Slashdot Mirror


Feds Target Instructors of Polygraph-Beating Methods

schwit1 writes "Federal agents have launched a criminal investigation of instructors who claim they can teach job applicants how to pass lie detector tests as part of the Obama administration's unprecedented crackdown on security violators and leakers. The criminal inquiry, which hasn't been acknowledged publicly, is aimed at discouraging criminals and spies from infiltrating the U.S. government by using the polygraph-beating techniques, which are said to include controlled breathing, muscle tensing, tongue biting and mental arithmetic. So far, authorities have targeted at least two instructors, one of whom has pleaded guilty to federal charges, several people familiar with the investigation told McClatchy. Investigators confiscated business records from the two men, which included the names of as many as 5,000 people who'd sought polygraph-beating advice. U.S. agencies have determined that at least 20 of them applied for government and federal contracting jobs, and at least half of that group was hired, including by the National Security Agency. By attempting to prosecute the instructors, federal officials are adopting a controversial legal stance that sharing such information should be treated as a crime and isn't protected under the First Amendment in some circumstances."

48 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. Only if they have a phrenology test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean if we are going to go with the crackpot solutions we wouldnt want phrenology to feel left out, i believe it has some valuable insight and wait till i tell you about alchemy and auras.

    1. Re:Only if they have a phrenology test by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      What, no jobs for ESPers? What kinda prejudiced quackery is that?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Only if they have a phrenology test by camperdave · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, the horoscope said it was a bad time to hire psychics.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Only if they have a phrenology test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Phrenology is a bad example for crackpot science: in a time when all psychology was still stated in religious terms such as "soul" it was one of the first attempts to come up with something rational & measurable.

      Phrenology turned out to be wrong, because it was falsifiable. Mainstream psychology at that time wasn't even wrong.

    4. Re:Only if they have a phrenology test by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative

      The only science that's been found to be behind it is that people are slightly less likely to lie if they think that a lie detector will call them out on it.

      Monitoring breathing, et al, doesn't mean it is capable of detecting lies. Me saying "molecules", "atoms", and "memory" doesn't make homeopathy have a science between it either...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Only if they have a phrenology test by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I still don't understand why people assume monitoring breathing, heart rate, and skin conductivity is a 'crackpot' solution.

      OT3 here. Allow me to clean this misconception up. FYI: e-meters work the same way.

    6. Re:Only if they have a phrenology test by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      It's not that polygraph machines are sometimes unreliable, it's that they are utterly unreliable. For all the reliance law enforcement has had on them over the years, they are essentially voodoo. The simply fact is that they don't work, and what little they do do is placebic, in that the ignorant may fear being hooked up to a machine about as useful as L Ron Hubbard's e-meter and thus be spooked into confessing.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Only if they have a phrenology test by nbauman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I still don't understand why people assume monitoring breathing, heart rate, and skin conductivity is a 'crackpot' solution. There is a scientific basis behind it, unlike most actual 'crackpot' areas. It doesn't ALWAYS work, and it's (clearly) beatable, but it's still a science.

      That's a fair question. Suppose you have a technique that was developed by scientific exploration, it's tested, and it turns out not to work. Is it science (but discredited science), or is it just not science at all?

      It's not like they're praying to the aliens in orbit to read the person's mind and tell them if they're lying or not.

      I'd like to see a controlled trial in which one team reads peoples' minds by praying to aliens, and the other team uses a lie detector. Which team will be better at detecting lies?

    8. Re:Only if they have a phrenology test by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only science that's been found to be behind it is that people are slightly less likely to lie if they think that a lie detector will call them out on it.

      Penn and Teller did an program about lie detectors. Firstly, why are they not being prosecuted, since they explained how to beat them?

      They explained that what happens is that the lie detector is a BS machine, but after the test is "over", the interviewer tells them that the lie detector showed that they were lying and that they should come clean. Many people then tell the interviewer the truth.

      According to Penn and Teller, fooling the lie detector is simple: spoof the results by contracting and releasing a large muscle (they suggested the sphincter muscles) during the interview. This will destroy the value of any baseline measures.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    9. Re:Only if they have a phrenology test by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not to forget, lie detector test have zero impact on psychopaths, so basically the worst of the worst will pass, kind of making the lie detector scam pointless, or more accurately the question reaction flim flam show pointless. This being the reason they are banned in most countries. This really stinks of the FBI intending to use fake like detector tests to incriminate any one they want too and these plans are threatened by the exposure.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. First the came for the poly dudes by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But I was not a poly dude, so I was all: 'Meh'.
    Then they came for the yoga instructors, since relaxation is where it's at, and I was kinda: 'Urf?'
    Then they came for my surf board.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  3. Be interesting if the course were a book by transporter_ii · · Score: 2

    Be interesting if the course were a book and they sold it on Amazon instead of teaching a class. Make the 1st Amendment kick in a little harder.

