89
FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff (www.propublica.org)
submitted 1 year ago by [B] to c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Comments

all 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 39 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I mean I don’t agree with him giving special treatment to his buddies, but why is the FBI wasting time on polygraphs, which are a totally debunked pseudoscience?

Says in the article they started using them in ‘94…in ‘98 the supreme court ruled that these ‘tests’ were inadmissible in court. Because even back then it was proven that it’s impossible to determine the truth via polygraph at a rate better than simply flipping a coin.

My only guess is they might ding you on the polygraph if they already learned something through less than legal means, but it’s preposterous to think anyone making it into the FBI would be unfamiliar with the uselessness of the test itself

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It's more about probing specifically where to look if you want to find dirty laundry when looking for security-clearance candidates. They don't assume you lied when you said you didn't do hard drugs, but your body did react to that question deliberately in a way that suggests maybe we should look into a history of drug abuse before we accept you reading about sensitive topics.

    Or sexual scandal blackmail waiting to happen is a great way to get... state secrets... in the... hands of... Oh hey, they raided Mar a Lago, lookit that...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    They don't assume you lied when you said you didn't do hard drugs, but your body did react to that question deliberately in a way that suggests maybe we should look into a history of drug abuse

    You mean subconsciously?

    Other than that, I guess I just don’t know what you mean about that, where they don’t assume you’re lying but it gives them a hint that they should go investigate it. Like, why else would they investigate it based on the reaction unless they thought the reaction meant something, you know?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Let me clarify. They do not use polygraph tests alone to determine when someone is lying. They use it to determine the priorities of how resources get devoted to uncovering what might become a security risk for any individual. This is common, good sense practice when handling classified information. It's OpSec. It should be happening to keep us safe. Even if it's, say, 80% accurate under optimal conditions, that saves time and money when devoting resources into invading the personal life of a classification candidate. It helps catch the bad candidates early, unlike what's happening here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    No I know what you mean, it just doesn’t track

    Even if it's, say, 80% accurate under optimal conditions

    Why are we using 80% as an example when it’s definitely impossible for the most skilled interpreters to beat a coin flip? Right like you see the issue? The problem isn’t that it’s sometimes unreliable the problem is that is fundamentally impossible to derive any meaningful information from it

    What you’re arguing for is similar to the thought experiment where they have an airport scanner that can tell with 99% accuracy whether someone is a terrorist (spoiler: even with this level of accuracy, the scanner cannot be relied on alone, because counterintuitively due to false positive rate, the end result ends up being that only one in a thousand positive scans is a true positive).

    But the polygraph is simply not similar to that thought experiment. It’s like “narrowing your search results to better manage your resources” based on the results of asking a magic 8 ball. Which is why it’s illegal to submit polygraph as evidence in court

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Polygraphs are useful in that you can claim the test subject is lying about anything you want. They're using it as leverage more than "fact finding."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    For cops interrogating like a random dude they suspect of a crime, have a little evidence on, mix in some questions they already know, etc. yeah I can see it. Part of the broader interrogation, maybe the machine really is just adding some pressure.

    But for a job interview at a three letter agency? I mean who isn’t aware of the truth of these machines at that level? There really isn’t any interrogative leverage if both people know it’s a carnival game, and it’s illegal to hold it as leverage against them in any further proceedings

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Good? Polygraph is actually a scam and should be waived for everyone and universally band.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Well that's ridiculous! Next you'll tell me he also waived the uniform mood ring requirement! Preposterous. Well, I guess if he asked a magic eight ball what to do about the polygraph screening, and it said not to give them to senior staff, then that's just science and we need to trust science.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Polygraphs are trash. Best to focus on the special treatment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Have all the sane people in the world forgotten that polygraphs are not lie detectors and anyone can be trained to pass them?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    It wouldn't make news, except that this crack head has been allegedly forcing polygraph testing on a ton of established agents as a 'Loyalty' test.

    https://www.firstpost.com/world/fbis-polygraph-purge-kash-patel-led-us-agency-using-lie-detector-to-test-staff-loyalty-says-report-13905286.html

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    image

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    7 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 50 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    To be fair, polygraphs are a waste of time and resources.

    There are thousands of ways these assholes are corrupt and hypocritical. This one doesn’t even register.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    You reach the right conclusion at first but then fail to realize this wasn't skipped because they thought it was bullshit – otherwise it would be waived across the board.

    Regardless of if they were accidentally correct, this has mens rea written all over it. They wish to normalize blatant corruption, and you're giving that to them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Look at Kash Patel. Just look at his face. He’s the head of the FBI. Let that sink in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    I remember when Bongino ran in Maryland's sixth and we almost elected that idiot. Maryland's sixth also previously elected Roscoe Bartlett so there's something in the water up here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Polygraphs should be banned. They're nothing but a tool of intimidation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •