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).

22 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 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.'
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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."

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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!
  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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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
  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:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Did she lie?

    Of course not she aced the polygraph.

  7. 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

  8. 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."
  9. 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