Why should it be illegal to show how to beat the polygraph test

  • Thread starter nsaspook
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Test
In summary: No, Aldrich Ames was a Soviet spy who passed information to the Soviets. This man is being charged with fraud and conspiracy, not passing a lie detector.
  • #1
nsaspook
Science Advisor
1,334
3,402
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2014_1113_dougwilliamsindictment.pdf

Mr. Williams is being charged with fraud for showing a machine and technique for being a fraud. Mr Williams is not being deceptive during a test, the person being 'tested' might be but that's the problem of the agency giving the test not actually conducting a real review of a persons activities and depending on the threat of some bogus test to make people disclose information. What the government wants to protect IMO is not the results of testing that are easily manipulated but the implied threat of taking a 'Poly' as a tool to induce voluntary disclosures of matters from most people that are not really criminal but embarrassing and could be used to coerce in some manner should they get out of line.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Maintain one's Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights at all costs. Do not speak to law enforcement except under arrest and then only on advice of counsel.
 
  • #3
Lie detectors are almost entirely bunk. There's a reason most nations in the world don't use them in law enforcement.
 
  • #4
I don't have a problem with fooling some dumb criminal with a flashing light that you call a 'lie detector' but using it as a condition of employment or as a detector of insider threats should have stopped long ago.


 
Last edited:
  • #6
russ_watters said:
No, what it says is that he's being charged with "devising a scheme to commit fraud", which sound the same as a conspiracy charge. Helping to plan a crime is a crime, even if you don't participate in the intended crime and I think even if the crime doesn't end up taking place.
Yes, and not just to commit fraud, but to defraud the US government. If you read the specifics, what they are upset about is not the lie detector, per se, but the specific fact of coaching people how to to lie to obtain government jobs they don't qualify for. Example:

16. On or about September 25, 2012, a special agent in CBP's Office of Internal Affairs ("CBP IA") placed a telephone call to WILLIAMS at the telephone number listed on WILLIAMS' website, which connected to WILLIAMS' personal cellular telephone, and spoke with WILLIAMS. The agent told WILLIAMS that he (the agent) was in the hiring process with DRS but had intentionally omitted information on employment application and background investigation forms. In response, WILLIAMS told the agent that he (the agent) was wise to omit information from the forms that would disqualify him (the agent) from employment by DRS. WILLIAMS told the agent that he (the agent) could tell DRS whatever he (the agent) wanted to tell DRS if the agent followed the training that he received training from WILLIAMS.


 
  • #7
nsaspook said:
I don't have a problem with fooling some dumb criminal with a flashing light that you call a 'lie detector' but ...
I pray that it is used against you someday. I retired in 1995 never having had to face one.
 
  • #8
Doug Huffman said:
I pray that it is used against you someday. I retired in 1995 never having had to face one.

It's perfectly legal for law enforcement to lie to you or trick you into answering questions if you don't invoke your rights.
 
  • #9
russ_watters said:
No, what it says is that he's being charged with "devising a scheme to commit fraud", which sound the same as a conspiracy charge. Helping to plan a crime is a crime, even if you don't participate in the intended crime and I think even if the crime doesn't end up taking place.

This is what the DOJ released about the nature of his charges.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/owner...g-customers-lir-during-federally-administered
Douglas Williams, 69, of Norman, Oklahoma, was charged in a five-count indictment in the Western District of Oklahoma with mail fraud and obstruction. According to allegations in the indictment, Williams, the owner and operator of “Polygraph.com,” marketed his training services to people appearing for polygraph examinations before federal law enforcement agencies, federal intelligence agencies, and state and local law enforcement agencies, as well as people required to take polygraph examinations under the terms of their parole or probation.

The good thing about this is the government admits that:
(1) polygraph countermeasures work, (2) they has no effective means of detecting them, (3) the polygraph is a fraud.
 
  • #10
And if his method had not worked all of those people could have sued him for fraud. <(@^@)>

Was Aldrich Ames the guy who passed a lot of CIA lie detector tests?
 
  • #11
If these charges go through, your country is in even sadder shape than the rest of us suspect.
 
  • #12
edward said:
And if his method had not worked all of those people could have sued him for fraud. <(@^@)>

Was Aldrich Ames the guy who passed a lot of CIA lie detector tests?
He passed at least two tests while on the soviet payroll. Soviet spy John A. Walker also passed and failed tests when he testified for the government.
The prosecution said it would prefer to exclude all lie-detector evidence, arguing in a separate motion Wednesday that such evidence is unreliable and would leave jurors ''diverted, confused and pre-empted from their function as the judges of credibility.''
http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1986/P...ctor-Test/id-a4f333b64aac389fa50755eeeabb0122
 
  • #13
nsaspook said:
This is what the DOJ released about the nature of his charges.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/owner...g-customers-lir-during-federally-administered
You should read the actual indictment you posted in the OP. The law is titled "Mail Fraud and Other Fraud Offenses", which includes both sides of the coin, not just the execution of the fraud. Devising the fraudulent scheme, not executing it, is the actual charge.

