Americans’ Personal Data Shared with CIA, IRS, Others in Security Probe | Hacker News Reader

Americans’ Personal Data Shared with CIA, IRS, Others in Security Probe

mcclatchydc.com

125 pointswikiburner53 comments

What's really sad about this is that all of these federal agencies, the journalists reporting on them, and the public at large, continue to take it as a given that the polygraph is a useful and reliable tool that does what it says on the tin. Yet there remains precious little credible science to support that.

It's downright absurd that people are having their info passed around these agencies, and being treated as inherently suspect, simply for investigating methods of 'fooling' what is ultimately a glorified stage prop.

There doesn't need to be science to support it -- its effectiveness at eliciting confessions is evidence enough.

The name 'lie detector' is horseshit but it's still useful.

"What's really sad about this..."

What's really sad is that a lot of people, either through job/economic pressures or lack of self respect take lie detector tests at all - regardless of effectiveness.

The poor effectiveness and/or technical problems with the test are not the issue. We as humans - as peers - should demand to not suffer the indignity of a "truth test".

Isn't this a fundamental piece of the US court system? You take the stand and swear to tell the truth.

If there were no consequences of lying in court then we'd have much bigger problems with the justice system than we do now.

>Isn't this a fundamental piece of the US court system? You take the stand and swear to tell the truth.

That's totally different than a polygraph test.

I guess I was interpreting: We as humans - as peers - should demand to not suffer the indignity of a "truth test", to mean any type of "truth test", and not just a polygraph.

The "lie detector" test that the CIA has is far more capable than the 50 year old tech you see in the movies.

Care to back that statement up with any facts, sources or references? Please don't perpetuate a pseudo-science.

In Valery Plame's book Fair Game she talks about how the machines that they use during polygraphs are more accurate. The question of whether or not humanity has access to that technology can be answered here:

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/08/more_brain_sc...

http://www.economist.com/node/21534748

http://www.economist.com/node/21534780

Federal officials gathered the information from the customer records of two men who were under criminal investigation for purportedly teaching people how to pass lie detector tests. The officials then distributed a list of 4,904 people – along with many of their Social Security numbers, addresses and professions – to nearly 30 federal agencies

So, what does this mean? They got a list of 5000 people that bought a book [edit: or in touch with the author]. And put them all on a "blacklist"? ... For "future reference"?

If you bought the book and decided to apply for a job in or related to the federal government that required a security clearance, this would be a huge red flag. IMO this is a non-story, since the purpose seems exclusively to potentially screen out people who cannot be trusted with the sensitive information that gets handled by people with security clearances (which includes social security numbers), which the federal government has every reason to be wary of.

If anyone questions the data gathering of the government, sure, but this particular story is a non-story IMO.

So the dumb people who get caught looking for that information get screened out, but the smart dangerous people who happen to learn how to avoid having problems with a "lie so-called-detector" test will pass with flying colors? How does that help?

It addresses the low hanging fruit - say they didn't do this in general, and someone doing their research on bypassing any security red flags applies & gets a job in say the State Department. That person now is in a powerful position to sabotage the government. Now what if such a person was turned by a foreign government or terrorist group beforehand? This person now has the ability to wreck havoc due to insufficient screening, and the government gets criticized for not doing enough to protect national security.

You can't stop every problem, but you can minimize it as much as possible.

This is why you need layers of security. If passing a "lie detector" test gives you unfettered access to information that could potentially sabotage the government (to the point where foreign terrorists or governments would be interested in such information), then the system that secures said information needs to be changed. When you build a web application the cardinal rule is never trust the client, which should be the default assumption here, irrespective of the results of some pop-science "examination."

It's not as simple as in software development - trust has to be given that people are acting in the best interests of the country, and people have to have access to sensitive information in the government.

The only way you can secure against this is to control who you hire, and control as much as possible what they can do. To that end, sharing of this data is perfectly reasonable, as long as safeguards are in place for who uses the data, which is almost always there from my experience.

The fact that the list exists got out, so there are clearly not enough safeguards. Honest question coming. Do you subscribe to the "I have nothing to hide" notion?

I happen to have nothing to hide, and am not someone too concerned about others using data about me, but I also possess a security clearance & am a Marine reservist, so as someone involved with national security to a minor degree (I'm just a junior infantry rifleman in the Corps) & living in DC, I have some familiarity with the policies set on sensitive information & some insight into why things are done a particular way in the federal government. Civilian career-wise, I don't work for the government in any capacity & wouldn't want to (I'm a mid/senior web developer).

Can we all pitch in and buy this guy a certain book on eBay?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

Buying a book is now a big red flag?

So to be truly safe I guess the government should know all the books we each buy and those we borrow from a library. They should also track what everyone reads online.

I seem to remember that the Patriot Act allows the government to ask libraries for patrons' records and forbids the library from disclosing that it happened. Librarians and civil rights activists made a big stink about it at the time, but I guess people have forgotten about it by now and it has become the "new normal". Shortly after 9/11, the NY Public Library implemented their own photo ID cards that you were required to show before they'd bring you any reference material (this is for material that can only be used in the library, not checked out, so there's no real reason why they'd need to track who is looking at it).

And it would be very easy for the government to find out all the books I ever bought from Amazon and everything I read online. I wonder sometimes whether Amazon has some kind of PRISM-like arrangement with the NSA.

The contents of said book is a red flag if you want a security clearance - it says you are willing to cheat to get a job doing governmental work.

> willing to cheat

Defeating a voodoo ritual is cheating? Isn't it more like protecting yourself from false accusations?

Regardless of your irrelevant implicit commentary on lie detectors, my point still stands. Nobody is forcing you to do a polygraph test when you're applying for a security clearance - that choice is yours alone to make.

So only people willing to subject themselves to a goon who could, at random, accuse them of lying with no basis in fact should get security clearances?

it says you are willing to cheat to get a job doing governmental work.

No, it doesn't. That's the point.

When you start assuming that mere interest in a subject or an attempt to research it necessarily implies any particular moral position on that subject or future action, you're walking a very dark path.

I have read about, and in some cases seen videos of, things that I find horrifying. That doesn't mean I condone the actions involved, and it certainly doesn't mean I have any desire to emulate them.

What next, I'm obviously interested in cracking secure networks because I studied mathematics and understand how a bunch of exploits work? I'm a potential terrorist because I studied chemistry and know many ways to make something go bang? I'm a Nazi sympathizer because I have studied European history and seen some video footage of horrible things?

The logical conclusion if we follow your line of reasoning isn't even thoughtcrime, it's penalising people on the mere suspicion of thoughtcrime, and that suspicion doesn't even need to have any rational or objective justification. You might as well throw any pretence of justice out the window by then. And the danger of that is very much greater than the danger of a few curious people reading a book about something that might or might not work anyway.

See how you got down voted? Groups are afraid of dissent.

Alternatively: people upvote and downvote based on how valuable, accurate, or well thought out a comment is.

You jumped to the conclusion that simply due to the fact that somebody read this book that they are not to be trusted with sensitive information. I would be curious to read the book, just because I am interested in the subject, not because I am inherently untrustworthy. Intellectual curiosity should never be stifled like this. Not to mention the fact that "lie detector" test results are not even admissible in court due to their dubious conclusions, so their effectiveness as a scientific instrument is fundamentally flawed. This is essentially thought-crime, which I thought did not exist in the US, but it sure seems like it does now.

"You have access to all of this data – all of their financial records, all of their telephone records, all of their transactions . . . ," Customs official John Schwartz said in a June speech to police polygraphers that McClatchy attended. "Then we can look at that list and determine for ourselves if we are good or not good at detecting these countermeasures."

The countermeasures in question concerned beating a lie detector test. It's a very short step to the countermeasures being any civil protests.

"Federal officials gathered the information from the customer records of two men who were under criminal investigation for purportedly teaching people how to pass lie detector tests."

What? How is that illegal?

"Obstruction of justice". Yeah...

When you use voodoo in attempting to get justice, calling it voodoo is an obstruction of justice. QED.

It's not voodoo, please stop spreading FUD. The name -- lie detector -- is complete horseshit because it doesn't detect lies, but that doesn't detract from its effectiveness as a low-level torture device.

The physiological measurements may be inadmissible to the courts, but if you happen to confess to a crime during the (thoroughly unpleasant) interrogation then that is perfectly admissible. This key point here is why LEOs are so adamant about subjecting their prisoners to polygraph examinations.

Over 95% of Federal court cases end as a result of a plea bargain, despite the plea bargain being offered under threat of lifetime imprisonment and death.

Isn't calling voodoo voodoo the opposite of "spreading FUD?"

I think you can use voodoo in two ways: "Impossibly arcane but near-magical technology" or "total crap."

Letting the public know that the machines do not work as described should have the effect of reducing the machines effectiveness as torture devices.

The public should not fear the machines, and the public, knowing that the machines cannot be used to make them seem innocent, should never consent to being hooked up to one.

I don't really have any knowledge about this, but the discussions around the Aaron Swartz case had the consensus that this is because of the asymmetry or resources: Federal government with unlimited resources, vs. defendant with little to no resources, in a fight for multiple years.

"There have been no abuses, as a result of mass surveillance", said Obama.

"If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance."

I think you're on the wrong site. That lie was for the greater good, so it's ok.

Depends on the definition of the person's idea of greater good.

By HN standards, obamacare is definitely the greater good.

Really? Did I miss that memo? Because my family got fcked over by Obamacare and will be paying 2x premiums next year for a lower quality plan. That's the good, right?

"If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance."

And.. I got a letter from my insurance company saying they are no longer able to offer my plan. The same plan I was on from the same company on the exchange is $200/mo more expensive.

Lies are Lies. But I guess I can keep my plan after being kicked off it and then forced to pay extra? Oh you Silly politicians, I see what you did there!

I've heard they were under scrutiny because they were looking into a book of which the exact title is: The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, by Emmanuel Goldstein. That's not goodthink.

What you mean about polygraphs is not the important thing here. It is the idea that if you have read or written something the government does not like, you end up on a blacklist that bans you from many jobs. This is totalitarian ideology regardless of how democratic the US is otherwise. I find it quite scary, especially given that the authorities also have the means to more or less keep a complete list of what you read, at least if you read it or ordered it through the internet if they so desire.

Wow. Obstruction? Because book? I would be really curious to see the warrant application for the customer records of the book's authors. Was there really legitimate need for that, or did the prosecutor just say "terrorist" and that was that? I am really struggling to come up with reasons to remain in this country.

EDIT: Removing some of the emotion.

They didn't bother linking to it, but the same news outlet gave more information back in August [1] naming Doug Williams as the other person instructing how to pass polygraphs. Another article released by a local news outlet two days later [2] stated that he was sought for questioning but not charged with any crime.

As for the other guy, he wasn't convicted of writing a book on fooling the polygraph. According to the prosecuting attorney [3], he was travelling around the US giving one-on-one advice to clients who wanted to pass the polygraph for $1-2k plus travel expenses each, receiving specific details about each case, instructed them to lie and provided instruction on exactly how to conceal those details. I think in this case the feds definitely have reasonable suspicion to believe that his clients are guilty of perjury or falsifying testimony in order to gain employment with the federal government, and they had enough evidence to show that he knowingly aided them. I'm not surprised at all that they took his business records for further scrutiny.

[1] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/16/199590/seeing-threats-...

[2] http://www.news9.com/story/23178002/authorities-investigate-...

[3] http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/pr/2013/oigpr_090613.pdf

Kill it with FIRE.

http://thefire.org/ ? Aren't they a little more "education" oriented?

It's a start.

EVERYTHING starts with education.

Education is the most important thing the human race needs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com