61–70 of 153 posts
you're blind if you want to pretend that this specific action is the top of a slippery slope when we're below the slope at this point, Congress isn't gong to do anything so why even act surprised. let's focus on the hypocrisy of polygraph being standard at all
The standard process starts, as it has for decades, with filling out Standard Form 86.[1] I see they only want residences for the last 10 years. It used to be "list all residences from birth".
Then, all of that gets checked.[2]
These criteria are not, apparently, applied to White House staff or Presidential appointees.
Of course things have improved. Decades ago they were trusted a lot more to the point that a lot of innocent people got prosecuted and guilty people went free based on polygraphs. These days they’re inadmissible in court, but they’re still used in the court of public opinion and in some jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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..
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.
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.
Once they are consistently broken, the rules only matter for the powerless.
There have always been stupid rules, and legitimate reasons to break them. But “I am an unqualified appointee and this unqualified person is my friend” is not a legitimate reason.
I don't know who the other two are, but Bongino was already polygraphed and cleared for the Secret Service -- there's no reason to pretend that he wasn't cleared for the job. This article reads like a political hit piece and has no real grasp of reality. It also has statements that clearly betray its author doesn't really understand how security clearances work anyway -- most clearances don't require polygraphs, those are an IC and LE thing, and any OCA can grant any waiver they choose to grant. In this particular case if the AG wanted to review this decision she could do so as his boss, but it really makes no difference.
Given that polygraphs are, again, junk science, who gives a shit.
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.
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/…
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…