Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Crime Education Government United States

Indiana Man Gets 8 Months For Teaching How To Beat Polygraph Tests 356

Posted by timothy
from the preserving-layers-of-lies dept.
A week ago, we posted news that federal prosecutors were seeking jail time for Chad Dixon, an Indiana man who made money teaching others how to pass polygraph examinations. Now, reader Frosty Piss writes that Dixon "was sentenced Friday to eight months in prison. Prosecutors described Chad Dixon as a 'master of deceit.' Prosecutors, who had asked for almost two years in prison, said Dixon crossed the line between free speech protected under the First Amendment and criminal conduct when he told some clients to conceal what he taught them while undergoing government polygraphs. Although Dixon appears to be the first charged publicly, others offering similar instruction say they fear they might be next. 'I've been worried about that, and the more this comes about, the more worried I am,' said Doug Williams, a former police polygraphist in Oklahoma who claims to be able to teach people to beat what he now considers a 'scam' test."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Indiana Man Gets 8 Months For Teaching How To Beat Polygraph Tests

Comments Filter:
  • by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @04:25PM (#44785353)

    ... like the government scorned when one shows that their "system" is a house of cards.

    Yeah, lets shoot the messenger and ignore the message. That will "solve" the problem. Oh wait....

    • AMERIKAN GULAG! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @04:28PM (#44785377) Homepage Journal

      Welcome to Thoughtcrime!

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by kinarduk (734762)
        doubleplusgood
    • by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojo@@@world3...net> on Saturday September 07, 2013 @04:38PM (#44785457) Homepage

      Except that the prosecution was based on his helping people to not just beat the polygraph, but to lie to government agencies in order to get jobs. In other words simple fraud.

      • by globaljustin (574257) <justinglobal@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Saturday September 07, 2013 @04:52PM (#44785571) Homepage Journal

        talk about 'thoughtcrime'...

        his helping people to not just beat the polygraph, but to lie to government agencies

        actually it was a **sting operation** and they got him on a very narrow interpretation of the law...

        see, you can't teach how to 'pass' or 'fail' a test that is completely inaccurate!!!

        according to TFA he teaches facts about the polygraph, and I'd imagine has one he hooks people up to one of his own...no results guaranteed

        'passing' the polygraph isn't about 'guilt' or 'innocence' again I must state

        The got him on audio tape doing his typical program...no 'extra help'....they way they got him was they **volunteered that they had something to hide** from the gov't...he just continued with his lesson.

        He probably just disregarded this info they disclosed b/c...as I've said...the *actual* truth about a question has noting to do with whether you pass or fail!

        This conviction is bullshit, IMHO...maybe they technically 'got him' but it's not justice in any sense...and he definitely did NOT help anyone lie to the government!

        • by Thantik (1207112) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @05:06PM (#44785677)

          The same thing goes for smoke shops. Go in there and mention pot/weed/etc in any shape, fashion or form, and they'll kick you out right on the spot because the feds have pulled this trick on them quite often. His mistake was in not immediately stopping and ejecting the guy from his lessons.

          • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @05:30PM (#44785795)

            The same thing goes for smoke shops.

            For all your gift and lifestyle accessory needs.

          • by girlintraining (1395911) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @05:42PM (#44785875)

            The same thing goes for smoke shops. Go in there and mention pot/weed/etc in any shape, fashion or form, and they'll kick you out right on the spot because the feds have pulled this trick on them quite often. His mistake was in not immediately stopping and ejecting the guy from his lessons.

            Well, yeah, except that's not enough these days. Consider the guy that installed car 'hides' (basically hidden compartments) in California. He started with car audio installs, but found installing hides was more lucrative and required the same skills and tools. There weren't any laws specifically making this illegal, but people often used them for illegal activities, particularly smuggling drugs. He would turn people away if he had evidence they were using them for this purpose, but the DEA still caught wind of a high-end car installer, then approached him and put him under surveillance. Again, not because they had proof he was doing anything illegal, but because he was enabling others to do illegal things... they continually asked him to allow them to install surveillance cameras, etc., which he refused (As is his fourth amendment right). After a bit of back and fourth, the DEA decided he was obstructing and colluding with these drug dealers, and put him in jail for twenty years.

