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)."
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.
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.
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)
#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.
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?
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.
...do they do with uncooperative respondents? If someone refuses to say anything but "Mickey Mouse" while strapped to their glorified E-meter, would that be seen as an exercise in 5th amendment rights in the States? I mean, if ANYTHING they say about lie detectors is true, then someone's nonverbal responses to questions should be considered "speech," right?
I don't know of any situation in which you can be forced to submit to a polygraph. However, your security clearance will probably be revoked or denied.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Yeah, but without the volcanoes. Big difference.
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.
It is absolutely that bad. I took the test for a job at the NSA. I had nothing to hide. I am/was the most straightedge person on the planet.
I was strapped to the machine for 3.5 hours while they asked me the same 6 questions at least 8-12 times. Every time they told me that I was flunking the question regarding "falsifying information on my NSA security forms." I falsified nothing.
Once they detect a problem they shift from Mr. nice we'll have you in and out in five minutes guy to an actual interrogator. He left me alone in the room to sweat it out for 20 minutes. He kept going back to different things on my forms trying to catch me in a lie. He gave me all the lines about how he was just trying to help playing the ridiculous good cop/bad cop game with a guy who just wanted to do some interesting math not blow up the country.
I wasn't lying about anything by I was treated like a criminal. It was honestly one of the worst experiences of my life. I never found out if I passed or not as I ended up working at a DOE lab. If they had told me that I had to come back to try again I would have withdrawn my application. I wasn't lying the first time, why would the results be any different the second. And with the dogs sniffing in my car and the insane psych exam the whole culture seemed toxic and paranoid. I work at an NW lab now and IT has looser security than the NSA interview site has.
The machine does not work, end of story. And any propaganda video that tells you the polygraph is a painless procedure is a complete load of crap. A friend of mine later had a similar experience so I know it wasn't just me.
The fact that the "stakes are high" doesn't justify a technique that doesn't work. There are much less expensive techniques that also don't work (e.g. a coin toss) if the government feels it must do something.
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."
And that invalidates the previous claim about how a polygraph works.
If it measures the responses to telling a lie, then it should be able to work no matter what the lie is.
Therefore, it does NOT accurately measure the responses of telling a lie.
You guys just do not get it, at all, because you have never had any kind of security clearance interview (poly or not)
The line of questioning is everything, the machine is just a tool to detect signs of stress the examiner can't already see. The machine doesn't pass/fail you, the examiner does.
How do you tell if someone is lying? Ask them the same questions different ways, at random points in the interview. Focus on subjects they are nervous about. It can be that fucking simple. /., reverse engineer this, you know, the actual fucking problem poly's are used to solve: How would you tell if somebody is lying to you? If you really cannot imagine a methodology that works better than 50% of the time, punch yourself in the face right now and get off /. If you CAN, and you don't understand how a machine that can indicate signs of stress not visible to the eye is useful in that methodology, why haven't you punched yourself in the face yet?
If you're all really geeks here on
This thread has gone full-throttle-retarded. Think people, think. Stop arguing about the presupposed purpose of this machine, and think about the problem. Then go back to what the machine actually IS. Nod your heads and move on.
Why would you take _my_ word for it? Don't. Think about it your damned self. Internet solved.
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.
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".
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. :)