Slashdot Mirror
The Truth About the Polygraph, According To the NSA
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)."
I guess congratulations are in order ?
New things are always on the horizon
The polygraph has too many false positives and false negatives to be relied on 100 percent.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
If I ever had to take a polygraph test I would do so under one condition: I get to add one question to the test at the beginning. The question would be: "Can this machine tell if I am lying?"
Shh.
Mr. Guy, the NSA would like to ask you a few questions. Would you mind coming with us please...
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 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 /.?
According to the NSA we have no rights, confessions are best gotten by torture, oh and we are attacked by terrorists every 4.8 seconds if we would close illegal prisons and give all US citizens basic rights and conform to various international treaties.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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.
How about "The Truth About the NSA - According to the Polygraph."
It would be a much better article.
http://dssa.dss.mil/seta/broadcast_news/video_resources/polygraph_videos/
...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?
So its just like a Scientology body thetan test machine?
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)
I couldn't help but notice what appears to be the Gnome desktop (with an Ubuntu logo?) and the Chrome/Chromium web browser on the left monitor in the background. Hooray for free software?
Is this the truth?
#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.
I'm all for not believing in polygraphs, but I'm not gonna lie, that critique was pretty awful.
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.
The "Anti-Polygraph" folks are telling the truth about the Polygraph truth? Can we get them to take a poly?
Ha! I can see the fnords.
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.
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.
One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
In the USSR^H^HA!
404: sig not found.
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
The polygraph is an outdated technology which can be easily fooled.
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!
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
The Scientology eMeter measures Galvanic Skin Response which is basically the voltage of your skin. This test is one part of the polygraph.
FMRI is far more accurate than the polygraph. It may be the most accurate means of detecting a lie that we have. What those traitors were able to accomplish should never be allowed to happen again. The government should be using any and all means to prevent it.
It may be that there is no absolute security and we may have to accept that having a sense of security is a cause of insecurity. But at this time the FMRI is the newest most accurate technology, not the polygraph.
Non ACID-compliant databases are the current norm. So, be quiet!
I'm sure saying that makes you feel smart and all, but in REALITY, as far as Slashdot, it relates to multiple DB server synchronization, rather than the underlying DB flavor.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
You either need a clearance or you don't. Most don't need one.
Then my Glock must have jammed. Seriously, if you are willing to subject yourself to this security theater, then you do not deserve to live like a free man.
http://singularityhub.com/2010/05/06/another-attempt-to-use-fmri-lie-detector-in-us-court-fails-in-brooklyn-more-on-the-way/
http://singularityhub.com/2009/12/02/fmri-used-as-evidence-in-sentencing-for-murderer/
so the machine shows that a person under stress is...stressed. Very useful. If you are taking a polygraph, it means that someone believes that you may be guilty of a crime, or that you may be at risk of divulging sensitive information. Stressful for any reasonable adult who actually understands what is going on, whether "guilty" or not.
If you confess as a result of a polygraph result, there's a fair chance you are guilty. If the machine says you are "lying" or "under stress" or "exhibiting behavior indicative of misrepresentation" it means.....you are an intelligent adult in a bad position. I've taken several. They all came back as "inconclusive". Polygraphs NEVER exonerate, they only deliver or "null" or condemn.
What could be a better test?
Slight correction: DoD Top Secret clearances do not require a polygraph, but DoD TS/SCI (Top Secret / Sensitive Compartmented Information) clearances do require a polygraph.
what a fucking load of fascist fucking bullshit.
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. I was so nervous that I bombed miserably and got fired. I had done nothing. Polygraphs are simply a way to kick you in the nads and see what responses they get.
Polygraphs are basically a placebo to make you believe that they can detect your lies.
Absolutely true. A young woman I know got mad during a polygraph she was taking for a job with the CIA. In the middle of the test she stood up, pulled off the cuff and electrodes, and told the interviewer to "go bite the wall". She got the job.
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.
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. ;)
I just wanted to say, this is awesome.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
...Before distributing portions of:
Simpsons
Meet the Parents
A lot of music
I wonder how they extracted the video from the source material? Hope they didn't circumvent any copy protections.
The emancipation proclamation was actually two executive orders, one in 1862 and a follow-on one in 1863. As executive orders, the emancipation proclamation could indeed have been rescinded by a later president. However, on December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment was adopted, forbidding slavery in a way that a future executive order can't undo. Of course, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Brain Fingerprinting following the Farwell protocol is a far more reliable technology. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_fingerprinting
When I interviewed with the NSA, the recruiter explained the screening process, including the mandatory polygraph, and said while it had no merit it was just one of the hoops you had to jump through thanks to the higher-ups & entrenched tradition. The recruited also mentioned that you can just take it again if you don't pass the first time.
The following sentence is true.
