I wouldn't be a good cult member, if they won't know that I'm lying to them or not. Too bad, I wanted to join up, so I could take over. ;)
If you really don't care about what you're saying, everything will show you're answering truthfully. When you start overthinking the questions, that's where you'll run into trouble. Consider these questions during a polygraph.
(Q = question. T = thought. A = verbal answer. R = Result)
Q: Did you know the victim Bob?
T: Ya, I know bob.
A: yes.
R: Pass
Q: Are you aware that Bob is missing?
T: Everyone knows Bob is missing, that's why I'm here. This is easy.
A: Yes
R: Pass
Q: Do you know where Bob is?
T: Buried in that empty field. Shit, they know I killed Bob. They're going to figure it out!
A: No.
R: FAIL!
Q: Did you have anything to do with Bob disappearing?
T: Oh shit, they know I did it. They know I shot him, and buried him. I'm going to prison forever.
A: No.
R: FAIL!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Reminds me of the early days of Scientology. I was attending MIT, and there used to be recruiters who'd harass you when you went through Central Square, asking, "Do you want to take a free personality test?"
A friend of mine came up with the perfect response. He'd say, "Did you pass?" Without exception, the recruiters would respond (with a straight face), "Oh, no, it's not *that* kind of a test."
It was freaky, like they'd lost their capacity to recognize irony along with their body thetans.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, but without the volcanoes. Big difference.
"The Truth About the NSA - According to the Polygr (Score:3, Insightful)
How about "The Truth About the NSA - According to the Polygraph."
It would be a much better article.
Flash Free Videos (Score:2)
I think I saw one of the video participants (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the girl analyst in NSA video (3:34 - 4 in the response video) (probably not a real analyst but an actress) is a model on a porn site (myfreecams). Not that it's pertinent or anything, though I suppose if they are NSA - they should do a better job of screening people that portray NSA personnel (and if she is an actual analyst then that polygraph testing NSA performs isn't worth very much)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, please, for the love of god, mod parent up!
Pelton, Walker, Ames, Pollard, Hansen (Score:5, Interesting)
These men, and others, were all employees of the CIA, NSA, or other intelligence agencies. All of them were subject to taking and passing one or more polygraph tests. They all ended up providing classified information to the Soviets for a relatively minimal amounts of money. The information they disclosed resulted in the compromise of highly useful, and costly, collection systems, data, and human assets, some of whom were killed as a result. In a number of these cases, Aldritch Ames, in particular, the agency they worked had suspicions that something was going on yet these men remained free to continue their spying. Ames was even tested again, passing the test to continue his work.
The polygraph, in these instances, was worthless and, in fact, provided a false sense of security to the detriment of the country's well-being.
We are supposed to believe (Score:3, Funny)
The Defense Security Service (DSS) is NOT the NSA (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure how this got a tagged as an NSA video, it's from the DSS. The DSS is the organization responsible for granting security clearances. The process they're describing is the polygraph you take to receive certain security clearances. Anyone who is taking this polygraph has applied for a Top Secret-level security clearance. This process is pretty much the same for anyone applying for these clearances, doesn't matter if they'll be working at the NSA, another three-letter agency, in the armed forces, or for a private defense contractor.
Re:The Defense Security Service (DSS) is NOT the N (Score:4, Informative)
Anyone who is taking this polygraph has applied for a Top Secret-level security clearance. This process is pretty much the same for anyone applying for these clearances, doesn't matter if they'll be working at the NSA, another three-letter agency, in the armed forces, or for a private defense contractor.
The Department of Energy doesn't require polygraphs for Top Secret equivalent clearances. DOE can use polygraphs in some cases, but many DOE scientists have been arguing against mandatory polygraphs. For example:
http://www.spse.org/Polygraph_comments_Livermo.html [spse.org]
Re:The Defense Security Service (DSS) is NOT the N (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone who is taking this polygraph has applied for a Top Secret-level security clearance.
This isn't exactly true. I've held a Top Secret clearance for nearly two decades now and have never taken a poly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I see there's a lot of misinformation on slahsdot, as usual when it comes to security issues. I've was in the Army for 12 years, and have continued to work as a contractor for 7 more and have never been "required" to take the poly.
Missed the point. (Score:3, Insightful)
The response largely misses the NSA video's point: If you think you're a good fit for the NSA, the polygraph shouldn't stop you from applying for a job.
It's crap science, but the NSA can erect whatever arbitrary hoops it wants for employees. Any fool watching the NSA video for insight into other uses of polygraphs does so at great peril. The response is most informative when he says, "This is true of NSA employment practice, but . . ." Seriously, someone with a principled objection to the NSA polygraphing prospective employees, is going to have a real eye-opener on his first day of work there.
Accusing the NSA of intellectual dishonesty is as useful as accusing water of being wet. Polygraphic prospective hires doesn't have to catch anybody to serve a purpose. It's enough to drive the pissant commie sympathizers to bother someone else. Or maybe not. [nytimes.com]
I failed one.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I failed one.. (Score:5, Informative)
When I was 19 I worked at a pawn shop. After working there for 6-8 months something (I don't know what) happened and everyone was lined up from 3 stores for polygraphs. We were let know in no uncertain terms we would lose our jobs if we failed.
When was this? If this happened after 1988, it was very likely illegal under the The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988. [dol.gov]
Commercial businesses may not polygraph their employees on a generalized suspicion that someone did something. They may polygraph an employee if they have a "reasonable" suspicion that that employee did certain illegal things, like theft or embezzlement. Even in those situations, employers must follow specific, strict rules - the employee must be given the opportunity to review all questions in advance, consult with an attorney, and not must not be asked questions about things like his political beliefs, associations with unions, etc. Most importantly, the results of the test may not be used as the sole basis for disciplining/firing an employee - there must be independent corroborating evidence.
And that's just the federal law on polygraphs. Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin all have other, stricter laws regarding polygraph testing by private businesses. Governments, of course, generally do not limit their own use of polygraphs in such ways.
I've been through one: Snake Oil for sure (Score:3, Informative)
It is one part of a process, and if you focus on the polygraph machine itself you'll miss out on the very intentional steps taken to get you to overreact if you lie. Basically the machine is half prop, and most of what is going on is a manipulation to get you to respond in a such a manner that the operator can feel some confidence in the the wiggles coming out of the POS.
I was not impressed, and put very little faith in their outcome, positive or negative.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess congratulations are in order ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...do they do with uncooperative respondents? If someone refuses to say anything but "Mickey Mouse" while strapped to their glorified E-meter, would that be seen as an exercise in 5th amendment rights in the States? I mean, if ANYTHING they say about lie detectors is true, then someone's nonverbal responses to questions should be considered "speech," right?
I don't know of any situation in which you can be forced to submit to a polygraph. However, your security clearance will probably be revoked or denied.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the NSA, but the police can't force you to take a test, AFAIK. Passing the test can help your case, though, and refusing it may very well draw more attention than you'd like.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that the "stakes are high" doesn't justify a technique that doesn't work. There are much less expensive techniques that also don't work (e.g. a coin toss) if the government feels it must do something.