Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the and-if-you-have-nothing-to-hide dept.

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."

64 of 303 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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"
    7. 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
    8. 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.
    9. 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!

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

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

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

  2. 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 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?

    3. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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 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)
  5. 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.

  6. 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 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

    7. 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
    8. 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.

      --

      Technoli
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.
    14. 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
    15. 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.

  7. 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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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)
    5. 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
  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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 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.

  11. 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).

  12. 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 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)

    2. 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.

  13. 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

  14. 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.
  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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"
  18. 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
  19. Re:Only 5,000? by edibobb · · Score: 2

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

  20. 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

  21. I teach people how to pass, not how to lie!!! by DougWilliams2072 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://www.polygraph.com/index.php?i-don-t-teach-countermeasures

  22. "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.