The preceding sentence is false.
I've taken the NSA polygraph. It's really not that bad. It's not like they're using it to "catch you" in a lie. In fact, they give you plenty of opportunities to "correct yourself" if you're caught in a lie. They know its stressful and do they're best to make you feel as comfortable as you can in that situation. The questions are very general, which actually threw me off a little. I could dream up a scenario that I've committed a major crime and now known about it.... so... am I 100% sure I haven't committed one... well... no!
The test givers are good... really good. They'll know within the first 5 minutes of test questions if you're gonna be a good bs-er or not. They don't pull any of these "tricks" that you all are talking about anyway. It's a relatively comfortable room, there is only one person there. The person is very nice, and if you're having trouble with a questions, they'll stop, they'll get you to talk your way through it, ask you what part you're having trouble with, and help you try to pass. If you're the kind of person that can pass one of these easily while lying... well... you're not likely to be the kind of person that's going to enjoy working at the NSA anyway.
By far, the worst part of an interview at a place like that is NOT the polygraph. You have to meet with a psychologist. They ask you every single personal question you can think of. It's a bit unnerving to have a total stranger ask you questions like that.
Is it a coincidence this movie is on, about the same time the article was posted to /. ?
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.
thats actually not true. many military jobs that require top secret level clearance don't require polygraphs, thank god. only military jobs that require service members to work with nsa or other security agencies require a polygraph.
You are begging the question. Would you like to plead ignorance?
1. The Emancipation Proclamation was illegal as the president had no constitutional authority to carry it out.
2. Whether the Emancipation Proclamation "expired" or didn't is moot. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth AMENDMENTS took care of this.
Please sit down and actually read some history.
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.
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
At one job, many years ago, I was forced to take a polygraph (or lose my job). According to the investigator running the show, I lied (or seemed evasive) about a couple of serious questions, which I did not; I told the complete truth to every question, having nothing to hide. Specifically, I was asked if I had / or knew of anyone else who had stolen expensive items from the store (which I hadn't & had no knowledge of anyone else doing so). Very shortly after that I was fired for 'messing up' inventory, along with about 1/3 of the work staff. Interestingly, this was right after the busy Christmas season had ended. It's clear to me that they are totally unreliable as truth detectors. Sociopaths can pass them easily no matter what (terrible things) they have done.
When getting boxed (as the industry calls it) it is not about the machine! Everyone knows they are not lie detectors, but change detectors. What it depends on, is the person administering it. I'd rather have the salty old bastard do it because he cuts to the chase and knows bullshit from flowers. The new guy feels like he the first line of defense between us and the bad guys, and hes already on the defensive, and generally makes the whole thing uncomfortable because you're trying so hard to figure him out so you can line up with his expectations. Fuck it.
If they are willing to go to the trouble of a polygraph test it means they've got some dirt on you or are looking to get some more, or whatever they think is more. Truth is not the goal, only verifiability, and the little wiggles on the paper supply this.
It would be interesting to take one of these and consistently lie throughout to see how well the examiners do.
Bibo Ergo Sum.
anyone who grew up with a large number of siblings knows this.in my family there were 7.if i had a nickle for every time i got the blame for anything that might happen i'd be a millionare.till this day if you hooked me up to a lie detector and asked me who killed jimmy hoffa the thing would go ballistic because in my heart i'de know i was getting blamed for something i did'nt do again.real crimanals pass.confused angxiety ridden people get blamed.with a real good operator you could get nailed as lincolns real assasinator.vodoo has a better reutation regards,mike
For the most part the facts presented were accurrate. Most not all.
They do practice BS interrogation techniques. Figure this out for yourself.
However on the surface the video was accurate. It was filmed at an actual NSA polygraph examination site in Linthicum, Maryland (Airport Square). They DO review the questions before and after the actual questioning phase of the test.
I failed horribly (well, I think horribly, I have no comparison to go on)... that said I was honest and did not lie. I believe I was an edge case (I am very dramatic and expressive, and tend to worry). However they also ask that you not discuss the specifics of the test.
I think most people who fail and complain are simply malcontents.
I don't think the test works - I know it failed in my case. However consider this: the stakes are high. Very high. If they end up culling 25% (my guess) of candidates who are no security threat whatsoever then so be it - acceptiable loss. That is life suck it up and move on. But did it fail? Do they simply run several separate tests to get a good baseline and tell you it failed when it didn't? Is the whole thing really just some sort of psychological screening to see how easy it wold be to interrogate YOU in the event that they have to? Who knows. Who cares! This is what they feel they need to do to safeguard their workforce and if you don't like it go work somewhere else (like I ended up having to do). If you are applying for a job there then likely you are technical enough and good enough to easily find other work.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
The question I have is WHY the NSA feel they need to publish this video in the first place? Why do they feel it necessary to make the public feel good about polygraphs? What are their ulterior plans, wholesale warrant-less polygraphs?
