Slashdot Mirror


US Gov't Circulates Watch List of Buyers of Polygraph Training Materials

George Maschke writes "Investigative reporter Marisa Taylor of the McClatchy newspaper group reports that a list of 4,904 individuals who purchased a book, DVD, or personal training on how to pass a polygraph test has been circulated to nearly 30 federal agencies including the CIA, NSA, DIA, DOE, TSA, IRS, and FDA. Most of the individuals on the list purchased former police polygraphist Doug Williams' book, How to Sting the Polygraph, which explains how to pass or beat a polygraph test. Williams also sells a DVD on the subject and offers in-person training. In February 2013, federal law enforcement officials seized Williams' business records, from which the watch list was primarily compiled. Williams has not been charged with a crime."

303 comments

  1. When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When will they realize that their entire polygraph system is flawed in principle? It's mumbo jumbo! Might as well be reading tea leaves. It only works if the person being "tested" believes that it works.

    1. Re:When will they realize by lxs · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now you've put all the readers of my tea leaves self-defense newsletter on a watchlist. Thanks!

    2. Re:When will they realize by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      The moment that cronie's nephew's job isn't dependant on them not realizing it. So about the same time they realize arresting people over smoking flowers (which was also started as a jobs program since the FBN had fuck all to do after prohibition ended) .

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    3. Re:When will they realize by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      ....is a bad idea too.

      damn I should fire my editor, he sucks.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:When will they realize by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Flawed in principle" is putting it rather mildly. I'd put it as "complete and utter bullshit." Polygraphs are on a level with dousing and voodoo dolls.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:When will they realize by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Flawed in principle" is putting it rather mildly. I'd put it as "complete and utter bullshit." Polygraphs are on a level with dousing and voodoo dolls.

      We should really just go back to good old Phrenology. Imagine how sophisticated our discernment of the criminal type could be, now that we have rapid 3d scanning technology!

      We could even have employees shave their heads, and do a daily scan as they walk in the door. If the bump indicative of 'leaking tendencies' or 'disloyalty' increases in size, we'll know something is up. This plan is practically infallible.

    6. Re:When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sodium pentathol FTW!!!

    7. Re:When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Flawed in principle" is putting it rather mildly. I'd put it as "complete and utter bullshit." Polygraphs are on a level with dousing and voodoo dolls.

      Voodoo dolls are -- contrary to common belief -- made to stimulate areas where you have pain. They work if you associate with the doll, in which case you will feel a sensation in the same area the doll is being pierced -- increasing blood circulation. This psychological effect is the same as feeling the pain of figures in an animated movie.

      Polygraphs work!
      They just don't do what you want them to do. They measure, quite correctly, various things -- heart rates, breathing, etc. What is also true is that psychological effects can alter your physical reactions. So there will be patterns due to what is going on in your brain. The non sequitur is that these patterns are automatically connected to lying, or that you can, even in principle, detect lying.
      What is left is that the test is an interrogation based on deceit. The deceit is that the device is infallible and that your happiness relies on you complying with the procedure.

    8. Re:When will they realize by jythie · · Score: 1

      Such a realization would put a lot of careers at risk since people all through the law enforcement chain have built their reputation at least in part around polygraphs. It would mean confronting the fact that they used invalid evidence and thus their convictions might be false. It also means people with strong conviction records will have their stats questioned, if not by others then by themselves, and that represent a serious risk to self image (as well as political career).

      In other words, too much investment in being right to admit being wrong.

    9. Re:When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The divination you're thinking of is called "dowsing". "Dousing" refers to throwing water on something.

    10. Re:When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will they realize that their entire polygraph system is flawed in principle? It's mumbo jumbo! Might as well be reading tea leaves. It only works if the person being "tested" believes that it works.

      You are missing the point in a way that is both laughably naive and tragically stupid.

      The REAL reason the feds are doing this is that it gives them yet another reason
      they can use to justify arresting someone.

    11. Re:When will they realize by pla · · Score: 1

      They already know as much - Thus having polygraph evidence inadmissible in court and illegal for virtually all employers to demand of their workers.

      As usual, though, the government counts as the absolute worst offender when it comes to "Do as I say..."


      More to the point of TFA, though... It sounds just peachy that Uncle Sam knows about "all" 4,904 people who bought this thing directly, but what about the 4.904 million who simply downloaded the PDF for free online?

    12. Re:When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Waterboarding on the other hand...

    13. Re:When will they realize by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      "Flawed in principle" is putting it rather mildly. I'd put it as "complete and utter bullshit." Polygraphs are on a level with dousing and voodoo dolls.

      I suspect that having a heavily subjective (but allegedly Super Scientific) mechanism for generating justification for hounding people you dislike for other reasons is quite useful indeed....

      If we were using some sort of goofy 'truth' metric, they'd be useless; but things can be false as well as useful.

      Consider the analogy to drug sniffing dogs: While far better that their jobs than polygraphs, it isn't news that they 'indicate' in response to non-drugs all the damn time. That's more a feature than a flaw, though, since they only have to 'indicate', not be correct, in order to furnish probable cause for a good, old-fashioned, ransacking.

    14. Re:When will they realize by beatle42 · · Score: 1

      For many government agencies it's not about catching a criminal per se, it's about deciding who to allow into the circle of trust. If you have a screening process that will keep out, say, 90% (no basis for that number) of people you don't want to allow, but also will keep out 25% (similarly no basis) of people you could actually have allowed in, it's probably good policy to use that screening tool. If you have a list of people who you know have taken steps to beat that screening process you probably want to weigh that fact when considering who to allow into your circle.

      That it's not admissible in court, or has a high false positive rate isn't really a concern for the way most government agencies use it.

    15. Re:When will they realize by thoromyr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It isn't a matter of realizing that the polygraph is flawed. The NSA uses the counterintelligence scope poly for all employees, the CIA uses the more invasive "lifestyle" poly, and so on. All of this despite the fact that the inventor of the polygraph was a charlatan, it has been thoroughly debunked by scientific investigation, and all though intelligence people who have sold out their country (such as Aldritch Ames) passed the poly.

      The importance isn't in its efficacy, but in having something "tangible" to hold on to. The powers that be are like Linus -- they need a security blanket to hold on to and they have seized on the polygraph. When you are in charge of a department that is going to have access to the deepest and darkest secrets, the most politically damaging truths, you want -- as a person in charge -- you *need* for these things to remain secret. You do background checks, have agents investigate backgrounds, interview the person and people they know.

      But a clever person can conceal past malfeasance so that it does not come to light during the investigation. All you have from the personal interview is a *subjective* assessment of the person's honesty, truthfulness, and so on. What is needed is something more, something objective, something with a *score* that passes or fails the person being considered for this very sensitive position.

      That is where the polygraph comes in. Thanks to the salesmanship of the original charlatan, people who *need* it are willing to overlook the rather glaring flaws and falacies in its foundation. And once it gets embedded in the government you have bureaucratic inertia keeping it in place. So the security blanket is here to stay. Now more than ever those in power feel a need to have additional assurance that their employees won't turn on them. The demonstrated lack of efficacy in this regard just makes them all the more frantic.

      One point: your statement leaves the reader with the impression that the polygraph can work, and does if the person believes in it. This is tempting and perhaps plays a role in the self-deceit on the part of those who purvey and utilize polygraphs. But it simply isn't true. It *never* works to detect a lie. By coincidence a person may fail the polygraph while lying, but it is just a coincidence. Polygraphs have been studied and debunked.

      Polygraphs are less effective than voodoo where if someone brought up in a culture that believes in the efficacy of voodoo has a curse put on them they will become ill (of course, they have to *know* about the curse, but that is part and parcel of how voodoo works). In other words, strong indoctrination can invoke a placebo effect to cause harm. This same effect has not been successfully demonstrated with polygraphs and is implausible given there is no unique, causative mechanism between lying and the physiological effects being measured. And that's assuming there's *any* causative mechanism.

    16. Re:When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More to the point of TFA, though... It sounds just peachy that Uncle Sam knows about "all" 4,904 people who bought this thing directly, but what about the 4.904 million who simply downloaded the PDF for free online?

      It seems you need an agency that monitors what people are doing online.

    17. Re: When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would make the books on "beating it" the real scam, so why are we even discussion this?

      Most of you talking about how polygraphs don't work don't even know what being interviewed with one is like, which makes it hard to understand if you are disputing the whole process or just the machine... Or you're just ignorant.

    18. Re:When will they realize by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      > Polygraphs are on a level with dousing and voodoo dolls.

      And yet like them, there is always that person who thinks they work.

      I was recently in a particular crowd of people I know who are somewhat prone to such beliefs. I mentioned how some guy had been selling essentially dowsing rods to miliary forces in Iraq, claiming that they were bomb detectors (they had no sensor, it was just a plastic handle with a card slot and a telescoping antena on a swivel)

      Of course, I said this expecting the meaning to be taken as "the guy was a scam artist" but one of my friends piped up "Well nothing wrong with that, dowsing works if you know how to do it"...... sigh....

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    19. Re:When will they realize by jovius · · Score: 1

      The polygraph adds stress, and it becomes more difficult to lie in a coherent manner. Of course the test can be beaten, but if the operator is observable and skillful the signs can be picked. So it's not so much (or not at all) about the actual graphing. Staring at the machine will not yield any usable result. The eyes are on the one being tested.

    20. Re:When will they realize by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thank God for torrents, huh? I grabbed my copy from 195.208.24.91!

      Oh, wait. Oh shit!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    21. Re:When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      With regard to national security polys I'd suggest that it's not primarily about catching people in a lie - it's about intimidation and control. If people know they will be subject to a poly and believe they work they are less likely to do the bad things that the gov is concerned about.

      I personally really resent having my livlihood & security under the control of pseudoscientific nonsense.

      And anybody that consents to one in a criminal case is out of their mind.

    22. Re:When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this is ridiculous. You're saying it comes down to the subjective interpretation of 'signs' by the operator. That's absurdly ridiculous.

    23. Re:When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't go quite that far. They are measuring something, and that something can possibly indicate stress which can possibly indicate untruthfullness. The reall problem is that it is far to subjective and the false alarm rate is enormous. And all the causality implied but not necesarily there in all the steps above: physiological reaction -> stress -> untruthfulness. That's alot of handwaving for an intaraction with something as complex as human behavior and psychology.

    24. Re:When will they realize by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      come near me with that needle and I'll stab you in the eye with it.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    25. Re:When will they realize by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "It only works if the person being "tested" believes that it works."

      Just like homeopathy.
      Many books and studies have demonstrated that it's not better than a placebo, but nonetheless millions believe it it.
      I guess doctors should also circulate such a list and give only real drugs to the readers.

    26. Re:When will they realize by LanMan04 · · Score: 2

      Nope, polygraphs DO work....but only because people THINK they work.

      They trick people into confessing things they wouldn't otherwise confess, because "the machine will find out" anyway and at least there may be some mercy if they voluntarily confess.

      All bullshit, of course, but it does work....just not for the reasons we assume it does.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    27. Re:When will they realize by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      When will they realize that their entire polygraph system is flawed in principle? It's mumbo jumbo! Might as well be reading tea leaves. It only works if the person being "tested" believes that it works.

      I think we should skip the scientific mumbo-jumbo entirely and go back to the old tried and true ways: hot irons applied to the subject's tongue and body.

      If it was good enough for great-great-great-grandad...

    28. Re:When will they realize by jalopezp · · Score: 2

      Even better. Short of attaching prosthetic plates to the outside of your skull, there is nothing really you can do about beating a phrenology test. There could be no phrenology lessons or lists people how buy books on how to beat a phrenology exam.

      --
      Change the shape of your skull in seconds!

    29. Re:When will they realize by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why would someone want to buy or illegally download a book telling how to pass a polygraphic test, while there is one freely available. This books is called "The Lie Behind The Lie Detector", and it is available as a PDF here

      I used this book back in the days to pass the polygraph test in the RCMP recruitment process, and I succeeded. I finally refused the job, but got through all the process pretty easily.

    30. Re:When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More to the point of TFA, though... It sounds just peachy that Uncle Sam knows about "all" 4,904 people who bought this thing directly, but what about the 4.904 million who simply downloaded the PDF for free online?

      The NSA has that list.

      Isn't it wonderful that we live in a Free Country?

    31. Re:When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US polygraphs are either not admissible or both parties have to agree to use them in court depending on the state.

    32. Re:When will they realize by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Um, they realize it now. That's why they don't want people reading these books. The emperor has no clothes, so instead of clothing the emperor we just make sure everybody's wearing a blindfold.

    33. Re:When will they realize by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      That's frustrating when getting or keeping your job depends on getting or keeping a security clearance, but for truly important things your approach makes sense. The difficulty is that false positives are not the only problem with polygraphs; they also give false negatives. Hence depending at all on such a technique gives you a false sense of security. It's CYA at best.

