Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Crime Government

Former Police Officer Indicted For Teaching How To Pass a Polygraph Test 328

Posted by timothy from the government-hates-competition dept.
George Maschke (699175) writes On Friday afternoon, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the indictment (2.6 mb PDF) of Douglas Gene Williams, a 69-year-old former Oklahoma City police polygraphist turned anti-polygraph activist for teaching two undercover agents posing as federal law enforcement applicants how to pass (or beat) a polygraph test. Williams offers instruction on how to pass polygraph tests through his website, Polygraph.com, which remains online. Marisa Taylor of McClatchy, who has been covering polygraph policy issues for several years, has written an informative report. This appears to be a case where an individual was targeted for criminal prosecution to suppress speech that the U.S. government dislikes. AntiPolygraph.org, which may also have been the target of an attempted entrapment, has a commentary.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Former Police Officer Indicted For Teaching How To Pass a Polygraph Test More

Former Police Officer Indicted For Teaching How To Pass a Polygraph Test

Comments Filter:

  • First Post (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Saturday November 15, 2014 @02:45PM (#48393187)

    He screwed up.

    Lesson #1, Question #1: "Are you guys cops?"

    • Re: First Post (Score:5, Informative)

      by EphemeralEclipse ( 2762679 ) on Saturday November 15, 2014 @02:53PM (#48393223)
      undercover agents don't have to answer that truthfully... it's just a misconception reinforced by hollywood
      • It's a misconception reinforced by law enforcement. Hollywood just helps out because it works as a plot device. The subject asks if the detective is a cop, the detective says no, and the subject proceeds to self-incriminate.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dbIII ( 701233 )
        The "Breaking Bad" take on this with Badger and an undercover cop on a park bench is excellent.

        • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday November 15, 2014 @09:18PM (#48394865)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re: First Post (Score:4, Insightful)

            by nbauman ( 624611 ) on Sunday November 16, 2014 @02:31AM (#48395669) Homepage Journal

            In this instance it appears that greed got the better of Mr. Williams. If you look at his website he's not doing anything wrong; he may be peddling snake oil but he's hardly the first one and that's not a crime. Read through the indictment and a different picture emerges. He counsels his clients to lie to Government investigators (witness tampering), arranges to receive the proceeds for this venture via the mail (mail fraud) and even ignores his own good judgment. When one of the undercover agents admits to lying on his employment application Williams cuts him off and says he can't work with him, he only works with people that are being truthful but whom are nervous about the test. This is in fact what his website says.

            Had he stopped there he would have been fine. Did he? Of course not! He decides to "sleep on it" and comes up with a hair brained scheme to transfer money in a supposedly untraceable manner. He then tells his would-be client to break contact and reestablish it under a different name so that he doesn't have to knowingly counsel someone to lie.

            The net proceeds of this particular venture? $5,000. The man is going to lose his freedom for a lousy five grand, all because greed overrode the little voice inside his head that said something was wrong. This is a life lesson that applies to everyone, criminal and honest citizen alike.

            You are exactly right. I just read that indictment. I can't understand how Williams would take a chance like that.

            He's been taunting the feds. They do a lot of stings like that, and it's prudent to be prepared for one. Even if the undercover agent's story had been true, the agent might have been prosecuted and might as well inform on Williams in hope of a better deal.

            He said

            You don't have to turn around and say, "Yeah, like I told you, I'm a lying son of a bitch." What the fuck was the reason for that, unless you wanted it on record that I was knowingly teaching someone how to lie and cheat...?

            Williams knew what was happening. How could he make a stupid mistake like that? Is it the decline of age?

            His line was, "The lie detector is bullshit, they can't catch criminals and then can accuse innocent people, I'm going to teach you how to pass the test. I don't want to hear about crimes. I'm not a lawyer and I can't give you lawyer-client privilege. If you want to talk about crimes, get a lawyer."

            If he had stuck to that, he would have been OK.

