Slashdot Mirror
Scientist Organizes Resistance To Polygraphs
George Maschke writes "Brad Holian, a senior scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, is using a blog to organize resistance to plans for random polygraph and drug testing of Lab scientists. Holian writes: 'Polygraphy is an insulting affront to scientists, since a committee of the National Academy of Sciences has declared that, beyond being inadmissible in court, there is no scientific basis for polygraphs. In my opinion, by agreeing to be polygraphed, one thereby seriously jeopardizes his or her claim to being a scientist, which is presumably the principal reason for employment for many scientists at Los Alamos.'"
The idea is to convince people to *believe* that the polygraph machine is scientific and will detect their lies so that they're more likely to not lie, or are nervous while questioning, or even don't take the test at all and just spill it beforehand. It's psychological intimidation, kind of like forcing confessions of bad thoughts in a cult environment. That's one reason you see those "you shall not be subjected to polygraphs at work" posters at your job... a nasty employer could really intimidate people (e.g. union organizers) with it.
-b.
Cheers,
-b.
So they attached this to one of those emergency defense appropriation bills:
Your Congress at work.
By that logic because religion has no scientific basis, anyone who is religious cannot also be a scientist. I'm sure this guy gets along real well with Richard Dawkins at parties. It's a standard fallacy: if you claim to be an 'X', you must do 'Y'--and if you don't do 'Y' (whatever I tell you 'Y' is), you cannot possibly be an 'X'. I can do without that sort of mind control, than you very much.
Of course this does not admit the possibility that there are other reasons why a scientist would agree to be polygraphed, including the possibility that someone working at a sensitive facility such as Los Alamos may just feel that it ain't worth the hassle to fight it.
And if you believe it is unscientific for someone to act apathetic rather than engage in advocacy by fighting polygraphs in the workplace, then you have obviously confused advocacy with discovery--a common enough disease in this day and age, I suppose, given the number of "scientific" papers which are little more than thinly veiled advocacy position papers against computer games and pornography.
From the amount of security breaches at Los Alamos I've read about, I figure anyone's pricipal reason for working there is to take secrets back to their Masters in China, France, Isreal, Russia....
The FSB, the spun off domestic branch of the KGB like to promote the use of the polygraph amongst companies in russia to ensure employee lotyalty (Yes, I was at one of their presentations a few years back). The joke is that itt was revealed by Vasily Mitrokhin (the KGB Archivist and defector)that faking your way through a polygraph test was simply a matter of training. In other words, the polygraph may catch the person stealing paperclips but it probably won't find the trained spy.
See my journal, I write things there
Polygraphs do what they do quite well. They measure a number of physiological variables, and their changes over time. Some changes correlate well with certain emotional changes and states. They do not show whether someone is lying, or telling the truth. They do however show if someone is becoming stressed. They should not be relied upon, as some people can learn to control some of the variables at will.
Do you really want a law breaker "dealing with dangerous (from a proliferation standpoint) materials and experiments critical to national security". If it weren't illegal, you might have a point. However, it is illegal, so someone who smokes pot is already showing that they have a penchant for ignoring laws that they don't think apply to them. Don't give me some excuse about "civil disobedience" either, because that entails openly admitting that you've broken the law.
I'm amazed that you think polygraphs might be OK, but not drug tests. I could understand someone being against both, or supporting only the drug test, but..., wow, just wow.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
However, I would accept someone who sees science [or religion, respectively] as a subset of religion [science], because such an opinion could be consequent. And I know people who do see science as subset of religion.
I mean, really...
Isn't it kind of obvious when someone's personal life is interfering with their professional life?
Is it so hard to take the cue from the rest of the world, where such nonsense is not even considered (with no apparent ill effects)?
It is one thing to show respect for someone's religious beliefs, but it is another thing to accept a paper with references such as "[1] Divine inspiration" and "[2] Genesis 1:2".
That doesn't make it reasonable, just an unfortunate fact of life. BTW, drug testing by private employers has actually decreased slightly since the early 1990s, since some have figured out that it costs without helping the bottom line.
-b.
That said, having taken a polygraph, I think the true value lies in the "good-cop/bad-cop" environment that it creates.
In the movies, the smart guys can always reveal a liar by looking if the subjects eyes are directed "up left" when he/she says something...
Name a spy caught after failing a polygraph test.
Neither can I. It never happened.
TFA is completely correct on polygraphs.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Wasn't one of the worst betrayals caused by a CIA agent's wife spending all his money? (And he passed a couple polygraph tests, too...)
How else can we screen out subversives that believe in that evolution nonsense?
Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
Long story short: the polygraph is a pile of pseudo-scientific bullshit, that can be easily beaten by anyone that knows how it works. At its core, its basically just a non-standardized investigation protocol for extracting harmful confessions by deceiving the person being investigated.
After educating myself, I passed a polygraph easily the first time, without any preparation or practice, while directly lying to my investigator. For the record, what they were asking was none of my employer's business (in my opinion). I was previously warned that the average session takes an hour, and can sometimes run into 3-4 hours when there are "complications". However, by manipulating my physiological responses to a few critical control questions, and pretending to be appropriately intimidated and impressed by the investigator and his machine, I was out of there in 15 minutes, which I was later told was something of a record.
From http://antipolygraph.org/:
The dirty little secret behind the polygraph is that the "test" depends on trickery, not science. The person being "tested" is not supposed to know that while the polygraph operator declares that all questions must be answered truthfully, warning that the slightest hint of deception will be detected, he secretly assumes that denials in response to certain questions -- called "control" questions -- will be less than truthful. An example of a commonly used control question is, "Did you ever lie to get out of trouble?" The polygrapher steers the examinee into a denial by warning, for example, that anyone who would do so is the same kind of person who would commit the kind of behavior that is under investigation and then lie about it. But secretly, it is assumed that everyone has lied to get out of trouble.
The polygraph pens don't do a special dance when a person lies. The polygrapher scores the test by comparing physiological responses (breathing, blood pressure, heart, and perspiration rates) to these probable-lie control questions with reactions to relevant questions such as, "Did you ever commit an act of espionage against the United States?" (commonly asked in security screening). If the former reactions are greater, the examinee passes; if the latter are greater, he fails. If responses to both "control" and relevant questions are about the same, the result is deemed inconclusive.
The test also includes irrelevant questions such as, "Are the lights on in this room?" The polygrapher falsely explains that such questions provide a "baseline for truth," because the true answer is obvious. But in reality, they are not scored at all! They merely serve as buffers between pairs of relevant and "control" questions.
The simplistic methodology used in polygraph testing has no grounding in the scientific method: it is no more scientific than astrology or tarot cards. Government agencies value it because people who don't realize it's a fraud sometimes make damaging admissions. But as a result of reliance on this voodoo science, the truthful are often falsely branded as liars while the deceptive pass through.
Perversely, the "test" is inherently biased against the truthful, because the more honestly one answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence feels less stress when answering them, the more likely one is to fail. Conversely, liars can beat the test by covertly augmenting their physiological reactions to the "control" questions. This can be done, for example, by doing mental arithmetic, thinking exciting thoughts, altering one's breathing pattern, or simply biting the side of the tongue. Truthful persons can also use these techniques to protect themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome. Although polygraphers
Why is being a "scientist" held in such high regard. I'm a principal scientist on my project, but that doesn't make me too good to go through the same screening process as the "lowly technicians." I say good for him, stick it to the man, in the meantime ride your high horse somewhere else to find employment.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Speaking of bad logic. Your argument is a straw man, which is a logical fallacy.
>Holian writes: 'Polygraphy is an insulting affront to
>scientists, since a committee of the National Academy of
>Sciences has declared that, beyond being inadmissible in
>court, there is no scientific basis for polygraphs. In my
>opinion, by agreeing to be polygraphed, one thereby
>seriously jeopardizes his or her claim to being a
>scientist, which is presumably the principal reason for
>employment for many scientists at Los Alamos.'"
I sure hope he tells them that one down at the unemployment office!
Brett
It's already there. You've committed a crime that can be used to blackmail you. The same can hardly be said about speeding. Also, I'm not talking about shooting anyone. I'm talking about not hiring them for a position that you said was vital to our nation's defense. Obviously, you found nothing wrong with my actual point. Otherwise you wouldn't have tried to change what I said. I eschew slippery slope arguments.
Oh, and yes, speeding is also breaking the law. People who lightly dismiss it as such demonstrate contempt for the rule of law. In your case, I'm not very concerned as I suspect you don't claim to hold the highest regard for the law in the first place. (This is not meant to be an insult, so correct me if I'm wrong.) However, for people who do make such claims (typically Republicans), I find such dismissal to be hypocritical.
And just to be clear, I'm hardly a conservative, although I'll admit to holding 2 or 3 views that others might consider to be conservative.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
With the recent events at Los Alamos such as classifed infromation being leaked and other security problems. There needs to be some level of proection on our nations secrets - if scientists can't handle the pressure of a polygraph then what chance do they stand if they were kidnapped by a forigen entity. If polygraphs help expose leaks in the system, then they serve their purpose. Serving our country requires not only bright minds, but the ability to protect information that is vital to our national interests. There are plenty of other positions for scientists that don't require polygraphs - so, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
Fine, if you want to openly break the law, à la Thoreau, as a form of protest, you have my respect. However, if you're breaking the law just because you feel like it, that's another story.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Still, for matters dealing with national security, I think it's not too much to ask that employees stay off the ganja. I will admit that having never been tempted by the stuff, I'm not in the best position to judge. Still, we are talking about nuclear technology.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Considering the "brainscan" approach to polygraphs that the future may hold. I am kind of interested in
how a 100% accurate polygraph or lie-detector would affect civilization. How it would affect law enforcement
and judiciary. How would it affect business agreements and politics. If a really good lie detector were
readily available, then what would it do to society, government, economies, education, religion...
Its fun to imagine how the world would reshape itself. Would it be good, or a disaster.
Quite simply, LANL employees' biggest problem is that we aren't unionized. We stand idly by and watch management (LANS/NNSA/DOE) hammer us again and again and again with policies that decrease the quality of workplace life (without adding jack to the real safety and security of the institution). The "substantially equivalent" requirement for benefits between the last contractor and the current contractor has been revealed to be a stinking pile of bullshit. With a strong collective bargaining agreement, there'd be some pushback against this unrelenting spiral into hell. There is none, however, because nearly everyone in Los Alamos County believes that unions are dues-sucking liberal plots that exist solely to protect the slackers and lackwits. Efforts to unionize have been and will continue to be fruitless. And so, things will get worse.
To specifically address the current outrage, Director Mike Anastasio's plan to expand random drug testing, one can say that it's true that LANL has had far, far too many security and safety incidents over the past decade. But I can't think of a single one in which the cause was traced back to drug use or alcohol overconsumption. This means we'll be spending money that the contractor doesn't have (they're facing a $150M + shortfall this year) to solve a problem that the lab doesn't have, and raping the Fourth Amendment in the process. (Yes, I know the workplace drug laws have been routinely upheld, but when the courts write that some things are too important for Constitutional protections to apply, what're you to think?) THIS is the kind of visionary thinking that made LANS the winning contractor?
