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

FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 153 posts

Re: FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

#131

Post by sigwinch »

refurb wrote: post #130
sigwinch wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DHS and Musk’s people confirmed it. See Reuters back in May 21.

From Teuters: "officials quickly launched an investigation to find out who was leaking to the press" Leading is a bit different than "loyalty tests" isn't it?

The story is about “new applicants” and positions with no access to classified material. It is not illegal to share unclassified material, which is why DHS was having NDAs passed around.

> DHS said it was "unapologetic" about its drive to root out leakers. "We are agnostic about your standing, tenure, political appointment, or status as a career civil servant - we will track down leakers and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law,” a DHS spokesperson told Reuters.

Maybe that’s true? I think HN was ok with this because it felt like a rational reaction to bringing guys like Big Balls into the SCIF.

Re: FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

#132

Post by jandrewrogers »

moron4hire wrote: post #116
jandrewrogers wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some clearable people simple don’t want to bother with the process, understandably. This discretion exists in part to allow the government to make a risk/benefit judgment for people they deem critical in these cases. Big companies make these kinds of exceptions for important hires all the time. This is no different.

Bull. Ducking. Shit.

You may not like it but that’s how it works and why. It has been this way as long as I can remember. Same deal when they need to read in someone who is “unclearable”. The process doesn’t exist for its own sake.

The other reality is that no one needs to fill out an SF-86 to enable them to do a thorough background check.

Re: FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

#133

Post by tomhow »

expedition32 wrote: post #57

[flagged]

Please stop posting flamewar-style comments on HN. It's not what HN is for and it destroys what it is for. Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them if you want to participate here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

#134

Post by giles_corey »

sillystuff wrote: post #98
puppycodes wrote: post #26

The only way polygraphs work is by convincing people its an actual lie detection machine. Cops leveredge this belief and tell you that you "failed miserably" so you ultimately confess because "your caught". They are about as accurate as flipping a coin.

> They are about as accurate as flipping a coin. They are actually worse than a coin toss. The TV news show, "60 Minutes" tested several companies that provided polygraph testing services. The show claimed some one stole some equipment. For each testing service the show said they suspected a different employee. In every case, the polygraph operator claimed they detected deception in the person they had been told by t…

That CBS 60 Minutes exposé aired 40 years ago, yet it remains relevant today. It may be viewed in its entirety here:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2007/01/30/cbs-60-minutes-exp...

Re: FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

#135

Post by giles_corey »

nerdsniper wrote: post #52
0x53 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thankfully, it is illegal for private companies to do that.

Unless you work in a pharmacy. Or you’re a ‘mall-cop’. Or literally any employee anywhere who is suspected of fraud or embezzlement or any “incident that resulted in a specific economic loss to the employer”.

You are correct. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, which otherwise prohibits the use of putative lie detectors by employees, provides exemptions for such cases.

Re: FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

#136

Post by giles_corey »

bragr wrote: post #33
tru3_power wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dang so this is much more comprehensive than a normal polygraph. I know the write up says it would be almost impossible to beat, but is that true?

Well the FBI prosecuted a guy who provided training on how to beat it.

Indeed, the FBI participated in the criminal investigation of the late Doug Williams, who offered training on how to pass or beat a polygraph "test." Because there was no actual crime for which to prosecute him, federal agents set out to stage one in a "sting" operation they dubbed "Operation Lie Busters":

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2016/04/26/operation-lie-bust...

Re: FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

#137

Post by refurb »

sigwinch wrote: post #131
refurb wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Teuters: "officials quickly launched an investigation to find out who was leaking to the press" Leading is a bit different than "loyalty tests" isn't it?

The story is about “new applicants” and positions with no access to classified material. It is not illegal to share unclassified material, which is why DHS was having NDAs passed around. > DHS said it was "unapologetic" about its drive to root out leakers. "We are agnostic about your standing, tenure, political appointment, or status as a career civil servant - we will track down leakers and prosecute them to the ful…

It’s not illegal for me to share non-confidential data of my employer either, but if you were hiring, would you want to understand an applicants attitudes towards such leaks especially after having issues with it in the past?

I would.

Re: FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

#138

Post by KaiserPro »

bell-cot wrote: post #113
KaiserPro wrote: post #59

Yes polygraphs are bollocks, but, rules are rules. The issue is, if exceptions are made, what's stopping other breaking the rules? I don't care if he's a dem, rep or maga, rules are rules.

> Yes polygraphs are bollocks, but, rules are rules. > The issue is, if exceptions are made, ... Except that "exceptions are made" can also be a stage of phasing out useless or counter-productive rules - as social acceptance grows that Astrology, Polygraphs, and Tarot have no place in security screening.

Procedure has to evolve, but the point I was trying to get across is that making arbitrary changes to let powerful people do what ever they want is bad.

If the rules are bad, then work with the whole team to change them. Don't just ad-hoc fiddle, that makes procedural debt.

Re: FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

#139

Post by bell-cot »

KaiserPro wrote: post #138
bell-cot wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes polygraphs are bollocks, but, rules are rules. > The issue is, if exceptions are made, ... Except that "exceptions are made" can also be a stage of phasing out useless or counter-productive rules - as social acceptance grows that Astrology, Polygraphs, and Tarot have no place in security screening.

Procedure has to evolve, but the point I was trying to get across is that making arbitrary changes to let powerful people do what ever they want is bad. If the rules are bad, then work with the whole team to change them. Don't just ad-hoc fiddle, that makes procedural debt.

Yes - in a high-functioning, professional outfit that'd be quite true. Vs. this item is about a huge US Gov't security organization. Try searching on a few phrases like "FBI incompetence scandal". Or similar for "CIA", or "NSA", or ...

The best that we can realistically hope for is that they'll muddle toward being better, as older managers retire and the org's social consensus drifts away from "Competence Theater is good enough", "CYA is SOP", and "Phrenology works".

Re: FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

#140

Post by sigwinch »

refurb wrote: post #137
sigwinch wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The story is about “new applicants” and positions with no access to classified material. It is not illegal to share unclassified material, which is why DHS was having NDAs passed around. > DHS said it was "unapologetic" about its drive to root out leakers. "We are agnostic about your standing, tenure, political appointment, or status as a career civil servant - we will track down leakers and prosecute them to the ful…

It’s not illegal for me to share non-confidential data of my employer either, but if you were hiring, would you want to understand an applicants attitudes towards such leaks especially after having issues with it in the past? I would.

So it’s not involved in a criminal investigation. Then it’s a loyalty test. Specifically, it reassures them you can keep a secret.
Post reply on HN