      • Re: First Post (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NotSanguine ( 1917456 ) on Saturday November 15, 2014 @11:28PM (#48395279) Journal

        undercover agents don't have to answer that truthfully... it's just a misconception reinforced by hollywood

        Uniformed officers don't have to answer that truthfully either, although that would seem a rather poor strategy on their part.

        Cops can lie to you under a broad range of circumstances, so the best strategy is not to engage them at all [youtube.com]./P

    • Re:First Post (Score:5, Funny)

      by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Saturday November 15, 2014 @03:12PM (#48393337) Journal

      First amendment!

      *Void where prohibited by law..

    • Lesson #1, Question #1: "Are you guys cops?"

      That doesn't actually work, FYI

      • It does if they're hooked up to a polygraph machine ;)

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Although telling them you want a lawyer and making them ask you a question before talking again would be an interesting tactic under those circumstances.

        Drug Dealer: "I want a lawyer"
        Buyer: "Huh?"
        Drug Dealer: [Silence]
        Buyer: "What are you talking about?"
        Drug Dealer: "So you wanted to buy some weed?"
        Buyer: "You're under arrest."
        Drug Dealer: "That's fine."
        Buyer: "WTF do you mean that's fine?"
        Drug Dealer: "Miranda guarantees that all questioning by law enforcement must cease after the suspect requests a lawyer

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Psion ( 2244 )
      I'm astonished at the number of people who don't get this. It isn't the first thing he asks casually, it's the first thing he asks once they're hooked to the polygraph. Not exactly brilliant humor, but it was worth a chuckle and certainly beats "First Post!"

      • I'm astonished at the number of people who don't get this. It isn't the first thing he asks casually, it's the first thing he asks once they're hooked to the polygraph. Not exactly brilliant humor, but it was worth a chuckle and certainly beats "First Post!"

        Perhaps the fact that his client base knowingly includes many cops undermines the joke.

    • He screwed up.

      Lesson #1, Question #1: "Are you guys cops?"

      Cops are his customer. Why would he ask that? To see if they are eligible for a Fraternal Order of Police union discount?

    • He screwed up.

      Lesson #1, Question #1: "Are you guys cops?"

      Doesn't work. Cops are allowed to lie and they routinely do during sting operations.

  • Well, I for one feel safer... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 15, 2014 @02:46PM (#48393191)

    knowing that the federal government is protecting the sanctity of the occult practice of using a ouija board to determine if someone should be given a security clearance.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lucm ( 889690 )

      They gave me a secret clearance and never used a ouija board or any other device, including a lie detector. Apparently they care more about people who missed a credit card payment than people who lie. Since most of the process is done without actively involving the candidate, I can understand that.

      • Re:Well, I for one feel safer... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Moof123 ( 1292134 ) on Saturday November 15, 2014 @05:20PM (#48394009)

        I had to go through one for my Top Secret clearance, as well as have an investigator interview my references. A few years later I got a Secret clearance and all that was involved was filling out paperwork. The temporary clearance came in 2 weeks, the final one took another 6 weeks.

        I am pretty sure all they do for a Secret clearance is check your credit, criminal record, and citizenship. If nothing comes up you get a rubber stamp. It only gets complicated if they dig up Iranian relatives, or some other red flag.

        My opinion on the polygraph is that it is horse pucky. Half the folks they were screening that day failed, some got yelled at and accused of being terrorists (pre 9/11, FYI). One girl fell asleep. I had nothing to hide, but having read up on it ahead of time I decided to do calculus problems in my head when they baselined me for telling a lie to make sure I registered a strong response during the LOOOONG wait they put in between questions to let a guilty mind wander. I was the first one done. I am quite happy to no longer be working on government BS, there just isn't much interesting or well paying left being done at government agencies or at their contractors.

  • ... a former police officer has been dragged into court by the U.S. Department of Justice for teaching people how to beat a pseudoscientific method of detecting whether somebody is lying, a method that itself isn't even admissible as evidence courts in most parts of the world? What's next? Will the surgeon general drag people into court for pointing out that when consuming a homeopathic remedy with 30C dilution, one would need to swallow a volume greater than all the water present in all the oceans of our

    • ... a former police officer has been dragged into court by the U.S. Department of Justice for teaching people how to beat a pseudoscientific method of detecting whether somebody is lying, a method that itself isn't even admissible as evidence courts in most parts of the world? What's next? Will the surgeon general drag people into court for pointing out that when consuming a homeopathic remedy with 30C dilution, one would need to swallow a volume greater than all the water present in all the oceans of our entire planet in order to stand a good chance of swallowing just one molecule of the original substance?

      He entered into a conspiracy to lie to government investigators. He promoted himself as having the ability to teach people to lie to investigators. He claimed past clients have successfully lied to investigators for decades.

      If he taught people to beat a polygraph and **always** said to never lie to government investigators he would not be in trouble.

      • Re:You don't have it straight ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 15, 2014 @03:24PM (#48393409)

        A logical government would take this as evidence that the polygraph itself is a bullshit test, and dump it. However, we have a bunch of petulant man-children in charge who just prefer to stamp their feet and hit somebody over the head instead of thinking.

        • Perception is a tool ... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by perpenso ( 1613749 ) on Saturday November 15, 2014 @04:12PM (#48393633)

          A logical government would take this as evidence that the polygraph itself is a bullshit test, and dump it. However, we have a bunch of petulant man-children in charge who just prefer to stamp their feet and hit somebody over the head instead of thinking.

          Investigators often rely on intimidation. A polygraph is a tool of intimidation. It does not matter so much if it in fact works reliably. All that matters is that the subject fears that it will work reliably. It may lead such subjects to being more honest, to crack under pressure or to avoid circumstances where they will face a polygraph.

          It doesn't matter if its a con to the gov't, as long as it tends to modify behavior in the desired direction.

      • ... a former police officer has been dragged into court by the U.S. Department of Justice for teaching people how to beat a pseudoscientific method of detecting whether somebody is lying, a method that itself isn't even admissible as evidence courts in most parts of the world? What's next? Will the surgeon general drag people into court for pointing out that when consuming a homeopathic remedy with 30C dilution, one would need to swallow a volume greater than all the water present in all the oceans of our entire planet in order to stand a good chance of swallowing just one molecule of the original substance?

        He entered into a conspiracy to lie to government investigators.

        Here I thought he was teaching people how to see through the lies of government investigators. Since polygraphs are not working, the investigators claim they do, and the only effect they have is if people believe in them.

        • ... a former police officer has been dragged into court by the U.S. Department of Justice for teaching people how to beat a pseudoscientific method of detecting whether somebody is lying, a method that itself isn't even admissible as evidence courts in most parts of the world? What's next? Will the surgeon general drag people into court for pointing out that when consuming a homeopathic remedy with 30C dilution, one would need to swallow a volume greater than all the water present in all the oceans of our entire planet in order to stand a good chance of swallowing just one molecule of the original substance?

          He entered into a conspiracy to lie to government investigators.

          Here I thought he was teaching people how to see through the lies of government investigators.

          From the indictment: "trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation"

          Since polygraphs are not working, the investigators claim they do, and the only effect they have is if people believe in them.

          So they are useful, a prop of intimidation. Belief trumps reality. If a subject is tricked into honesty or tricked into avoiding circumstances where they will face a polygraph its a win from the government's perspective.

          • ... a former police officer has been dragged into court by the U.S. Department of Justice for teaching people how to beat a pseudoscientific method of detecting whether somebody is lying, a method that itself isn't even admissible as evidence courts in most parts of the world? What's next? Will the surgeon general drag people into court for pointing out that when consuming a homeopathic remedy with 30C dilution, one would need to swallow a volume greater than all the water present in all the oceans of our entire planet in order to stand a good chance of swallowing just one molecule of the original substance?

