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

Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

antipolygraph.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 196 posts

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#181

Post by pavelrub »

kls wrote: post #164
pavelrub wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What are the chances of an actual spy being able to beat a lie detector? I'd say not even remotely close to 100%. What is an "actual spy"? Those people are often regular employees with zero relevant training, that are simply recruited by a foreign intelligence agency via pressure, money, or manipulation, and are targeted based on their access to information. I'd say that a huge percentage of them won't be able to b…

What you are referring to are embedded assets. Embedded assets are different than trained spies in intel or counter intel. A trained spy may be a handler of assets but they generally do intel work themselves and usually have some form of cover. A trained agency spy will undoubtedly be able to beat a poly and are trained to do so, on a regular basis. While the accuracy of a poly is too low to be usable for the discern…

In everyday colloquial use, the term "spy" applies to what you are calling "embedded assets", whereas the term "trained spy" isn't used professionally at all. A "handler of assets" is a case officer. An intelligence agency employee who "does intel work" in the field might be a paramilitary officer, or some other name depending on the agency.

In the context of this thread, Alexander Yuk Chung is definitely not what you are calling "a trained spy", but an asset that was recruited by Chinese intelligence almost 20 years after joining the CIA. Like I said - there is no reason to believe that most of those would be have any sort of training relevant to passing polygraph tests.

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#182

Post by pavelrub »

jacquesm wrote: post #166
pavelrub wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What are the chances of an actual spy being able to beat a lie detector? I'd say not even remotely close to 100%. What is an "actual spy"? Those people are often regular employees with zero relevant training, that are simply recruited by a foreign intelligence agency via pressure, money, or manipulation, and are targeted based on their access to information. I'd say that a huge percentage of them won't be able to b…

I'll say it again: they don't work. You can't really use them for anything. A polygraph machine might have an application though: doorstop.

That's possible, but your previous comment is still incorrect.

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#183

Post by kls »

pavelrub wrote: post #181
kls wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are referring to are embedded assets. Embedded assets are different than trained spies in intel or counter intel. A trained spy may be a handler of assets but they generally do intel work themselves and usually have some form of cover. A trained agency spy will undoubtedly be able to beat a poly and are trained to do so, on a regular basis. While the accuracy of a poly is too low to be usable for the discern…

In everyday colloquial use, the term "spy" applies to what you are calling "embedded assets", whereas the term "trained spy" isn't used professionally at all. A "handler of assets" is a case officer. An intelligence agency employee who "does intel work" in the field might be a paramilitary officer, or some other name depending on the agency. In the context of this thread, Alexander Yuk Chung is definitely not what yo…

I work in counter-intel, I am well versed on what we actually use, assets are not "spies" and to get technical about it nobody is actually called a spy. But generally a "Spy" as is commonly depicted, denotes someone with governmental or diplomatic cover, an asset is an independent citizen that provides Intel usually a national of the country in which Intel is being gathered on, and generally has no cover. A case office is not an handler, a field officer is, a case office is an analyst. There is no such thing as a paramilitary officer, their are field officers, special agents and military liaisons. <- all of the above mentioned with the exception of analyst and assets would have formal training in evasion, which would include how to flatten a lie detector.

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#184

Post by mrandish »

Shoreleave wrote: post #117
donw wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I totally agree with you, I... have a theory. It might be psychological warfare. I would wager that a surprisingly large number of people think that polygraphs detect lies. An even larger number are probably open to the possibility. If you hook up somebody in that group to a polygraph, you probably rocket their stress levels through the ceiling, which might push them to crack. Behavior under stress is a fascina…

I thought this was quite well accepted. I can't speak to the FBI, but for CSIS, the Canadian Equivalent, the "polygraph tech" who pretends to just be working the machine, is actually a psychologist watching your responses.

> who pretends to just be working the machine, is actually a psychologist watching your responses.

Maybe that's true in Canada (don't know) but it doesn't matter because psychologists are no better at detecting lies than a typical person of similar education, intelligence and age.

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#185

Post by pavelrub »

kls wrote: post #183
pavelrub wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In everyday colloquial use, the term "spy" applies to what you are calling "embedded assets", whereas the term "trained spy" isn't used professionally at all. A "handler of assets" is a case officer. An intelligence agency employee who "does intel work" in the field might be a paramilitary officer, or some other name depending on the agency. In the context of this thread, Alexander Yuk Chung is definitely not what yo…

I work in counter-intel, I am well versed on what we actually use, assets are not "spies" and to get technical about it nobody is actually called a spy. But generally a "Spy" as is commonly depicted, denotes someone with governmental or diplomatic cover, an asset is an independent citizen that provides Intel usually a national of the country in which Intel is being gathered on, and generally has no cover. A case offi…

As I said - assets are routinely called "spies" in colloquial use and in the media, as is evident even in the story that this post links to, as well as countless other media references.

> A case office is not an handler, a field officer is, a case office is an analyst.

This is incorrect, as is evident by a basic google search. An analyst is -- surprise -- called an analyst.

> There is no such thing as a paramilitary officer, their are field officers

This is also completely incorrect. CIA SAC/SAD operatives are called paramilitary officers. The official CIA designation is Paramilitary Operations Officer.

You might have encountered different definitions in your work or private life, but they are not representative of how those terms are commonly used, both colloquially and in common professional contexts.

Beyond that - your replies add nothing to the discussion. The precise definitions and terms change from agency to agency, and from country to country, and are irrelevant to the original point being made.

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#188

Post by unishark »

RichardCA wrote: post #158
unishark wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is accuracy. In terms of being able to infer lies from skin response, this is an effect that actually exists for many people. The net scientific conclusion is that can work but poorly, not that is is complete nonsense like ESP or something. Being pseudoscience or not is not quite the same question. People claim acupuncture works for them (California is now forcing insurance to pay for it), but it is clearly…

Astrology, Tarot, and Fortune Telling are all pseudoscience, but a good practitioner is going to be very good at Cold Reading. http://skepdic.com/coldread.html It works as long as the "mark" is naive. As James Randi explained many times. Which is why intelligence communities want to suppress information about polygraphs that would make people less naive. Makes perfect sense.

Being good at cold reading does not mean you can actually predict the future, which is what they are claiming to do. But if they could do so with sufficiently high accuracy to accomplish something useful, then this would still be interesting.

And frankly I think the "pseudoscience" label for lie detectors is a stretch. It measures a genuine signal. The issue is the relation of this signal with lying. They do a lot of strategy in their question selection to try and make this relation hold. And to me (trained in actual science) it makes a decent degree of sense. If it fails to deliver due to there being way too many variables and noise, so be it. But it's not magic or something like psychics. There is legitimate research related to determining emotion with various types of sensors. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=review+wearables+emotio...

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#190

Post by jacquesm »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #180
jacquesm wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't they search for those anyway ? It is the pretext that I don't get. You can't refuse the search. So just get it over with and leave the dog out of it.

No they actually can’t in most cases. Without probable cause or permission, an officer is not allowed to execute a search. The dog is used to provide probable cause. Also, it’s the same with letting an officer into your dwelling: Without a warrant, probable cause, or permission, they cannot legally enter.

Also at the border? I thought customs had a full right to inspect whatever they want there.
Post reply on HN