
Man accused of teaching people to beat lie detector tests faces prison - oinksoft
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/indiana-man-accused-of-teaching-people-to-beat-lie-detector-tests-faces-prison-time/2013/08/31/a7cbe74a-08ea-11e3-9941-6711ed662e71_story.html
======
pg
"Whether the measures are effective is a matter of debate."

Less so after this prosecution. It would be pretty stupid for the government
to send undercover agents after him if his techniques didn't work. He'd be
_helping_ the government if he taught ineffective techniques to people to who
wanted to lie to it. So either the government is very stupid (a real
possibility, I admit) or his techniques work.

~~~
wavefunction
Shutting this guy up via prison also provides some value in maintaining the
fiction of the efficacy of polygraphs, so it may not necessarily be an
endorsement of his methods.

It is my opinion that much of modern LEO's abilities to solve crimes are based
on maintaining a facade of authority built up by the common perception of
their methods. Specifically I mean the methods of analysis like hand-writing
analysis, polygraphs, and even more "scientific" methods like finger-prints or
DNA evidence. These methods of investigation are often portrayed in popular
media as 100% effective in providing proof, however their real rates of
effectiveness are quite a bit lower.

Much of these techniques are not as effective as claimed or perceived, but are
used as a tool to bring pressure to bear on criminals to cause them to
implicate themselves indirectly or confess completely to their crimes.

Much crime is solved merely by rounding up the "likely suspects" and tricking
them into thinking that the case is already solved and the criminal just has a
chance to admit and gain some sort of ameliorative to their sentence.

~~~
sillysaurus2
_...and even more "scientific" methods like finger-prints or DNA evidence.
These methods of investigation are often portrayed in popular media as 100%
effective in providing proof, however their real rates of effectiveness are
quite a bit lower._

Is there hard data on the failure rate of fingerprint evidence? That's quite
interesting.

~~~
wavefunction
Well, that's the thing, I don't think (to my knowledge, basically) that they
even track such things. Finger-print analysis isn't even standardized,
apparently.

Brandon Mayfield is one example of a high-level failure in such analysis. He
was implicated in the Madrid bombings by a finger-print and thus faced serious
international terrorism charges despite being completely innocent.

Here's an article that touches on some of the issues, and also mentions some
of Brandon Mayfield's experience:

[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-4069140.html](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-4069140.html)

A finger-print analyst in the linked article claims 98% efficacy, though there
is no data to back up that number. With no standards and no apparent
statistics to back up their successes and failures.

------
mattjaynes
Michael Shermer of "Skeptic" magazine covered how easy lie detectors are to
game here:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLL3wtgBiFA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLL3wtgBiFA)

In the video, a former Polygraph Examiner, Doug Williams coaches him on how to
beat the test. Then they test Mr Shermer and he defeats the test easily.

Polygraphs are so prone to bad data, they should be retired ASAP. They're
slightly more effective than dowsing rods.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing)

In related news, Iraq spent $38 million on dowsing rods to "detect" bombs:
[http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-11/in-iraq-
the-...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-11/in-iraq-the-bomb-
detecting-device-that-didnt-work-except-to-make-money)

How many lives have been lost or ruined due to lack of basic understanding of
available science?

------
clicks
[http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-(Lie-
Detector)](http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-\(Lie-Detector\))

has several good tips on how to cheat polygraph tests. I actually strongly
encourage everyone to read up on polygraph tests and how to cheat them, here's
why: they've been wrong again and again, they've gotten innocent men in
trouble. There's a very real probability that the polygraph can say you're
lying even when you're not lying. To save yourself from getting caught by
these pseduo-scientific tests if ever you're in the position, prepare yourself
now, learn about the polygraph tests and how you can use them to your benefit.

~~~
DevX101
I don't know about you, but my programs never compile the first time I write
them. I wouldn't recommend anyone using these techniques on the internet
unless you can test them out on a real polygraph.

~~~
mistercow
The bad news is that replicating an actual polygraph scenario is basically
impossible. Even if you go in for a real polygraph, it won't be the same as
having something riding on it.

The good news is twofold:

1\. It's seems not to be as difficult to fool a polygraph as it is to get code
to compile.

2\. You can measure some of the factors they look at. A heart rate monitor,
for example, can aid in practicing raising your pulse.