    --
    Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    1. Re:Be interesting if the course were a book by transporter_ii · · Score: 5, Informative

      A quick search on Amazon turned up:

      How to Beat a Lie Detector Test (Secrets Series) by Steve Gillman (Jul 20, 2010)
      Beat the box: The insider's guide to outwitting the lie detector by Vlad Kalashnikov (1983)
      Deception Detection: Winning The Polygraph Game by Charles Clifton (May 1991)

      --
      Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    2. Re:Be interesting if the course were a book by TarPitt · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Applied Cryptography" used exactly this method when crypto algorithms were subject to export controls.

      You couldn't export say the source code for DES, but you could include the source code in a book on crypto, as first amendment protections applied.

      The first amendment even protected use of an OCR friendly font for the source code.

      --
      If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
    3. Re:Be interesting if the course were a book by jeti · · Score: 2

      And you can probably forget about your security clearance if you order any of these books.

  4. How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just admitting that Polygraphs are not reliable indicators of truthfulness?

    1. Re:How about by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      According to an NAS study, they're something like 85% reliable. The problem with an 85% reliable test is that it will produce a lot of false positives and false negatives. People you should have hired will be screened out and people you shouldn't have hired will be accepted. Older-fashioned methods work better. Interview the person, the family members, long time acquaintences and co-workers. Ask open-ended questions about the person's relationships, how they work with others, how they view authority, what they do in the community, etc. You'll discover anything that's relevant before long.

      Subjecting people to lie detectors is all about threats and intimidation. They probably deter more bad people from even applying than they screen out in the test, but they also deter good people who have no confidence in polygraphs. But those people are also detered by the prospect of somebody prying into their life like they do in DOD type security screenings.

    2. Re: How about by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Just admitting that Polygraphs are not reliable indicators of truthfulness?"

      If they do that, they have to stop using the non-functioning bomb- detectors as well, we can't have that!

    3. Re:How about by camperdave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lie detectors are 100% reliable. If I see one at a job interview, it is a sure sign that I don't want to work there.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:How about by jonbryce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And lets look at this 85% reliability more carefully.

      Supposing you have 1,000,000 non-terrorists and 100 terrorists. You ask them if the are a terrorist, and use the lie detector to determine whether or not they are telling the truth. Everyone says they are not a terrorist. The lie detector will identify 150,085 people as terrorists, of which only 85 are actually terrorists. In otherwords, if the lie detector says you are a terrorist, there is a 0.057% probability that you are actually a terrorist.

      How do these figures work?

      Of the 1,000,000 non-terrorists, it will correctly identify 850,000 of them as being non-terrorists, and incorrectly identify 150,000 as being terrorists. Of the 100 terrorists, it will correctly identify 85 of them as being terrorists, and incorrectly identify 15 of them as not being terrorists. A total of 150,085 people identified as terrorists, only 85 actually are.

  5. Protecting a lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IALA

    The real crime here is that law enforcement agencies are using such a notoriously unreliabletechnology for investigatory and evidentiary purposes. Polygraphs have absolutely no place in the modern justice system.

    1. Re:Protecting a lie by interval1066 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real crime here is that law enforcement agencies are...

      THE REAL crime here is that there is NO WAY this Fed action passes the first amendment smell test. ANYONE has an ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to say whatever they want about lie detectors, yet no one seems to give a wiff.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    2. Re:Protecting a lie by nbauman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The issue isn't any of the First Amendment rights. The issue is that the undercover agents tricked the instructors into believing that they were helping people commit a crime.

      Several people familiar with the investigation said Dixon and Williams had agreed to meet with undercover agents and teach them how to pass polygraph tests for a fee. The agents then posed as people connected to a drug trafficker and as a correctional officer who’d smuggled drugs into a jail and had received a sexual favor from an underage girl.

      I think it's entrapment, but the Supreme Court doesn't agree.

    3. Re:Protecting a lie by nbauman · · Score: 2

      Any public defender worth making his salary should be able to show a message being taken by an innocent bystander, I've seen such scenarios play out in courts. Inncent bystanders usually don't get rail roaded, at least as a matter of prosecutorial policy.

      Not usually, but it does happen. Some prosecutors think that their job is to prosecute as many people as they can and get the longest sentences they can. When defense lawyers start collecting cases of unjust sentences, there are a lot of cases of drug dealers' girlfriends who were peripherally involved but got longer sentences than the actual dealers, because the girlfriends had nothing to offer in a deal.

      The quality (and salary) of public defenders varies greatly.

      Even the real crooked prosecutors get warned by judges to lay off innocent people from time to time, if its plain to see they are in fact innocent.

      Maybe it's just the outrageous cases that wind up in the newspapers, but I read about a lot of them. America seems to have turned into the world's biggest police state. College kids get 10, 20 years for dealing drugs? It's sin and punishment run amuck.

  6. So it's come to this by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Finally, we have a case for information being outlawed.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:So it's come to this by mspohr · · Score: 2

      They will most likely send a SWAT team (without a search warrant):
      Texas SWAT raid destroys organic farm:
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/texas-swat-team-conducts-_n_3764951.html

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  7. QL'EB? by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's like attacking tarot readers for claiming they can work out when palmists are making shit up.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  8. Polygraphs by onyxruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why the hell are polygraphs still being used in the 21st century? They aren't admissible in a court of law for a damned good reason. They are junk science and no better than a voodoo board. The only thing they do is tell whether or not your nervous. They are a perfect example of something that provides a false sense of security as Ames and your other famous spies all /passed/ their lie detector tests. These things need placed in the museum of junk science post haste.

    1. Re:Polygraphs by Nidi62 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The only thing they do is tell whether or not your nervous.

      Not even nervous. I took a polygraph (well, voice stress analysis) as part of the hiring process for a fairly large metropolitan police force (with a Masters degree I would have started out at roughly $45k per year base, as opposed to the roughly 25k I am making at my current job. Yay shitty economy). One question was so absurd (have I ever hired a prostitute) that I laughed as I replied in the negative. Of course the readout then showed "stress" in my voice. However the baseline tests (which were the exact same questions)showed I was being truthful. In the end, after going through the whole hiring process, passing the physical test and everything, they decided not to hire me. In the end I think it was a good thing though, because this particular police department is not the most reputable in my city, and now I can see why.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Polygraphs by jonbryce · · Score: 2

      That is the case in Europe. They still sell all the stuff, but there is nothing at the point of sale to say what it is supposed to do.

  9. Our President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is now more immoral and corrupt than his predecessor. That is quite a feat for anyone.

  10. Bad summary is bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    They aren't arresting people for just teaching the methods. The instructor they arrested had trained two undercover agents posing as criminals that wanted to lie on the exam. One was a drug trafficker and the other a correctional officer that smuggled drugs into prison and received sexual favors from an underage girl. The instructor taught them how to cover up those crimes. Seems pretty simple to me. If you say you want to rob a bank, and I give you a gun to do it I'm criminally liable for it. Why isn't fraud the same? It would be one thing if the instructor didn't know they were criminals, but he did. The summary makes it sound as if they're wantonly arresting people.

    1. Re:Bad summary is bad. by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes it sounds like they're going after them for conspiracy rather than simply teaching these techniques, which is the sort of legal technicality beloved of prosecutors, but you're missing the bigger point. This is not analogous to someone selling a gun to a person who says they want to rob a bank; it's analogous to letting someone take your chemistry class even though they say they want to make a bomb to blow open a bank safe. This is stopping the dissemination of information because it could be used for nefarious purposes.

      Additionally, the undercover agents said that they already did commit these crimes, not that they were planning on using these techniques to commit crimes in the future. If potentially helping somebody to beat the charges is a crime, then why are defense attorneys legal?

    2. Re:Bad summary is bad. by camperdave · · Score: 2

      They aren't arresting people for just teaching the methods. The instructor they arrested had trained two undercover agents posing as criminals that wanted to lie on the exam. One was a drug trafficker and the other a correctional officer that smuggled drugs into prison and received sexual favors from an underage girl. The instructor taught them how to cover up those crimes. Seems pretty simple to me. If you say you want to rob a bank, and I give you a gun to do it I'm criminally liable for it. Why isn't fraud the same? It would be one thing if the instructor didn't know they were criminals, but he did. The summary makes it sound as if they're wantonly arresting people.

      Thing is... robbing a bank is a crime. Lying on a job interview isn't.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Bad summary is bad. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      The problem is that you are confusing what happens in a criminal investigation with what is admissible in a court of law. Plenty of people have, no doubt, been convicted of crimes they didn't commit because they took a polygraph and threw a false positive, at which point the "investigators" stopped looking for the real criminal and started fabricating ... er ... gathering evidence that tends to convict the innocent party and ignoring evidence that might point toward exoneration.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    4. Re:Bad summary is bad. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      "; it's analogous to letting someone take your chemistry class even though they say they want to make a bomb to blow open a bank safe."

