Docstoc

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Reveals Criminal Investigation Into Polygraph Countermeasure Training

Document Sample
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Reveals Criminal Investigation Into Polygraph Countermeasure Training Powered By Docstoc
					U.S. Customs and Border Protection Reveals
Criminal Investigation Into Polygraph
Countermeasure Training
Posted by AntiPolygraph.org on 4 April 2013, 2:46 pm

A document (5.4 mb PDF) released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reveals the
existence of a criminal investigation into polygraph countermeasure training received by ten
CBP applicants for employment. The document, first obtained by the Center for Investigative
Reporting, is a summary of significant admissions obtained during polygraph examinations. The
criminal investigation is revealed in the opening paragraph:

1. During the conduct of a precedence [sic] setting criminal investigation known as Operation
[redacted], ten applicants for law enforcement positions within CBP were identified as receiving
sophisticated polygraph Countermeasure training in an effort to defeat the polygraph requirement.
None of the CBP applicants were successful, but others involved in the conspiracy were
[redacted]. The Insider Threat caused by the physiological and psychological polygraph
countermeasures employed against other agencies has been investigated by CBP-IA with
assistance from affected agencies. This investigation provides proof of the necessity and
effectiveness of the Anti-Border Corruption Act, and revelation of the previously unknown
vulnerabilities of the hiring process.

The document does not state how the applicants were identified as having received polygraph
countermeasure training, what the underlying crime at the heart of the alleged conspiracy is, or
what precedent the investigation sets. It is not a crime to provide or receive instruction in
polygraph countermeasures (although a senior federal polygraph instructor has suggested that it
should be).

AntiPolygraph.org has contacted the CBP press office seeking answers to the following
questions:

      Have any of these applicants been criminally charged? If so, what are their names and
       what crimes have they been charged with?
      The paragraph alleges a criminal conspiracy; what is the underlying crime?
      Does CBP consider it a crime for applicants to receive instruction in polygraph
       countermeasures?
      Does CBP consider it a crime to provide instruction in polygraph countermeasures to
       CBP applicants?
      The paragraph characterizes this investigation as precedent setting; what is the precedent
       that is being set here?
      How were the applicants in question identified as having received polygraph
       countermeasure training?
      Why was the name of the operation redacted? Can you now disclose it?
      Who provided the polygraph countermeasures training, and has this individual(s) been
       criminally charged?
      Does CBP allege that these 10 individuals were in all in cahoots with one another?

This article will be updated upon receipt of a response.

Update: Laura R. Cylke of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Public Affairs has
informed AntiPolygraph.org that CBP is unwilling to answer any of the above questions. Instead,
CBP offered the following (entirely unresponsive) statement:

Statement:

CBP recognizes that public service is a public trust. It is critical that our employees conduct
themselves with the highest standards of integrity as they carry out the critical mission of
protecting America’s borders. Our commitment to integrity begins at the time of application for
employment with CBP and continues throughout the careers of our employees.

Each applicant is subject to a rigorous pre-employment process, which includes improved initial
screening of applicants, an exhaustive background investigation that begins upon the initial
selection of a prospective employee, and pre-employment polygraph examinations of law
enforcement candidates. Each tool is capable of identifying vulnerabilities that the other cannot,
and in combination allow for a thorough vetting of the men and women seeking employment
with CBP.

Falsification of application forms; cheating on any written exams, drug screening tests, or
polygraph exams; and deliberate attempts to mislead background investigators are inconsistent
with the highest standards of individual integrity that CBP requires of our employees. Applicants
who engage in these practices will be disqualified from further consideration for employment.

In addition to the extensive pre-employment vetting process, CBP conducts recurring checks of
law enforcement officers throughout their careers and upon assignment to sensitive positions to
ensure continued suitability for employment with CBP.

Update 2: A discussion thread on this topic has been opened on the AntiPolygraph.org message
board. See “Is It a Crime to Provide or Receive Polygraph Countermeasure Training?” We have
been freely providing information on polygraph countermeasures for more than a decade, most
notably in our free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF).

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2013/04/04/u-s-customs-and-border-protection-reveals-criminal-
investigation-into-polygraph-countermeasure-training/
   Follow AntiPolygraph.org (@ap_org) on Twitter for
   commentary and site news.