Also, the relevant part of the law is a single, excruciating, run-on sentence (f'n lawyers...):
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.[emphasis added]
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1341

Actually, the way it reads, the execution is really secondary to irrelevant. There's no distinction made in the punishment for whether you execute it or only devise it and plan to execute it (unlike, say, with murder).

The obstruction of justice charge is of course more self explanatory, but again you should read the indictment for more specifics: the method or type of obstruction of justice is witness tampering.
 
  • #14
russ_watters said:
You should read the actual indictment you posted in the OP. The law is titled "Mail Fraud and Other Fraud Offenses", which includes both sides of the coin, not just the execution of the fraud. Devising the fraudulent scheme, not executing it, is the actual charge.

I think the point is there is no real fraudulent scheme devised or executed IRT to the polygraph test as a scientifically valid method for the detection of deception. The reverse is actually true, his 'scheme' exposes a fraud that has cost the tax payers untold millions, gives a completely false sense of security and is about as effective as Divination using chicken bones for the truth in employment or investigations. If the government used psychics and a person instructed people that they were frauds, you could lie to them and not be detected by constricting your anal sphincter muscle (now they have a pad that detects that during a test but there are other simple methods), charging you with devising a fraudulent scheme is Orwellian.
http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx [Broken]

I did read it and said in the OP that he devised the "scheme" and taught it to 'others' to actually use it.
'Mr Williams is not being deceptive during a test, the person being 'tested' might be"

https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-arraignment.pdf
He walked out the door with a OR bond.

Mr Williams and others have been teaching this and other anti-poly 'schemes' for ages.
Al-Qaeda Lie detector: al-qaeda-lie-detection
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
nsaspook said:
I did read it and said in the OP that he devised the "scheme" and taught it to 'others' to actually use it.
'Mr Williams is not being deceptive during a test, the person being 'tested' might be"
But:

The agent told WILLIAMS that he (the agent) was in the hiring process with DRS but had intentionally omitted information on employment application and background investigation forms. In response, WILLIAMS told the agent that he (the agent) was wise to omit information from the forms that would disqualify him (the agent) from employment by DRS. WILLIAMStold the agent that he (the agent) could tell DRS whatever he (the agent) wanted to tell DRS if the agent followed the training that he received training from WILLIAMS.

Which shows that Williams intended to profit by teaching the applicants to be deceptive to the US government in general so they could get jobs they are not qualified for. The fact the polygraph is an unreliable way to screen someone for deception is immaterial. The intent to profit by defrauding the government is what matters here.
 
  • #16
zoobyshoe said:
But:
Which shows that Williams intended to profit by teaching the applicants to be deceptive to the US government in general so they could get jobs they are not qualified for. The fact the polygraph is an unreliable way to screen someone for deception is immaterial. The intent to profit by defrauding the government is what matters here.

Please, don't be naive. These charges are directed at people who show the polygraph is a fraud and/or teach countermeasures. If it was just for coaching people to get government jobs they are not qualified for I could do a quick search of the internet and find companies who coach people in methods to get jobs they might have a problem getting and bust most of them for giving similar advice or selling products using these techniques and charges.
How to pass a drug test for weed

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2014...-countermeasures-can-be-routinely-identified/
Popularly known as Operation LieBusters, the investigation combined novel and precedent-setting legal strategies, lengthy and technical undercover operations, voluminous and complicated analytical methodologies, complex investigative procedures, esoteric technical knowledge of polygraph countermeasures and physiology, and extremely effective interview and elicitation skills to ensure confirmatory confessions.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...tests-should-be-criminally-investigated.shtml
In his speech to the American Association of Police Polygraphists, Schwartz said he thought that those who “protest the loudest and the longest” against polygraph testing “are the ones that I believe we need to focus our attention on.”
 
Last edited:
  • #17
I had to undergo one of these "tests" many years ago as a condition of employment with a private company. It was extremely unpleasant. I had the sense that the examiner was trying to trick me at every turn. Evidently I passed (I was allowed to keep my crummy job), but it did not enhance my opinion of my employer or the polygraph folks.
 