    34. Re:When will they realize by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0

      I used this book back in the days to pass the polygraph test in the RCMP recruitment process, and I succeeded. I finally refused the job, but got through all the process pretty easily.

      sO YOU HAVE SAID a number of times. I think you should be HONEST with people and tell them that in fact you didn't "refuse" the job, you came up "dirty" on a UA, and were "refused" the job. There is a distiction.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    35. Re:When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this is ridiculous. You're saying it comes down to the subjective interpretation of 'signs' by the operator. That's absurdly ridiculous.

      Yes, it's a shame to scare people into doing something stupid. Like buying a book on how to beat a polygraph in their own name.

    36. Re:When will they realize by beefoot · · Score: 1

      You know that the link you posted is a honey pot, don't you?

    37. Re:When will they realize by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      The wackier BME types have been doing subdermal implantation of elastomeric silicone structures, in various shapes, for a while now; but I suspect that "Wacky BME types" and "People who have jobs that involve regular polygraphs" are sets that don't overlap too much (though I suspect that the overlap isn't zero, and that the overlap is weird.)

    38. Re:When will they realize by Professr3 · · Score: 0

      The sexual tension between you two is palpable

    39. Re:When will they realize by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      What is this "illegally download" to which you refer? I just found some electrons floating freely through the tubez, and gave them a home. Apparently, you didn't do a whois on the IP addy above, LOL!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    40. Re:When will they realize by beatle42 · · Score: 1

      Sure, there are false negatives, which is why it's not the only process used to determine whether or not you're granted a clearance (nor is it required for a lot of clearances at all). It's just one tool in the box, and given their goals it doesn't seem to me to be a bad idea to keep using it--in conjunction with other tools of course.

      No process is perfect, so if you're waiting for the one that has no false negatives you'll never get anything done. Knowing how a process fits into a larger system can let you try to layer things so their holes hopefully don't line up.

    41. Re:When will they realize by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Think maybe they're in need of donations for a room?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    42. Re:When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will they realize that their entire polygraph system is flawed in principle? It's mumbo jumbo! Might as well be reading tea leaves. It only works if the person being "tested" believes that it works.

      If only poygraphs actualyy detected lies, this might be relevant.

    43. Re:When will they realize by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      That sounds more like reverse phrenology.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    44. Re:When will they realize by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the false positive rate is so high that it's essentially useless at determining if someone is lying. As others have alluded to, it is the subject's belief that the interrogator with his machine that can somehow determine lies from truth that counts. Since even innocent people accused of a crime and interrogated in this fashion will have high stress levels, the machine itself has absolutely no technical capacity to determine truth or lie. The secret to beating a polygraph boils down to knowing that it's all smoke and mirrors and pseudoscientific BS.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    45. Re:When will they realize by George+Maschke · · Score: 1
      " The emperor has no clothes, so instead of clothing the emperor we just make sure everybody's wearing a blindfold."

      That's precisely the official thinking about polygraph policy. Ten years ago, a senior instructor at the federal polygraph school floated the idea of criminalizing the public dissemination of information about polygraph countermeasures. I never thought it would come to pass, but it seems a considerable effort is being made.

      --

      George W. Maschke
      AntiPolygraph.org

    46. Re:When will they realize by Stolovaya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I pretty much assume we're all on a watch list anyway. :(

    47. Re:When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Always have been; any government has always gotten the information it wanted one way or another. As usual, it's who has it and what they do with it.

    48. Re:When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They know this. They just don't want the people to know...

    49. Re:When will they realize by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      So you lied about being able to ride a horse?

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    50. Re:When will they realize by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      There is no credible evidence that dousing works. I've yet to see a single credible randomized trial that shows any statistical confidence that dousing things makes them wet.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    51. Re:When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Flawed in principle" is putting it rather mildly. I'd put it as "complete and utter bullshit." Polygraphs are on a level with dousing and voodoo dolls.

      Seems on par with the quality of the seize order.

    52. Re:When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that the link you posted is a honey pot, don't you?

      Better snag it through TOR before the spooks buy up too many nodes.

    53. Re:When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly right. The article should be entitled: How to Avoid Failing the Polygraph
      This, of course, is to never allow yourself to be hooked up to this phony machine in the first place.

    54. Re: When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I honestly didn't think Canadians knew how to lie.

    55. Re:When will they realize by atomicxblue · · Score: 1

      That's part of the reason for my whole fake identity online when signing up for websites. A little disinformation never hurt. :p I'm more scared of the amount ad agencies know about me, once they marry up websites visited to credit card information from grocery stores.

    56. Re:When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Throwing a dice isn't perfect either. We should use dices to revoke security clearances. And no polygraph aren't statistically likelier to give a correct result than dices.

    57. Re: When will they realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That PDF isn't a valid PDF. My phone refused to open it.

    58. Re:When will they realize by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      They've known this for a long time. What they're attempting to do is prevent the general populace from becoming aware of this.

      The basic techniques for fooling a polygraph were published before I was born. They've never excited attention here because no one uses a polygraph except as a prop in cheap foreign cop shows (and in spoofs thereof).

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    59. Re:When will they realize by GodGell · · Score: 1

      When will they realize that their entire polygraph system is flawed in principle? It's mumbo jumbo! Might as well be reading tea leaves. It only works if the person being "tested" believes that it works.

      They're already well aware of that. Which is precisely why they're taking this so seriously: they cannot allow this knowledge to spread too far and throw the legitimacy of polygraph tests into question.

      If it was a demonstrably legitimate way to learn if someone's telling the truth, they wouldn't need public perception to prop it up.

      --
      [SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS ... I mean, FUCK BETA] Eat. Survive. Reproduce. GOTO 10
    60. Re:When will they realize by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Good, the otherwise what would be the point of downloading it. You know who wants to keep polygraph tests, psychopaths because they want more of their own kind in there and they want to reject all honest people who have taken illegal substances, can't have free thinkers who would question criminality by superiors psychopathic officers. Polygraphs the number one proffered tools of psychopaths, if government organisation that relies on them should immediately be held suspect. Any individuals in positions of authority should immediately be held suspect and subject to infallible psychopath tests, summarily dismissed and investigated for criminal activity.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. Value for money by 2phar · · Score: 1

    Well.. I guess they'll get to put the book to good use real soon now..

  3. overreach by SkunkPussy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is pretty shady that they seize his materials, use it to their advantage, but then don't charge him with any crime. That's basically tyranny.

    --
    SURELY NOT!!!!!
    1. Re:overreach by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      it's robbery as well.

      you know what would be funny? administer a polygraph test on the people who seized the materials and ask them questions about their motives.

      and I mean, fuck, http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+to+beat+a+polygraph&sm=3 do they really expect to keep a list of everyone who clicks that link?(yes they do, sadly).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tyranny? In America?? Gee, you fucking think so?

    3. Re:overreach by aeranvar · · Score: 1

      Tyranny? No way. This is 'murica, the land of the free. The government was just exercising the freedom it has to seize his stuff.

    4. Re:overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey now, I learned from slashdot that if they just copied the information on his business records, that doesn't count as theft

    5. Re:overreach by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      That is pretty shady that they seize his materials, use it to their advantage, but then don't charge him with any crime. That's basically tyranny.

      Commies like you have no faith in America. It's not like he had any reasonable expectation of security in his person, papers, and effects or anything, now is it?

    6. Re:overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey now, I learned from slashdot that if they just copied the information on his business records, that doesn't count as theft

      according to the Ass of America, it does (RIAA)

    7. Re:overreach by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      That's basically tyranny.

      That's not what we were taught in government schooling.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:overreach by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they did the author a favor. Seems like they have validated his methods by these actions. Sales should increase.

    9. Re:overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is tyranny. That is so much tyranny Ima right a comment on it I tell ya. How much tyranny will the people put up with?

    10. Re:overreach by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      That is pretty shady that they seize his materials, use it to their advantage, but then don't charge him with any crime. That's basically tyranny.

      +17 insightful.

      It's been 9 months since they seized his records, and they haven't charged him with a crime? That proves that the criminal concerns were bull from the get go. They knew damn well what he was doing before they seized his records, and obviously knew damn well that criminal charges wouldn't hold up in court (either we have a few honest federal judges left, or they were worried about an actual jury of his peers).

    11. Re:overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is pretty shady that they seize his materials, use it to their advantage, but then don't charge him with any crime. That's basically tyranny.

      Absolutely.

      The day has come in America where the government can (and will) come into your business or your home, collect your things as they see fit, and you can't do anything about it.

      Where if they want to, they'll arrest and detain you under secret laws they won't tell you about.

      Where they can (and will) spy on everything you do, and use that as evidence against you but refuse to tell you what the evidence is or where it came from (or fabricate another reason to make it look legitimate).

      Where your 'rights' are increasingly becoming optional, ignored, or overruled by secret courts.

      Where corporations dictate government policy, and their 'rights' are more important than the rights of your citizens.

      America has become a country of jack-booted thugs in the night, a place where you can be subject to a 'border stop' hundreds of miles from a border.

      America has become everything she ever stood against, and are actively becoming as bad as the tyrants they used to claim to be opposed to.

      America is fucked. Truly and deeply fucked.

      And, unfortunately, you're exporting this douche-baggery to the rest of the world. And you've collectively decided that our rights are insignificant to your perception of security.

      Which means America has become the enemy of freedom and rights in the world, instead of its champion. And that is sad, and very alarming.

      Welcome to the dystopian future. You may find there is no going back from this.

    12. Re:overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is pretty shady that they seize his materials, use it to their advantage, but then don't charge him with any crime. That's basically tyranny.

      I'm sorry, you seem to be spewing rhetoric that suggests illegality somewhere in these actions. What exactly is illegal about what our government is doing here?

      Oh yeah, that's right. Not a fucking thing.

      Fuck you very much, Patriot Act.

    13. Re:overreach by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      That is pretty shady that they seize his materials, use it to their advantage, but then don't charge him with any crime. That's basically tyranny.

      Commies like you have no faith in America. It's not like he had any reasonable expectation of security in his person, papers, and effects or anything, now is it?

      Well we have the right to Keep and Bear Arms.

      Of course, if you've let things go to the point where you're not secure in your papers and where who you assemble with is under minute scrutiny, it's not going to be easy to form a well-regulated militia.

    14. Re:overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's robbery as well.

      you know what would be funny? administer a polygraph test on the people who seized the materials and ask them questions about their motives.

      and I mean, fuck, http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+to+beat+a+polygraph&sm=3 do they really expect to keep a list of everyone who clicks that link?(yes they do, sadly).

      Youtube is owned by Google. We already know they've got they're hooks into Google.

    15. Re:overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, what was it that the veterans we were supposed to be remembering a few days ago were fighting for anyway?

    16. Re:overreach by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Forming a well-regulated militia is easy, as long as you don't mind it being ~20% FBI moles building a case against you... Just ask all those pathetic 'domestic terrorists', who basically had to have their hands held through even the simplest steps of their terrorist plots by the feds.

    17. Re:overreach by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      On further thought, it's not just that they thought it probably wouldn't stand up in court, but that it wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell. If potential charges were merely iffy, they'd pull the usual trick of charging him with things that could lead to 500 years in prison, then offer him a plea bargain for 2 years. They figured he'd go for a real trial, probably get outfits like the ACLU on his side, and the gubmint would lose big time. If they could get an 82 year old nun convicted at trial of terrorism and potentially a 16 year sentence, then the possibility of successfully prosecuting this polygraph case must have been somewhere between incredibly improbable and outright impossible. The worst part is they understood that from the beginning.

    18. Re:overreach by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Forming a well-regulated militia is easy, as long as you don't mind it being ~20% FBI moles building a case against you... Just ask all those pathetic 'domestic terrorists', who basically had to have their hands held through even the simplest steps of their terrorist plots by the feds.

      I thought the usual makeup was something like 67% FBI moles, 32% CIA operatives and 6% actual militia members.

    19. Re:overreach by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      There should be FIA requests to find out how many investigations led to all the participants being a mole.

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    20. Re:overreach by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      So it's a 105% terrorist group. Is that part of the 99%, or the 1%, then?

    21. Re:overreach by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      So it's a 105% terrorist group. Is that part of the 99%, or the 1%, then?

      Dang! I KNEW I shouldn't have used numbers from the Government Accounting Office!

    22. Re:overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's unconstitutional is what it is. The PATRIOT ACT cannot override the highest law of the land.

    23. Re:overreach by atomicxblue · · Score: 1

      No basically about it. I had that same thought reading the summary and thought that was going to be what set off /., not the use of the polygraph itself.

    24. Re:overreach by atomicxblue · · Score: 1

      I always thought that was the right to a keep (with moat, of course) and some bear's arms...

  4. NSA will use the list to recruit new hires by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Funny

    Since the job obviously involves repeatedly lying to the American public.

    1. Re:NSA will use the list to recruit new hires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the NSA employees are sitting in a cubicle in front of computers and browsing spied results to try and do an analysis.
      The Good Wife's episode 'The bit bucket' pictured that. I had actually never pictured the NSA that way. I always imagined older people in a suit etc.
      Those employees are expected to be very obedient, so I would expect that having studied the polygraph would be a big no no actually...

    2. Re:NSA will use the list to recruit new hires by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Its a Soviet condition thats taken over the hiring systems.
      They can't trust their own countries staff due to the generational orders and tasks.
      On the first rejection do you go back to family and friends and talk of the interview you failed? Start reading up on how/why you failed?
      Or report back after some rest and try again?
      The other issue is the rapid intake of linguists, support contractors and other cleared teams in the US over the past 10 years.
      Can a person reporting to another country, faith, cult, peace group, press, contractor be as calm as a person totally loyal to their own gov during that first test then over 5 years, 10 years, 20 years?
      The UK would have found yes, the personality would be the same and would test the same. A totally dedicated person who is happy to help would drift past - cleared.
      The US seemed to be more trusting in the individual and the tech.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  5. But what if... by gti_guy · · Score: 1

    BitTorrent?

    1. Re:But what if... by cffrost · · Score: 1

      BitTorrent?

      I found only one torrent, and it looks dead and possibly fake: https://torrentz.eu/any?f=how+to+sting+the+polygraph

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    2. Re:But what if... by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      More interesting, what if spam/unsolicited mail? PIAWAAS (put me in a watchlist as a service) could be the new gold mine for startups,

  6. great way to calibrate a polygraph by BACbKA · · Score: 1
    So the first question should nowadays be:

    Have you ever successfully completed a polygraph cheating course? If yes, we won't hire you anyway.

    --

    VKh

    1. Re:great way to calibrate a polygraph by RoTNCoRE · · Score: 1

      FYI, they ask that shortly after the 'what's your name' type questions.

    2. Re:great way to calibrate a polygraph by Sporkinum · · Score: 2

      FYI, they ask that shortly after the 'what's your name' type questions.

      "Who is your daddy and what does he do?"

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    3. Re:great way to calibrate a polygraph by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Have you ever successfully completed an ineffective polygraph cheating course?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:great way to calibrate a polygraph by BACbKA · · Score: 1

      *snort* Reminds me of a 1960s J.Gordon sci-fi novel "Honesty is the best policy".

      --

      VKh

    5. Re:great way to calibrate a polygraph by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I'm a cop you idiot!!

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  7. The Streisand effect strikes again by Kardos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thanks for the advertisement! Once that hits the 'tubes in ebook form, thousands or even millions of us will get a copy. They can't put all of us on the watch list, right? Right?

    1. Re:The Streisand effect strikes again by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      You're talking a list of no more than a couple of megabytes of data, right? They might be able to.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:The Streisand effect strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What exactly makes you think they are not willing to put everybody on the watch list? The fact that they are unwilling to spy on all of us? Oh, wait...

    3. Re:The Streisand effect strikes again by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They probably will, but with that many people on the list, the list becomes worthless.

      The author should put it up on Amazon for 99 cents for a limited time, given all this free publicity he'll probably sell a million copies.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:The Streisand effect strikes again by vettemph · · Score: 1

      I am confident that we are all 'on' the watch list but with a ranking system that place some higher than others. Your ranking changes with every mouse click, every new GPS coordinate.
      Be paranoid my friend.
      Encrypt everything.
      Subvert everything possible.
      Blend in.
      No tattoos.
      No shirt logos.
      Plain black car.
      etc....

      Good luck.
      Allah Ackbar
      rocket launcher
      dirka dirka dirka
      drown them in noise...

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
    5. Re:The Streisand effect strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get this ebook instead (because it's free): http://www.antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf

      Probably the most interesting fact in the whole book (explained in detail) is that the polygraph is not only bad at detecting real liars--it is also biased in such a way that someone who's completely honest is more likely to be "caught". This is, as I understand it, because an honest person is about equally stressed on the "benchmark" questions where they assume you to be lying and thus a larger percentage of his other answers are flagged for being higher than the "lies".

    6. Re:The Streisand effect strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Encrypt everything.

      Fine way to get a couple extra "watch this guy" points. Its already been leaked/admitted that PGP in email is a determining factor.

    7. Re:The Streisand effect strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then add steganography to the mix.

    8. Re:The Streisand effect strikes again by Kardos · · Score: 1

      If PGP use is commonplace, it'll no longer stand out.

    9. Re:The Streisand effect strikes again by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Special Deal - for a short time only: Get a chance to put everything you've learnt into action in a real police questioning!

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    10. Re:The Streisand effect strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably will, but with that many people on the list, the list becomes worthless.

      Uh, a "plausible cause to harrass whoever you want" list is not worthless to this executive.

  8. 4th Amendment? by Vermonter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What about the 4th Amendment? This is a matter of national importance, damnit! We don't have time to let your petty rights get in the way.

  9. Not even then by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 2

    It's quite possible someone could 'react' to sensitive questions just out of fear. There's a lot at stake.

    False positives, not so good--trash a probably innocent person. I think FMRI has a chance of determining truthfulness, but polygraphs, not so much.

    --PM

    1. Re:Not even then by lxs · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Let's see if we can catch a dead salmon in a lie!

    2. Re:Not even then by currently_awake · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Given that a polygraph is not a reliable way to catch lies, and buying a book on beating it isn't illegal, and given that they just divulged confidential corporate information: I expect that a certain business man just got handed free money.

    3. Re:Not even then by jhumkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      I made that point once to a KY State Police polygraph operator (who I met because my father was a KSP officer) . . . the polygraph operator responded . . . "That's why we give/read a list of questions in advance . . . we want your reaction to the "lie" . . . not to the magnitude of the question."

      But . . . that was 20 years ago . . . things may have changed.

      --
      No, I don't remember your name. But the memory mapped screen on a TRS80 from 1977 is from 15360 to 16383 if that helps.
    4. Re:Not even then by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If our legal system was primarily driven by law then yes, but there is way too much politics involved here. Judges, the humans who get to decide such things, have a significant conflict of interests but will not recuse themselves, and it is unlikely they will rule against their own community's systematic behavior.

    5. Re:Not even then by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      Even if it did, it's almost always going to be horribly irresponsible to do that while helium is a limited resource. They should instead rely on doing real background checks and not relying on silver bullets to do their job for them.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:Not even then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's a shame. I mean, dead salmon are extremely trust worthy. No dead salmon would ever hand over all your secret cables or internal training manuals to journalists. When a dead salmon can't get a job in the security field because of a flawed test, the terrorists have won.

    7. Re:Not even then by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I dunno, something smells fishy about that guy.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    8. Re:Not even then by cffrost · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If our legal system was primarily driven by law then yes, but there is way too much politics involved here. Judges, the humans who get to decide such things, have a significant conflict of interests but will not recuse themselves, and it is unlikely they will rule against their own community's systematic behavior.

      I think judges should elected from pools of defense attorneys — no former prosecutors. Defense attorneys are used to defending people's Constitutional rights, while prosecutors are used to suppressing evidence and skirting Constitutional limits in order to put away "bad guys" even when the defendant is actually a "good guy." Defense attorneys give the people the benefit of the doubt, as opposed to the (police) state.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    9. Re:Not even then by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 2

      I had to take a polygraph test and I kept failing questions seemingly randomly. I finally figured out why, too. If I was at the end of an exhale when the interviewer reached the end of a question, I had to stop for just an instant to think whether to answer the question or take a breath. That tiny hesitation was enough to set it off. When the interviewer allowed me to answer the questions by nodding or shaking my head, I passed with flying colors.

    10. Re:Not even then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You would be surprised by the number of attorneys who swap between prosecution and defense throughout their careers. Sometimes more than once.

    11. Re:Not even then by azadrozny · · Score: 1

      I am confident that a nearly equal number of defense attorneys are guilty of the same offenses. While I agree that some attorneys go to far, both sides need a qualified proponent for the system to work. The prosecutor needs to represent the interest of the community, and the defense to represent the interests of the accused. A more interesting requirement would be to elect judges who have experience on both sides of criminal cases.

    12. Re:Not even then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Given that a polygraph is not a reliable way to catch lies, and buying a book on beating it isn't illegal, and given that they just divulged confidential corporate information: I expect that a certain business man just got handed free money.

      Obviously something fishy is going on to target this. The impact of hacking a polygraph test isn't shit on society as compared to teaching the masses how to pick locks, which is still perfectly legal.

      If they're putting these guys on a watch list, I truly fear what will happen to those who choose to attend computer security seminars like Black Hat and DEFCON. How long before "hackers" are re-branded as "terrorists" from a legal standpoint?

      That slipperly slope has been greased with anal lube. Careful, or you're gonna get fucked.

    13. Re:Not even then by mrjatsun · · Score: 1

      > Given that a polygraph is not a reliable way to catch lies

      That's not really the point of the test. While the actual polygraph test isn't all that accurate, the test itself does provide benefits if the people taking it believe it's accurate. People will be more likely to admit discretions, lost or misplaced material, not properly following protocols, etc.

    14. Re:Not even then by s.petry · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The preliminary questions that they claimed would be the "base line" really don't work because the system is flawed. It's kind of like claiming that meditation before the tea leaf reading makes reading tea leaves work.

      40 years ago, we knew it was flawed (we knew long before your statement of 20 years). Certain agencies of Government (including Military) trained agents/soldiers to beat the Polygraph. It's a bit more than simply not believing in the machine's ability to catch a lie, mostly adding in relaxation and breathing techniques. Leaks of that training could have something to do with public knowledge about how to beat the polygraph, the techniques are the same. This is why certain government agencies (did|do) not use just a polygraph, they used a narcotics selection to reduce your rational thinking ability, induce emotion, and increase your heart rate. (you may have heard of LSD, Sodium pentothol, etc..)

      Even with the narcotics selections, the Polygraph was beatable however. To most agencies, the polygraph became a fear technique long ago and was not seen as a real scientific tool like it was thought to be in the 50s and 60s. If they can scare you into thinking you will be caught in a lie, you may confess. They don't want the public to know that it's mumbo-jumbo though, because it's cheap and easy to use this old garbage to collect a confession.

      Now what I don't get is why they are trying to bust people that are making the voodoo public knowledge. It was bound to happen sooner or later, and them busting people does not make the polygraph magically valid science. That part is what the scientific community should be outraged over, and petitioning the Government to end it's use and persecution of people exposing the fraud.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    15. Re:Not even then by thoromyr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, part of the process in a poly is to "lead up" to the real questions. There's the "baseline" established by answering questions truthfully part ("what is your name", "what is your occupation", etc.) and some lie questions. The myth that it is more effective if someone believes in it is also played on: "think of a number between one and ten. Don't tell me the number just think about... 1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... 8... 9... 10..." and the operator will tell you the number you had picked. I tried to denote the long pauses between numbers. Basically, there is typically a gradual tension build up as the selected number is approached and relief/release when it has been passed. The long delays help to ensure a clear reading of this and the idea is that by demonstrating mind reading the subject will believe in the poly making it more reliable.

      Too bad it just isn't so. That is, there is no clear, causative relationship between lying and what the polygraph measures. Belief in the poly (and I've met folks who are absolutely convinced in their reliability) provides no help in passing one when being truthful, or failing one when lying. It is immaterial.

      Something people who haven't been around polys don't seem to be aware of and isn't something they think of is that subjects often fall asleep during a poly. They are slow and tedious. They take a long time. There's lots of waiting. You are required to lay there absolutely still. And if you fall asleep it negates the entire poly and it has to be redone.

      Another thing is the pretense that the polygraph tells whether or not someone is lying. It does no such thing. Instead, it is a set of graphs that are correlated with questions. In a serious polygraph this data is provided to two examiners who work independently. The goal is to yield a pass/fail, not a "subject was lying on points A, B and C, but lying on D, E and F". If the two examiners reach opposing conclusions then the data is provided to a third examiner and his determination is the ultimate finding. So with a polygraph there cannot be an uncertain answer: it is either pass or fail, nothing in between. It is graded by humans who the system expects will frequently have opposing findings and instead of that resulting in equivocacy it is simply referred to a single examiner to provide that authoritative result.

      It is hard to not see this as being the subjective, flawed system that it is, but for those that have a deep psychological and/or political need for it to be objective and accurate it appears to suffice.

    16. Re:Not even then by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I've a better idea, really. I think that BOTH sides should represent JUSTICE. Often enough, there are two or more interests represented in a trial, debate, or whatever, but justice remains absent.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    17. Re:Not even then by cffrost · · Score: 1

      A more interesting requirement would be to elect judges who have experience on both sides of criminal cases.

      That is interesting — I would get on board with that.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    18. Re:Not even then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have to disagree. As a lawyer myself, I have to chuckle about the popular conception of the "sleazy defense attorney" vs. that of the "crusading DA."

      In my experience, criminal prosecutors tend to easily be the sleaziest of the bunch and often are deeply complicit in malfeasance by the police who provide them with their evidence. This is unsurprising given that the structure of the system encourages prosecutors, especially in small scale criminal cases, to view defendants merely as potential notches on their belts and to always be looking for the big score, no matter what the cost. Defense attorneys, on the other hand work intimately with their clients, who despite whatever heinous crimes they may have committed, are ultimately people, and tend to develop a better sense of what is a reasonably balance between justice and humanity, both in their tactics and in the ultimate outcome a case demands.

    19. Re:Not even then by cffrost · · Score: 1

      You would be surprised by the number of attorneys who swap between prosecution and defense throughout their careers. Sometimes more than once.

      That had not occurred to me, but perhaps they'd make the best judges of all, in terms of minimizing bias.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    20. Re:Not even then by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      beat the "think of a number..." test: think of a number outside of the box. For a number between 1 and 10, think "11". Then just sit back and smile.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    21. Re:Not even then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except, in my experience as an attorney, anyone who gets involved in criminal law begins to see one side as the only ones interested in justice and the other side as a cesspool of scum and villainy. Additionally, once they get a certain amount of experience in criminal law, they either lose the ability to see the other side as doing anything remotely good or don't want anything to do with it anymore because it is so fucked up. Plus, once you pick a side, it is almost impossible to get a job on the other side because the people at the top tend to be the ones who lose the ability to see the other side as doing any good (otherwise they would have quit long ago because they hate their own job) and therefore, people who try to switch sides are bringing nothing but the evil taint that can contaminate their office. I've even seen public remarks in my state by the high up officials saying not to hire former public defenders because they will "spy" on your office and feed their friends inside information. And don't think I'm just hating on prosecutors; as I mentioned I've seen defenders do similar things.

      TL;DR There are not enough people with experience on both sides to fill judge positions.

    22. Re:Not even then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reaction would lead the polygraph investigator to ask more questions on the subject causing the reaction, it's primarily used as a tool to get people to confess, not as evidence of wrong doing. The polygraph is 100% voluntary and you can end it at any time.

    23. Re:Not even then by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      It's quite possible someone could 'react' to sensitive questions just out of fear. There's a lot at stake.

      False positives, not so good--trash a probably innocent person. I think FMRI has a chance of determining truthfulness, but polygraphs, not so much.

      --PM

      It's also more than possible that someone like myself would over-think the questions to the point where everything comes up false positive, if for no other reason that so much of life and the events in it are uncertain.

      And in the end, it has been proven over and over again. NO device can determine what is the absolute truth. The absolute best you could do is determine whether the subject THINKS something is true. Unless I'm wrong. Maybe.

    24. Re:Not even then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The number test is typically not part of the actual examination, just part of the theater to make you think it works.

    25. Re:Not even then by jhumkey · · Score: 1

      I wasn't referring to the "lead up" questions, or the "base line" questions.
      My point was (in response to the poster I first responded to) that . . . at one time . . . in KY . . . they read the ENTIRE list of questions before beginning, to try and insure they were getting a physical response to a lie, not to the core impact of the question itself.
      I'm not trying to debate the merits of lie detectors in general. (We need "something" . . . but I'm not sure the "something' we need . . . exists, or ever will.)
      No matter how passive or "non harmful" it is claimed to be, recurring-FMRI sounds like one of those things I'd like to avoid out of basic health paranoia. And (if useful for anything at all) lie detectors seem more useful for exclusionary than inclusionary purposes. (A trained spy is likely to beat it . . . but to eliminate focus on parents that might have "done something" to a missing child, . . . with no advance training, they might not be able to beat it. And passing that test, allows authorities to focus harder on "outside" suspects.)

      --
      No, I don't remember your name. But the memory mapped screen on a TRS80 from 1977 is from 15360 to 16383 if that helps.
    26. Re:Not even then by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      or just not think of a number at all. But if you do that you'll make the operator nervous and diminish your chances of passing the polygraph. and, if you are taking one, you generally want to pass it.

      Maybe I could write a book that would get me in trouble with the gov't...

    27. Re:Not even then by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      You think defense attorneys are any more honest? They are equally willing to cheat and lie, they just work for a different client.

      What this would accomplish is encouraging talented lawyers to become defense attorneys rather than prosecutors. And this would be good for society, in a "Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man is convicted" sense.

    28. Re:Not even then by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Also they taste good.

    29. Re:Not even then by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      um and defense attorneys dont do this - casting doubt on a woman's sexual history is par for the course for defense lawyers.
      But any nominee for your supreme court should have a minimum of 20 years actual judging experience no more paper layers from university law depts even if they are best buds with the president

    30. Re:Not even then by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      not electing judges at all would even be better - to much temptation to turn down that death row appeal for the mentally subnormal black man because it wont play well with the electors

    31. Re:Not even then by azadrozny · · Score: 1

      I will accept your observations. I have seen this behavior in many tech shops. There can be resistance to hiring people with a background/methodology very different from your own. Given that, do you think, or have you experienced, that judges who have spent time on both sides do a better job? Would you give a candidate (elected or appointed) more weight because of this, or are there too many other factors for this to be a consideration?

    32. Re:Not even then by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except we have this quaint notion that the system should be stacked in favor of the accused. There is supposed to be a bias for the defendant. The system is actually designed and intended with that in mind.

      It's just that decades of subtle propaganda in the media, including entertainment, has eroded this idea.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    33. Re:Not even then by Professr3 · · Score: 1

      It just means they go wherever the money is. Is that really what we're looking for?

    34. Re:Not even then by cffrost · · Score: 2

      You think defense attorneys are any more honest? They are equally willing to cheat and lie, they just work for a different client.

      Not necessarily, but I consider their role more honorable, and their importance far greater than that of the prosecutors' (who, in my observation, behave more like persecutors than prosecutors (cf. Aaron Swartz; coercive plea bargaining; etc.)) — a viewpoint I've derived in part from Blackstone's formulation*, which you quoted below.

      What this would accomplish is encouraging talented lawyers to become defense attorneys rather than prosecutors. And this would be good for society, in a "Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man is convicted" sense.

      Absolutely; I agree.

      * Considering the barbarity of our penal system in the US — complete with federal and (some) states' government's latitude to kill its own citizens — I would adjust Blackstone's formulation closer to 1,000:1. Blackstone's 10:1 is more appropriate for more advanced, effective, humane, and civilized penal systems, such as those found in Scandinavia. I believe that no irrevocable harm should be dispensed from a system that is so imperfect as ours for determining a person's guilt. Can you imagine the horror of a cop "finding" a brick of cocaine or heroin (from a previous, under-documented bust) that he just slipped onto the back seat of your car?

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    35. Re:Not even then by cffrost · · Score: 1

      It just means they go wherever the money is.

      I suppose that could happen, but I find it hard to picture a government prosecutor earning more money than a defense attorney.

      Is that really what we're looking for?

      No — I was merely considering ways to reduce collusion between judges with cops and prosecutors against individuals who may very well be innocent of the crimes they've been accused of. It's like a predator versus prey: For the prosecutor/predator, it's just another payday, while for the defendant/prey, it's a harrowing struggle to keep their life and liberty.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    36. Re:Not even then by cffrost · · Score: 1

      not electing judges at all would even be better - to much temptation to turn down that death row appeal for the mentally subnormal black man because it wont play well with the electors

      I agree with the second part of your statement, and I'm somewhat familiar with the situation you referenced — I need to look closer, but I can only withstand learning about just so much of the horror our world has to offer before I need a break.

      As for the first part, I'm not aware of any superior replacements for judge-based judicial systems, but I do think that appeals should be guaranteed*, and I think the death penalty is both shameful and barbaric, and I know that it's not a deterrent and that its irrevocable nature leads to the most abhorrent miscarriages of justice.

      * When an appeal is denied, it leads me to believe that the state or state actors are trying to hide something — after all, exonerating a condemned person is an admission to having nearly killed that person, perhaps based on insufficient or suppressed evidence. Better for the system to kill the person quickly and quietly, and let the case and any new evidence die and be buried along with the person they've just killed. Why save a poor person's life, when you can save money and save face instead?

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    37. Re:Not even then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree, I've had several detailed discussed with my father over this topic. He was a federal agent for numerous agencies during his career, and had to sit for, and consider results from many many polygraph tests (over at least a 30 year period). Although the Polygraph can be beat, especially if trained for it, MOST criminals are not specifically trained for it, and even if they've read a lot about it, are not thoroughly trained in terms of practicing with an actual test. So in many cases, it can be pretty reliable. If you were using it on a KGB agent, probably not as much :) If you were using it on a broker committing fraud much more so. And if it were to a street criminal transporting massive amounts of coke, even more so. Additionally, he said it was NEVER used as a sole (and possibly even significant) factor in an investigation, and clearly not as building a case. However, it did prove very useful in helping to lead investigations down the right path. In some cases, many people involved would be polygraphed, and it may turn out that a person very low on the list of possible suspects, may move up the list and warrant additional scrutiny due to the results. Again, it doesn't mean they were then charged, etc, but might be worth a deeper report. And yes, that same person (lets pretend they are guilty) may pass the polygraph with flying colors, but it also doesn't eliminate them as a suspect. This does of course make it's use more limited, but still clearly worthwhile in my father's experience.

      I do think that it is ridiculous that the government would try to control "methods" of beating the test, especially if those methods were not directly gained through government training (under restricted training...state secrets, etc).

    38. Re:Not even then by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      I wasn't suggesting removing judges at all - just not have the public elect them

    39. Re:Not even then by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      What we REALLY need here is to track who's asking to track people who want to learn how to beat the Polygraph.

      We've got a Fascist Fifth Column in our country, and it is massive and pervasive and must be rooted out. We've got to find all know associates of these people abusing power, their friends on Facebook, their offshore bank accounts, their subscriptions to the Limbaugh letter, and the banana hammocks they ordered from the International Male catalog for their "business trip" to various top secret islands that have nothing but sweat shops and brothels.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    40. Re:Not even then by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      My kids got a "Jedi Mind" toy that allows you to control brain waves and thus a fan moving a ping-pong ball up and down.

      THIS is training to defeat a Polygraph. The problem is people who have "trained" to give Polygraphs and people who sell Insurance Investments; they both have this idea that since someone paid them to do something, it is automatically a useful and important endeavor.

      Most of us are doing something that in the scheme of things is probably not really that necessary -- you just have to realize it.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    41. Re:Not even then by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I surely can see why a person that disagrees with proven facts posts anonymously. Outside of that, you carry on about the technology after you post "Although the Polygraph can be beat". Nothing passed that should be stated.

      If it can be skewed in one direction, it is not a scientific test. The direction of the skewing does not matter.

      What you are trying to claim is that water dowsing works. Bob the Dowser found water over here last year. I know he missed finding the last few wells, but he was right once so it has to be real.

      Correlating that to your belief that this is science may be difficult, but I have confidence you can do so. Just remember, much of what people tell you is "science" is not science.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    42. Re:Not even then by mishehu · · Score: 1

      Apparently the Los Angeles County volunteer sheriff deputies are put through a battery of polygraph tests as a condition to their employment... as volunteers who are... unpaid... We also know of the military employing polygraphs as a precondition to holding a certain job description. I personally would flat out refuse to go through a polygraph as a condition of employment or in any circumstance at all, to which I would be denied said employment with little recourse. Ain't nobody got time for (bullshit like) that!

    43. Re:Not even then by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      no offense, not picking on you, but the "trained spy" reference makes me laugh. There is/was a military course intended to acclimate trainees to interrogation (and other aspects of being captured). But it wasn't for spies. Made most famous in (IIRC) the 80s when the first female candidate was allowed in. An instructor used the course as an excuse to rape her.

      But spy school? It isn't that hard core.

    44. Re:Not even then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything a polygraph operator tells you IS a lie.

    45. Re:Not even then by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 2

      Trouble is, the "polygraphers" in the police department have a vested interest in keeping the bullshit
      going (it is their livelihood) and have probably talked themselves into believing that it is real via confirmation bias.
      These asshats unfortunately have the ear of the police captains and the politicians that support them.

