Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 201 posts

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#111

Post by robbyking »

pmarreck wrote: post #93
oufoufouf wrote: post #79

The dumbest things about these polygraphs is that you're pretty much forced to lie if you want to pass. Some of the questions were vague and if you are a normal human being without a halo glowing on your head you would fail. Questions like "Do you love your parents?", "Have you ever spread gossip?", "Have you ever done anything immoral" (My interviewer specified watching pornography as something immoral). Thankfully…

> watching pornography as something immoral Well, there goes everyone.

"I disagree with the premise of the question."

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#112

Post by jrace »

mikeash wrote: post #33
goatlover wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how do we know whether a forced confession is true? False confessions do happen under other circumstances. Obviously, if the subject reveals something backed by evidence they wouldn't have known being innocent, that's one thing. But if we're using their confession as the evidence, then it's the same problem as any forced confession.

There are two different answers depending on who you ask. The more ignorant will answer: it’s obviously true because they confessed. Nobody would confess to a crime they didn’t commit. The more evil answer is: who cares? The public is reassured by a self-admitted criminal going to prison and I get re-elected.

And the real perpetrator is never caught.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#113

Post by aksss »

dheera wrote: post #106
throwawy123 wrote: post #36

I took a polygraph twice for an NSA internship (TS/CSI Clearance). It's an interesting process. In the first phase, you go over your security forms (SF-86 and related) in detail with your polygraph examiner. They ask a lot of detailed questions, sometimes including things you aren't legally required to disclose (drug use and foreign travel outside the listed time limits). In the second phase, they hook you up to the…

> questions about foreign contacts This sounds unreasonably intrusive IMO. What if you have a couple thousand acquaintances and friends around the world?

it's all about context. You're not asking for a job at the local donut shop, you're specifically getting involved in an organization that preoccupies itself with threats to the nation-state, internal and external. Kinda makes sense that they'd be intrusive. I'm not sure what the line of unreasonableness is in that context. You have no inherent "right" to work for the National Security Agency.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#114

Post by lastofus »

Causality1 wrote: post #103
throwawy123 wrote: post #36

I took a polygraph twice for an NSA internship (TS/CSI Clearance). It's an interesting process. In the first phase, you go over your security forms (SF-86 and related) in detail with your polygraph examiner. They ask a lot of detailed questions, sometimes including things you aren't legally required to disclose (drug use and foreign travel outside the listed time limits). In the second phase, they hook you up to the…

I wonder if you could get prosecuted or investigated for things you admit to during the interview. I also wonder if there's any sort of legal privacy requirement that stops the examiner or someone else with records access from spreading around information related to your examination. I'd warrant most people have gotten away with doing things that should've gotten them arrested.

Considering lie detectors are inadmissible in court, probably not. Being the cause of further investigation on the other hand...

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#115

Post by dheera »

scarejunba wrote: post #110
dheera wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> questions about foreign contacts This sounds unreasonably intrusive IMO. What if you have a couple thousand acquaintances and friends around the world?

It's the NSA, dude. They specifically want someone who'll be _their spook_. What makes you think they want Mr. Cosmopolitan who lunches with Erdogan's third cousin and breakfasts with the Pope? Nothing about it sounds unreasonably intrusive. The national security guys should be rightfully paranoid.

> What makes you think they want Mr. Cosmopolitan who lunches with Erdogan's third cousin and breakfasts with the Pope?

Maybe this person has a better understanding of what's going on around the world and how different cultures work, possibly speaks multiple languages, and it might be a good thing to welcome their knowledge instead of scaring them off?

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#116

Post by saalweachter »

taftster wrote: post #51
TomMckenny wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those who believe clinching works also believe polygraphs work (except when clinching) Remove the clinching illusion and you restore the polygraph illusion to that group.

Right. I don't honestly understand any justification for the "defenses" described (at various websites). If the polygraph just doesn't work, why attempt any "countermeasures". The whole thing is kind of funny. I think you're exactly right. The fact that the "butt pad" is there means that you have to believe that clinching would have any effect one way or the other. So the butt pad is really just part of the overage m…

Or imagine someone comes into take a polygraph and you search their shoes and find a tack. You can be pretty sure they came in expecting to tell some lies, and had a plan for "beating the machine".

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#118

Post by NullPrefix »

dheera wrote: post #115
scarejunba wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the NSA, dude. They specifically want someone who'll be _their spook_. What makes you think they want Mr. Cosmopolitan who lunches with Erdogan's third cousin and breakfasts with the Pope? Nothing about it sounds unreasonably intrusive. The national security guys should be rightfully paranoid.

> What makes you think they want Mr. Cosmopolitan who lunches with Erdogan's third cousin and breakfasts with the Pope? Maybe this person has a better understanding of what's going on around the world and how different cultures work, possibly speaks multiple languages, and it might be a good thing to welcome their knowledge instead of scaring them off?

It would be harder to persuade the same person about the evils of said cultures.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#119

Post by cblades »

dheera wrote: post #115
scarejunba wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the NSA, dude. They specifically want someone who'll be _their spook_. What makes you think they want Mr. Cosmopolitan who lunches with Erdogan's third cousin and breakfasts with the Pope? Nothing about it sounds unreasonably intrusive. The national security guys should be rightfully paranoid.

> What makes you think they want Mr. Cosmopolitan who lunches with Erdogan's third cousin and breakfasts with the Pope? Maybe this person has a better understanding of what's going on around the world and how different cultures work, possibly speaks multiple languages, and it might be a good thing to welcome their knowledge instead of scaring them off?

Which is why they are interested in the applicant lying about those contacts.

The application will provide an opportunity to disclose foreign contacts.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#120

Post by cblades »

jandrese wrote: post #44
rndgermandude wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ye, well, e.g. Ted Bundy passed a polygraph. And the Green River Killer did too. But hey, another dude, innocent of course, did not pass the lie detector when they were looking for the Green River Killer. Oops

I've heard that they're not very useful with true sociopaths because they require you to be uncomfortable with lying.

Even then, unless they are coupled with a comprehensive psychological evaluation that could identify sociopathy, they could not be considered a useful tool (generously assuming that they have any truth-discerning usefulness to begin with).
Post reply on HN