Indiana Man Gets 8 Months For Teaching How To Beat Polygraph Tests

A week ago, we posted news that federal prosecutors were seeking jail time for Chad Dixon, an Indiana man who made money teaching others how to pass polygraph examinations. Now, reader Frosty Piss writes that Dixon "was sentenced Friday to eight months in prison. Prosecutors described Chad Dixon as a 'master of deceit.' Prosecutors, who had asked for almost two years in prison, said Dixon crossed the line between free speech protected under the First Amendment and criminal conduct when he told some clients to conceal what he taught them while undergoing government polygraphs. Although Dixon appears to be the first charged publicly, others offering similar instruction say they fear they might be next. 'I've been worried about that, and the more this comes about, the more worried I am,' said Doug Williams, a former police polygraphist in Oklahoma who claims to be able to teach people to beat what he now considers a 'scam' test."

Comments

Hell hath no fury ..

[UnknownSoldier]

... like the government scorned when one shows that their "system" is a house of cards.

Yeah, lets shoot the messenger and ignore the message. That will "solve" the problem. Oh wait....

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[AmiMoJo]

Except that the prosecution was based on his helping people to not just beat the polygraph, but to lie to government agencies in order to get jobs. In other words simple fraud.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[king neckbeard]

If simple fraud is against the law, then why aren't we prosecuting the fraudsters administering the tests? They are using a pseudoscientific test that will only weed out the really stupid "bad guys" and will keep out a number of qualified individuals. AFAIK, he only taught them how to fool a lie detector, and to lie about knowing how to fool a lie detector, because if you admit that, you are instantly out of the running.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[girlintraining]

... like the government scorned when one shows that their "system" is a house of cards.

It isn't a house of cards, it's just not a highly reliable method. Look at it this way... Let's take a series of pass/fail tests, each with a different detection probability. And let's say that the odds of them catching you in round 1 are 65%, then 84%, then 70%. Is the cumulative effect of this higher than 84%? Yes. Each layer adds a little bit, but each layer also has diminishing returns. This is how government looks at security with regards to, say airport scanners, or terrorist watch lists, or polygraph testing. They know that the individual methods by themselves are shit. They're just hoping that with enough layers, enough randomized checks, and everything else, that the final result will be a high detection rate.

This isn't without its drawbacks. As someone who studies statistics can tell you, a test needs to be about 99.9% accurate before the false positive rate is low enough that your system can have any confidence in its catches. The government doesn't care about confidence though -- it's about fear and perception. If they charge a thousand people with terrorism to catch the one guy who is a terrorist, that's a win in their book. They only care about the detection rate; Not the false positive.

That doesn't make it a 'house of cards' though. If all you care about is detection rate, the government's doing a passably sortof okay job... but if you care about the false positive rate, your opinion is going to be, er, considerably lower. Actually, several miles into the ground low. Understanding how the government thinks is the first step towards fixing the problem; Which I think anyone who's looked at the situation will say... it's reducing false positives.

As far as the logic of imprisoning someone who's explaining that one of the tactics in their overall strategy can be easily beaten... I've generally been of the opinion that if you didn't have access to classified materials, and discovered something that threatens national security, merely discussing it should be first amendment protected -- afterall, if you did it, so can the nebulous and undefined enemies of your country. And isn't part of a citizen's job to participate in creating a more effective government? How else can this be accomplished than by a willingness and ability to discuss shortcomings?

The polygraph may be used for national security reasons, but so are hammers, staplers, and cars... that doesn't mean we can arrest and imprison people who use or criticize them either. It's just a tool... and if the tool is as ineffective as this guy suggests, it should stop being used. And in fact, the false positive rate of polygraphs so far outstrips the detection rate, that you'd be stupid not to learn how to beat one if you're serious about a government position. I mean, why would you risk your career on what essentially amounts to a dousing rod or a psychic reading cards?

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[AmiMoJo]

In the UK the judiciary tends to resist people arguing that certain forms of evidence are flawed because it opens up the possibility that many other cases were decided incorrectly. Maybe the same thing is at work in the US.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[BitZtream]

There are perfectly legal channels to do what you want to do. He was intentionally avoiding those channels in exchange for teaching people to do something (perfectly fine imo) including lie on government job interviews (not fine, for anyone or any job really)

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[wjcofkc]

The people that used his advice and teachings committed fraud. Dixon himself didn't go to any great lengths to hide what he was doing, that I am aware. Yes, there is a difference.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

AmiMojo, what do you mean "except...to lie to government agencies...[is] fraud"? Where is that in what American system of law? As I recall, there is case law established, in IRS cases, in regard to lying to the government, establishing that it is not a crime to do so. Why and how should it be a crime to do so, and how does lying/inflating on a job application constitute Fraud? Remember that in the United States you are supposed to be innocent of crime until you commit a crime. This means that you have to defraud before you commit fraud. This means your lying has to do actual damage to your employer to even be wrongdoig. It has to be willful and mallicious to be crime. Lying, teaching how to lie, or even telling to lie does not qualify on either count, since the tellee is responsible for his, or her, own deliberate undertakings and actions.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

doesn't matter, freedom of speech

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[mjwalshe]

Conspiracy I woudl have said as well

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[girlintraining]

If simple fraud is against the law, then why aren't we prosecuting the fraudsters administering the tests?

Well, because it isn't fraud. Fraud is intentional deception, not simply being ineffective or incompetent. If those things were crimes, everyone would be in jail. Now, in this case, the accuracy rates vary from 80-98% by most accounts, with much of the variance down to the competence of the tester. This is still too low for it to be used in say, criminal trials. But many government officials as I said earlier care more about detection than false positive... they're saying as long as you get the needle in the haystack, it's a success... even though you're doing it by burning the haystack. So no, this is not fraudulent... it's merely not scientifically rigorous.

AFAIK, he only taught them how to fool a lie detector, and to lie about knowing how to fool a lie detector, because if you admit that, you are instantly out of the running.

Well, as I mentioned earlier -- the consequences of failing a polygraph can be a career-ending event, and the false positive rate is quite high, even against untrained individuals. With the cost of such an event being so high, and the odds of it happening being non-negligible, such training has obvious economic benefits. There is no need for someone to be a "bad guy" to be able to justify it. In this case, lying is in your best interests, regardless of if you're a terrorist or not -- if you are a terrorist, it's in your best interest to lie for obvious reasons. If you aren't, it's in your best interest because you don't want all that training, knowledge, and years of experience fighting the terrorists to get flushed because of a statistical anomaly.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[reve_etrange]

A polygraph is absolutely not a "lie detector" with high false negative and false positive rates. Polygraphy is a pseudo-science and as such has no consistent FNR / FPR when turned to "lie detection."

The only use of the polygraph machine is to elicit a confession by trickery. And that is exactly why the government is so desperate to crush the guys who teach people how to "evade" the fake test: the belief that the "test" can possibly be fooled is enough to break the psychology of the elicited confessions.

Fool proof anti-polygraph method: don't worry about it and lie anyway.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK the judiciary tends to resist people arguing that certain forms of evidence are flawed because it opens up the possibility that many other cases were decided incorrectly. Maybe the same thing is at work in the US.

For real. See this paper at Cornell law about the FBI's reaction to proposals that their claims of DNA identification accuracy be empirically verified: http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/JLPP/upload/kaye.pdf

I recall a similar response when a different researcher made unauthorized use of their access to the FBI fingerprint database to do a similar empirical check of print uniqueness claims, but can't find the article quickly.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[lightknight]

And? He was not the one lying to get the job. Full stop.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[girlintraining]

A polygraph is absolutely not a "lie detector" with high false negative and false positive rates. Polygraphy is a pseudo-science and as such has no consistent FNR / FPR when turned to "lie detection."

That isn't an accurate assessment. Lying does often elicit a physiological reaction, which is what the polygraph is designed to detect. However, anxiety about the question also causes a physiological reaction, and differentiating between someone who's nervous because they're lying, and someone who's nervous for some other reason, is a non-trivial matter.

It's like saying the low oil light on your car is "absolutely not an oil detector". Technically, you're right; It's a pressure sensor. But it's measuring pressure in a system that ordinarily should contain only oil, and if the pressure drops that's usually an indicator that there's not enough oil in the system, thus calling it a "low oil" light is accurate because that's what it is most often detecting.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[reve_etrange]

There's a huge difference between a pressure sensor applied to oil and a polygraph applied to lie detection.

In the first case, calibrated measurements are made in a standard, objectively defined unit by taking advantage of a law of physics. 1 kPa is 1 kPa is 1 kPa.

In the second, a bunch of graphs are written out based on physiological measurements, then "interpreted" by a supposed polygraph "expert." There is no objective standard or unit of "lying," and different experts will come up with different interpretations. Indeed, the US Supreme Court ruled that unlike DNA or fingerprint evidence, polygraph evidence is nothing more than the opinions of the examiners.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[h4rr4r]

No, that sensor is reading something known which is pressure, the polygraph does the same but the pseudoscience part is the interpretation. You don't just put oil in if that light comes on, you check the dipstick. With the polygraph you can't do that. Instead they have someone make a very subjective analysis and pretend it is any better than phrenology.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[The Wild Norseman]

And let's say that the odds of them catching you in round 1 are 65%, then 84%, then 70%. Is the cumulative effect of this higher than 84%? Yes. Each layer adds a little bit, but each layer also has diminishing returns. This is how government looks at security with regards to, say airport scanners, or terrorist watch lists, or polygraph testing. They know that the individual methods by themselves are shit. They're just hoping that with enough layers, enough randomized checks, and everything else, that the final result will be a high detection rate.

Wanna walk me through the math please? I don't think that your statement regarding the probabilities is accurate.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[The Wild Norseman]

That isn't an accurate assessment. Lying does often elicit a physiological reaction, which is what the polygraph is designed to detect. However, anxiety about the question also causes a physiological reaction, and differentiating between someone who's nervous because they're lying, and someone who's nervous for some other reason, is a non-trivial matter.

It's like saying the low oil light on your car is "absolutely not an oil detector". Technically, you're right; It's a pressure sensor. But it's measuring pressure in a system that ordinarily should contain only oil, and if the pressure drops that's usually an indicator that there's not enough oil in the system, thus calling it a "low oil" light is accurate because that's what it is most often detecting.

The reason a human being may show higher galvanic skin sensitivity or increased breathing rates do not map reliably to deception. It's pseudo-science, pure and simple, and is not reliable for what it's supposedly for. The problem with your analogy is that there are only a handful of issues that could cause the idiot light to glow and narrowing down the reason the "low oil" light is lit is straightforward.

The polygraph is a lie; social engineering before the term caught on, really.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Right because the oil pressure sensor often gets stressed when you ask it a question and it just starts reporting low oil at random. Makes sense.

Re: Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Would sucessful lying be a requirement for a government job?

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

The most glaring indication that polygraphs are crap is that they only have two results possible: "signs of deception" and "inconclusive". Since those "signs" are entirely subjective, it's all just theater.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[rolfwind]

What exactly was the crime here though?

Sounds like a blatant 1st amendment breach.

Re: Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Odds of NOT catching you in a lie:

1-((1-.65)*(1-.84)*(1-.70))
1-(.35*.16*.30)
1-(.0168) .9832
98.32% chance they will NOT catch you in a lie
01.68% chance you will get away with the lie.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[hedwards]

Yes, but it doesn't elicit the response when you most need it to elicit the response. The kind of psychopaths that these tests were intended to catch, are rarely, if ever caught. These are people who don't believe what they were doing was wrong or don't believe that they'll be caught. In either case, there is no stress and so the tests don't detect anything.

Even with the 85-95% that the proponents claim, it's still a worthless test as the 5-15% where it fails are going to be the times when you most need it to be correct. And that's assuming that rate, and I doubt that it's anywhere near that effective.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[gagol]

doesn't matter, purjury

Re: Hell hath no fury ..

[Mabhatter]

Lie detectors are unconstitutional as criminal evidence, and unconstitutional as terms of employment... But we wouldn't let that get in the way of using hem to weed out candidates, would we?

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[girlintraining]

In the first case, calibrated measurements are made in a standard, objectively defined unit by taking advantage of a law of physics. 1 kPa is 1 kPa is 1 kPa.

No, it isn't. It's usually a device that when it reaches a certain threshold, triggers, a simple diaphram, of which manufacturing samples were repeatedly tested so that it reliably triggers near that threshold. It's not calibrated; Look up the definition of that word in science.

In the second, a bunch of graphs are written out based on physiological measurements, then "interpreted" by a supposed polygraph "expert."

So the blood pressure and heart rate measurements a physician takes are "interpreted" by a supposed medical "expert"? No, the measurements being taken are also derived from 'laws of physics'.

There is no objective standard or unit of "lying," and different experts will come up with different interpretations.

No, they're looking for a deviation from a standard mean. What's being measured is objective, and in fact the US military has designed an algorithm to do the work of the "expert" in your case... which they are evaluating right now in Afghanistan, and preliminary results suggest that with a little bit of modification and more samples, can be as good as the expert. So there is no "interpretation", unless a computer algorithm, using bitwise operations, to arrive at a pass/fail result, is somehow a subjective thing for you.

Indeed, the US Supreme Court ruled that unlike DNA or fingerprint evidence, polygraph evidence is nothing more than the opinions of the examiners.

Actually, that's incorrect. In Frye v. United States (1923) they ruled that novel scientific evidence first must have gained general acceptance in its scientific field for criminal cases. The opinions of the examiners was not considered; But rather the general consensus of those within the field of forensic science. This rule stood until 1993, when it was replaced by Federal Rule 703 which states "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." A similarly-worded rule exists for military personnel, and exists as Military Rule of Evidence 707. It was then, in a series of cases subsequent, applied to polygraph examinations. But it wasn't until 2001, when Congress passed the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, that polygraphs were formally barred from civil cases. The only remaining legal use for polygraph examinations by the government on US citizens is for government employees.

At no point has the US Supreme Court, or any federal court, ruled that the testimony of an expert interpreting polygraph results was relevant -- they have consistently stated that as the scientific community's consensus is that polygraphs are too unreliable for use in establishing a person's guilt or innocence, they cannot be admissible as material evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding.

The polygraph does record objective units of measurement, just like a breathalyzer. And, just like a breathalyzer, different levels of intoxication affect people with differing physiologies... er, differently. That's kindof the rub of pretty much everything in medicine -- we can objectively measure, say, the number of white blood cells in a culture. We have a much harder time saying why you have an elevate white blood cell count, or what's normal or abnormal for you -- if you look at just about any medical test, you will find there is a considerable range of variation within which a lab result is considered normal; And it is up to "supposed medical experts" to "interpret" the collection of lab results to determine if it is normal, or abnormal, based on clinical experience.

And that'

Re: Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Doh, I screwed that up above (that's what I get for trying to respond on a cell-phone). The probability of NOT getting caught, hence making it through all three rounds without detection

P(not caught A) * P(not caught B) * P(not caught C)
(1-.65) * (1-.84) * (1-.70) .35 * .16 * .30
0.0168
1.68% == probability of not getting caught
1-.0168 == 98.32% probability of getting caught

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[girlintraining]

The reason a human being may show higher galvanic skin sensitivity or increased breathing rates do not map reliably to deception. It's pseudo-science, pure and simple, and is not reliable for what it's supposedly for. The problem with your analogy is that there are only a handful of issues that could cause the idiot light to glow and narrowing down the reason the "low oil" light is lit is straightforward.