~~~
topynate
You can replicate a real test, but it requires considerable effort:

First, you need someone capable of imitating a trained polygrapher. The
simplest option is to hire one, but from what I know of polygraphy I'm pretty
sure that a magician could do the job with a few hours study.

Second, you need an accurate simulation of real polygraphy equipment. Again,
you can just pay for a test, or you can rig something up with a galvanometer,
heart rate monitor, and spirometer.

Thirdly, as you said, you see to have "something riding on it." Hand a trusted
confidant a quarter of your monthly income and tell them to give it to a
charity antithetical to your beliefs if you fail the test.

~~~
mistercow
An interesting idea. Actually, since various sources have gotten ahold of
standard scripts, you could probably have a friend of a friend (you need
someone unfamiliar) do the administration, although that won't help with the
"trained interrogator" factor.

Amazon carries a $100 USB polygraph machine, but most of the reviews say it
gives the same readings regardless of whether you attach it to a person.
Assembling your own stuff might make more sense.

------
roryokane
Note this detail from the article:

“Teaching about the flaws of polygraph testing is not inherently illegal. […]
Dixon was charged after he helped undercover agents learn to cheat the test
after they told him specifically that they intended to lie as they applied for
federal jobs.”

So Dixon’s charge isn’t simply helping people beat a government test. It’s
aiding candidates in gaining government jobs, even though he knows that those
candidates are unqualified for those jobs (according to official measures). I
think that makes Dixon’s charging more understandable.

Now, one may disagree that the questions they ask in such tests are an
accurate way of finding good candidates. I don’t know what sorts of questions
they ask. But the government’s response is understable, because _they_ believe
that the tests really do qualify one for the job.

~~~
TruthElixirX
Is it a crime to lie on a resume then? Is it a crime for me to explain how to
lie to you on a resume?

Is it cool to throw someone in jail for explaining the best way to lie?

Every thing is a nail to you people, waiting to be solved with the hammer of
violence.

~~~
cynwoody
From reading the article, the crucial point is that Dixon's clients _told_ him
they were going to use his training to do illegal stuff. Up to that point,
Dixon's teachings were protected by the First Amendment. He should have told
them to get lost and reported them to the appropriate authorities.

E.g., it's perfectly legal to write articles and teach classes and post
YouTube videos on picking locks. Even if the knowledge you spread causes lock
makers to lose money and their employees to lose jobs. Indeed, your teachings
help society by exposing false security.

However, if someone tells you they are planning a burglary spree and tries to
engage you to give a seminar on unusual locks, then you better tell them to
take a hike, or you are prosecutable.

~~~
TruthElixirX
I am not arguing whether or not it is prosecutable, I am arguing whether or
not it is fucking stupid.

Criminalizing knowledge is bullshit. Why should the burden of ratting people
out be placed on this dude? It is such bullshit.

Should it be illegal to tell people how to make meth? What about making
alcohol? Should it have been illegal to teach people to make liquor in 1919?
What about December 31st 11:59 PM 1918?

This whole thing is fucking stupid and the feds have way more interesting
things to do than harass people for telling people how to cheat tests.

Its the same line of thought as suing gun manufacturers for murders or alcohol
companies for drunk driving. It removes responsibility from the individual.

Not to mention this was a fucking manufactured crime. Glad every serious crime
has been solved so we can bust a dude for teaching people to pass lie detector
tests, which are unscientific pieces of garbage to begin with.

~~~
cynwoody
_> Not to mention this was a fucking manufactured crime._

Absolutely.

Dixon was obviously entrapped. That is to say, the feds threw a bunch of
shills at him, who said basically, "teach me how to beat the machine so I can
do something wrong". Dixon fell for it, pleaded guilty, and now is awaiting
sentencing.

The interesting question is, what did Dixon do that caused the feds to go to
such lengths to railroad him?