Statements above such as: 'fake a polygraph' are completely erroneous. You cannot 'fake' anything that doesn't work in the first place. I would never take a test, having read the free book at AntiPolygraph.org. Something else to remember, some university professor (I think it was) recently stated that they had tweaked the parameters on polygraph machines to make them more accurate. Don't fall for this deception if it is presented to you.
I thought NSA stood for No Such Agency, or Never Say Anything! That they are telling anyone other than a normal customer (US Govt.) anything leads me to believe that they are not just in the business of electronics intelligence intercept and code cracking, but now also in a limited way in propaganda. How am I to suss out exactly which portions of their story are fabrication, and which portions have a grain of truth? If I were to administer a polygraph on the NSA member or team providing the information, how would I know if they are lying or telling the truth, especially given the recent information provided by the US Federal Government (courtesy of the NSA) that polygraphs may or may not be reliable..... to understand recursion, first, you must understand recursion.
That critique is crap.
1) The NSA conducts two types of polys -- they only ask lifestyle questions during the...wait for it...lifestyle polygraph test.
2) Interrogations? No shit Sherlock. The whole point is to find when someone is nervous, then interrogate the hell out of them about that. These people are going to be trusted with information of the highest classifications...they damn well better be interrogated.
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.
That's not true. Some positions require the poly, but that level of clearance doesn't REQUIRE a polygraph.
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.
The NSA polygraph is extremely similar to the test setup that is shown in this video. I had a polygraph at the NSA Friendship Annex for an engineering job and the questions they stated are verbatim as the ones they ask with the NSA; the sitting arrangement of the person being tested and the examiner is even the same. I stared at a white wall and made shapes like you would with clouds during testing.
The one thing that they do before asking you important questions is to get a baseline by asking you want day of the week it is in a yes/no answer format. No matter what day it is you are suppose to say "no" so the examiner can get 4 or 5 truths and and one lie.
I didn't get the job I was applying for but it was due to school issues but the polygraph examiner was very nice; I was very nervous going in, they spend the first hour of the examination time preparing you, and calming you down.
Why do you say it's not good for their purposes? In this case if someone fails they aren't sick of a horrible disease they simply aren't allowed to get a job. Now if they are screening THE very best person in the world for the ONE job they have to have him do then yeah might be an issue if it falses but if it were that important they would work around any issues. In this case they have tons of applicants, if they falsely fail 10% then oh well they still had a 90% success rate and if 50% of those all passed then yup they have filled their slots. As for privacy, if you fail the test it's not put in the newspaper and you walk out the door still looking for a job. If you admit to criminal activity well then that might be a problem for you - they aren't going to cover that up! Nor should they be expected to anymore than someone telling me in a bar they raped a woman should expect me not to call a cop.
So really - I agree with your argument so far as accuracy but I refute your conclusion. If someone fails the consequences aren't nearly as bad as a disease and erring on the side of caution when dealing with whatever it is they deal with is how they have decided to manage their risk.
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
A lot of the things they said don't happen in poly's totally does happen. They WILL basically say they think your lying. They WILL stop the poly and interrogate you to try to get you to admit to things you may have/havn't done that may have triggered it to show up as a lie. They also aren't nearly as friendly as they seem to be in the video.
this is why america is royally FUCKED, you just can't help but completely polarize every argument until it leads to us vs them on every topic and no one is willing to give an inch.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I am a little bit of an authority on Robert Hansen, since I am Robert Hansen.
I am not Robert Hanssen, the treacherous FBI agent.
Hanssen also never took a polygraph. He avoided them like the plague. It was Hanssen's arrest that led to the FBI requiring polygraph of virtually all its agents.
But hey, I suppose factual accuracy is a bit much to ask from someone who can't even spell the guy's name right.
Mod parent down.
So you're saying that it is accurate ... for lies of a certain "weight" or larger.
LMAO
And your analogy is incorrect because the real polygraph can be fooled by you not caring about the lie. Even if the person interrogating you thinks it is an important issue.
So it's more like a digital scale that will tell you your weight ... well, not your actual weight ... more like if you're fat ... as long as you believe that you're fat ... and that you believe that you're fat enough for the scale to be able to tell that you're fat.
Isn't mentioning your clearance level grounds for having it taken away?
Either that or they know it for the bullshit it is.
Invented by the guy the gave us "Wonder Woman" and first adopted by the king of accepting kickbacks J.Edgar Hoover for fuck sake!
How could it possibly look like anything other than a snake oil scam?
The only reason it's still used is to avoid looking like saps that have been scammed for years, but the rest of the world still looks at the polygraph and laughs. It never should have been allowed to escape from the comic book and be used to have a major influence on people's lives.
