Hacker News Reader

Comment by alsetmusic | Hacker News Reader

Polygraph is inadmissible in court. It’s used for interrogation as a prop.

The US Federal government still uses polygraph in the security clearance process today. In 2013, they indicted several people for teaching others how to beat the test. Here’s the DOJ press release (prepare to lose brain cells):

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/owner-polygraph-indicted-alle...

Clearly our government and legal system think highly enough of the technique to include it in interview processes. The NSA even has an entire production video rebuking the criticisms of polygraph. It’s not just a tool (in the eyes of the government) used to trick dumb criminals into spilling the beans.

Not a justification and only pure speculation but what if there's another reason? You can't think that the NSA and CIA are stupid. They know its bunk science that has been disproven 1,000 times over. But the psychological effects of being on the machine are very, very measurable.

Perhaps its being used as a tool to evaluate a person in other ways. For example, you're generally not arrested for admitting to crimes like smoking weed or stealing candy bars from a gas station. But admitting to crimes, or morality divergence (such as adultery), can mean with enough effort a smart intelligence organization could manipulate you.

> You can't think that the NSA and CIA are stupid

Au contraire

You’d be surprised what you can’t get a man of Yale to believe when honor is on the line.

They're not stupid but they have to maintain the shroud of "this works", both internally and externally, lest the word get out that "the intelligence community doesn't even believe in their own polygraphs"

They don’t have to maintain anything. Admit it was a stupid practice and stop doing it. Maintaining appearances makes them look dumb AND stubborn AND unwilling to admit prior mistakes. Yeah, sign me up.

Interview process and courts are different though. If it is used as a vetting tool it would not be a big deal if it scores a false positive if it at the same time is able to identify at least some positives. If you have enough candidates certain accuracy may be worth it.

So Ouija boards, astrological sign analysis, and a random number generator should be on the table too right? After all, if it identifies at least some true positives...

Talking about the interview process...I know you are talking about suspect police interviews, but job interviews is another space where crackpot pseudo-science and shit propietary tech such as IA pre-screening have a prominent say as well, for the worse

What does “this works” mean? You’re assuming it means to detect lies. Perhaps that’s not the value it brings.

The reason they're doing it is because it's national security and espionage. It's objectively better to deny 1,000 solid applicants because of something on a polygraph doesn't look right than to allow in one foreign agent, at least that's the idea. So they add this filter, it will filter out some good people but maybe it'll filter out a bad one or two. That one or two makes it worth it in their eyes.

It has nothing to do with "maintaining the shroud of 'this works'" because it does work for the purpose they have. It doesn't need to be 100% accurate or admissible in court.

As demonstrated in Oppenheimer, security clearance processing is not one where the US Government must obey any court or evidence rules. They can deny secret access for any reason at all.

Did that case against polygraph.com ever go to trial? Sounds like a slam-dunk free speech case, but I imagine the DOJ was willing to settle for anything to avoid that being fought in open court.

It did, the defendant was sentenced to two years. https://www.lawfirmofoklahoma.com/blog/polygraph-com-owner-s...

One of the major reasons I would never work in defense. If I have to prove my worthiness to a clearance system that’s not far off from witchcraft and magic spirits, yeah, I’m gonna pass. Good luck finding intelligent people to work that kind of job.

Agreed. Don’t mind them talking to my former neighbors or doing forensic accounting on my bank accounts to make sure I’m not a foreign adversary. Definitely do mind being strapped to polygraph and being forced to pretend that it’s not a complete waste of time for everyone involved. They’re filtering far more smart people than they’re filtering dummies who don’t know the device is just a prop. Can’t make stupidity a part of the hiring process when you’re offering government salary bands.

I managed a group of very intelligent programmers with the highest clearance available, including taking polygraphs regularly.

They know it's just part of the system, and the routine.

These folks have a slightly different mindset, and, I think, view procedures as important to weed out people who might cut corners, lean into their ego (how dare they make ME take a polygraph), or be careless with information. A nice side effect of this process is it selects for humility, openness, and conscientiousness.

And they view the work they do as hugely important for the security of their nation. Including those who laugh at them for their chosen profession.

They were some of the most professional, conscientious, diligent, and excellent technologists I've ever worked with. Definitely on par with anyone at FAANGs or startups that I've work in.

>A nice side effect of this process is it selects for humility, openness, and conscientiousness.

Or perhaps it selects for submissive, controllable automata that will go along with anything, with no limit on absurdity. Your rationalization of this stupidity is embarrassing.

You're entitled to that opinion, and I don't think it's a great system, but I think it's not the lunacy you're implying. Military life, for example, involves a lot of bullshit routines, which have ancillary benefits of creating discipline and coherent mindset. I don't mind disagreeing about how good or bad this is.

But I do want to dispell the idea that people are less intelligent, less capable, or somehow mindless just because they disagree with you about this (Or OP), and choose to be part of it.

Being skilled != being intelligent

Not sure what you're implying or responding to, but that _is_ why I listed capable and intelligent separately.

I don’t believe that’s an accurate representation of the situation on either side

I'm sure they were technically brilliant, but it really sounds like it was weeding out people who would not be compliant. It's a small jump from that to realise it's most likely weeding out people who have 'egos' that might make them object to morally dubious orders. Arbitrary requirements (like polygraphs which are literally bunk) are the most classic way to select for compliant people.

to sibling:

> They were some of the most professional, conscientious, diligent, and excellent technologists I've ever worked with. Definitely on par with anyone at FAANGs or startups that I've work in.

such a shame they choose the most absolute evil actor to use those qualities for. which brings me to

> conscientious

yeah.... I think its pretty much impossible not to know what evil lives openly in those places

There are plenty of cleared jobs that don’t do polygraphs. I work for a DOE contractor. Q-cleared, no poly. The vast majority of positions where I am don’t have a polygraph associated with them.

The vast majority of defense work does not require a polygraph. It's really only a requirement for certain SCI/SAPs which are programs that have their own additional security requirements on top of Top Secret.

They don't use readings from the polygraph. It's more like a prop they use to try to get to your honest/embarrassing truth.

You can get false confessions on a polygraph interview but you can also get them in a normal police interview eg with the Reid Technique.

This is not true. It's a requirement in many states' probations that probationers undergo regular polygraphy. If they fail the polygraph enough times, they get kicked out of state-mandated therapy and are violated.

Thousands of people are in prison right now over failed polygraphs.

In places with strong courts that won't put up with this, probation officers simply tell the therapist to write up the probationer for some other, vague non-compliance issue should they fail enough polygraphs

Reminds me of the old urban legend about using a photocopier as a polygraph:

https://youtu.be/rN7pkFNEg5c?t=95

Reply on news.ycombinator.com