The polygraph measures physiological changes which we know to be correlated with anxiety. Anxiety that in the context of a controlled environment found in a polygraph examination, is usually due to a person lying. The science on this is solid. It's not pseudoscience; This is fact. The thing is, limbic-system responses vary wildly from person to person, and so even with all the things a polygraph measures, it is not sufficiently accurate at detecting the reactions of the limbic system.

The entire debate about polygraphs comes down not to whether or not it's pseudoscience or a bunch of other bullshit reasons that everyone else is laboring under for why it was dismissed, but rather that it is simply not accurate enough. That's it. That's all. It does detect lying about 80-93% of the time, which is statistically interesting, but it is not a sufficiently strong correlation to have much confidence in any particular result. That's all. It's not accurate enough. It's scientific. It's based on real science, performed by real scientists. Limbic reactions are real. Emotional reactions can be measured.

They just can't be measured accurately enough to form a basis for eliminating reasonable doubt.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[ne0n]

Except that the kneejerk reaction to revealing a workaround to a broken and largely fraudulent system is to FIX THE BLAME, NOT THE PROBLEM. In other words, the fraudsters got away after making their mint selling polygraphs.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the prosecution was based on his helping people to not just beat the polygraph, but to lie to government agencies in order to get jobs. In other words simple fraud.

I am telling you, right now, in no uncertain terms, that you have to give me $1million, and if you can't do it you need to go get other people to help raise the money, but you need to give me $1million. If anyone asks, you are not giving me $1million.

Is that fraud on my part? You, being yourself and having free will, can of course decide to do that or not to do that. I can ask you to give me $1mil, and I can ask you to lie about it if asked about it. The fact that you *chose* to do those things is not really 'fraud' on my part is it? I'd think if *you* lied to a court of law, *you* might be guilty of fraud... whether I asked you to or not.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Sabriel]

It does detect lying about 80-93% of the time, which is statistically interesting, but it is not a sufficiently strong correlation to have much confidence in any particular result. That's all.

Is it the government's policy to end/limit the career prospects of anyone who fails a polygraph? Is the 80-93% the overall rate? What's the rate for sociopaths vs the rate for non-sociopaths? If the rate for sociopaths is less, what additional tests does the government perform to compensate for the increased risk of hiring sociopaths over non-sociopaths, and are those tests adequate to the task?

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't a house of cards, it's just not a highly reliable method. Look at it this way... Let's take a series of pass/fail tests, each with a different detection probability. And let's say that the odds of them catching you in round 1 are 65%, then 84%, then 70%. Is the cumulative effect of this higher than 84%? Yes. Each layer adds a little bit, but each layer also has diminishing returns. This is how government looks at security with regards to, say airport scanners, or terrorist watch lists, or polygraph testing. They know that the individual methods by themselves are shit. They're just hoping that with enough layers, enough randomized checks, and everything else, that the final result will be a high detection rate.

This isn't without its drawbacks. As someone who studies statistics can tell you, a test needs to be about 99.9% accurate before the false positive rate is low enough that your system can have any confidence in its catches. The government doesn't care about confidence though -- it's about fear and perception. If they charge a thousand people with terrorism to catch the one guy who is a terrorist, that's a win in their book. They only care about the detection rate; Not the false positive.

That doesn't make it a 'house of cards' though. If all you care about is detection rate, the government's doing a passably sortof okay job... but if you care about the false positive rate, your opinion is going to be, er, considerably lower. Actually, several miles into the ground low. Understanding how the government thinks is the first step towards fixing the problem; Which I think anyone who's looked at the situation will say... it's reducing false positives.

As far as the logic of imprisoning someone who's explaining that one of the tactics in their overall strategy can be easily beaten... I've generally been of the opinion that if you didn't have access to classified materials, and discovered something that threatens national security, merely discussing it should be first amendment protected -- afterall, if you did it, so can the nebulous and undefined enemies of your country. And isn't part of a citizen's job to participate in creating a more effective government? How else can this be accomplished than by a willingness and ability to discuss shortcomings?

The polygraph may be used for national security reasons, but so are hammers, staplers, and cars... that doesn't mean we can arrest and imprison people who use or criticize them either. It's just a tool... and if the tool is as ineffective as this guy suggests, it should stop being used. And in fact, the false positive rate of polygraphs so far outstrips the detection rate, that you'd be stupid not to learn how to beat one if you're serious about a government position. I mean, why would you risk your career on what essentially amounts to a dousing rod or a psychic reading cards?

A polygraph is a deeply flawed method to detect lies, because it is based on corporal reaction to lying - which psychopaths express none of. That's right, every single psychopath will defeat a polygraph with no training whatsoever.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Sabriel]

Sorry, mangled the html, let's try that again.

It does detect lying about 80-93% of the time, which is statistically interesting, but it is not a sufficiently strong correlation to have much confidence in any particular result. That's all.

Is it the government's policy to end/limit the career prospects of anyone who fails a polygraph? Is the 80-93% the overall rate? What's the rate for sociopaths vs the rate for non-sociopaths? If the rate for sociopaths is less, what additional tests does the government perform to compensate for the increased risk of hiring sociopaths over non-sociopaths, and are those tests adequate to the task?

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

perjury

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only purjury if he lied about giving the guy training on how to beat the lie detector test.
If he told the truth about training the guy, and the guy *chose* to use that information to beat the test from his employer (ie, lie) then it's certainly not the fault of the guy training him.

That's the equivalent of saying that because you drove a Ford pickup to the bank when you walked in with a shotgun, and robbed it, that Ford is responsible for the bank robbery, or the place that gave you driving lessons.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[LifesABeach]

So if I lie about getting a job, I can blame someone that taught me something; and that person is held responsible? My engrish teacher should start sweating right about now.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

The polygraph measures physiological changes which we know to be correlated with anxiety. Anxiety that in the context of a controlled environment found in a polygraph examination, is usually due to a person lying.

How has it been demonstrated (if it has been demonstrated) that this anxiety is due to "lying,"* rather than being due to having one's testimony subjected to examination via highly unreliable means — e.g., tarot cards, Ouija board, polygraph machine — and having the "results" taken seriously by "experts" in a way that may affect the victim's future?

Has this been demonstrated? I have my doubts, and I've been unable to find any evidence showing that it has.

Could it be that interrogation itself (even without the presence of witch doctors and their voodoo machines) causes anxiety amongst the victims of various interrogation techniques?

* What is a "lie," anyway? That which the interrogator believes to be untrue? That which the interrogation victim claims, but is untrue? That which the interrogation victim believes, despite contrary evidence? That which an examination subject and a qualified scientist have agreed to be untrue prior to an experiment?

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[AK Marc]

That isn't an accurate assessment. Lying does often elicit a physiological reaction, which is what the polygraph is designed to detect. However, anxiety about the question also causes a physiological reaction, and differentiating between someone who's nervous because they're lying, and someone who's nervous for some other reason, is a non-trivial matter.

How many have you given? How many have you taken where you had full access to the raw data? They are easy to beat. They are easy to falsely fail. The autonomic reaction to lying is not dissimilar to most other emotions. Someone embarrassed about a question will likely "fail" it, and people who think too much will fail. "Have you ever cheated on your wife?" {well, there was the one secretary I kissed once, we'd have done it, but didn't} "No" (fail). The pause, with the embarrassment/guilt over the near-cheat will give a false fail.

The test is crap.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[AK Marc]

Anxiety that in the context of a controlled environment found in a polygraph examination, is usually due to a person lying.

And having a large forehead is usually due to a person being a liar (or something like that, I haven't studied phrenology). Doesn't make it provably true, Doesn't make it reliable.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[coastwalker]

Agreed. No other nation on earth uses polygraph testing to my knowledge.

The questions are very likely borderline 'insane cult' in the first place. "have you ever or could you ever engage in activity X" where X is any one of the thousands of marginally useful laws or government approved behaviors (Say missionary sex position for example).

No wonder the default foreign policy is 'bomb the fuck out of them and worry about what to do next later'. The requirement for government workers to have an imagination must have been eliminated by polygraph testing decades ago.

This is just one more thing that makes America look bad.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[mishehu]

What I liked in Penn & Teller's expose on Bullshit about polygraphs is that the real meat of the "investigation" came *after* the subject had just completed the "being monitored on the polygraph and now disconnected". It's a psychological game where they say "see, the machine says you weren't being completely honest." It's a coercion to get your to admit to something even if you have nothing to admit to.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[shentino]

Aiding and abetting perjury and obstruction of justice more like.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me simplify it for you, if you seriously consider polygraph testing a reliable tool for anything other than weeding out the gullible, then you're a fucking idiot.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[0111 1110]

Not a good analogy. For a car analogy maybe a fuel gauge based on the weight of the car above the absolute minimum and assuming one or two passengers of a standard weight. People can sweat for a variety of reasons so that has to be taken into account. A car can get heavier for a variety of reasons only one of which is a full tank.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try Mr. Polygraph Man, take your pseudo science elsewhere, it's not welcome amongst an intelligent thoughtful crowd who respects the Constitution and freedom in general.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Jstlook]

Two things: First (to parent): My general observation about the government is once they've concocted a system approximating your standards (a series with 65%, 84%, and 70% respectively), they then short-circuit the entire system, grab the easy test (presumably the 65%), and just assume you "passed" the other two. After all, when you fail to train your staff to perform the tests correctly, you may as well not bother doing them, right?

Second (to child): The polygraph is essentially a legal way for the governmental agencies to pre-screen potential candidates and exclude them from a list of hire-able candidates. The entire crux of the goverment's complaint was essentially that by their candidates bypassing the polygraph, they required the hiring agency to expend more government resources in selecting an appropriate candidate. Hell, I could see a resume-proofreading service get tried using the same argument. After all, a lie by omission is still a lie - and polishing a resume is essentially just removing the 'rough patches'.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[reve_etrange]

the 5-15% where it fails are going to be the times when you most need it to be correct.

You need it most then, because it is far worse to imprison an innocent than to let a guilty person go free. I salute you.

Re: Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

And how about the probability of false positive?

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a huge difference between a pressure sensor applied to oil and a polygraph applied to lie detection.

In the first case, calibrated measurements are made in a standard, objectively defined unit by taking advantage of a law of physics. 1 kPa is 1 kPa is 1 kPa.

In the second, a bunch of graphs are written out based on physiological measurements, then "interpreted" by a supposed polygraph "expert." There is no objective standard or unit of "lying," and different experts will come up with different interpretations. Indeed, the US Supreme Court ruled that unlike DNA or fingerprint evidence, polygraph evidence is nothing more than the opinions of the examiners.

There is a pretty huge distance between not usable as evidence in court and not useful for guiding an interrogation.

First you have to understand that there are established best practices for questioning someone and trying to catch them in a lie. It's not rocket surgery. Then you need to understand that the machine just complements what you can obverse with your own eyes.

No it isn't science, but making a mental note that someone twitched when you asked a particular question and going back to it later with different phrasing, that works. The machine shows you responses you can't see. It's as simple as that, there's no reason for it not to work.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

A polygraph is absolutely not a "lie detector" with high false negative and false positive rates. Polygraphy is a pseudo-science and as such has no consistent FNR / FPR when turned to "lie detection."

The only use of the polygraph machine is to elicit a confession by trickery. And that is exactly why the government is so desperate to crush the guys who teach people how to "evade" the fake test: the belief that the "test" can possibly be fooled is enough to break the psychology of the elicited confessions.

Fool proof anti-polygraph method: don't worry about it and lie anyway.

You're too focused on the machine and not the actual questioning process. The machine doesn't trick you into confessing, the QUESTIONS DO.

THAT is what catches you in a lie. The machine just shows the interrogator things he can't see with his own eyes.

Is asking questions, catching someone in a lie, a pseudo-science? There are certainly tricks that work. I'll let you figure it out, and honestly I do not care if you're all too dumb to do that, so good luck.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, in this case, the accuracy rates vary from 80-98% by most accounts, with much of the variance down to the competence of the tester

Perhaps this is true for specific incident testing (i.e. the tester has details of a specific crime and is attempting to determine if the interviewee committed it), but that is not the subject of this story: this is about security clearance tests, where a wide range of potentially incriminating subjects are being checked. This is, unfortunately, at odds with the most accurate method used for polygraph tests: reaction to questions that the interviewer is specifically interested in are compared with reaction to "control questions", which are equally pointed questions that the interviewer knows the answer to. Control questions, to get good accuracy, are not simple "is your name John Smith" type questions, they are questions that should produce similar responses to the questions you actually want the answers to. Unfortunately, for security clearance tests, such questions don't tend to be available, so there is no reliable way to calibrate. As a result they're less accurate: 10% false positive rate and 17% false negative according to a 2000 metastudy.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[NoOneInParticular]

That the military has created an algorithm that is as good as the 'expert' is not very impressive if the 'expert' itself is no better than random guessing. Polygraphs have consistently failed blind tests in exactly the setup you describe: people very accurately measure physiological response using the polygraph, and then correlate these with the subject lying or not. Guess what, that last step doesn't work. Regardless of physiology of the subject. There is no evidence that lying consistenly leads to the type of physiological response that is measured by the polygraph. Hence it is pseudo-science.

If you want to compare it with a breathalyzer -- the reason we put trust in the breathalyzer is that we know there is a physical cause (amount of alcohol in the blood) that we are trying to measure. In the polygraph case, we are trying to measure 'level of lying', which is not physical in the same sense. For your argumentation to make sense, you would need to propose something like a 'lie particle' that is emitted by people that lie. Come to think of it, this is really very close to what proponents of polygraphy argue!

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they're looking for a deviation from a standard mean. What's being measured is objective, and in fact the US military has designed an algorithm to do the work of the "expert" in your case... which they are evaluating right now in Afghanistan, and preliminary results suggest that with a little bit of modification and more samples, can be as good as the expert. So there is no "interpretation", unless a computer algorithm, using bitwise operations, to arrive at a pass/fail result, is somehow a subjective thing for you.

The problem is that there is a lack of evidence associating those deviations with the act of lying. In the words of the American Psychological Association, "there is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception." Therefore those measurements are just measurements without any real meaning. Yes, there's a correlation to lying, but it isn't a particularly strong one, and that is why any interpretation of a polygraph is inherently subjective: because somebody has to determine whether the indicators on the page are being caused by the subject engaging in deception or through some other cause, and there is no known scientific way of doing this.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you drive a Mazda diesel with a DPF, then it will never come on as it leaks fuel into the oil :)

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Darn it, now we will have to do some really investigating to convict criminals, Oh wait we still have DNA testing and finger prints, waterboarding and falling on a door handle.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the cumulative effect of this higher than 84%? Yes.

You are studying statistics and you jump to a conculsion like this without making it clear that there's an unstated assumption involved which enables you to do that?