Actually, it's not a DSS video, although it is made available on their website. The DSS's own security videos indicate the Defense Security Service's name: http://dssa.dss.mil/seta/training_videos.html You'll notice that the NSA video includes no mention of the agency that produced it. But the polygraph examiners shown on the video are NSA personnel.
George W. Maschke
AntiPolygraph.org
Worst summary EVER! "One type of food in your refrigerator might kill you. We'll tell you which one at 11:00." SUMMARIZE THE VIDEOS, SHITMITTER! DON'T JUST HINT AT THE CONTENTS. JESUS FUCK!
Yeah, but without the volcanoes. Big difference.
FMRI is a great tool, but it's not everything people wish it to be. If what I've read is to be believed, its promoters have fallen prey to the fallacy: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
In the realm of lie detection, I just saw the Mythbusters polygraph episode. I think they missed some things in their method, but it doesn't change the fact that the polygraph got 3/3 while the FMRI only got 2/3. Yes, this is anecdotal, but then so is most of the evidence against polygraph. (some of which is surely true)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
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.
Such places don't change easily. Still, It is much harder to change them from the outside, than from the inside. You are right, though. Those who aren't up to that kind of uphill battle can save themselves a lot of headache by avoiding it.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Penn and Teller taught an average person to fool a lie detector in about thirty minutes on their show, "Bullshit".
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Isn't mentioning your clearance level grounds for having it taken away?
No. If a clearance itself were classified, you couldn't even get to your office, since you wouldn't be able to discuss your clearance with the guard at the gate, because neither of you would be able to reveal that you had clearances until both of you had verified each other's clearance.
I took one at Fort Meade 8 years ago. And I can say this video is full of bullshit and PR lies. Don't believe it--they want to catch you with your pants down in a fucked up belief that it makes the test more accurate.
1) My results were propagated. That tidbit leaked through a FOIA request. Not comfortable revealing even as A/C who my results were leaked to. ...talk about things they normally wouldn't.
2) Polygraphers do ask questions that are not declared in advance. Among them are counterintelligence questions. Are you trying to cheat on this test, have you been trained in defeating this test, have you met with parties that taught you to defeat...
3) They do not reveal all questions in advance (see above)
4) They do change the questions on the fly. Including the speech patterns, orders, etc. Not just "have you ever stole" or "are you hiding anything about..." but "have you ever received stolen..." they change up the word order in slightly tricky ways. Despite the fact that it's yes/no questions, they want you to elucidate if you stumble on an answers.
5) The forms are irrelevant. The instrumentation and process is an excuse to try to 'get you to relax' so the examiner can befriend you and talk. I'm pretty sure they're all trained as therapists in getting people to
6) The examiners will force you into lying, or try to. This is really frustrating if you're a technically minded individual. They try to trick people into telling 'white lies'--and get very frustrated if they fail or if you ask them outright if they're trying to trick you. Any honest person knows they break the law several times a day--and assumes people don't care. If you're a geek, you may even be aware you probably commit several felonies before you go home from work. If you disclose this, it will not just be noted...but you'll see groans of exasperation. Then they say "other than what you disclosed, is there any..." Bottom line, this can take HOURS to hash out, at which point it gets so complicated it's impossible to answer truthfully. The examiners hate this.
7) The examiners are hostile. Not directly, but in subtle, strange ways. The room is setup in a confrontational manner. You're lower than them, there's cameras and recording equipment. You can't ask them to stop and clarify in a question run.
8) The test. Well, I had to go three times. In my case, I was never in a chair for less than three hours and was given shit when I had to use the rest room.
The lower parts may be subject to personal experience--but they're flat out lying that the questions don't change in the test or that they won't ask you anything unexpected.
I'm not sure if this is a reading comprehension fail, critical thinking fail or just an excuse to mention the TS clearance.
Anyone who's required to take the poly has gone through the process for a top secret clearance. Not everyone who has a TS has to take the poly.
Not all rectangles are squares.
I understand that NSA may be lying about polygraph tests. Or exaggerating. But why post a critique from antipolygraph.org? The prefix Anti- is in front of the word polygraph. It's not hard to deduce their stance. While everyone has biases, this is like asking a vegan their stance on slaughter house practices.
They are both inaccurate.
testing out my trending skills
I never took a poly...but then again, the clearance process and background checks on me started when I was 17. With that midwestern paper boy/Boy Scout/Junior Achievement/etc. kind of background, the only thing they could have dreamed up to ask me was whether or not I was a virgin.
I would have lied, of course.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Not the parent, posting in general reply to all the morons answering to this statement:
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.
with "that's not true, I have a TS clearance, but I didn't have to take the poly."
What part of the poly required being a subset of the TS clearance set don't you get? Are you ALL that bad at reading comprehension? Or maybe you just can't think critically and missed the day in 3rd grade when they taught that all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares?
