Slashdot Mirror
Former Police Officer Indicted For Teaching How To Pass a Polygraph Test
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.
He screwed up.
Lesson #1, Question #1: "Are you guys cops?"
Have gnu, will travel.
knowing that the federal government is protecting the sanctity of the occult practice of using a ouija board to determine if someone should be given a security clearance.
... a former police officer has been dragged into court by the U.S. Department of Justice for teaching people how to beat a pseudoscientific method of detecting whether somebody is lying, a method that itself isn't even admissible as evidence courts in most parts of the world? What's next? Will the surgeon general drag people into court for pointing out that when consuming a homeopathic remedy with 30C dilution, one would need to swallow a volume greater than all the water present in all the oceans of our entire planet in order to stand a good chance of swallowing just one molecule of the original substance?
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
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.
... a former police officer has been dragged into court by the U.S. Department of Justice for teaching people how to beat a pseudoscientific method of detecting whether somebody is lying, a method that itself isn't even admissible as evidence courts in most parts of the world? What's next? Will the surgeon general drag people into court for pointing out that when consuming a homeopathic remedy with 30C dilution, one would need to swallow a volume greater than all the water present in all the oceans of our entire planet in order to stand a good chance of swallowing just one molecule of the original substance?
He entered into a conspiracy to lie to government investigators. He promoted himself as having the ability to teach people to lie to investigators. He claimed past clients have successfully lied to investigators for decades.
If he taught people to beat a polygraph and **always** said to never lie to government investigators he would not be in trouble.
Polygraph tests generally can't be used as evidence in court, so they're nothing more than very weak probable cause tools. Meanwhile, probable cause is so cheap and easy to come by in front of today's judges that polygraph is a relic that isn't even needed anymore. It's science fiction.
The whole idea behind polygraph is that when you lie, your heart rate changes and you sweat more, so the conductivity of your skin changes. But this is false in both directions. Heart rate and skin conductivity can change due to other stimuli, such as (perhaps) sitting in a chair being subjected to a deeply flawed test that will help to determine whether you to prison despite innocence. In the other direction, some people can lie without exhibiting any kind of physiological "tell".
The polygraph test is and always has been a bogus fortune-teller's tool. They might as well indict somebody for explaining why astrology doesn't work.
I thought on Slashdot it was widely agreed that freedom of speech was an absolute thing that the USA has and the UK doesn't.
Now you tell us there are shades of grey? Oh my, when this news gets out...
True story. I was told by a polygrapher to never voluntarily submit to a polygraph. The good part is that I was attached to his polygraph at the time during a real investigation.
It doesn't matter what he said. The 1st Amendment is supposed to protect his right to say it. You can't just go around implying restrictions that are not written into the law. But that is what is happened and it's wrong.
The First Amendment protects his right to teach anti-polygraph techniques. The Bill of Rights protects him against being compelled to self incrimination. There is no protection against voluntary incrimination, which seems to be what happened. His self promotion of his services admitted a criminal conspiracy.
Because that's what it essentially is, it's basically a mix of a witch hunt and a trial by ordeal, where you're essentially already more or less sure whether or not your culprit is guilty and employ something that's for some reason thought to be a sound way to prove or disprove whatever you wanted to show.
Well, at least it's not "toss her in the water, if she swims she's a witch, if she drowns she was not"...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A logical government would take this as evidence that the polygraph itself is a bullshit test, and dump it. However, we have a bunch of petulant man-children in charge who just prefer to stamp their feet and hit somebody over the head instead of thinking.
Investigators often rely on intimidation. A polygraph is a tool of intimidation. It does not matter so much if it in fact works reliably. All that matters is that the subject fears that it will work reliably. It may lead such subjects to being more honest, to crack under pressure or to avoid circumstances where they will face a polygraph.
It doesn't matter if its a con to the gov't, as long as it tends to modify behavior in the desired direction.
You are attempting to draw a distinction that does not exist. Read your Constitution, read the Federalist papers, etc... etc.. there is not even a hint at "some" speech being disallowed.
You perhaps dislike what the guy was saying and teaching, but if I taught you to parachute and told you to jump off of the Sears building is that my fault if you do so? Hell No! You could try to sue me in civil court (good luck with that one, but people do win on occasion), but I have not done anything illegal or criminal.
Let me give another example just to drive the point home. If you were to ask me "Hey, I got a chance for this government gig and I was arrested and never charged for something when I was 8 years old. Should I tell them?" I can advise you either way, but my advice does not supersede the Government requirements for you to tell the truth. I am in no authoritative position to do so, and neither was the guy arrested.
Please tell me, how does this guys paid-for advice make laws and regulations not exist? Go ahead, I await your great wisdom on that one. Be cautious with that answer, because I have some quotes from all kinds of biographies that should be in jail for much worse crimes than what they are stacking on this guy.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
(2.6 mb PDF)
Thanks to warn us that the PDF's size is 2.6 millibits, my computer has issues storing fractional bits.
By the way, lots of web pages are 10 million times bigger than that nowadays.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Geeks have real issues with the concepts of knowledge and intent mattering in the law. They think something is either ok, or not ok, and if it is ok it is ok in all situations. Of course that's not how the law work. Intent in particular matters a hell of a lot. Something can be illegal or legal just based off of intent, or can be a different level of crime. Likewise if you know you are helping someone commit a crime, that can get you in trouble whereas doing the same thing unknowingly can be fine.
It is complex, because it varies, there are crimes that don't require intent, or crimes where even doing it unknowingly will get you in trouble, but there are others that are not. It is complex with various shades of gray, which I guess is why geeks can't understand it. Many seem to be very binary thinkers and want absolutes in rules, which the law frequently doesn't have.
He screwed up.
Lesson #1, Question #1: "Are you guys cops?"
Cops are his customer. Why would he ask that? To see if they are eligible for a Fraternal Order of Police union discount?
The surprise is that anyone would pay money to take a "class" when all you need to do is watch some entertaining videos.
Perhaps learning a skill involves practice and feedback on your performance during that practice.
YouTube videos - The Idiot's guide to remaining an idiot.
it should be discarded as ancient obsolete junk from the past like phrenology or some other bogus snake oil from the 18th & 19th century,
the polygraph is not even admissible in court because of its dubious reliability, the results of a polygraph does not prove anything
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
There is no scientific evidence that Polygraph machines actually work, all they do is give the examiner a pretext for accusing you of lying. Your safest action is to refuse to do the polygraph test. You do still have the right not to self incriminate.
But I thought the polygraph was infallible, they've been saying for years that an "well trained and experienced" polygraph technician can always spot a lie. Sounds like they aren't quite a confident as the decades of propa .... I mean "public service announcements" have portrayed.
In fact they did exist (probably not today, though).. It used to be that you could determine whether someone had a TV on and which channel it was tuned to by looking for the local oscillator leakage from the tuner (about 40 MHz away from the channel being received). You could drive a van down the street with a reasonably directional antenna on it and collect viewership statistics fairly quickly and easily.
As TV designs got better (lower LO leakage, in the US to meet Part 15 requirements, among other things) this became less useful.
If all you wanted to detect was the presence of a TV, looking for the horizontal retrace frequency (15.75 kHz in the US, I'm too lazy to look up what is used in the UK) or the vertical retrace at 59.94 Hz (in the US) would be the easy way, although with the increasing prevalence of CRT monitors starting in the 1980s, this would be less useful. One could, of course, look for the horizontal sync and correlate it against the known timing of the various broadcast stations to determine which channel is being viewed. At least with a traditional analog TV. A TV with a digital signal processing chain doesn't necessarily have deterministic timing relationships between the over the air signal and the scanning of the display (even if it does have an analog CRT).
There is copious evidence that TV detector vans existed and probably still exist. Old catalogs from companies selling the equipment that was installed into them, trade show exhibit photos, etc.
Who and how is this giving legitimacy to polygraph tests? We've known they're filled with errors and are at best unreliable. So who cares if someone is teaching people how to pass a fake test, or are we suddenly taking polygraph tests at face value now? Should I worry about attending the right church?
The polygraph is just a modern version of Trial by Ordeal. Where about the only thing modernized is the type of witchcraft it detects.
It has the reliability and reputation of tealeaf-reading. Actually, more people probably believe in mysticism than lie detectors.
Under these circumstances, any organization relying on polygraph testing deserves everything it suffers. Believe Mystic Meg's advice on lottery numbers? You aren't entitled to a refund on either. Same applies here. Such devices should have been consigned to the scrap yard (and/or the museum of failed criminology) decades ago.
It's no more easy to be sympathetic to the ex-cop. The fact that he's basically correct is irrelevant. First, he's milking the market. Ten greenbacks for a digital book that's likely to be yanked by officialdom. Even Dangermouse was content with one. Besides, most of the tricks are well-known and meditation can take care of the rest.
From the looks of it, the guy also harasses negative reviewers. That's definitely strike two.
And I'm willing to bet that he has abused authority a few times himself. That's becoming par for the course.
