Slashdot Mirror


Feds Seek Prison For Man Who Taught How To Beat a Polygraph

George Maschke writes "In a case with serious First Amendment implications, McClatchy reports that federal prosecutors are seeking a prison sentence for Chad Dixon of Indiana, who committed the crime of teaching people how to pass or beat a lie detector test. Some of his students passed polygraphs and went on to be hired by federal agencies. A pleading filed by prosecutors all but admits that polygraph tests can be beaten. The feds have also raided and seized business records from Doug Williams, who has taught many more people how to pass or beat a polygraph over the past 30 years. Williams has not been criminally charged. I'm a co-founder of AntiPolygraph.org (we suggest using Tor to access the site) a non-profit, public interest website dedicated to exposing and ending waste, fraud, and abuse associated with the use of lie detectors. We offer a free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF) that explains how to pass a polygraph (whether or not one is telling the truth). We make this information available not to help liars beat the system, but to provide truthful people with a means of protecting themselves against the high risk of a false positive outcome. As McClatchy reported last week, I received suspicious e-mails earlier this year that seemed like an attempted entrapment. Rather than trying to criminalize teaching people how to pass a polygraph, isn't it time our government re-evaluated its reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy?"

12 of 374 comments (clear)

  1. Pseudoscience debunked? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's like going to jail for teaching people where to hit their head to pass a phrenology test...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Pseudoscience debunked? by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To me it seems he's being charged with heresy. The fist such charge in over 200 years.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Pseudoscience debunked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      having 'flunked' a lie detector test many years ago for a stupid shit job at radio shack, where i was 100% truthful, i know from my personal experience they are shit...
      on top of that, a couple of guys who I KNOW were lying, scamming, stealing, doping, snorting, salesdroid types, PASSED their lie detector tests from the same operator, in the same timeframe, for the same shit radio shack job...
      they went on to become managers...

    3. Re:Pseudoscience debunked? by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is embarrassing that over two millennia after the birth of Western civilisation ,we have degenerated to a point where we still believe that simple indicators can determine whether someone will steal, lie, or be just wonderful.

      Yep, the Middle Ages were pretty grim. Nowadays, roughly three millenia after the birth of Western civilization, we're slightly less retarded. But only slightly.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    4. Re:Pseudoscience debunked? by Imrik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe you didn't flunk the lie detector, they just wanted to hire people that could lie convincingly.

    5. Re:Pseudoscience debunked? by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Funny

      having 'flunked' a lie detector test many years ago for a stupid shit job at radio shack, where i was 100% truthful

      You're missing the point. Sales people are supposed to lie constantly. That's the real reason you were fired - not being able to come up with convincing lies in real time.

      --
      No sig today...
  2. Legal slippery slope by joe_frisch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it is illegal to teach people to avoid a polygraph, what about teaching other skills that can evade police detection. Is teaching encryption illegal? Is discussing mobile phone tracking illegal? Costuming and disguise?

    I think that it only makes sense to criminalize aiding a SPECIFIC crime, not providing tools that could be used to commit a crime

    1. Re:Legal slippery slope by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 5, Informative

      Reading the article, I 'think' he was aiding specific people that had committed crimes (gave methodology how to get around what they did), and that is how he was charged. The issue is fed.gov is using this as a platform to give the appearance he was charged just for teaching anti-poly alone to cast a net of FUD around other who do so.

    2. Re:Legal slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What next, charging criminal defense attorneys for prepping their clients before they testify? For trying to poison the pool of potential jurists (just like the prosecution does too)?

  3. conspiracy? by nten · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is this the same guy that was on /. a few weeks ago because he taught undercover agents who *told* him they were planning to commit a crime with the information he gave them? A /. lawyer indicated that helping someone who told you they were going to commit a crime, is a crime. That makes sense to me. If I'm driving my taxi and some pleasant old lady gets in and asks to be driven to the bank so she can rob it, I'm going to get out of the car and call the police, not drive her to the bank. Does that count as a car analogy?

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
  4. Re:Well, of course. by George+Maschke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One sure fire way to fail a federal polygraph is to admit up front that you've researched polygraphy, you know that it has no scientific basis, and that it's vulnerable to simple countermeasures that you have read about and understood (but promise not to use them). When the "test" is done, you'll be accused of deception, attempted countermeasures, or both.

    --

    George W. Maschke
    AntiPolygraph.org

  5. Re:Witchcraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Next time they will charge a swimming instructor for teaching women how to beat the "witch" test.