Anway, the DSS is so incompetent, the clearance process is a joke anyway.
Not the parent, posting in general reply to all the morons answering to this statement:
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.
with "that's not true, I have a TS clearance, but I didn't have to take the poly."
What part of the poly required being a subset of the TS clearance set don't you get? Are you ALL that bad at reading comprehension? Or maybe you just can't think critically and missed the day in 3rd grade when they taught that all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares?
You left out the next sentence in the GP's post: "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."
Interesting bit of trivia: the polygraph was invented by the same fucking quack who came up with the "Wonder Woman" comic book character. (She has a magic lasso that makes people tell the truth.)
Using a polygraph is a piss-poor substitute for real investigation. Aldritch Ames kept passing his polys while he was getting every CIA agent in Russia killed or turned. Because he was passing the polys, they never checked up on basic questions like "Hey, why's this guy rich? He sure isn't making that much on his government salary."
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
only military jobs that require service members to work with nsa or other security agencies require a polygraph.
I've was in the Army...
I don't think that applies to you. You clearly didn't work for Army intelligence!
If you watch the video and read between the lines all those people are being set up to be afraid of the test and the big scary machine. There's pretty girls comforting them and telling them it will be ok, they do a 'practice run' before the real thing, etc.
This is what makes it work.
No sig today...
Let's also say that there are 1000 people that might be infected, ....
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.
Uhm, doing ANYTHING with 1 million people is going to cost more than doing the same thing with 1,000 people (except maybe sending them Viagra spam.) The per-person costs are the same, and if 1% accuracy is good enough for 1,000 people, it's good enough for 1,000,000 people.
What might change is that wit 1,000,000 people, it might make sense to invest some money to come up with a better test.
So your accuracy rates need to be in line with how many people are going to be screened.
This is rubbish. Number of people screened has no bearing on what the accuracy rate needs to be at all. What you want is a test where the cost of administering the test + the cost of dealing with false positives is less than the costs of not administering the test and dealing with the uncaught positives.
In the subject matter of hiring for the NSA, it makes sense to the NSA to use the polygraph tests if the costs of losing out on a few hires who get false positives is less than the costs of not catching nefarious parties only administration of the polygraph test would have caught (or dissuaded from applying entirely). That may not be the best outcome for each person getting hired, but it's the best outcome for the NSA, and the NSA's goal isn't to employ people.
In the medical context, you generally want the cost of the test plus the cost/impact of administering the test plus the cost of treating false positives to be less than the cost of not catching whatever you are testing for.
If it costs $100 to administer the test, and the test has a 1% false positive rate and the cost of a false positive is $1,000, that's a good test to take if even 2% of people have what you are testing for but the cost of not catching it is $10,000. It makes no difference whatsoever how many people you want to test.
paintball
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
They don't ask lifestyle questions (like if you are a virgin) on the normal background poly. They ask if you have debt, steal stuff, do drugs (ok, that's a lifestyle question), or if you have contact with foreign agents.
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.
If the needle wasn't moving at all then the tester was probably right to question if you were cooperating. Polygraphs measure respiration, blood pressure, and electrodermal activity (the needles serve to sketch waves of those features on a roll of moving paper). All of these would be showing some movement on a normal person, unless of course you were a Zombie at the time.
Polygraphers make their judgements by comparing the data collected from baseline questions (e.g. Is today Tuesday?) vs. irrelevant questions (e.g. Did you ever as a child steal money from your mom's purse) vs. relevant questions (e.g. Did you murder Bob?). They expect to see changes in physiology on each of these types of questions.
To most LE professionals, and others interested in credibility assessment, the biggest strength of the polygraph is as a professional tool. For example convincing that the person that: He man, we are just trying to get to the truth and that this is the last chance to come clean about everything before we go got the results of the polygraph. Once we get the results there is nothing we can do to help you, but if you come clean now we can tell the judge you were cooperative.
There's a reason that polygraph tests are 1.5-3 hours long. They are really really stressful and fatigue interviewees. That fatigue makes it a lot easier to get the person to provide more information. It might not be good information, but it is more information.
I was given a polygraph exam when the manager of the convenience store I worked at tried to cover up the fact that he was using company funds to finance his side business of selling illegal substances. He broke a window and claimed that there had been a robbery and everyone had to either take the exam or be terminated. Three of us were taken to the polygraph examination facility and we each were examined in separate rooms. After almost an hour of answering Yes or No to a series of questions, the examiner said that he needed to to one final test to calibrate the machine. He asked me to take a card from a deck and to answer "No" when he asked what card it was and he would tell me what the card was. It wasn't a standard deck, no suits, just big numbers so all he had to do was ask if the card was a 3, 6, 7, 8, etc. Then when he told me what my card was (7), I was convinced that the machine was able to tell if I had been lying and I confessed to having taken cigarettes and soft drinks without paying for them. Later, I compared notes with the other two and they both drew 7 as well and made similar confessions. The manager maintained that he had done nothing wrong so they didn't fire him, they just invoked the clause that said he was responsible for any shortage of funds and kept him on so that they could deduct the shortages from his pay. I quit in disgust.