~~~
pyre
"entrapment" is such a diluted phrase these days. What entrapment _really_
means is that a law enforcement officer encouraged someone to do something
that they wouldn't have done otherwise. If an undercover cop asks a drug
dealer for drugs, this is _not_ entrapment.

Entrapment would be like if an undercover officer put a gun to someone's head
and told them to steal something, then arrested them for stealing. Or if an
undercover officer became the leader of a peaceful activist movement, and then
started preaching that they should get violent; then arrested all of the
protesters that got violent.

It gets a little sticky in some cases, like the Portland bomber case. The
undercover FBI agents kept asking him if he _really_ wanted to do it. Looking
at it one way you could say that they were discouraging him from doing it. On
the other hand, he thought that they were terrorists, so even if he found
himself in over his head, he would be unlikely to feel like he could back out
at any time. Saying, "You can back out at any time," could just as easily be a
ruse to test his resolve.

------
dhx
The Anderson Report[1] into scientology stated that the E-meter[2] is used:

"...to assume, intensify and retain control over the minds and wills of
preclears. Fears of its abilities keep them in constant subjection. Its use
can be so manipulated by cunningly phrased questions that almost any desired
result can be obtained, and it is used unscrupulously to dominate students and
staff alike. All the evil features of scientology are intensified where the
E-meter is involved. When used in conjunction with hypnotic techniques, its
evil impact is greatly increased. This simple electrical device is not, of
course, the sole basis for the condemnation of scientology, but without the
E-meter scientology would be partly disarmed."

The use of psychological manipulation[3] tools works well for scientology.
Polygraphy works better because it is backed by a larger community of
supporters that are just as deceived as the subjects. Polygraphy has also
benefited from decades of use in movies--ensuring much of the world's
population now believes in the deception.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_Report](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_Report)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation)

~~~
ihsw
It should be noted that both Scientology and the variety of government
intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA, etc) have an obsession with berating
examinees accusatory and spurious questions and claims, the goal being to get
the examinees to incriminate themselves.

Famously (or infamously), a Scientologist examiner's opening question is
usually "What are your lies? Everybody has lies, tell me about yours."

------
jarrett
In general, teaching which is not intended to facilitate crime is protected
speech. (Beating a polygraph isn't inherently, a crime. It depends on the
context.) But, if you know or reasonably should know that you're aiding in the
commission of crime, then you have committed a crime. You needn't be
explicitly informed of criminal intentions by your students. Willful ignorance
will not protect you from prosecution.

So, for example, mere publication of a book on polygraph countermeasures is
probably protected speech, particularly if the information is presented as
valuable data for public debate, rather than instructions for would-be
criminals. (Don't take my word for it, and remember I said "probably.") But,
if a person coaches individuals, and a reasonable person in the same position
would suspect criminal intentions, then the coach is probably no longer
engaging in protected speech.

One wonders, then, where the line is drawn. How much does one have to know
about his students before it becomes actual knowledge of willful ignorance,
both of which can result in conviction? One can reasonably assume that at
least some percentage of all polygraph evaders do so in a context where it's
criminal. How does this affect the legality of teaching countermeasures in a
one-on-one context?

It turns out that the distinctions are subtle, and the case law complex. I
would recommend the following read if you're interested in the finer points:

[http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/facilitating.pdf](http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/facilitating.pdf)

The above article doesn't provide a clear answer about teaching polygraph
countermeasures, specifically. If anything, it shows that the outcome will
depend on a lot of particulars of the case. I don't think one can answer the
question in a general sense.

------
downandout
The government is abusing the justice system to imprison anyone that
represents even a low level threat to it. That is a hallmark of some of the
worst regimes in the history of the world. Regardless of his sentence, they
have achieved their purpose: to make sure that Americans believe, incorrectly,
that it is illegal to protect their rights when the government wants to
encroach them.

They convicted this guy largely on a technicality - that they happened to
mention that they would be using the knowledge he was teaching them illegally.
Even that is a stretch of the law. Next we'll have DEA agents walking into
7-11's buying skittles and Arizona watermelon fruit juice, saying the word
"lean" to the checkout person, then indicting the 7-11 organization for
complicity in illegal drug manufacturing if they sell the items.

------
Sukotto
What are the legalities in the US with respect to teaching people?

If I'm teaching something and a student says they intend to use what I'm
teaching to commit a crime am I _legally_ required to do anything at that
point?

Is it different if the student says they're going to use the education to
cheat a background test as opposed to some other bad activity?

Is it different if the skills are generally considered more harmful (martial
arts, lock picking) versus less harmful (bike riding, painting, gymnastics)?

~~~
tantalor
> am I legally required to do anything at that point?

No, but if you continue you become an accomplice.

------
eksith
Before people get too carried away, the reason why he's in trouble isn't that
he was teaching people to beat the lie detector.

This bit is very important: It's because he was teaching it with knowledge
that the techniques would be used for nefarious and illegal things. This is
arguably aiding criminal intent. IANAL, but that itself carries a very
different connotation with his actions. If he was objectively teaching this to
highlight the failures of the detector and showing that it can be beaten, but
not directly aiding any criminal activity, it would have been different.

The moment he knew the "clients" were engaging in or about to engage in
something illegal or legally dubious, he should have distanced himself.

And for proof, the article itself mentions that many others who do the same
thing, highlight the inadequacies and teach ways to circumvent it, have thus
far not been prosecuted.

------
jmadsen
I can't help but feel that there is something one-sided & missing from this
story.

Two questions (one being discussed already):

"pleaded guilty in December to wire fraud and obstruction of an agency
proceeding"

1) I didn't see any mention of the wire fraud charges - can anyone clarify
that part? (Over the phone or mail, but that would have to be fraud - in which
case, they are saying his technique doesn't work. Which opens a different
problem)

2) There are laws against aiding & abetting. If I teach you to crack a safe,
it's freedom of speech. If you tell me, "teach me how to crack a safe because
I'm planning to rob 1st National", I am absolutely an accomplice & will be
charged

The story tries to paint this as a man being prosecuted for teaching a
technique, but I don't see that at all.

~~~
jcromartie
It's probably just because he got paid to do it.

------
alan_cx
In a way then, why aren't lawyers under the same kind of threat? Don't they
advise people in order to avoid incriminating themselves?

------
LoganCale
This should absolutely not be illegal.

~~~
tantalor
It's not. The part that is illegal is encouraging people to lie to the
government. They're two different things.

~~~
LoganCale
Encouraging people to lie to the government shouldn't be illegal either. Lying
to the government perhaps should be (though that's debatable), but encouraging
or teaching how should not.

~~~
tantalor
Aye, and I can't find the relevant statute.

------
morgante
I'd like to be outraged, but it does seem like he deserves to serve time.

He's not being prosecuted for providing information generally on how to cheat
a polygraph. He committed a crime when he willingly and knowingly aided actual
criminals. (Ex. a federal agent with drug cartel ties.)

That's absolutely a crime. Just like it's legal to sell thallium, but it's
certainly not legal to sell it to someone who tells me they intend to kill
with it.

And it seems he didn't maintain plausible deniability.

(Bring on the downvotes.)

~~~
ihsw
> aided actual criminals

Could you be more specific in what crimes he aided in? Falsifying polygraph
test results isn't a crime, since the test results are inadmissible in court
cases.

~~~
tantalor
> Falsifying polygraph test results isn't a crime

Yes it is:
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505)

~~~
mistercow
>any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust
Civil Process Act

IANAL but that appears only to deal with the stuff dealt with here:
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1312](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1312)
. That only applies to antitrust investigations.

~~~
tantalor
I think you're right! My mistake, thank you for correcting me.

So maybe that's not relevant statute in this case? What else could
"obstruction of an agency proceeding" refer to?

------
smutticus
The emperor does NOT like being told he is naked.

------
iamhamm
I'm completely confused as to how teaching someone techniques for thwarting
lie detectors are "wire fraud and obstruction of an agency proceeding".

