Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

Skepticism, Censorship And The Polygraph 45

Posted by timothy from the ask-a-good-wife-beating-question dept.
George W. Maschke writes "Paul M. Menges, the federal polygraph examiner who teaches the countermeasure course at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, has written an article in the American Polygraph Association's quarterly journal, Polygraph, in which he calls for the criminalization of public speech about polygraph countermeasures (methods for passing or beating a polygraph examination). His proposal would ban books like AntiPolygraph.org's popular free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. I have written a formal response to Mr. Menges' commentary."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Skepticism, Censorship And The Polygraph More

Skepticism, Censorship And The Polygraph

Comments Filter:
  • Just copyright *truth* then these books become DMCA "copyright circimvention" technology.

  • Available countermeasures = polygraphs don't work (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hab136 ( 30884 ) on Wednesday February 26, 2003 @05:32PM (#5389878) Journal
    If there are ways to defeat polygraphs, then what makes this DoD guy think that polygraphs are in any way valid?

    The bad guys will just use those countermeasures. The good guys might 'fail' when they should have passed.

    In other words, by attacking countermeasures, this guy is actually attacking the so-called "science" of polygraphs.

    • Re:Available countermeasures = polygraphs don't wo (Score:4, Funny)

      by Col. Klink (retired) ( 11632 ) on Wednesday February 26, 2003 @06:25PM (#5390402)
      I remember seeing (in News of the Weird, I think) about some local cop that was taking criminals and putting their hands on a copy machine and claiming that it was a polygraph. He loaded the paper try with pages with "He's Lying" pre-printed on them. He'd ask you a question, hit the copy button, and there would be a page with an image of your hand and "He's Lying" written on it.

      He apparently got a few confessions this way, but I believe they were overturned.

      Anyways, let's not pretend that there's anything beyond Gilligan's Island science by calling them "polygraphs". They're lie detectors.

      • Re:Available countermeasures = polygraphs don't wo (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Now you fucking tell me. I just got out after serving 2 of a 3 year sentence. All this "beat the polygraph HOWTO" stuff is great, but I could have used a simple PICTURE of one. I thought it looked like a copy machine, but I wasn't sure.
      • I love that story - the "lie detector" was a collander, which they put on the suspect's head (and yes it was 'wired' to the photocopier).

        Google for "collander", "Baltimore" and "lie detector" for the full story. (In google groups, look in group a.f.u.)

        This and more in the following book:
        "Homicide, a year on the Killing Streets",
        David Simon. ISBN 0-395-48829-X

        YAW.
      • I love that story.

        So people laugh at those guys and then turn around and think somebody is guilty because they "failed" a polygraph test. The irony is that the copy machine works every bit as well as a polygraph and uses the same method - deception.

      • "Anyways, let's not pretend that there's anything beyond Gilligan's Island science by calling them "polygraphs". They're lie detectors."

        Isn't "polygraph" more accurate. These machines don't really detect lies, they just graph breathing and heartrate and stuff. I think that we're on the same side here, but "lie detector" is the term that seems completely false to me.

        All of you out there that have not yet read "The lie behind the Lie Detector" really, really should. Its free. And it is very informative. It will probably piss you off though to find out that anyone ever uses these things after you know how they are supposed to work.

        Ok briefly: They ASSUME that you lie and/or feel badly about something that most people do, like "Have you every cheated on a test?" and then if you don't react less to the pertinent question (i.e.: Are you a member of Al-Qaeda?) you fail. Inconslusive is also usually treated the same as fail. So if you REALLY never cheated on a test or if you tell the truth "Yes I cheated on a test" and you dont' feel bad about it, then you are screwed. It seems inconceivable that the ef bee eye still uses polygraph.

  • oops (Score:4, Funny)

    by PD ( 9577 ) <slashdotlinux@pdrap.org> on Wednesday February 26, 2003 @05:33PM (#5389894) Homepage Journal
    Too bad they can't ban my built-in fascism detector. It's going off right now.