      In the US, this is known as a consiracy, so yes, you are correct. If a person makes clear that they are seeking information from you that will help them commit a crime, and you give them that information, then you are indeed complicit in that crime under US law. For example, if someone asks you where a person will be at a certain time and makes it clear that they want to know so they can kill them, and you tell them, you are as guilty as they are of murder.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    5. Re:Bad summary is bad. by tomhath · · Score: 2
      The linked article is obviously very biased, as is the slashdot headline. Why this made the front page is a mystery. One quote form the article stands out:

      Dixon, 34, also declined to provide specifics on his guilty plea but he said he’d become an instructor because he couldn’t find work as an electrical contractor. During the investigation, his house went into foreclosure. “My wife and I are terrified,” he said. “I stumbled into this. I’m a Little League coach in Indiana. I don’t have any law enforcement background.”

      In other words, the guy was committing fraud by charging for this "instruction". He was convicted of fraud. The Big Brother angle is all hype and speculation.

  11. But isn't the real point.... by 3seas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...Polygraphs can be beaten and as such are not reliable!
    Deniability is man most powerful tool. So really its all about abstraction. What definition do you apply to the questions or do you simply deny the questioner over your own internal thoughts?

    The ability of beat a polygraph might actually be a quality the government is looking for....... considering all the lies they have told and certainly spying would find the ability to beat a polygraph an asset.

    So you see, its really all null and void this polygraph issue.

    Now what more does anyone need to consider in their mental state to beat a polygraph?

  12. 20th Century Witchcraft by rwyoder · · Score: 5, Informative

    Over the years I've seen 3 investigative reports on TV, and read many articles on the topic. It all comes down to the same thing: The polygraph is just a stage prop in an interrogation, for the purpose of scaring the ignorant into confessing. Here is Penn & Tellers report:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NLf7XwLpyQ

  13. Streisand Effect, anyone? by CaptainOfSpray · · Score: 5, Informative

    Let's spread the news of how to beat polygraphs as widely as possible. Now we have the government banning it, that makes it desirable knowledge, OK?

    From TFA: "Charles Honts, a psychology professor at Boise State University, said laboratory studies he’d conducted showed that countermeasures could be taught in one-on-one sessions to about 25 percent of the people who were tested. Polygraphers have no reliable way to detect someone who’s using the techniques, he said. In fact, he concluded that a significant number of people are wrongfully accused."
    Mirror these sites and anything else you feel relevant
    http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-(Lie-Detector)
    https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-034.shtml

    --
    "Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
  14. Re:Obstructing an agency proceeding and wire fraud by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    Wire fraud is a great crime.

    Basically it captures any thing in the internet which even might involve money at some point, e.g. fines for copyright infringement, payment for services. And has huge maximum terms. So since almost everything involves money at some point and many things happen over the internet it allows them to add almost arbitrarily long sentances to something that would otherwise get almost nothing.

    Basically the perfect legislation as far as they are concerned.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  15. So by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > Investigators confiscated business records from the two men, which included the names of as many as
    > 5,000 people who'd sought polygraph-beating advice.

    Which was, of course, the real goal. Much like seizing the records of companies that sell hydroponics equipment.

    So what has this incident taught these instructors, whether they be good or evil?

    1. Cash-only and don't use records.
    2. If someone says they want to do evil, give them their money back and kick them from the class. Otherwise, don't ask, don't tell.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  16. Re:Oh man, oh man by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

    This comment is offensive to retarded people. They shouldn't be tainted with the same brush as jackbooted thugs.

    Also an insult to lump them in with people that believe in polygraph, dowsing and homeopathy.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  17. Re:Oh Americans by Joce640k · · Score: 2

    I don't think the "polymorphic overlords" are here yet... unless Obama really is a giant weasel and not just pretending to be one.

    --
    No sig today...
  18. Liars to fedgov ARE criminal by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

    But they were not criminals, the lied to the instructor, so the instuctor was training liars not criminals.

    Lies to fedgov are not protected by the first amendment, and fedgov makes job applicants waive their rights anyway. It is a crime to lie on a security clearance application, and a crime to lie to a federal agent. Helping someone lie to a federal agent is therefore also a crime.

    1. Re:Liars to fedgov ARE criminal by mbone · · Score: 4, Informative

      Note, however, that is it not a crime for a federal agent to lie to you. Symmetry does not apply.

  19. Next they'll issue a warrant for by mark_reh · · Score: 2

    George Costanza: "It isn't a lie if you believe it"

  20. Re:Oh man, oh man by Zemran · · Score: 2

    This comment is obviously offensive to jackbooted thugs as it clearly implies that they are lower in the social order than retarded people. This is clearly not the case as it takes considerable intellect to work out how to put on a pair of jackboots or even know what they are. You cannot go into your local mall and ask for a pair of jackboots, they never have them in stock. So simply being able to purchase a pair of jack boots shows considerable intellect.

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.