Obstruction of agency proceedings is (per 18 USC c 1505) "Whoever, with intent
to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with
any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust
Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place,
conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies
any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral
testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or
solicits another to do so".

I'm no lawyer, but that sounds to me like you would have to materially
intervene in the actual agency proceedings not merely arm people with
knowledge of things like breathing techniques. This strikes me as the same
nonsense that used to be used against people that taught lockpicking.

------
tantalor
He plead to 18 USC § 1505 "Obstruction of proceedings".

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505)

Seems he was party to an evading an investigation by misrepresenting
testimony. That is, knowingly helping somebody lie.

This reminds me of 18 USC § 1001, "Making false statements".

This could be used to go after other "polygraph countermeasure" purveyors. You
would have to never advise clients to lie. "Don't lie, try to evade the
question, etc."

~~~
tantalor
mistercow points out that this statute only applies to antitrust
investigations, I don't see how it could apply in this case.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6309891](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6309891)

------
teawrecks
Penn and Teller did an episode of bullshit on this. The key is to clench your
anus muscles. Immediately spikes the charts. Just keep doing that to every
question and all of their data is invalid.

~~~
mistercow
That is not quite a nuanced enough approach to be effective.

First of all, what you have to do is determine which questions are "control"
questions. These are questions where the interregator expects less than 100%
honesty, and they use responses to these questions as a comparison when asking
you the "relevant" questions. For example, they might ask "Have you ever lied
to get out of trouble?", or "Have you ever revealed a secret told to you by a
friend?" You use your false-positive triggers on these questions, exaggerating
the response the interrogator will associate with deception. [Edit: To
clarify, the point here is that you don't want to give the interrogator a high
entropy data set; that would just lead to them thinking you were lying at
random. You want their data to give a very specific indication: that you have
been truthful on all relevant questions]

Secondly, the latest edition of _The Lie Behind the Lie Detector_ [1] notes
that examiners have begun using sensors to attempt detect physical
countermeasures, such as sensors to detect changes in weight distribution. It
has not been determined if they are able to detect intentional anus
constriction, but in the interest of caution, they advise sticking to mental
countermeasures and tongue-biting, which definitely cannot be detected
(although I would expect some attempt to detect the latter in the future).

Finally, it's really important to remember that these examiners _are
interrogators_. The lie detector is a tool that they use, and in many ways it
is a misdirection. One of its key purposes is to make you feel that they have
an edge. Knowing that you can fool it is an important piece of the puzzle, but
you must always remember that their bottom line is to get you to make damaging
admissions. They are well-trained at this, and they will certainly use other
techniques besides their toys.

[1] [https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-
detector.pdf](https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf)

~~~
cdash
Those control questions don't even make sense to me because I don't see how
you would expect dishonesty in answering those questions. The answer is yes
for every human on this planet so why would I try and lie about something that
I also have in common with the person interrogating me.

~~~
mistercow
Yes, quite.

------
gojomo
As a Lie Detector Antidetection Instructor – a "Lie Instructor", essentially –
any prospective student who tells you their illegal plans is either an
undercover agent, or has so little natural talent for lying they should be
rejected from further instruction in any case.

~~~
mistercow
Could you tell people something like "If you _did_ intend to lie on the
polygraph test, you should by no means tell anyone that, including me"? Or
would that be too legally risky.

It seems like otherwise you have something of a moral quandry. The lie
detector is ineffective, so without instruction in countermeasures, a person
guilty of one thing could still end up accused of another based on their
performance. Whatever they're actually guilty of, that scenario is negative
utility for everyone.

------
jostmey
The man committed a horrible deed - he helped likely criminals escape the
reach of justice. But the terrible truth here is that interpreting the
squiggles of a lie-detector test is not science. Perhaps we as a society rely
to much on this "so called" technology.

~~~
smutticus
This man did not commit any terrible deed. Instructors teach people how to use
guns every day. Some of these people go on to kill people and commit crimes,
but no one would suggest you prosecute the firearms instructors.

