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)."
There's a reason why in Canada they're not considered an instrument reliable for court. But the RCMP use it for hiring you. Yep just gonna go over here...
Om, nomnomnom...
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 aren't lie detectors. They are used to assess truthfulness. Much of the magic is not in the machinery itself but in subjecting the person under assessment to unfamiliar, semi-stressful conditions while asking probing questions. It's basically a game of manipulation for the polygrapher.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
It's easy to fake a polygraph test when the stakes are low. Its much more difficult when your job or freedom are on the line. Not impossible, but certainly much more difficult than what Penn and Teller did.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Penn & Teller taught a random woman who answered a Craig's List ad how to fake a polygraph response in less than 30 minutes.
I guess you refer to one of these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9NSXy176oA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bScv6kfxRyE
https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1247844645
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
So its just like a Scientology body thetan test machine?
It's the same situation down here, too. Police forces and various government offices use polygraphs while hiring. It makes sense, really. They want to make sure that you can lie convincingly. I'm not really sure the purpose of putting sociopaths in power, though.
There is a big difference between Absolute Truth and Personal Truth. Polygraphs detect Personal Truth. If you purposefully say something you believe to be untrue, there are generally certain biological responses made throughout your body and that is what the polygraph picks up.
Or that you actually were a good boy, so you'd be more likely to obey whatever daddy NSA tells you to do.
Oh come on, everyone knows that the NSA means No Such Agency. Its just a figment of your imagination...
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
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.
So just down 20 cups of coffee before taking the test. When you yourself are caffeine speeded, shivering in cold sweat and not able to tell up from down, the machine will have a very difficult job assessing your truthfulness.
Football Odds
Except it's actually so bad for their intended use that it's a hindrance to their job, not a help.
Let's say you have a test for a virus that is 99% accurate, but 1% of the time, it gives a false positive (says someone has the virus, but doesn't). Let's also say that there are 1000 people that might be infected, but nobody is sure. All of them are tested, and on average, 10 of them will show up as false positives. That number can probably be delt with, perhaps with a more expensive (but more accurate) test, or maybe the treatment is no big deal (so they can just get an injection and go on).
OTOH, let's say that 1 million people might be infected. Test all of them and there ends up being 10,000 false positives. Now the costs of the more accurate test start rising. Perhaps the treatment is more dangerous or expensive (rabies shots used to be pretty nasty, for example), so you really don't want to use it on people who aren't really sick.
So your accuracy rates need to be in line with how many people are going to be screened. If its use is highly targeted, then a test that's 90% accurate might be OK. If it's more of a general screening, then it needs to go into the five-9's kind of accuracy, perhaps more.
Polygraphs are nowhere near 90% accurate. It's maybe 70% accurate, and has both false positives and false negatives. For general job screening, like the NSA is using it for here, that's nowhere near good enough. It might be good enough for police investigations as a way of seeing if they're on the right track, but there's a reason it's not considered admissible court evidence in the US.
Of course, all this is only focusing on the basic statistical issues. There's a whole other set of arguments surrounding privacy, which matter even if a future technology is 99.999% accurate.
Not a typewriter
I would refuse to take a polygraph test under any circumstances. Therefore, my cooperation has no correlation with my guilt or innocence.
By the way, why would I refuse to take such a test? Simple. It cannot help you in any way. They can take the things you say in the test and use them against you in court, but no matter how flawlessly you pass the test, as a defendant you cannot call on any of that testimony in the court room. Only the prosecution can call testimony from police interviews. So basically, it can hurt you, but it legally cannot help you at all.
Not really. I'm neither guilty nor innocent, I'm not even connected to a crime and I will refuse to take a polygraph test if ever asked- for any reason.
It's the same when a cop pulls you over and asks to search the car or something. I always default to no you may not. They usually reply with something about something to hide and I reply that if they knew that, they wouldn't need my permission to nibshit through my stuff. I then ask if I'm free to go. Of course they will not find anything if they look, but I'm more worried about them finding something that wasn't there before they looked. If they are honest, then it won't be a problem. If they are not honest, then it's a door to escape the issues at their hand.
It might be a different story is there was some trust surrounding the officers enforcing the laws, but a fe bad apples spoiled that a long time ago and continue to keep it rancid today. The problem is that you cannot tell which are the good cops and which are the bad cops and it's best to just not take chances. Especially when they want to search you or pin something on you that you had nothing to do with.
Is that supposed to be a valid defense? A test which has apparently been universally decried as enormously inaccurate is being used to deny people employment. And like the guy said in the video, if you fail for applying to the NSA then you might not be able to gain employment for other government agencies because they keep the result on file.
Man I would totally fail a polygraph test. Look at this, it happens all the time. I bet if I were put into a one on one interrogation for an hour I would say whatever they wanted even though I was innocent. In the video when the interviewer was watching the lady closely and asked "Have you ever participated in espionage against the United States" a chill went down my spine. False positive!
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
Don't talk to the police if you are innocent or guilty and without a lawyer...good advice.
Don't take a poly from the agency you'd like to work for? Terrible advice.
If you want to work for the agency, you don't have any choice. Go ahead.
But as AntiPolygraph.org documented, many of the organizations that give you a polygraph make get it wrong, make false accusations, and reject applicants because of false positives. The operators are even under an incentive to reject people, even falsely. Once you get rejected from one agency for failing a lie detector test, you're blackballed from others.
AntiPolygraph.org had a story like that about a guy who applied to a police department in Texas. The examiner accused him of lying, the police department rejected him, and he couldn't do anything about it.
The other thing I would point out was that the NSC in the video required its employees or applicants to sign a statement that their test was "voluntary." That was a lie. It was coerced. If you didn't take the test, you wouldn't get the job.
One of the most annoying things about the procedure is that the whole thing is full of deception and unfairness. They even force you to lie.
You can make your own decision. I wouldn't work for an organization like that. It's not what I'm after in life. What can they offer? You can work in places that are honest.
Don't take a poly from the agency you'd like to work for? Terrible advice.
At risk of sounding like one of those asshole girls, "if they would discriminate against me, then I don't want to work for them" (because fundamentally, I have a right to)
NO!
Refusing to take a poly from anyone is the best choice you can make. Once you consent to the examination, there are two possibilities: you either pass and they believe you (neutral result compared to your position before) or you fail and they dismiss you (a result worse than you started at).
Refuse ALL polygraph tests, there is no empirical evidence to support them, and you should absolutely object to any of them that are offered. If the entity requesting the poly then declines to hire you, then you are better off, than if you consent and they fail you on the poly.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Don't take a poly from the agency you'd like to work for? Terrible advice.
Work for an agency that can't tell quackery from science? Terrible idea.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You are right as to what it indicates. And parent poster was right as to the implications of that indication. If you cannot control your physiological reactions to different stress inputs, you're probably not the type they are looking for. Source of the stress is irrelevant.
I disagree that this "ability to control your physiological reactions" is relevant.
This is done as a screening process for national security secrets.
I am not mistaking terms. The tool is ineffective due to far too high rate of a false positive and false negative.
The polygraph is not given to gauge one's ability to control physiological responses in response to emotion, it is given to gauge a person's honesty while answering questions.
If a polygraph were used under different circumstances where its results were meaningful, then the tool would be effective, however:
The Polygraph is absolutely and unequivocally INEFFECTIVE at determining honesty.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS