Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Leaked Documents Confirm Polygraph Operators Can't Detect Countermeasures (antipolygraph.org)

Posted by Soulskill on from the assuming-you're-subtle-about-it dept.

George Maschke writes: AntiPolygraph.org has published a document (14 MB PDF) on polygraph countermeasures that is allegedly derived from classified information. The document suggests techniques that polygraph operators might use in an attempt to detect efforts to beat the polygraph, but fails to offer any coherent strategy for detecting sophisticated countermeasures such as those outlined in AntiPolygraph.org's The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 MB PDF) or Doug Williams' How to Sting the Polygraph. Ominously, the leaked document avers that an examinee's stated lack of belief in polygraphy is a marker of deception. AntiPolygraph.org has also published an older U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations polygraph countermeasure handbook (3.2 MB PDF) that similarly offers no methodology for detecting sophisticated countermeasures (such as any actual spy, saboteur, or terrorist might be expected to use).

90 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. I thought we all knew those things where BS... by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really, there is zero scientific processes behind "lie detectors". They are intended as an intimidation tool to coerce a confession, nothing more. There's a reason they are not admissible as evidence.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by Raseri · · Score: 4, Funny

      Lie detector results are always backed up by empirical phrenological data. Lie detectors don't lie. /s

      --
      Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
    2. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      Really, there is zero scientific processes behind "lie detectors". They are intended as an intimidation tool to coerce a confession, nothing more. There's a reason they are not admissible as evidence.

      Well, there is statistical evidence that they manage to fool stupid people.

    3. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by Brad+Eleven · · Score: 2

      There's a reason they are not admissible as evidence.

      ... and also a reason polygraph they're still in business.
      http://www.truthorlie.com/whopoly.html
      http://criminologycareers.about.com/od/Forensic-Science-Careers/a/Polygraph-Examiner-Career-Profile.htm

      --
      "Press to test."
      (click)
      "Release to detonate."
    4. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Better than a trained interrogator? I highly doubt that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah. But giving someone an intimidating looking box with a bunch of strap-on sensors is faster and cheaper than training them.

    6. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's a reason they are not admissible as evidence.

      Not in a court of law, no, but they certainly thrive in the court of public opinion. If you're charged with a crime and consent to a polygraph, and the examiner determines that you were being "deceptive," the news media will be awash with stories about how you "failed" your "lie detector test." To a large portion of the population, that means you're guilty without question. If that news gets out before your trial, you're sunk.

      The polygraph can make ignorant people confess, but it's also a very effective tool in smearing innocent peoples' reputations.

    7. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by JosKarith · · Score: 2

      Is it my imagination or does 90% of the list of "non-chart related markers of deception" read as things that an innocent person who's nervous and stressed because they're unjustly accused and having to take a polygraph test?

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    8. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by phishybongwaters · · Score: 2

      That's not your imagination kind sir or madame, it's a fact. This "device" is less effective than someone trained to pickup "tells". But it's quite effective on idiots and people who don't know it's a scam, and are being told it will TELL THEM WHEN YOU LIE. The polygraph results aren't admissible in court, but the bullshit confession they get from you after 15 hours of questioning, sure as hell is.

    9. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      Which is more effective ? the meter or 5 ml of Sodium Pentothal ?

    10. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Lie detector results are always backed up by empirical phrenological data. Lie detectors don't lie. /s

      You lie.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    11. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Note that the US Government REQUIRES that people pass a polygraph test to gain certain clearances (those above the basic SECRET level). Yes, that's right. Anyone with a TOP SECRET (or any of the more specialized) clearanced must pass a polygraph test, where they are asked about, well, their general "moral fiber", and whether they are fit to know and keep military secrets.

      TRANSLATION: Only those who play along with a game that they know to be stupid witch-doctoring are allowed to know the most closely held US government secrets (of how to kill people).

      Oh, it gets even wilder at the upper levels of military - aerospace - spy-craft Clearance requirements. A colleague HAD TO POOP IN A CUP as part of one Program clearance process.

      Many others I know have had to allow "clearance officers" to pluck a hair from their head, assumedly to use it as a months-long document of alcohol or other chemicals ingested into the body. So, this hair thing –yes, it is possible, in principle, to obtain such fine-grained information –but the cost to do so would be phenomenally prohibitive. Imagine, slicing a hair into tiny disks, and then looking for parts-per-trillion of metabolic byproducts of various illicit substances in each of those thousands of slices of that hair. GATTACA was a movie, not reality!

      All of these are part of a great sham. It is a sham that only the stupid – or those who know that it will increase their salary "value" if they have another clearance if only they play along – submit themselves to. That is, people with integrity and intelligence refuse to be subjected to such situations. I have had University professors refuse 100's of thousands of $$$, solely because the project had the potential of "clearance" red tape getting in the way of publishing great results.

      Thus, the dummies are the only ones let in, and they make the rules, and they run the system, all of this ensuring that only dummies can be hired in the future. Because, you know, hiring skillful people would reveal their mediocrity, so the system weeds out the brilliant as well as the merely smart.

      Sleep tight.

    12. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      A solidly trained and experienced interrogator will get all of the information that he wants out of you –and you will provide it willingly. THAT is what real interrogation is about.

      OTOH, the torture thing (as is the fashion in this day) produces nothing of value, only statements that the tortured person thinks are likely make the torture stop.

      I mean, yeah, torture is a War Crime and all. Sure. To each his own. And don't even bother trying to use moral arguments against torture. All you need do is simply to apply a basic "cost-benefit analysis", like any MBA might do. There is no "value proposition" of any note. Plus, the ROI, what with all of the lawsuits and war-crimes tribunals that might follow, is simply not there. Invest elsewhere.

      {/sarcasm}

    13. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes.

      An intelligent person will recognize when the 'polygrapher' has moved from the baseline questions to the particular 'question(s) of interest.'

      I would notice, and would be nervous simply because of that realization, regardless of the 'true' answer to the question(s). Like you, I can tell an innocuous question from a 'gotcha' type of question, and those things, in such a situation, would stress me out. Just knowing that a trained monkey is firing what he thinks is his secret bullet will peg the body-signal charts. The correlation of my answer to 'truthiness' will be irrelevant to the operator's "decision based on the quantitative (but unrelated) data taken during questioning."

    14. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 2

      That's not your imagination kind sir or madame, it's a fact. This "device" is less effective than someone trained to pickup "tells".

      Yep. Learn to read micro-expressions. They are true tells. For example, sudden pupil dilations, flushing, or the few other tells that are autonomic.

      Just don't confuse these with the witch-doctor "tells", such as: "If the subject looks to the right before replying, then he is lying." Ugh. Those generalizations are voodoo, and have nothing to do with human physiology. If your current manager believes in those things, then you should: (1) Exploit them to the max, while (2) Finding a better job.

      PS — Sociopaths make for excellent liars and car salesmen; but oh, I am repeating myself.

    15. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Lie detector results are always backed up by empirical phrenological data. Lie detectors don't lie. /s

      You lie.

      You have a short brain-case.

    16. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by jcochran · · Score: 3, Interesting

      About the US Government requiring a polygraph to hold a Top Secret clearance and higher....

      That's both true and false.

      If the person is in the military, then a polygraph isn't taken. The reason is that duty assignments are considered "involuntary" and as such requiring a polygraph would be unjust. However, civilian employees are required to pass a polygraph. In fact, there have been a few cases where a military member left the service and immediately came back to the same organization as a civilian and was required to take a polygraph .... and failed ... so were denied employment at the very same organization that they just left.

      I used to be active duty military and at the end of my career was working in WHCA (White House Communications Agency). That position required a TS/SCI Yankee White investigation (they tend to be a bit paranoid when you're in a position where you could physically touch the president without the Secret Service batting an eye). It was an interesting assignment, but eventually I left the service and took employment with a government contractor and was required to obtain another TS/SCI clearance. And yes, a polygraph was required.

      The first polygraph that I took had "issues" and I was rescheduled to take a second polygraph. I too had issues with the polygraph since it felt to me that a game was being played where I wasn't informed as to the rules. So in my typical fashion, I researched polygraph technology and found out quite a few interesting things. One item I encountered was a reference to a classified study on polygraphy. I wasn't able to obtain the study itself, but assuming that the study reflected the publicly available information on the polygraph and if I were to be a classification authority, then I too would have classified the study.

      Why?
      Because simply, the publicly available information boils down to this.
      Polygraphy as a means of detecting true or falsehood, it's totally worthless. But as a means of eliciting voluntary confessions from naive subjects, it is extremely effective.

      Notice the phrase "naive subjects."

      Let's just say that on my followup polygraph, I understood the rules of the game, informed the polygrapher and she was the one who had an unhappy time. The results were inconclusive and I did get my TS/SCI clearance.

      Yes, as a civilian employee in the United States, you are required to take a polygraph to obtain a TS or higher clearance, but that it just one element of the clearance process and it doesn't require the subject to actually believe in the effectiveness of the polygraph.

    17. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the numerous probation/parole departments that use them on probationers/parolees as a means of testing rules compliance. Sex offenders in TN (and other states) are required to take them every six months. Questions such as: "Do you masturbate to deviant thoughts?" are common fare during polygraphs administered to sex offenders.

    18. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      A solidly trained and experienced interrogator will get a confession out of you â"and you will provide it willingly. THAT is what real interrogation is about.

      FTFY

      The way US police are trained to interrogate people is focused entirely on eliciting a confession. It results in a shockingly high false confession rate.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    19. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      The way US police are trained to interrogate people is focused entirely on eliciting a confession. It results in a shockingly high false confession rate.

      You are spot-on. This is indeed shockingly quite true.

      We differ only in our application of the word "interrogator."

      I never use the "P-word" to refer to US 'law-enforcement' officers. Thus, I do not consider them to be interrogators, because they are not, at least by the true meaning of the word.

    20. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Lie detector results are always backed up by empirical phrenological data.

      Reverse phrenology works. "You tell us the truth, or we'll make some bumps in your skull with this hammer."

    21. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by twokay · · Score: 1

      Actually I remember reading an article (maybe even from a Slashdot story) about how the UK Boarder Agency has far better results revealing liars by simple asking detailed questions and getting them to elaborate on their "story", rather than using "tells". The idea being that pretty soon they trip themselves up with inconsistencies.

      The border agents didn't need the months-to-years of experience required to quickly and accurately pick up on micro-expressions which can easily result in false positives.

      --
      Wannabe nerd.
    22. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      The difference there is the right to silence. If you wish to enter the UK and the Border Agency officer pulls you out the line then you have to answer the questions put to you. If you don't you will be put on a plane/boat back to whence you came from, or simply won't be allowed on the train (for those coming through the chunnel).

      If you are being "questioned" by the police you can just sit there and remain silent.

    23. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      The difference there is the right to silence. If you wish to enter the UK and the Border Agency officer pulls you out the line then you have to answer the questions put to you. If you don't you will be put on a plane/boat back to whence you came from, or simply won't be allowed on the train (for those coming through the chunnel).

      If you are being "questioned" by the police you can just sit there and remain silent.

      Standard advice I've gotten from lawyers of all types right up to and including prosecutors: Get yourself a lawyer. Even if you're innocent, a lawyer will be able to best advise you of your rights, and you have a right to have one before you answer any questions--and it may be in your benefit to answer questions, since the cops may be out to rule you out--they don't want their actual suspect's lawyer using you as an alternate suspect, they want to be able to show that you were elsewhere.

      If they try to refuse you a lawyer, then stay silent until you can get out. Look up a lawyer who specializes in civil rights cases--if all else fails, ACLU or one of its relatives, because you need one.

      Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not intended as professional legal advice, I just talk to lawyers.

    24. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Exactly. You don't have to trick a lie detector. They don't work in any way or form. Reading tea leaves is just as accurate. The fact that the FBI requires to take one, give me a lot of strong evidence they are incompetent.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    25. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by RyuMaou · · Score: 1

      Actually, the drug testing from hair is not at all the way you describe. Residue from the drugs end up in your hair, processed out of your body and the hair grows, and it will detect things months after use. Is it more expensive than a regular piss test? Yes. Is "...the cost to do so would be phenomenally prohibitive"? No, not at all. At least, not for the government.

      Also, there are brilliant people who play by the rules to accomplish goals, even if they realize that things like polygraph tests are hoodoo hokum and can be easily gamed. In fact, in some ways, one might consider the polygraph an IQ test. Are you smart enough to pass it or dumb enough to think it's an actual impediment to achieving your goal?

      --
      Oh, the trials and tribulations of a network geek! Read about them at: http://www.ryumaou.com/hoffman/netgeek/
    26. Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The person you're responding to didn't use the word "US" anywhere in his discourse. Why did you?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Let's face it ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Informative

    Polygraph operators can't detect that the magic devices they claim work are nothing but voodoo.

    The stunning lack of science and empirical evidence for a lie detector "fails to offer any coherent strategy" for this being real in any meaningful sense of the word.

    There's a reason it's not admissible in court.

    Ominously, the leaked document avers that an examinee's stated lack of belief in polygraphy is a marker of deception.

    And what they're trying to do is suggesting their useless tool is an utterly useless tool is evidence that you are being deceptive. So, it's saying "I think your lie detector is crap" is being equated with being dishonest.

    Tell you what, prove the fucking thing works first. What's that? You can't?

    Then piss off and stop blaming your own incompetence and reliance on bogus technology on the rest of us.

    Basically this is a tool, which doesn't work as advertised, which is used to bully people into giving the answer you have decided they should be giving. It in no way has anything at all to do with detecting the truth, and never has.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Let's face it ... by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      Lie detectors are like homeopathy for law enforcement. They'll keep pushing their magic sugar pills hoping people will believe in them enough to work.

    2. Re:Let's face it ... by ledow · · Score: 2

      In some states of the US, it still is admissible, via roundabout methods.

      But, as my favourite saying - in all CIVILISED countries, such bunkum isn't admissible in court.

      It's nonsense. And they're using it to "detect terrorists". Which thus equates nonsense with what's supposed to be a serious, life-critical, global problem. That's how seriously they take it.

      So either every sensible scientist in the civilised world is wrong and lie detectors are actually NOT a load of bunkum, or seeking out terrorists and spies isn't important enough to put REAL techniques, resources, effort and time into and it's all just a show.

      Either you're an idiot or the rest of the world is. And the US can't admit that *IT* is being the idiot here.

      You may as well be reading their fucking horoscope as performing polygraphs on these people. Scary thing is that people have gone to the chair - or worse - because of this bollocks.

    3. Re:Let's face it ... by phishybongwaters · · Score: 2

      Well it works exactly as designed. It measures your temperature and breathing. This has nothing to due with lie detection of course, but the device technically does function. It's the PURPOSE of the device that they are lying about. If they were honest they'd tell you it measures perspiration, blood pressure and a few other things that *COULD* help detect deception. It is in no way a lie detector. The scary part is they are 100% subjective to the person operating the machine, and these idiots are 100000% sure it actually works. That's where it gets dangerous.

    4. Re:Let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Polygraph operators can't detect that the magic devices they claim work are nothing but voodoo.

      'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'
      - Upton Sinclair

    5. Re:Let's face it ... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Polygraph operators can't detect that the magic devices they claim work are nothing but voodoo.

      Does anyone know how many polygraph operators are also Scientologists or homeopathic medicine fans?

      Really. If such a study has ever been done, by actual scientific researchers, then I would be thrilled to hear of its findings.

    6. Re:Let's face it ... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      You are concise.

    7. Re:Let's face it ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      I can only guess they're closet Scientologists.

    8. Re:Let's face it ... by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Polygraph is effective at detecting people smart enough to know that polygraph tests can be defeated but not smart enough to do it correctly, or not do it at all.
      The operator can easily detect poor attempts at defeating the machine.

  3. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But the idiots will keep believing it works. Or there is a 'truth serum'. Or that the FBI can read minds. Or whatever.

    1. Re:Old news by bobbied · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh come on... Polygraphs are not 100% pointless, they *do* work for *some* people so there is actually a benefit to their use.... Now, if you *depend* on a polygraph to tell you the truth in 100% of cases, you are stupid.

      As with all tools, polygraphs have their application where they are useful and situations where they are not. So polygraphs are not infallible, neither are background checks or surveillance, but we use them. They are all tools with their limitations and provisos which can be used in the proper ways and enhance security.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Beating confessions out of people works too. As does sleep deprivation, starvation, etc.

      Polygraphs are just voodoo for intimidating people. Calling them "lie detectors" is outright fraud.

      Intimidation works, but it doesn't have anything to do with the truth.

    3. Re:Old news by shaitand · · Score: 1

      They work for telling if you someone was nervous/stressed/hot/itchy/cranky/dumb enough to drink the offered coffee beforehand. Some dumb people might confess because you scared them with "science." They absolutely do not indicate whether or not someone is currently speaking truth or a lie... for anyone, anywhere, ever.

    4. Re:Old news by hankwang · · Score: 1

      "Polygraphs are not 100% pointless, they *do* work for *some* people so there is actually a benefit to their use...."

      The problem is that you have to know whether a person being tested is one of those "some people".

      --
      Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
    5. Re:Old news by bobbied · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I propose a little test then, being you are so convinced you can beat the polygraph, that you take one...

      MythBusters did a segment on this and they where not able to demonstrate a way to beat the test that was reliable. In fact, I don't think any of their "test subjects" where able to do so. Can some people do it? I think so. But I seriously doubt *you* could beat it unless you are a pathological liar who just doesn't care anything about truth, ethics or morals.

      So it's more than just those who are susceptible to believe the polygraph, it does have some success. Efforts to beat the polygraph are largely ineffective and usually very detectable. Most of these techniques take practice to effectively use and even though folks like you walk around thinking you can easily manipulate the test, you really can't, even if you don't believe in the test.

      So, back to my point.. Polygraphs may not be a perfect tool, they *can* be manipulated by sufficiently trained people, they are never the less a useful tool in the tool box of those tasked with securing information and things. While not admissible as evidence, can assist investigators in confirming or eliminating suspects in crimes. They are still useful part of the tools in the box.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:Old news by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

      I've never compromised myself to the point of being polygraphed, but a relative, a friend of his, and a friend of mine made off with a small fortune in total, and were polygraphed, and all passed. This is conjecture, but they had the quality of feeling superior to the companies they were bilking, so weren't ambivalent in the slightest as to what they were actually doing. If you feel morally justified for speeding, you may very well pass a polygraph around have you ever speeded.

    7. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      60% of the time it works every time.

    8. Re:Old news by George+Maschke · · Score: 5, Informative

      MythBusters did a segment on this and they where not able to demonstrate a way to beat the test that was reliable. In fact, I don't think any of their "test subjects" where able to do so. Can some people do it? I think so. But I seriously doubt *you* could beat it unless you are a pathological liar who just doesn't care anything about truth, ethics or morals.

      The MythBusters "Beat the Lie Detector" segment was particularly bad, and the producers of the show should be ashamed of it. You'll find a detailed critique here. In peer reviewed research on countermeasures, about half of programmed guilty subjects were able to fool the polygraph after a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction, and experienced polygraph examiners were unable to detect the countermeasures. See the studies by Charles R. Honts and others cited in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

      --

      George W. Maschke
      AntiPolygraph.org

    9. Re:Old news by bobbied · · Score: 1

      How so? Background checks are not 100% effective, yet we use and trust them to some extent..

      There is nothing that's 100%.. And polygraphs are certainly not 100%, but when used on a group, or even an individual it's an indicator with value. They have their use..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    10. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you can't detect between the people it works on and the people it doesn't work on, it is a useless test.

      If you know enough details to know if a person is going to fail or pass prior to the test, then performing the test is a useless effort.

      Say I have a polygraph confirmed to tell me the truth 70% of the time. I test a subject. The polygraph indicates he is telling the truth. Is he? There is a 30% chance he is lying. Let's say it tells me he is lying. Is he? There is a 30% chance he is telling the truth. In the end, all I know is that there is a chance he's telling the truth and a chance he is lying, which is what I know even before I started questioning him.

      In short, you need to look into confirmation bias, which is why people like to think polygraphs have some sort of utility. They filter out the times polygraphs put innocent people away (by believing the innocent lied), and filter out the times they let guilty people walk (by filtering out the belief the guilty might be lying).

      Remember, even if a person says something, they don't know if it is true or not. It's just their perception. If you doubt my words, consider how many times people wrongly recall events, even if they directly observed them. Video evidence permits getting the events without the interference of interpretation, but when you put a person at the scene, that person is going to report a mix of the events as seen through a person with their life experiences.

      As I see it, polygraphs are tools that enable sloppy work. You stop trying to analyze and trust the machine's report. If the machine was not trusted, you wouldn't administer the test. If you wanted to manipulate / coerce the subject, you don't need a polygraph. Using the old techniques of "that's not what we heard from someone else, who's willing to testify" works just as well.

      The problem is, after you manipulate a witness you will never know what the truth is. Manipulation is what you apply to get a different answer, and if the original answer was truthful, you will get a lie.

    11. Re:Old news by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The salient points here is that beating the polygraph takes training... I don't dispute that... However, It's just not common to run into people who are trained and can actually beat the test and the vast majority of people don't walk in off the street and can lie to a polygraph.

      Polygraphs remain a useful screening tool even with training available. They are but a tool which can help in specific situations, limited as those situations may be, and being helpful, they are useful.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    12. Re:Old news by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "So it's more than just those who are susceptible to believe the polygraph, it does have some success. Efforts to beat the polygraph are largely ineffective and usually very detectable."

      It has nothing to do with "beating" a polygraph. A polygraph isn't something you beat or don't beat. A polygraph in no way shape or form tests whether or not you are telling the truth and under normal circumstances it's results have zero relationship to whether or not you are telling the truth. It's just some random coincidental biometric data. You may as well be measuring the wind speed while asking me the questions or flipping a coin, either will have just as much connection to the veracity of the answers I'm giving which is to say absolutely zero.

      "But I seriously doubt *you* could beat it unless you are a pathological liar who just doesn't care anything about truth, ethics or morals."

      Whether or not I beat a polygraph has nothing to do with personal ability, pathological lying, or anything else but random chance the same as anyone else since the test results have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I'm telling the truth. Which is why, nobody should ever agree to take a polygraph unless you are guilty as hell, you know you were sloppy and there is evidence to find, and you are taking the 50/50 chance the random result will be a pass and they might not investigate deep enough to find said evidence. Otherwise, especially if you are innocent, you should never ever take a polygraph.

      Actually, if anything, trying to "beat" a polygraph and treating like a real test is likely the only way to create a correlation between the results and whether or not you were telling the truth.

      Do not confuse the fun and entertaining television show mythbusters with actual controlled science. They are conducting informal experiments for fun using sciencelike methods not engaging in actual science. Mythbusters also determined that CD's exploding in 56x CD-ROMs was a myth using a high rpm dremel tool. The problem is I personally replaced dozens of Acer 56x CD-ROMs when CD's had exploded in them rendering the drives useless. Mythbusters did not test all the conditions or all the possibilities and therefore came to an invalid result. Mythbusters is fun but I am able to point out flaws in their methodology on almost every episode. Also, mythbusters and other television shows intentionally spread misinformation to aid police efforts. This is the source of their bunk results on LIDAR, the old myth about needing to stay on the line to trace a phone call, even the new myth that it used to take 5 min but now they can trace you immediately if you are on the line. All of that is ridiculous, you make a call, a record is recorded of you making the call, the police have a hotline to a department in the phone company that exists just for looking up the records and the phone company works on the honor system for legal authority to do the lookup. Or at least they did in the 70's. Now they can probably just access the information directly with a computer. The police don't need you to stay on the line or even to be on the line, they can see where you made the call from in 30 sec, 5 min, or three months. There are no shortage of intentionally implanted subliminal messages and bunk truths on TV planted for the aid of law enforcement and if you ever plan a robbery based on what you've learned from TV you are screwed. The entire concept of needing to beat a polygraph, the tense moment, the need to be a psychopath/sociopath to defeat one. All TV myths spread to aid law enforcement.

      "Polygraphs may not be a perfect tool, they *can* be manipulated by sufficiently trained people"

      Polygraphs can be beaten simply by being aware they are nonsense. The sophisticated techniques for beating them really come down to nothing more or less than telling people the format and what to expect. There is a pdf linked TFS and a book mentioned in a comment already. Read either and upon finishing the reading you are done... done learning informati

    13. Re:Old news by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Poly's are NOT nonsense, they are very real, they do work in some ways. They are not reliable enough to be legal evidence, but they do provide useful information most of the time.

      Don't fool yourself, they have some scientific basis in their application, it's not all just smoke and mirrors, there are reasons this device works. No, it's not 100%, but the science theory tells us that, the fact that it's basically a human judgment call when interpreting the results says it's not totally accurate. Humans can be fooled. The test can be fooled if you know how it works and how to make the results less obvious, but that fact doesn't mean the use of Poly's is pointless...

      Even those who offer ways to "beat" a polygraph admit that they generally work. They also admit that their techniques really can only hide dishonest answers, not cover them up. They teach you how to confuse the person trying to read the results, not that the tests don't work. They teach you how to artificially cause the readings to vary and use that to your advantage when trying to hide the truth. It's about fooling the tester, not that you need to believe the test doesn't work.

      So, even the folks who teach you how to lie to a polygraph and get away with it, acknowledge that they CAN work and that unless you are pathological out of the gate, require that you take countermeasures if you wish to try and fool the person looking at the machine... You are mistaken...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    14. Re:Old news by Cutriss · · Score: 2

      I was always convinced that the polygraph episode was just a propaganda piece, and that the producers were basically pitched the episode as a hook to keep the support of law enforcement with the show (so that they could blow up more stuff and have access to detonation ranges, etc).

      --
      "Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
    15. Re:Old news by hankwang · · Score: 1

      How so? False negative versus false positive rate. With a background check, you risk missing something. With a polygraph, there is the additional risk that you fire someone who did nothing wrong.

      --
      Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
    16. Re:Old news by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Don't fool yourself, they have some scientific basis in their application, it's not all just smoke and mirrors, there are reasons this device works."

      There don't need to be reasons because the devices don't work. Just like the training for detecting lies using body language given to TSA investigators and police have been proven not to work over and over again. I've devised a lie detection system in which I have conversations with you while you make coffee and covertly take pictures of your coffee. Using several sample days in which I talked to you about innocuous things and then asked about things I know you are lying about but are safe innocent lies on other days. Finally, I asked you real questions. Studying the color of your coffee and therefore the amount of creamer you put in I judged whether or not you were telling the truth.

      My system is based on the flawed assumption that your shaky (let's guess nervous) hand and inattentiveness translates into lying whereas the reality is that has nothing to do with lying. Show me the science behind your polygraph that differs from my method other than having more neat wires and looking all cool and medical-like. Hint: There isn't one.

    17. Re:Old news by bobbied · · Score: 1

      What part of "it's a single tool in a tool box full of tools" do you not get? If you fire somebody who fails a poly and don't investigate, you deserve the lawsuit coming your way.

      False positives and negatives come out of background checks too, shall we stop using them? Of course not. Background checks are still used, but they have limits. You can lie on the forms, mislead the investigators and you may even be able to fool them if you are sufficiently cunning, not to mention that they can simply miss stuff or catch things which are flagged as bad, when the person really IS trustworthy. But we still use them. Poly's are just another tool, useful up to a point, subject to being inaccurate both by limits of the test and efforts to fool it. You see, it's about determining risk on the front end anyway. You can never really know what somebody is capable of doing, this side of the "minority report" world.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    18. Re:Old news by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Seriously? There is a bit more to this than tea leaves or coffee grounds and creamer...

      I'm no expert, I don't give examinations, but it's not hard to understand how these things work. I don't discount that part of the exam is for show, that the examiners put on an act designed to elicit the responses they are looking for, but the measurements of the physiological involuntary responses to their questions IS quite real, and without training and effort to fool the examiner, quite effective. I also don't discount that an examiner can be wrong on both sides of the question, allowing lies to go undetected or calling into question truthful statements. But that doesn't mean they are just snake oil and tea leaves, only that one needs to take the results with a grain of salt, understanding the limitations of the tool.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    19. Re:Old news by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      But the idiots will keep believing it works. Or there is a 'truth serum'. Or that the FBI can read minds. Or whatever.

      Or that a "gay bomb" can actually be developed.

      Or that LSD might still, quite possibly be used as a mind-control agent.

      The stupid. It hurts.

    20. Re:Old news by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      The show quite often would start with a conclusion and work back from there. But the fact that they had the participation of law enforcement and the polygraph industry made it quite clear on this one.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    21. Re:Old news by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention the Supreme Court decision interpreting that, "it is not illegal for cops to lie to your face, even if it is done to elicit a confession."

      Just completing the chain for you.

    22. Re: Old news by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      its the type of control that makes people waste their lives fighting the "man" while smoking pot and living in a commune.

    23. Re:Old news by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      , but the measurements of the physiological involuntary responses to their questions IS quite real

      So you can cite some peer-reviewed research that shows this can you? Thought not.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    24. Re:Old news by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      "Meanwhile, Kari, Grant, and Tory put their lying skills on the line to test mythical ways to beat a lie detector."

      look, those three would not be able to beat a dead horse and would probably lie about it without knowing because of their incompetence.

      and well, god damn, if you can't beat it easily why the fuck would you sentence someone 8 years in prison for telling how to do it.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    25. Re:Old news by sjames · · Score: 1

      Some people can beat the polygraph, even accidentally. Especially if they're on beta blockers. Many can't.

      The greater concern is that it's much much easier to actually be telling the truth and be judged to be lying. And I do mean judged. At the end of the day, it is the polygraph examiner rather than the machine that decides truthful or not. Their results are not reproducible BTW. The machine is just there to intimidate the subject and lend and air of scientific infallibility to what is really nothing but a fallible human judgement call.

    26. Re:Old news by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      The people who pass fall into two groups:

            the People who are not worried by the test, because they have nothing to worry about - They are fine
            the People who are not worried by the test, because they can beat it - These are the very people you are trying to detect!

      The people they detect are mostly those who stress about minor issues, and are often the people who are most valuable ...

      So it not only does not work, it weeds out people you want to keep, and fails to detect the very people you shuld be worried about

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    27. Re:Old news by bobbied · · Score: 1

      It's not a perfect tool, but it quickly weeds out a whole swath of people who have nothing to worry about and lets you zero in on the ones who fail the polygraph for some reason. Polygraphs are NOT sufficient on their own. There still must be active surveillance, background checks and procedures in place to continually review. Polygraphs just give you a general idea of where you might want to investigate first and can usually save you time and money because they are usually right.

      Nobody is calling it a perfect test, only that it gives you reasonably accurate results overall and as such are useful. You still need to be checking into people using multiple methods because no single method is 100%.

      Think of it as a simple medical test that has an 80-90% accuracy rate but it's cheap and quick. You use the test to screen with and then decide if the pass/fail of the test needs additional testing to confirm. You use it as yet again another indicator, one more bit of evidence for your diagnosis. Is the test useful? Sure is. Is it 100% accurate, nope.. Same with a polygraph.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    28. Re:Old news by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Not disputing the judgment call part of this, but if done properly, records can be kept and reviewed at a later date and review the testers judgment.

      Like I've said elsewhere (above) depending only on a polygraph result is STUPID. It's an imperfect test and the results need to be treated with a grain of salt. It may raise or lower suspicions but you must ALWAYS work to confirm the test results before you trust them. That being said, if you are looking for the quickest and cheapest way to conduct an investigation, polygraphs can generally direct you in the right directions and more often than not can save the investigator time and resources, by eliminating rabbit trails that have a lower probability of success. Polygraphs are but a tool that helps you with the odds, kind of like card counting helps you with blackjack. Are you going to win that next hand? Who knows, but if there are lots of face cards in the shoe, chances are you will so you play your bets differantly.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    29. Re:Old news by sjames · · Score: 1

      but if done properly, records can be kept and reviewed at a later date and review the testers judgment.

      Yes, but research has shown that when examining just a transcript and the polygraph output, different examiners will agree at a rate no better than chance and, in fact, after a couple weeks individuals re-examining the same data will often reach a substantially different conclusion. That is, they don't even agree with themselves.

      That doesn't mean that interrogation can't point an investigation in the right direction, it just means that the polygraph doesn't really bring anything to the party. They could save a bundle by using knockoff e-meters instead.

      Fortunately, polygraphs aren't admissible in court. Unfortunately, they are frequently used in other situations that very much affect the subject's life and because it's a bunch of scientific looking equipment and mysterious squiggly lines, it is given more credence than a simple interrogation would be even though it actually is just an interrogation with theater props.

    30. Re:Old news by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Research has indicated that polygraphs are up to 90% accurate. Even critical research find that the test is right the majority of the time (more often than simple chance). The actual truth is someplace in between.

      Polygraphs are usually never used alone and are almost always used in conjunction with other things to make life changing decisions about people. Nobody I know claims that polygraphs are 100% accurate, everybody admits they are not, some say 90%, some say less but even the worst studies admit it's better than chance. The truth is somewhere above flipping a coin and 90%. If the success rate is above about 80%, clearly poly's have viable uses in screening. If the success rate is closer to just above 50%, it's still a useful investigative tool, albeit of limited value. It all depends on how reliable or unreliable you think the test is, and that's been a subject of much debate since the polygraph was invented in 1921.

      Yes there are jobs that require a "successful" polygraph to get and keep, but usually the point of the polygraph is entirely different in those situations and if you want the job you get to pass the polygraph, your choice. But the point of the polygraph in most of those cases is more about providing a deterrent effect and preventing crime than detecting or investigating them, and as such the test really isn't about finding out who's lying or telling the truth so the actual accuracy, as long as it's more than just random chance, is all that is necessary.

      So.... Again, Polygraphs have their uses, and everybody understands they are an imperfect tool. But they are a useful tool in various situations...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    31. Re:Old news by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      , but the measurements of the physiological involuntary responses to their questions IS quite real

      So you can cite some peer-reviewed research that shows this can you? Thought not.

      I don't have the resources on hand to get it, but the problem is that the same physiological involuntary responses can be connected to so many different things it's not funny--the results can be thrown off by all sorts of things, like a calm person who feels no nervousness at all or the polygraph examiner weirding you out by staring at you creepily.

      Basically, it's measuring things that many people feel when they lie, but is not unique to lying nor consistently present.

    32. Re:Old news by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      A Medical test that had a failure rate of 10% would be considered useless...but the failure (in both senses) of polygraphy is much worse than this ...

      A medical test that only indicated the people who had similar conditions but not the one you were looking for, and did not spot the people with the condition in the majority of cases would be never used ...

      Polygraphy is not effective or an aid to other methods, it does not spot the very people you should be investigating, and instead highlights a large number or false positives that you then have to waste time with

      It is not "reasonably accurrate" is it a wildly innacurate, operator subjective, and has been shown repeatedly to not work!

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    33. Re:Old news by sjames · · Score: 1

      Without the false positive rate, it means nothing. I can produce a playing card that catches 100% of liars. It says "It's a lie". Notably, it's false positive rate is terrible but it will surely catch the liars.

      The figures are also useless without comparing the success of a good interrogator without the polygraph.

    34. Re:Old news by delt0r · · Score: 1

      No they don't. If the logic of intimidating is good then well perhaps we should upgrade to waterboarding. I hear that can be invaluable as well. How many good people have been professionally harmed by voodoo polygraph people? Not to mention just how stupid it makes the government look.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    35. Re:Old news by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "the problem is that the same physiological involuntary responses can be connected to so many different things it's not funny"

      Which is the point I was making with the creamer example. You are measuring involuntary responses are generated by many things, a list which does not include deception. You may or may not be nervous as a consequence of lying but it is hard to imagine someone not being worried about the result of the key questions whether they are lying or not. They try to pump you with coffee before hand and make the experience as threatening as possible further amplifying the possibility the reason you are sweating isn't deception.

      The biometric data may sometimes correlate with deception but there is no casual relationship. If there were you could use controls and filter the noise much like measuring the sound in an environment without the noise you want to detect in that environment and using the result to filter out the background noise when you are trying to detect a sound in that same environment. Examiners use control data to try to form a baseline like this with a polygraph but that doesn't work because the amount of truthfulness or deception in your statements has no direct relationship in involuntary biometric data. What does have a casual relationship is anxiety and the subject isn't going to be anxious about control questions vs "did you murder your wife."

      Training is not about learning special techniques to fool the machine, the training consists of learning how the examination works and the machines work and reinforcing it in such a way that you truly believe it and therefore have no anxiety regardless of the question. It's purely a confidence building process.

      A trained person will pass every time whereas untrained will get mixed results but those results have no relationship to whether or not they are being truthful in the case of someone who is.

    36. Re:Old news by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Except I'm pretty sure you've got 'casual relationship' wrong.

      Let's take the example of burns. There is a casual relationship with 'having been on fire' and 'having burns.' However, there is not relationship being 'having burns' and 'having been on fire.' The fact you have burns doesn't mean you were on fire: they might have been caused by something else, such as hot liquids, hot metal, or corrosive chemicals. However, if you have been on fire, you probably will have burns.

      This is what's going on with polygraphs: There's a (not entirely reliable) causal relationship between 'lying' and 'certain physiological responses.' As you noted, these physiological responses are not caused by lying. For example, a relatively recent study with subjects who consented to having their PTSD intentionally triggered to cause flashbacks found that the effects registered as lies--which actually is one of the reasons many areas don't even bother trying if somebody is known to already have a heart condition.

      If you want people to cite peer-reviewed papers on this subject for you, then know your terminology. It's not like this is something that can be found easily via PubMed; you're asking for stuff that'll be best looked for using PsycINFO which requires a paid membership to access. It doesn't help at all that a lot of the papers are behind paywalls themselves. However, there is [Risk assessment by means of polygraphy.] so the question is, how good is your Dutch? (There's a few others that would fit, but many are indexed without abstracts and require a journal subscription, such as the review Physiological measures and the detection of deception. . Let me know if you can get at it, I want a copy. Or at least the abstract...)

  4. This is been known for 20 years by qpgmr · · Score: 2

    Find a book called "Big Secrets". It's got recipes for coke, kfc, etc.and a whole chapter on polygraphy: the whole sordid story. I loaned it to a friend that was really worried about a mandatory polygraph for job. When the interview started _exactly_ as described in the book she almost broke out laughing. Aced the test, took the job.

  5. That's news? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Then maybe I should inform everyone that phrenology has been debunked, too. Can I please get a /. headline?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:That's news? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      There is someone here at Slashdot who has a bee in his bonnet with regards to polygraphs. If past history is any guide, we will see a cluster of these stories over the next few weeks - then it will die down again.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:That's news? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Please, you seem to be insinuating some organized campaign on behalf of Slashdot.

      I'm sorry, but Slashdot posts articles written by other companies. I'm sure if this appears cyclically it's because the rest of the media covers it cyclically.

      Suggesting a coherent editorial policy? Not buying it.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:That's news? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      You really hit the nail on the head there.

      Or the head with a nail, or whatever.

      Err, wait I am thinking of reverse-phrenology.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  6. Re:BS argument by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Saying lie detectors work is like a soldier using his finger as a gun. Yeah, it might work if he keeps his hand in his pocket...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. But... by FreeUser · · Score: 1

    Find a book called "Big Secrets". It's got recipes for coke, kfc, etc.and a whole chapter on polygraphy: the whole sordid story. I loaned it to a friend that was really worried about a mandatory polygraph for job. When the interview started _exactly_ as described in the book she almost broke out laughing. Aced the test, took the job.

    Did she lie?

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did she lie?

      Of course not she aced the polygraph.

  8. Re:They remain tremendously useful. by davester666 · · Score: 1

    That wasn't an "e-meter" he was trying to get you to touch... or maybe it was, and it "measures" by getting longer and thicker.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  9. Re:Caffiends by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    I had a whole series of polygraph tests due
    to some rather nasty legal trouble; and I kept
    coming over as deceptive.

    Deceptive or not, I give you credit for writing your Slashdot comments in blank verse.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  10. Re:BS argument by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

    soldiers should dispense with personal weapons altogether, because they can't penetrate the armour of some of their targets anyway.

    Except that polygraphs are utterly ineffective in any event, other than as a prop to induce facilitate the Milgram effect.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  11. Re:BS argument by mi · · Score: 1

    Saying lie detectors work is like a soldier using his finger as a gun.

    Now that may be a valid argument, but that's not, what the write-up says (haven't read TFA, sorry). The write-up repeatedly mentions only the sophisticated adversaries.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  12. Re:BS argument by mi · · Score: 1

    Except that polygraphs are utterly ineffective in any event

    Whether that's true or not, the write-up makes no such claim. The argument they do make remains BS.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  13. Re:Caffiends by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Slashdot posts can be
    very deceptive when you
    can post in haiku

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  14. Re:What do they do? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    One way is a pre interview and after session chat down setting the person up for the next test and more one on one chats.
    Some form of rapport-building is attempted to get the person to open up one on one as they are a "good" person and want to help 'pass' if they would just be honest about the issues, questions, past...
    You where stressed today, try again, your a good person, everything is fine, just pass this test and its all good, I want to pass you, whats wrong..
    Its not the machine, its the skill of the interview, looking at ISP logs for search terms on the test, credit card spending on books about the test, chat room, IM, phone records showing new calls to cleared friends or distant family who passed years ago for long conversations...
    Walking in a profile has been constructed usually by searching the life and educational records of a person and their internet use, book buys..
    Nations who looked at such trust in US systems saw two flaws in US faith based machine testing.
    Good people would make mistakes on the day and be lost to the nation security services for that generation.
    People with generations of working for a cult, other nation, faiths, having hidden "dual" citizenship, unacceptable political views would pass with normal results as they always feel they are doing nothing wrong. Control questions, questions or chat down its all just been a normal person who has the needed life story.
    The security services then give a free pass for advancement thanks to faith in a machine for another generation.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  15. Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Leaked Documents Confirm Polygraph Operators Can't Detect Countermeasures

    Well, that's what they say...

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  16. maury by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many relationships have been ruined because the show "determined that was a lie" when testing it's guests?