  • #18
nsaspook said:
I think the point is there is no real fraudulent scheme devised or executed IRT to the polygraph test as a scientifically valid method for the detection of deception.
He taught people to defeat it for the purpose of committing fraud. That's a fraudulent scheme. I see this as pretty open-and-shut.
The reverse is actually true, his 'scheme' exposes a fraud...
C'mon. That's like robbing a bank to prove it isn't secure.
'Mr Williams is not being deceptive during a test, the person being 'tested' might be"
It doesn't matter. It's like driving the getaway car and trying to argue your way out of a bank robbery charge. He helped set up the fraud, even if he's not the one who actually executed it.
. If it was just for coaching people to get government jobs they are not qualified for I could do a quick search of the internet and find companies who coach people in methods to get jobs they might have a problem getting and bust most of them for giving similar advice or selling products using these techniques and charges.
You're really manipulating reality here. Teaching someone how to interview better and teaching someone how to lie effectively are nowhere close to the same thing.

We get it -- you don't like polygraphs. But don't let your bias cloud your judgement. This is a simple/straightforward case.
 
  • #19
russ_watters said:
He taught people to defeat it for the purpose of committing fraud. That's a fraudulent scheme. I see this as pretty open-and-shut.

C'mon. That's like robbing a bank to prove it isn't secure.

Comparing deception countermeasures as akin to teaching bank robbery is silly.

First, is simply teaching how to defeat a polygraph or how to lie convincingly illegal? No and nobody has ever been convicted of this or most law schools would be prisons. ;)

If the agents were actual people who used or were suspected of using countermeasures independent of him would they have been charged with a crime of fraud if discovered? No, to the best of my knowledge.

I've looked and can't find one case of it happening but there are many cases of people suspected of using countermeasures not getting jobs.

So his fraud is getting paid for something that's not illegal for him to do and is not charged as fraud for those who are suspected of doing it on their own.

http://cironline.org/reports/doubts-about-polygraphs-don%E2%80%99t-stop-federal-agencies-using-them-4326
Eric Trevino, however, is not willing to accept that Customs and Border Protection considers him dishonest. Trevino, 37, of Harlingen, Texas, is one of three applicants who told the Center for Investigative Reporting that they had wrongly failed the polygraph.

Seeking a job as a customs officer, Trevino failed the polygraph exam in June 2010 and was barred from retaking the exam for three years. He hopes to take the exam again this summer as a Border Patrol applicant, which has a higher age limit for new employees.

Born and raised in the Rio Grande Valley, Trevino grew up traveling into Mexico to eat and go shopping with his family. He said his dream job is to be a customs officer. He said he has an uncle who is an agent with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection recently hired his brother.

When asked if he had ties to foreign nationals or drug traffickers and whether he ever went to terrorist training, Trevino answered no. But the examiner said he was less than truthful and had erratic breathing, a possible countermeasure to defeat the test, according to Trevino.

“It seemed more like an interrogation. I’ve never been arrested. I’ve got two speeding tickets in my life. I don’t smoke or drink,” Trevino said. “The frustration is when I know I’m not lying about it, but the machine says I am, especially terrorist training and loyalties to America. It’s like, give me a break.”
 
  • #20
nsaspook said:
Please, don't be naive. These charges are directed at people who show the polygraph is a fraud and/or teach countermeasures.
I think you're being naive. Williams isn't some neutral party conducting studies in an academic setting that prove, to the government's chagrin, the polygraph is ineffective. He's actively offering lessons for money in how to obviate the government's hiring process. There's a difference between a mercenary and a public watch dog.
If it was just for coaching people to get government jobs they are not qualified for I could do a quick search of the internet and find companies who coach people in methods to get jobs they might have a problem getting and bust most of them for giving similar advice or selling products using these techniques and charges.
How to pass a drug test for weed
A quick look at the first page revealed completely free advice. The advice at the first link was 'don't smoke pot for at least three weeks before the test,' which means the advice was to pass the test by not having any pot in your system. In other words: pass the test by actually passing the test. Heh. It says all other methods are fraught with hard to control complications and danger of discovery. I paid nothing to read that. If there are people who charge for info on how to pass a weed test specifically with respect to getting government jobs, it seems to me they could face the same charge as Williams.

From what I've read, the outcome of the polygraph is directed by the operator. There have been studies that show that, If the operator thinks the testee is lying, he unconsciously manipulates the test to reflect that. It's extremely sad anyone would use them in light of those and other studies debunking them, but Williams is not out to debunk them to kill their use. He's exploiting the fact they aren't reliable for personal profit. He's not out there alerting the public that innocent people have been denied jobs they should have gotten.

It would be a whole different situation if the government were going after an academic who released a study debunking polygraphs.
 
  • #21
zoobyshoe said:
From what I've read, the outcome of the polygraph is directed by the operator. There have been studies that show that, If the operator thinks the testee is lying, he unconsciously manipulates the test to reflect that. It's extremely sad anyone would use them in light of those and other studies debunking them, but Williams is not out to debunk them to kill their use. He's exploiting the fact they aren't reliable for personal profit. He's not out there alerting the public that innocent people have been denied jobs they should have gotten.