            There was never any indication he ever serviced a vehicle where anyone had admitted it was used for drugs or illegal activities. The DEA just wanted him gone because he was enabling others to do so. So knowledge that what you're teaching or providing service for isn't proof against the government throwing you in jail.

            Let's be clear: If the government wants you, they're gonna get you. The laws aren't there to uphold social norms, they're there to club you over the head and drag you off in a way that seems justifiable to the unwashed masses, should the authorities so choose to do so. You can't simply say "Oh well, if you do this, this, and this, they can't get you!" ... Wrong.

            • I disagree (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Archfeld (6757) * <treboreel@live.com> on Saturday September 07, 2013 @07:05PM (#44786361) Journal

              "The laws aren't there to uphold social norms"...

              That is exactly the reason the laws exist. To establish and enforce a so-called social standard. The laws SHOULD be there for safety and security but they have been perverted into a means for enforcing a government determined social standard, much the same way the police have gone from protecting from physical harm to enforcing social and economic policies...

            • by Anubis IV (1279820) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @07:27PM (#44786503)

              There was never any indication he ever serviced a vehicle where anyone had admitted it was used for drugs or illegal activities.

              As I recall, he was called out to service an installation he had done for one of his repeat customers, since the compartment door had become jammed. The crime the DEA got him on was when he opened the door and saw wads of cash inside, then heard some comments indicating it was drug money. Prior to that he could have denied any knowledge, but he continued with the repair, effectively owning any work he had ever done for that client, and the DEA nailed him to the wall for it.

              Put differently, it's exactly the same case. He had knowledge that illegal activity was taking place and chose to continue providing service to his client.

      • by king neckbeard (1801738) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @04:55PM (#44785591)
        If simple fraud is against the law, then why aren't we prosecuting the fraudsters administering the tests? They are using a pseudoscientific test that will only weed out the really stupid "bad guys" and will keep out a number of qualified individuals. AFAIK, he only taught them how to fool a lie detector, and to lie about knowing how to fool a lie detector, because if you admit that, you are instantly out of the running.
        • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

          In the UK the judiciary tends to resist people arguing that certain forms of evidence are flawed because it opens up the possibility that many other cases were decided incorrectly. Maybe the same thing is at work in the US.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            In the UK the judiciary tends to resist people arguing that certain forms of evidence are flawed because it opens up the possibility that many other cases were decided incorrectly. Maybe the same thing is at work in the US.

            For real. See this paper at Cornell law about the FBI's reaction to proposals that their claims of DNA identification accuracy be empirically verified: http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/JLPP/upload/kaye.pdf [cornell.edu]

            I recall a similar response when a different researcher made unauthorized use of their access to the FBI fingerprint database to do a similar empirical check of print uniqueness claims, but can't find the article quickly.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          If simple fraud is against the law, then why aren't we prosecuting the fraudsters administering the tests?

          Well, because it isn't fraud. Fraud is intentional deception, not simply being ineffective or incompetent. If those things were crimes, everyone would be in jail. Now, in this case, the accuracy rates vary from 80-98% by most accounts, with much of the variance down to the competence of the tester. This is still too low for it to be used in say, criminal trials. But many government officials as I said earlier care more about detection than false positive... they're saying as long as you get the needle in th

      • by wjcofkc (964165)
        The people that used his advice and teachings committed fraud. Dixon himself didn't go to any great lengths to hide what he was doing, that I am aware. Yes, there is a difference.
      • by mjwalshe (1680392)
        Conspiracy I woudl have said as well
      • And? He was not the one lying to get the job. Full stop.

    • by girlintraining (1395911) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @05:03PM (#44785647)

      ... like the government scorned when one shows that their "system" is a house of cards.

      It isn't a house of cards, it's just not a highly reliable method. Look at it this way... Let's take a series of pass/fail tests, each with a different detection probability. And let's say that the odds of them catching you in round 1 are 65%, then 84%, then 70%. Is the cumulative effect of this higher than 84%? Yes. Each layer adds a little bit, but each layer also has diminishing returns. This is how government looks at security with regards to, say airport scanners, or terrorist watch lists, or polygraph testing. They know that the individual methods by themselves are shit. They're just hoping that with enough layers, enough randomized checks, and everything else, that the final result will be a high detection rate.