/Pee in cups for LANL
//Take polygraphs for LANL
///Hates self for it
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
If the law is stupid, useless, and outdated, why aren't you fighting to change it?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I'd tell them to get stuffed (in exactly those words), if they implemented drug testing at my place of work. I do my job to the best of my ability. I know full well that my value to them is higher than the amount they pay me whether I take drugs or not. If they want to get rid of me, it will cost them more than it costs me. I really don't get it.
One would think that it was obvious that a scientist (or any other employee) who do a good job should keep his or her job, and someone who does a poor job should be fired. It is the responsibility of the management to determine who belong to each category. For small companies, where management is typically close to or equivalent with the owner, this is also how it works.
For large organizations, for some reason management is often afraid to fire people with the explanation that they do a poor job. They want some kind of objective criteria. This is why productivity in large organizations tend to suffer under all kinds of silly metrics, and why management there can think personality tests, drug testing, horoscopes, or polygraphs can be useful tools.
Exactly the point. You are susceptible to influence and may compromise national secrets. Blackmail, ideology, money, and thrill-seeking (I think there's one more) are the top reasons for why people sell out their country.
Supposedly money will get you info, but they won't put their necks out. Ideology gets you great info, but they're unstable. Thrill seekers are james-bond wannabees... and blackmail, well, people do things to protect their dirty secrets.
All I gotta say is "Tough Shit". If you want them to come up with a more reliable lie detector than a polygraph, then you certainly are encouraging them. Perhaps the one that monitors your brain waves when you're in a drugged state? I'll take the box over that any day.
He doesn't have to put up with upper management imposing nonsensical practices on their employees. Polygraph testing is just one of those things... I bet they have plenty of others. If you want to have a functional laboratory, or a productive company, or a working research team, then somebody has to fight (every day) to keep the bureaucracy under control. There will always be managers who firmly believe in an extra regulation, an extra test, an extra form, an extra meeting, an extra manager, to make things work better. Frankly, I have rarely met a manager who doesn't.
Somebody has to fight the bureaucratic ... --- Are impolite terms allowed on /.? And as a principal scientist, you ought to take up the fight for the lowly technicians, who don't have the clout to do so. And as a scientist, you are more or less expected to be eccentric and difficult, so you can get away with it... In the same way a beautiful woman can get away with awful gaffes for which a man would be crucified, just different :-)
And as an European (principal) scientist, I frankly don't understand at all why Americans put up with their employers imposing drug testing or polygraph detectors. "Over here" that would be downright illegal, in breach of every privacy law on the book.
But I know that there is a cultural difference as regarding personal freedom and privacy. On the whole Americans are willing sacrificing more of it, because they trust their government. That's why the US and EU always have such a difficult time agreeing on the exchange of personal data of airline passengers etc...
Sharon Scranage - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Scranage
Jim Nicholson - convicted of spying for Russia
There's two. There's hundreds found... and even many more before they get off the ground- how many people could be compromised had they been given access?
...you drink the KoolAid.
Don't like it? Show 'em you mean business and take your talents elsewhere. There are lots of places that need scientific expertise. And just think of all the cool gadgets the old people play with in the country just to the south of your new home.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I used to have a job that involved "selling" (something I didn't enjoy at all). My former boss told me that when a client gives you more than one reason for why he doesn't want the product, the truth is that the real reason is probably one not given.
You say there are more ways to change a law than one. I agree completely. There's civil disobedience. There's running for office. There's even voting. What these have in common is that they involve a certain amount of effort and/or risk. (OK, well breaking the law and trying to get away with it also entails a certain amount of effort and risk.) Seriously, the worst strategy for trying to change a law is ignoring it and hoping that it goes away.
If you feel strongly that the law is unjust, stand up and fight it. If you just feel like smoking some dope and hope you don't get caught, then you're part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Sure enough, I did. Anyways, you're probably right. I'd like to believe that most of them are not deliberately speeding, but I'd also like to believe that this is the year that we'll see peace in the Middle East.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
This isn't about religion and its relationship to science. Its about a test that doesn't do what its supposed to do but still identifies large numbers of people as having lied.
See http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/042501_iacono .html, where an expert tells the Senate judiciary committee that "No spy has ever been uncovered because of a failed polygraph test", that "can learn to defeat these tests", and that, when tested, "innocent people fare little better than chance on these tests, with 40% or more failing on average".
See http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/sullivan.html, where another expert indicates (after criticizing the first for hyperbole) that one particular spy had been given at least three polygraph tests, passed them all, and "did more than 90 percent of the damage he did in the interval between his first and second tests." The witness goes on the real that he knows "of no security procedure that would have stopped" the spy's "first venture into espionage."
Good security is based in good research rather than faulty methodologies.
Davis http://davis.foulger.net
I understand the scientist's difficulty with the issue. And, the blog is a funny way of approaching it. I just logged into Slashdot to make this post, and I was looking at my old comments, and it's quite telling. You can really learn a lot about me by looking at my old posts. You could probably learn more by what I am saying now, then by asking me direct questions in a polygraph test. However, the polygraph machine is a means of control. In any institution, there will be those on top making decisions and pushing the buttons. Control is inevitable. I understand his resistance to that control and am shocked if this is the first time he has felt it. I don't know how much they get paid at Los Alamos, but I imagine it's a decent salary and that they have opportunities that a lot of others would love to have. This guy has two options: Stay or quit. Stay and deal with a shitty administration that obviously doesn't care about the human behind the white coat, or quit and join a lab and do work for someone who you think cares about you. Trying to go against such a machine is not going to get you anywhere, unless you are above such things.
Well, I guess we just have different moral philosophies, and that's OK. Personally, I think that laws should be followed unless there's a compelling reason not to. Because you "want to" is not very compelling. OTOH, I can think of a few things that I might be tempted to break the law over if they were made illegal, even without a reason I'd consider "compelling". I also believe that (almost) all laws have some rationality behind them; it's just a question of whether you agree with that rationale. Part of my views on this have arisen from positions where I've been in authority (e.g., lifeguard) and have had to exercise that authority on those who could not comprehend the reasons behind the rules. Just because you don't understand why a law is in place doesn't make it a bad law. Anyways, this is largely a question of philosophy, and I strongly suspect that nothing I say will change your mind (and vice-versa).
As for your personal note, I couldn't agree more (except for my part about following the law).
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
he was the creator of the polygraph and also Wonder Women.. i mean come on... another thing i've always wondered about the test, what if your nerves got the better of you when it came to answering a truthful question.. for example Im about to be asked a really serious question but im so nervous of my answer coming out as a lie surly this would make it look like i was hidding something?
I've read that one method to beat a polygraph is to pucker up your asshole throughout the entire interview. I guess this masks some of the biological readings the polograph depends on for "detecting" lies. Also this will prevent embarassing farts from escaping.
Im so sick of the entitlement "blah blah blah" BS in this country. If you dont like the rules for employment, you are completely free to find another job. Follow the rules, or dont and suffer the consequences. Thats how it works. Next.
Well, I'd say that another of those could also show up in your urine for a long time to come, unless you take the proper regimen of antibiotics. I'm just sayin'...
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
What's interesting to me about this is the amount of degrading and ridiculous crap that valuable experts will go through for a clearance when they throw fits when employers even hint at questioning their credentials. For example, we like to give a pretty good basic technical knowledge test when we hire programmers. Basically, you should be able to read some basic code (nothing tricky) and answer some simple conceptual questions about data structures (e.g. Describe some differences between a linked list and a binary search tree. Give an example for the use of each.). We have had more senior guys go batshit insane when asked to spend 30 minutes running through and proving that they have some memory of the task that they're being hired to perform. Heaven forbid we bruise their egos.
On the other hand, these same guys will gladly bend over and answer the most intimate sorts of questions while hooked up to a dowsing rod operated by a professional interrogator.
Personally, I've gone through a few background investigations to get security clearances. I've always been honest and gotten through them without too much trouble (other than trouble of the bureaucratic type). I don't mind legitimate investigations, really. I shouldn't be given a clearance if I have a serious criminal record, if people who know me think I'm dangerously unstable, or if I'm so far in debt that I've been reduced to giving handjobs behind the 7-11 for spare change. I also don't mind being asked to demonstrate competence in the type of work I'm being hired to do. Even so, I'm not particularly cool with having somebody wave a magic terrorist-detecting crystal at me and putting a mark in a file somewhere based on whether I produced good or bad energy. The polygraph is little different. Maybe it's just ego, but I think that my reputation deserves more considered input than that.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
At least then we'd know that no more bad laws would get passed. OK, no more good laws would get passed either, but that's a small price to pay... ;)
Man, could you imagine Bush getting "fired" for illegal drug use? Wouldn't that be sweet?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The answer is simple: just leave and work somewhere else.
...when you sell out your objectivity. Be honorable, or be elsewhere. Same thing with the "global warming" (or as they call it in the winter, "climate change".) Money is perverting science, all over.
Doing research, just because it will allow you to get grant money is the wrong thing to do. No amount of money going to Washington, DC will change what the environment is doing.
But more specifically, at Los Alamos, they've had quite a problem with security, spies, and missing hard drives. It might be time to flush the personnel.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
You don't see Doctors or Lawyers joining unions; and you don't see leading scientists in industry unionizing. Commodity workers are the ones that benefit most from unions; and I'd hope that LANL scientists haven't sunken so low as to become commodity workers. Back when I was there ('80s); it was a place where you found some stunningly impressive people - not the kind I'd expect calling for a union. Most all of those I knew have moved on to find success in either academia or industry, though.
If you don't like your working conditions, what you guys need to do is individualy find a backbone for yourself. There are plenty of jobs out there for top technical people; and if your current employer treats you poorly (hint, most government jobs and most large corporations do); just find a better job.
Are you arguing that "people" are somehow forced to posess said plants, so that it's entirely the law's fault that these people (who shall remain nameless, of course) are criminals?
I'm sure it could be argued, but you'd have to be stoned to buy such an argument. ;)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
It is contrary to intelligence - a single word for such a thing is stupidity.
Random drug tests are. No idea why this guy is exaggerating the issue but polygraphs are not included in the new policy. I agree with the random drug tests. There are many levels of work at the lab - some can be quite dangerous to an individual worker and coworkers. I don't want workers doing the kind of work done at Los Alamos - or any NNSA laboratory - who are not operating at 100%. To get a job at Home Depot or most stores you have to take a drug test. What is wrong with asking the people handing nuclear materials and secrets to do the same?
The man gave the Soviets the theories and initial drafts of the workings of the hydrogen bomb, while working at Las Alamo. While he was a scientist which no one disputes, his political leanings and actions endangered the world.