            He entered into a conspiracy to lie to government investigators.

            Here I thought he was teaching people how to see through the lies of government investigators.

            From the indictment: "trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation"

            Since polygraphs are not working, the investigators claim they do, and the only effect they have is if people believe in them.

            So they are useful, a prop of intimidation. Belief trumps reality. If a subject is tricked into honesty or tricked into avoiding circumstances where they will face a polygraph its a win from the government's perspective.

            Another prop could be police brutalitu, are you pro that too, or are your fascist tendencies limited to quack science?

      • Your laws are ridiculous.

        • Your laws are ridiculous.

          Its legal to lie to government investigators in your jurisdiction? From the indictment: "trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation"

          • Your laws are ridiculous.

            Its legal to lie to government investigators in your jurisdiction? From the indictment: "trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation"

            Define "lie". (kudos to Bill Clinton for this one).

            Certainly, if this individual has not properly identified themselves ("posing as a federal law enforcement officer applicant"), you are under no LEGAL obligation to tell them the truth.

            Or do you think that you have to tell the truth all the time. How did it go when you answered "Does this dress make me look fat?" or "Do you think my sister is prettier than me?"

            If he lied to the agent when he said the polygraph can be beaten, charge him with fraud (go

          • Its legal to lie to government investigators in your jurisdiction?

            That's not what the guy was arrested for, dumbass.

            • Its legal to lie to government investigators in your jurisdiction?

              That's not what the guy was arrested for, dumbass.

              Here is a new word for your vocabulary list for the week:

              "conspiracy"
              conspiracy, in law, agreement of two or more persons to commit a criminal or otherwise unlawful act.
              http://www.reference.com/brows... [reference.com]

              Here is an example of its usage, from the first line of my original response to you:
              "He entered into a conspiracy to lie to government investigators."

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dbIII ( 701233 )
        IMHO the much large "conspiracy to lie" is those who pretend polygraphs work and fleece a lot of taxpayers money by selling the props and the "services".
        It sounds like a bad joke - invented by the writer of Wonder Woman and endorsed by the King of kickbacks, J. Edgar Hoover - yet it's STILL in use today!

  • Not as simple as teaching how to ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by perpenso ( 1613749 ) on Saturday November 15, 2014 @02:57PM (#48393259)
    He is in trouble not because he taught how to defeat a polygraph machine, but rather he taught people how to do it with the explicit intent to defeat government background and security checks. He explicitly said so. By saying so he enters into a conspiracy. He explicitly advised people to lie during a government investigation and agreed to help them conceal those lies. He admitted past clients have used his techniques to successfully lie to investigators for decades. And yes I know a polygraph detects stress not lies. Yet the fact remained he promoted his services as a method to conceal lies.

    If he had claimed the training was for some other purpose and always told people to never employ these techniques during a real government polygraph and to always tell government investigators the truth he would not be in trouble.

    In short the method he used to promote his services got him in trouble, not the services themselves.

    • Re:Not as simple as teaching how to ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Saturday November 15, 2014 @03:04PM (#48393309) Journal

      You're quite right, of course, but the thought of a 21st century government defending voodoo pseudo science still seems horribly anachronistic.

      • You're quite right, of course, but the thought of a 21st century government defending voodoo pseudo science still seems horribly anachronistic.

        The device does not have to work. The subject only has to fear that it will work and be more inclined to answer truthfully or to simply avoid entering into circumstances where they will be tested.

        Plus some circumstances do not need courtroom level precision. Lets say a company needs to pick one employee to count the cash at closing time and prepare a bank deposit. If the false negative rate is sufficiently low it could be argued that a polygraph test could be a useful supplement to other considerations.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ihtoit ( 3393327 )

      small correction there: a polygraph doesn't detect anything. It's entirely without scientific merit. That's proven. It's about as reliable as tea leaves and as accurate as a blind poker draw.

