Slashdot Mirror
Douglas Williams Pleads Guilty To Training Customers To Beat Polygraph
For quite a while, we've been following the case of Douglas Gene Williams, accused of and indicted for teaching people to pass polygraph tests that they might otherwise have been unable to, and for the claims he made in advertising this training -- and specifically for showing his techniques to some undercover Federal agents. Now, reports Ars Technica, Williams has pleaded guilty to five charges of obstruction of justice and mail fraud. From the article: Williams isn't the first person prosecuted for these type of allegations. An Indiana man was accused of offering similar services and was sentenced in 2013 to eight months in prison. The judge presiding over the case said the case blended a "gray area" of First Amendment speech and the unlawful act of instructing people to lie on polygraph tests issued by the federal government.
Williams' site, Polygraph.com, is now defunct.
I don't understand the point of spam like this... *shrug* each to their own I suppose but I'd prefer to spend my time more productively.
The indictment says Williams told an undercover agent that "I haven't lived this long and fucked the government this long, and done such a controversial thing that I do for this long, and got away with it without any trouble whatsoever, by being a dumb ass." The authorities said he told another undercover agent that "I've taught a lot of those guys. In fact, there's a lot of government agents—FBI, Secret Service, NSA, all of those alphabet agencies—that have already retired, that I taught, years ago. And I know what I'm doing, and you will pass with no problem."
That's called "puffery" in the law or marketing to the rest of us.
Polygraph machines were invented in 1921 and their results are usually not admissible as evidence in court.
And why was law enforement - the Fucked up Bureau of Idiocy - FBI wasting millions of taxpayer dollars going after this guy?! Hmmm?!
The government wore this guy down, buried him in legal fees, stress, harassment, and just plain assholishness over a man that has shown polygraphs to be pseudo scientific bullshit.
Douglas Williams is actually innocent but just made a plea to get the grunts with the badges and guns off his back.
I'm saying this before I RTFA so I'll revisit this statement if it makes me rethink but...why the fuck is it unlawful to teach people to "defeat" a method that doesn't even hold water within the very same legal system he is forced to plead guilt?
Couldn't he just pledged innocent and prove it with a polygraph test?
The other method is to simply be born a psychopath with an absence of conscience. So what point the test when 1% of the human population, 20% of the prison population and 50% of violent crimes are the statistics for psychopaths. So what are they trying to achieve, let 50% of violent crimes go unprosecuted when those psychopaths readily pass the test.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
That's one weird trick.
Let's not prosecute people who lie under oath.
Or review our policy of using a technology that can be fooled.
No, no. Let's prosecute the guy sharing information. Yeah, that'll make us safe.
I feel like teaching anyone anything should never be illegal. Wanting to learn is the most natural human trait in the world.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think that's backwards... you do that when you tell the truth, it raises your blood pressure and heart rate for the baseline.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
The man has to plead guilty for telling the truth. Lie test is just a scam to begin with, and the guy is just instructing people how to beat the scam.
No, it is not to clench your anus while you lie.
It is to clench your anus while the machine is being calibrated, prior to the questions.
Then, while you lie (or tell the truth but simply feel uncomfortable) the machine will not register your anxiety because it has been calibrated too high.
This guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inacurate. (from THHGTTG)
I can't believe people take these seriously. A polygraph is supposed to be a lie detector test, but all it does is tests vital signs. There is absolutely no way to prove if it's correct or not, so what is the point? If a polygraph was worth anything whatsoever, they wouldn't be worried about somebody being trained to beat it.
Maybe the truth is that the NSA (etc) is looking for psychopaths to recruit.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Such a shame. He should've used his talents to train customers to beat something useful, like cancer.
See, most people watch TV that shows lie detector tests to be accurate. You know, on TV the criminal fails and then spills his guts even when his TV attorney says "don't say anything."
Now, if you want to scare a suspect, you put him on that machine. Shit, I know it's a fraud, but I'd be real intimidated being hooked up and having the grunts with their badges and guns looking on - to be honest. I would NOT be a cool as a cucumber guy. As a matter of fact, I am such a neurotic that if you asked me about my breakfast, my vitals would go ballistic! I was born feeling guilty!
Anyway, my point being is that the FBI wants this little piece of pseudoscience to keep their arrest stats up and intimidate people.
By trying to silence the guy who tells you how to beat the polygraph (a useless test by all accounts, as far as the 'science' involved), they have basically told every torrent site to start seeding the way to do it online.
Thanks Government!
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
I'm the first to stand up for first amendment rights even when the defendant isn't very sympathetic. But this isn't a case of undesirable political speech. It's a business whose only product is helping people produce altered polygraph results and polygraphs are only used by government agencies. There aren't any substantial other uses for these classes. I don't think that the use of polygraphs in government employment is good policy. I don't think that prosecuting this guy is good policy. I'd like to see the whole ridiculous polygraph go away. If it is going to stay, I'd like to see candidates have to disclose whether or not they had researched how to beat the test. Prosecute anybody who takes his class and lies about it. Don't hire anybody who takes the class and admit it. If somebody posted the information for free online and got prosecuted I would be concerned. But it would be ridiculous to use these tests and then just have all of the candidates take the class ahead of time. Just defeats the purpose while adding inefficiency to the process.
The other method is to simply be born a psychopath with an absence of conscience. So what point the test when 1% of the human population, 20% of the prison population and 50% of violent crimes are the statistics for psychopaths.
And, apparently, many (most?) CEOs are psychopaths. Which Professions Have the Most Psychopaths? (there's a list):
CEO is the profession with the most psychopaths.
Also noted here and here and ... oh just Google "ceo" "psychopath"
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
If you're trying to get arrested you're doing a crap job. Penn & Teller might have to censor their DVDs seeing as there is now court precedent on a new exception to free speech.
Prosecutors were not amused when Douglas volunteered to take a polygraph test to prove that he wasn't teaching people how to beat polygraph tests.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
I took a look at the actual indictment. Well, at least the first few pages. Remember how people still insist to this day that Bill Clinton wasn't impeached (he was - impeaching does not mean convicting) or that he was impeached for "cheating on his wife"? Years later, the lies spun by his spin doctors still hold fast in many minds. Clinton was impeached for committing perjury in a civil trial. Now the event he committed perjury about was cheating on Hilary, but he was impeached for lying about it while under oath, not for the actual act of cheating on her. Similarly, this indictment isn't really and truly about beating lie detector tests. The government's contention is that Williams had a business whose purpose was to enable people ineligible for certain government jobs to get those jobs through lying and deception. This is defrauding the US government because salaries would be paid to those ineligible people. The government also contends that he enriched himself (through fees he charged) by encouraging people to lie to and deceive the federal government into hiring ineligible people for jobs. The first 6 or so pages I looked at don't actually mention anything about lie detector tests.
Both an older, 3-channel, analog type. As well as, a more advanced computerized one tracking many metrics of the human body. No one defeated the poly.
Suspected psychopaths can be identified through other traits, however if they're sufficiently high-functioning it typically takes a forensic psychologist and a bit of time to resolve. So you have to have both suspicion that someone is a pathological liar and access to a trained person to sort things out. So on the one hand it doesn't make them magically immune to investigation, but it does require different resources than standard police techniques. FBI staff for example do get some training in this area, but you need to have experience interviewing actual psychopaths to prepare you for dealing with them, it's one thing reading about them but quite another experiencing them in person.
(Incidentally, if people think Hannibal Lecter when they hear "psychopath" then think again, although he had some psychopathic traits (grandiose sense of self), he was really just yet another Hollywood-ised mad killer. The character from Wolf of Wall Street is probably the closest Hollywood has come to an accurate portrayal of a psychopath).
Squirrel!
This guy marketed his services at specifically beating tests given by the federal government. He was helping people lie to the Fed. That's his crime.
Is it actually in law that you can't tell folks how to beat a polygraph....or were they saying they were advertising this advice for sale but it was a fraud?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
No matter how many of these tests I do, I still really dislike that anal probe that measures how stressed my anus is.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
From an information theoretic point of view, I would think you would want to clench your anus with 50% probability on each response, during calibration and use.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
So you can tell people how to make bombs but can't tell them how to pass a polygraph test?
that would just be classic ;)
I'm not sure what point people who push that statistic are trying to get across. Being a psychopath doesn't inherently make you a bad person, it turns out that it's just a description of how your brain is physically wired.
In many respects, having your brain wired that way is quite useful. For example, any profession that requires a high sense of objectivity would be much better performed by somebody who can turn off emotion like a switch and only turn it on when it suits them, which is a common trait in psychopaths.
These kinds of people make great scientists, judges, journalists, lawyers, etc.
I think it's more that he was specifically stating that he would assist his customers in lying to the government on job applications and the like.
In unrelated news, I'm hosting a class on how to beat lie detectors, but it's for entertainment purposes only. And I'll take a lie detector test to prove it.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
This is plain stupid. Period.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what LAW was broken here?
Mail fraud for starters. I read the indictment when this story originally happened. Instructing people to lie to the Federal Government is a crime. Charging them money for your "services" that you receive via the USPS is an even bigger crime.
Question: "I'm nervous, what if they ask me about that time I used drugs?"
Answer #1: "Just remain calm. Do math in your head." <--- not illegal
Answer #2: "Lie to them and stay calm." <--- illegal
Answer #3: "Lie to them and stay calm. Now send me a postal money order for my services." <--- really illegal
If you read the charging documents you'll see that it's not really a first amendment issue. Mr. Williams also let his greed get the better of him. He identified one of the agents as such, even said, "I think you're a Fed. I'm not doing this." but later called the guy back and changed his mind. It was for a lousy five thousand dollars too if I recall correctly. For a lousy five grand he ignored the little voice inside his head and committed a Federal felony. I have zero sympathy.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
beating a lie detector should be taught in elementary school...
I don't think your reasoning is very sound. Isn't it possible to be a great scientist, judge, journalist, or lawyer, and also be a bad person? Or, more specific to this argument, isn't it possible for a trait which makes you a great scientist to also make you a bad person? More importantly, is it possible to lack that trait, or to be a good person, and still be a great scientist, judge, journalist, or lawyer?
I believe the answer to each of these questions is yes.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
Then you obviously have something to hide.
MRA conspiracy theory #736.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm not sure what point people who push that statistic are trying to get across.
Me neither. They are implicitly assuming that psychopaths make poor leaders, when the evidence points to the opposite. Psychopaths are able to look at the situation dispassionately, and make better utilitarian decisions, that bring the most benefit to the most people. We are too used to idealistic TV shows, where Captain Kirk risks his starship and the entire crew, at unfavorable odds, to save his friend, Dr McCoy. But in reality, that is stupid and irresponsible. A psychopath would have no problem abandoning one dispensable person for the success of the mission.
Shouldn't it be EITHER fraud OR obstruction of justice?
The dirty little part left unsaid by many is that they think being truly objective IS being a bad person.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
That's not what happened. Williams was instructing people on how to beat a machine that's not even reliable enough to be used in legal proceedings.
I imagine Williams doesn't have the resources, but I'm not sure I believe this would have held up under judicial scrutiny at a higher level.
I teach people how to relax, control their heart rate and galvanic skin response. It's actually a pretty trivial technique, basic meditation and centering exercises. We use a machine that measures heart rate and galvanic skin response to test our students. Once they learn the techniques, they can do with them what they want. It's not on me.
