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

151–160 of 201 posts

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#151

Post by tdfx »

throwawy123 wrote: post #127
Causality1 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, you can be prosecuted for things you admit during a polygraph interview. You can also be prosecuted for lying, since the polygraph examiners are federal investigators.

> You can also be prosecuted for lying, since the polygraph examiners are federal investigators.

That part is not true. Polygraph examiners are not sworn federal law enforcement officers. But they are happy to refer any of your admissions of guilt to federal law enforcement who may come ask you the same questions. Lying to them is a criminal offense.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#152

Post by everdrive »

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #73
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…

Forgive me for asking if you are uncomfortable saying, but were they correct about your drug use? I'm coming very close to being 100% eligible for my security clearness but some of those questions would be tricky for me right now. I've often wondered if I could round 8 years up to 10 to pass a polygraph.

Just don't be inconsistent.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#153

Post by JackFr »

aksss wrote: post #134
JackFr wrote: post #58

I passed my NSA polygraph, though it was uncomfortable. However my psych interviewer was able to get disqualifying info out of me using just technique. It was only years later while reading a book about the Shin Bet (Israeli military intelligence), I recognized the way I was manipulated. No hard feelings, after all I was telling the truth, and I probably would have hated the job anyway.

Oh come on! You're going to drop a book reference but not cite the book?? That's just cruel.

Every Spy a Prince

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#154

Post by tdfx »

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #73
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…

Forgive me for asking if you are uncomfortable saying, but were they correct about your drug use? I'm coming very close to being 100% eligible for my security clearness but some of those questions would be tricky for me right now. I've often wondered if I could round 8 years up to 10 to pass a polygraph.

Depends on the position. For defense and intelligence agencies, they want to see that there's nothing "recent" (past few years) or "chronic" (borderline or outright addictive behavior). If you smoked pot or did cocaine 8 years ago very infrequently you should have no issues.

HOWEVER: law enforcement agencies are quite a different story and tend to be much stricter in their requirements. Some, like the FBI, have public drug qualifier policies you will need to meet [1] and there is no wiggle room (1 day short of 10 years and you're 100% ineligible). Some agencies do not publish this policy (i.e. Secret Service) and you have to guess whether you're eligible.

The most important thing to remember is that whatever you admit on these forms will be on record for review by any agency for the rest of your life. DO NOT try to give extract or estimated numbers of usage on your SF-86 unless they are exceedingly low numbers. You can be honest with your background investigator during the followup but there's no reason to commit those things to writing on a form that's likely to be easily accessible later on.

[1] https://www.fbijobs.gov/working-at-fbi/eligibility

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#155

Post by everdrive »

xorcist wrote: post #84

How is this not a joke? I get the comments that it's an "enhanced interrogation technique", but it sounds like it requires the subjects to be at least a bit intimidated by it. If someone pointed a dowsing stick at you, you wouldn't be the slightest bit intimidated by it, no matter how mean looking it was. What kind of strange culture lets a prop straight out of a 50s sci-fi flick instill respect in people? And how th…

Well, if losing the dousing stick test ends your career and sends you through months of more investigation, which may or may not include interrogation, you might take the dousing stick test more seriously.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#156

Post by throwawy123 »

tdfx wrote: post #151
throwawy123 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you can be prosecuted for things you admit during a polygraph interview. You can also be prosecuted for lying, since the polygraph examiners are federal investigators.

> You can also be prosecuted for lying, since the polygraph examiners are federal investigators. That part is not true. Polygraph examiners are not sworn federal law enforcement officers. But they are happy to refer any of your admissions of guilt to federal law enforcement who may come ask you the same questions. Lying to them is a criminal offense.

Certainly not joe shmoe polygraph examiners, but I was under the impression that the NSA examiners are sworn federal law enforcement officers.

Now that I say that, though, I can't find a reference to support this.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#157

Post by throwawy123 »

bradknowles wrote: post #138
mipmap04 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do threaten legal action if you lie about something on your SF-86.

Lying about something on your federal forms would make you vulnerable to blackmail, so that would definitely be something that the investigators would try to turn up. In my case, I was extremely open and honest with the main investigator that I was interviewed by, including the things I did during college with recreational pharmaceuticals. I told all my friends to just "tell the truth" about what they saw happen. I t…

Since Chinese hackers stole a huge cache of SF-86s, this is somewhat ironic.

If you omitted something incriminating from your SF-86, you are, perhaps, safer from blackmail.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#158

Post by Kemschumam »

zacharycohn wrote: post #101
hutzlibu wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possible, but how can you know for sure, if you were not there?

The parent poster is correct. This is a standard practice for polygraph interviews. The pick one question, more or less at random, and double/triple/quadruple down on it until you break. Or don't. I got "have you ever committed a crime" (and after a actually pretty cool conversation about filesharing vs recording songs off the radio with a tape recorder, I passed). A friend of mine got "have you ever had sex with ani…

One of the nsa's biggest breaches was perpetrated by a guy who admitted to bestiality during his polygraph.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#159

Post by geomark »

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…

Very similar to my experience, but different 3-letter agency. Two rounds. Lots of questions about drug use. I wasn't shy about it because I had had legal run-ins over it when I was young so I knew it was already out there. But examiner claimed that I was being evasive. My employer really wanted me cleared so I was coached a bit, told that unless I admit to being a spy it almost doesn't matter what I admit I have done, as long as I am truthful. I was invited back for a second polygraph. Lots more questions about drugs, some really bizarre things I had never heard of. I thought WTF, and just "admitted" to most everything the examiner asked me. He still said I was being evasive. I thought, this is stupid, it doesn't work at all, he's just guessing.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#160

Post by naiaokami »

I was polygraphed back in 2015. They polygraphed me three times, and then said that I failed the question regarding unauthorized foreign contacts. It was a very bizarre experience. They would often repeat stuff like "Don't try to make anything happen or stop anything from happening. Got it!?" during the questioning. I remember having to sit perfectly still, with a pad under my bottom as well as under my feet.

Amusingly, before polygraphing me I was asked if I had "read anything online" about the process, to which I shrugged and said "Hasn't everybody?" The entire process is ridiculous.

Post reply on HN