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't realise that providing factual information on how to beat a lie detector was considered perjury.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

The government and all its agencies, especially the police, are taught to lie to the public every day, but civilians, non-agency personnel, and non-police cannot do the same. There was a time when there was absolute loyalty to our government bordering on love, but no longer. The government of , by, and for the people cannot expect the citizens to do what they are told, while the government does as it pleases, including masterful deceptions, out right lying and committing conspiracy against the American People. "Fraud"? Who was defrauded?

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

... like the government scorned when one shows that their "system" is a house of cards.

Since there is no law against teaching how to beat a polygraph I maintain this is in direct violation of the Constitution (clause 3, Article I, Section 9 - "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed").

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

So where are the polygraphs for the ruling class?Have they no ethics?Have they no shame?Oh yeah,Eric Holder of the Elian Gonzalex case and Barack Obama of the 'obscure' past and multiple SSn's.Question answered.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction.Add Fast and Furious gunrunning to Holder,Benghazi to Obama.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Hognoxious]

Anxiety that in the context of a controlled environment found in a polygraph examination, is usually due to a person lying.

Lucky you weren't hooked up to a polygraph when you said that.

The pen could have had someone's eye out.

Re: Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight - the guy was convicted for teaching science?
What has the world come to?

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Fraud? He didn't commit fraud, he told others to commit fraud. But it wasn't a command, it was a suggestion. Still free speech. In fact, EVERYONE should lie to interigators, for the simple fact that the Supreme Court said it was OK for them to lie to any of us.

Re:Hell hath no fury ..

[cusco]

which they are evaluating right now in Afghanistan

Oh, great. Now we're torturing and killing people based on a system known to be inaccurate, "can be as good as the experts" who come up with 10-20 percent false positive rates. Damn. One more reason to loathe the Pentagon, like I needed any more.

Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling truth

[HornWumpus]

Am I under arrest?

For experts. Clamp anal sphincter when telling truth, relax when lying.

federal overreach, as usual

[stenvar]

This is a federal case again, and it is something the federal government should have no business intervening in. Blame the current administration for not stopping this nonsense.

Re:federal overreach, as usual

[gl4ss]

they shouldn't be relying on the tests in the first place. but it's a big industry and they got a bunch of guys who are "experts" in performing it and bringing a paycheck home every month... only thing more ridiculous is the french obsession with handwriting analysis.

I guess the guy should have claimed he was working as an attorney for the people he helped?

Re:federal overreach, as usual

[king neckbeard]

He would have to be an attorney to do that, though. They don't want just anybody getting in on their racket. Even if you can pass the bar, you have to go to one of their schools in most states.

Re:federal overreach, as usual

[grahamwest]

Because he was charged with advising and helping people lie to the federal government when they told him they were involved in illegal activity (eg. one of them said his brother was a "violent Mexican drug trafficker" for example. He was essentially involved in a conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice and that's what they put him in jail for.

Polygraphs are tantamount to phrenology and graphology in my opinion, but that's not what this case was truly about.

Re:federal overreach, as usual

[zippthorne]

One of them said that when? How would he know they weren't lying?

Re:federal overreach, as usual

[0111 1110]

Is it against the law to have a brother who is a criminal?

Re:federal overreach, as usual

[grahamwest]

It's against the law to fraudulently obtain (or conspire to obtain) a security clearance that requires you to have no family criminal ties if you do have a brother who is a criminal.

Re:federal overreach, as usual

[grahamwest]

If I come to you and ask you to sell me some dynamite so I can rob a bank with it, it doesn't matter whether I actually rob the bank or not. By agreeing to sell me the dynamite you become part of a criminal conspiracy. There's no duty on you to tell the cops about me, but there is the duty to say, "Sorry dude, I can't help you out with that".

Re:federal overreach, as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

So does your lawer and tax adviser. Also unless I'm missing something we don't hold people responsible for the crimes of their brother, they need to be directly involved.

Re:federal overreach, as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this not entrapment?

Re:federal overreach, as usual

[stenvar]

Because he was charged with advising and helping people lie to the federal government when they told him they were involved in illegal activity

By that principle, any kind of defense risks turning into a "conspiracy" or "obstruction of justice" charge.

The guy didn't participate in the commission of the crime, he isn't committing the crime himself, and whether a crime itself is being committed is itself subject to interpretation. Furthermore, he was convicted based on entrapment: undercover agents pretended to intend to commit a crime without actually committing it. And the crime being committed, lying to get a security clearance, is itself a dubious "crime" at best.

Polygraphs are tantamount to phrenology and graphology in my opinion, but that's not what this case was truly about.

If polygraphs are not valid, then their use by the federal government in putting people in jail or executing them is an outrage and risks miscarriage of justice. In that case, teaching people how to beat them should clearly be legal.

Re:federal overreach, as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

funny, I read the title as "feudal overreach"...

Welcome to the USSA

[hairyfeet]

Grab as much as you can from the government and wait on the stock bubble burst to make the whole thing come tumbling down. All you really can do now.

Re:Welcome to the USSA

[Black Parrot]

Re your subject line, I always thought the Beatles sounded like they were singing:

Back in the U-S, back in the U-S, back in the U-S-S-Ah

Invisible text in the first amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Prosecutors, who had asked for almost two years in prison, said Dixon crossed the line between free speech protected under the First Amendment

Where do they come up with this shit?

Re:Invisible text in the first amendment

[fustakrakich]

I don't know if it's invisible text, or just classified... There must be two 1st amendments, one for the school children and the other for the courts that basically says, "Ignore all that bullshit and lock 'em up."

Re:Invisible text in the first amendment

[Seumas]

If you hang out around Slashdot long enough, you'll find out that there is a whole segment of society who claims that "free speech doesn't mean you can just say whatever you want".

Re:Invisible text in the first amendment

[phantomfive]

That's basically true. The first amendment protects speech, but you can't say whatever you want (according to the supreme court). The second amendment protects gun rights, but you can't own whatever gun you want. The sixth amendment gives you the right to a speedy trial, but most people give that up because there are punishments if you don't.

In all, the abuses by government are enough to make someone turn libertarian. Make it small enough so that abuses are as limited as possible. Because how can you get rid of the abuses?

Re:Invisible text in the first amendment

[h4rr4r]

You mean normal humans?
You can't yell fire in a crowded theater nor can you sell your tap water with claims it cures cancer and erectile disfunction with just one 8 oz serving.
If you can't understand why those are not protected speech your schooling failed you and it is likely to late to help you now.

Re:Invisible text in the first amendment

[h4rr4r]

Do that and you abuses will come from feudal/corporate lords. Those you don't even get to vote for.

Re: Invisible text in the first amendment

[mrbester]

You *can* yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. The first amendment does not discriminate about what speech is free and what isn't. It is all free. However, whilst exercising your right to do so, you recklessly endanger others, which is what you get charged with. Nothing to do with the first.

Same with cancer curing water. Sure, you can say it, that's your right, but don't be surprised if you get arrested for fraud.

Re: Invisible text in the first amendment

[h4rr4r]

If that is how you want to look at it fine, then that is what happened here. He was free to advise people to lie about faking the test and he then was charged for it.

Re: Invisible text in the first amendment

[just_a_monkey]

You *can* yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. The first amendment does not discriminate about what speech is free and what isn't. It is all free. However, whilst exercising your right to do so, you recklessly endanger others,

How contrived. I don't endanger anyone. The people who trample others do, and I am not in charge of them. If someone yells fire in a theater, and there is reason to believe that there is a fire, calmly exit the building in an orderly fashion. Help children and the elderly. Most importantly: do not trample others.

Re: Invisible text in the first amendment

[AlphaWoIf_HK]

However, whilst exercising your right to do so, you recklessly endanger others, which is what you get charged with. Nothing to do with the first.

That's ridiculous. What you're getting charged with is saying the 'wrong' thing at the 'wrong' time, and no newspeak nonsense will tell me otherwise. It is very much a first amendment issue.

Re:Invisible text in the first amendment

[Sir Holo]

...there is a whole segment of society who claims that "free speech doesn't mean you can just say whatever you want".

Actually, that is true, and not just in relation to free speech rights.

One of the first things they teach in law school is that, "my rights end where your nose begins." Think about that in an allegorical, not literal, sense.

Re: Invisible text in the first amendment

[arth1]

I think fire marshals should be required to shout "Fire" in randomly picked places, and then fine the hell out of anyone who didn't take it seriously, and jail anyone who pushed, shoved or ran. That would surely cut down on all the panic trampling cases we read about so often.

If you can't be trusted to react in a correct manner during an emergency, you should not be allowed in public.

But in the American society in particular, it seems more important to be able to get someone than to meter out justice for everybody. It's the same WTF as when someone runs from the police, and a policeman kills himself or others in pursuit. The escaping person gets charged with manslaughter. That's obviously not what happened - he didn't hold a gun to the policeman's head forcing him to drive past his abilities. But the rabid need to find a single source to blame and inability to see that more than one party might be at fault is so inbred in the culture here that people don't even question it.

Re:Invisible text in the first amendment

[Seumas]

Thank you for illustrating my point. Nobody's free speech touches your nose. There is no allegorical measure to your comment, because speech is a thing that never in any way directly damages or harms you, other than bad feelings. I suppose the next step is to bring up "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, if there isn't a fire". To which I would point out that even Justice Holmes, himself, later regretted his position on the decision that instigated that metaphor.

There is a separation between words and thoughts and any action actions. The only time I could even see a remote pause of confusion is when it comes to slander and libel, where speech (malicious lies) are not simply unpopular opinions or thoughts and are not simply mean words that a person has the choice to shrug off, but have actual real damages to a person or their business the same as falsely accusing someone of a crime.

Once you can justify shutting someone up about something, you can manage to find an equally justifiable reason for shutting them up about other things.

Re: Invisible text in the first amendment

[Seumas]

Sure, if the way you want to look at it is an apologist.

Re:Invisible text in the first amendment

[Seumas]

Talking of failed education:

You also can't falsely accuse someone of rape or murder, that doesn't involve the concept of free speech. A crime is a crime; using speech in the process of committing a crime doesn't mean it has anything to do with speech.

You CAN sell tap water with claims that it cures cancer and erectile dysfunction. People go around making false claims for cancer cures and other kinds of cures all the fucking time. Ever heard of fucking alternative medicine? Herbal medicine? You can walk right into an herbal store and get something over the counter that claims to cure cancer or prolong your life. You can stand on a stage and claim that you are healing people standing in line of their poor eyesight, lame limbs, heart conditions, asthma and any other number of things. You can have a parade through town promoting your skin color or deriding another. You can claim that Pepsi is better than Coke. You can claim that rubbing a special ointment on your cock will make it grow ten inches. Medical malpractice is another issue, however, and that has nothing to do with speech. That has to do with the licensing and oversight of your profession and drugs and procedures.

Finally, just because the government has established a record of infringing upon and violating people's free speech (with whatever justification they claim) does not mean you don't have the right.

Re: Invisible text in the first amendment

[Seumas]

It isn't merely an issue of "recklessly endangering others".

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." and "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.” -- Justice Holmes

Apologists for the infringement of free speech like to forget the point that was being made. The issue has to do with making false statements that are uttered with the intention (or at least clear knowledge and expectation) of creating a "clear and present danger".

Apologists like the crowd on Slashdot sickly pervert this to justify all of the situations where the government infringes on speech in which there is no immediate harm to anyone whatsoever. These apologists are the reason there are people out there who will suggest that the government should shut protestors down, because eventually it might turn into some degree of violence. These apologists are the idiots out there suggesting that telling people how to trick an oogady-boogady detector should be illegal, simply because the government doesn't like it. (Does telling someone how to "fool" an oogady-boogady detector or how to make a gun or a bomb put anyone in immediate danger like causing a stampede in a crowded space or telling a police officer that that guy over there has a loaded gun and is waving it around at people? Of course not!).

Re: Invisible text in the first amendment

[Seumas]

And you are right. That is exactly what happened here. He is free to give people information about beating lie detector tests. He can even tell them "don't tell anyone that you know about these tricks". And then he was charged for doing exactly that. He was charged and prosecuted for exercising exactly that free speech in exactly that way.

What the fuck is with you people? The "fire in a theater" bullshit that you repeatedly parrot, itself, is about imminent predictable or intentional harm and YOU are using it to justify the government trying to fucking shut people up.

Re: Invisible text in the first amendment

[Seumas]

Exactly. And in this case of the polygraph information, what he's being prosecuted for is exercising free speech that upsets the government. The same people supporting this or justifying it should have no problem the next time the government shoves everyone into fenced-in-razor-wire free-speech pens or shuts down a protest or otherwises silences someone. After all, you only have "free speech" to the extent that someone in government doesn't take it away from you and . . . I guess that's just fucking okay?

I mean, really, that kind of shit from the Slashdot crowd? I don't even know who these people are anymore. Then again, why do I expect more from the same people who have suddenly turned into right-wing religious nuts over the last few years.

Re: Invisible text in the first amendment

[tibman]

I get what you are saying but i'd like your take on this hypothetical. You teach some guys how to defeat a bank's security system and provide them with the knowledge they need to rob it. They pay you for your service. Are you in any way responsible for the robbery they are about to commit? All you did was talk (and get paid), right?

Re: Invisible text in the first amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

They're the ones who actually stole the money, so no.

Re: Invisible text in the first amendment

[tibman]

And your reasoning is exactly the kind that politicians and high-level employees use to remain safe from illegal activities that they themselves prompted. If you accepted money to teach someone how to do something illegal then you accepted some level of responsibility as well. I would agree with you if it was knowledge presented in a format to be used legally and was perverted by being used illegally. However that is not the case in this story.

AMERIKAN GULAG!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Welcome to Thoughtcrime!

Re:AMERIKAN GULAG!

[kinarduk]

doubleplusgood

Re:AMERIKAN GULAG!

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoying your fascism yet?

Re:AMERIKAN GULAG!

[gagol]

newspeak doubleplusgood! Polygraph tests are flawed to begin with and in no way can attest the truth. That is reality and you cannot mask it (reality) with words or laws. You just look very silly. I guess it is business as usual for US federal administration.

Re:AMERIKAN GULAG!

[LifesABeach]

Lets see if I understand correctly. This dude says to his clients that they can't tell others what they have learned from this guy? Then how does this apply to other businesses that say the same thing about their product? Shouldn't they be going to jail also?

Re:AMERIKAN GULAG!

[Noishe]

Well no...

The guy didn't technically get in trouble for teaching people how to break the polygraph test.

He got in trouble for inciting them to lie while under oath. But that doesn't really matter, since he pled guilty.

Re:AMERIKAN GULAG!

[jythie]

And that is the critical piece that people need to remember. While prosecutors did not like what he was teaching, there was nothing illegal about it.

Generally instructing people to do something illegal (not just how, but to do) is a crime unto itself.

That being said, given that the people within law enforcement that taught officers how to do illegal things are not in jail, it is still pretty hypocritical.

Re:AMERIKAN GULAG!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another injustice by the police/prison state.

Re:AMERIKAN GULAG!

[countach]

Are polygraph tests done under oath?

