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."
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.