Be aware that polygraph operators also read the discussions on this message board. If you wish to
remain anonymous, be careful not to post enough personal detail that you could be identified (for
example, the exact date of your polygraph examination). For better anonymity, use an encrypted
proxy such as the Tor anonymous Internet communication system. For a convenient implementation of Tor, try
The Incognito Amnesiac Live System.
Is It a Crime to Provide or Receive Polygraph Countermeasure Training? (Read 154 times)


 George W.                  Is It a Crime to Provide or Receive Polygraph Countermeasure Training?
Maschke
                         Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:28pm
Global Moderator
                         As mentioned on the blog, it appears at least one federal agency may
Offline                  think so. A report (5.4 mb PDF) by the U.S. Customs and Border
                         Protection polygraph unit on substantive admissions obtained opens
                         with a paragraph about 10 applicants who received instruction in
                         polygraph countermeasures:

                         Quote:
Make-believe science     1. During the conduct of a precedence [sic] setting criminal investigation
yields
                         known as Operation [redacted], ten applicants for law enforcement positions
make-believe security.
                         within CBP were identified as receiving sophisticated polygraph
Posts: 5168              Countermeasure training in an effort to defeat the polygraph requirement.
The Hague, The           None of the CBP applicants were successful, but others involved in the
Netherlands              conspiracy were [redacted]. The Insider Threat caused by the physiological and
                         psychological polygraph countermeasures employed against other agencies has
                         been investigated by CBP-IA with assistance from affected agencies. This
                         investigation provides proof of the necessity and effectiveness of the Anti-
                         Border Corruption Act, and revelation of the previously unknown vulnerabilities
                         of the hiring process.




                         To my knowledge, there has been no press coverage of any such
                         criminal investigation heretofore. I would be interested in any informed
                         commentary any of our readers could provide.
                         George W. Maschke
                         E-mail: maschke@antipolygraph.org
                         Twitter: georgemaschke
                         Google+: George Maschke
                         Tel/SMS: 1-424-835-1225
                         Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"



Back to top
                                                                                                            IP Logged

 Sergeant1107               Re: Is It a Crime to Provide or Receive Polygraph Countermeasure Training?

Especially Senior User
                         Reply #1 - Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:42pm

Offline
                         I cannot imagine a statute that would be violated by what a person
                         thinks or does during a polygraph.

Posts: 729
Connecticut, USA
                         Even if they attempted to write new law, I can't imagine how one
Gender:                  would phrase such a law so that it could be enforced.



                         Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes
                         intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
                                                                                                            IP Logged

 George W.                  Re: Is It a Crime to Provide or Receive Polygraph Countermeasure Training?
Maschke
                         Reply #2 - Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:09pm
Global Moderator
                         CBP refuses to answer whether they think it is a crime to provide or
Offline                  receive polygraph countermeasure training. See the update to the blog
                         post:

                         https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2013/04/04/u-s-customs-and-border-
                         protection-reve...


Make-believe science
yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5168
The Hague, The
Netherlands




                         George W. Maschke
                         E-mail: maschke@antipolygraph.org
Back to top              Twitter: georgemaschke
                         Google+: George Maschke
                         Tel/SMS: 1-424-835-1225
                         Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"




                                                                                           IP Logged

 George W.                    Thoughts and Speculation on "Operation X"
Maschke
                         Reply #3 - Yesterday at 5:23am
Global Moderator
                         I think CBP would have been justified in redacting the name of the
Offline                  polygraph countermeasure operation (I'll call it "Operation X") only if
                         the operation were still ongoing at the time CBP document was
                         released. The metadata in the PDF file released by the Center for
                         Investigative Reporting indicates that it was created on 31 January
                         2013. If that date is correct, it follows that CBP redacted the document
                         no later than that. So Operation X may have still been active at the
                         beginning of February 2013.
Make-believe science
yields
make-believe security.   The fact that no arrests have been announced as a result of the
                         "precedent setting" Operation X suggests that either:
Posts: 5168
The Hague, The
Netherlands              1) Operation X was wound down without any criminal charges having
                         been brought

                         or

                         2) Operation X is still ongoing and release of the CBP document
                         unintentionally disclosed it's existence.