      This isn't without its drawbacks. As someone who studies statistics can tell you, a test needs to be about 99.9% accurate before the false positive rate is low enough that your system can have any confidence in its catches. The government doesn't care about confidence though -- it's about fear and perception. If they charge a thousand people with terrorism to catch the one guy who is a terrorist, that's a win in their book. They only care about the detection rate; Not the false positive.

      That doesn't make it a 'house of cards' though. If all you care about is detection rate, the government's doing a passably sortof okay job... but if you care about the false positive rate, your opinion is going to be, er, considerably lower. Actually, several miles into the ground low. Understanding how the government thinks is the first step towards fixing the problem; Which I think anyone who's looked at the situation will say... it's reducing false positives.

      As far as the logic of imprisoning someone who's explaining that one of the tactics in their overall strategy can be easily beaten... I've generally been of the opinion that if you didn't have access to classified materials, and discovered something that threatens national security, merely discussing it should be first amendment protected -- afterall, if you did it, so can the nebulous and undefined enemies of your country. And isn't part of a citizen's job to participate in creating a more effective government? How else can this be accomplished than by a willingness and ability to discuss shortcomings?

      The polygraph may be used for national security reasons, but so are hammers, staplers, and cars... that doesn't mean we can arrest and imprison people who use or criticize them either. It's just a tool... and if the tool is as ineffective as this guy suggests, it should stop being used. And in fact, the false positive rate of polygraphs so far outstrips the detection rate, that you'd be stupid not to learn how to beat one if you're serious about a government position. I mean, why would you risk your career on what essentially amounts to a dousing rod or a psychic reading cards?

      • by reve_etrange (2377702) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @05:48PM (#44785909)

        A polygraph is absolutely not a "lie detector" with high false negative and false positive rates. Polygraphy is a pseudo-science and as such has no consistent FNR / FPR when turned to "lie detection."

        The only use of the polygraph machine is to elicit a confession by trickery. And that is exactly why the government is so desperate to crush the guys who teach people how to "evade" the fake test: the belief that the "test" can possibly be fooled is enough to break the psychology of the elicited confessions.

        Fool proof anti-polygraph method: don't worry about it and lie anyway.

        • A polygraph is absolutely not a "lie detector" with high false negative and false positive rates. Polygraphy is a pseudo-science and as such has no consistent FNR / FPR when turned to "lie detection."

          That isn't an accurate assessment. Lying does often elicit a physiological reaction, which is what the polygraph is designed to detect. However, anxiety about the question also causes a physiological reaction, and differentiating between someone who's nervous because they're lying, and someone who's nervous for some other reason, is a non-trivial matter.

          It's like saying the low oil light on your car is "absolutely not an oil detector". Technically, you're right; It's a pressure sensor. But it's measuring pr

          • by reve_etrange (2377702) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @06:12PM (#44786045)

            There's a huge difference between a pressure sensor applied to oil and a polygraph applied to lie detection.

            In the first case, calibrated measurements are made in a standard, objectively defined unit by taking advantage of a law of physics. 1 kPa is 1 kPa is 1 kPa.

            In the second, a bunch of graphs are written out based on physiological measurements, then "interpreted" by a supposed polygraph "expert." There is no objective standard or unit of "lying," and different experts will come up with different interpretations. Indeed, the US Supreme Court ruled that unlike DNA or fingerprint evidence, polygraph evidence is nothing more than the opinions of the examiners.

            • In the first case, calibrated measurements are made in a standard, objectively defined unit by taking advantage of a law of physics. 1 kPa is 1 kPa is 1 kPa.

              No, it isn't. It's usually a device that when it reaches a certain threshold, triggers, a simple diaphram, of which manufacturing samples were repeatedly tested so that it reliably triggers near that threshold. It's not calibrated; Look up the definition of that word in science.

              In the second, a bunch of graphs are written out based on physiological measurements, then "interpreted" by a supposed polygraph "expert."

              So the blood pressure and heart rate measurements a physician takes are "interpreted" by a supposed medical "expert"? No, the measurements being taken are also derived from 'laws of physics'.

              There is no objective standard or unit of "lying," and different experts will come up with different interpretations.

              No, they're looking for a deviation from

          • by h4rr4r (612664)

            No, that sensor is reading something known which is pressure, the polygraph does the same but the pseudoscience part is the interpretation. You don't just put oil in if that light comes on, you check the dipstick. With the polygraph you can't do that. Instead they have someone make a very subjective analysis and pretend it is any better than phrenology.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            That isn't an accurate assessment. Lying does often elicit a physiological reaction, which is what the polygraph is designed to detect. However, anxiety about the question also causes a physiological reaction, and differentiating between someone who's nervous because they're lying, and someone who's nervous for some other reason, is a non-trivial matter.