While he was exposed because of the VERONA project code breakers, if lie detector tests were used on him, that would have given his interrogators leverage to press harder.
Doctors and Lawyers don't work a lot of extra hours without pay like engineers and programmers do, so if Doctors and Lawyers are the gold standard for "Highly skilled people", I guess engineers and programmers don't qualify
Read "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector" at http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml
Anyone interested in learning the secrets of how polygraphs (don't) work ought to take a look at the excellent website AntiPolygraph.org.
Drug tests were part of a broad offensive launched in the 1980s against the attempt to redefine American culture stemming from the 1960s counter-culture. Drug testing began under the Reagan administration as a way of showing "those hippies" who was in charge. It had little to do with the actual effects of occaisiona drug use, and everything to do with waging a culture war.
Then they could have the results come out just the way they wanted:
http://www.snopes.com/legal/colander.htm
Unfortunately, this only works for rednecks and (other) STUPID criminals. Any scientist worth having the job title would recognize they're putting a colander on his head and pushing the "copy" button on a copier with a sheet saying "He's Lying!" on the glass.
Tag lost or not installed.
As someone who is subjected to these tests, I must say that I sympathize with the man who is organizing this. The polygraph, in particular, is particularly gruesome. Nevertheless, while the test itself is not accurate at determining a lie, it is very important that the government continues to use it for high level clearances. Drug tests are a no-brainer. A typical clearance background investigation is particularly concerned with drug use and financial trouble. The two are related. A person who uses drugs is far more likely than one who does not to sell or give away secrets (to support their habit, pay off debts, or prevent blackmail - also, they could be compromised simply by a "friend" asking questions while high and vulnerable to such probing). Drug use is a major national security risk. The polygraph is a little more nuanced. The "test" is a very effective interrogation technique. It is extremely intimidating, especially since one's job is on the line, and I can say from experience that one is prone to tell all rather than risk being failed. An examinee is made to believe that the test is detecting lies, while he/she knows the test is not accurate, the perceived belief that the examiner believes the results leads one to "spill the beans." One will tell them about every little indiscretion and white lie ever committed in hopes that truth will save the day - it does for most people who are not legitimate security concerns. Basically, it helps keep people in line, and could find potential problems before they actually surface and cause damage. It sounds fascist, I know. Nevertheless, that is the price that is paid for holding a high level clearance. If they do not want to be subjected to such intensive scrutiny, I suggest they find another place to work than in the national security community - no one would blame them.
"In God we trust, all others we monitor." -- Unofficial NSA motto
If a Scientist fails their polygraph, does that mean there's a chance that all of their scientificly proven facts are actually bullshit ?
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
I've been polygraphed over a dozen times for security clearance related stuff. The whole point of the exercise is not to detect whether or not you are lying; its purpose is to intimidate you into believing that the machine works and to make you spill your guts about any wrongs that you may have commited. After my 8th time or so, I was on the fence about the machine's effectiveness when the examiner challenged me and claimed that the machine said I was lying. Up until that point their mind games had been working and I was pretty nervous (not that I had done anything wrong). After the acusation I totally relaxed and laughed about how ridiculous the whole situation was. I knew that I had done nothing wrong and I totally relaxed while I was enjoying irony of the whole situation. About 30 seconds later the examiner said that I had passed. For me this was the final proof that polygraphs don't work at all. However, you must agree to submit to one in order to hold a US security clearance. These scientists will all find this out very quickly when they lose their jobs because their clearances got yanked when they declined the poly.
Anonymous for obvious reasons
Be aware of the difference between a law passed by Congress and a DOE regulation. One is an act of legislation and the other is an act of the Executive Branch. These little details are important because often Congress takes the hit for some nonsense that's being perpetrated by politically appointed bureaucrats.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Can't help but think of The Gambler after reading the posts in the blog...
Congratulations, you have just successfully (if inadvertently) argued for the decriminalization of drugs.
Unfortunately most people would probably think you successfully argued for drug testing. Sad, isn't it?
For those who are reading fast, DHMO is water. Someone with too much time on their hands made an entire official web site discussing the dangers, linked in the parent comment.
As for drug testing, I think it should only happen if an employee is exhibiting other problems at work
My $0.02: Drug use OUTSIDE of work is what is important, since you can't just switch-off confidential information and knowledge at 17:00. Whether people want to admit it or not, drug use (including, and almost especially alcohol) can make you "more sociable." (I know I talk more when I'm excessively beered...) We have had incidents in bars near my workplace (also in New Mexico), where people have been systematically (but very casually) probing for information on what we do. Don't know if it was related to industrial espionage, a newspaper story, or just plain espionage. In any case, we were made very aware of the situation, and urged to use caution.
Yeah, drug use at work will probably get you fired. But drug use that leads to divulging of protected information can get you arrested, will most definitely kill your security clearance, and can give competitors a competitive edge in business or in war. I think people who are not pounded continuously with opsec related briefings and case studies at work would be really surprised at how much espionage there really is in this country-- between competing companies, by other countries, by insiders, and even by the occasional angry citizen looking for materials to support a protest.
So drug testing is partially a "we don't support drugs in the workplace" issue, but mostly it is a matter minimizing the leverage that an untrusted person/organization/entity has over an employee who might have tasty bits of proprietary information floating in his/her beer/drug receptacles (heads). It is also why financial, marital, mental health and family background play a large part in obtaining/maintaining a clearance: Money and well-being of you or your loved ones are good motivators to do things that one might normally consider "bad."
I'd be lying if I said I knew exactly what the lie detector results were good for....