Nonsense, it's a bit more than a prop, even if it is an inaccurate tool.
Beating a polygraph test is piece of cake. Aldrich Ames was worried about man an upcoming polygraph and his Russian handlers told him to get a good nights sleep and be friendly to the people administering the test. You can practice relaxing with biofeedback equipment which is essentially the same as a polygraph. You can take drugs like beta-blockers and tranquilizers that will make you dead to stress which is the mechanism of the polygraph. There are people on whom a polygraph doesn't work. My God, google "how to beat a polygraph".
As I understand it, for most agencies the Poly is only called up if your interviewer feels it is necessary. What criteria they use is up to them, but it's not applied to everybody. It probably comes out if the interviewer thinks the person is holding something back.
They did it because they didn't want to have that much staff and wanted an excuse to fire you. The polygraph was a gloss of formality on the process to give them a reason to fire you (without any "real" reason).
It figures that the NSA would post a video that has no user controls.
Did anyone else think that was weird?
Norman Mailer had a good idea in "Harlot's Ghost". Not sure if it was an original idea, or just one he heard from one of his CIA friends. Polygraph machines and their readers require a stable baseline to begin with. So to prevent anything useful from being recorded, agents would fill up on beans before a polygraph. The logic here is that your brain goes into a state of distress when you have to keep from shitting your pants. You get so focused on NOT shitting yourself that the polygraph reading is useless. Your reaction to any question will not cause a fluctuation outside of the baseline of your overall panic.
No, not necessarily. A polygraph is not required for a Top Secret security clearance, not even a TS/SCI. If you work for the FBI, CIA, NSA,DIA, or work in the Whitehouse, you will need what's called a Full Scope polygraph, or a polygraph that is a combination of two polygraphs usually administered separately. The CI poly is for actual counter intel - "Are you a spy?" type questions. The other test is called a Life Style poly, and up until 15 years ago, you could ask if someone was Gay, or engaged in 'deviant' behaviors. It's since changed to be more PC, but it's still unpleasant. Other things that can require a polygraph are certain defense contracts, where the customer stipulates that to have access to the data, you must pass either a CI, or a life style poly, or both. Outside of those situations, you are not required to have a poly to have a TS.
I bring nothing to the table.
Sorry it's long.. but bear with it.. Polygraph is a scare tactic to lead people into confessions, or admiting something. Here's the tip (Comes from faimly in L.E.).. in a criminal investigation (guilty not gulity, witness, suspect anything) NEVER say ANYTHING other than "I will wait for my concil" unless you have a lawyer present.
I've had personal experience with the PG, and the operators who run them due to application for an L.E position. Due to a case of mistaken identity by a neighbor of friend, the background investigator / opperator believed I had done something / was someone, whom I was not.
I was asked if there was anything that I'd like to go over prior to taking the exam (A last out for honesty) and it was administered. I was then told that I didn't do very well at all. Asked if there was anything I'd like to go over prior to my next test (If I recall the test was administered 3 consecutive times) nope.. Again.. didn't do very well.. I didn't admit that I had done things that I hadn't this time they tried to lead me towards admitting something I could not (It wasn't me remember), asking questions starting wtih.. Have you ever been in a situation that you have [insert allegation here], or are you sure there isn't ANYTHING that you'd like to talk about regarding this question on your background sheet. I think it was after the 3rd time that I was outright told that they KNEW what had happened, they had a neighbor say it. I explained that it had to be a case of mistaken identity, that there was someone who could have been mistaken for me from down / across the street that was involved, and that there should have been police reports with that persons detains on it..
At the end of the whole experience.. I nearly believed that it was me and that I had repressed the memory..
tldr; Polygraphs are an investigative tool to scare / cooerce those who it is used upon to admit or trip up and produce evidence that can be used against them or others. SO much so that it had me thinking I had done something that I was 100% free and clear from.
In some cases they even do a magic trick to "calibrate" it.
"I want you to answer no to all the questions about the card you drew" when it's always the ace of spades or something. Then they narrow it down with a faked binary search (you lied when you said it wasn't black, but you were telling the truth when you said it wasn't clubs!) to convince you it's legit.