See how easy that was? Now, if Williams had been advertising "Learn to lie to the FBI during the background check for a job in the Bureau", then there might be some obstruction issue.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Just give them a Voight-Kampff test.
Um, that wasn't a lie detector.
You are welcome on my lawn.
... somebody who can turn off emotion like a switch and only turn it on when it suits them ...
I think the problematic phrase is "when it suits them" and I would speculate that it rarely suits them to turn their emotions on and empathize with others, especially when doing so would conflict with personal gain.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Don't confused psychopath with sociopath.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Psychopaths are able to look at the situation dispassionately, and make better utilitarian decisions, that bring the most benefit to the most people.
Perhaps, but what they actually tend to do is look at the situation dispassionately and make utilitarian decisions that bring the most benefit to themselves.
I think you'll find that that subtle distinction is why most people are wary of psychopaths.
That is quite a search term ... tried googling "programmer" "psychopath"? Or "teacher" "psychopath" for that matter?
I think you may find what you are looking for.
Pffff. . . . Loophole.
All he has to do is change the wording of his website a bit.
From " I will teach you how to lie to the Federal Government " to " I will teach you how to lie LIKE the Federal Government " and all will be golden.
He can even call it a " Politician Boot Camp ".
It is to clench your anus while the machine is being calibrated, prior to the questions.
An obvious solution would be to have a sensor in the seat cushion to detect the clenching. In the past, people cheated by putting a thumbtack in their shoe. Now, polygraphs are usually administered with shoes removed.
The problem is, he was advertising something illegal (lying to the government). So if he HAD done this in the first place, he'd be fine (as long as he also made the same pitch to the undercover agents that came to investigate him). As soon as he crossed the line to "Here, I'll teach you how to lie on the polygraph so you can get that federal job," he moved into criminal territory, no matter how stupid it is that governments rely on polygraphs in the first place. He'd be facing the same issue if he were teaching people how to cover up their Facebook indiscretions specifically so that the government would hire the person where otherwise they wouldn't.
Even though using polygraphs in the hiring process should be illegal, lying to the government under oath is also illegal, regardless of whether there's a polygraph involved..
Perhaps, but what they actually tend to do is look at the situation dispassionately and make utilitarian decisions that bring the most benefit to themselves.
Just make sure the organization's objectives are aligned with the interests of the leader. Star ship captains get promoted to admiral by completing their mission, not saving their friends. Generals advance in rank by winning battles. CEOs get their bonus by raising the stock price.
I think you'll find that that subtle distinction is why most people are wary of psychopaths.
I think most people don't understand why psychopathy is. If they are so wary of psychopaths, why do they keep voting for them?
Then government work may not be right for you.
No one should be coerced to plead guilty against the threat of huge sanctions.
Prosecutions are stacked against the defendant, particularly federal prosecutions. They are alone with their own resources against buildings full of government lawyers drawing a salary, with no incentive to seek justice, just convictions to pad their stats.
By forcing him to plead guilty to a lesser charge (to avoid something silly like 18 consecutive death sentences, or whatever they came up with), the rest of us are duped into believing that he actually did something wrong. Pleas should only be allowed on all charges, or none. Anything in between is institutional coercion, a corruption of justice.
Further, there should be a very, very high bar against charging someone for going about their ordinary business. If his business isn't illegal in general, it shouldn't be illegal when government agents lie to him.
If you pre-pay at a gas station and tell the cashier that you are filling up because you like your getaway car to be in top condition before you rob a bank, is that guy now a felon for not refusing your business? By the logic of this case, if you are an undercover cop he is.
We should be pissed about this. But we aren't. Why not?
See that "Preview" button?
It is legal to teach people how to cheat at cards - they are called 'magic' lessons.
But illegal to teach people how to defeat a machine that is not allowable in a court of law?
Does anyone know of any other skill that it is illegal to teach? Anything?
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
It is to clench your anus while the machine is being calibrated, prior to the questions.
An obvious solution would be to have a sensor in the seat cushion to detect the clenching. In the past, people cheated by putting a thumbtack in their shoe. Now, polygraphs are usually administered with shoes removed.
That is already standard practice for some polygraphs.
That's not really how you cheat a lie detector you do math in your head (or other technique) on the calibration lie questions, e.g. did you ever cheat in school? The questions you are really trying to hide do nothing. So your physiological response is higher on them so they don't think you are lying on the actual questions.
Maybe what I just said, is illegal then again I am not in the US.
Also his book is/was available for free, I assume he charged for actual lessons with actual polygraphs, which actually used his time. So probably not mail order fraud, but probably still illegal.
Ahww That stinks you know...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Say a lie detector is correct 90% of the time. That would certainly be useful in a variety of situations as long as the results were supplemented by other information.
But would you want to use that in court? Juries would be so biased to follow whatever the lie detector said, no matter what the other evidence showed.
There is a reason we still use them, just not in court proceeding.
He could have done this easily enough, but it would have resulted in less sales. He had to weigh the advantages of the marketing ploy against the risk of, well, what happened. If he had advertized as 'novelty only' and kept to just the specific polygraph training he probably would have been fine, or at least a much stronger case.
Perhaps, but what they actually tend to do is look at the situation dispassionately and make utilitarian decisions that bring the most benefit to themselves.
Just make sure the organization's objectives are aligned with the interests of the leader. Star ship captains get promoted to admiral by completing their mission, not saving their friends. Generals advance in rank by winning battles. CEOs get their bonus by raising the stock price.
A psychopath CEO will see the fine associated with dumping toxins in a river is smaller than the increased profits to be realized by not disposing of chemicals legally: organization and CEO goals aligned. A person with a conscience will a) want to obey a reasonable law and b) have some moral qualms about potentially poisoning a bunch of people, regardless of whether it will be traced back to them.