            It's like saying the low oil light on your car is "absolutely not an oil detector". Technically, you're right; It's a pressure sensor. But it's measuring pressure in a system that ordinarily should contain only oil, and if the pressure drops that's usually an indicator that there's not enough oil in the system, thus calling it a "low oil" light is accurate because that's what it is most often detecting.

            The reason a human being may show higher galvanic skin sensitivity or increased breathing rates do not map reliably to deception. It's pseudo-science, pure and simple, and is not reliable for what it's supposedly for. The problem with your analogy is that there are only a handful of issues that could cause the idiot light to glow and narrowing down the reason the "low oil" light is lit is straightforward.

            The polygraph is a lie; social engineering before the term caught on, really.

          • by hedwards (940851)

            Yes, but it doesn't elicit the response when you most need it to elicit the response. The kind of psychopaths that these tests were intended to catch, are rarely, if ever caught. These are people who don't believe what they were doing was wrong or don't believe that they'll be caught. In either case, there is no stress and so the tests don't detect anything.

            Even with the 85-95% that the proponents claim, it's still a worthless test as the 5-15% where it fails are going to be the times when you most need it

    • by rolfwind (528248)

      What exactly was the crime here though?

      Sounds like a blatant 1st amendment breach.

  • Am I under arrest?

    For experts. Clamp anal sphincter when telling truth, relax when lying.

    • by oodaloop (1229816)
      I hope you're trolling with that stupid shit. Those tricks are older than dirt and the easiest things to test for. In fact, they warn you not to do those. And yes, I've gotten a poly for the govt.
      • It helps to have practice. They are warning you because it works.

        I've paid for my own poly, just for practice lying with no consequences.

        • I've paid for my own poly, just for practice lying with no consequences.

          What are you, a lawyer or used car salesman?
        • by oodaloop (1229816)
          I'm warning you so you don't get your stupid ass arrested. You have sit on a sensitive pad. You so much as fart and it goes off. If you don't believe me, go get a real poly a find out for yourself. But ask yourself, if this trick is so foolproof, why wouldn't they implement such a simple counter measure?
          • I'm warning you so you don't get your stupid ass arrested. You have sit on a sensitive pad. You so much as fart and it goes off. If you don't believe me, go get a real poly a find out for yourself. But ask yourself, if this trick is so foolproof, why wouldn't they implement such a simple counter measure?

            How many polygraphs have you taken? I've taken one in my life, personally. This was for King County police (in Washington state) and even being fully truthful, they claimed I failed the test. Since I knew I told the truth, this experience prompted me to study up on polygraphy and to discover to my surprise that it was nonsense.

            Oh, and I never sat on anything other than a hard wooden chair. I had the finger thingies put on, the chest band and a blood pressure cuff, sat sideways to the polygrapher and did

            • I took one, for the Defense Intelligence Agency. And in addition to the stuff you mentioned, I sat on a pad that was wired to the same machine the rest of it was. Considering this is the federal govt that pressed charges, not some low budget local police station, I'd say my experience is a little note relevant.
    • It doesn't matter what you do, the whole rigmarole is just used to elicit confessions.

      The only "lie detector" that really works is fMRI.

  • by stenvar (2789879) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @04:26PM (#44785361)

    This is a federal case again, and it is something the federal government should have no business intervening in. Blame the current administration for not stopping this nonsense.

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      they shouldn't be relying on the tests in the first place. but it's a big industry and they got a bunch of guys who are "experts" in performing it and bringing a paycheck home every month... only thing more ridiculous is the french obsession with handwriting analysis.

      I guess the guy should have claimed he was working as an attorney for the people he helped?

      • He would have to be an attorney to do that, though. They don't want just anybody getting in on their racket. Even if you can pass the bar, you have to go to one of their schools in most states.
    • by grahamwest (30174) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @04:55PM (#44785595) Homepage

      Because he was charged with advising and helping people lie to the federal government when they told him they were involved in illegal activity (eg. one of them said his brother was a "violent Mexican drug trafficker" for example. He was essentially involved in a conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice and that's what they put him in jail for.