Consider machine W. It costs 87 million dollars. It weighs 112 tons and occupies a large dedicated building. The thing has superconducting magnets bathed in liquid helium. The victim must be given drugs to paralyse the body, then have their skull screwed into a metal frame to keep it perfectly still. The victim must be injected with a mildly harmful substance. Numerous technicians are required to operate the device. Result: the device is used on suspected spies and terrorists.
Consider machine X. It costs 6 million dollars. It weighs 5 tons and occupies a dedicated room. The thing has superconducting magnets bathed in liquid nitrogen. The victim must lie still inside a cramped tunnel. A technicians is required to operate the device. Result: the device is used for government clearances, some major business contracts, and occasionally for employment decisions.
Consider machine Y. It costs 20 thousand dollars. It weighs half a ton and occupies as much space as two home refrigerators. Any decently bright person can operate the device after watching a 30-minute instructional video. Result: many businesses get one, a few well-off people get one, and everybody else has to rent one minute-by-minute.
Consider machine Z. It is built into a cell phone for an extra 60 dollars. It provides a simple bar chart to indicate strength of "lie" and "non-lie" signals. It can operate quietly, up to 3 feet away from the victim's head. Result: we all check everybody.
Back in the 80's, I was a restaurant manager. At the time I had a theft problem. At one point, some money showed up on one of my employees. I had her take the test and she failed. I ended up firing her, all the while thinking that it could not be her. Turned out that the problem continued and it was somebody else. I fired an innocent gal based on that shit. There is nothing that would convince that that crap works. It is pure voodoo and is absolutely worthless. IMO, you would be better off casting bones then polygraphs. At least you do not subject the person to total humiliation.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
...should be: "Are you now, or have you ever been a scientist?"!
The most amazing aspect is a science project of then 14 year old Nathan Zohner in 1997. He wrote a pamphlet pointing out the dangers of DHMO, and set up a petition to have it banned. Then he asked his classmates to sign the petition. 43 signed immediately, six were undecided and only one actually detected that Nathan was talking about water. Nathan then published his findings as his ninth grade science project with the title "How gullible are we?"
See also http://snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp.
> It's already there. You've committed a crime that can be used to blackmail you.
Smoking a joint in the US set you up for blackmail?
Or is that a case of "we *have* to fire people we discover have smoked a joint, because if someone else discover that they smoked a joint they would be vulnerable for blackmail, since they would be fired if it was discovered"?
(Such perfect circular logic used to be used for keeping homosexuals out of some jobs back in the dark age).
Nobody know about the new MRI based lie detectors?
o n-biw112204.php
They are scientifically validated (polygraph are not) to be able to catch 90%+ liers when they lie.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-11/rs
"Download AntiPolygraph.org's free book"
.... *looks around* ..... *shuffles* ...... *adjusts collar* .... Geez, is it getting hot in here?
Thanks for the suggestion, but I've already read it
Ok ok, I'll download the bloody thing!
Not an extremely close correlation, true, but it's there.
Best Slashdot Co
Did he say that people are *forced* to buy Pot, or did he suggest that because people like to, a law against it will make a criminal of people who do what was legal before the new law? By my reading of it, it seemed that he was saying that by picking things people like to do, you make it more likely that they will keep doing these things, thus being criminals.
It sure sounded like he was saying that they have no choice but to break the law. It's hard to argue that the law made them criminals when the law was around long before most (all? I don't know how old the law is, but I know it's more than 40 years old) pot smokers started smoking pot. As someone else pointed out, the same logic would say that making murder illegal turns murderers into criminals. I'm not equating the two, I'm just pointing out the errant logic.
Yes, good point. However, I'd like to think that I wouldn't try to deny it, either. I'd like to think that I'd engage in civil disobedience (not sure that my wife would be keen on making that public, however). Of course, I'd also like to think that I wouldn't spend so much time posting on slashdot. :)
Pot might be less harmful than tobacco and/or alcohol (I really have no idea, and quite frankly I don't care), but it is hardly non-harmful. Note, I'm not arguing for or against legalization of pot. I'm just arguing for respecting the law unless there's a compelling reason not to (i.e., a higher morality). I don't find "getting stoned" to be very compelling, but maybe that's just me (it sure seems like it's just me).
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
But I also see differences. As far as I understand, being a homosexual is far less of a choice than smoking pot. Of course, I have no familiarity with either being a homosexual or smoking pot, so this is based mainly on what I've heard of the former and on what I've intuited of the latter.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Well, if /. is any indication, it seems you are correct. I consider myself to be a creative, independent thinker, and I wouldn't be bothered too much by random drug tests (assuming they're not too frequent and/or intrusive), but I also realize that as a creative, independent thinker, my thoughts/feelings won't necessarily be shared by other creative, independent thinkers.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
If 1 in 100 people shows a response, it definitely does *not* mean that person is associated with the crime (p
Inappropriate use of statistics -- such as that in this thread -- is dangerous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor's_fallacy
http://antipolygraph.org/
the world's most dangerous "leader".
Thanks in advance,
Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.
Why Brad Holian is saying they are is beyond me. What has been proposed is random drug testing - caused by the fact that the woman involved in the last incident had a methamphetamine laboratory in her mobile home.
What Holian is doing is keeping alive the stereotype of the coddled scientist who thinks he/she is above all scrutiny or control. Bullshit. You have to take a drug test to work virtually anywhere else. If Holian cares so much about the sanctity of personal privacy then why isn't he out protesting the random and pre-screening drug tests at Home Depot, The State of New Mexico, etc.?