Corporations are basically amoral, immortal, and wield an enormous amount of influence in politics. One of the best counterbalance is having someone of decent character in charge of them.
1. Insinuate that someone is guilty if they are not willing to take a polygraph test, and note how enthusiastic they are to take the test. 2. If they take the test, tell them they failed the polygraph test, and see if they are willing to confess to something, even if it is not the thing yu thought they may have done.
Unless you're just being goofy, I want you to stop and think.
I mean really THINK.
Is it possible to verify this? If you THINK about it, you'll realize the answer is yes -- you can verify it.
Next time you see a gender politics thread, give it a whirl. Do a few anon posts, do a few signed in. Try taking a position that agrees. Try taking a position that disagrees. See what stays and what's left.
All you need to understand is that /. will often NOT remove spam or troll posts like this, but WILL remove posts that use the three-letter acronym for 'ess jay doubleyew' in gender-related topics like women in STEM.
Speaks volumes about the /. leadership.
Or that xenu thing...
Pffff. . . . Loophole.
All he has to do is change the wording of his website a bit.
From " I will teach you how to lie to the Federal Government " to " I will teach you how to lie LIKE the Federal Government " and all will be golden. He can even call it a " Politician Boot Camp ".
He could claim his entire site is a parody, no? Like movies with plots to assassinate the president aren't actually encouraging it...
Just make sure the organization's objectives are aligned with the interests of the leader.
Most organisations (I spell UK) have some sort of collective purpose otherwise they wouldn't be organisations. Inherently opposed to the selfish objectives of the psychopath.
CEOs get their bonus by raising the stock price.
Often temporarily, only for it to tank right after they deploy their golden parachute. Or even before, they design it to work either way. This bonus idea was invented in the 70s. Even some business professors have started to notice it hasn't always worked out.
why do they keep voting for them?
Successful psychopaths are charming and good liars. People want to believe it will be different this time. Only psychopaths get to stand. Psychopaths know to tell people what they want to hear. Most people, it seems, cannot easily spot a psychopath. If they realised their candidate was a psycho they (mostly) wouldn't vote for them. I hope.
I believe film of in philby is still used to demonstrate this to SIS trainees
A psychopath CEO will see the fine associated with dumping toxins in a river is smaller than the increased profits
If dumping the toxins is profitable, the obvious solution is to increase the fine so that it is not.
One of the best counterbalance is having someone of decent character in charge of them.
The problem with this "solution" is that the moral person make sub-optimal decisions based on emotions. McClellan loved his soldiers but squandered their lives by being indecisive. Grant was dispassionate, and would calmly order thousands to their deaths. But he won the war. Patton surrounded 40,000 Nazi soldiers at Falaise, while Montgomery was still dithering on the beach. You don't win wars, or run big organizations, by being touchy-feely.
first, this is idiotic that even if they were teaching you to beat the system it shod ehow be wrong. Second, why not outlaw teaching people to "beat" their astrological sign? I mean, astrology is just as legitimate as polygraphs.
I think being a psychopath (or having some of those traits) makes you more likely to be a leader because more likely to manipulate your way to the top. Whether you are better leader is questionable.
Captain Kirk was a bad leader, he would risk the entire ship, go down on way missions, but this was not because he was a not a psychopath, it was because it made a more interesting show. A psychopath will do what is in their best interest, not the crews, maybe go on way missions so you can get the hot alien chick, not thinking that you may leave your entire crew captain less. If you care about others, you will also care about the other members of your crew as well, and not put there lives in jeopardy just to save a mate.
TV shows and movies tend place very little value on lives extras, you may have a show where hundreds of people die, nobody cares but if part of the main cast dies, everything is so sad. Everyone's life is valuable. Yes I don't morn every death in the world, but if am responsible for their lives, I would take into consideration their lives as well my mates.
that's actually what happened. he was contacted for his services by two undercover feds claiming they wanted to apply for federal gov't jobs; one said he'd slept with underage girls and the other said he'd smuggled drugs across the u.s. border. both wanted to beat a polygraph for the fed jobs (and told him as much) and he helped them both.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-...
do not read this line twice.
This is about knowledge, not whether or not polygraphs work. If he knew he was helping them lie, he aided them in a crime. It doesn't matter how unreliable their means of attempting to discern the truth is, helping someone knowingly lie is an offense. That said, I wonder if he might have gotten more mileage out of the fact that the polygraph procedures *expect* you to lie or withhold things on the control questions.
I mean, they have breaking federal law right in the procedure here, which is a bit off, to say the least.
according to this: http://www.differencebetween.n... it is far more likely that they are psychopaths.
For better or worse, there are few differences between psychopaths and sociopaths. Some medical dictionaries even consider them to be synonymous
however the differences it does list basically say, a psychopath is an organized, successful sociopath.
I lied on a polygraph test a ton. By the end of the test the cop was practically my best friend. He is ether the best actor in the world for being so nice to me while I lied through my teeth or he had no idea I was lying to him.
I've actually documented that except for last Friday, there have been MRA clickbait articles on Slashdot every single Friday going back to 2014.
And every single one of them has comments that include the term, "SJW".
Now, the fact that someone unironically uses the term "SJW" in a posted story is probably an excellent indication that the story is utter rubbish might have something to do with the fact that those posts don't make the cut. Because think... really THINK for a moment about who uses that term unironically.
You are welcome on my lawn.
FBI sting operations that seek to entrap people into breaking the law are really scummy.
It's just a shame Williams didn't make his customers submit to a "before" polygraph exam, to see whether or not they were feds.
You are welcome on my lawn.
He probably couldn't have passed the test, since the test is so subjective, the examiner knows he can cheat the test, they would just say that the detected him cheating, therefore he has something to hide, therefore he must be lying.
Part of his technique (if you are going to lie) is to not tell the examiner that you know how to bet the test
Because the ballot only has a choice between psycopath A and psycopath B.
Occassionally, an option for a third candidate with a different DSMIV diagnosis appears also.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
I teach people how to relax, control their heart rate and galvanic skin response. It's actually a pretty trivial technique, basic meditation and centering exercises. We use a machine that measures heart rate and galvanic skin response to test our students. Once they learn the techniques, they can do with them what they want. It's not on me.
And that by itself is not illegal. But, if one of your perspective students said to you: "I think your techniques might help me to beat a polygraph test for a federal government job that I'm applying for. Where do I sign up?" And you say: "Right here, just give me a deposit check for $50 to guarantee your spot in the class." then you are an accessory to fraud. And because your student has said they are applying for a FEDERAL government job, you've committed a federal felony which carries some serious prison time.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Where's the entrapment? The agents did not force Williams to perform the service he was willingly performing for other people.
You know what makes me wary?
The thought that a lot of well-behaved people out there only don't do bad things because they are happy friendly people and don't feel like doing bad things.
Because that implies that if they felt like doing bad things, if they had enough shit that made them upset enough, then they would do bad things, because they are driven by their emotions.
I'd rather know that people had the ability to do what they think is the right thing to do regardless of how they feel about the situation. That is a much higher form of morality than the vapid and selfish "I like people and want them to like me" that seems to drive a lot of people.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
(Incidentally, if people think Hannibal Lecter when they hear "psychopath" then think again, although he had some psychopathic traits (grandiose sense of self), he was really just yet another Hollywood-ised mad killer. The character from Wolf of Wall Street is probably the closest Hollywood has come to an accurate portrayal of a psychopath).
The problem is that the term "psychopath" doesn't mean quite the same thing in colloquial use as it does is psychological use. It's a bit like debating whether food is "Organic," at least a few years ago before the FDA created guidelines, between a member of the general public and a chemist. Even to a psychologist it has a very broad definition and is not a specific diagnosis, but to a psychologist the term "psychopath" means what most members of the general public think is "sociopath."
Here's a good explanation of the difference:
https://www.psychologytoday.co...
Sociopaths tend to be nervous and easily agitated. They are volatile and prone to emotional outbursts, including fits of rage. They are likely to be uneducated and live on the fringes of society, unable to hold down a steady job or stay in one place for very long. It is difficult but not impossible for sociopaths to form attachments with others. Many sociopaths are able to form an attachment to a particular individual or group, although they have no regard for society in general or its rules. In the eyes of others, sociopaths will appear to be very disturbed. Any crimes committed by a sociopath, including murder, will tend to be haphazard, disorganized and spontaneous rather than planned.
Psychopaths, on the other hand, are unable to form emotional attachments or feel real empathy with others, although they often have disarming or even charming personalities. Psychopaths are very manipulative and can easily gain people’s trust. They learn to mimic emotions, despite their inability to actually feel them, and will appear normal to unsuspecting people. Psychopaths are often well educated and hold steady jobs. Some are so good at manipulation and mimicry that they have families and other long-term relationships without those around them ever suspecting their true nature.
Entrapment. People here keep using that word, but I do not think it means what they think it means.
To make it simple, entrapment is when the government makes a person an offer he cannot refuse, and thereby turns an honest person into a criminal since under this legal theory, everyone has a price. This means if you went down the street and tell the sleezy looking guy on the corner you want to buy drugs and have $20 and he produces some, it isn't entrapment since that isn't an excessive amount. Tell him you are desperate for a fix and you will give him $10K for any small amount of whatever he has, and he goes into a house and comes out with it, that would be considered entrapment.
Regarding this case, the police can feed someone a story and see if they bite, but can't up the reward to such a level that even an honest person would say yes. Here, the reason the guy is offering the service is obvious though the police needed to make it explicit so they told him they wanted to beat lie detectors to get federal jobs they were ineligible for, and he said he would help them get the jobs by teaching them how to lie to the government officials.
Actually there is no reason to assume that people who trained with him were bad people. Polygraph tests have false positives. An innocent person could take training for passing a polygraph test to reduce chances of a false positive.
The new default viewing method for the un-logged-in is helping to grow such beliefs. I've noticed that if I'm not logged in, it's impossible to view comments modded down to -1, even if I set the view slide-bar to show that level. For the accountless masses, it's like the comments are removed.
This guy is going to jail for something Penn and Teller had in their TV show Bullshit! It's public knowledge now. And how is it fraud if it works?
Furthermore...
To be dispassionate is not necessarily to be objective.
And to be ethical is not necessarily to be emotional.
He has no responsibility to verify their intentions. It's just information. Even if they say they are going to apply for a fed job and need to beat the polygraph he can just assume they are joking. These charges are BS. What they say is their business and he likely ignored it.
That certainly sounds like a psychopath. Makes "better utilitarian decisions" not because it's better just to prove he is better. And then letting the crew die off 1 by 1. Because "it's just 1 dispensable grunt, not me so no problem." Then 3 weeks later all that's left of the male crew is him. It was his plan from day 1. That's why you don't give psychos the time of day. They only live to prove they are best.
we indict those who train others to bilk the financial system and the peons out of their investment money?
I'll repeat my challenge. Next time you see a gender politics thread, give it a whirl. Do a few anon posts, do a few signed in. Try taking a position that agrees. Try taking a position that disagrees. See what stays and what's left. /. deletes posts. The neat thing is that you don't have to take my word for it. You can find out.
>And every single one of them has comments that include the term, "SJW".
Amazing, you figured out that not ALL posts are deleted.
>posts don't make the cut.
It is not /. stated policy to delete posts that don't meet with your approval. That's what moderation is for. There is not "cut" to make.