      Polygraphs are tantamount to phrenology and graphology in my opinion, but that's not what this case was truly about.

  • Some FA (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rick Zeman (15628) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @04:28PM (#44785383)

    What was he convicted ON? What charge? Obstruction of justice? Article doesn't sat. Lying itself can't be a crime (else every politician and lawyer would be in jail).

    • Re:Some FA (Score:5, Interesting)

      by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @04:37PM (#44785441)

      “There’s nothing unlawful about maybe 95 percent of the business he conducted,” the judge said. However, O’Grady added that “a sentence of incarceration is absolutely necessary to deter others.”

      ^^^ Even more worrisome. Or perhaps to be expected?

      • It doesn't really matter if it deters others. The idea is just to convince people that the polygraph has some validity (or else it couldn't be fooled!) so that they can keep using them to elicit confessions from chumps.
    • by bmo (77928)

      Read TFA:

      "Dixon, 34, pleaded guilty last year to charges of obstruction and wire fraud after federal agents targeted him in an undercover sting."

      Why he got so much time:

      O'Grady acknowledged "the gray areas" between the constitutional right to discuss the techniques and the crime of teaching someone to lie while undergoing a government polygraph. "There's nothing unlawful about maybe 95 percent of the business he conducted," the judge said.

      However, O'Grady added that "a sentence of incarceration is absolutel

    • Re:Some FA (Score:5, Informative)

      by pongo000 (97357) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @06:08PM (#44786015)

      Lying itself can't be a crime

      Actually, 18 USC section 1001 [cornell.edu] does, in fact, make lying to a federal official a crime. Feds often use this law to convict people in lieu of having any evidence that a crime was committed. If you're questioned about an alleged crime, and it later turns out that you didn't commit the crime but you earlier statements don't sync up with later statements, there's a good chance you'll see jail time.

      This is why you never talk to law enforcement officers [youtube.com] without competent legal representation present. And especially the Feds.

    • by chrismcb (983081)
      I believe it was for propagating fraud. For telling one of his clients to lie, and say that he doesn't know what his cousin (who is supposedly a drug dealer) does if asked. From one of the articles:

      They sought a wire fraud charge against Dixon for a “scheme” that helped applicants get jobs by making “false and fraudulent statements.”

  • by ethicalcannibal (1632871) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @04:32PM (#44785417)
    I thought this was kind of common knowledge. Penn and Teller's Bullshit even showed how they beat the polygraph.
  • ...They can also be used against you to indicate you are lying when telling the truth, enabling deception to be applied against you.
    I suspect that's the real exposure here and why the Government would like you to be what they want you to be..... when fabricating false flags.

    • No, the polygraph doesn't work at all (US courts don't accept polygraph evidence).

      They just set up this big machine and go through the whole ritual in order to trick people into confessing. They have to stamp down on the guys selling ways to "fool" the fake test in order to maintain the illusion that the test works.

  • By prosecution... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jjeffries (17675) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @04:37PM (#44785439)

    ...aren't the Feds implicitly acknowledging that the polygraph is not an accurate instrument?

    • Even better, his prosecution is a testament to the guy's trade! Great advertisement!

      10 polygraph secrets the feds don't want you to know!

    • On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, pursuing these guys makes it seem like the test could work if you don't know how to fool it - which is exactly what they want, since the polygraph is only used to elicit confessions from chumps.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 07, 2013 @04:45PM (#44785515)

    My intro level psychology class covered beating the polygraph. It was a class at University of Washington, which gets a good deal of money from the federal government in question here. It was a perfectly good example of applying the principals studied in the class, and included some scientific study of polygraph tests.

    Really, it looks like all you need to beat the test is a good fear that it will classify your truth as lies, which is reasonable given the ~50% false positive rate. They can subjectively interpret the results however they want though, so no matter what you do, it can be used as an excuse to refuse people.

  • Joke laws (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gmuslera (3436) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @04:47PM (#44785533) Homepage Journal

    You are part of the cattle (and get years or decades of jail for things that are crimes, affects noone or make your rights prevail), or you are above the law, getting more money and support if you violate constitution amendments [policymic.com], get promoted [arstechnica.com] if found that you intentionally lied to the congress [slate.com], or get a small fine if is found that you you knowingly launder money for terrorist and drug cartels [rollingstone.com].