      • small correction there: a polygraph doesn't detect anything.

        Yes and no.

        The polygraph measures and records several physiological indices such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity while the subject is asked and answers a series of questions. It is the interpretation of those physiological indices that are used to "detect".

    • Indeed, the indictment avoids framing the mere teaching of polygraph countermeasures as a crime. But I think it's clear that Williams was targeted for prosecution in order to silence speech that the U.S. government doesn't like. The only "crimes" in the indictment are those that the government cooked up, funded, and stage-managed. This despite the fact that the government has the names [mcclatchydc.com] of nearly 5,000 of his customers.

      A comment by the head of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection polygraph unit last year

    • Re:Not as simple as teaching how to ... (Score:5, Informative)

      by jd659 ( 2730387 ) on Saturday November 15, 2014 @03:49PM (#48393517)

      If he had claimed the training was for some other purpose and always told people to never employ these techniques during a real government polygraph and to always tell government investigators the truth he would not be in trouble.

      It always amuses me how simplistic the arguments can become. If you just tell how to beat an abstract polygraph without mentioning the government you'd be fine! Nonsense. If the government doesn't like what you do, there will be a way to lock you in for a long time. Even if you do everything legal.

      Here's a good example. A guy in California was installing hidden compartments in cars (traps). Those were very slick and he was careful -- it was impossible to detect that something was altered. There were no switches, opening such traps would require following some elaborate sequence, like opening specific doors, rolling down the window five times, starting the car seven times, whatever. Nothing illegal here. One may think that some uses for traps would be to store drugs but there could be many legitimate reasons (like storing cash or whatever personal items). So the installer asked if the traps are going to be used for anything illegal and refused to do the job if the answer was positive. Nothing illegal. Well, some lied and stored drugs and the DEA's job became more complicated and they staged the whole kangaroo court where the trap installer guy was convicted for 22 years! 22 years for not doing anything illegal, but the thinking was that he could have imagined that some traps could be used by drug dealers and therefore he facilitated drug dealings.

      More details on the story: http://www.wired.com/2013/03/a... [wired.com]

      • Your own citation proves you mistaken. He in fact knew about the illegal use.

        He installed a trap. It malfunctioned. The vehicle was brought back for repair. The illegal contents revealed. He told the owners to get the stuff off his property. He then continued to do work for these people. He in fact transition from a state of "not knowing" to "knowing" and continued working with them.

        • Geeks have real issues with the concepts of knowledge and intent mattering in the law. They think something is either ok, or not ok, and if it is ok it is ok in all situations. Of course that's not how the law work. Intent in particular matters a hell of a lot. Something can be illegal or legal just based off of intent, or can be a different level of crime. Likewise if you know you are helping someone commit a crime, that can get you in trouble whereas doing the same thing unknowingly can be fine.

          It is comp

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by dbIII ( 701233 )
          Still - 22 years! That is so fucked up and is a strong incentive to turn petty crooks into murderers when the cops turn up.

      • Re:Not as simple as teaching how to ... (Score:5, Informative)

        by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Saturday November 15, 2014 @04:39PM (#48393795) Journal
        Don't read or trust Wired, it's a magazine designed to make you feel outraged, not inform you. They don't care if the details are right.

        In this case, they had wire taps conversations and evidence linking him to the problem. You can read the appellate court decision [justia.com] to get a better view of the situation. If he had actually stopped helping those guys when he saw the money (which he knew was illegal), he wouldn't be in jail right now.

        In other words, if you're going to do something on the edge of legality, make sure you follow the letter of the law exactly. Because it's in the details where you'll get caught up and prosecuted.

      • Re:Not as simple as teaching how to ... (Score:4)

        by StevenMaurer ( 115071 ) on Saturday November 15, 2014 @04:45PM (#48393847) Homepage

        I read the article you referenced. It's not as you describe it.

