Hacker News Reader

Comment by roryokane | Hacker News Reader

Note this detail from the article:

“Teaching about the flaws of polygraph testing is not inherently illegal. […] Dixon was charged after he helped undercover agents learn to cheat the test after they told him specifically that they intended to lie as they applied for federal jobs.”

So Dixon’s charge isn’t simply helping people beat a government test. It’s aiding candidates in gaining government jobs, even though he knows that those candidates are unqualified for those jobs (according to official measures). I think that makes Dixon’s charging more understandable.

Now, one may disagree that the questions they ask in such tests are an accurate way of finding good candidates. I don’t know what sorts of questions they ask. But the government’s response is understable, because they believe that the tests really do qualify one for the job.

View on HN

You're probably going to be voted down for saying that, even though you are right. It's like loaning or selling a felon a gun - if I know they are a felon, I'm breaking the law.

A bunch of sanctimonious posters on here will scream out the first amendment and the erosion of our rights but won't bother actually seeing this story for what it really is.

Polygraphs are such bullshit, that I still think this was a case of governmental insanity.

The article never actually connects the conviction with the story, so we have to speculate I suppose.

> even though he knows that those candidates are unqualified for those jobs

How would he know that? Is he familiar with the hiring criteria of every government agency?

Was it actually confirmed that he was actually told that?

Seems like a good story to justify shutting him down.

Is it a crime to lie on a resume then? Is it a crime for me to explain how to lie to you on a resume?

Is it cool to throw someone in jail for explaining the best way to lie?

Every thing is a nail to you people, waiting to be solved with the hammer of violence.

From reading the article, the crucial point is that Dixon's clients told him they were going to use his training to do illegal stuff. Up to that point, Dixon's teachings were protected by the First Amendment. He should have told them to get lost and reported them to the appropriate authorities.

E.g., it's perfectly legal to write articles and teach classes and post YouTube videos on picking locks. Even if the knowledge you spread causes lock makers to lose money and their employees to lose jobs. Indeed, your teachings help society by exposing false security.

However, if someone tells you they are planning a burglary spree and tries to engage you to give a seminar on unusual locks, then you better tell them to take a hike, or you are prosecutable.

I am not arguing whether or not it is prosecutable, I am arguing whether or not it is fucking stupid.

Criminalizing knowledge is bullshit. Why should the burden of ratting people out be placed on this dude? It is such bullshit.

Should it be illegal to tell people how to make meth? What about making alcohol? Should it have been illegal to teach people to make liquor in 1919? What about December 31st 11:59 PM 1918?

This whole thing is fucking stupid and the feds have way more interesting things to do than harass people for telling people how to cheat tests.

Its the same line of thought as suing gun manufacturers for murders or alcohol companies for drunk driving. It removes responsibility from the individual.

Not to mention this was a fucking manufactured crime. Glad every serious crime has been solved so we can bust a dude for teaching people to pass lie detector tests, which are unscientific pieces of garbage to begin with.

>Not to mention this was a fucking manufactured crime.

Absolutely.

Dixon was obviously entrapped. That is to say, the feds threw a bunch of shills at him, who said basically, "teach me how to beat the machine so I can do something wrong". Dixon fell for it, pleaded guilty, and now is awaiting sentencing.

The interesting question is, what did Dixon do that caused the feds to go to such lengths to railroad him?

"entrapment" is such a diluted phrase these days. What entrapment really means is that a law enforcement officer encouraged someone to do something that they wouldn't have done otherwise. If an undercover cop asks a drug dealer for drugs, this is not entrapment.

Entrapment would be like if an undercover officer put a gun to someone's head and told them to steal something, then arrested them for stealing. Or if an undercover officer became the leader of a peaceful activist movement, and then started preaching that they should get violent; then arrested all of the protesters that got violent.

It gets a little sticky in some cases, like the Portland bomber case. The undercover FBI agents kept asking him if he really wanted to do it. Looking at it one way you could say that they were discouraging him from doing it. On the other hand, he thought that they were terrorists, so even if he found himself in over his head, he would be unlikely to feel like he could back out at any time. Saying, "You can back out at any time," could just as easily be a ruse to test his resolve.

There is a difference between imparting knowledge and aiding the commission of a crime. Do you think the guy that plans a bank robbery, telling the grunts how to get in and get out, is guilty of a crime? Well that's just knowledge after all...

Again, the knowledge here isn't criminalized. What's criminalized is helping someone commit a crime. That makes you an accomplice. You cross that line from passing knowledge to participating and helping when you give knowledge knowing that the person intends to use it to commit a crime.

Knowledge isn't treated any differently than other kinds of help. E.g. Selling a gun isn't illegal. Selling a gun to someone who says he's going to murder his wife with it is illegal.

"Is it a crime to lie on a resume then? " Yes, in some cases, it is :) It depends on the job you are applying for, and what the lie is.

It shouldn't be a criminal offense. It should be a civil tort.

Please explain the rationale of using jail to punish someone for lying on a resume. How does that make the world a better place?

Surgeon and civil engineer come to mind as rofessions where you can be criminally incompetent.

Again, surgeons and engineers have to take certifications to prove they have the credentials they speak of.

They would have to forge documents on top of lying on their resumes.

You're really drifting from lying to fraud.

People can have certificates and be incompetent, and lie to get a job. See http://www.texasobserver.org/anatomy-tragedy/ (discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6306289) for an example of a surgeon who lied about the cause of medical complications.

Hold on though, are we talking about "should be legal" now or "is legal"? If we're talking about "should" then the answer to every question is that anything to nullify the credibility of the polygraph is good, and anything that strengthens its credibility is bad, assuming all other factors are equal.

Possibly because you can put lives at risk by lying.

Suppose I falsely claim I know CPR. My employer is now not liable if I fail to perform CPR correctly and kill somebody, since my fraud was criminal.

You don't check a resume to see if someone is able to perform a task, especially CPR. There are certifications for that.

Pretty much anything remotely safety critical these days relies on some sort of licensing, so you would have to create a fake document certifying yourself.

Your example is so fucking contrived it isn't funny.

>Please explain the rationale of using jail to punish someone for lying on a resume.

MS lobbying in WA.

It's less teaching them to lie, and more aiding them in defrauding the state. If he didn't know their purpose it wouldn't be a problem.

Is it a crime to lie on a resume then?

Yes, that's called fraud.

There's degrees of fraud. I have never met another human being who wasen't a fraud. It's how much of a fraud they are? I don't trust anyone who claims they never lie, or broke the law. Excuse the bad grammer; I'm tired.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com