Indiana Man Gets 8 Months For Teaching How To Beat Polygraph Tests 356
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."
Hell hath no fury .. (Score:5, Insightful)
... 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)
Welcome to Thoughtcrime!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well no...
The guy didn't technically get in trouble for teaching people how to break the polygraph test.
He got in trouble for inciting them to lie while under oath. But that doesn't really matter, since he pled guilty.
Re: (Score:3)
Generally instructing people to do something illegal (not just how, but to do) is a crime unto itself.
That being said, given that the people within law enforcement that taught officers how to do illegal things are not in jail, it is still pretty hypocritical.
Re:Hell hath no fury .. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
proving parent right... (Score:5, Insightful)
talk about 'thoughtcrime'...
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!
Re:proving parent right... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:proving parent right... (Score:4, Funny)
The same thing goes for smoke shops.
For all your gift and lifestyle accessory needs.
Re:proving parent right... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
"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...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:proving parent right... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Drug dealers uses cell phones to communicate. Following your flawless logic we should incarcerate every executives of Sprint, AT&T, MetroPCS and all...
Only if the drug dealer called an AT&T rep and asked if his plan had roaming charges while he was moving drugs across the border.
Re: (Score:3)
Only if the drug dealer called an AT&T rep and asked if his plan had roaming charges while he was moving drugs across the border.
He stopped helping that customer after the comment. And the DEA had him under surveillance hoping for something like that to happen... and he knew he was under surveillance, so his not reporting what he already knew was recorded... somehow got him 20 years.
Yeah... that seems fair.
Re: (Score:3)
How in the world did you manage to get that out of what I said? Talk about a straw man...
As I made abundantly clear in my last comment, the problem was that he had full awareness of the illegal activities that his services were being used to support. Unless you're suggesting that all of the carriers are listening into our calls and have full awareness of the illegal activities occurring, I see no reason why they should be held accountable for how people are using their services.
Again, the issue here and in
Re:proving parent right... (Score:5, Informative)
do you have a citation for this?
He's most likely talking about this case.
Hits description isn't 100% accurate but he's close enough.
http://www.slashdot.org/story/184153 [slashdot.org]
LK
Re: (Score:3)
That's what conspiracy charges are. If you're in for a part then you're in for the whole bit. He was warned that the people he was taking money from were up to criminal acts and chose to continue doing it. Had he chosen to stop doing it or cooperate with the DEA, he wouldn't be in prison.
"Your employer is doing [insert random alleged crime here]" and unless you quit your job on a random unfounded allegation you're guilty of conspiracy? No, that's bull. You'll also note that they had nothing on him until he went to repair a compartment that had something in it, as long as he wasn't directly aware of anything that was stored in them all was fine. If he'd said "Sorry, I can't go near that compartment while it has anything in it so you have to tear it up and remove the contents, afterwards I ca
Re:proving parent right... (Score:5, Insightful)
In much of America, if you're convicted under a bad law, your right to vote (amongst others) is permanently removed. Makes it that much harder to change bad laws. Most civilized countries removed the penalty of felon from the law books in the 19th century as feudal ideas such as punishing people (and their families) forever was considered feudal. America along with Nigeria still practice the feudal idea of stopping people from voting to elect people to change bad laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hell hath no fury .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And? He was not the one lying to get the job. Full stop.
Re: (Score:3)
Clinton - I did not have sex with that woman - LIE
True. The judge defined "sex" as essentially "anything touching a vagina" and since that didn't happen, the only non-lie was "no", because the judge was an idiot. Clinton was the only one prosecuted for his lie. The only lie that harmed nobody, and the only one prosecuted. And it wasn't even an lie.
Re:Hell hath no fury .. (Score:5, Insightful)
... 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?
Re:Hell hath no fury .. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Hell hath no fury .. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly was the crime here though?
Sounds like a blatant 1st amendment breach.
Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling truth (Score:2)
Am I under arrest?
For experts. Clamp anal sphincter when telling truth, relax when lying.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you, a lawyer or used car salesman?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps a politician?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: Tumbtack in your shoe, pressure when telling t (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
federal overreach, as usual (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:federal overreach, as usual (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
“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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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:
Re:Some FA (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
They sought a wire fraud charge against Dixon for a “scheme” that helped applicants get jobs by making “false and fraudulent statements.”
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Some FA (Score:5, Insightful)
"Plead guilty or we'll charge you with a million counts."
Pleading guilty should never be taken as an admission of guilt, only an admission that you're not powerful enough to stop the government from fucking you.
Re: (Score:2)
"Pleading guilty should never be taken as an admission of guilt, only an admission that you're not powerful enough to stop the government from fucking you."
That's what Nolo pleas are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere [wikipedia.org]
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
That's what Nolo Contendere is for, but when an ADA offers you a plea deal, they're going to demand a guilty plea.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Prosecutors can play whatever legal mumbo jumbo games they want - if you've got a gun to your head to "confess", no one should take that as an honest admission by you. You've *submitted* to power, there was no confession. I no more take guilty pleas as admissions of guilt than confessions of war crimes from prisoners of war.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Ah, older article did: Dixon, 34, pleaded guilty late last year to charges of obstruction and wire fraud after federal agents targeted him in an undercover sting that was first reported by McClatchy.
Since he pleaded guilty, my sympathy level just went way down.
Wire fraud? A reference to the wires of the machine?
At least it wasn't "terrorism".
So what about Penn and Teller? (Score:5, Informative)
If you can beat Polygraphs then doesn't that mean (Score:2)
...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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
...aren't the Feds implicitly acknowledging that the polygraph is not an accurate instrument?
Re: (Score:2)
10 polygraph secrets the feds don't want you to know!
Re: (Score:2)
Covered in my Psyc 101 class (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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.
There are ways to do this and get away with it.. (Score:2)
Criminal conduct my ass. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy was put in jail for telling his clients to LIE ABOUT BEATING THE POLYGRAPH, not for teaching them how to beat it.
But he didn't force them to lie, there was no coercion. I can tell people to lie all I want, that doesn't make me the liar.
he was telling clients to commit fraud against the government in job interviews.
Again, he forced no ones hand.
You're more or less an idiot if you think thats okay.
I never said I thought it was okay, so don't go off and judge me like that - you don't know me. In fact, I believe lying is wrong under any circumstances. I suggest you read Sam Harris' essay 'Lying'. But it is still a matter of free speech over his client's ability to proceed how they see fit under their own will, by their personal choice - it doesn't matt
Re: (Score:2)
They are not admissible in courts. This is for a job, you can just not get those jobs. For example I don't use drugs, but I don't take drug tests. So I have opted not to take jobs that required them.
People are not rioting because they know life is full of choices and working for a 3 letter agency is not likely want they want to do.
What was he ACTUALLY convicted of? (Score:3)
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.
In other news, Dorothy arrested by MI-5 (Score:5, Insightful)
what missing here.. (Score:2)
...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]
mmm (Score:2)
Maybe someone can enlighten me (Score:2)
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 pupils? (Score:2)
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?
Anyone know what law he broke? (Score:3)
If I'm asked to take a lie detector test... (Score:2)
My response will be "Sorry, I'm not interested in Scientology."
Who's next, Cory Doctorow? (Score:3)
Is Teaching illegal? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Can somebody please explain this to me? (Score:2)
In what way is this a crime?
Beating a polygraph in itself is not illegal, right?
Free speech and knowledge (Score:2)
Is now a commodity to be bought and sold by the federal government.
He should thank the government (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if it's invisible text, or just classified... There must be two 1st amendments, one for the school children and the other for the courts that basically says, "Ignore all that bullshit and lock 'em up."
Re: (Score:2)
In all, the abuses by government are enough to make someone turn libertarian. Make it small enough so that abuses are as limited as possible. Because how can you get
Re: (Score:2)
Do that and you abuses will come from feudal/corporate lords. Those you don't even get to vote for.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean normal humans?
You can't yell fire in a crowded theater nor can you sell your tap water with claims it cures cancer and erectile disfunction with just one 8 oz serving.
If you can't understand why those are not protected speech your schooling failed you and it is likely to late to help you now.
Re: (Score:3)
If that is how you want to look at it fine, then that is what happened here. He was free to advise people to lie about faking the test and he then was charged for it.
Re: (Score:2)
You *can* yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. The first amendment does not discriminate about what speech is free and what isn't. It is all free. However, whilst exercising your right to do so, you recklessly endanger others,
How contrived. I don't endanger anyone. The people who trample others do, and I am not in charge of them. If someone yells fire in a theater, and there is reason to believe that there is a fire, calmly exit the building in an orderly fashion. Help children and the elderly. Most importantly: do not trample others.
Re: (Score:2)
However, whilst exercising your right to do so, you recklessly endanger others, which is what you get charged with. Nothing to do with the first.
That's ridiculous. What you're getting charged with is saying the 'wrong' thing at the 'wrong' time, and no newspeak nonsense will tell me otherwise. It is very much a first amendment issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re your subject line, I always thought the Beatles sounded like they were singing:
Back in the U-S, back in the U-S, back in the U-S-S-Ah
Re: (Score:2)
Not that it matters, but you can't fool God.
This holds true whether you're a devout deist or an atheist.
I suppose pantheists may disagree however.
Re: (Score:2)
Barring situations where telling the truth will cause irreparable harm to innocent parties who have not been given an opportunity to answer for themselves (which, outside of certain wartime historical practices, does not tend to happen statistically very often), lying is wrong, period.