        Installing secret compartments in vehicles when you know that its purpose is for doing something illegal, is itself illegal. Engaging in a criminal conspiracy to move drugs around the country is also illegal. Basically any time a drug dealer says to you "I need help to deliver this kilo of cocaine", and you say "Sure, as long as you pay me, I'll be happy to help", you're in some rather serious trouble if you get caught. The prosecutors were able to get one of the drug dealers to testify that he knew exactly what he was doing (in exchange for a reduced sentence). And the jury chose to believe the drug dealer.

        You make this out as if the DEA somehow can throw people in prison for "doing nothing illegal". But the truth is that this fellow had a trial, a lawyer to defend himself, a judge to ensure that the law was followed, before a jury of his peers, and the jury chose to convict him.

        I'm well aware that juries can make mistakes, but this doesn't seem at all like a miscarriage of justice. Not with the facts presented.

        • The drug war is 100% ridiculous to begin with, so none of that matters.

          But secret compartments can be used for anything. Whether someone wants to transport drugs or not should be irrelevant.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jd659 ( 2730387 )
          The short summary wasn't precise, I admit, but the point was slightly different. What the installer guy did should never be illegal regardless of intent. Let's consider someone coming to a car dealership and saying: "I'd like to buy a car to commit a crime, here's a full sticker price." The dealer wants to make money and sells the car. Guilty? Why should he be? Should the specific car salesman go to jail or the whole dealership closed (since corporations are people)? Let's imagine that some folks agree that

    • OH, well why didn'tya say so fercryinoutloud. He wasn't just saying a law enforcement tool was bullshit smoke and mirrors, he was saying you could defeat the bullshit smoke and mirrors in order to lie. Geez -- if that sort of stuff starts happening, you'll see people selling bullshit smoke and mirrors to law enforcement, so we'd better punish him severely.

    • Fascists.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by davecb ( 6526 )

      This is a classic way to get a proponent of X into trouble: get them to say under what circumstances X would be breaking the law, and assert they were a proponent of breaking the law. Another is ordering someone not to do something legal, then charge them with disobedience. A third is to ask them if they had (ever) broken the law, then charge them with lying if they had but the statute of limitations had run out.

      All are hard to defend against, as they're constructed half-truths. None addresses the prop

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )

      So... what's wrong with that? If I teach you how to shoot a person, is that illegal? If so, then you should close most shooting ranges out there.

      Free speech includes speech that is against the establishment, and given the Founding Fathers of the US' viewpoints on thing, quite by design.

  • What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by duck_rifted ( 3480715 ) on Saturday November 15, 2014 @03:12PM (#48393335)
    Polygraph tests generally can't be used as evidence in court, so they're nothing more than very weak probable cause tools. Meanwhile, probable cause is so cheap and easy to come by in front of today's judges that polygraph is a relic that isn't even needed anymore. It's science fiction.

    The whole idea behind polygraph is that when you lie, your heart rate changes and you sweat more, so the conductivity of your skin changes. But this is false in both directions. Heart rate and skin conductivity can change due to other stimuli, such as (perhaps) sitting in a chair being subjected to a deeply flawed test that will help to determine whether you to prison despite innocence. In the other direction, some people can lie without exhibiting any kind of physiological "tell".

    The polygraph test is and always has been a bogus fortune-teller's tool. They might as well indict somebody for explaining why astrology doesn't work.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by s.petry ( 762400 )

      While surely you can refuse the polygraph the prosecutor can use your "refusal" as an argument to a jury that you are guilty. Just like they can use your results _if_ you accept the request for a polygraph.

      You are trying to make the answer simple, when in fact it is not. Polygraphs are not illegal, and the presumption of innocence has been a dead thought in courts for quite a long time now.

      • While surely you can refuse the polygraph the prosecutor can use your "refusal" as an argument to a jury that you are guilty.

        No, just like the judge will instruct the jury that your refusal to testify on your own behalf is not to be considered in the juror's evaluation of whether someone is guilty or not. If a prosecutor tries to argue that, they're going to get their knuckles rapped in front of the jury, not exactly helping their case, and possibly causing a mistrial.

        And then there's this [google.ca]. The judge in question confirms that he was the judge in the "Photocopier Lie Detector", which snopes.com dismisses because they asked th

    • Polygraphs are at best a cheap party trick. They shouldn't be used anywhere near anything to do with law enforcement or anything that has any influence over peoples lives.

      The problem is not just the false positives - i.e. people lying, and beating the test - but false negatives - people who fail the test when telling the truth.

      Polygraphs are an abomination and should be all destroyed and thrown in the trash.

  • Because that's what it essentially is, it's basically a mix of a witch hunt and a trial by ordeal, where you're essentially already more or less sure whether or not your culprit is guilty and employ something that's for some reason thought to be a sound way to prove or disprove whatever you wanted to show.

    Well, at least it's not "toss her in the water, if she swims she's a witch, if she drowns she was not"...

  • (2.6 mb PDF)

    Thanks to warn us that the PDF's size is 2.6 millibits, my computer has issues storing fractional bits.
    By the way, lots of web pages are 10 million times bigger than that nowadays.

    • Just last year, an Internet company near where I live had a television commercial where they were offering Internet service with speeds of "50 millibytes per second" (spoken out loud in the commercial). The promptly resulted in a face palm from myself.
  • it should be discarded as ancient obsolete junk from the past like phrenology or some other bogus snake oil from the 18th & 19th century,

    the polygraph is not even admissible in court because of its dubious reliability, the results of a polygraph does not prove anything

  • But.... (Score:3)

    by Dereck1701 ( 1922824 ) on Saturday November 15, 2014 @06:38PM (#48394287)

    But I thought the polygraph was infallible, they've been saying for years that an "well trained and experienced" polygraph technician can always spot a lie. Sounds like they aren't quite a confident as the decades of propa .... I mean "public service announcements" have portrayed.

  • Who and how is this giving legitimacy to polygraph tests? We've known they're filled with errors and are at best unreliable. So who cares if someone is teaching people how to pass a fake test, or are we suddenly taking polygraph tests at face value now? Should I worry about attending the right church?

  • Bunk science is bunk science (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <<moc.oohay> <ta> <kapimi>> on Saturday November 15, 2014 @09:19PM (#48394869) Homepage Journal

    The polygraph is just a modern version of Trial by Ordeal. Where about the only thing modernized is the type of witchcraft it detects.

    It has the reliability and reputation of tealeaf-reading. Actually, more people probably believe in mysticism than lie detectors.

    Under these circumstances, any organization relying on polygraph testing deserves everything it suffers. Believe Mystic Meg's advice on lottery numbers? You aren't entitled to a refund on either. Same applies here. Such devices should have been consigned to the scrap yard (and/or the museum of failed criminology) decades ago.

    It's no more easy to be sympathetic to the ex-cop. The fact that he's basically correct is irrelevant. First, he's milking the market. Ten greenbacks for a digital book that's likely to be yanked by officialdom. Even Dangermouse was content with one. Besides, most of the tricks are well-known and meditation can take care of the rest.

    From the looks of it, the guy also harasses negative reviewers. That's definitely strike two.

    And I'm willing to bet that he has abused authority a few times himself. That's becoming par for the course.

    Nonetheless, despite despising the lot, police harassment and the de-facto classification of failings within authority are absolute no-go areas and that supersedes my dislike of Doug Williams and his profiteering.

  • Pretty obviously criminal. The undercover agent put out the bait, the guy recognized it was bait, hesitated, then swallowed it whole.

  • Makes me feel like an idiot for being a Democrat (Score:3)

    by Cafe Alpha ( 891670 ) on Saturday November 15, 2014 @11:53PM (#48395357) Journal

    Whatever else you say, you have to face that this is what Eric Holder and Barack Obama's justice department is up to.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computer programmers do it byte by byte.

Close