LANL is in trouble for the various incidents over the last few years. It is what got the contract bid after half a century of being run (quite successfully) by the University of California. Management has their feet being held to the fire to show they are fixing the problems. The reason we have had these problems are because of people like Holian who think the rules don't or shouldn't apply to them. Just because you have a degree or a clearance doesn't mean you aren't fallable or subject to the many frailties of human existence. The people guarding our Nation's secrets should be held to higher standards than a Home Depot stocker (no offense intended).
LANL, Livermore, Sandia, etc, are all involved in very valuable and sometimes very dangerous work. A work force that is not alert and unimpared is a danger to the worker themself and to their coworkers. Drug users can also be blackmailed to divulge secrets lest they be exposed and lose their jobs and clearances.
If Holian doesn't like it that a clearly-stated condition of employment and for holding a clearance is actually being tested, then he is free to look elsewhere for a job. I'm sick of his kind of attitude here.
6 years of Bush has created an atmosphere of mindless paranoia at the Lab. Included in this has been a multi-million dollar boondoggle in the form of vehicle inspection booths on state highways there. It's completely unnecessary that my truck be inspected before I go skiing at Pajarito Mountain or mountain biking at the Valles Caldera.
Many of you may not be old enough to remember Barney Miller. It was a comedy show about New York Cops in the 1970's. There was an episode where a particularly brainy detective named Dietrich exasperated a polygraph examiner in an internal investigation by getting Truthful readings when he stated that he was born "a long time ago ... in a galaxy far away". :-)
I can agree with the fact that a polygraph is not an accurate measurement and probably is a horrible method of security insurance, I note most people on this subject are more worried about the fact that they are being questioned at all rather than the method. Let me address those of you with that particular problem... When top scientists are fucking stealing NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY and attempting to sell it to foreign fucking countries...A BODY CAVITY SEARCH SHOULD ONLY BE THE BEGININNG!!! We are talking about national security and the security of this entire fucking planet you morons! Do you honestly think it isn't worth making you piss in a bottle to save billions of lives!?! As for those of you who so boldly state that you don't work for anyone you makes you take a drug test or submit to a background investigation, I'm glad to say I will never have to work with you. Good luck getting a job anywhere besides flipping burgers...oh wait, I think even McDonalds and Burger King drug test employees. Guess you're fucked. I hear Darwin had a good explanation for people like you...
Money is perverting science, all over.
That's positively wrong, good friend. Greed is perverting science.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
There's been no scientific proof that God doesn't exist, nor can science prove such a thing.
Just because certain churches have an axe to grind doesn't mean that Religon and Science are opposed. For some reason, Churches insist on a static universe where things cannot change, and when they make statements that turn out to be incorrect like, "The Earth is at the center of the universe." or "The Sun revolves around the Earth." their policy of a static universe doesn't provide them an avenue of correction.
So, they do what any self-perserving organization does, which is try to discredit the messenger (or better yet, kill him), and they use strong appeals to authority to ignore the real world and preserve the status quo. God didn't come up with the church sponsored ideas of how the world works, so churches don't have to weaken their foundations to accept that the universe changes. It's a self-inflicted wound when churces insist that the world only works one way, because sooner or later, ideas about the Universe will be refined, reorganized, and reworked.
It's not about being apathetic with discovery. Polygraphs are known to discover a lot of information. It has also been proven that none of that information has anything to do with lying. If you answer truthfully, but you ex walks into the room, the needles will jump, and the activity will be read to imply that you lied. For a real lie detector test, the environment shouldn't matter. If the environment matters so much, it's just a test to see if you get nervous, or if you can lie calmly.
I want to see a lie detector test that works while someone is skateboarding. If it detects truth even when people are nervous, then it's a much better design that the mis-labeled "nervousness detector test" which people keep trying to call a "lie detector test".
have ruined many innocent lives:T estimonialsPolygraphs.pdf
http://www.zelicoff.com/SMLR/PolygraphyFiles/Edit
If you want to have a real debate about drug abuse and truckers, look towards crystal meth, caffeine, and ephedrine-based products like Mag 57. Ephedrine was called "trucker speed" in the 90s for a reason.
That said, the abuses in the industry (WRT to falsifying log books, and the general lack of oversight by the current US administration, what a surprise) would be a more interesting discussion than what drugs a trucker can or can't ingest and still work.
To veer back on topic - polygraph tests are silly and beatable. Just make sure you can identify the "control" questions (they expect you to lie on these) and ensure you have a pain response when answering. Step on a thumbtack in your shoe, bite hard on your tongue, just raise a pain reaction that will be confused with a nervous reaction, and when the REAL question comes you won't spike as much because your pain reaction is absent.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
...you drink the KoolAid. ... The polygraph is sexy...
It is in fact an entertainment, A RITE OF PASSAGE, for the employees.
A beautiful not fully dressed young women, and an handsome doctor will put the patches
on your naked and exposed body, ask funny questions on your sexual life and past emploiement, have amused look at the graphs, and give you invitation cartons to oppening evening of the new swimming pool of the local churche of Christ. They will note if you get erection or disagreable emotion at the naming of the pêople of the team, to know who are the good team players, and to check for bad stress in the organisation.
They did something like it in two of my preceding employers.
Exposed to X-Ray, injected Botulique Toxine, Eye checked, and blowed sound in my ears. A polygraph would have been less intrusive and more fun, it seem. A ceremony would have done it, too.