Actually he is out there alerting the public that innocent people have been denied jobs they should have gotten. A simple search would reveal he's been doing this for decades and has appeared on countless programs like the one linked to here (60 min 1:15 into the video).
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...-beat-the-polygraph-test.782832/#post-4917462

So the fact he profits from revealing something is a fraud (not detecting deception) is bad? The incentive of personal profit for revealing fraud, waste and abuse in government has official protection in law. The problem is the 'law' is the one backing the fraud, waste and abuse in the case of using polygraphs.
http://employment-law.freeadvice.com/employment-law/employment-law/1553/
 
  • #22
nsaspook said:
Comparing deception countermeasures as akin to teaching bank robbery is silly.
You're getting close to the misinformation line here. The people doing the lying (his clients) are the ones deceiving. He's teaching deception techniques, not deception countermeasures techniques.
First, is simply teaching how to defeat a polygraph or how to lie convincingly illegal? No and nobody has ever been convicted of this...
He's not the first to be prosecuted, and since this man was convicted and jailed for it, the question has a definitive answer of yes.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/09/polygraph_countermeasures_man_jailed/

(Caveat: he pled guilty so the conviction happened without the judgement of a jury/judge, however the judge did weigh-in and say that the charges were proper.)
...or most law schools would be prisons.
Grammar fail aside, are you claiming law schools teach polygraph sabbotage? Could you provide a source for that?
Actually, he is out there alerting the public that innocent people have been denied jobs they should have gotten. A simple search would reveal he's been doing this for decades and has appeared on countless programs...
That's fine. Not illegal, not what he was charged for and therefore not relevant to the thread.
So the fact that he profits from revelaing something is a fraud...
Again, you are getting close to the misinformation line there. Every part of that sentence is wrong. He was not charged for going on 60 minutes and the polygraph itself isn't fraudulent.
So the fact that he profits from revelaing something is a fraud (not detecting deception) is bad?
Wrong claim about the polygraph itself being fraudulent is addressed above. But no, I would say it is not bad to profit from revealing that the polygraph is unreliable. But that has nothing to do with what this thread is about.
 
  • #23
nsaspook said:
Actually he is out there alerting the public that innocent people have been denied jobs they should have gotten. A simple search would reveal he's been doing this for decades and has appeared on countless programs like the one linked to here (60 min 1:15 into the video).
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...-beat-the-polygraph-test.782832/#post-4917462
Clearly I made the error of not watching the second video when you posted it. It demonstrates that he has, in fact, taken on the role of watchdog and may not be the mercenary I thought.

Could you link to two more such videos for me? Evidence that he is concerned about innocent people wrongly failing the polygraph would certainly change my opinion of his intentions.
 

1. Why is it important to make it illegal to show how to beat the polygraph test?

There are several reasons why it is important to make it illegal to show how to beat the polygraph test. First and foremost, the polygraph test is a commonly used tool in criminal investigations and its accuracy is crucial in determining the guilt or innocence of a suspect. Allowing individuals to learn how to beat the test would undermine its validity and potentially lead to false accusations and wrongful convictions. Additionally, making it illegal to show how to beat the polygraph test helps to maintain the integrity and credibility of the criminal justice system.

2. What is the potential harm in teaching others how to beat the polygraph test?

The potential harm in teaching others how to beat the polygraph test is that it could compromise the effectiveness of the test in detecting deception. The polygraph relies on physiological responses such as changes in heart rate and blood pressure to determine truthfulness. If individuals are able to manipulate these responses, the test loses its reliability and can no longer accurately detect deception. This could have serious consequences in criminal investigations and jeopardize the outcome of cases.

3. How would making it illegal to show how to beat the polygraph test benefit society?

Making it illegal to show how to beat the polygraph test would benefit society by preserving the integrity of the criminal justice system. It would help to ensure that the polygraph test remains a reliable tool for detecting deception and upholds the principle of fairness in criminal investigations. It also serves as a deterrent for individuals who may attempt to cheat the test and promotes ethical behavior among those involved in the legal system.

4. What are the ethical implications of showing others how to beat the polygraph test?

Showcasing how to beat the polygraph test raises ethical concerns as it involves teaching individuals to deceive and manipulate the truth. This goes against the principles of honesty and integrity and undermines the trust in the legal system. It also puts innocent individuals at risk of being falsely accused and convicted, which can have detrimental effects on their lives and reputations.

5. How can the government enforce laws against showing how to beat the polygraph test?

The government can enforce laws against showing how to beat the polygraph test through various means such as imposing penalties and punishments for those found guilty of sharing this information. They can also work with law enforcement agencies to monitor and regulate the dissemination of this knowledge. Additionally, the government can invest in research and development to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of the polygraph test, making it more difficult to cheat.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
3
Replies
90
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Back
Top