ROTFL
I can see that it would be illegal if the teaching was aimed at a person under investigation for a specific crime and that the instructor knew that he was teaching that suspect. But if the guy wanted to reach the whole world how to beat a polygraph without knowing who or why people wanted such training i don't think it should or could be illegal.
The problem is, he was advertising something illegal (lying to the government). So if he HAD done this in the first place, he'd be fine (as long as he also made the same pitch to the undercover agents that came to investigate him). As soon as he crossed the line to "Here, I'll teach you how to lie on the polygraph so you can get that federal job," he moved into criminal territory, no matter how stupid it is that governments rely on polygraphs in the first place. He'd be facing the same issue if he were teaching people how to cover up their Facebook indiscretions specifically so that the government would hire the person where otherwise they wouldn't.
Even though using polygraphs in the hiring process should be illegal, lying to the government under oath is also illegal, regardless of whether there's a polygraph involved..
Yup, nothing wrong with teaching people to beat the polygraph, just he advertized it wrong.
If he'd just kept his mouth shut about 'beating the government' and made it plain to his potential customers "I don't want to know why you want to know this or for what - don't tell me" he'd have been fine. He was his own worst enemy.
Successful psychopaths are charming and good liars. People want to believe it will be different this time. Only psychopaths get to stand. Psychopaths know to tell people what they want to hear. Most people, it seems, cannot easily spot a psychopath. If they realised their candidate was a psycho they (mostly) wouldn't vote for them. I hope.
That's actually a fairly accurate description of our current president, and the people who voted for him twice.
Well maybe Kirk was a bit dispassionate. He cared a lot about Bones and Spock, but he only pretended to give a shit about the red shirts.
That's not far removed from Tony Soprano who loved his family, but at the end of the day only pretended to care for his mafiosos, and would turn on them if they weren't driving him a profit.
I think the problematic phrase is "when it suits them" and I would speculate that it rarely suits them to turn their emotions on and empathize with others, especially when doing so would conflict with personal gain.
I think you're confusing a personal gain with a selfish gain. At the end of the day, everybody does what they do because it ultimately suits themselves, but that doesn't mean they are being selfish.
That said, a psychopath often also has a bond people who they consider "their own." Something that often (but not always) includes is family. In the case of a company, often they'll consider that to be their family, and put that ahead of others interests, including their own personal interests. For example, it can also be said that a very effective Army general's victory is his own goal. Erwin Rommel didn't really care for the Nazi movement, rather he was an effective general because he was given a job and he did that job at the expense of all else, including his own personal benefit.
Another thing psychopaths are known for is to have universal empathy for some things at the expense of all others. For example that might be babies or animals, which is often the motivation behind people who bomb abortion clinics (surprise, not all of them are religious) or groups like ALF who threaten physical violence against medical researchers who work with animals. Some also have universal empathy for things or concepts, like ELF who threaten physical violence against lumberjacks.
People like these often don't care if they end up in jail or in the electric chair, just so long as they believe they served a purpose that suits them.
Cave-man with stupid, regressive beliefs reporting for duty, sir!
It is precisely stories like this that confirm our deepest suspicions about government. I automatically vote No on every prison bond and police budget override. If the prison-industrial complex can expand to use the budget we allocate to it, we can if we put our minds to it make it shrink to fit a smaller budget.
There doesn't need to be a law. They know they're in the wrong, but they also have legal teams that can overwhelm any response we could muster unless we can create a significant political media stink. That's why the Stasi types fear social media above all the other weapons we have.
You are conflating posted stories with comments. One is edited, curated. The other is moderated.
You might want to give it a rest. You have more important things to worry about, like the worldwide cabal of evil feminists who have taken control of the entire internet. Now they're coming for you.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's funny how you all use "MRA" the same way Smurfs use their own name. It's practically a generic non-word at this point applying to anything and everything you don't like.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Speaks volumes about the /. leadership.
Are you suggesting they are unrepentant White Knights?
Nah, it has a pretty specific meaning.
http://www.urbandictionary.com...
You are welcome on my lawn.
And, you may note, "SJW" has a specific meaning, too:
You are welcome on my lawn.
Not when those raking in the cash with scams such as polygraphs use whatever influence they have or can buy to do things like jail the people pointing out it's a scam.
See also the TSA and those very expensive scanning machines and a variety of other not very useful things that are merely vectors to channel taxpayers money into the pockets of various cronies and associates.
A better trick would be selling tshirts with the caption "STAY CALM AND LIE TO THE MACHINE", but it would be a few truckloads of shirts to clear five grant.
That's a better description than a bunch of whiny virgins that think the world owes them a supermodel to play with.
"CEOs get their bonus by raising the stock price."
Even if everyone below them knows that in order to achieve the sudden increase they have destroyed the ability for the company to operate for more than another 5 years.
The usual approach by American MBA CEOs is to cut every conceivable operational expense that isn't required in the short term of their contract's huge bonus conditions (like stop maintaining equipment, getting rid of staff who work on future products or research etc.).
What he did may have been technically illegal, but I think he was still doing a public service. Lie detectors need to be eradicated and unless a substantial number of real criminals aren't caught that isn't going to happen. And no, I don't care that he took money for it. People need to live.
It's like white hat hacking, illegal but necessary. I hope someone else will carry his torch going forward.
No, I had to take out what I was hiding to get the probe in.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Sounds like he should side with Scientology on this one. Their e-meter is a primmitive polygraph after all.
So there's a conspiracy to remove opinions that the Slashdot editors don't agree with, but they don't do it for everything they don't agree with.
Did you think this through before you decided to hit Submit?
All you need to understand is that /. will often NOT remove spam or troll posts like this, but WILL remove posts that use the three-letter acronym for 'ess jay doubleyew' in gender-related topics like women in STEM.