The true tragedy here is not the NSA's video, but rather AntiPolygraph. I am by no fan of the polygraph, but geez.... AntiPolygraph could have done better with something other then taking the NSA ad, replaying it, and inserting about 2 minutes worth of "The NSA is lying!" commentary. They could have made a much better arguement. Like the polygraph or not, everything in the NSA video -was- true and is how a polygraph works... it may not be all rainbows and unicorns, but they didn't lie about the process. :)
Secret codewords / types of phrases? ;)
One that hath name thou can not otter
Well, if the device shows that I'm being completely honest, maybe I am.
If I was asked if Today is Tuesday, and I said "no", that would be a truthful statement.
If I was asked about stealing money from my parents, the answer would be "no", which is a truthful statement.
If I was asked if I killed Bob, and I said "no", that would also be a truthful statement.
I have no reason to lie on a polygraph, nor on a Scientologist's pseudoscience excuse for a polygraph (err, E-meter). I have discovered in life, it's not worth lying about things. If I do lie, I have to remember not only the truth, but the lie and who I told it to. If I make variations on that lie, I must also remember who received the variations. I then run the risk of two other parties comparing notes on my lie, or making the mistake of recounting the false claim incorrectly. It's much easier to tell the truth.
If someone took a pleasurable interview with a polygraph, and made it into an interrogation, they would see an increase in heart rate (a typical response when in a hostile situation). It wouldn't matter if I was on the machine for 5 minutes or 5 hours, they simply wouldn't be able to record a lie, because it's easier not to lie.
For the sake of polite society, it's sometimes easier to say nothing at all. Just because someone asks me a question, doesn't mean I have to share every bit of gossip that I've heard. "What happened to Bob" doesn't require the answer "Well, I heard from an unreliable source that he was screwing the babysitter." I don't know if it does or doesn't have any relevance, and if I do mention it, that would drag the babysitter and her parents into a mess that they likely have no involvement in.
That's a famous line to encourage a lie or half truth. I learned about those a long time ago, and know it's never used in my best interest. Or as the Miranda Act dictates, "Anything you say can and will be used against you...", which doesn't say or imply that any of my statements will be used in my best interest.
Ok, I'll come clean on Bob. I don't know anything about what may or may not have happened to him.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
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
The DOE DOES require polygraph for some Top Secret equivalent security clearances. I know someone who had to pass one to get a job and must pass one every five years.
Several people have said essentially this. The polygraph can measure your pulse and respiration rates, your blood pressure, your galvanic skin response, and from this data it can determine your pulse and respiration rates, your blood pressure and your galvanic skin response. No machine exists that can detect a lie. If a polygraph test uncovers any information at all it's because the person being tested offered it up. Anyone can "beat" a polygraph test simply by stating that they've told the truth as many times as necessary. A person's behavior during the test might raise concerns about other things, though. NR
that's all it is used for. It can't tell you if someone is lying or not, it only is used to try and convince someone not to lie. Anyone who says it really detects lies is a......... liar
That's right. They needed a reason to let go a large chunk of the staff after the Christmas season (this was at the now-defunct Service Merchandise), and probably hoped that by firing us, it would reduce our chances of being able to collecting unemployment compensation. When I asked to see the inventory paperwork that I had "messed up" they refused to produce any proof of their allegation. But they *did* produced a piece of paper and asked me to sign it. Without bothering to read it, I already knew what it said; it was to release SM of any legal liability in firing me. They must have hoped that most of the people they were firing were idiots. I refused (of course) and walked out.
Certainly I know about Turing, and I know that the US still has problems which can be blamed, in part, on slavery, so I don't believe that homosexuality will stop being a social issue anytime soon, but that doesn't meant that such opinions should go unanswered. Certainly such opinions should never be censored, and he has every right to make unhelpful comments (as far as I'm concerned, his local laws may say otherwise), but such comments (probably unthinkingly) reinforce anti-homosexual opinion. Indeed, if there wasn't prejudice against non-heterosexuals, my comment would have been entirely redundant.
I think, perhaps, that I forgot how much stigma is attached to homosexuality simply because the CS department at my uni (where I spend much of my time) has so many bisexual and homosexual students (approximately 70% of the male domestic students, mostly bisexual[1][2]), that it is generally assumed that any stranger who says they are heterosexual is probably in the closet and merely haven't spent enough time with sufficiently open people[3] to feel comfortable coming out (this is backed up by the fact that many of those who are completely out at uni are completely in the closet to their families).
In such an environment it is easy to forget what the real world is like, and even that one small department is not representative of the rest of the tech world.[4]
[1] I know this because last year someone posted "do it, faggot" on a departmental discussion board, which raised the question of "Which one?" and so lead to an informal study of students' sexuality. The methodology was simple but reasonably sound, albeit rather too long to put in a footnote.
[2] This, incidentally, made the CS club almost certainly the second-gayest club on campus (after the queer club), and far in excess of the "progressive" clubs who make a political stand on gay rights.