  • What's next? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ClosedSource ( 238333 ) on Wednesday February 26, 2003 @05:33PM (#5389903)
    Criminalization of speech debunking tarot cards, psychic phenomenon, tea reading and other practices in the same category as the polygraph?
  • I'm not really up on the *science* of polygraph, but I've read the The Lie Behind the Lie Detector [antipolygraph.org] and it seems pretty damning. The basic premise of the book is that a polygraph interview is really just an interrorgation; all of the equipment is mostly just a ruse to intimidate the subject into telling the truth. Lately I've been wondering what could be done to educate the poor low-level schmucks at the FBI/CIA on this issue (i.e. those employees required to submit to polygraphs on a regular basis). The best I could come up with is engaging the Slashdot-Ralsky protocol. Everyone heads down to the local Kinko's and makes a copy (or three) of the book, and then sends it off to a likely FBI/CIA employee. The copyright notice on the book states that it is free for noncomericial purposes, which I think would cover this situation. The only problem of course is to identify likely CIA/FBI employees. The easist thing would be to start picking random addresses in the suburbs of D.C. (say within a 30-40 minute commute to known FBI office buildings) in the hopes of reaching the FBI employees or their friends and families (and this is assuming that FBI employment data isn't public domain). Of course, random addresses might not be the most efficient, I'm sure someone out there might have a better idea. Maybe we could pick random address, but exclude those we know are employed elswhere (hey, this is kinda like Total Information Awareness in reverse).

    It seems like the powers-that-be might not be happy if they knew that a not insignificant portion of their workfore was _aware_ of polygraph countermeasures and "the lie behind the lie detector". Then they might have to admit that polygraph testing is a fraud (or maybe they'd just dismiss us as those "nutty internet kooks").

    Anyway, I'd like to see your comments/suggestions on this.

    • It's an interesting and amusing notion. You can do a lot better than using random addresses, though: the FBI building is public knowledge, and there is certainly some point around the building that is not under FBI control any longer. Print up copies of the book -- or summarize the basic points on a smaller handout -- and hand them out at FBI, at DoJ, and make them available in the usual places like lefty bookstores and so forth. (It's not commonly known, but CIA and DoJ employees are at least as likely to be politically liberal as the general population. They'll be in the local bookstores, the local equivalent of Whole Foods and so forth just as often as anyone else.)

      But as far as the existence of polygraph countermeasures making these people admit that polygraph testing is a fraud... well, perhaps you didn't notice that the person who objects to "antipolygraph.org" teaches polygraph countermeasures for the Department of Defense.

      If they've got a curriculum in polygraph countermeasures, you can be pretty certain they know they exist, don't you think?

      • Too hard... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by sleepingsquirrel ( 587025 )
        Print up copies of the book -- or summarize the basic points on a smaller handout -- and hand them out at FBI, at DoJ, and make them available in the usual places like lefty bookstores and so forth.
        That solution requires a lot of work. You need round up highly motivated individuals to take time off of work, spend money flying into D.C. and stand around hasseling honest people, trying to convince them you're not a nut. My solution requires almost no work (File->Print on your browser, or a trip to the local print shop) and minimal expense ($10 worth of paper per copy?) Because of its distributed nature (thousands of people spread throughout the country) it would be hard to quell, and provide little backlash risk for any single participant.
        If they've got a curriculum in polygraph countermeasures, you can be pretty certain they know they exist, don't you think?
        The point is not that *some* of the higher up people know, but if *everyone* in the FBI was aware of how to defeat a polygraph, then there would be little point in administering them, right?
        • Perhaps the point of the FBI's mandatory polygraphs is to ensure that all their agents CAN still fool the polygraph. Being able to lie convincingly is an asset in many situations.

        • Well, if there're thousands of people to mail them out, some of them are likely to be in the DC area, don't you think?