    46. Re:Not even then by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes MI5, MI6 and the GCHQ found that out in the early 1980's when all this US junk tech was going to be sold to the UK gov.
      They where going to fail too many good, skilled people and the bad people (on average) would be given an extra layer of security cover.
      As for the USA, welcome to Soviet library where paperwork is kept on each book requested.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    47. Re:Not even then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A brick of coke? I'm assuming you mean a kilogram of it. That's about $20K. A crooked cop isn't going to be slipping that in any cars. Maybe a gram or two.

    48. Re:Not even then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although the Polygraph can be beat, especially if trained for it

      Thats not the problem. The problem is that the untrained honest person that does not lie is as likly to pass the polygraph as the untrained dishonest person. Just throwing a dice would be cheaper and as effective.

    49. Re:Not even then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless they are a public defender which I've heard can have sometimes less than 30 minutes actually w/ their client before court.

    50. Re:Not even then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't trying to bust people for making it public knowledge. They are trying to bust people who have gone out of their way to learn how to beat it.

    51. Re:Not even then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience (I don't do criminal law myself but worked in the courts before becoming a lawyer and I have many friends and acquaintances that do), I've found that the best criminal judges are the ones that never practiced criminal law. They tend to be straight down the middle when it comes to the law. In fact, on deeper reflection, The best judges in a particular area are the ones that didn't practice in that area. I think the reason is that you get so used to certain positions when you practice an area of law that once you become a judge, it is hard to switch back. In many cases, whether I win at the district level or not is decided almost the instant my case is assigned to a judge. For example, I practice in FOIA and there are two judges from the Attorney General's office who have never decided a case in favor of the petitioner; in fact, the state supreme court took a swipe at them in my last case where they said the attorneys in the AG's office both current and former should have agreed with us from the start.

  10. Stupidity gets routed around. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And, this will be on the torrents shortly, if not already there. When will they learn that overreach only punishes the innocent.

    1. Re:Stupidity gets routed around. by game+kid · · Score: 1

      I think they've already learned that, and use their knowledge of that to their advantage.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  11. Rather funny. . . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . . . .that now you can be a suspect for owning a book or DVD. Good thing I never bought a copy of the Constitution . . .

    1. Re:Rather funny. . . . by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      You think it's "rather funny" that they might think you have an interest in beating polygraph examinations if you bought a book on beating polygraph examinations?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:Rather funny. . . . by c0lo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Good thing I never bought a copy of the Constitution . . .

      Yeah... In retrospect, this would have been a total waste of money.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    3. Re:Rather funny. . . . by jythie · · Score: 2

      Kinda reminds me of the 'if you are not guilty then you have nothing to hide' logic. Polygraphs are very iffy, the error rate is pretty high, and some people are worried about being caught up in those errors even when they are innocent. It is not much better then the eye contact thing.

    4. Re:Rather funny. . . . by cffrost · · Score: 2

      You think it's "rather funny" that they might think you have an interest in beating polygraph examinations if you bought a book on beating polygraph examinations?

      I do. I've downloaded textbooks on explosives and fractional distillation, and DSM IV TR, to name a few (out of thousands) — they don't mean I'm going into the demolition business, building a petroleum refinery, or practicing psychiatry. I'm also interested in beating polygraph tests, but that doesn't mean I'd ever consensually submit to taking one.

      I think "curiosity = suspicious" will lead us on dark path to an ignorant and paranoid society, if we're not there already.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    5. Re:Rather funny. . . . by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      You think it's "rather funny" that they might think you have an interest in beating polygraph examinations if you bought a book on beating polygraph examinations?

      What, I can't read something for my own edification anymore? If I read a book by Ann Coulter, does that mean I'm a liberal-hating conservative? Or if I read the Communist Manifest that I'm a Marxist? If I read a book on RFID, does that make me a hacker? What about a book on alarm systems? Am I now a burglar? I like to learn about things that interest me. I like to know how things work. I'm interested in diverse ideas. I guess that makes me suspicious.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    6. Re: Rather funny. . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? You don't like good fiction?

    7. Re:Rather funny. . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, here he is, back from sucking governmental cock! The venerable coldfjord! Fucking lowlife scum.

    8. Re:Rather funny. . . . by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      You think it's "rather funny" that they might think you have an interest in beating polygraph examinations if you bought a book on beating polygraph examinations?

      I'm going to sell a book called, "How to Beat a Polygraph Examiner."

    9. Re:Rather funny. . . . by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Kinda reminds me of the 'if you are not guilty then you have nothing to hide' logic.

      Could you expand on that? I don't really see any connection there. I also almost never recall the government using that actual argument, especially around the current controversy. What I do seem them saying is that they are looking for specific types of activity. That is a different argument.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    10. Re:Rather funny. . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi NSA_shill. Back again. You should use a new id rather than this discredited one.

    11. Re:Rather funny. . . . by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      Must be an important story- got you to shill before managing to boost your karma above 0.

      Anyone else notice cold fjord's shill/karma-whore cycle? Once their down to -1 you'll start to notice random comments in non-NSA stories that are pointless but good to get karma.

      Paid shill or not fjord you have a painfully obvious agenda.

    12. Re:Rather funny. . . . by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      "Copy a song to your laptop from a friend's Beyonce CD? You just violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Did you buy some clothes in Delaware because they were tax free? You're probably evading taxes. Did you give your 20-year-old nephew a glass of wine at dinner? Illegal in many states.

      Citizens that the federal government wants to indict, the federal government can indict if it monitors them closely enough. That's why it's so disturbing to learn that the federal government doesn't need to obtain a warrant on us in order to get our emails and phone records."
        - Tim Carney (Washington Examiner, June 9 2013)

      Below are some reasons why this revelation should make you pissed off enough to start reaching for your gun:

      The vagueness of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act makes violating a website’s terms of service a possible felony. We’re not just referring to government websites. *All* websites. That alongside PATRIOT, potentially makes terrorists out of everybody who has a Facebook or Twitter account and uses it to vent.

      Would you say, “I don’t need medical marijuana so I don’t care if they imprison those who do”? Sadly, some people do. Fundamentally, saying “I have nothing to hide,” is similar to saying “I don’t care about those who do”. You selfish bastard.

      And what does the Government do with the data once they have it? Google around and you'll find social workers "misplacing" diaries, politicians "losing" laptops, then suddenly the data contained therein appears on Wikileaks and the hardware (if it's a laptop) appearing in the sales section of Gumtree. God forbid the data collection ends up with us facing another Gilberto Valle! (Gilberto Valle had an unusual sexual fetish. He fantasized about kidnapping, killing, and eating young women. Valle was also a member of the New York Police Department, and was convicted in March this year of plotting to make his fantasies a reality. Whether he really meant to do so is up in the air (his defense was that this was all sexual roleplay), but he was also convicted of looking up his potential targets in a national crime database, accessible due to his position of authority). That alone is scary, but then we're talking about not just collecting data on convicted criminals here, we're talking about massive amounts of data being collected on *everybody*. You should ALL be fucking nervous!

      A question I'd like answered, is where is the Church Committee in all of this? They're suspiciously quiet these days. Why aren't they donning Spiderman and Batman costumes and hanging themselves from the flagstaff at the Senate Building? Because this shit is all fucked up.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    13. Re:Rather funny. . . . by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      You think it's "rather funny" that they might think you have an interest in beating polygraph examinations if you bought a book on beating polygraph examinations?

      What, I can't read something for my own edification anymore? If I read a book by Ann Coulter, does that mean I'm a liberal-hating conservative? Or if I read the Communist Manifest that I'm a Marxist? If I read a book on RFID, does that make me a hacker? What about a book on alarm systems? Am I now a burglar? I like to learn about things that interest me. I like to know how things work. I'm interested in diverse ideas. I guess that makes me suspicious.

      You're expecting that quaint old concept of "Innocent until Proven Guilty". We got rid of that years ago. Back in the 1980s when every employment applicant became a suspected drug addict and illegal alien.

      Strangely enough, however, showing "my papers" when applying for jobs doesn't seem to have actually put a dent in the whole "illegal-aliens-are-taking-our-jerbs" thing.

    14. Re: Rather funny. . . . by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It might be that GP is just not a fan of alternative history.

    15. Re:Rather funny. . . . by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      The critical elements for your post are "motivation" and "intent." Motivation + curiosity + information + preparation = what? If it bomb making, probably nothing good.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    16. Re:Rather funny. . . . by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      There might actually have to be enforcement of the law for it to have an affect*, and from what I hear, forged "papers" aren't exactly unknown. That is assuming the business or organization is actually making an effort to comply.

      * Not much of a priority for the Obama administration. Before anyone complains, the Obama administration is cooking the books to make it look better.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    17. Re:Rather funny. . . . by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      You have my pity. Nobody should have to read an opinion different than their own, especially on Slashdot.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    18. Re:Rather funny. . . . by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      You're expecting that quaint old concept of "Innocent until Proven Guilty". We got rid of that years ago. Back in the 1980s when every employment applicant became a suspected drug addict and illegal alien.

      Yeah, I remember those days. Good times...

      But that's part of what worries me about our new paradigm. It's this notion that we should be stopping people before they commit crimes. It sounds like a great idea, but it's really easy to slip into a thought-crime perspective where just an interest in the world around you starts looking suspect. A book about beating a polygraph sounds really interesting to me. I have no reason to think I'll be faced with a polygraph test. But the idea of beating one sounds intriguing. So I might read this book just out of curiosity. Or a book on picking locks. I have no interest in breaking into anyone's home or business. But I think it would be cool to know how to pick a lock; it might be useful too. We should not be making curiosity out to be sinister. It is how we learn and grow.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    19. Re:Rather funny. . . . by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      Opinions differ from agendas. Slashdot has many opinions- many of those are moronic as well I will admit. There are relatively few with an agenda though and none with an agenda as obvious as your own.

      I am sure you have noticed the number of hateful or sarcastic retorts you get in these threads. The reason is that these people already know you will be commenting in the thread. They already know you will be spreading some specifically worded and one sided statements crafted to direct scorn away from American spying.

      The community sees through your dishonesty though. Which is why you so often get reduced to posting with a default rating of -1. Which is when you start popping up in other threads churning out one-liners and populist rhetoric to regenerate your karma.

      So you see: it is not that you have a different "opinion" than others that gets you labeled a shill. It is the glaring agenda. You are not as good at concealing it as you think you are. Or, possibly, you are just a lot more sad than the rest of think you are.

      In any case, now that you understand the difference between opinion and agenda you can be better at your craft. Maybe you'll even get a raise!

    20. Re:Rather funny. . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather buy a book called "How to Beat up a Polygraph Examiner."

  12. Police State by Philotomy · · Score: 1

    Police states suck. That is all.

  13. TPB... by stokessd · · Score: 3, Funny

    "How to Sting The Polygraph" is not on The Pirate Bay yet, but there are several other titles along the same lines. And of course some porn with polygraph in the title, which I'm going to check out "for professional reasons only".

    Sheldon

  14. He needs to get money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He did nothing illegal.
    And now the government has stolen and is distributing his list of customers, seriously damaging his business.

    Lawyers must be queueing up to help him become a millionaire.

    1. Re:He needs to get money by JockTroll · · Score: 0

      Against the government? That's so '90s. Nowadays, go against the governments and you will be asked, in order: 1) why do you hate America, 2) are you a terrorist and 3) kindly follow us without trouble.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  15. Finally - a use for the DMCA! by dbIII · · Score: 2

    Hit them with copyright violation shit for copying his business records with their list of people that question this stupid polygraph voodoo.

    1. Re:Finally - a use for the DMCA! by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Hit them with copyright violation shit for copying his business records with their list of people that question this stupid polygraph voodoo.

      Wishfull thinking... but facts are not protected by copyright, only forms of expression are.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:Finally - a use for the DMCA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I keep all my secret records in haiku format

    3. Re:Finally - a use for the DMCA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL but, in my opinion, it looks like search and seizure without cause of a trade secret (intellectual property) which was used to negatively impact his business. This is a crime.

    4. Re:Finally - a use for the DMCA! by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Hit them with copyright violation shit for copying his business records with their list of people that question this stupid polygraph voodoo.

      Wishfull thinking... but facts are not protected by copyright, only forms of expression are.

      Is that a fact, or are you just expressing your opinion?

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  16. Makes me wonder by onyxruby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have blatantly admonished the polygraph as being junk science online for close to 20 years now. I've pointed out how traitors from Ames to Snowden all passed the Polygraph with flying colors. I've also pointed out how there isn't a courtroom in this country that will accept the use of one. I've talked about how the scientific community considers them absolutely rubbish and no better than snake oil. I really can't think of a better way of how to illustrate that security theater is an active danger to this country than by citing the polygraph as example number 1.

    It makes me wonder if I'm on this list of theirs too...