Nonetheless, despite despising the lot, police harassment and the de-facto classification of failings within authority are absolute no-go areas and that supersedes my dislike of Doug Williams and his profiteering.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Pretty obviously criminal. The undercover agent put out the bait, the guy recognized it was bait, hesitated, then swallowed it whole.
The trick is something like when you first sit and do the 'normalization' you actively worry about all kinds of past deeds that you are afraid might come out .. scream them inside you own head during this time period, then settle down for questions.
.
Something simple like that.
Like George Costanza said in an episode of Seinfeld: you're not lying if you believe it to be the truth.
Help! I am a self-aware entity trapped in an abstract function!
Hit a nerve, did he? And with an ID three times lower than yours, I'd say that the chance Sycraft-fu is a troll after all his time on Slashdot, rather than actually speaking his mind, is next to nil (even though I often disagree with many of his views, something the moderating rules rightly specify you can't use as a basis of moderation). As for you, I've been reading your posts for some time, and can say that you calling someone else a troll is the height of hypocrisy. The painful truth is that you want him downmoderated because you disagree with his views, and — given the impassioned language of your post — your disagreement is pretty personal. If you get butthurt so easily, perhaps you should go to another discussion forum.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Whatever else you say, you have to face that this is what Eric Holder and Barack Obama's justice department is up to.
you can start by looking up "strict scrutiny" and "compelling state interest."
Okay, I did... I don't see any mention of those things in the amendment. Are you saying some statutes can take precedence over explicit written law in the constitution? That it can be interpreted in any political fashion of the times? Either it applies or it doesn't. You believe in free speech, or you don't. Tell me which. I don't care either way. Just stop with the charade. That's all I ask. See, this this is where I don't think you so-called 'libertarians' really believe in freedom, if you're willing to take away my rights for "compelling state interest", you are the same kind of authoritarian we were told to fight. You sound as phony as the democrats with their faux 'liberalism'. Verbal/visual expression is speech, failure to mention the word changes nothing. The 1st Amendment states, "...no law..." You just can't get more absolute. Change your constitution to reflect your desired restrictions, or, for what it's worth (which is nothing to you, or anybody else here), I personally will forever call you hypocrites and phonies (nyah), and have nothing but contempt for your legal system, which you have made baseless, unable to follow your own rules. The law becomes as perverse as a priest assaulting young alter boys.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Are you saying some statutes can take precedence over explicit written law in the constitution? That it can be interpreted in any political fashion of the times? Either it applies or it doesn't.
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech
What does that mean, exactly? Please explain to me how a law against reckless endangerment represents an abridgment on the freedom of speech. Such laws cover acts that a reasonable person should know place others in danger. If I see a police officer interacting with another person does the First Amendment allow me to shout "HE'S GOT A GUN!" or would such an action constitute reckless endangerment? Heck, if we want to talk about firearms, is it a violation of the Second Amendment to charge me with reckless endangerment if I discharge my firearm into my neighbor's apartment while trying to clean it?
See, this this is where I don't think you so-called 'libertarians' really believe in freedom
What the heck have I said that leads you to conclude I'm a libertarian?
The 1st Amendment states, "...no law..." You just can't get more absolute.
If you want to read it that literally it says "Congress shall make no law...." Guess what? Reckless endangerment laws exist at the State level, not the Federal level. Of course, constitutional case law has evolved to incorporate the 1st Amendment against State Legislatures; too bad you're not interested in learning the nuisances of constitutional case law in the United States. Do you know the difference between the Federal and State governments in my country? Did you know that the States are sovereign entities that do not derive their authority from the Federal Constitution?
and have nothing but contempt for your legal system
Frankly I don't care if you have contempt for our legal system. I'm not certain where you're from my friend but if it happens to be Canada or the EU I'm willing to bet I know more about your legal system than you've bothered to learn about ours. You don't see me acting smug and superior about it, even though there are aspects of those jurisdictions (particularly civil law countries, e.g., all of Europe outside of the British Isles, do you know the difference between civil and common law?) that I would find troubling as an American.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
J. Edgar Hoover actually took a pretty dim view toward polygraphs. When the FBI relied on them for the first time in a counterintelligence investigation, polygraph results led them to relax surveillance of a Nazi spy suspect, who promised to cooperate with the FBI. But after finishing his polygraph, he got on the next ship to Germany and was gone. See Chapter 15 of Nazi Spies in America, a book by the FBI special agent who was in charge of the bungled case.
George W. Maschke
AntiPolygraph.org
Please, don't be a fool trying to conflate guns with speech. Words cannot cause harm. Only the person's action (shooting the gun) can. You are only rationalizing the authoritarian. Just say you don't believe in free speech, and we can move on to more important things, like baseball..
The differences between state and federal are irrelevant. The 1st Amendment applies to them all... To hell with your nuance Read the damn words
The law requires great precision. The 1st (and the 2nd) cannot be more accurate. If congress cannot make a law restricting speech, there shall be no [fucking] law... 'Not abridged' means that and only that. It grants no leeway. I've recently discovered the total futility of argument. To hell with all the incessant chatter. Now, I only try to find technical ways of circumventing censorship. And then you all can cry amongst yourselves about "compelling state interest"..
What the heck have I said that leads you to conclude I'm a libertarian?
I've been a follower for years.. And your sig kinda gives you away.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It seems that teaching someone how to pass a lie-detector test is legal. These guys may have set him up by revealing to him that they intended to use the information to perjure themselves, at which point, he became a co-conspirator. I don't know. I am not a legal expert, because what he was teaching seems perfectly legit. Polygraph tests are somewhat dubious under even under the best circumstances and absolutely worthless if someone has a full understanding of how they work or they are an outlier.
I hope he has a good lawyer.
... and that's just the way they want to keep the people -- stupid and unaware. It's the only advantage they have over "we the people" after all -- informaiton and knowledge control.
Words cannot cause harm.
So the adult who targeted a mentally ill child and harassed the child until the child was suicidal, then offered advice on the suicide is blameless? And fraud should be legal, as it's just words. Words can cause harm. Words have a measurable chemical effect on others, causing "harm" as detectable as a bruise from a punch.
Or are you saying that assault that only results in bruises should be legal, as that's not lasting enough harm?
Learn to love Alaska
You all win... I'm tired...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The differences between state and federal are irrelevant. The 1st Amendment applies to them all... To hell with your nuance Read the damn words
The words say "Congress shall make no law." You're the one choosing to interpret them literally. If you want to get into the 1st Amendment applying to the State Legislatures you're going to have to talk about case law and guess what? The case law doesn't agree with your interpretation of the 1st Amendment. You've lost this discussion on two fronts now, the literal reading of the words and the jurisprudence that has evolved around them. Why do you keep trying?
And your sig kinda gives you away.
My signature is a James Earl Jones quote from a fairly well known geek movie. There is no hidden political agenda in my signature. You're projecting; I can't decide if it's sad or amusing. Not that it really matters but I'm not affiliated with any political party. The Libertarians actually scare me to a certain extent and I would not vote for one even as a protest vote.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Also, you don't necessarily need to interpret the 1st amendment 100% literally in order to come to the obvious conclusion that it lists no exceptions
The 2nd Amendment lists no exceptions either. Under your logic the Federal Law that precludes convicted felons, domestic abusers, dishonorably discharged service members, the involuntarily committed, and those who renounce their citizenship from possessing firearms is a violation of the right to keep and bear arms. Hell, let's go further, there's no exemption in the 2nd Amendment that covers people currently serving time, so I guess we have to equip Cell Block D with 1911s if they ask for them?
I will refer you to what I referred the other person to. "Compelling state interest" and "strict scrutiny." Google them. There's 230 years of jurisprudence (more if you count the common law we inherited from Great Britain) behind these principles. I'll take that collective wisdom over random internet ramblings any day of the week.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I'll take that collective wisdom over random internet ramblings any day of the week.
And you can keep it. All that 'wisdom' is nothing but props for the emperor's facade. I can only imagine how many years it has held us back. Eh, while all this back and forth goes on, I hold out hope that all attempts at censorship can ultimately be rendered futile by whatever means available, and we can flush all the senseless chatter about 'jurisprudence' down the sewer where it belongs..
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Why do you keep trying?
Trying to do what? To 'win'??? 'Win' what?? What are you talking about? I don't care about discussion. Discussion is silly. No, what is important is to develop circumvention. All weaknesses must be exploited to make censorship impossible. I really don't care about any 'discussion'.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Yes, you are fighting the uphill battle because you are wrong. When everyone is against you, sometimes it's because you are the one swimming upstream. It's easier to change yourself than change the world.
Not only are you tired, you are tiring.
Learn to love Alaska
Yeah, you're right. That whole freedom thing is for the birds... What ever was I thinking? I mean if 98% say I'm wrong, then regardless of the truth, I am wrong! Why should I ever insist otherwise?! Really, just sit down and shut up, right? Well, maybe I like to fart into the wind. It passes quickly. You are free to pretend it didn't happen.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”