          But let's take your random-mailing notion seriously for a moment. To capture the majority of employees at FBI, CIA, NSA -- the groups that use most polygraph clearances -- you've got to cover all of both the DC and Baltimore metro areas, (remember that lots of people commute from B'more, especially to NSA which is actually closer to B'more than downtown DC.) Several web sources seem to suggest a total population in the neighborhood of 8 million, and DoJ says the total employment of FBI is about 128,000 [usdoj.gov]. Total for all three isn't going to be more than double that. (Trust me on this, I actually have worked with all three agencies.) We can guess that the average number of people per individual address is between 2 and 3 -- and this estimate isn't very sensitive to the assumption because because big households are rare. So let's say conservatively that there are 3 million households in that area. This means it's about seven percent of the total households, or that in order to hit 7 Agency households you've got to mail 100 copies. That's 185000 copies to get 50 percent coverage.

          I don't think this is working out.

          (You might also want to recall that FBI didn't do polygraph clearances until they were forced to for political reasons.)

          Honest, I'm not defending polys: I know myself of one guy who was a completely pure new grad college boy from Utah who could never get a clearance because he got so ajitated at the questions that they couldn't get a clear reading. I'm just pointing out that not only is your scheme not feasible, but that the "secrets" are not particularly secret: I don't think you're going to get a useful result.
          • Perhaps I should explain how I think it could work in the ideal case. I admit you could do better than random sampling. Find out where the FBI/CIA offices are located on a map. Draw a perimeter around the offices where you think the commute time would be about 30 minutes or so. Gather up public domain information on housing prices/rents in those areas (from real-estate agency info, property tax info, etc.). Subtract out the neighborhoods in which the housing costs are not in line with what a low-mid level FBI civil servent makes (i.e. no $1,000,000 estates, no public housing). Then you gather up your thousand or two dedicated individuals who will send out 5 or 10 copies of the book (I did say *dedicated* didn't I?)(Note to self: We probably need broader coverage of this issue than this /. thread. Submit story to Politech, instablogger, et cetera. Also resubmit to Slashdot:). Then you hope and pray that you hit 5% of the households. The next time a scheduled polygraph comes along the interview goes something like this...
            Interrogator:
            Before we get started, is there anything you'd like to get off your chest?

            Subject: Well...I, um...you see...last month I got this, um, package in the mail, which had a book called _The Lie Behind the Lie Detector_ in it. I didn't read it or anything, in fact I threw it out right away. But I was kinda feelin' guilty about it and I wouldn't want it to effect my poly results or anything. Everything's alright, right?

            Interrogator (with a frowny-face, while scribbling into a notebook): Hmmm... That doesn't sound so good.

            So then the department which runs the polygraph testing notices a statistically significant uptick in the number of subjects that admit that they have been possibly exposed to (and compromised by) poly countermeasures. Uh oh. A memo is drafted which details this phenomena. Meanwhile a dedicated reporter for the Washington Post, who just happens to have an inside source at the FBI, comes across the memo and writes an article about some internet radicals trying to subvert the FBI during these trying times (terrorists, you know). Suddenly, something that was only minutes ago a boring old fact now becomes newsworhty! First the Post runs the story, then Newsweek devotes a cover to the issue and 60 Minutes does an expose. Then the Senate Judiciary Committee takes up the issue. A bill is drafted, passed by both houses, and signed by the Prez. Ta, da! Problem solved. Chalk up another victory for those freedom loving geeks on the 'Net!

  • Lie detectors lie (Score:4, Insightful)

    by etymxris ( 121288 ) on Wednesday February 26, 2003 @06:39PM (#5390536)
    If you ever watch "Forensic Files", you'll see that whether someone passes or fails a polygraph examination has little to do with their guilt.

    The people that are most likely to pass a poly are the total psychopaths who just don't care or have convinced themselves of their innocence. The father whose daughter has just disappeared will be so grief stricken that he'll fail a poly no matter what actually happened.

  • Useful Polygraph Info (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Incongruity ( 70416 ) on Wednesday February 26, 2003 @07:12PM (#5390865)
    There's a lot of pseudo-science out there, especially with regards to the polygraph and other lie-detection methods, so becareful about what you trust.

    One excellent and scientifically trustworthy source for polygraph information is from a committee put together by the National Academy of Sciences to study the scientific validity of the polygraph and related lie-detection methodologies, both in the lab and out in the real world. If you want to read the report, you can find it online [nap.edu] through the NAS's publishing website.

    Another excellent work on the uses and abuses of the polygraph is a book by David Lykken [amazon.com] called "A Tremor in the Blood". Lykken is a well respected researcher in the field of physiological detection of deception, and has spent a lot of time trying to bring to light the troubling science behind the polygraph.

  • As informed people are aware, the polygraph is another example of officially endorsed psuedo-science. What ought to be outlawed is its use, not documentation that it is a fraud. For anyone who needs to know: to defeat a polygraph test, put a tack in your shoe and jab your toe with it for every other question or so. Anyone who tells you the polygraph is a useful device is either ignorant or part of the scam -- polygraph operators make a lot of money compared to most crackpots. Rather pathetic that the DoD is depending on it for our security, though not surprising.
    • the polygraph is another example of officially endorsed psuedo-science.
      Not really. Even though elements of the counter-intelligence and law enforcement community think the polygraph is a useful tool, polygraph evidence is barred from every court of law in the US.
  • Are polygraphs used anywhere besides the united states?
    Here in Australia, to my knowledge, the courts don't consider polygraphs to have any credibility and the general attitude is that their use by american authorities is a little bizarre.
    • Here in Australia, to my knowledge, the courts don't consider polygraphs to have any credibility and the general attitude is that their use by american authorities is a little bizarre.

      It's worse than that! In the U.S. polygraph results are not admissable in court! Yes, the court system long ago officially decided that they were not reliable enough to be used as evidence, yet they continue to be used by many law enforcement agencies.

      It truly is a scam on the order of that pet psychic on TV who claims to be able to read pets' minds--including somebody's iguana! (Apparently the fact that a lizard doesn't actually have a brain is no impediment to sensing what's on its mind!)
  • Maybe it would be good to post a link to the actual article, instead of just a rebuttal by the person who was attacked!

    • Re:The actual article? (Score:2, Informative)

      by gmhowell ( 26755 )
      Maybe it would be a good idea to read the link, seeing that it would be quite difficult to link to the actual article. To whit:

      Since Polygraph, the quarterly publication of the American Polygraph Association, is not readily available to most members of the public, I will begin by citing the abstract of Mr. Menges' article...


    • Re:The actual article? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Unfortunately, the American Polygraph Association [polygraph.org] does not make its quarterly journal, Polygraph, available on-line. However, if you (or anyone else) e-mail me [mailto], I could send you a scanned PDF of Menges' article.

      George W. Maschke
      AntiPolygraph.org [antipolygraph.org]

  • The more I think about this the madder I get. Can you imagine the argument brought before the judge? "Your Honor, I'd like to have the factual and scholastic discussions that would normally be protected by our free speech guarantees quashed because they threaten our ability to use a totally unreliable and unscientific interrogation system to trick people into confessing. The false confidence in the system is vital to law enforcement and anti-terrorism interests. False positives are unfortunate but acceptable and any discussion of the weaknesses of polygraphs serves no good purpose."

    And in my dream the Judge says: "The polygraph system is completely without merit and denies citizens of their civil rights. Motion denied."
  • Silly.....

    Stupid....

    Untrue....

    Psuedo-Science? how about non-science.

    things to think during the control questions:
    OMG THEY'RE GONNA KILL ME, HOLY CRAP I LEFT THE OVEN ON WHY DO I ALWAYS GETPICKED ON I KNOW I"M GONNA FAIL. CRAP CRAP CRAP THAT GUY HAS A GUN I JUST KNOW IT:

    And voila funky butt control question.... make sure you actually fear those things.... but make sure you put an undue amount of stress upon yourself when they ask you your name etc...

  • Hmm, if they ban 'methods for passing a polygraph test' - does that include being innocent?
  • This has been widely known outside the US for ages, which is why nobody uses them there. See http://www.skepdic.com/polygrap.html for a thorough discussion.
  • I've been told that one of the people behind the lie detector was the creator of Wonder Woman, Charles Moulton. Does anybody know if it's true?

Slashdot Top Deals

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Close