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

51–60 of 153 posts

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

#51

Post by 05 »

0x53 wrote: post #49
tucnak wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunately, that doesn't really prevent companies from doing things being illegal if they turn out to be profitable enough. You could use a multispectral hidden camera and an mmwave radar fed into 'AI' to simulate a lie detector - you can definitely get pulse and breathing rate out of it, probably also perspiration..

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

#52

Post by nerdsniper »

0x53 wrote: post #49
tucnak wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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”.

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

#53

Post by themafia »

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…

> whose full-time job is to fuck with you in subtle ways.

And this is a process that you expect to produce an output with any predictive value what so ever?

> it could prove more useful than other arbitrary kind of culture fit interviews.

You could also just end up selecting for psychopaths and sociopaths for whom this test does not function, regardless of how much you "fuck with them."

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

#54

Post by moron4hire »

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…

TS is "more difficult" than S in the sense that is more difficult to win a lottery jackpot than the smaller prizes. It's not "more difficult" in the sense that there are higher expectations or you're held to a higher standard. If you fail a TS clearance investigation, you won't be able to have any position of public trust at all, even if it's just being in HR and processing government employees' health insurance elections.

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

#55

Post by andy99 »

general1465 wrote: post #41
tucnak wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes I’m also curious. From what I know polygraphs and similar interrogation are for assessing whether there is anything that could be used to blackmail or compromise you. Whether one agrees with the method, the goal seems logical for intelligence orgs. For companies, industrial espionage would be the obvious parallel. I don’t know how polygraphs would relate to culture fit though… watching to see if candidates perspire and their heart beats faster when asked if they have grit and value diversity :)

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

#56

Post by themafia »

itronitron wrote: post #47
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.

The FBI and CIA have polygraphs.

The FBI and CIA still have moles and they often times operate out of the highest levels.

They're like door locks. They keep honest people honest. They provide zero security.

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

#58

Post by KaiserPro »

gishh wrote: post #14
bediger4000 wrote: post #2

the FBI’s employment eligibility guidelines say all employees must obtain a “Top Secret” clearance in order to work at the agency following a background check. The furor here is about Dan Bongino, and Nicole Rucker, Kash Patel's assitant The article goes on to say that FBI employees at the level Bongino and Rucker are working at have "SCI" clearance on top of Top Secret. Back in the 1990s, it was exceptionally diffic…

> 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.

According to this: https://news.clearancejobs.com/2022/08/16/how-many-people-ha...

The number of poepl that hold top secret clearance (assuming its the same thing...) is 1.3mil

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

#60

Post by jandrewrogers »

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…

There has always been a contingent of people that do sensitive work for the government because they have important expertise but are either "unclearable" or unwilling to go through the formal clearance process. Limited affordances are sometimes made in these cases at the discretion of senior officials with that authority. For the government it is a practical risk/benefit calculus and they still have the ability to do a substantial background check on their own without a formal process.

While it would never be allowed for the average Federal employee it does exist outside of purely political positions.

Post reply on HN