[3]Mild autism-spectrum disorders are fairly common, so there is a reasonable base of students who just don't care much about the social stigma, and a core of already-out students and a fairly small department all help here.
[4] wow that was long:
TL/DR: I know, but I thought it should be said. I forgot the real world, sorry..
All that matters is that the interrogee believes the test has some effect - the actual technology used is irrelevant.
And that's the point of fMRI as a lie detector :
The public starts to realise that there is a controversy surrounding polygraphs.
Whereas brain scanners still *sound* like something hitech and much more likely to work.
People are much more likely to believe in a fMRI (even if both are equivalently useless todetect lies).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
They filmed the thing in an actual facility - one that I have been in, and that is no joke. Ridiculous clouds painted on the light fixtures and all. I even recognized the woman behind the desk.
I believe they used actual employees, why wouldnt they it is far cheaper anyway.
The weird beach scenes painted on the walls are uncanny. That alone seems like some sort of psychological thing.
It is a really really weird place, but no way are they using porn actresses.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Your parsing is still full of fail.
The process is the same for those whose jobs require the poly, but not all Top Secret jobs require a poly. Both sentences of the parent, (now GGP post) are consistent with the preceding sentence.
Your (and others') posts = evidentiary proof that critical pathing intelligence is not a prerequisite for clearance.
"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."
Yeah, or, the polygrapher could have some sort of bias, couldn't he? Couldn't the polygrapher mistakenly _believe_ that, but be wrong?
If the polygraph is NOT 100%, weapons-grade bullonium, then what about the National Academy of Sciences report on the polygraph? What about the Aldrich Ames case? More specifically, why hasn't the polygraph been subjected to the kind of scientific, rigorous, double-blind testing that most other knowledge claims would be subjected to in this day and age?
There was a public inquiry here in Canada back in the 80s. The report the judge who presided over it produced is instructive reading. The judge was consistently frustrated by his inability to get a straight answer out of polygraph "experts" when he'd ask questions like "OK, show me where on these results that deception is indicated."
One of the things that this inquiry found was that you could replace the polygraph with a purely theatrical device and you'd get about the same results.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
SURE, NO DOUBT, THIS GUY GEORGE MASCHKE IS YOUR "FRIEND"
MAYBE HE WILL INTRODUCE YOU TO SOME OF HIS OTHER FRIENDS TOO. LIKE THE CHILD MOLESTORS IN COURT ORDERED PROGRAMS WHO VISIT HIS SITE AND WHO HE OPENLY ADVISES. THEY HAVE BUT ONE GOAL, TO BEAT THEIR COURT ORDERED TESTS TO CONTINUE TO MOLEST CHILDREN. YOURS AND MINE. THANKS GEORGE, BUT YOUR NOBODY TO BE ADMIRED IN MY OPINION.
AS IF THIS WERE NOT BAD ENOUGH, MR. MASCHKE, A PERSIAN FARSI AND ARABIC TRANSLATOR; HAS ON MULTIPLE OCCASSIONS BEEN ASKED IF HE HAS TRANSLATED HIS SUPPOSED COUNTERMEASURES INTO THOSE LANGUAGES FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR ENEMIES IN THE WAR ON TERROR. HIS RESPONSE IS THAT THIS IS SIMPLY NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
THE POLYGRAPH, AS USED BY THE NSA, OR ANY OTHER PROFESSIONAL IN THAT FIELD IS NOT PERFECT, NOR IS AVIATION OR MEDICINE. THEY DO HAVE THE TRAINING THOUGH TO USE THIS IN A WAY THAT BEST SERVES THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN THEIR PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENING AND ONGOING CONCERNS ABOUT SECURITY LEAKS.
IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR TRUTH, THEN YOU WILL FIND THAT MR. MASCHKE IS IN FACT JUST AN OBSESSED LITTLE ZEALOT WHOSE ONLY EXPERIENCE WITH THE POLYGRAPH IS THAT HE FAILED TWO OF THEM; ONE WITH THE FBI AND ONE WITH LAPD. YOU ARE NOW THE WISER AND SHOULD PROCEED TO GET HIRED FOR WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOU HAVE TO OFFER. DON'T BE A VICTIM OF JIHAD GEORGE MASCHKE AND FALL INTO HIS PIGEON HOLED LITTLE WORLD OF OBSESSION TOO.
Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll take a shot. Say I'm working at N.S.A. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people I never met, never had no problem with, get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Oh, send in the Marines to secure the area" 'cause they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number got called, 'cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass. And he comes back to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile, he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And, of course, the oil companies used the skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them, but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. And they're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, of course, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and fuckin' play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's got to walk to the fuckin' job interviews, which sucks 'cause the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starvin', 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat, the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what did I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. I figure fuck it, while I'm at it why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president.