Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the preserving-layers-of-lies dept.

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."

65 of 356 comments (clear)

  1. Hell hath no fury .. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... 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....

    1. Re:Hell hath no fury .. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Hell hath no fury .. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Hell hath no fury .. by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... 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?

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:Hell hath no fury .. by wjcofkc · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    5. Re:Hell hath no fury .. by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    6. Re:Hell hath no fury .. by reve_etrange · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    7. Re:Hell hath no fury .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Hell hath no fury .. by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    9. Re:Hell hath no fury .. by reve_etrange · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    10. Re:Hell hath no fury .. by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    11. Re:Hell hath no fury .. by hedwards · · Score: 2

      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.

    12. Re:Hell hath no fury .. by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      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'

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  2. federal overreach, as usual by stenvar · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:federal overreach, as usual by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:federal overreach, as usual by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:federal overreach, as usual by grahamwest · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Graham
  3. AMERIKAN GULAG! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Welcome to Thoughtcrime!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:AMERIKAN GULAG! by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      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?

    2. Re:AMERIKAN GULAG! by Noishe · · Score: 2

      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.

    3. Re:AMERIKAN GULAG! by jythie · · Score: 2

      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.

  4. Some FA by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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).

    1. Re:Some FA by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Interesting

      “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?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Some FA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    3. Re:Some FA by bmo · · Score: 2

      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.

    4. Re:Some FA by buybuydandavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

    5. Re:Some FA by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:Some FA by pongo000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  5. Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr by oodaloop · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  6. So what about Penn and Teller? by ethicalcannibal · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  7. By prosecution... by jjeffries · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  8. Re:Invisible text in the first amendment by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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."

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  9. Covered in my Psyc 101 class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  10. Joke laws by gmuslera · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  11. proving parent right... by globaljustin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:proving parent right... by Thantik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:proving parent right... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Funny

      The same thing goes for smoke shops.

      For all your gift and lifestyle accessory needs.

    3. Re:proving parent right... by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:proving parent right... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:proving parent right... by genner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:proving parent right... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      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.

    7. Re:proving parent right... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    8. Re:proving parent right... by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    9. Re:proving parent right... by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

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

    10. Re:proving parent right... by Kjella · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    11. Re:proving parent right... by dryeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  12. Criminal conduct my ass. by wjcofkc · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  13. What was he ACTUALLY convicted of? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  14. In other news, Dorothy arrested by MI-5 by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:Welcome to the USSA by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

    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

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  16. Re:It's God by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

    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.

  17. Anyone know what law he broke? by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    and what the charge was?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  18. Re:Invisible text in the first amendment by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    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.

  19. Who's next, Cory Doctorow? by FuzzNugget · · Score: 2

    Homeland , pg. 133-137.

  20. Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
  21. Re: Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling t by oodaloop · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  22. Re: Invisible text in the first amendment by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    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.

  23. Re: Invisible text in the first amendment by AlphaWoIf_HK · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
  24. I disagree by Archfeld · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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...

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:I disagree by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    2. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... 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?

  25. you mean like politicians lie every single day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

    1. Re:you mean like politicians lie every single day? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
  26. Re:Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling tr by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
  27. He should thank the government by TheInternetGuy · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame