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 ..

[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]

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 ..

[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 ..

[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 ..

[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 ..

[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 ..

[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 ..

[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 ..

[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 ..

[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 ..

[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 ..

[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 ..

[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

[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.

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

[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!

[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!

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

[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...

[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?

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: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?

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...

[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...

[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...

[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]

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...

[AmiMoJo]

Citation for that?

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Khashishi]

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

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

mmm

[houbou]

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

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: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

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.

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: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.

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?

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.

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

[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

[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 !

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?

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.

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: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?

How is this any different...???

[bratwiz]

How is this any different from Scientology?

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

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: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: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

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: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.

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.

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?

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: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.

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:Thanks

[tibman]

Never had a shitty land-lord, eh?

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.