    There are countries where law and justice seem to be antonyms.

  • It just goes to show that if you want to do something questionable, you really need to either run for office, or work for the government.
  • by wjcofkc (964165) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @05:03PM (#44785645)
    I still say this falls under freedom of speech. This doesn't even fall under the dictionary definition of sedition, which itself is illegal and about as close as the powers that be could make a claim for in this case. It might be criminal conduct to use the techniques, but last I checked the Anarchist Cookbook is still legal to own and read. For those remaining who know and teach these techniques, I can only hope they write guides on this subject and put them on the internet to propagate while a helpless government looks on. It's funny, techniques for messing up polygraph tests have never been too big a deal until now and some aren't exactly obscure. I have seen crime dramas where valid polygraph interfering techniques are discussed and depicted.

    By the way, did I mention that polygraph tests are all around bullshit pseudo science to begin with? But that subject is too big for my lazy fingers to type out. Regardless, they might as well be auditing people while their at it.
  • by wonkey_monkey (2592601) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @05:07PM (#44785679) Homepage

    Indiana Man Gets 8 Months For Teaching How To Beat Polygraph Tests

    Was he really? Or was he actually jailed for obstruction and wire fraud, as the linked article implies? It says that's what he plead guilty to last year, but isn't explicit.

  • by cervesaebraciator (2352888) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @05:08PM (#44785685)
    The Great and Powerful Oz has recently ordered the arrest of known Wicked Witch acquaintance Dorothy of Kansas. Munchkin Intelligence, Section 5, indicated that Dorothy has been fraternizing with populist rebels and suspected communist sympathizers Scarecrow, Tin-Man, and Cowardly Lion. The Wizards Spokewoman, Glinda, denies as fallacious the claims that Dorothy discovered something compromising about the identity of the All-Powerful Oz that would undermine his depthless authority.
  • ...is that the government not only knows how to really detect lies (using "brain state" fMRI scanning), but also DOES NOT want this technology to become widely adopted because they are afriad that the technology will one day be used against *them*...

    so, as is so typical with the legal system, this guy is rotting in a jail smelling farts for something that's just total nonsense.

    http://www.lacontelab.org/papers/real-time-fmri-using-brain-state-classification.pdf [lacontelab.org]

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.01/lying.h [wired.com]

  • by houbou (1097327)
    You would think they would wish to learn what he teaches them? to better perfect their system?
  • As to how a polygraph test ever works on an intelligent person:

    Q: Is your name Edward Jones? A: (Thinks "calibration question: no bother") Yes.

    Q: Have you ever lied to a police officer? A: (Thinks: "Calibration question: no real worries" (Yes or No - doesn't matter. Not much stress)

    Q: Were you present at this place at this time. A: (Thinks: Holy shit - this is the murder scene - this is the all or nothing question for rest of my life!!!!!!!!!!) "Uh No" (Enormous stress levels - whether did the crime or com

  • What about the seven federal law-enforcement applicants and two government contractors with security clearances that Dixon trained? What about the two undercover agents that can no longer be trusted, now that they know the secrets of how to bypass polygraph tests (the can no longer be trusted). What are their fates?

  • by rsilvergun (571051) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @05:46PM (#44785885)
    and what the charge was?
  • My response will be "Sorry, I'm not interested in Scientology."

  • by FuzzNugget (2840687) on Saturday September 07, 2013 @06:19PM (#44786067)
    Homeland [craphound.com], pg. 133-137.
  • From TFA:

    Phillips said. “Mr. Dixon chose to enrich himself by teaching others how to convincingly lie, cheat and steal,” Phillips said.

    So what's next, do we target gun safety instructors, who teach people to shoot, and thus teach them to murder people? Do we target driving instructors because you can commit DUI after learning to drive?
    I'm in the process of watching the World Series of Poker. Top prize is millions of dollars. One big skill in poker is knowing how to convincingly lie.

  • This is a straight-up first amendment violation.

    -jcr

  • In what way is this a crime?
    Beating a polygraph in itself is not illegal, right?

  • Is now a commodity to be bought and sold by the federal government.

  • by TheInternetGuy (2006682) on Sunday September 08, 2013 @08:31PM (#44793349)
    He should thank the government for putting him in contact with such a large client base. Building a contact list like that on the outside would have taken decades.

Swap read error. You lose your mind.

Working...