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