    1. Re:Makes me wonder by JeffOwl · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your are now.

    2. Re:Makes me wonder by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The polygraph is actually good for one thing. Making criminals who don't know any better nervous thinking that maybe it does work. Some will come clean thinking the jig is up anyhow and confess or otherwise offer up useful information.. Of course it won't be useful for that anymore once criminals realize the technology is just snake oil. But it's inevitable, that ship has sailed.

    3. Re:Makes me wonder by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Polygraph isn't science at all. It's an imprecise voodoo. But I still object to your characterization of Snowden as a traitor. I don't know who Ames is off the top of my head, but even the US Government has not attempted to charge Snowden with treason, which makes your statement libellous.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    4. Re:Makes me wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also good for proving if your significant other cheated on you with your mother and cousin on the Maury Povich show.

    5. Re:Makes me wonder by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Traitors like James Clapper presumably passed the polygraph with flying colors as well.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Makes me wonder by thoromyr · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unfortunately you are wrong on one point: at least some courts can and do accept polygraphs as evidence. I don't recall enough of the case I'm thinking of to get a citation, but where they generally come into play is when someone is duped into taking it under the condition that the results will be admitted as evidence. Basically, it can (in at least some jurisdications) be admitted if both sides agree on it before hand. Some defendants are conned into this, either by thinking they will "pass" because they are innocent or believing they can beat it.

      Beating a polygraph isn't that hard, unless the examiner knows what the finding will be before he starts. In that case it is easy enough to find anyone as having failed.

      Never, ever submit to a polygraph. Its equivalent to turning yourself in to the inquisition for "questioning". The Malleus Maleficarum should be required reading for polygraph examiners if it isn't already.

    7. Re:Makes me wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowden was only a "traitor" to coercive authority. Outside of that elite group, he is a hero.

    8. Re:Makes me wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that same token, criminals who believe in voodoo think voodoo works, so we should keep some voodoo priests on the payroll. Many people think astrology is real, so we should keep some astrologers on the payroll.

      In short - dont be fucking ridiculous.

    9. Re:Makes me wonder by gumpish · · Score: 1

      I've pointed out how traitors from Ames to Snowden all passed the Polygraph with flying colors.

      I wouldn't regard someone as a traitor for drawing attention to previously unreported violations of constitutionally guaranteed protections against unreasonable search and siezure.

    10. Re:Makes me wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im sure the government think's your'e a traitor as well now.

    11. Re:Makes me wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never, ever submit to a polygraph. Its equivalent to turning yourself in to the inquisition for "questioning". The Malleus Maleficarum should be required reading for polygraph examiners if it isn't already.

      As I am Amish, my beliefs do not permit the use of technological witchcraft more sophisticated than a dowsing rod.

    12. Re:Makes me wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "traitors from Ames to Snowden"
      Objection! Snowden was a whistle blower hero!

    13. Re:Makes me wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is especially good for the ignorant. There was a black girl who was working as a security guard and when she went for a required periodic polygraph grilling, she blurted out before the test began that she hoped that money she found and took at her office wouldn't be held against her. She was immediately fired.

    14. Re:Makes me wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also good for proving if your significant other has negative visceral reactions when accused of cheated on you with your mother and cousin on the Maury Povich show.

      FTFY They choose to interpret any "creepy feeling" you have as proof of a lie.

  17. The machine says, "You're a liar!" by rmdingler · · Score: 2

    The polygraph is an interrogation device. Nothing more, nothing less. Based on someone's theory that certain measurable physiological responses accompany the human act of lying, it's primary function is to wring a confession out of a suspect the 'authorities' believe is spewing falsehoods from his lie hole. It is not admissible in court for a reason.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:The machine says, "You're a liar!" by cheesybagel · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's bullshit since it measures that you are under stress. Some people don't get visibly stressed while lying. In fact some people get *calmer* while lying and this is well known. Other people get stressed not because they committed the action but for other reasons (they find it repulsive, are afraid of being wrongly sentenced, whatever).

    2. Re:The machine says, "You're a liar!" by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Some people don't get visibly stressed while lying. In fact some people get *calmer* while lying and this is well known.

      Well sure, occasionally a sociopath or two will escape the dragnet...

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:The machine says, "You're a liar!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of that matters. In fact, the interrogators can completely ignore the actual readings and say you're lying whenever it suits them. The aim is not to determine whether you're lying, it's to manipulate you into making a confession. Polygraph results are not admissible in court, but confessions extracted during a polygraph interrogation are.

    4. Re:The machine says, "You're a liar!" by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Like someone else said here Aldrich Ames.

    5. Re:The machine says, "You're a liar!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's bad not just because of the false negatives but because of the false positives as well.

    6. Re:The machine says, "You're a liar!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He was nervous when we accused him of being a murderer and slaughtering 12 children your honor. His nervousness about the subject clearly shows he was lying about how he murdered those children, obviously an innocent person would be answering in a quite relaxed manner. I say we burn him. BURN HIM I SAY BURN HIM!"

    7. Re:The machine says, "You're a liar!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Afraid of losing their jobs if the examiner decides they are being dishonest even if they aren't? Scares the hell out of me that's for sure.

    8. Re:The machine says, "You're a liar!" by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      It's not a lie if you believe it.

    9. Re:The machine says, "You're a liar!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's bullshit since it measures that you are under stress. Some people don't get visibly stressed while lying. In fact some people get *calmer* while lying and this is well known. Other people get stressed not because they committed the action but for other reasons (they find it repulsive, are afraid of being wrongly sentenced, whatever).

      I have the same problem around authorities, particularly your run-of-the-mill, steroid-fueled, armed-thug-with-badge coppers. They wonder why I "look nervous" as they ask me things that aren't their business, and repeatedly try to get me to waive my Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights in order to score a "collar" for whatever it is they're trying to bust me for.

      It's the primary reason I've been boycotting airlines for seven years; TSA blatantly violates the Fourth Amendment* rights of every passenger, and when my Constitutional rights are being violated, I become visibly upset, experiencing the mixed feelings of anger, fear, helplessness, sadness and despair.

      * No warrants, no probable cause — TSA's searches are wholesale violations of the Constitution.

    10. Re:The machine says, "You're a liar!" by Arker · · Score: 1

      The machine is more of a convincer here than anything else. Yes, the investigator may well notice something on his charts that gives him a clue where to push. Other times he will do the opposite, pushing randomly to see what gives a reaction. But the greatest value of the machine is the pure intimidation factor. People in this day and age believe in machines. You tell them that machine is a 'lie detector' which will tell you when they are lying and it could just be a rock with a couple LEDs mounted it would still work on those who believe it will work. If they dont believe they can lie anymore they wont be able to, simple as that.

      It's a useful tool for an interrogator and I can completely understand why they want to use them. On the other hand the potential for false positives is immense, and the whole thing is closer to voodoo than science, so it's also completely understandable that they arent admissible in court. If the feds are relying on these things for their security clearances I fear it's a bad idea for both reasons - false positives and false negatives. A well prepared liar will normally beat this and go right through - a good person who is not lying, but simply upset and stressed out by the process might well 'fail' as well.

      I can see why they want to shut down people that teach others how to defend themselves against these things, but again I think it's counterproductive and misguided. Real threats, foreign agents, are going to have access to this knowledge no matter what. Why should they be given an advantage in federal hiring over good loyal american citizens?

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  18. Are you HOPE-A-DOPES happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you still have a tingle running down your leg?

    Do you still pat yourself on the back for voting for a black man?

    This very government is now taking over health care. Yeah, that'll work really well....

    1. Re:Are you HOPE-A-DOPES happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baaah, Baaah, Bah.

  19. Next Up... by cffrost · · Score: 1

    Next up: A watch-list of people who have failed to purchase dream-catchers, healing crystals, Ouija boards, homeopathic "medicine," magic 8-balls, or religious paraphernalia in the past ten years.

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    1. Re:Next Up... by runeghost · · Score: 1

      As long as the religious gimcracks scream "Conservative Christian" I'm sure you're fine.

  20. Squeeze your butt cheeks by sproketboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Youtube search penn and teller bullshit lie detectors. It's all explained there. You don't need a book or a DVD to learn it.

    1. Re:Squeeze your butt cheeks by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that Penn and Teller, the network that aired their show, YouTube (where the videos are uploaded), and anyone who has viewed the videos needs to go on the list also, right?

      It might be easier for the NSA et all to just make a list of people they DON'T want to watch. "John Smith is utterly boring in every way. He just sits around all day watching reality shows. Whatever you do, don't monitor him."

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Squeeze your butt cheeks by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      Trouble with Penn And Teller as a source is the show is, well Bullshit!. There's some good stuff but it's extremely biased and each episode clearly has an agenda. Even Penn Jillette has said prettty much as much (Teller was silent on the matter)

    3. Re:Squeeze your butt cheeks by amoeba1911 · · Score: 2

      coming soon...
      New & Improved Polygraph: Now with 100% more butt-probe to detect butt cheek squeezing cheaters.

    4. Re:Squeeze your butt cheeks by gaudior · · Score: 1

      (Teller was silent on the matter)

      Of course he was.

    5. Re:Squeeze your butt cheeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI can just put their tongue up there to check.

    6. Re:Squeeze your butt cheeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whoooosh.....

    7. Re:Squeeze your butt cheeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I guess I'm on the list now. I'll have to watch my butt.....

    8. Re:Squeeze your butt cheeks by Anti-Social+Network · · Score: 1

      ...and how do you know this without having monitored him at some point?

      --
      Goddammit just when I get my first +5 the Beta rolls out and kills everything
    9. Re:Squeeze your butt cheeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sit on a pad that registers the slightest movement. I shit you not.

      Before you mention the tack in your shoes... they make you take off your shoes.

  21. Marisa Taylor's PGP Public Key by George+Maschke · · Score: 5, Informative

    I should have mentioned in the original post that investigative reporter Marisa Taylor of the McClatchy newspaper group has a PGP public key (7DCA14DC) that can be used to securely contact her. I've signed it with my own key (316A947C).

    --

    George W. Maschke
    AntiPolygraph.org

    1. Re:Marisa Taylor's PGP Public Key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I wasn't going to trust the reporter's public key before, but since some random guy on Slashdot signed it, it must be all good.

    2. Re:Marisa Taylor's PGP Public Key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not random in any sense of the word. https://antipolygraph.org/contact.shtml

    3. Re:Marisa Taylor's PGP Public Key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are, however, assuming that Marisa Taylor's computer on the other end of that PGP encryption stream isn't already pwned by the NSA.

  22. Only 5,000? by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    Surely he's sold more than 5,000 copies of that book. Books on noodling (an activity primarily carried out by illiterate people) sell more than 5,000.

    1. Re:Only 5,000? by edibobb · · Score: 2

      What? Noodling is a major pastime in Oklahoma! Oh, wait...

    2. Re:Only 5,000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noodling is almost as fun as fucking your wife, nerd.

  23. Registered book offenders? by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 1

    I thought this country was secured by constitutional right to privacy from registering individual book reading/buying.

    1. Re:Registered book offenders? by SirGarlon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even if the courts uphold a right to privacy -- and generally they don't, preferring weasel words such as "balance of public and private interests" and "expectation of privacy" -- it's up to the executive branch to uphold that right, and they're the ones violating it. The fox guards the henhouse.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    2. Re:Registered book offenders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought this country was secured by constitutional right to privacy from registering individual book reading/buying.

      Haven't you learned the lesson yet ? The Constitution is worth jack shit.
      Politicians don't give a rat's ass about it, even the 9 hoompaloompas in the supreme court don't give a rat's ass about it anymore.

    3. Re:Registered book offenders? by edibobb · · Score: 1

      It is. The Constitution used to be important. Now we're just one short step away from national censorship.

    4. Re:Registered book offenders? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      I thought this country was secured by constitutional right to privacy from registering individual book reading/buying.

      Well the FBI didn't, as shown by the way they attempted to pressure the nation's librarians into releasing that information to them.

    5. Re:Registered book offenders? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      four words:

      Catcher In The Rye.

      OK, I do honestly believe that this is one of many books on the FBI's tag list, since it has been publicly and repeatedly linked to such luminous bods as Hinckley, Oswald and Chapman, but I really don't think it's down to its content, it's purely down to the association with political assassins. What you're more likely to find a Federal agent tagging on the spine of, is Kitchen Improvised Plastic Explosives and Anarchist Cookbook and Suicide Vests For Dummies (does that one really exist? I thought I'd just made it up!) (why do they call them suicide vests? Such a misnomer, there's also a lot of homicide involved). There are stories of people being jailed for the mere possession of such titles on their laptops (google it yourself).

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    6. Re:Registered book offenders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no.... first Orwell and now Bradburry is right, too. Wonder when it's Aldous Huxley's turn.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451

  24. OK but can anyone tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where have all the cowboys gone?

    Yippy-I-Ay!

    and do cowboys always tent up with other cowboys?

    1. Re:OK but can anyone tell me by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      ask the horses.

      "You weren't there, man!"

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  25. Re:Hope and Change!!!! by geogob · · Score: 1

    I know your a flamebating troll... But anyone considering Obama a left wing politician needs to go out of America and take a look at the world. Even for Canada, the nearest country to American from the geographical and political and social point of view, Obama could be considered a far right politician.

    Just mentioning that, giving this troll some food (for thought).

  26. Lavabit encryption keys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The unprecedented creation of such a list and decision to disseminate it widely demonstrate the ease with which the federal government can collect and share Americans’ personal information, even when there’s no clear reason for doing so."

    So you see that information the FBI gains in an investigation, it feels free to share with any other agency, including the NSA. Even though the NSA is not supposed to have domestic surveillance data.

    You might recall a judge handed the FBI, Lavabits HTTPS keys, which handed them to the CIA, NSA, IRS, DOE....

    All that FBI collected evidence seems to be handed over with no problem and no care about the legality of it.

  27. Re:Hope and Change!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BOOOOSH!!!!

    How old are you, three? Fucking libtard.

  28. how to pass a polygraph by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

    Easy! convince yourself deep down that your lie is in fact not a lie. With enough training, you can internally legitimize even the most absurd nonsense you can think of. There are 6 million Mormons, living proof.

    WiN!

    1. Re:how to pass a polygraph by PPH · · Score: 1

      There are 6 million Mormons,

      Sure. You'll take on the Mormons and the combined might of the Federal law enforcement bureaucracy.

      Prove you're a tough guy and insult the CoS.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:how to pass a polygraph by Entropius · · Score: 1

      which is funny, because the Scientologists already use ohmmeters in their "auditing"...

      "Here, hold these soup cans, and we'll help you be a god!"

    3. Re:how to pass a polygraph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are 6 million Mormons,

      Sure. You'll take on the Mormons and the combined might of the Federal law enforcement bureaucracy.

      Prove you're a tough guy and insult the CoS.

      Insult the CoS? Nice try, but I'm afraid that's rather impossible given the mental capacity of those who believe in an alien race, as decreed by a science fiction writer. If anything, they are an insult to the rest of humanity. And yes, I do attack their "religion" more than others. People living today knew L. Ron Hubbard personally. He's a science fiction writer. This is not something we can debate over 2,000-year old scripture. It is fact. Why people believe what is known to be complete fiction is beyond me. Perhaps this is why I see the CoS as nothing more than yet another tax shelter under the guise of religion.

  29. Re:Hope and Change!!!! by c0lo · · Score: 1

    Mod me down because THE FUCKING TRUTH HURTS.

    I'm sorry if it hurts you so bad, but I already posted, thus can't mod you down.
    May I humbly suggest you take some painkillers instead?

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  30. Re:Hope and Change!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You really think anything would have been any different under Romney? We would have had all this bullshit plus even MORE lies and egregious violations of human rights and constitutional protections.

    The fact that you still are mesmerized by the whole red/blue obama/bush dem/repub distraction means you STILL haven;t figured it out.

    Congratulations, sheep.

  31. Need another watch list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't there be a watch list of people dumb enough to think polygraph tests are actually useful for anything?

    1. Re:Need another watch list by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Redundant: it's the same as the list of people who, for their own safety, shouldn't be allowed to play with sharp objects.

  32. Re:Hope and Change!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like, maybe the whole jar full?

    Just sayin'...

  33. Bennett Haselton Doesn't See the Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're guilty, you're probably worried. If you're innocent, there's no harm in talking to the police while attached to a machine that will randomly determine your sincerity.

  34. Watch List by PPH · · Score: 1

    Just more ammunition to justify a search warrant should they so desire. Pretty soon, we'll all be on a list of one sort or another.

    Not on a list, you say? We have a list of your kind!

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Watch List by Kardos · · Score: 1

      "It says here that you're on the list of people who are not on a list, which is pretty suspicious. We're going to need to search your house, pronto"

  35. Libraries are always having to fight these schemes by davecb · · Score: 1

    Every government wants to know who read books they don't approve of. Libraries (and library software) carefully protect borrower privacy by only keeping borrowers names recorded with the book borrowed until they have been returned.

    This is the law in several privacy-protective countries, and to sell software, you have to adhere to the law. Other countries don't prohibit privacy, so the software is saleable everywhere.

    --dave

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  36. Re:Hope and Change!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like, maybe the whole jar full?

    It will surely help. Some strong spirits to the mixture and one will never hurt again.

  37. Re:Hope and Change!!!! by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    You're making a fundamental error: you're assuming that the US Political Spectrum is the same as the rest of the planet.

    That is far from the reality: the US spectrum is decidedly to the right of most other nations. What is considered Conservative in most countries is center-left at best in the US. . .

    Think of it as the Fahrenheit scale of Politics. . .

  38. Innocent Man not Arrested! by skywire · · Score: 1

    If writers now feel it necessary to inform us when someone with whom any state employee is not perfectly pleased has not been arrested, we are in a sorry state indeed.

    --
    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  39. So, where can I get a copy? by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 2

    That should be the first question that crosses everybody's mind.

    Put people on a watch list for doing something 100% legal? Sign me up.

    Not only does it show those idiots we won't support that sort of nonsense (by which I mean the watch lists, although using a polygraph probably counts too) but it also drown them in noise, hopefully making the use of the list pointless.

    And to answer my own question: you can place your order at Polygraph.com, with prices ranging from $20 to $60 dollars. I don't know (or care) if his methods are effective or not but it's worth shelling out a few bucks just to remind self-important lawmen that their thuggery not only is not going unnoticed, but is ultimately also is ineffective.

    1. Re:So, where can I get a copy? by DougWilliams2072 · · Score: 1

      THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENT!

  40. Brain Fingerprinting is an alternative by voxelman · · Score: 2

    As this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_fingerprinting article shows there is an alternative that works. Note: I am an acquaintance of Farwell.

    1. Re:Brain Fingerprinting is an alternative by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      As this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_fingerprinting [wikipedia.org] article shows there is an alternative that works.

      You may need to ask your acquaintance to explain it better:

      Also, unlike polygraph testing, it does not attempt to determine whether or not the subject is lying or telling the truth.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  41. Passed The Test With No Help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I worked at an ice cream store when I was 15 and yes, I took all the "free" ice cream I could when the owner was gone, as did the rest of the kids working there. Some took money too. The owner finally caught on and fired us all. Being relatively straight-laced, I felt guilty even for the money that was taken. Flash-forward to when I was 18, I wanted a job at a department store warehouse that required a polygraph, back when they were still allowed for employment.

    Yes, I was nervous but I also had read quite a bit about how lie detectors work. My solution was stupidly simple. I acted like I was even more nervous than I was. During the setup and the straight questions, i would curl my toes and pinch my fingers so they would hurt but in a way that couldn't be seen. When the question came up I thought I would fail. I stopped doing it an became as calm as I could. I ended up passing the test and getting the job. Later, the subject of my polygraph came up with my boss. He stated the polygrapher wondered if I was dead during the test.

  42. Here is an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Because of the jack-booted actions of the Feds, he should "open source" it and "post it on the net for free". Then the watch list will be a moot point and everyone will have the same access. Sounds like a win-win except for the monetary end of things.

    1. Re:Here is an idea... by DougWilliams2072 · · Score: 1

      It has been free to the public since I testified in the U.S. Congress in support of the EPPA. Click here to read a transcript of my testimony: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011381806;view=1up;seq=281 (My testimony begins on pg 275) Here is an interesting piece of historical trivia: When I testified in Congress, I put my manual, HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH into the Congressional Record, and the Senators and Representatives distributed more copies of my manual between 1984 and 1988 than anyone has ever distributed - including me! They sent them out by the tens of thousands in response to requests from constituents. I wonder if the Feds will get all that "list" from Congress? You can also get it by simply Googling HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH.

  43. Re:Hope and Change!!!! by cffrost · · Score: 2

    You're making a fundamental error: you're assuming that the US Political Spectrum is the same as the rest of the planet.

    That is far from the reality: the US spectrum is decidedly to the right of most other nations. What is considered Conservative in most countries is center-left at best in the US. . .

    Think of it as the Fahrenheit scale of Politics. . .

    I disagree. Just because the dominant parties are both right-wing doesn't mean the people are. I'm further left/libertarian than Jill Stein, yet I've still voted for Democrats in the past (something that I've stopped doing,) when all of the other candidates were even further right.

    Look at the candidates from the 2012 Presidential election; there were two left-of-center candidates, but many US liberals (and right-of-center "liberals") are led to believe that voting for a candidate that closely supports their views is "wasting their votes." Also note that Obama's 2008 campaign presented him as a left-libertarian, but he rules as a right-authoritarian.

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  44. I dont understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this such a big deal? Polygraph tests cannot be used in courts anyway. So who cares if someone knows how to pass one?

  45. Names and addresses in plain text? by nbauman · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't Doug Williams have encrypted the names of his customers?

  46. they know it doesn't work by ad5mqesj · · Score: 1

    These agencies know perfectly well that it doesn't work. They are scared to death that the morons in Congress will find that out, and realize they are wasting billions on useless security theater; theater run by ex-insiders at these same agencies. At that point hell they might even begin to question really fundamental stuff like - is all the nonsensical theater at airports actually doing anything? (answer : NO - as seen in the most recent "scandal" in which sophisticated behavioral detection training costing billions is proven to be completely useless). And from their perspective the even worse possibility that more of them will figure out that all teh 10's of billions a year they spend on NSA, CIA, etc are equally useless. Gathering more and more information just makes the S/N problem worse and actually decreases the chance of detecting anything nefarious - but no one wants to hear that - especially when their livelihood depends on expanding this crap. So they will work very hard to continue to try to suppress and discredit the truth.

  47. Another way to look at it by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    I am reminded of a scene from The Wire where Bunk et. al. load a copy machine with paper saying True True Lie and run a "lie Detector test" on a suspect.

    After they say the machine don't miss the suspect confesses. In a similar vein, as long as people *think* a polygraph works, the questioning is more important than the results. If people will openly reveal information think the test will catch lies or deception then in a sense the work since they help uncover potentially damaging information.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  48. Whitey Bulger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Protected by the FBI for years. Yep, the government has our back.

  49. What was the original criminal investigation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One thing I wish TFA explained, is what crime was suspected and used as justifiction on the warrant that the judge signed.

    If we know what crime was suspected, then maybe the story would be better understood and the government could look less guilty. Was the author, say, suspected of fraudently taking orders for his book and then not delivering them, or something like that? That would certainly justify seizing customer lists. You have to interview the victims to verify that an unusual number had their shipments "lost."

    Somehow, though, I don't think that's what he was suspected of. So just what was it? Who what's the name of the judge who signed it?

    Seeing a copy of the warrant would really help, here. Right now, the government looks kind of guilty, and people are just going to want them investigated and prosecuted. Maybe that could be fended off, if they'd just give up a little information that they already shared with a third party (the judge) anyway.

  50. Jerry Springer? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    You mean everything on Jerry Springer is a lie?

    There are going to be a lot of people wondering if that baby is really theirs, or if their significant (or insignificant) other has been cheating on them...

  51. Pre-crime and you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ordinary people have an innate sense of justice. For the majority, laws and punishment should ONLY apply to people directly involved in crimes that directly hurt others. Contrary to what the usual filthy shills tell you, ordinary people most certainly consider DIRECT conspiracy to commit a criminal act to be a criminal act in itself. As a result of this, the view of criminality held by ordinary people is COMPLETE.

    Governments, 'kings' and ruling elites haver a VERY different view of the purposes served by a criminal 'justice' system. For these depraved monsters, everything is about POWER, keeping power, and ensuring the sheeple are kept in their place. Those that rule you care only about building an 'infallible' system that defies 'bottom-up' attacks.

    Why do you think the sole driving purpose behind the NSA is a full surveillance society, where everything knowable about you and your children is identified and held on government databases? Betas are taught that no-one could possibly be interested in their individual lives, with the hope that such betas have so little statistical awareness, they fail to comprehend the real usefulness of full surveillance systems.

    Lie detectors are a joke- not because they don't work, but because they are automatically defeated by the most dangerous personality types, and easily defeated by those who take the effort to learn a little about the psychology of 'bio-feedback' and induced false memories. So why is so much money spent by the monsters that rule you to get you, the sheeple, 'comfortable' with the growing use of lie-detectors?