Speaks volumes about the /. leadership.
Utter tosh. I know slashdot allows "SJW" posts, since it gives me a way of quickly scanning and ignoring them.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Which are illegal.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I'm trying to figure out exactly what LAW was broken here?
Is it actually in law that you can't tell folks how to beat a polygraph....or were they saying they were advertising this advice for sale but it was a fraud?
It sounds like it was both simultaneously, which seems amusingly Catch 22.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You have more important things to worry about, like the worldwide cabal of evil feminists who have taken control of the entire internet. Now they're coming for you.
You shouldn't mock the afflicted.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Psychopaths are able to look at the situation dispassionately, and make better utilitarian decisions, that bring the most benefit to the most people.
Perhaps, but what they actually tend to do is look at the situation dispassionately and make utilitarian decisions that bring the most benefit to themselves.
I think you'll find that that subtle distinction is why most people are wary of psychopaths.
The definition of a utilitarian decision is that it is for the benefit of the greatest number of people, rather than any individual. Whether you think that is good or not, it is completely the opposite of how a psychopath looks at the world.
Psychopaths are the ones who would watch the world burn because it amused them.
FTFY.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The other method is to simply be born a psychopath with an absence of conscience
No you fucking don't. Polygraphs don't work. THEY ARE BULLSHIT. Reading fucking tea leaves is as effective at detecting a lie as a polygraph. The guy who "invented" the polygraph when on to show that if you hook up the polygraph to a *plant* it can *read your mind*. This shit is crazy. Even worse is the credibility of any organization at all that puts any stock into a polygraph test.
Long story short. You can just lie to defeat (what does that even mean here) a polygraph.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
To need a trick is to imply that a polygraph works. It doesn't. The guy who made up the polygraph test went on to wire it up to plants and claimed that the plant could tell when your thinking of harming the plant. The guy was a whack job. A government institution that puts any stock in a polygraph is a laughing stock.
All a polygraph test is a Dick behind his proverbial bones/tea leaves that gives a reading based on nothing more than if he/she likes you.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Allows them? Sure. Has this turned into fucking Reddit?
Did I have to literally specify the percentage they leave standing and the percentage deleted?
[Throws up hands]
You're right. They obviously would be compelled to take the time necessary to read EVERY SINGLE POST to vet each one.
That makes a LOT of sense.
I am a forum moderator elsewhere, but I never really thought that you have to be one in order to understand how the process works. I'm obviously wrong on that account too.
We're told polygraphs aren't accurate
But it's illegal to train somebody how to beat one.
Hmm....
Need Mercedes parts ?
If this sort of First Amendment exercise is regarded by the government as a weapon, this sort of conduct, by reason of its being labeled as a weapon falls under the Second Amendment. It gets protection from both amendments.
This message is brought to you by Karl Martell. EDUCATE YOURSELF.
[Prefaced with whiney voice] Sooner or later someone will dredge up that quote from Nietzsche "In fighting monsters, take care that one does not become a monster himself. For when he stares into the void, the void stares back. He is a nihilist or warned us of nihilism.
[Cough-cough]
66 I feel like teaching anyone anything should never be illegal. Wanting to learn is the most natural human trait in the world.
Great. I'll open up a terrorism school where I teach people how to fly planes into buildings, assassinate government leaders, sabotage trains, make poison gases, bombs, and other weapons of mass destruction. I'm just teaching so it shouldn't be illegal.
So you are in favor of someone banning knowledge of chemistry, physics, guns, and tactics? 99
This idea that forbidden knowledge is a weapon in and of itself is mens rea and the propagation thereof is actus reus has all the trappings of a state fearful of those under its boot.
This is what I call the Miri-Piri approach to self-defense education. It involves the merging of the First Amendment which tells the government that a person need not justify their condition before it, and the Second Amendment which as understood by the Founders and Framers (and Statists in our day) as a doomsday clause for violating the First. The Second protects the First and the First makes the Second worthwhile.
When all other measures are exhausted, use of the sword is justified. - Guru Gobind Singh
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box, use in that order. - Unnamed American
The closer people get to the truth, the more alike are their ideas become
You make that sound like it's unique to Obama.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That's why the polygraph data isn't actually used in determining truth from lies, it's just a convenient cover for the true workings of the test. Anyone can learn to control their vital signs given enough practice, but what Williams was doing was spreading the truth that the polygraph is merely a show and the real test is being done in an adjoining room by a trained master of the occult. For those who can pierce the veil and speak to the spirit world directly, they know all truths, and are far more reliable than that polygraph could ever be. Heck, even a 10 year old and a Ouija board is more reliable as an indicator of truth than the polygraph.
The problem is that the term "psychopath" doesn't mean quite the same thing in colloquial use as it does is psychological use. It's a bit like debating whether food is "Organic," at least a few years ago before the FDA created guidelines, between a member of the general public and a chemist. Even to a psychologist it has a very broad definition and is not a specific diagnosis, but to a psychologist the term "psychopath" means what most members of the general public think is "sociopath."
Sure. I didn't want to go into that much detail though because it would have ended up as an essay, psychopath/sociopath is the general-public term while psychologists talk about personality disorders with a severity rated on a standard diagnostic like the Hare Psychopath Checklist (PCL-R). Simplifying that down for public consumption to "Joe is a psychopath/Fred is a sociopath" loses quite a lot of detail. For people interested in this, read "The Psychopath Test" by Jon Ronson, for a more technical discussion try Bob Hare's "Without Conscience". However, no amount of reading can really prepare you for your first encounter with an actual psychopath/sociopath, it's like a rabbit encountering a cute doggie and not realising it's facing down a timber wolf.