                         Admissions to polygraph countermeasures are quite rare. The CBP
                         report cites only seven such admissions for the period from 2008-
                         2012. These admissions (at paras. 208-214 of the CBP report) do not
                         appear to be connected with Operation X.

                         By contrast, Operation X has allegedly identified ten CBP applicants
                         who received polygraph countermeasure training and, it would seem,
                         an undisclosed number of applicants or employees of other agencies.
                         No admissions are alleged. This is rather extraordinary, and it suggests
                         to me that the information may be derived from electronic
                         eavesdropping.

                         Polygraph community countermeasure documentation received by
                         AntiPolygraph.org (which we will be posting shortly) indicates that
                         there are two primary sources of information about countermeasures
                         that concern the polygraph community: AntiPolygraph.org and Doug
                         Williams' Polygraph.com. Communications with either site may be the
                         subject of a court-ordered wiretap.



                         George W. Maschke
                         E-mail: maschke@antipolygraph.org
                         Twitter: georgemaschke
                         Google+: George Maschke
                         Tel/SMS: 1-424-835-1225
                         Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"



Back to top
                                                                                                    IP Logged

 quickfix                   Re: Is It a Crime to Provide or Receive Polygraph Countermeasure Training?

Very Senior User
                         Reply #4 - Yesterday at 10:19am

Offline
                         Gee, George, I thought you said CMs can't be detected???

                         To the suckers who paid $1,000+ (presumably to Doug Williams): you
Posts: 116
                         got what you paid for!


Back to top                                                                                         IP Logged


 George W.                  Re: Is It a Crime to Provide or Receive Polygraph Countermeasure Training?
Maschke
                         Reply #5 - Yesterday at 10:43am
Global Moderator
                         Quickfix,
Offline

                         No polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect the kinds
                         of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and
                         the CBP admissions summary doesn't suggest that countermeasures
                         were "detected," unless you're naive enough to believe that the seven
                         who admitted using countermeasures are the only instances (out of
                         some 11,149 CBP polygraph examinations conducted from 2008-2012)
Make-believe science
yields                   where countermeasures were employed. Documentation soon to be
make-believe security.   published on AntiPolygraph.org indicates that the polygraph community
                         has no coherent methodology for detecting such countermeasures.
Posts: 5168
The Hague, The           Stay tuned.
Netherlands




                         George W. Maschke
                         E-mail: maschke@antipolygraph.org
                         Twitter: georgemaschke
                         Google+: George Maschke
Back to top              Tel/SMS: 1-424-835-1225
                         Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
                                                                                                    IP Logged

 quickfix                   Re: Is It a Crime to Provide or Receive Polygraph Countermeasure Training?

Very Senior User
                         Reply #6 - Yesterday at 11:25am

Offline
                         No offense, George, but you're the naive one here. The report you
                         attached clearly demonstrates our ability to detect CMs. You can
                         rationalize the contents of that report any way you want, but one of
Posts: 116
                         those caught clearly stated the CMs were used after researching your
                         website.

                         I can also assure you that far more than 7 have been caught in past
                         years. You just don't know about it.


Back to top                                                                                         IP Logged


 George W.                  Re: Is It a Crime to Provide or Receive Polygraph Countermeasure Training?
Maschke
                         Reply #7 - Yesterday at 11:52am
Global Moderator
                         Quickfix,
Offline

                         "Detection" means identification at better-than-chance levels of
                         accuracy. The seven countermeasure confessions do not (and cannot)
                         demonstrate that CBP polygraph examiners are able to detect
                         countermeasures. This is so because we do not (and cannot) know:

                                 what percentage of examinees employed countermeasures;
Make-believe science
yields
                                 what percentage of those who employed countermeasures were
make-believe security.            "determined" by CBP to have employed countermeasures;
                                 what percentage of those who were "determined" by CBP to
Posts: 5168                       have used countermeasures actually did so.
The Hague, The
Netherlands




                         George W. Maschke
                         E-mail: maschke@antipolygraph.org
                         Twitter: georgemaschke
                         Google+: George Maschke
                         Tel/SMS: 1-424-835-1225
                         Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"



Back to top
                                                                                                    IP Logged
 Arkhangelsk                Re: Is It a Crime to Provide or Receive Polygraph Countermeasure Training?

New User
                         Reply #8 - Yesterday at 12:40pm

Offline
                         It's a great irony that polygraph operators assert that they can detect
                         countermeasures, while simultaneously exhibiting extreme paranoia
                         whenever anyone wants to learn about them. I think CBP are smart
                         enough to know that obtaining knowledge is not a crime; while their
                         "investigation" may be real, its main purpose is to instill fear into future
                         applicants.




Posts: 19




                         Veritas potens est gladius
Back to top
                                                                                                    IP Logged

 Arkhangelsk                Re: Is It a Crime to Provide or Receive Polygraph Countermeasure Training?

New User
                         Reply #9 - Yesterday at 12:45pm

Offline
                         Doug Williams,

                         Can I ask if you have perceived any kind of harrassment or privacy
                         violations in the course of running your business? I hope you are
                         prepared to bring a lawsuit against anyone who crosses the line.




Posts: 19




                         Veritas potens est gladius
Back to top
                                                                                                    IP Logged

 Sergeant1107               Re: Is It a Crime to Provide or Receive Polygraph Countermeasure Training?

Especially Senior User
                         Reply #10 - Today at 12:51pm

Offline
                         It seems that accusations of countermeasure use are quite common. It
                         also seems unlikely that a majority of people who take polygraphs are,
                         in fact, skilled at countermeasures.
Posts: 729
Connecticut, USA
Gender:               If I polygraph 100 people, and accuse 75 of them of using
                      countermeasures, and five of them admit to using countermeasures,
                      can I accurately claim that I can detect countermeasures? I would think
                      not.

                      If 100 people were polygraphed, and, say, 10 of them used
                      countermeasures, and the polygraph operator accused 7 or 8 people
                      and each of them were among the group using countermeasures, that
                      would indicate their ability to detect countermeasures.

                      If, in the same controlled experiment, the polygraph operators accused
                      70 out of 100 of using countermeasures, and 7 or 8 of those accused
                      were in fact using countermeasures, that seems more like a version of
                      the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.



                      Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes
                      intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
                                                                                                         IP Logged

https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1365107320


4 April 2013

Is learning to beat the polygraph a crime?



George W. Maschke, AntiPolygraph.org, sends:

A document published today by the Center for Investigative Reporting includes details of a
criminal investigation into ten applicants for employment with U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) who allegedly received "sophisticated polygraph Countermeasure training."
CBP refused to respond to any of AntiPolygraph.org's questions, including whether CBP
considers it a crime to provide or receive instruction in polygraph countermeasures:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2013/04/04/u-s-customs-and-border-protection-reveals-criminal-
investigation-into-polygraph-countermeasure-training/

AntiPolygraph.org has been providing information about polygraph countermeasures to the
public for over a decade, most notably in our free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:

https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf
It would be nice to know if CBP or any other federal agency construes providing or receiving
such information as a crime.

_____

Comments or answers to: cryptome[at]earthlink.net

http://cryptome.org/2013/04/beat-polygraph-crime.htm

AntiPolygraph.org Home Page > Reading Room

To discuss the issues raised in this article, see the AntiPolygraph.org message board thread, A Response to Paul M.
Menges.


A Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical
Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to
the Public
by George W. Maschke
25 February 2003

Paul M. Menges, a federal polygraph examiner and instructor who currently teaches the
Department of Defense Polygraph Institute's countermeasure course, argues in a recent article
titled "Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public"
(Polygraph, Vol. 31 [2002], No. 4, pp. 254-262), that publicly making available such
information is unethical and concludes with the suggestion that it should be outlawed. The
present article is a response to Mr. Menges' arguments. Since Polygraph, the quarterly
publication of the American Polygraph Association, is not readily available to most members of
the public, I will begin by citing the abstract of Mr. Menges' article:

Polygraph or Forensic Psychophysiology is an art-science not well understood by the general public. Defended by
law enforcement and intelligence agencies as a valuable investigative tool and castigated by others as intrusive and
unscientific, polygraph has in recent years come under increasing fire from a vocal minority. Using the technology
of the day, the Internet, polygraph opponents are attempting to further their stated goal, the abolishment of
polygraph as a viable investigative aid to law enforcement and national security. In addition to questioning the
scientific basis for and legitimacy of polygraph practices, some polygraph opponents have gone a step further to
advocate the use of countermeasures to defeat polygraph examinations. Indeed, some argue that even innocent
subjects need to employ countermeasures in order to be deemed innocent by examiners (Maschke & Scalabrini,
2000; Williams, 2000). The Constitution of the United States provides all citizens with the right of free speech. We
enjoy the freedom to challenge government policies and to openly debate issues. However, bounds have been set by
our society to protect individuals and the greater good for all citizens. Polygraph is scientifically valid and a
tremendous investigative tool available to law enforcement and security personnel of this country. Efforts to openly
subvert its use by advocating use of and providing countermeasures training and information to all subjects,
regardless of innocence or guilt, run counter to the best interests of society and public safety. These efforts, while
currently not illegal, cross the bounds of ethical conduct and present a threat to public safety and good order in
society. The time has come to confront this threat by alerting the public to these efforts that aid guilty parties who
threaten society, public safety, and quite possibly our national security.
Although in many places, Menges speaks of "polygraph opponents" in general, it is clear that he
refers mainly to AntiPolygraph.org. Thus, Menges' assertion that "[u]sing the technology of the
day, the Internet, polygraph opponents are attempting to further their stated goal, the abolishment
of polygraph as a viable investigative aid to law enforcement and national security" stands in
need of clarification. AntiPolygraph.org's "stated goal" is not the abolishment of polygraphy "as
a viable investigative aid to law enforcement and national security." We consider polygraphy to
be neither valid nor viable, and we simply seek its abolishment.

Menges states that "some polygraph opponents have gone a step further to advocate the use of
countermeasures to defeat polygraph examinations." AntiPolygraph.org does not advocate the
use of countermeasures "to defeat polygraph examinations." Our suggestion to anyone suspected
of a crime has always been (and remains) to refuse to submit to polygraphic interrogation. With
regard to polygraph screening, we have never advocated that anyone use countermeasures to
"defeat" a polygraph examination. Nor have we made the argument attributed to us by Menges
that "even innocent subjects need to employ countermeasures in order to be deemed innocent by
examiners." Rather, we have simply suggested countermeasures as a possible strategy for
protecting oneself against a false positive outcome.

Menges asserts, without support, that "[p]olygraph is scientifically valid...." We strongly
disagree. As explained in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources cited
therein, polygraphy -- lacking both standardization and meaningful control -- is pseudoscience. It
is not a valid diagnostic technique, and the majority of psychophysiologists do not agree that it is
based on scientifically sound psychological principles or theory.

Thus, we see that Menges' conclusions regarding the ethics of making information regarding
countermeasures available to the public proceed from a misunderstanding of AntiPolygraph.org's
actions, arguments, and objectives, and from a mistaken belief in the validity of polygraphy.
These false premises are also evident in the opening paragraph of Menges' article, where he
states, "This paper will address the question, Is it ethical to provide information to and assist
guilty individuals who attempt to defeat a legitimate, legal, publicly accepted, ethical procedure
used by law enforcement and national security agencies?" By framing the question in these
prejudicial terms, Menges foreordains his desired conclusion(s).

It should also be noted that Menges adopts a different definition of "countermeasures" than does
AntiPolygraph.org. For Menges, "[c]ountermeasures refer to deliberate attempts by a guilty
person to preclude the accurate outcome of a testing process." By contrast, in The Lie Behind the
Lie Detector, AntiPolygraph.org defines countermeasures simply as "deliberate techniques that
may be used to 'pass' a polygraph interrogation," without regard to guilt or innocence.

In his discussion of AntiPolygraph.org, Menges states that The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
"contains advice regarding countermeasures to be employed to defeat polygraph examinations,"
insinuating that our motivation in making this information available is to assist the guilty rather
than to help the innocent to protect themselves against the random error associated with an
invalid test. Menges goes on to state that "indications are that the focus will be expanded to any
psychometric testing technique which attempts to provide insight to an employer or security
agency." Menges bases this conclusion on a message titled How to pass a Rorschach test that I
posted to the "Off-topic Posts" forum of the AntiPolygraph.org message board. Contrary to
Menges' suggestion, AntiPolygraph.org is not opposed to psychometric testing per se. But we
are opposed to pseudoscience, of which the Rorschach (ink blot) "test" is a good example (and
one that shares some features in common with polygraphy). Our focus remains polygraphy.

Menges also makes much of a 17 November 2001 report by New York Times correspondent
David Rohde titled, "In 2 Abandoned Kabul Houses, Some Hints of Al Qaeda Presence," in
which Rohde reports that documents seized in two Kabul houses formerly used by members of
Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization included Arabic language instructions on how to pass
lie detector tests. Menges wonders aloud, "What ethical justification would suffice for these
polygraph opponents, if the document found was The Lie Behind the Lie Detector or How to
Sting the Polygraph!" Menges even goes so far as to suggest that the respective authors of these
documents might be guilty of sedition or even treason, though he allows that this is a matter that
"will be left to attorneys to argue."

What Menges seemingly fails to realize is that the information on polygraphy and polygraph
countermeasures in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is information that any interested person
could have obtained by reviewing the open source literature on polygraphy, much of it published
by the polygraph community itself. By Menges' logic, the Department of Defense Polygraph
Institute, the American Polygraph Association, and various scholarly journals and publishing
houses might also be guilty of some crime.

As it turns out, the Al Qaeda document found in Kabul was probably neither The Lie Behind the
Lie Detector nor "How to Sting the Polygraph!" An Arabic-language Al-Qaeda document titled
Mawsu'at al-jihad (Encyclopedia of Jihad) includes a section on "Devices Used in Interrogation"
and is likely the document that Rohde encountered. (An English-language translation of this
passage is available on AntiPolygraph.org.)

Menges maintains that "[t]he issue of whether countermeasures are or can be effective in
defeating a polygraph examination is moot to the main point of this article." Hardly. If Menges
did not believe that countermeasures can be effective, then there would have been little point in
his having written the article. (Nor would the American Polygraph Association have had much
reason to publish such an article.) Indeed, it is hard to conceive that Menges would have gone so
far as to imply that Mr. Scalabrini and I might be guilty of sedition or treason for making such
information publicly available if he did not believe that such can be effective.

Menges shrugs off the issue of false positives and false negatives associated with polygraphy by
noting that "all forms of psychometric assessment are subject to varying false positive and false
negative rates." So what? Menges asserts that "[a]ny competent professional conducting
psychometric assessments is aware of the limitations and capablilities of the technique in use."
But the polygraph community is unable to state the sensitivity and specificity of any particular
polygraph technique for any particular application.

Discussing the ethical issue of examiner deception, Menges states, "[a]nother issue of contention
for some is their claim that the examiner is deceptive, therefore, the examinee is ethically
justified in employing countermeasures to defeat the examination." (Again, Menges wrongly
implies that polygraph opponents advocate the circumvention of polygraph "tests" by the guilty,
a recurring theme in his article.) But Menges fails to confront the fact that even without the use
of card tricks during the "pre-test" phase, polygraphy remains fundamentally dependent on
deception, as explained in detail in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. It is not hard to
understand why polygraph advocates would be inclined to sweep the issue of polygrapher
deception under the rug, but it is a key concern that must be candidly considered in any
meaningful discussion of the ethics of providing polygraph countermeasure information to the
public.

While Menges makes other arguments that may be worthy of commentary, I will conclude this
response with an examination of the most alarming portion of his article, that is, his suggestions
regarding how polygraph examiners should confront the public availability of countermeasure
information. After citing several examples from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case law
where certain information about polygraphy was deemed exempt from disclosure, Menges
argues:

In spite of the FOIA exemption to preclude release of such information from government offices, there is no legal
statute precluding individuals from selling and or freely providing polygraph countermeasures information, as do
Williams (2000) and Maschke & Scalabrini (2000), respectively. Arguments and laws against allowing individuals
to provide countermeasures information with the intent of subverting long standing and appropriately promulgated
law enforcement efforts might appear to be a violation of constitutional rights. On the surface this position appears
to argue against the constitutional guarantee of free speech. In the United States we live in a society governed by
laws intended to protect the rights of individual citizens, while protecting the greater good, that of society as a whole.
The U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to contain protections for individuals and society as a whole. The
Preamble to the Constitution clearly addresses the intent to insure justice for all, promote the general welfare, and
insure domestic tranquility in the land (The Constitution, 1787). Under The Constitution, one may have a right to
freely express opinions on an issue and even work for legislation to outlaw the offensive practice. But to take actions
that subvert legitimate law enforcement practices, the result of which could threaten public safety and or national
security, violates all principles of ethics and can, in some cases, be illegal. Providing polygraph countermeasures to
guilty persons facing law enforcement or national security polygraph examinations is unethical, clearly attempts to
obstruct justice, and should be stopped.

Menges proceeds thence to suggest "alternatives" for both polygraph opponents and supporters,
concluding his article thus:

Alternatives for those opposing the use of polygraph as an investigative aid or personnel security screening tool are
obvious. Opposition can be dropped; it can continue in a form limited to all current forms of opposition, short of
advocating and providing countermeasures to prospective examinees; or it can continue in its current form, which
includes actions to help guilty persons attempt to defeat the efforts of society to maintain law and order.

For those supporting the use of polygraph, the alternatives are equally obvious. Current efforts by the anti-polygraph
movement, including the providing of countermeasures information to the general public, can be ignored; they can
be countered with efforts by examiners and professional polygraph organizations to engage the opposition in
constructive dialogue to address the issue of aiding guilty parties; or a broader based initiative can be attempted by
polygraph proponents. The latter alternative would have polygraph proponents contribute toward furthering the
science by openly engaging in legitimate discussions with those entrusted to publicly scrutinize the process such as
the National Academy of Sciences (National Academy of Sciences, 2001). Ethical principles like veracity, justice,
beneficence, and non-maleficence would be well served by mitigating or removing the threat to society posed by
providing countermeasures information to the general public and guilty parties, in particular. Additionally, all would
benefit from the increased research and experimentation certain to be generated by such discourse and scrutiny. The
desired end result would be a termination of the current attitude regarding providing countermeasures information to
the public, possibly through legislative action indended to make the providing of specific countermeasures
information illegal.

The latter alternative for the proponents would do much to further the resolution of the primary issue. Opponents
could continue to exercise their constitutional rights to criticize, debate, research, and openly oppose the use of
polygraph. Concerns for the fate of an innocent subject who fails to resolve all issues during the process is legitimate
and worthy of continued attention. Few organizations can afford to miss out on a competent employment candidate.
However, society must set the bounds of acceptable actions, whether involving national security clearance cases or
cases where an applicant will have access to unprotected young children in a day-care center. In the final analysis,
access is a privilege guarded by society, not an inalienable right.

I fully endorse Menges' suggestion that polygraph examiners and professional organizations
might engage in constructive dialogue with polygraph opponents. Toward that end, I invite Mr.
Menges and any others who may be interested in the issues he has raised to discuss them on the
AntiPolygraph.org message board, where a message thread has been started for this purpose. In
addition, AntiPolygraph.org would be happy to arrange for speakers to discuss or debate these
and other polygraph issues with polygraph advocates in other public fora (preferably in front of a
television camera and a live audience).

But it is clear that such constructive dialogue is not Menges' preferred alternative. His call for "a
broader based initiative" is a euphemism for the criminalization of public speech on the subject
of polygraph countermeasures and the banning of books such as The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
I will leave discussion of the civil liberties implications of such a proposal for another day.
Suffice it to note for now that if the polygraph community is so fearful of countermeasure
information that it would have it made a speech crime, then perhaps countermeasures are more
effective and more difficult to detect than the polygraph community has heretofore been willing
to acknowledge.

Mr. Menges, if you should succeed in criminalizing public speech regarding polygraph
countermeasures, then after you've put me in jail and seized my computer, don't forget to burn
the archival copy of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector that has been deposited with the Library of
Congress.

https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-029.shtml

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:4/7/2013
language:English
pages:14