    Well, the answer is complicated, but we can consider one key component. Recently, some of you will recall reading about the Brit convicted of making a fortune selling fake 'bomb detectors' (which, in reality, were re-purposed 'novelty' golf ball finding gizmos). What most of you fail to know is that this individual was supported by Tony Blair's people at the highest level, and given every assistance to spread his 'technology into nations Blair had invaded, like Afghanistan and Iraq. But why? Because after the invasion, Blair had his people IMMEDIATELY create death squads all across the nation, using local recruits. These death squads were given uniforms, and described as 'police' or 'militia' to the people they were designed to control and suppress.

    But Blair is smarter than you, and knows you are so thick, you will happily tolerate death squads operating in lands your government has invaded, providing those death squads indulge in security THEATRE. So, whenever the death squads struck, they justified their actions using excuses like the 'fact' that their fake bomb detectors had given them 'proof' that the person they dragged from their car, or the family they exterminated in the night, were terrorists involved in 'bomb making'. A fake bomb detector has the advantage of assigning guilt according to the whims of the person using it.

    Blair knows if he gives a SCIENCEY sounding excuse for his atrocities, you are vastly more likely to think their is some merit in his actions. Betas are trained to look at 'surface' evidence, and to NEVER consider that deeper purpose may be hidden by obvious and 'noisy' facts.

    The lie detector and airport 'x-ray' machines are part of the same security theatre- giving a 'scientific' legitimacy to the police-state in the minds of far too many sheeple. Of course, the abuse of machines induce a constant state of fear, causing most people to be self-aware of their levels of 'compliance'. If you had a time machine, every black slave in the USA could explain the principle to you. No 'innocent until proven guilty'. Instead, a constant need to prove your compliance, your subservience, and your understanding that under no circumstance are you to challenge any aspect of the authoritarian and unfair system.

  52. Enough of this BS! Obey the Constitution!!! by DougWilliams2072 · · Score: 1

    I have proved the polygraph is worthless as a "lie detector" - truthful people are often called liars and I can teach anyone how to control every tracing on the chart in a matter of minutes! Go to my website polygraph.com for more information about that. But, since all the scientific evidence shows there is no such thing as a "lie detector", wouldn't responsible policy makers in the government stop the use of the polygraph if they were aware of these problems? One would think they would, but the sad fact is they already know all these things - they have known since at least 1985 when I testified in Congress and got the EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH PROTECTION ACT passed into law, (the EPPA outlawed the use of the polygraph in private industry). I testified in the U.S. Congress in support of the EPPA. Click here to read a transcript of my testimony: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011381806;view=1up;seq=281 (My testimony begins on pg 275) Here is an interesting piece of historical trivia: When I testified in Congress, I put my manual, HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH into the Congressional Record, and the Senators and Representatives distributed more copies of my manual between 1984 and 1988 than anyone has ever distributed - including me! They sent them out by the tens of thousands in response to requests from constituents. (I wonder if they are going to get that "list" too?) But, there were exclusions written into the law that allowed the government - local state and federal - to continue to use the polygraph. They attempt to justify these exclusions on the grounds that the government needs this tool to protect national security and the law enforcement officials need it to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system. I have proved the polygraph is not a "lie detector" - the Congress, the Justice Department, the OTA, and all those with any scientific credibility agree with me - so there is no justification for the government to continue to use it on the pretext that it protects our national security or the integrity of the criminal justice system. But, knowing the polygraph is worthless as a "lie detector", knowing that people were wrongly accused of lying, and knowing that many were abused by polygraph operators asking illegal questions was still not enough to convince government agencies to stop using the polygraph. In fact, these agencies demanded that they be excluded from this law in order to "protect national security" and to "assure the integrity of law enforcement and the criminal justice system". The lawmakers caved and allowed the exclusions to be written into the law because that was the only way to be assured that even the watered down version prohibiting the polygraph in the private sector would pass. Why do government agencies still staunchly defend the use of the polygraph and even harass, intimidate and try to punish me for proving the polygraph is not a "lie detector" by demonstrating that I can teach anyone to easily control the results of the "test"? Why do they do everything in their power to prevent any information that discredits the "lie detector" from being exposed? Why do they intimidate applicants and others who are required to submit to polygraph "testing" by monitoring their internet activity and punishing them for educating themselves about the polygraph? Why does the government love to use this "Frankenstein's Monster", (a description given to the polygraph by its inventor Dr. Larson)? And why do they insist on continuing to use it? It is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS to use the polygraph as "lie detector" - the theory of "lie detection" is nothing but junk science. It is based on a faulty scientific premise. The polygraph operators have the audacity to say that there is such a thing as a "reaction indicative of deception", when I can prove that "lying reaction" is simply a nervous reaction commonly referred to as the fight or flight syndrome. In fact, the polygraph is nothing but a psychological billy c

  53. Enough of this police state! by DougWilliams2072 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have proved the polygraph is worthless as a "lie detector" - truthful people are often called liars and I can teach anyone how to control every tracing on the chart in a matter of minutes! Go to my website polygraph.com for more information about that. But, since all the scientific evidence shows there is no such thing as a "lie detector", wouldn't responsible policy makers in the government stop the use of the polygraph if they were aware of these problems? One would think they would, but the sad fact is they already know all these things - they have known since at least 1985 when I testified in Congress and got the EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH PROTECTION ACT passed into law, (the EPPA outlawed the use of the polygraph in private industry). I testified in the U.S. Congress in support of the EPPA. Click here to read a transcript of my testimony: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011381806;view=1up;seq=281 (My testimony begins on pg 275) Here is an interesting piece of historical trivia: When I testified in Congress, I put my manual, HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH into the Congressional Record, and the Senators and Representatives distributed more copies of my manual between 1984 and 1988 than anyone has ever distributed - including me! They sent them out by the tens of thousands in response to requests from constituents. (I wonder if they are going to get that "list" too?) But, there were exclusions written into the law that allowed the government - local state and federal - to continue to use the polygraph. They attempt to justify these exclusions on the grounds that the government needs this tool to protect national security and the law enforcement officials need it to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system. I have proved the polygraph is not a "lie detector" - the Congress, the Justice Department, the OTA, and all those with any scientific credibility agree with me - so there is no justification for the government to continue to use it on the pretext that it protects our national security or the integrity of the criminal justice system. But, knowing the polygraph is worthless as a "lie detector", knowing that people were wrongly accused of lying, and knowing that many were abused by polygraph operators asking illegal questions was still not enough to convince government agencies to stop using the polygraph. In fact, these agencies demanded that they be excluded from this law in order to "protect national security" and to "assure the integrity of law enforcement and the criminal justice system". The lawmakers caved and allowed the exclusions to be written into the law because that was the only way to be assured that even the watered down version prohibiting the polygraph in the private sector would pass. Why do government agencies still staunchly defend the use of the polygraph and even harass, intimidate and try to punish me for proving the polygraph is not a "lie detector" by demonstrating that I can teach anyone to easily control the results of the "test"? Why do they do everything in their power to prevent any information that discredits the "lie detector" from being exposed? Why do they intimidate applicants and others who are required to submit to polygraph "testing" by monitoring their internet activity and punishing them for educating themselves about the polygraph? Why does the government love to use this "Frankenstein's Monster", (a description given to the polygraph by its inventor Dr. Larson)? And why do they insist on continuing to use it? It is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS to use the polygraph as "lie detector" - the theory of "lie detection" is nothing but junk science. It is based on a faulty scientific premise. The polygraph operators have the audacity to say that there is such a thing as a "reaction indicative of deception", when I can prove that "lying reaction" is simply a nervous reaction commonly referred to as the fight or flight syndrome. In fact, the polygraph is nothing but a psychological billy c

  54. I teach people how to pass, not how to lie!!! by DougWilliams2072 · · Score: 3, Interesting
  55. "HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH" IS FREE! by DougWilliams2072 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It has been free to the public since I testified in the U.S. Congress in support of the EPPA. Click here to read a transcript of my testimony: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011381806;view=1up;seq=281 (My testimony begins on pg 275) Here is an interesting piece of historical trivia: When I testified in Congress, I put my manual, HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH into the Congressional Record, and the Senators and Representatives distributed more copies of my manual between 1984 and 1988 than anyone has ever distributed - including me! They sent them out by the tens of thousands in response to requests from constituents. I wonder if the Feds will get all that "list" from Congress? You can also get it by simply Googling HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH. I am constantly updating it and I must charge a small amount to maintain my website and keep updating the manual, so I charge for the updated version.

  56. That Palin Thing Says: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "How's that 'hopey-changey' stuff workin' out for ya?" :: winks :: :: snaps gum ::

  57. Buy it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and sell it

  58. Re:Hope and Change!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, this is a bullshit argument that keeps making things worse for all of us. So many people ASSUME Romney would have been so much worse because of the BS spin and lies started by the Obama campaign and continued through the media. It's ironic that you referred to others as sheep in the derogatory sense since you show how much of a sheep you are going along with it.
    What I find incredibly dense is choosing the guy that has PROVEN to lie and trample over our rights over a guy that MIGHT do something similar or worse because some people with an agenda say so. This entire idea of "the other guy was worse!" is what continues to destroy our rights as citizens and continues to empower those that take our rights away. It makes no sense to me to go with the guy who is guaranteed to continue harming us over the guy who some may think might harm us, but has not proven it yet.
    Voting for either of the faux two party system is simply letting the elite in power win, but if you don't have the guts to vote for a third, or fourth, or fifth, or sixth party, at LEAST vote for the guy who isn't the same incumbent who is already destroying this country. FYI, if a Republican wins in 2016, I would recommend voting against him in 2020. If that means voting for the Democrat because you're too deluded to vote for another party, so be it.

  59. coming soon, from DARPA with love by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

    It's your birthday. Someone gives you a calfskin wallet. How do you react?
    You've got a little boy. He shows you his butterfly collection plus the killing jar. What do you do?
    You're watching television. Suddenly you realize there's a wasp crawling on your arm.
    You're in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it canâ(TM)t, not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?
    Describe in single words, only the good things that come into your mind. About your mother.

  60. Discovery Channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For fucks sake. MYTHBUSTERS beat the polygraph. What more do they need?

    Are they going to put EVERY FULL TIER cable subscriber on a watch list?

  61. Polygraphers are thugs from the Ministry of Thruth by DougWilliams2072 · · Score: 1

    By describing my training as "countermeasures" that people use in order to pass a polygraph as a form of cheating, or something used only by liars who are trying to "beat" the "lie detector", polygraph operators are asserting something as a fact that is absolutely false - something that all evidence proves is false; i.e. that the polygraph is accurate, reliable, and effective in detecting truth and detecting deception. All the scientific evidence available proves that the polygraph is none of those things. The polygraph is no more accurate than the toss of a coin - in other words it is only able to detect deception approximately 50% of the time. This also means that unless truthful people get prepared to pass the test, over 50% of the time the polygraph con men will brand them as liars just because they are nervous. A sad irony is that often the people polygraph operators accuse people of using "countermeasures" are those who have no idea what that even means! As a matter of fact, polygraph operators are now so paranoid that one of the questions frequently asked on the polygraph test itself is if the subject has read my manual. Many of these unscrupulous jerks will fail or disqualify people just because they are suspected of the horrible Orwellian "thought crime" of educating themselves! But trying to "catch" anyone who uses the information in my manual and video/DVD to pass their polygraph test is an exercise in futility on the part of the polygraph operator, because everyone who uses the Sting Technique will ALWAYS PASS - and the only thing the polygraph operator will see is a perfect, natural truthful chart! As a matter of fact, the information in my manual is so effective, (and because the polygraph as a "lie detector" is so ineffective), the information in my manual and video/DVD is considered to be "contraband" - it is actually prohibited by Big Brother polygraphers in the government! Why do government agencies still staunchly defend the use of the polygraph and even harass, intimidate and try to punish me for proving the polygraph is not a "lie detector" by demonstrating that I can teach anyone to easily control the results of the "test"? Why do they do everything in their power to prevent any information that discredits the "lie detector" from being exposed? Why do they intimidate applicants and others who are required to submit to polygraph "testing" by monitoring their internet activity and punishing them for educating themselves about the polygraph? Because polygraph operators are today's version of the thugs employed by Orwell's Ministry of Truth! The thugs in the ministry spread a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak in which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like 2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants – or in the case of the polygraph operators a nervous reaction ALWAYS indicates deception.

  62. Harry Harrison by Eddy_D · · Score: 1
    I learned everything I know about beating a lie detector from the stainless steel rat..

    ---

    --
    - I stole your sig.
  63. Mobogenie by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 1

    I got offered to download mobogenie .apk a couple times I open slashdot on my phone. Do any of you experience this too?

  64. Re:Hope and Change!!!! by geogob · · Score: 1

    It's exactly what I am saying... That the US political spectrum is not the same as in the rest of the planet.

  65. the perfect xmas gift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do you have a magnet link?