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.

12 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. They wore him down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:They wore him down. by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lie detectors are weird. They are kind of like Monty Pythons faith based apartment blocks.

      They work (more or less) on people who believe they work. If someone publicly exposes how much they don't work, they will stop working at all.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  2. WTF by Guy+From+V · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      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?

      Because "unlawful" does not mean illegal. Lawful means explicitly allowed by law. Unlawful means not explicitly allowed by law. The police state would have you conflate unlawful with illegal, and in doing so can imprison or censor anyone for doing anything not explicitly allowed by law. This is a new linguistic development, perpetuated by state and reinforced by its mainstream media propagandists.

      For instance, this is why "Network Neutrality" is a bad idea. The legislation is full of the terms "lawful" and "unlawful" content. People see "lawful content" and think "anything that's legal to send" but that really means, "any content explicitly allowed by legislation"; People see "unlawful content" and think, "things that are explicitly illegal" but that really means, "anything not explicitly allowed by law." For instance, in the Net Neutrality legislation this means a new protocol or caching system not already explicitly permitted is "unlawful".

      Unlawful shouldn't mean illegal, but that's the way things are going. Even if these terms aren't used in the ruling above, the fact that you're thinking of them as analogs for legal and illegal is the point, that is what manufactures consent for limitation of freedoms. It's the opposite scope of how illegal and legal were previously applied. Where once all freedoms were legal unless explicitly prohibited by law, the powers that be have pivoted their new legislations such that the scope of freedom is limited to only what is explicitly allowed.

  3. Knowledge is bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  4. Lie detector tests are fiction by jetkust · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:The trick... by rot26 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  6. Re:Illeagal Teaching? by LaurenCates · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have a slightly more, shall we say, nuanced but generally agreeing position, in that much in the way I associate with people that are referred to as "hackers", are really people that are simply curious and want to learn how to do things, but in general aren't interested in doing anything criminal with that information.

    And that's a GOOD THING.

    I've had to explain to a few people why knowing about things like Trojans and rootkits, and lockpicking and social engineering is GOOD in the hands of good people who can use it to defend against people who aren't nearly as good.

    It's better than sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalalalala bad things won't get me if I just ignore them".

    --
    Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
  7. Re:The trick... by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  8. Re:Not really about lie detectors per se by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Selling information on how to cheat isn't the same as cheating. In the case of those who used his information, those individuals should be subject to sanction. for example, I can tell you how to hotwire a car. I can even demonstrate it on my own vehicle and provide teaching aids that can allow you to be able to do it yourself.

    Scenario #1: "Can you teach me how to hot wire a car? I think it's a neat technical exercise." <--- No crime.
    Scenario #2: "Can you teach me how to hot wire a car so I can steal my neighbor's slick ride?" <--- You're now an accessory.

    It's no different than the difference between, "Will you sell me that rifle so I can go deer hunting?" and "Will you sell me that rifle so I can shoot my bitch ex-wife?"

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  9. Re:The trick... by smugfunt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:The trick... by liquidsin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...if Williams had been advertising "Learn to lie to the FBI during the background check for a job in the Bureau"...

    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.