Some FA

[Rick Zeman]

What was he convicted ON? What charge? Obstruction of justice? Article doesn't sat. Lying itself can't be a crime (else every politician and lawyer would be in jail).

Re:Some FA

[Rick Zeman]

What was he convicted ON? What charge? Obstruction of justice? Article doesn't sat. Lying itself can't be a crime (else every politician and lawyer would be in jail).

Ah, older article did: Dixon, 34, pleaded guilty late last year to charges of obstruction and wire fraud after federal agents targeted him in an undercover sting that was first reported by McClatchy.

Since he pleaded guilty, my sympathy level just went way down.

Re:Some FA

[K. S. Kyosuke]

“There’s nothing unlawful about maybe 95 percent of the business he conducted,” the judge said. However, O’Grady added that “a sentence of incarceration is absolutely necessary to deter others.”

^^^ Even more worrisome. Or perhaps to be expected?

Re:Some FA

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's why the gov't loves threatening people into pleading guilty.

Re:Some FA

[bmo]

Read TFA:

"Dixon, 34, pleaded guilty last year to charges of obstruction and wire fraud after federal agents targeted him in an undercover sting."

Why he got so much time:

O'Grady acknowledged "the gray areas" between the constitutional right to discuss the techniques and the crime of teaching someone to lie while undergoing a government polygraph. "There's nothing unlawful about maybe 95 percent of the business he conducted," the judge said.

However, O'Grady added that "a sentence of incarceration is absolutely necessary to deter others."

--
BMO

Postscript:

Degoobering the quotation marks and apostrophes by having to hit preview all the time is a pain in the ass. Slashdot, we are 13 years and 9 months into the 21'st century. Use Unicode already, dammit.

Re:Some FA

[buybuydandavis]

"Plead guilty or we'll charge you with a million counts."

Pleading guilty should never be taken as an admission of guilt, only an admission that you're not powerful enough to stop the government from fucking you.

Re:Some FA

[bmo]

"Pleading guilty should never be taken as an admission of guilt, only an admission that you're not powerful enough to stop the government from fucking you."

That's what Nolo pleas are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere
--
BMO

Re:Some FA

[swillden]

That's what Nolo Contendere is for, but when an ADA offers you a plea deal, they're going to demand a guilty plea.

Re:Some FA

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sympathy level went down because you're a moron who doesn't understand how prosecutors operate? Perfect. You've got the exact level of gullibility needed to be a model citizen.

Re:Some FA

[king neckbeard]

Ah, but the DA doesn't offer near as sweet a deal on those. Same goes for an Alford plea. If they did, nobody would EVER go for a guilty plea.

Re:Some FA

[Black Parrot]

What was he convicted ON? What charge? Obstruction of justice? Article doesn't sat. Lying itself can't be a crime (else every politician and lawyer would be in jail).

Ah, older article did: Dixon, 34, pleaded guilty late last year to charges of obstruction and wire fraud after federal agents targeted him in an undercover sting that was first reported by McClatchy.

Since he pleaded guilty, my sympathy level just went way down.

Wire fraud? A reference to the wires of the machine?

At least it wasn't "terrorism".

Re:Some FA

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but the DA doesn't offer near as sweet a deal on those. Same goes for an Alford plea. If they did, nobody would EVER go for a guilty plea.

Oh the DA *always* offers a sweet deal on those ... oh, you meant offers to "real" people not offers to "corporate persons". Well yeah, if you're a regular person then you were bent over from the start.

Re:Some FA

[reve_etrange]

It doesn't really matter if it deters others. The idea is just to convince people that the polygraph has some validity (or else it couldn't be fooled!) so that they can keep using them to elicit confessions from chumps.

Re:Some FA

[pongo000]

Lying itself can't be a crime

Actually, 18 USC section 1001 does, in fact, make lying to a federal official a crime. Feds often use this law to convict people in lieu of having any evidence that a crime was committed. If you're questioned about an alleged crime, and it later turns out that you didn't commit the crime but you earlier statements don't sync up with later statements, there's a good chance you'll see jail time.

This is why you never talk to law enforcement officers without competent legal representation present. And especially the Feds.

Re:Some FA

[chrismcb]

I believe it was for propagating fraud. For telling one of his clients to lie, and say that he doesn't know what his cousin (who is supposedly a drug dealer) does if asked. From one of the articles:

They sought a wire fraud charge against Dixon for a “scheme” that helped applicants get jobs by making “false and fraudulent statements.”

Re:Some FA

[buybuydandavis]

Prosecutors can play whatever legal mumbo jumbo games they want - if you've got a gun to your head to "confess", no one should take that as an honest admission by you. You've *submitted* to power, there was no confession. I no more take guilty pleas as admissions of guilt than confessions of war crimes from prisoners of war.

Re:Some FA

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for posting that link. This also means that the NSA officials that point-blank lied to Congress about the scope of their surveillance efforts are all guilty of a federal felony, with bonus points for "involving international or domestic terrorism".

I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to see prison time, however, even though their actions involved millions more than some two-bit drug smuggler who would see the maximum sentence for the same offense.

Re:Some FA

[AK Marc]

Plea bargains are a form of torture. You are threatened with bad consequences if you don't confess. That's the point of torture.

Re:Some FA

[Anonymous Coward]

> Unicode

They tried; they were surprised to find out that they would need to sanitize control characters; they were too lazy to figure out how. It's a shame for a tech site, but that's why Slashdot will be stuck in ASCII land forever.

Re:Some FA

[0111 1110]

Not always. I was offered a deal that allowed for a sort of guilty but not officially guilty plea. I had to confess to crimes that I didn't commit to the judge, but officially the plea was not considered an admission of guilt, just an admission that the state had sufficient evidence to convince a jury that I was guilty. This is something of a technicality since the official record records agreement to every bullshit charge I was accused of, but I don't have an actual guilty conviction on my record and more importantly didn't spend a day in jail.

Re:Some FA

[0111 1110]

They accomplish the same goal, but they aren't the same.

Re:Some FA

[0111 1110]

Actually, 18 USC section 1001 [cornell.edu] does, in fact, make lying to a federal official a crime.

Where does it mention a "federal official"? It looks to me like it makes lying in general a federal crime. It doesn't even seem to grant an exception for law enforcement officials.

Re:Some FA

[swillden]

That's called an Alford plea, and again it usually doesn't get you as good a plea bargain as a guilty plea, with allocution.

Re:Some FA

[pongo000]

IANAL, but I believe this is the Supreme Court decision that later case law was established upon that basically permits any LEO to lie (not in court though). So basically case law carves out an exemption specifically for law enforcement.

Also, this article demonstrates how easy it is to get ensnared by the feds on a lying charge. Scary stuff.

Re:Some FA

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge is a disgrace. The basis of the system is rights that attach to the individual, not meeting the policy goals of a regime. Making an example of someone is typical of authoritarian central planner types.

Re:Some FA

[AHuxley]

A plea deal now is the only way to reduce the mix of concurrent and consecutive list of changes many may face.
With http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate in the US - its often a one time, very time limited deal.

Re:Some FA

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but by jailing him for this, they are admitting outright it can be fooled.

Re:Some FA

[AK Marc]

I've read an interesting essay from a law professor arguing they are the same. Threatening someone with an unpleasant outcome if they do not confess *is* the original definition of torture, and that's exactly what is what a plea bargain is.

Re:Some FA

[Anonymous Coward]

what's funny is that the streisand effect it's having for smarter people. I look at it this way. If the goverment knew that Polygraphs really worked then they would let this guy give his little course. Knowing that people would came thinking they could pass but would fail. Hell, A better idea would have been to use the class to find people who had something to hide from the polygraph.

Re:Some FA

[Anonymous Coward]

Postscript:

Degoobering the quotation marks and apostrophes by having to hit preview all the time is a pain in the ass. Slashdot, we are 13 years and 9 months into the 21'st century. Use Unicode already, dammit.

This wouldn't be Slashdot if I didn't point out that we are only 12 years and almost 9 months into the 21st century.

Re:Some FA

[Anonymous Coward]

Truth! That is exactly what put Martha Stewart in jail.

Re:Some FA

[ToddInSF]

That and certainly nothing that even remotely resembles "Justice".

But this is what the country's come to, and we must pay attention, because they will certainly be coming for acquaintances, friends, family members, and us next.

Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr

[oodaloop]

I hope you're trolling with that stupid shit. Those tricks are older than dirt and the easiest things to test for. In fact, they warn you not to do those. And yes, I've gotten a poly for the govt.

So what about Penn and Teller?

[ethicalcannibal]

I thought this was kind of common knowledge. Penn and Teller's Bullshit even showed how they beat the polygraph.

Re:So what about Penn and Teller?

[Anonymous Coward]

To the best of my knowledge, they weren't advising anyone to conceal it.

Re:So what about Penn and Teller?

[whodat54321b]

What Penn and Teller were showing was conclusive. The nervousness of governments and private business in continuing to use the device, despite it's obvious weaknesses, shows how difficult it is to keep secrets in the age of the internet. Perhaps a reverse lie detector should be required for politicians. At least if they can answer with lies for everything, we know where they stand.

Re:So what about Penn and Teller?

[rwyoder]

I thought this was kind of common knowledge. Penn and Teller's Bullshit even showed how they beat the polygraph.

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

60 Minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROhp2aS9pQU

If you can beat Polygraphs then doesn't that mean

[3seas]

...They can also be used against you to indicate you are lying when telling the truth, enabling deception to be applied against you.
I suspect that's the real exposure here and why the Government would like you to be what they want you to be..... when fabricating false flags.

Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr

[HornWumpus]

It helps to have practice. They are warning you because it works.

I've paid for my own poly, just for practice lying with no consequences.

By prosecution...

[jjeffries]

...aren't the Feds implicitly acknowledging that the polygraph is not an accurate instrument?

Re:By prosecution...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was proven inaccurate decades ago and is inadmissable as evidence in most courts/cases. They have been used to manufacture far more lies then they have ever "detected".

Re:By prosecution...

[lesincompetent]

Even better, his prosecution is a testament to the guy's trade! Great advertisement!

10 polygraph secrets the feds don't want you to know!

Re:By prosecution...

[Em Adespoton]

...aren't the Feds implicitly acknowledging that the polygraph is not an accurate instrument?

It's kinda like DRM -- both can be intentionally broken and are only really useful when people remain ignorant of how they work.

Re:By prosecution...

[reve_etrange]

On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, pursuing these guys makes it seem like the test could work if you don't know how to fool it - which is exactly what they want, since the polygraph is only used to elicit confessions from chumps.

Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr

[Seumas]

However, this is relatively worthless, since all the polygraph comes down to is a meaningless chart interpreted by a biased administrator. They might as well give someone prison time for teaching you how to avoid being abducted by UFOs... or for teaching you how to fool phrenologists.

Just remember, it's not a lie... if you believe it

[tehlinux]

Is Costanza next?

Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr

[Anonymous Coward]

I think all people should be instructed to tense the anal sphincter when telling the truth if they are under a polygraph test. For those stupid sheepel that think that a polygraph is perfectly okay for them cause they are honest, well they deserve everything that is thrown at them later for being exceptionally stupid. I recall spaceballs the movie and the exceptionally intelligent quote, "evil will always triumph because good is dumb". So you polygraph witchcraft numbnutz, bite me. I have passed them all so far.

Covered in my Psyc 101 class

[Anonymous Coward]

My intro level psychology class covered beating the polygraph. It was a class at University of Washington, which gets a good deal of money from the federal government in question here. It was a perfectly good example of applying the principals studied in the class, and included some scientific study of polygraph tests.

Really, it looks like all you need to beat the test is a good fear that it will classify your truth as lies, which is reasonable given the ~50% false positive rate. They can subjectively interpret the results however they want though, so no matter what you do, it can be used as an excuse to refuse people.

Re:Covered in my Psyc 101 class

[Anonymous Coward]

principals != principles

Re:Covered in my Psyc 101 class

[Anonymous Coward]

They can subjectively interpret the results however they want though, so no matter what you do, it can be used as an excuse to refuse people.

It is used to guide the questioning.

Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr

[johnny cashed]

I've paid for my own poly, just for practice lying with no consequences.

What are you, a lawyer or used car salesman?

Joke laws

[gmuslera]

You are part of the cattle (and get years or decades of jail for things that are crimes, affects noone or make your rights prevail), or you are above the law, getting more money and support if you violate constitution amendments, get promoted if found that you intentionally lied to the congress, or get a small fine if is found that you you knowingly launder money for terrorist and drug cartels.

There are countries where law and justice seem to be antonyms.

Re:Joke laws

[jsepeta]

except if you're a congressman and you lie to congress, or to your constituents. that's just called doing business.

Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr

[oodaloop]

I'm warning you so you don't get your stupid ass arrested. You have sit on a sensitive pad. You so much as fart and it goes off. If you don't believe me, go get a real poly a find out for yourself. But ask yourself, if this trick is so foolproof, why wouldn't they implement such a simple counter measure?

"The Wire" season 5 opening scene

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ5aIvjNgao

"The machine is never wrong, son."

proving parent right...

[globaljustin]

talk about 'thoughtcrime'...

his helping people to not just beat the polygraph, but to lie to government agencies

actually it was a **sting operation** and they got him on a very narrow interpretation of the law...

see, you can't teach how to 'pass' or 'fail' a test that is completely inaccurate!!!

according to TFA he teaches facts about the polygraph, and I'd imagine has one he hooks people up to one of his own...no results guaranteed

'passing' the polygraph isn't about 'guilt' or 'innocence' again I must state

The got him on audio tape doing his typical program...no 'extra help'....they way they got him was they **volunteered that they had something to hide** from the gov't...he just continued with his lesson.

He probably just disregarded this info they disclosed b/c...as I've said...the *actual* truth about a question has noting to do with whether you pass or fail!

This conviction is bullshit, IMHO...maybe they technically 'got him' but it's not justice in any sense...and he definitely did NOT help anyone lie to the government!

Re:proving parent right...

[Thantik]

The same thing goes for smoke shops. Go in there and mention pot/weed/etc in any shape, fashion or form, and they'll kick you out right on the spot because the feds have pulled this trick on them quite often. His mistake was in not immediately stopping and ejecting the guy from his lessons.

Re:proving parent right...

[Sponge Bath]

The same thing goes for smoke shops.

For all your gift and lifestyle accessory needs.

Re:proving parent right...

[girlintraining]

The same thing goes for smoke shops. Go in there and mention pot/weed/etc in any shape, fashion or form, and they'll kick you out right on the spot because the feds have pulled this trick on them quite often. His mistake was in not immediately stopping and ejecting the guy from his lessons.

Well, yeah, except that's not enough these days. Consider the guy that installed car 'hides' (basically hidden compartments) in California. He started with car audio installs, but found installing hides was more lucrative and required the same skills and tools. There weren't any laws specifically making this illegal, but people often used them for illegal activities, particularly smuggling drugs. He would turn people away if he had evidence they were using them for this purpose, but the DEA still caught wind of a high-end car installer, then approached him and put him under surveillance. Again, not because they had proof he was doing anything illegal, but because he was enabling others to do illegal things... they continually asked him to allow them to install surveillance cameras, etc., which he refused (As is his fourth amendment right). After a bit of back and fourth, the DEA decided he was obstructing and colluding with these drug dealers, and put him in jail for twenty years.