And scrolling down that page what do we see? Exactly what I just said: A slur used against anyone and everyone the submitters dislike to the point it's become a generic non-word for "thing/person I hate". You talk about MRAs (and men in general) the way the nations of the Arab League talk about Jews, like they're some vast evil borg-like collective of fungible non-individuals that are all collectively responsible for every hyperbolic evil and imagined slight in the world.
Let me give you a tip: When you dominate the entire media to the point even mainstream newsmedia unhesitatingly publishes the most vile and hateful screeds, when you engage in violence and crime to such a degree that it becomes routine to expect felonies assaults or bomb threats from your group (all without consequences), when you have staggeringly powerful multi-million dollar lobby organizations which pervert federal law to the point dozens of the nation's most preeminent legal scholars refer to your policies as "madness" which will leave everyone participating in "disgrace", and when you have such profound institutional power that you continue to monopolize all aid and even the very identity of victimhood to the point certain crimes are called "violence against women" despite HUNDREDS of studies proving a 50/50 split... you are not oppressed. You are the oppressor.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
You make that sound like it's unique to Obama.
Probably not, but I can name at least one president it doesn't describe: JImmy Carter. He was so damn emotional that he was basically worthless.
Now that enters a *VERY* interesting point.
He could be accused of helping people *lie* to a potential federal employer.
But that would require that people could *LIE* to a Polygraph. I.e.: that a polygraph has anything remote to do with truth, and thus can be lied to.
If you consider that polygraph is just a novelty gadget, an elaborate gadget that is nothing more than a glorified "love tester", working on a slightly different principle but just as reliable, i.e.: not at all, he is not helping people lie.
He is not helping people hide truth from a contraption design to detect truth, he's helping people how not to get their application rejected by a more or less random process (i.e.: it would be like teaching people how not to get ripped of by a casino, were the main strategy would be "avoid betting any money in the casion").
To the prosecution, he commiting federal fellony, by is assisting people lie and hide critical information to a device/procedure designed to get the truth.
"Sure, you're a child predator, I trust you with this information. A polygraph is totally able to tell teh government that you are a child predator. Let me show you how to lie to the government and lie to the machine."
To the defense, he's just giving general techniques not to get randomly rejected.
"Sure, blablabla, whatever you say. Actually it doesn't matter. You know, A polygraph isn't a truth machine. It's just a vague detector of some autonomous response which might be weak signs of stress/emotions. The federal agency might be persuaded that you were lying about not shoplifting when you were a kid, when in fact you're just midly arroused because the young redhead assistant taking note just reminded you now you of an old crush of yours".
In one case it's a fellony, because he is actively helping someone lie to the government: i.e.: hide information.
In the other it's not, he's not helping someone lie, because the machine isn't truth based and doesn't give a damn about the information. There's no lie because there's no actual machine from which to hide a truth. That would be like trying to "lie" to your favourite dice. The dice doesn't give a damn about lies, it's just d20. An inanimate object without any concept of lies or truth. A person using dices to determine truth isn't actually any information in the first place that could be lied/falsified.
Given a good defense lawyers team and enough budget, he could actually plead not guilty.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
How many people come to him telling "I am an actual criminal. And I want to lie about this information. And I want the polygraph not to know this ?"
I doubt that he has tons of clients talking about actual committed crimes to him.
Had the undercover agents not come to him with this story, he probably would never been in the situation where he knowingly helped criminals.
And given the scientifically provable reliableness of a polygraph (i.e: nothing more than an oversize and overexpensive "love tester"-kind of novelty gadget), chance are the majority of his clients are usually thinking along these lines:
"I know a polygraph is a piece of shit. But I want my job badly, because I badly need a salary to survive. And I don't want to lose my job and my pay, just because my employer is persuaded I told a lie on a question about stealing stuff as a teen, where in fact I just happened to be arroused because the red-head assistant taking notes reminded me of a crush of mine. Help me."
The agent had caused him to do something that wouldn't have otherwise done.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
As an actual sociopath, let me say... no.
Even if we lack emotionnal response (we don't fear to be judged by society, we don't feel guilt when doing whatever is disproved by society, etc.) that doesn't prevent us from being rational beings.
And we can rationally decide to be nice. The fact that I won't necessarily feel bad for doing evil doesn't FORCE me to do evil.
I can rationally understand why some action should not be done (e.g.: other people will feel harmed) and I can rationally decide no to harm them.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
But more subtly, a LEO can't, for example, repeatedly ask you for drugs, and then when you finally find some to sell, convict you of distribution because you had exactly and only those drugs. However, if you're a drug dealer, if you've got more evidence of illegal activity than just what existed to satisfy the LEO's request, then entrapment may not be a defense.
That's exactly the point I'm considering.
- The accusation is arguing that Williams is in the specific business of "helping criminal go unnoticed by the polygraph".
As in the typical situation is :
"Ciminal comes with the demand "Hello, I'm a Pirate Pedo-Terrorist! Help me, you're my only hope!", Williams answers: 'Don't worry, here's how you can tell lies to the mind-reading machine!' "
- The defense could argue that this in not actually the case, the indictment is over-interpreting simple speaches by Williams.
The actual most typical situation:
"Random person comes: "I'm stressed that I can fail the polygraph because it's such a random shitty technology", Williams answers: "Come I'll show you how to pass the test" ".
I.e.: lying and colluding with criminals isn't Williams' main business.
It's the undercovers who brought him into that. Before the LEOs, it's was just "boasting" rather than a real world big number of actual criminal that Williams knowingly helped (i.e.: in fact, you could nail him for false advertisement when he said how many time he helped lying).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
If they are so wary of psychopaths, why do they keep voting for them?
A very good question. I suspect the answer lies somewhere between tribalism (my grandaddy always voted GOP) and the successful illusion of a two-party Kodos/Kang electoral system.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife