Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Former Police Officer Indicted For Teaching How To Pass a Polygraph Test

Posted by timothy on from the government-hates-competition dept.

George Maschke (699175) writes On Friday afternoon, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the indictment (2.6 mb PDF) of Douglas Gene Williams, a 69-year-old former Oklahoma City police polygraphist turned anti-polygraph activist for teaching two undercover agents posing as federal law enforcement applicants how to pass (or beat) a polygraph test. Williams offers instruction on how to pass polygraph tests through his website, Polygraph.com, which remains online. Marisa Taylor of McClatchy, who has been covering polygraph policy issues for several years, has written an informative report. This appears to be a case where an individual was targeted for criminal prosecution to suppress speech that the U.S. government dislikes. AntiPolygraph.org, which may also have been the target of an attempted entrapment, has a commentary.

7 of 328 comments (clear)

  1. Re: First Post by EphemeralEclipse · · Score: 5, Informative

    undercover agents don't have to answer that truthfully... it's just a misconception reinforced by hollywood

  2. Not as simple as teaching how to ... by perpenso · · Score: 5, Informative

    He is in trouble not because he taught how to defeat a polygraph machine, but rather he taught people how to do it with the explicit intent to defeat government background and security checks. He explicitly said so. By saying so he enters into a conspiracy. He explicitly advised people to lie during a government investigation and agreed to help them conceal those lies. He admitted past clients have used his techniques to successfully lie to investigators for decades. And yes I know a polygraph detects stress not lies. Yet the fact remained he promoted his services as a method to conceal lies.

    If he had claimed the training was for some other purpose and always told people to never employ these techniques during a real government polygraph and to always tell government investigators the truth he would not be in trouble.

    In short the method he used to promote his services got him in trouble, not the services themselves.

    1. Re:Not as simple as teaching how to ... by jd659 · · Score: 5, Informative

      If he had claimed the training was for some other purpose and always told people to never employ these techniques during a real government polygraph and to always tell government investigators the truth he would not be in trouble.

      It always amuses me how simplistic the arguments can become. If you just tell how to beat an abstract polygraph without mentioning the government you'd be fine! Nonsense. If the government doesn't like what you do, there will be a way to lock you in for a long time. Even if you do everything legal.

      Here's a good example. A guy in California was installing hidden compartments in cars (traps). Those were very slick and he was careful -- it was impossible to detect that something was altered. There were no switches, opening such traps would require following some elaborate sequence, like opening specific doors, rolling down the window five times, starting the car seven times, whatever. Nothing illegal here. One may think that some uses for traps would be to store drugs but there could be many legitimate reasons (like storing cash or whatever personal items). So the installer asked if the traps are going to be used for anything illegal and refused to do the job if the answer was positive. Nothing illegal. Well, some lied and stored drugs and the DEA's job became more complicated and they staged the whole kangaroo court where the trap installer guy was convicted for 22 years! 22 years for not doing anything illegal, but the thinking was that he could have imagined that some traps could be used by drug dealers and therefore he facilitated drug dealings.

      More details on the story: http://www.wired.com/2013/03/a...

      --
      There's no such thing as "illegal download"
    2. Re:Not as simple as teaching how to ... by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't read or trust Wired, it's a magazine designed to make you feel outraged, not inform you. They don't care if the details are right.

      In this case, they had wire taps conversations and evidence linking him to the problem. You can read the appellate court decision to get a better view of the situation. If he had actually stopped helping those guys when he saw the money (which he knew was illegal), he wouldn't be in jail right now.

      In other words, if you're going to do something on the edge of legality, make sure you follow the letter of the law exactly. Because it's in the details where you'll get caught up and prosecuted.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. Re:Well, I for one feel safer... by Moof123 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I had to go through one for my Top Secret clearance, as well as have an investigator interview my references. A few years later I got a Secret clearance and all that was involved was filling out paperwork. The temporary clearance came in 2 weeks, the final one took another 6 weeks.

    I am pretty sure all they do for a Secret clearance is check your credit, criminal record, and citizenship. If nothing comes up you get a rubber stamp. It only gets complicated if they dig up Iranian relatives, or some other red flag.

    My opinion on the polygraph is that it is horse pucky. Half the folks they were screening that day failed, some got yelled at and accused of being terrorists (pre 9/11, FYI). One girl fell asleep. I had nothing to hide, but having read up on it ahead of time I decided to do calculus problems in my head when they baselined me for telling a lie to make sure I registered a strong response during the LOOOONG wait they put in between questions to let a guilty mind wander. I was the first one done. I am quite happy to no longer be working on government BS, there just isn't much interesting or well paying left being done at government agencies or at their contractors.

  4. Re:First Post by NotSanguine · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, often to get away your only choice is to lie to the cops.

    Big mistake. That will net you an obstruction charge. The only safe course of action is to refuse to speak to them at all. Give them your name, address, and the following statement: "I do not wish to make any statement without the benefit of counsel." If you have information that they want badly enough they'll give you immunity. Otherwise keep your fucking mouth shut.

    Exactly. Take some free legal advice

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  5. Re:First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    A lawyer from the National Lawyer's Guild once told me to say, "Officer, am I free to go?"

    Remember that detentions are voluntary unless you verbally ask to leave. Any time police detain you, it’s a good idea to ask if you’re free to go. If the officer says you may leave, it’s up to you to leave the scene of the encounter. If you choose to stay, the detention is automatically legal.