There was never any indication he ever serviced a vehicle where anyone had admitted it was used for drugs or illegal activities. The DEA just wanted him gone because he was enabling others to do so. So knowledge that what you're teaching or providing service for isn't proof against the government throwing you in jail.

Let's be clear: If the government wants you, they're gonna get you. The laws aren't there to uphold social norms, they're there to club you over the head and drag you off in a way that seems justifiable to the unwashed masses, should the authorities so choose to do so. You can't simply say "Oh well, if you do this, this, and this, they can't get you!" ... Wrong.

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it legal to sentence him to prison? The Lie Detector has been proven to be unreliable let alone being taught or trained how to pass it!

This is laughable, and a complete waste of tax money for someone that has done nothing. And it only shows how the courts continue to fail on a massive scale, I doubt SCOTUS will review this case, and it is a perfect case for the Top court to hear arguments and overturn this verdict.

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

do you have a citation for this?

Re:proving parent right...

[Anubis IV]

There was never any indication he ever serviced a vehicle where anyone had admitted it was used for drugs or illegal activities.

As I recall, he was called out to service an installation he had done for one of his repeat customers, since the compartment door had become jammed. The crime the DEA got him on was when he opened the door and saw wads of cash inside, then heard some comments indicating it was drug money. Prior to that he could have denied any knowledge, but he continued with the repair, effectively owning any work he had ever done for that client, and the DEA nailed him to the wall for it.

Put differently, it's exactly the same case. He had knowledge that illegal activity was taking place and chose to continue providing service to his client.

Re:proving parent right...

[globaljustin]

His mistake was in not immediately stopping and ejecting the guy from his lessons

yeah I think you hit the nail on the head...

I saw some posts below that quote the judge saying some favorable comments that would be in line with this...

maybe he never thought they'd bother with him?

Re:proving parent right...

[gagol]

That (kind of bullshit) is why I dont go to the US anymore.

Re:proving parent right...

[hedwards]

That's what conspiracy charges are. If you're in for a part then you're in for the whole bit. He was warned that the people he was taking money from were up to criminal acts and chose to continue doing it. Had he chosen to stop doing it or cooperate with the DEA, he wouldn't be in prison.

The moment the DEA approached him he should have consulted with an attorney, if not earlier. It sucks, but you seriously think the guys that built fake walls for speakeasies back during prohibition weren't under similar circumstances?

Re:proving parent right...

[gagol]

Drug dealers uses cell phones to communicate. Following your flawless logic we should incarcerate every executives of Sprint, AT&T, MetroPCS and all...

Re: proving parent right...

[Mabhatter]

No, because we still has constitutional rights back then. The Feds had to rewrite tax law to get Al Capone because they could not get CONSTITUTIONSL evidence he ordered or assisted in any crimes. Second and Third-hand "crimes" like these were barely registered.

Remember during Prohibition DRINKING ALOCHOL was never illegal. Making, selling, transporting.. But not OWING or CONSUMING. Now realize how our "possession by consumption" arrests are morally and legally EXTREMELY wrong.

Re:proving parent right...

[genner]

Drug dealers uses cell phones to communicate. Following your flawless logic we should incarcerate every executives of Sprint, AT&T, MetroPCS and all...

Only if the drug dealer called an AT&T rep and asked if his plan had roaming charges while he was moving drugs across the border.

Re:proving parent right...

[Anubis IV]

How in the world did you manage to get that out of what I said? Talk about a straw man...

As I made abundantly clear in my last comment, the problem was that he had full awareness of the illegal activities that his services were being used to support. Unless you're suggesting that all of the carriers are listening into our calls and have full awareness of the illegal activities occurring, I see no reason why they should be held accountable for how people are using their services.

Again, the issue here and in the case of the polygraph person this news is about, is that they had awareness that their services were being used or were going to be used for something illegal, and yet they continued to provide that service without notifying the proper authorities. Training someone to beat a polygraph or installing secret compartments in vehicles is fine, so long as you don't do it if the person tells you they have something to hide from the government or smuggle over the border, which is what happened in these cases.

Re:proving parent right...

[Lord Kano]

do you have a citation for this?

He's most likely talking about this case.
Hits description isn't 100% accurate but he's close enough.

http://www.slashdot.org/story/184153

LK

Re:proving parent right...

[girlintraining]

Only if the drug dealer called an AT&T rep and asked if his plan had roaming charges while he was moving drugs across the border.

He stopped helping that customer after the comment. And the DEA had him under surveillance hoping for something like that to happen... and he knew he was under surveillance, so his not reporting what he already knew was recorded... somehow got him 20 years.

Yeah... that seems fair.

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowing there is a significant amount of money in a compartment your working on is not sufficient to know that there was a crime or that there likely was a crime.

Re:proving parent right...

[LifesABeach]

Maybe have him take a lie detector test to prove his innocence?

Re:proving parent right...

[Kjella]

That's what conspiracy charges are. If you're in for a part then you're in for the whole bit. He was warned that the people he was taking money from were up to criminal acts and chose to continue doing it. Had he chosen to stop doing it or cooperate with the DEA, he wouldn't be in prison.

"Your employer is doing [insert random alleged crime here]" and unless you quit your job on a random unfounded allegation you're guilty of conspiracy? No, that's bull. You'll also note that they had nothing on him until he went to repair a compartment that had something in it, as long as he wasn't directly aware of anything that was stored in them all was fine. If he'd said "Sorry, I can't go near that compartment while it has anything in it so you have to tear it up and remove the contents, afterwards I can fix everything" he'd not be in jail right now.

Re:proving parent right...

[mysidia]

"Oh well, if you do this, this, and this, they can't get you!"

If he insisted on consulting with an attorney when requested to install surveillance cams; he probably would have been alright. He could have taken some steps which would prevent them from incriminating them.

If all else failed; he could organize an armed militia of concerned citizens to protect him and prevent government malevolence.

With adequate preparations; he could have fled to an underground bunker in some protected remote location that they'd never find to live out the rest of his days.

Re:proving parent right...

[mysidia]

Drug dealers uses cell phones to communicate. Following your flawless logic we should incarcerate every executives of Sprint, AT&T, MetroPCS and all...

I think that's the stick they hold over the phone companies If they refuse a warrentless request to deliver phone records or tap someone's line; they face arrest on such trumped up charges similar to that logic.

Re:proving parent right...

[Beliskner]

Let's be clear: If the government wants you, they're gonna get you. The laws aren't there to uphold social norms, they're there to club you over the head and drag you off in a way that seems justifiable to the unwashed masses, should the authorities so choose to do so

So what do you want - for the government instead of using laws, lawyers and judges to use some sort of random voodoo guesswork? Get the bad laws changed!

Re:proving parent right...

[mysidia]

but you seriously think the guys that built fake walls for speakeasies back during prohibition weren't under similar circumstances?

No, because the prohibition was too short-lived. It wasn't a full-fledged "war on alcohol", and the enforcers didn't get elevated above the law.

Even so... we have speakeasies today... Raves I believe they call them; and they don't even need false doors.

You're allowed to make products or sell services that might someday wind up facilitating a crime; As long as the product/service has real legitimate purposes, AND you have no reason to suspect that a specific customer you are selling to has criminal intent.

Even if you do personally suspect that some customer might intend a criminal act; you might not be able to legally refuse service or call the cops -- due to anti-discrimination laws; unless you have very strong evidence.

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

...

As I made abundantly clear in my last comment, the problem was that he had full awareness of the illegal activities that his services were being used to support. Unless you're suggesting that all of the carriers are listening into our calls and have full awareness of the illegal activities occurring, I see no reason why they should be held accountable for how people are using their services.

Again, the issue here and in the case of the polygraph person this news is about, is that they had awareness that their services were being used or were going to be used for something illegal, and yet they continued to provide that service without notifying the proper authorities. Training someone to beat a polygraph or installing secret compartments in vehicles is fine, so long as you don't do it if the person tells you they have something to hide from the government or smuggle over the border, which is what happened in these cases.

Well so what? Why should it be his job to enforce the law? Why should he be required to squeal to the authorities, risking his own life if he does so? I don't believe people should be required to help the government crack down on anyone. This instance goes far beyond aiding and abetting into some very grey areas.
It would be different if he was brought in as a witness and lied under oath, but I don't believe that fits the situation you describe. You could make a moral argument if it was a situation where someone's life was in imminent danger and he ignored that, but again, that doesn't fit the scenario you described.
As far as the telecoms, well, if they extend themselves beyond being a common carrier into content management as well, then maybe they should be held liable unless you believe corporations should have more rights than people.

Re:proving parent right...

[sumdumass]

He was warned that the people he was taking money from were up to criminal acts

The problem is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The bigger problem is that if the government can make an accusation against someone- behind their back to boot- and that is all that is needed to make any further interaction with them illegal, then it violates the entire spirit of the justice system and principles of freedom as we used to know it. I know the justice system might be more appropriately considered the Just Us system, but at least in a romantic spirit, it is supposed to protect people from crap like that.

Imagine a world where your business can be completely stopped and you jailed simply because the competition has a friend in law enforcement who warns you that your customers are doing things illegal with your product or services. Someone can say what I do with your products or services is illegal all day long. It shouldn't be until you know by witnessing my actions or my confidence in telling you about the illegal activities that you become legally liable for my actions.

As for building fake walls, there has been legitimate reasons for concealing rooms and entrances for hundreds of years if not more. One reason is to hide yourself or valuables from criminals. Another is to physically separate areas from others to conceal escape routes and so on for legitimate purposes (again criminals and or mob mentality). I used to have a couch that had a safe built into the arm rest on each end but was concealed in a way to look like a normal couch. I later found it was a normal thing back in the early 1900's and earlier on the higher end furniture.

Re:proving parent right...

[shentino]

Federal law states somewhere that failure to report a crime is itself a crime.

Re:proving parent right...

[dryeo]

In much of America, if you're convicted under a bad law, your right to vote (amongst others) is permanently removed. Makes it that much harder to change bad laws. Most civilized countries removed the penalty of felon from the law books in the 19th century as feudal ideas such as punishing people (and their families) forever was considered feudal. America along with Nigeria still practice the feudal idea of stopping people from voting to elect people to change bad laws.

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! With the 3 million plus laws on the books, who can say who is a criminal. You might think you are not a criminal, but unless you know each of the 3 million plus laws and statutes, how can you say that you are not breaking one of them. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. It is just a matter of time before the government decides that you are a person on interest and levels one of 3 million plus laws and statutes at you. Everyone is a terrorist. Eveyone has something to hide. Everyone is guilty. Everyone deserves to die, and justice is always blind (2 the truth).

Living in the land of the free and the home of the brave doesn't mean what it used to be.

-In my court there is no such thing as innocence. How dare you declare 'innocent' in my court. It is only a matter of me to decide what you are guilty of and decide your punishment.

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he isn't close enough. He fails to mention that the guy installed a hiding spot for a customer who he had good grounds to believe would use it for illegal activities. Sure, it shouldn't be illegal to do something just because it *could* be used illegally, but in this case (assuming the Wired story is correct) the guy had seen the money from a previous deal and the way he had reacted to it indicated that he had a fairly good idea where it had come from. To then take another job for the same customer is basically accepting that he was going to help them smuggle drugs.

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you suspect someone might be a criminal, and they walk into your cafe when they are not on the job, are you saying that you should immediately throw them out (without due process?) or risk being incarcerated yourself?

So just to be clear, exactly what service crosses the line, and exactly how much suspicion do you need to have?

Re:proving parent right...

[AmiMoJo]

Citation for that?

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Having something to hide from the government doesn't mean his client was up to no good. The government has no right to know any of your private information or affairs. The government just didn't like it. The usual bully BS from the government.

Re:proving parent right...

[julesh]

He stopped helping that customer after the comment

No, he didn't. According to the story I read, he installed another hide in a separate vehicle after seeing the drug money and realising what it was.

Re:proving parent right...

[fche]

... and the same goes for firearms. Go to a gun show, ask about altering firearms to make them fully auto. If anyone answers, arrest them: old BATF trick apparently.

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a guy who got burned for this 20 years ago. Crime all comes down to intent, not just simple actions. That's why George Zimmerman was not-guilty. Even though by his own admission he shot and killed Trayvon Martin it was not his "intent" to do so but rather an unfortunate side effect of firing a bullet into him during a struggle.

It is 100% legal to install hidden compartments, and in fact many major vehicle manufacturers do this today with their in-dash-pullout cup holders and fold-in-to-the-floor seating. However it is 100% illegal to install those exact same compartments specifically for the intent of smuggling contraband.

It would be interesting to see if a car salesman could be convicted for selling a 2013 Ford Flex to an agent that explicitly stated they would use the compartments for drug running.

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

... he just continued with his lesson ...

So the answer the instructor should have given was "Now, I have to report your criminal plans to the FBI, so I am not arrested for aiding and abetting".
A smart instructor would reveal that in the first lesson.

Re:proving parent right...

[furbyhater]

So now we have to all play policeman against our fellow men? Or risk being incarcerated for decades? And you're defending such practices in public? The possible contortions of the human mind never fail to astound me.

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, not because they had proof he was doing anything illegal, but because he was enabling others to do illegal things... they continually asked him to allow them to install surveillance cameras, etc., which he refused (As is his fourth amendment right). After a bit of back and fourth, the DEA decided he was obstructing and colluding with these drug dealers, and put him in jail for twenty years

Wrong.

Alfred Anaya, 39, San Fernando, Calif., guilty on one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, as well as methamphetamine and marijuana, and guilty on two counts of attempting to intimidate a witness.

All the articles about this guy conveniently left out this fact.

Re:proving parent right...

[hoboroadie]

The Federal Misprision statute specifies knowledge of actual commission of a felony, but this seems to be more like conspiracy, which is itself a much more serious felony anyhow.

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

>> The same thing goes for smoke shops.

Not in Colorado. :)

Re:proving parent right...

[BitZtream]

Cool fantasy dude, how many subscribe to your newsletter?

Re:proving parent right...

[jsepeta]

going after ISP's for internet crimes means that they should go after the car companies and car dealerships for selling getaway cars.

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

The story mentions nothing about one of the clients mentioning the money being connected to drugs. In fact, here's a quote:

"The fact was that he hadn’t seen any drugs, and there had been no discussion of how Maldanado had earned his small fortune. Given those circumstances, Anaya assumed that he was immune from legal trouble in connection with his meticulous creations. He was, after all, just an installer."

You're making the same mistake the DEA are making: "He has lots of cash, it must be illegal." With this attitude so prevalent, no wonder freedom in this country is slipping away so fast.

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't know it was drug money. It was just a lot of money, that's all. You're expecting him to ASSUME it's drug money.

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.businesspundit.com/drug-money-used-to-bail-out-banks/

Vienna – The United Nations’ crime and drug watchdog has indications that money made in illicit drug trade has been used to keep banks afloat in the global financial crisis, its head was quoted as saying on Sunday.

http://www.theguardian.com/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims

Gangs are now believed to make most of their profits from the drugs trade and are estimated to be worth £352bn, the UN says. They have traditionally kept proceeds in cash or moved it offshore to hide it from the authorities. It is understood that evidence that drug money has flowed into banks came from officials in Britain, Switzerland, Italy and the US.

http://www.alternet.org/story/151135/american_banks_%27high%27_on_drug_money%3A_how_a_whistleblower_blew_the_lid_off_wachovia-drug_cartel_money_laundering_scheme?page=0%2C0

Following this discovery investigator Woods issued a "suspicious activity report" (SAR) on a series of the CDCs' financial transfers and deposits. Then he requested the CDC checks to be temporarily blocked from transaction pending further investigation.

Not long after, an exchange of heated words occurred. A senior Miami-based manager called Woods' SAR reports "defensive and unwarranted."

Feeling jaded, Woods, as he recalls, "came under fire from the bank staff to change tactics and develop a better understanding of Mexico."

Wachovia officials ordered Woods to cease inquiries about Mexican CDCs and to also stop blocking other Eastern Europe and Moscow accounts. The British investigator, snapped, "I don't need to read up on Mexico. My interest are drug trafficking and money laundering."

His instincts proved correct. On April 10, 2006, during early morning hours, a DC-9 airplane landed onto the tarmac at the International Airport in the port city of Ciudad del Carmen, located east of Mexico City. Once the engine turned off, military soldiers trained by U.S. FBI agents immediately grew suspicious and surrounded the aircraft. Armed with high-powered weapons, the soldiers searched the luxury plane and discovered five-plus tons of pure cocaine packed in suitcases.

The cocaine was valued at $120 million, and the Feds working with Mexico later determined the drugs were headed for the United States from Venezuela. A stash of paperwork found on the plane eventually identified discreet connections between an American bank and Mexico-based currency operation Casa de Cambios Puebla. A subsequent investigation would prove that Wachovia Bank washed billions of illegal drug money into the U.S. financial system on behalf of the Mexico-based Casa Cambios.

http://www.alternet.org/story/151135/american_banks_%27high%27_on_drug_money%3A_how_a_whistleblower_blew_the_lid_off_wachovia-drug_cartel_money_laundering_scheme?page=0%2C7

Therefore we must question why bank executives and corporate CEOs' rarely face criminal indictments. And if by chance a series of criminal indictments are handed down the ripple effect of the massive injuries and loss of investor's funds outweigh the civil penalties and fines levied against the 'big wigs.'

To prevent financial institutions from facing criminal indictments for intentional violation of federal bank laws, the Feds often press the executives, in exchange for a civil fine, and be put on probation, to confess illegal activity that is particularly described in the media as an oversight to uphold federal policy rules.

Or the government can recommend a "deferred prosecution" or drop the matter altogether.

A deferred prosecution gurantee zero jail time. In 2003, U.S. Justice Department issued a memo commending deferred prosecution as a legal approach. "With cooperation by the corporation, the government may be able to reduce tangible losses, limit damage to their reputation and preserve asset

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, no crime was witnessed. He saw a bunch of money fall out and that was it. He didn't ask where it came from, nobody mentioned where it came from, and he didn't want to know where it came from.

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the 200 volumes of the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) that is updated quarterly...

Captcha: betrayed

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

The purpose of convictions like this is create business for lawyers. If anything you do, even something explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights, can lead to prosecution if you don't have a legal professional present to advise you, that naturally creates business for the legal profession.

Gotta love how the lawyers have translated the "no law infringing freedom of speech" provision of the 1st Amendment into "as many laws as we want". They've very cleverly figured out that creating contradictions like this in the legal system makes it impossible for non-legal professionals to understand the law, thus creating an artificial demand for their services and hence increasing both long term job security, and the amount they can charge for their time. The hundreds or thousands of laws infringing the "may not be infringed text" of the 2nd Amendment serve the same purpose. Don't look at the US legal profession for integrity.

Like the Aaron Swartz case, this is yet another example of unethical practice of law by federal prosecutors. The real question is, did they decide to do this entirely by themselves, or did some organization with an interest in this sort of thing pay for this to happen?

If the government needs to make teaching about lie detectors illegal, for whatever reason, that requires an amendment. Anything else is unethical practice of law for any legal professionals involved, and oath-breaking by any government officials involved.

Blatant infringement of explicit rights serves a secondary purpose to the benefit of the US legal profession, in addition to creating demand for their services. If even the explicit Amendments can be directly and routinely violated, that makes the open-ended Amendments (such as the rights retained by the people under the 9th, or reserved to the people under the 10th) all that much harder to assert. These pose a huge potential threat to the legal profession in the event people start asserting rights under them. For example, a right to ethical practice of law, with even the appearance of conflict of interest not being allowed whenever possible, could reasonably be asserted as a right "retained by the people".

Re:proving parent right...

[sjames]

Because, naturally there could be no other reason to keep your mouth shut and your head down when you discover you've walked into the lion's den and the people around you are dangerous and may not have a sense of humor.

Re:proving parent right...

[Lord Kano]

It's not illegal to possess cash. Not even large amounts of cash. If he never saw drugs, he had no actual knowledge that anything illegal was going on. His incarceration wasn't about upholding the law, it was about making an example so that next person would know that he better cooperate with the feds.

LK

Re: proving parent right...

[pepty]

>No, because we still has constitutional rights back then.

Not really, no.

No right to privacy. No Miranda rights. Voting rights - not enforced. Equal protections for minorities were a fantasy. Plus you could be executed for having the wrong political beliefs (Sacco & Vanzetti) or be forcibly sterilized for all sorts of reasons. Al Capone had great lawyers and not so great police, prosecutors, and judges in his employ. Anyone who was caught selling or assisting the sale of alcohol and didn't have the protection of someone like Capone was nailed to the wall. Which is still better than being fatally poisoned by the government - they were allowed to do that back then to stop people from drinking.

Re:proving parent right...

[Anubis IV]

I made no judgment of whether or not he made the right decision. I merely pointed out that what he did was illegal. It's hard to blame someone for keeping their mouth shut if they think that the threat from their clients is a greater one than the threat from the feds, but that doesn't excuse what they did.

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even that is not really why he is in jail. The reason he is in jail is because of the way these cases are prosecuted. They grab the big fish and negotiate with them so they get a reduction on their sentence for every little fish they name. That big net often snares people who where not aware of the bigger picture, but hey get dragged in and tarred by the bad guys.

Essentially, our justice system is complacent in a conspiracy that allows them to up the number of people they "take off the street" and allows the real bad guys to significantly reduce their time served and sometimes grants them immunity for crimes.

Re:proving parent right...

[sjames]

Self preservation is generally considered a justification for breaking nearly any law, at least in sane jurisdictions. Not that any of that matters to prosecutors anymore.

Re:proving parent right...

[Agent0013]

So that would mean that the NSA is committing a crime when they fail to report all the drug deals or other crimes they have evidence of within their huge database of American Citizen communications! The number of crimes these bastards are committing just keep going up. The breaking of encryption being illegal under the DMCA is another one.

Re:proving parent right...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why you never, never allow them imn your house. If they break the door down - shoot the first one through!

Re:proving parent right...

[Anubis IV]

Clearly you and I read different articles (you didn't cite yours, so it's hard for me to say). Here's a quote from this one:

Montiel also shared a potentially damning anecdote regarding the negotiations over the Honda Ridgeline’s trap. “We asked him to build us a hidden compartment for 10 kilos,” he testified. “I remember we had problems because he asked, ‘Well, what’s a kilo like?’ I remember I saw a brick on the ground, and I said, ‘It’s a little bit bigger than this. I need you to do it for 10.’”

Whether or not you trust the testimony of a convicted drug trafficker is still an issue, of course, but they did have testimony describing him as having knowledge of what was going on.

Re:proving parent right...

[mcmaddog]

Actually, he accidentally saw a large amount of cash after one of his clients came back because the hide was overstuffed and jammed shut. He then continued to alter other cars for the client but after this client was later busted he ratted on the installer and helped the cops with a sting.

There are ways to do this and get away with it..

[whizbang77045]

It just goes to show that if you want to do something questionable, you really need to either run for office, or work for the government.

phooling phrenologists

[globaljustin]

all the polygraph comes down to is a meaningless chart interpreted by a biased administrator

indeed...this is purely the end of the matter, as the US courts decided long ago...when I applied to the FBI back in 2000 I was genuinely surprised they were in use again!

I will add that all these sphincter tips are accurate in a sense. Depending on how it is calibrated flexing a muscle in this manner will definitely produce readings in most circumstances.

I honestly don't know how to relate it to the 'pass/fail' paradigm though...ex: if you demonstrate knowledge of how the polygraph works, you can get an automatic 'fail' or 'inconclusive'

Eventually this nonsense won't be justifiable to even the dumbed beurecrat. It gains nothing and costs thousands.

Criminal conduct my ass.

[wjcofkc]

I still say this falls under freedom of speech. This doesn't even fall under the dictionary definition of sedition, which itself is illegal and about as close as the powers that be could make a claim for in this case. It might be criminal conduct to use the techniques, but last I checked the Anarchist Cookbook is still legal to own and read. For those remaining who know and teach these techniques, I can only hope they write guides on this subject and put them on the internet to propagate while a helpless government looks on. It's funny, techniques for messing up polygraph tests have never been too big a deal until now and some aren't exactly obscure. I have seen crime dramas where valid polygraph interfering techniques are discussed and depicted.

By the way, did I mention that polygraph tests are all around bullshit pseudo science to begin with? But that subject is too big for my lazy fingers to type out. Regardless, they might as well be auditing people while their at it.

Re:Criminal conduct my ass.

[BitZtream]

The guy was put in jail for telling his clients to LIE ABOUT BEATING THE POLYGRAPH, not for teaching them how to beat it.

Free speech has nothing to do with this, he was telling clients to commit fraud against the government in job interviews. You're more or less an idiot if you think thats okay.

Re:Criminal conduct my ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

Polygraphs are criminal and should be inadmissable anyway. Our system is fuct, and there is no civil way to beat it. Thats all this guy was doing. You can't Lie to beat a game which could be used against you. If they made you play cards for your innocence wouldn't you wish to be trained in the game of playing cards?

This country is so fucked its not even funny. I'm amazed there arent riots, civil war, and complete chaos. People steeling military hardware, and straight up daily assassination of political officials. Its just wild where its at right now. People are sooo numb.

Re:Criminal conduct my ass.

[h4rr4r]

They are not admissible in courts. This is for a job, you can just not get those jobs. For example I don't use drugs, but I don't take drug tests. So I have opted not to take jobs that required them.

People are not rioting because they know life is full of choices and working for a 3 letter agency is not likely want they want to do.

Re:Criminal conduct my ass.

[wjcofkc]

The guy was put in jail for telling his clients to LIE ABOUT BEATING THE POLYGRAPH, not for teaching them how to beat it.

But he didn't force them to lie, there was no coercion. I can tell people to lie all I want, that doesn't make me the liar.

he was telling clients to commit fraud against the government in job interviews.

Again, he forced no ones hand.

You're more or less an idiot if you think thats okay.

I never said I thought it was okay, so don't go off and judge me like that - you don't know me. In fact, I believe lying is wrong under any circumstances. I suggest you read Sam Harris' essay 'Lying'. But it is still a matter of free speech over his client's ability to proceed how they see fit under their own will, by their personal choice - it doesn't matter if the advice was morally right or wrong to give. I once had an IT contracting agency tell me to lie in an interview. They said it would guarantee the job, a job that paid $25/ hours. Against their advice, I chose not to lie. I did not get they job, but did not regret telling the truth. The next time your about to click the Submit button, you should re-read what your about to post and think really hard about it. I forgive you for being a jerk, but think next time.

Re:Criminal conduct my ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy was put in jail for telling his clients to LIE ABOUT BEATING THE POLYGRAPH, not for teaching them how to beat it.

Free speech has nothing to do with this, he was telling clients to commit fraud against the government in job interviews. You're more or less an idiot if you think thats okay.

But isn't the whole purpose of paying someone to teach you how to beat a polygraph, to lie? I mean, if you were going to tell the truth, presuming you trust the 'reliability' of a polygraph test in the first place, you'd have nothing to worry about because you wouldn't be lying on the test. So the whole *point* of paying someone to teach you how to beat the polygraph *is* to lie, you are basically paying someone to teach you how to lie 'successfully'. So they were already planning to lie, and he asks them to lie about his course (which one might assume if they planned on using his info to pass the polygraph and get the job that they were already planning on lying about, since telling them you took a course to beat the test might not get you the job), that's illegal somehow?

Re:Criminal conduct my ass.

[HornWumpus]

I will take a drug test. But the person who wants the sample will have to hold the cup. I will fill it from range, almost 6 feet if I really have to pee.

Re:Criminal conduct my ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

I still say this falls under freedom of speech.

I'm not sure that I disagree with you, but I think it's more like http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/alfred-anaya/all/, where giving someone the tools to do something, when you're sure they're doing bad things, could be illegal. Lock-picking tools are not dangerous explosives or high-tech, but still illegal to have, no?

Re:Criminal conduct my ass.

[Khashishi]

Hey, everyone. I suggest you LIE to the government in job interviews.

Ex Post Facto...

[Anonymous Coward]

Laws against teaching how to beat a polygraph test? None. Yes he pleaded guilty to other, unrelated charges, last year. But that's not what this sentence was about. He was charged with no crimes and under now laws that explicitly stated, or ever explicitly stated or were stated to have barred doing what he did. Put in jail anyway? Because "you are a terrorist." We have always been at war with Eurasia. You are literally an "enemy of the state" so long as anyone believes you are.

Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr

[BitZtream]

Nether of those 'tricks' have ever worked unless the examiner wasn't even looking at the machine output ...

I.E. You're an idiot.

Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe a polygraph machine salesman?

What was he ACTUALLY convicted of?

[wonkey_monkey]

Indiana Man Gets 8 Months For Teaching How To Beat Polygraph Tests

Was he really? Or was he actually jailed for obstruction and wire fraud, as the linked article implies? It says that's what he plead guilty to last year, but isn't explicit.

Re:What was he ACTUALLY convicted of?

[cervesaebraciator]

It says that's what he plead guilty to last year, but isn't explicit.

He may have pled guilty, but how can we be sure he wasn't lying?

In other news, Dorothy arrested by MI-5

[cervesaebraciator]

The Great and Powerful Oz has recently ordered the arrest of known Wicked Witch acquaintance Dorothy of Kansas. Munchkin Intelligence, Section 5, indicated that Dorothy has been fraternizing with populist rebels and suspected communist sympathizers Scarecrow, Tin-Man, and Cowardly Lion. The Wizards Spokewoman, Glinda, denies as fallacious the claims that Dorothy discovered something compromising about the identity of the All-Powerful Oz that would undermine his depthless authority.

Re:In other news, Dorothy arrested by MI-5

[wbr1]

If only I had mod points, if only I had mod points, if only I had mod points...

Have they gone nuts?prison?

[behrooz0az]

Am I the only one thinking he has just found a whole lot of new student to teach?

what missing here..

[Connie_Lingus]

...is that the government not only knows how to really detect lies (using "brain state" fMRI scanning), but also DOES NOT want this technology to become widely adopted because they are afriad that the technology will one day be used against *them*...

so, as is so typical with the legal system, this guy is rotting in a jail smelling farts for something that's just total nonsense.

http://www.lacontelab.org/papers/real-time-fmri-using-brain-state-classification.pdf

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.01/lying.html

Re:If you can beat Polygraphs then doesn't that me

[Anonymous Coward]

Polygraph test are not accurate, and have no basis in science. One test "expert" will give different results from another. It's all about perceptions of key questions. It is assumed you have taken drugs, you will lie about it, and therefore this response is a base for a false reading. Likewise with look at pr0n and other assumed "probably have done, but won't admit" question.

The way to beat these pseudo science tests is to tighten your anus when being asked a key question. Your response reading will blip, that sets a high "lie" base for everything else.

There's a reason no court allows polygraph "evidence", it's bullshit. Yet the US intelligence agencies still use it for staff selection and train people (their spies), on how to beat them.

The fact that two testers won't come up with the same conclusion when looking at the readouts says all you need to know.

mmm

[houbou]

You would think they would wish to learn what he teaches them? to better perfect their system?

Nobody goes to PISON for 8 months

[Anonymous Coward]

That'd be jail. Ain't worth it for less than a year, and that's why you stay in jail.

Re:If you can beat Polygraphs then doesn't that me

[BitZtream]

You do realize that no court of law considers a polygraph admissible ... right?

If the government doesn't want to hire you, they don't need to frame you on a polygraph.

You need to stop watching so much Law and Order or whatever silly show you got the idea from.

Maybe someone can enlighten me

[presidenteloco]

As to how a polygraph test ever works on an intelligent person:

Q: Is your name Edward Jones? A: (Thinks "calibration question: no bother") Yes.

Q: Have you ever lied to a police officer? A: (Thinks: "Calibration question: no real worries" (Yes or No - doesn't matter. Not much stress)

Q: Were you present at this place at this time. A: (Thinks: Holy shit - this is the murder scene - this is the all or nothing question for rest of my life!!!!!!!!!!) "Uh No" (Enormous stress levels - whether did the crime or completely innocent)

So I just don't get it - how can they distinguish between stress caused by knowing that a given question has a high likelihood of ruining the rest of your life - even if innocent, and the stress of worrying that your lie will be seen through.

Re:Maybe someone can enlighten me

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is obvious.

For a lot of jobs, they want someone scared, stupid and reliable. They don't mind weeding out the intelligent applicants.

From the summary

[x181]

"Dixon crossed the line between free speech protected under the First Amendment and criminal conduct when he told some clients to conceal what he taught them while undergoing government polygraphs."
Assuming the summary is accurate, he crossed the line when he instructed them to lie. There is a big difference between teaching people how to circumvent a polygraph test and overtly instructing them to lie.

Re:From the summary

[spire3661]

What difference is that exactly?

could it be something he wrote?

[Mister Liberty]

say it ain't so.

8 months for hero while Obama walks free

[Anonymous Coward]

Shameful country the USA

Re:It's God

[Em Adespoton]

Not that it matters, but you can't fool God.

This holds true whether you're a devout deist or an atheist.

I suppose pantheists may disagree however.

What about the pupils?

[mschaffer]

What about the seven federal law-enforcement applicants and two government contractors with security clearances that Dixon trained? What about the two undercover agents that can no longer be trusted, now that they know the secrets of how to bypass polygraph tests (the can no longer be trusted). What are their fates?

Not allowed as evidence?

[Moppusan]

I always thought polygraph results weren't allowed as evidence, thus making their fake results even more useless. Am I missing something here? I refuse to RTFA, Slashdot posters are way more interesting. Thank you in advance for any amusement.

Anyone know what law he broke?

[rsilvergun]

and what the charge was?

Re:Anyone know what law he broke?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm waiting for some judge to rule that a politician broke a similar kind of law and order an immediate execution. Come on... Make it happen!

Re:Anyone know what law he broke?

[Anonymous Coward]

Murica law... nuff said go back to work peasant!

Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr

[Nerdfest]

Perhaps a politician?

Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr

[reve_etrange]

It doesn't matter what you do, the whole rigmarole is just used to elicit confessions.

The only "lie detector" that really works is fMRI.

This Is One That Needs Competent Appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

First, lying is not in itself even a civilly wrong act. Something that is wrongful or damaging must result, and the result must be "a direct and proximate result" of the lying alleged the cause. Were this not the case every writer of crime fiction who cooks up a cool plot, or describes bridging a burglar alarm would be guilty of both lying (to a prosecutor or agent whe read his story and filed charges, if he was not able to prove his story autobiographical) and teaching illegal techniques, to any reader.
Second, lying to a government agent is not lying to a superior person, who may have superior authority, it is lying to a public servant, who has no intrinsic authority, and so no right to expect anything from any of his public masters.
Third, since the government, itself, recognizes polygraph accuracy a fairytale, the prosecution was demanding a fairytale be recognized as though factual. Believing fairytales segues directly into religion, since every religious belief is another's, who believes differently, fairytale.
The prosecutor in the case made himself an ass to open his prosecution, and the judge, not judging the case against the law (he only judged the allegations, if the alleged teaching did or did not occur), showed himself incompetent to judge cases involving law.
And, fourth, one of the lies told by a government agent posing as a student for the government's 'sting' was that his brother was a drug-dealer. The teacher, the agents testified and the prosecutor alleged for evidence of crime, advised the pseudo-student to withhold that information. Is it possible that with a Constitution that specifically prohibits 'corruption of blood' the agents and the prosecutor (and apparently alsot the judge) were ignorant of that component of United States law? In the United States a brother's criminal activity is specifically prohibited being a taint. Federal agents and prosecutors and a judge who are ignorant of this? The suggestion those trained professionals did not know such a basic element of law is so unlikely the apparent pretense of blissful ignorance by all three provides grounds to allege willful and malicious disregard for "the clear statement of the law", and conspiracy to put the pretense over, to defraud a defendant of his rightful protection of the law.

Re:This Is One That Needs Competent Appeal

[mark-t]

First, lying is not in itself even a civilly wrong act

Barring situations where telling the truth will cause irreparable harm to innocent parties who have not been given an opportunity to answer for themselves (which, outside of certain wartime historical practices, does not tend to happen statistically very often), lying is wrong, period.

Re:This Is One That Needs Competent Appeal

[Travelsonic]

So... that's it then, lying is not ok in ANY situation, whatsoever? At all? Ever? In your opinion maybe. I personally cant agree with that sort of absolute.

Re:This Is One That Needs Competent Appeal

[mark-t]

Did you only read the last 4 words of of what I wrote or something? Please read the other 40 or so.

Re:If you can beat Polygraphs then doesn't that me

[reve_etrange]

No, the polygraph doesn't work at all (US courts don't accept polygraph evidence).

They just set up this big machine and go through the whole ritual in order to trick people into confessing. They have to stamp down on the guys selling ways to "fool" the fake test in order to maintain the illusion that the test works.

If I'm asked to take a lie detector test...

[Kaenneth]

My response will be "Sorry, I'm not interested in Scientology."

Who's next, Cory Doctorow?

[FuzzNugget]

Homeland , pg. 133-137.

Is Teaching illegal?

[chrismcb]

From TFA:

Phillips said. “Mr. Dixon chose to enrich himself by teaching others how to convincingly lie, cheat and steal,” Phillips said.

So what's next, do we target gun safety instructors, who teach people to shoot, and thus teach them to murder people? Do we target driving instructors because you can commit DUI after learning to drive?
I'm in the process of watching the World Series of Poker. Top prize is millions of dollars. One big skill in poker is knowing how to convincingly lie.

Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr

[The Wild Norseman]

I'm warning you so you don't get your stupid ass arrested. You have sit on a sensitive pad. You so much as fart and it goes off. If you don't believe me, go get a real poly a find out for yourself. But ask yourself, if this trick is so foolproof, why wouldn't they implement such a simple counter measure?

How many polygraphs have you taken? I've taken one in my life, personally. This was for King County police (in Washington state) and even being fully truthful, they claimed I failed the test. Since I knew I told the truth, this experience prompted me to study up on polygraphy and to discover to my surprise that it was nonsense.

Oh, and I never sat on anything other than a hard wooden chair. I had the finger thingies put on, the chest band and a blood pressure cuff, sat sideways to the polygrapher and did as I was told.

Re: Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling t

[oodaloop]

I took one, for the Defense Intelligence Agency. And in addition to the stuff you mentioned, I sat on a pad that was wired to the same machine the rest of it was. Considering this is the federal govt that pressed charges, not some low budget local police station, I'd say my experience is a little note relevant.

He's a political prisoner.

[jcr]

This is a straight-up first amendment violation.

-jcr

Can somebody please explain this to me?

[mwvdlee]

In what way is this a crime?
Beating a polygraph in itself is not illegal, right?

Re:Can somebody please explain this to me?

[cpghost]

Beating a polygraph in itself is not illegal, right?

Won't somebody please think of the poor polygraphs?

I don't quite understand

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would it be a crime to teach how to lie successfully if lying is not a crime? Eric Holder can commit multiple perjury before congress ("Fast and Furious" anybody) and get away with having to investigate himself and coming to the conclusion "I feel pretty". Alexander Clapper can commit perjury before congress and get away without anybody feeling the need to do anything about it.

If perjury is apparently not a crime, why would it be a crime to teach how to lie?

It's a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not beating a machine, it's all about the examiner. Polygraphs are a scam but people buy into the idea a machine can discern the truth from a lie. That's the hook. I had a boss years ago who was a very good examiner and he told me that. Facing a Reid Technique interviewer would be tougher than a polygraph.

I disagree

[Archfeld]

"The laws aren't there to uphold social norms"...

That is exactly the reason the laws exist. To establish and enforce a so-called social standard. The laws SHOULD be there for safety and security but they have been perverted into a means for enforcing a government determined social standard, much the same way the police have gone from protecting from physical harm to enforcing social and economic policies...

Re:I disagree

[girlintraining]

"The laws aren't there to uphold social norms"...

That is exactly the reason the laws exist.

I'm sure then, that you have a ready explanation then for why so many black dudes are in jail, why laws like "stop and frisk" in NY seem to disproportionately target minorities, and other obvious examples of selective enforcement...

All of that is to "uphold social norms", right? And what of the case where the majority is wrong to oppress a minority? By definition, oppression is a social norm... so according to you, laws should never be challenged, oppression should be allowed to continue, because the law is always right.

Re:I disagree

[Type44Q]

That is exactly the reason the laws exist.

No. That is the reason we're told they exist. And you're either one of the vast majority of sub-geniuses who swallowed their bullshit or else you're one of them. You tell me. :)

Re:I disagree

[AK Marc]

He didn't say the laws were always right. You are an idiot. The laws are there to uphold social norms, and yes, racial discrimination in the US is the social norm. Right or wrong, it's the norm, and the laws reflect that.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

... there to uphold social norms ...

People have drunk alcohol for thousands of years. That continued during the US prohibition. The law didn't uphold the social norm, it actively vilified it. A similar situation exists for cannabis use.

Similarly, the law ended slavery and racial segregation. But US town councils actively kept black citizens away from white citizens in public spaces like buses and theatres. The law didn't punish racial vilification, it allowed the social norm to continue.

Then there's 'stop and frisk' on the street and in airports, and civil forfeiture (the judicial branch as privateers). Which social norms do these laws uphold?

Lastly, there's executive decisions to suspend the law: constitution-free zones, free-speech 'zones', unlimited meta-data spying, and 'too big to jail'. Do these rulings uphold social norms?

Re:I disagree

[furbyhater]

You're the idiot. Laws reflect the social norm of racial discrimination? Maybe selective enforcement upon minorities reflect this "social norm", but laws, to the contrary, make racial discrimination illegal (in theory).

Re:I disagree

[AK Marc]

The laws allow the "discretion" that makes selective enforcement for racial reasons 100% legal. The law doesn't mandate racial discrimination, but allows for it.

Re:I disagree

[Archfeld]

All of that is to "uphold social norms", right? And what of the case where the majority is wrong to oppress a minority?... By definition, oppression is a social norm...

Sadly for all but the last 100? years YES, oppression has been the social norm, and no I don't agree with it, but it IS

Re:I disagree

[Archfeld]

I didn't write the laws nor do I agree with a great many of them, but they exist for the exact reason they were written, to enforce a code of social conduct that the authors or those whose interest the authors hold most dearest intended...

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

More BS from AK Marc, folks!

Racial discrimination is largely gone, apart from some isolated regions in the south.

What's actually the norm now is socioeconomic discrimination. In other words, people don't like you if you're poor. They don't care how much melanin you have.

Re:I disagree

[krischik]

"The laws aren't there to uphold social norms"

That is exactly the reason the laws exist.

That is the theory you are talking about. But the girlintraining was talking about what happens in real live. Very different things.

Re:I disagree

[AK Marc]

Wow, a stalker. Fun.

People care how dark you are. Did you not notice in the past 10 years the widespread use of "towelhead"? A racist/nationalist/religious bigotry based mainly on skin, and not even the headgear mentioned.

Re:I disagree

[coolsnowmen]

Stop & frisk,
It was an abuse of the nebulous "reasonable suspicion" copout for forth amendment violations. They looked purely at crime statistics, and said we are going to stop and frisk in these high crime areas to try and catch the crime in action

While you and I probably don't agree with this, at no point has any racist decision been made.

But, the problem is, even if rich white people do exactly as many illegal drugs as poor black people, because they lived in a "high risk/high crime" area, they are getting caught 100X (made up number) as often.

The real problem is the war on drugs in general in this case. We spend all this money to put people in jail, and we aren't really helping them in anyways. Instead we've removed people from the work force, and effectively made it impossible for them to get normal jobs after that, basically encouraging them to go back to a life involving drugs.

Re: I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Even that is based on religion, not skin. In your case, of course, all you have is a hammer, so every disagreeable problem looks like a nail to you.

Re: I disagree

[AK Marc]

I have eyes, every problem looks like what it looks like. That you choose to ignore reality you don't like doesn't change reality.

Indiana Man Gets 8 Months For Teaching How To Beat

[rickyslashdot]

A TOTAL non-issue item. The idiot actually took clients KNOWN to be offenders of one sort or another, and deliberately flouted common sense by teaching basic bio-reaction techniques to those who wanted to break / bypass legal limitations !

Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

You said exactly what I was thinking. Why do libertarians and conservatives always believe that it's the government that is the greatest threat to their liberties, while the private sector has us all thoroughly under their thumbs?

Re:Thanks

[0111 1110]

Because the private sector isn't known for invading your home at 3 AM, shooting your pets and maybe a few family members depending on how jumpy the cops are and then locking everyone in cages for years. The private sector isn't known for actually forcing you to do anything. The only power of the corporation is the power of money. Economic power. That is a far cry from the power to shoot or imprison you.

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only because whatever Blackwater is calling themselves this week has a well-paid PR department.

Re:Thanks

[tibman]

Never had a shitty land-lord, eh?

Free speech and knowledge

[nurb432]

Is now a commodity to be bought and sold by the federal government.

Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr

[hedwards]

King County doesn't have police, King County has a Sheriff's Department. I'm guessing that you're making this up, because I'd imagine that if I were ever arrested that I would at least remember the name of the department.

What's more, polygraphs aren't admissible in court, regardless of what the results are. So, either you're lying or you had a really shitty attorney.

So what was the crime???

[phreakincool]

So if he didn't tell his students to not reveal his teachings and methods, then it would have been legal?

Re: Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling t

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this the same federal government that spend millions and millions of dollars on relabelled golf-ball detectors to detect bombs? Is the pressure sensitive pad any different? Would you like to buy a tiger repelling rock?

next time

[Anonymous Coward]

Jury trail,

you mean like politicians lie every single day?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keith Alexander - the NSA has not listened to telephone calls. LIE

Dick Cheney - we had good evidence there were WMDs in Iraq - LIE

Obama - I will be the most transparent president ever - LIE

Nixon - I am not a crook - LIE

Clinton - I did not have sex with that woman - LIE

Re:you mean like politicians lie every single day?

[AK Marc]

Clinton - I did not have sex with that woman - LIE

True. The judge defined "sex" as essentially "anything touching a vagina" and since that didn't happen, the only non-lie was "no", because the judge was an idiot. Clinton was the only one prosecuted for his lie. The only lie that harmed nobody, and the only one prosecuted. And it wasn't even an lie.

Re:you mean like politicians lie every single day?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because the judge was an idiot doesn't mean it wasn't a lie. Oral sex is not sex? Gimme a fucken' break.

Re:you mean like politicians lie every single day?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama - I will be the most transparent president ever - LIE

Breaking a promise is not a lie. I'm not saying it's better, but pick one of his other lies next time.

On Duh Udder Hand

[b4upoo]

OK I will teach people to beat the polygraph only on nongovernmental tests. For example employers sometimes ask for random polygraph checks. Now does that make me exempt from legal prosecutions? Are our laws that silly?

Re:On Duh Udder Hand

[Anonymous Coward]

See the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (which conveniently exempts Federal gov).

Re:If you can beat Polygraphs then doesn't that me

[The Wild Norseman]

You do realize that no court of law considers a polygraph admissible ... right?

If the government doesn't want to hire you, they don't need to frame you on a polygraph.

You need to stop watching so much Law and Order or whatever silly show you got the idea from.

Unfortunately, you are still quite wrong. The United States has courts that accept polygraph tests under strict rules. Dunno why, but it's still true.

Re:If you can beat Polygraphs then doesn't that me

[The Wild Norseman]

Courts still accept polygraphs under strict rules. If you have information to the contrary, I'd like to see it; I would love to be wrong in this instance.

Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr

[The Wild Norseman]

Holy shit, you are such an asshole. Yes, it was King County Sheriff's department. My fucking mistake. I was never arrested; I took the screening polygraph for potential employment and very grateful now that I didn't pass.

Re: Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling t

[The Wild Norseman]

I took one, for the Defense Intelligence Agency. And in addition to the stuff you mentioned, I sat on a pad that was wired to the same machine the rest of it was. Considering this is the federal govt that pressed charges, not some low budget local police station, I'd say my experience is a little note relevant.

Yup, that's why I sought clarification.

Convicted for resisting A FAKE SYSTEM!

[lasermike026]

The people in charge are the most stupid among us. Fire them. Fire them all.

Youtube

[Weezul]

Could we please get a reputable source to respond to this conviction by creating a free* online course on beating a polygraph?

* Yes, you must buy or make your own polygraph machine to take the otherwise "free" course.

Mod parent up please.

[gottabeme]

Mod parent up please.

Re:Indiana Man Gets 8 Months For Teaching How To B

[dbIII]

Wrong. There was entrapment so the "clients" you've discussed are imaginary and an agent pretended to be one of those imaginary people.
There may have been others but that's irrelvent since it didn't get proven in court.
Remember that the mouse that eats your cheese in a trap in not necessarily the one that is opening your fridge and cutting off slices to eat.

Re: Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling t

[AK Marc]

Did they supply you with all the questions asked before-hand, or if not, did they repeat every question more than once?

Wait What?

[Anonymous Coward]

So they want to send a guy who teaches people how to beat poly test to prison to teach criminals how to do it? How retarded is this?

How is this any different...???

[bratwiz]

How is this any different from Scientology?

Free speech is dead.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a crystal clear case of free speech.

It's absolutely crazy that he actually got convicted for what is essentially a thought crime.

Wow. Just, wow....

A precedent.

[GigaBurglar]

The first ever documented case of thought crime.

Re:Indiana Man Gets 8 Months For Teaching How To B

[rickyslashdot]

Pardon my stupidity - I actually thought that there was a modicum of intelligence on this website

Felony one way, OK the other

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it a felony to lie to an agent of the US government, but it's perfectly legal for the TSA to lie to citizens in FOIA documents?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130905/18570724424/court-says-tsa-can-lie-about-whether-not-it-has-information-youre-requesting.shtml
http://jimbovard.com/blog/2010/08/18/the-crime-of-lying-to-the-fbi/

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand the US Supreme Court has ruled that the government is not constitutionally required to tell the truth.

If a homophobe is given a polygraph...

[Anonymous Coward]

If a homophobe is taking a polygraph, and an "inquisitioner" asks him, "are you gay, do you like men?", his blood pressure and heart rate no doubt changes, does that make him a liar?

New "Carefully Carved Exception" to free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Being paid to teach how to commit a crime is now a crime in and of itself. What is next? Will quoting "The kingdoms of this world have now become the kingdoms of our God and of his Christ" from John's Apocalypse become a violation of the Smith Act concerning advocacy of the violent overthrow of the US government via a foreign power? After all, is not the God of Israel (or any deity) considered a foreign power with respect to the US government?

Re:Irony

[pongo000]

On the other hand the US Supreme Court has ruled that the government is not constitutionally required to tell the truth.

Right on! This is why dealing with the feds is so dangerous: They can lie to you with impunity, and your answers to their lies are still admissible in court.

Re:If you can beat Polygraphs then doesn't that me

[reve_etrange]

It's actually a hodgepodge across different jurisdictions. It seems like for the most part it's very difficult to use polygraph evidence in court, but the government does employ them generally. A fair number of states have severely restricted use. Source

Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr

[HornWumpus]

A geek who likes to understand and fuck with machines? Also not a god damn law abider.

still not accurate...

[globaljustin]

It's like saying the low oil light on your car is "absolutely not an oil detector"

absolutely not...an 'oil light' is actually *scientific* and has been tested and calibrated against chemicals that behave very predictably

here's your analogy to car shit:

"It's like saying a banging from the engine is 'absolutely not the alternator'"

'banging' is completely subjective to each driver in each scenario...like a person's physiological reactions

however, an engine *can* make noise that virtually any hearer would guess that it comes from the engine...

but, be that as it may, you *still* are making a complete assumption to say anything about whether it is the alternator or not...just given that you hear a 'bang' in the engine.

however, given alot of context...alot of time driving in many different conditions, *and* insider knowledge of what has been fixed recently and what has shown signs of wear on the engine...

combined with the 'bang'...

is still speculation!

that's why your description is not accurate ;)

keep on sniffing...

[globaljustin]

your own farts...maybe it'll eventually get you high

speaking of which, only someone who is high on government dope would type this with a straight face:

The machine shows you responses you can't see. It's as simple as that, there's no reason for it not to work.

man, there is *every reason* that science uses as reasons to *know* as much as science lets us know that those responses are interpreted and based on speculation.

that machine has nothing to do with they question at hand...even if a guilty person lies and the needles go haywire, **that doesn't mean shit**

you still have no idea of they are guilty or innocent

You *only* know what the interviewee tells you verbally...the rest is your imagination agumented by the military/industrial complex and your need to pay your mortgage

get a real fucking job

never accurate enough

[globaljustin]

but rather that it is simply not accurate enough. That's it. That's all. It does detect lying about 80-93% of the time,

stop it...just stop...you made up those numbers

also, you do not understand accuracy in a scientific sense

correlation is not causation...let's start there

no one knows how the brain works...the best we can do is match *self reported* data to vague electrical changes in parts of the brain

emotional data is **self reported** non-quantifiable data...it is not fit for accurate comparison in the way you describe at all

it is physically impossible to know if a person is lying based on physiological response

all the Wired articles you read and TED talks about using fMRIs to detect autism earlier...it's not at all what you are reading it to be...

just stop...you don't know what you are talking about

the lie detector test that worked

[Anonymous Coward]

Your lie detector test proved that they were lying... and that the best liars are the ones who believe their own lies.

It is a house of card here is why.

[Anonymous Coward]

AT best it has only 60-70% to catch you if you are a *willingly honest* participant. But if you are unwilling, and know the methods to fight it (between the pain one, the fear one and the math one, or even a combo of all of them), then you chance fall to 50% (aka , as good as random chance). Thus you will catch with this method only people dumb enough to not know what a polygraph is, and those buying into a the "lie detector" lie. The one you WANT to catch, the real bad guy , will have trained themselves to laugh at your pityful test.

in fact there was a guy which spied for (?decades) and they never caught him in polygraph test.

A test made to tdetect bad guy, where bad guy can easily kick, is a useless tets which gives you a FALSE confidence, which is worse than having NO test.

Re:If you can beat Polygraphs then doesn't that me

[AHuxley]

Yes its an amazing ritual thats been sold to the US gov since the end of WW2. Thats almost entering a religious passing down of the tech.
The UK tested the options in the early 1980's and found it to be total junk. Good people fail, bad people are given one more trick to stay in with.
The main part is the tracking a person before the test - internet use, reading - the full background before the test.
If you look up sites about the test, they are 'ready' with verbal and device mind games based on what you looked up.
How they present on the day, wait for the test (read, what you read while waiting), the pre test questions, reactions 'during' the test, the after test chat and offer to 'help' if truthful. Been on your side, just be helpful - after 3 or more tests.

Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr

[Anonymous Coward]

King County doesn't have police, King County has a Sheriff's Department. I'm guessing that you're making this up, because I'd imagine that if I were ever arrested that I would at least remember the name of the department.

What's more, polygraphs aren't admissible in court, regardless of what the results are. So, either you're lying or you had a really shitty attorney.

He didn't say anything about being arrested, appearing in court or needing an attorney. I'd assumed he was applying for a job or something; it would be insane to use a polygraph for that purpose but from everything said in this story it seems that parts of the US Government do so whereas I doubt that anyone other than a dictator would consider using them in a court setting - they're useless for anything except show trials.

Land of the free

[Anonymous Coward]

Land of the free. Welcome to the China experience, where people can get jailed for speaking. It's a good thing the USA will crumble soon, with the rest of the world ; with no money to pay people to fuck us all all day, there ought to be fewer of them afterward.

Another effect

[dutchwhizzman]

By permanently removing people from the voting process, you are permanently removing them from the system that makes the laws. Try convincing someone he has to abide a law that is part of a system that cast him out. It's not their law any more, so why should they bother? You basically take away an important part of being a citizen for these people, you can't really expect them to behave like one if you do. Let them pay their debt to society and then let them carry on with their lives. Sure, probation time may be a period where you keep them from voting, but give their right to vote back once they served their time and paid their fines.

Seems rather obvious

[gatkinso]

So don't ask why they want the training.

In fact, tell your customers that you don't want to know why they want the training (for both of your protection). Let them know the this act of keeping their mouth shut is lesson #1.

Also inform them that if you come to find out they are going to use the training to violate a law, you will have to contact the authorities (and follow through if need be).

Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr

[gatkinso]

When I took a poly, I had to sit on a pad that was attached to a USB cable (no lie!). Also they made me take my shoes off and place my feet on a mat that was also attached to a USB cable.

If advising people how to lie ...

[Rambo Tribble]

... is subject to criminal punishment, what are the remifications for the legal industry? Is this man's only crime that he did what he did without a law license?

Re:If you can beat Polygraphs then doesn't that me

[The Wild Norseman]

Yes, thank you. I didn't read Wiki in my relatively brief search, but what I did read meshes with that.

Well

[Anonymous Coward]

"One that does not support all actions of the ruling party should be considered a traitor."

You cant lie to a federal officer

[WOOFYGOOFY]

IANAL but I don't think you can lie to a federal officer if he/she is engaged in official duties when questioning you. Lawyers, please join in.

Counseling someone to lie .. is that a crime?

Obvious 1st Amendment Violation

[Anonymous Coward]

Hope he can get the resources to appeal. ACLU??

Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr

[dead_cthulhu]

A combination of benzos and beta-blockers would probably do the job a bit more easily.

Polygraph and oppressive government

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the Dixon web site, the 90 Minutes investigation. The polygraph is one big lie. Its real use by cops is to intimidate and extract confessions. The prosecutors who wanted to put Dixon in prison for two years for exposing the polygraph fraud are simply working hand in hand with the oppressive government we live under. In case you didn't know, prosecutors are cops with law degrees. They take their instructions from the government. They don't exercise independent judgement and seek justice, as they are sworn to do. If you find one who is clean, it's a rare bird.

AWWW! They just found out....

[Anonymous Coward]

Their tarot cards aren't real. Astrology doesn't work. Their palm reader was a fake.

And GUESS WHAT ELSE--the Easter Bunny's doing life for killing Santa Claus.

America

[vikingpower]

you are turning into a police state.

He should thank the government

[TheInternetGuy]

He should thank the government for putting him in contact with such a large client base. Building a contact list like that on the outside would have taken decades.

Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr

[Whorhay]

Not that they are the paragon of real scientific inquiry but the Myth Busters did a show on lie detectors including an MRI and found that they could actually beat the MRI more reliably.

Admiting they don't work?

[superdave80]

Hasn't the government just told the entire world that polygraph tests don't work? They threw a guy in jail for teaching people how to beat their test, so they acknowledge that the test isn't fool-proof.

Seems kind of silly for them to even keep using the lie-detector test if it is possible to learn how to beat it. Just imagine if there was some way to make this information readily available to, I don't know, the entire world?

Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr

[reve_etrange]

Thanks, I had no idea. I will definitely be watching that one soon. Also, I thought about it some more and now I think that absolutely every problem with a polygraph is present with fMRI.

The MRI will need to be interpreted (like a polygraph) because 1) every brain is a little different, 2) there is still no "unit of lying" (i.e. no single objective output), 3) brain activity correlated with lying will also correlate with other thoughts or activities and 4) impossible to really link transient brain activity to transient speech (i.e. brain activity occurs before, during and after speech, thus can't link given word uttered now to brain activity observed now / in near future). As with the polygraph, the "expert" interpretation cannot be more than opinion.

So yeah, short of the type of actual telepathy in Bester's The Demolished Man, no lie detection.

Beating Polygraphs akin to shape shifting!

[Anonymous Coward]

Polygraph testing is always subject to mumbo jumbo, witchcraft, and psychic readings. It all depended on the person interpreting the results.
I know, for I am one of the above skilled in the arts of "reading" body language, and knowing the future fate of others...