All this case does is point out how stupid polygraph tests are. Nothing more.

If, as the government claims, Chad Dixon taught methods that allow subjects of
polygraphs to effectively cheat them, then polygraphs can easily be cheated.
If polygraphs can be easily cheated then why is anyone relying on polygraphs
for anything.

Polygraphs are part operational security theatre and part invasive intrusion
on someone's personal life. As this sad story proves they offer little more.

~~~
roryokane
The difference between Dixon’s case and the gun instructor case is that, to
use your analogy, the students on gun use actually told the instructor that
they planned to go out and shoot someone. That is, people told Dixon that they
were going to lie on these tests (rather than just prevent the test giving
them a false negative).

Now, getting a government job you’re unqualified for isn’t as bad as murdering
someone, but it’s still a bad thing for society. Unqualified people in
government jobs would presumably make the government run less efficiently with
respect to taxpayer money, and less effectively, which could be especially bad
if these government jobs help people.

------
moo
Teaching a gardening class, kick out the pot smoker else you may be aiding
future drug production. Easy for law enforcement to frame people and jail them
for aiding and abetting a possible future criminal. That's right, not a
current criminal, but hypothetical possible future intent by an individual.
And we can extend that to negligence. The karate instructor better kick out
the grade school student who says they want to punch the bully at school.
People have to be paranoid about who they interact with and by law we must
watch out for the governments interests, disassociate with those the State may
label criminal for some possible crime in the future.

------
powertower
> Dixon was charged after he helped undercover agents learn to cheat the test
> after they told him specifically _that they intended to lie as they applied
> for federal jobs_.

I think that might just be the reason why they are going after this guy and
not the rest.

It's one thing to talk about bank robberies, it's another thing to provide
bank-robbery consultation services to bank robbers.

------
sologoub
Does anyone know what "wire fraud" has to do with this?

That charge has been used in a number of recent "hacking" cases, where it
makes a bit more sense (though still over blown), but I can't quite figure out
what it has to do with teaching people how to remain calm while being
questioned.

~~~
reginaldjcooper
There was a wire and some fraud? Prosecutors love to throw everything at the
wall to see what sticks, it also helps them extort a plea bargain when the
choice is between argue your way out of 1000 years in prison or take 5.

------
pearjuice
Does it occur to anyone here that he is set up and put in prison to teach
someone in prison working for some shady agency how he can deal with his next
interrogation and be set free of guilt? Would be a great movie script, though.

------
D9u
I was under the impression that polygraph results were inadmissible as
evidence in court proceedings, and if so, of what importance is teaching
people how to beat "lie detector" tests?

~~~
tantalor
They are used widely in employment screenings at the NSA, CIA, etc.

~~~
girvo
That is utterly stupid...

~~~
cdash
Lie detector tests are mainly used as a prop for an interrogator to convince
you to tell them things.

~~~
girvo
Indeed. And the fact the government must "interrogate" you before they'll let
you join the FBI, NSA, etc. is mind boggling.

------
chatman
These tests should be administered on top politicians from time to time, and
only would they consider banning them.

Like, along with an oath, let a President take a lie-detector test.

~~~
alan_cx
Would you believe such a test?

~~~
devx
Probably more than I'd believe a politician directly.

------
marze
Interesting strategy, to prosecute, as the publicity will only raise awareness
of lie detector beating techniques.

Better to research new mind reading style lie detection systems.

~~~
ihsw
It serves far more than to simply raise awareness of the techniques for
beating it, namely to deter other would-be teachers.

The government's hounding of him -- like their current hounding of Edward
Snowden and their previous hounding of Aaron Schwartz -- is a naked assertion
of dominance.

------
girvo
What the actual fuck. Polygraphs are unscientific bullshit snake oil anyway
and I can't believe America still uses and believes in them.

------
victorf
The next time someone asks you why privacy matters, you can remind them that
the government is now prosecuting speech as thoughtcrime.

------
annnnd
So detector tests are basically "security by obscurity"?

------
joeldidit
This is BS.

------
avty
The end of freedom.

