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

41–50 of 153 posts

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

#41

Post by general1465 »

tucnak wrote: post #38
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.

This is not accurate. Polygraphs are not detecting lies, they're used to assess your sensitivities; there are really talented interrogators in counterintelligence, whose full-time job is to fuck with you in subtle ways. To poly a person at will is very much a power move, and some guys fucking love it. But that's a different story all together. Most of the time it's a formality like everything else. In reality, people…

> private companies should poly people more often in hiring, it could prove more useful than other arbitrary kind of culture fit interviews.

Useful in what sense? That you can't figure out anyway what tested person is capable of because tested person can believe that they have skills on godlike senior level, but they are junior at best?

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

#43

Post by andy_ppp »

estearum wrote: post #25
Ms-J wrote: post #12

Polygraphs must not be used as they are completely unreliable and subject to many issues. The government does a lot of security theater and campaigns to make you believe that they are competent.

No, polygraphs are bad lie detectors/truth detectors. They are perfectly fine as detectors of areas of interest for investigators to probe deeper.

Yes or to pressure you into confessing, honestly good interrogators can do this without the machinery.

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

#44

Post by msandford »

majormajor wrote: post #24
jghn wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it bother me? Yes. But the real solution is to not have polygraphs at all, not to get upset that a few people didn't get them.

Let's ignore that they're crap. Person A believes they work. Person A says "we shouldn't use this on Persons B, C, D". Pretty major implications about the integrity and suitability of Persons B, C, and D, and about how Person A suspects they have stuff to hide. (In some ways this is a good reason to keep them around. Even if some people know they're crap, the existence and popular mythology causes people to reveal mo…

I think that's one very reasonable interpretation. The other is "I really want these people w to come work here and they don't want to do the polygraph because it's a huge pain so I as the manager I'm going to waive it to reduce their objections to being hired".

That's something that companies do all the time, they pay people "out of band" or give them extra benefits or accelerate their vacation accrual or vesting, or one of hundreds of other things.

I agree it looks bad for sure but it isn't necessarily sinister.

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

#45

Post by general1465 »

gadsnprch wrote: post #42
jghn wrote: post #3

It'd matter more if polygraphs weren't completely bogus pseudoscience in the first place

Many say the same about remote viewing but results matter.

If remote viewing would be a thing, spy networks would not be necessary and encryption would not matter.

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

#46

Post by bigyabai »

YZF wrote: post #28
Ms-J wrote: post #12

Polygraphs must not be used as they are completely unreliable and subject to many issues. The government does a lot of security theater and campaigns to make you believe that they are competent.

It's interesting to note that the scandal going on in Israel wrt/ the chief prosecutor of the IDF leaking a prisoner abuse video was uncovered in a polygraph test. "A routine Shin Bet polygraph test of a senior officer close to Military Advocate General reportedly exposed new clues about video leak, prompting Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara to order a full criminal investigation" https://www.ynetnews.com/article/…

That's a very peculiar non-sequitur to pick.

Plus, finding "clues" could mean anything, including false leads. If the Shin Bet is resorting to interviews under duress, they really must not have much physical evidence to work with.

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

#47

Post by itronitron »

Ms-J wrote: post #12

Polygraphs must not be used as they are completely unreliable and subject to many issues. The government does a lot of security theater and campaigns to make you believe that they are competent.

The main point of the screening is to have a highly structured question and answer session that is recorded for posterity, and which can/will be referenced at the next screening 'n' number of years later.

One could even argue that the polygraph benefits the person being screened, as it provides some additional motivation for them to take it seriously.

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

#48

Post by crystal_revenge »

bediger4000 wrote: post #18
gishh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Back in the 1990s, it was exceptionally difficult to get TS clearance. SCI on top of that must have been even harder. Not really. I know a litany of people who had TS/SCI clearances in the 90s. It was literally a job requirement for entire divisions of the US govt.

Even for the 15 page "short form", required to get a "Secret" clearance, you had to list everywhere you'd lived for the past N years, N >= 10 as I recall and give a non-family person who could testify you lived there. You had to list all the organizations you belonged to. Some fed contacted every single reference I gave, my old scoutmaster, and the minister of the church I was a janitor for during college. Top Secret…

> required to get a "Secret" clearance, you had to list everywhere you'd lived for the past N years, N >= 10 as I recall and give a non-family person who could testify you lived there. You had to list all the organizations you belonged to.

As a former federal government employee, all of this is also required as part of the standard background check. People will show up in a black sedan and interview your neighbors, all you past employers and people who knew you at each residence. This happened for me and I’ve never had any real security clearance (nor required it).

Just because it’s work doesn’t mean it’s rare. My father and most of his coworkers all had TS clearance in the 90s. It required flying out to Dallas (if I recall correctly) for the polygraph. Lots of work but very common.

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

#49

Post by 0x53 »

tucnak wrote: post #38
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.

This is not accurate. Polygraphs are not detecting lies, they're used to assess your sensitivities; there are really talented interrogators in counterintelligence, whose full-time job is to fuck with you in subtle ways. To poly a person at will is very much a power move, and some guys fucking love it. But that's a different story all together. Most of the time it's a formality like everything else. In reality, people…

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

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

#50

Post by estearum »

andy_ppp wrote: post #43
estearum wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, polygraphs are bad lie detectors/truth detectors. They are perfectly fine as detectors of areas of interest for investigators to probe deeper.

Yes or to pressure you into confessing, honestly good interrogators can do this without the machinery.

Good carpenters can build stuff without nail guns, doesn’t mean it makes sense to use hammers.
Post reply on HN