The RITE OF PASSAGE mean : "We are in control, we care for you, we know everything, be of good mind, and do the good work. In other case, you will be destroyed and put in hell." LOL
If you want to be in contact with the invisibles polygraphiers, Say : "Polygraphy by God, please." You may get it, so be in right state of mind, or you will be corrected and mind controlled."
We are currently in a magic terrorist detecting crystal. Handle with care. God may bite the wrongdoers.
Actually, lawyers do quite often.
Do you honestly think it isn't worth making you piss in a bottle to save billions of lives!?!
I do drugs, and I'm smarter than you.
It's the definitive biography of Feynman. What you get in Feynman's own books is brilliant, hilarious, and iconoclastic, but it is the idealized image of himself that he chose to project.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Spin away!
No joke. Sometimes I do speed accidently. It can happen if the road is exceptionally straight and you're not paying due diligence to your speedometer. That said, I don't think this explains going 75 in a 55 zone.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
But would a "lie" response be the same level as a pain response? What if all the lies elicit less of a reaction than the control questions? I'd assume that'd raise suspicion too.
-b.
FWIW, M. LostRace, there's quite a bit of grey in this world...
t s4.cfm
;^)
;^)
t +over+yourself
For example, do you do business with any of these companies?
http://www.testclear.com/dtcompanies/companyresul
I'm guessing that you do (as do most of us). I suggest boycott and stopping immediatly if you want to stay on your high horse (lest you compromize your own values by providing profit to companies who do test).
Note that this list has "google" as a urine tester, so you might want to start using yahoo search and avoid logging into youtube (so much for do no evil). Most banks are also listed, so you might just have to stuff your money under your matress. Not to mention avoiding starbucks, coca-cola, pepsi products and canceling your AAA membership and stop shopping at costco, target and walmart, throw away your dell and hp computers, etc, etc...
Can't do that and live your life (or feed your family), well, I guess we're all owned by the man with your definition and might as well pack it in anyhow.
Perhaps we the weak are willing to give up some privacy for convenience, which might mean (paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson) we don't deserve and privacy nor convenience and will lose both. However, everyone has their own threshold as to the battles they wage and the ones that they avoid to fight another day.
However, even Thomas Jefferson had slaves while he promoted an end to slavery he spent pretty much his entire life in debt (many historians think the two were related as he basically couldn't afford to release his slaves). So in many respects Mr. Jefferson lived his life in the practical even though he tried to promote the ideal within the limitations of his own life. Sometimes if we must compromise our privacy to live a more practical convenient life, it isn't totally horrible is it?
Maybe with your priorities and circumstance you can draw the line at employment, but still allow yourself to do business what you regard as companies, but I'm guessing not everyone has your priorities or circumstance, so "get-over-yourself"
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ge
The idea is to convince people to *believe* that the polygraph machine is scientific ...
Err, excuse me, the polygraph is absolutely scientific. It yields data the *correlates* with lying. The fact that the correlation is not 100% does not make the instrument unscientific. Detective work involves a lot of statistics, for example if you have a dead young woman statistics says look at the husband or boyfriend first. Is it always the husband or boyfriend? No. Now if there is a leak at a high security facility, look at those who flunk the polygraph first. Does the polygraph tell you who is guilty? No. However when there is no other evidence, statistics, science, says its a reasonable place to start, to sort that list of people you are going to look at.
Back in the 80's, I was a restaurant manager ... I fired an innocent gal based on that shit.
Pardon me for being blunt, but you are the problem, not the polygraph. The fact that a user does not know how to use the data from an instrument does not make the instrument bad. The physiological reactions the instrument records correlates with lying, it does not prove it. If you understood the instrument then you poly the people who had access to the money. The results should be used to, *at most*, rank who warrants more attention. Or maybe if you are going to be more aggressive confront the employees and try to bluff a confession. To fire a person merely on poly results is highly negligent, you are the problem, not the machine. Get over your denial, face this fact, and accept your failure. Don't try to scapegoat the machine. OK, that was harsh, maybe you received ignorant and negligent instructions from your supervisor. I apologize if that was the case, I'm suspecting it is not since you seem to be blaming the machine 100% and don't mention corporate or supervisory direction.
Polygraphs do not work. Period. Saying that you are going to badger employees in cooperation with a machine is a joke. Your approach to this sounds like a witch doctor saying why they get results and the layperson does not. Or how MS blames everybody BUT themselves. Polygraphs are sold by the administrators as showing lies (or as you say, "correlates"). Yet, there is little scientific fact to that. In fact, they have shown numerous people who can keep it straight line while telling that they are hitler (false negative). In addition, there is plenty of false positive stories out there.
Anybody who takes these, or supports them, are absolute idiots. It is you who is a fool. It is akin to supporting and pushing creationism. There, is that blunt enough for you?
Calm down. Breathe deeply. Relax. Take the pills, they won't bite you. Yes, just wait until their shape changes back into normal round things you can swallow with some water. Noo, no, no, not vodka, water. That's it. Good boy.
Now see if you can get some of those abused braincells to actually fire. I know it's hard, the brain's like a muscle - use it or lose it - but now you've calmed down you may want to think about what you said. No, not the cavity search, we'll gloss over the predilections that that suggests for now.
Do you need help with the deficiencies in what you just said or can you work it out for yourself?
Ah, you can. Well done. Now don't forget to take those pills. They DO help.
= this has been a public service, thank you =
Pardon me for being blunt, but you are the problem, not the polygraph.
No, it's that he used a polygraph at all. They don't work worth a damn and often reflect the biases of the operator or the noervousness of the subject more than any objective truth.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"