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)."
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.
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...
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.
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.
Not allowed for court in the US either, though police do use it during their investigations.
Really, all you need is to convince the person you're investigating that it works ... then if they refuse|agree to take a polygraph they're probably guilty|innocent.
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." --Napoleon Bonaparte
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Really, all you need is to convince the person you're investigating that it works ... then if they refuse|agree to take a polygraph they're probably guilty|innocent.
Actually, as AntiPolygraph.org pointed out, it convinces people to submit to an interrogation without a lawyer. Standard interrogation techniques can get you to confess to things (sometimes to things you're not guilty of). They can also collect information that they can use against you in combination with other (mis)information.
See the Youtube video of a law school class by law professor James Duane http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646#. (Or see http://flexyourrights.com/)
Duane said, don't talk to the police if you're innocent. Don't talk to the police if you're guilty. Don't talk to the police without a lawyer.
You can tell the complete truth, and make a true statement that can be used against you to convict you.
Like: "I never liked the guy."
Or: "I was in the next town." Then they finds a witness who honestly thinks she saw you near the scene of the crime, and they use that to impeach your credibility.
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.
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
Thanks, now I have the hallelujah chorus stuck in my head.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Yesterday, upon the stair
I saw a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
I think he's from the NSA.
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
Tighten that sphincter.
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.
I've heard that story too, but the fact is that the photocopier lie detector has as much scientific evidence to support it as a Polygraph does.
Umm, there isn't actually a big green or red light that lights up to say you lied. That chill? It probably moved a needle a little bit. Maybe the person asks deeper questions. Maybe you tell them how pissed off you get at the thought of someone harming national security and acting against the nation - you know the truth. The fact that NSA uses the polygraph is pretty well known, I think some other Govt offices use it too. If you are so freaked out by taking the test then the solution is simple - don't apply for those jobs where it's a requirement.
FWIW when I was younger I was subjected to what was surely an illegal interrogation by a security guy for a drugstore where I worked. This guy did everything but beat me with a rubber hose. He had already interrogated many of the other employees and one by one they were fired. I had been told that I wasn't under suspicion for the missing controlled drugs (!) and not to worry. But after this guy fired like 6 people my number was up. I was in a tiny room seated, he stood over me and yelled. He told me he had video, he had witnesses, he had proof I was stealing and why didn't I just admit it. This went on for WELL over an hour and I was maybe 19 at the time. I asked to see the video, I asked to have witnesses come forward, I denied having stolen anything because I hadn't. I was sweating and scared and thought he was going to send me to jail - he was threatening to do so. He threatened to take the green-card of one guy's mother to get him to admit to something. Finally after forever he slammed down a piece of paper and told me to sign it. I asked what it was and he told me it was my ticket to keep my job. That piece of paper really said that he hadn't physically beaten me or coerced me and I stupidly signed it and was allowed to leave. I should have refused and sued the crap out of them but I was terrified. I was the ONLY person that fucker interviewed that wasn't fired! They later found out who was stealing - it was one of the temp pharmacists. Dumb-ass should have known they do a COUNT of every single pill in the controlled cases regularly - hell *I* knew that!
I also went through an interrogation in junior-high when an item went missing in a class. They claimed that the "anonymous papers" turned in by everyone in the class during the investigation (wtf?!) had pointed to me and that they recognized the handwriting as being from trustworthy students blah blah. I hadn't done it, I said as much. They got down to "okay if you didn't steal it but wanted to where would you hide it" kinds of questions - I told them to goto hell. That was actually easier than the interrogation by the security guy even though this was TWO teachers in a small room berating me. My parents took care of that one, I was told that if they ever tried that again I was to walk right the heck out the front door and keep on trucking - they also reamed the administrators. That was 8th grade for kripes sakes and I remember it like it was today. That too was over an hour and in today's schools is probably deemed okay since they have checked in girls panties and whatnot for Advil.
My kid EVER gets into a situation like either of those I will come down on someone with a hammer, that shit can scar you for life!
Those kinds of interrogations are far worse than any polygraph could possibly be. If someone asking you a question about something you didn't do scares you so badly then dude you need to get a grip. If you didn't do it say no and stick to it, better yet tell them you want a lawyer. If you're that scared of a machine test required for a job then don't apply for jobs that require it - how hard is that?
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
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."
Gee, a Libertarian who distrusts a government agency AND polygraphs? No way!
They use the poly against the subjects as a placebo. The real evaluation comes from the interrogation. It's a good thing the agency is much smarter than you give them credit for, though.
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