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

61–70 of 196 posts

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

#61

Post by roel_v »

AdmiralGinge wrote: post #39
LatteLazy wrote: post #4

Ah yes, polygraphs, long proven nonsense and not used in virtually any other western country. I wonder how he beat that?

Aren't they essentially just glorified galvanometers like the Scientology e-meter?

Yes, and I built a very simple one in law school, to illustrate the concept (well to be honest I was an engineer who went to law school as a hobby, and then I took every excuse I could find to build technology things as a hobby within a hobby). Anyway it was just a multimeter, some washers soldered to copper wire and some tape to keep the washers in their place on the subject's hands. When people didn't try to game it, it actually sort of worked, although I have no proof of statistical significance; I just had a feeling of 'better than random'. (our experiments were more focused on how to ask questions to elicit the highest response, as questioning with a polygraph requires some skill at asking questions that are leading or not, and in just the right ways).

Conclusion is still that it's nowhere near reliable enough to be used for anything, but the principle that people show physiological responses when answering truthfully or not about things is sort of true (I don't think that was ever under debate, still was a fun experiment).

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

#62

Post by mc32 »

pc86 wrote: post #54
mc32 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is confusion/conflation with defendants offering to take a polygraph to prove innocence. Sometimes it’s a naive offer sometimes it’s someone who wants to “show proof” they “didn’t do it”.

Which is part of why they're inadmissible regardless of who wants to use them.

Sure but it’s usually a PR stunt by the defense “see my client is willing (therefore innocent as no liar would take the test the CIA uses to expose moles)”

“We took a privately administered test by a certified polygraph administrator and my client passed with flying colors!!!”

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

#63

Post by petre »

formerly_proven wrote: post #36
petre wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they would just break your fingers or until you admitted to basically anything just to make them stop. They didin't need a polygraph for that, just a hammer, a drawer or a door.

The Panetta review (CIA-internal) and the SSCI torture report (one of those "S"'s are for United States Senate) concluded that torture is largely inefficient at extracting information from extremists. You can torture someone for years on end with them still keeping the things you ask from you. Someone who doesn't know anything, will tell you anything, while someone with deep faith will feed you shit.

It's true, however that didn't matter much in the USSR. What mattered is that somebody got punished, paperwork was taken care of and the agents were doing their jobs. All of this is nicely illustrated in the Citizen X movie, although in a different context.

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

#64

Post by quickthrowman »

GavinMcG wrote: post #49
dagenleg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a scene from The Wire. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgrO_rAaiq0

The story was around before The Wire.

Yes, in David Simon’s book Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets, as well as the David Simon series Homicide: Life on the Street.

David Simon also created The Wire.

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

#65

Post by hashedwater »

bluntfang wrote: post #38
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. It's just an interrogation technique but you need one less body on the payroll because you don't need a "good cop". Pretty much every manipulation technique used in negotiation, sales and interrogation is useless if the person it's being applied to realizes it. Polygraphs are about the lowest quality because the machine is right f-ing there for the world to see whereas with other techniques there's at least…

>Pretty much every manipulation technique used in negotiation, sales and interrogation is useless if the person it's being applied to realizes it. That is just wholly incorrect. The whole point of marketing is that it works even if you know it's happening to you. Anchoring, a common sales tactic, works even if you know they're doing it to you. You can absolutely respond to it with your own tactics if you know about i…

>You can absolutely respond to it with your own tactics if you know about it, but it still effects you.

Of which ways that it effects a person have you learned?

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

#66

Post by roenxi »

bluntfang wrote: post #31
moomin wrote: post #29

It's a bit of a joke, really. I doubt there's anyone reading this on here who didn't already know polygraphs don't work. The only people who don't seem to know polygraphs don't work are the ones making national security decisions relating to polygraphs.

let's get real, polygraphs are a ruse in order to humiliate people and see how they react in torture situations. Using them is a power play. It lets the victim know who the boss is.

I'm not sure how stupid a spy would have to be for "are you a spy? Be honest!" questions to work. But if I were running an organisation I suppose I'd have people ask anyway because it'll catch some idiot sooner or later.

Polygraphs as a power play - well, I'm sure it happens but that probably isn't the reason it is in the room. Maybe the polygraph is a ruse to make people think FBI questioners are stupider than they really are? I can see value in having a distraction from the actual questions.

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

#67

Post by giles_corey »

ed_elliott_asc wrote: post #50
LatteLazy wrote: post #4

Ah yes, polygraphs, long proven nonsense and not used in virtually any other western country. I wonder how he beat that?

There was a tv show in the uk where they used them to prove/disprove infidelity - I think it caused people to actually break up.

On the Jeremy Kyle show, the lie detector drove one guest to suicide (which led to the show's cancellation):

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/22/jeremy-kyle-gues...

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

#68

Post by LatteLazy »

rndgermandude wrote: post #59
LatteLazy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Partly its that. Partly its about tricking juries, "He failed/refused the polygraph" is a very nice way to discredit someone. At least 5 of the 12 people there will find that concerning and not know its BS.

I thought polygraphs are prohibited in courts in most jurisdictions?

It's used in criminal courts 19 states and at the federal level by the disgression of the judge. Plus it's used in a bunch of "non-court but legal process" like for people on probation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#United_States

Interestingly (last paragraph of the link above) the US has indicted people for offering to teach other how to beat the test!?

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

#69

Post by zxcvbn4038 »

LatteLazy wrote: post #44
bluntfang wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

let's get real, polygraphs are a ruse in order to humiliate people and see how they react in torture situations. Using them is a power play. It lets the victim know who the boss is.

Partly its that. Partly its about tricking juries, "He failed/refused the polygraph" is a very nice way to discredit someone. At least 5 of the 12 people there will find that concerning and not know its BS.

Any lawyers in the house? I was under the impression that (in the US) refusing to take a polygraph was not considered an admission of guilt though could be grounds for dismissal from federal employment.

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

#70

Post by tyingq »

moomin wrote: post #29

It's a bit of a joke, really. I doubt there's anyone reading this on here who didn't already know polygraphs don't work. The only people who don't seem to know polygraphs don't work are the ones making national security decisions relating to polygraphs.

The trope that they are meaningful continues on shows like "Dateline" where local cops drop "persons of interest" after "passing" one. And insinuate that someone that refuses one is guilty, etc. It's really odd to me that the general public has no idea that polygraphs are complete bullshit.
Post reply on HN