
My NSA polygraph experiences - peter123
https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1231592631
======
tokenadult
Polygraph results have been inadmissible in state court cases in my state for
a long time, because of a late professor of psychology who did much research
on polygraphs and debunked them.

<http://www.salon.com/april97/news/news2970410.html>

<http://www.psych.umn.edu/people/faculty/lykken.htm>

<http://www.spitting-image.net/archives/005794.html>

The worst risk in federal government use of polygraphs is believing their
results, whether it's a result that clears the person who took the polygraph
examination or one that implicates the person who took the polygraph
examination. Pseudoscience is not a fact-finding tool.

------
shimon
Every time I read one of these accounts, or watch a police interrogation on
TV, part of me feels a bit curious. How I would perform in that sort of
situation? We (i.e., even hackers) have ways of testing our intelligence and
athletic stamina, but what about various forms of psychological fortitude?

It sounds odd, but maybe a mutual interrogation club could be a rewarding way
to try this out. Like, person A tells you a secret and then locks you in a
room with person B, who knows part but not all of the story and must try to
extract an additional detail from you. One either side of the interrogation,
you could learn a lot about high-stress psychological situations, and their
impact on you and other people.

~~~
dvdrw
_but what about various forms of psychological fortitude?_

Gahhh, there's so much misinformation here. Most people have this idea of what
a poly is thanks to TV and movies.

All I'm going to say is that polys are not fun for people who are insecure,
have emotional/anxiety issues, or go in with the mindset that they have to
"beat the test" or "outsmart the examiner". It's not a measure of
psychological fortitude at all, and anyone who views the test as such will be
extremely stressed out by it all.

The only legitimate reasons polys are stressful is because they waste half
your day, coop you up in a room and tell you to stay as still as possible for
most of the 4 hours. That's not really anybody's idea of fun. For the majority
of people who don't let all the silly worries get to their head, you go in,
chill out, tell the truth, and leave.

~~~
shimon
I'm not interested in "learning how to beat the test". I'm interested in
understanding the experience of an interrogation, from both the perspective of
the interrogator and the person being questioned. And I'm wondering if a form
of role play would be a feasible way of exploring that experience, without
going to the trouble or risk of committing a crime or becoming a police
detective.

There are clearly lots of aspects of interrogation that are difficult in
uninteresting ways, like sitting still for many hours. But the reason TV/movie
interrogations are so intriguing to watch (and, I imagine, to act) is that
they represent an unusual and intense interaction between people. People who
are trying to manipulate each other in real time in pursuit of some valuable
information, and willing to break a lot of normal social boundaries in that
pursuit.

 _That_ certainly sounds like it entails some interesting psychological
challenges. If I think I'm secure, relatively free of anxiety, and willing to
engage in those challenges, maybe it would be a revealing and worthwhile
endeavor?

~~~
anonymous-c
I received a government polygraph test over a year ago.

A mock interrogation would not be very effective. The most important aspect of
a polygraph is leverage. There has to be an incentive for the person being
questioned (e.g. they want an out for committing a crime) so that they _want_
to tell the examiner the truth. There should also be a real fear of failing
the test. Your brother questioning you about who stole the cookie from the
cookie jar wouldn't cut it.

As far as I can tell, the goal of the test is to make you spill your guts. You
might consider yourself confident or be a pathological liar, but when you're
_afraid_ of lying, your body will react to it. It's a very unique experience
and I don't think practicing lying or rehearsing your responses would be
useful. They'll dwell on questions that they think you're trying to deceive
them on and ask you over and over. Each time, you'll give them a little more
("well, one time, but I didn't inhale!") to get them off your back. They'll do
the good cop/bad cop routine and occasionally storm out of the room.
Eventually, hours later, you'll crack and think, "fuck it, I've already told
them this much, might as well give them the rest." At that point, you're
probably crying or look pretty distraught so they know they've got everything.

------
mynameishere
The classification levels below "top secret" involve a laughable laxity. But
spying is a very real problem, and the government needs to screen people who
handle actual state secrets.

I'm guessing that they are (in 4 hours) trying to simulate some of the
pressures that go on when people are recruited and act as spies, and
_especially_ when they are blackmailed into spying. All the pressure tactics
probably give testers a fair idea of how quickly people crack.

~~~
yters
Huh, in that case it is better to learn to lie very well, then tell them after
the successful test what you lied about. That seems like a different kind of
training.

------
arockwell
This sounds very similar to my wife's experience with taking a polygraph at
the NSA for an internship (and this was before 9/11). They hounded her over
the drug use question over and over. She was so upset by the whole experience
she nearly flew home right after and I can't say I blame her.

~~~
utnick
Is there any evidence ( even anecdotally ) that drug use and spying are
related?

The government security clearance process seems to be very focused on
recreational drug use history.

~~~
potatolicious
It may not have anything to do with fear of spying. Drug use is something that
a) most people have done, and b) are least willing to admit to. While some of
us may shy away from telling people of our sock fetish or whatever, admitting
to drug use has real and far-reaching consequences.

So in other words, getting you to admit to drug use would likely be a
reasonable representation that they have ascertained "the whole truth" from
you.

~~~
jgrahamc
Perhaps I'm the only person here who doesn't fit (a), but I have never done
any drugs( _).

(_) Excluding alcohol and caffeine

~~~
potatolicious
I haven't either - but being in college right now I would say that a _very
large_ number of people have :)

------
fallentimes
The _Lie Behind the Lie Detector_ pdf (referenced in the write-up) is also a
good read.

<https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf>

------
homme
I wonder how much better people would take it high or drunk. Maybe that's why
they make you wait 4 hours, to let anything you may have taken to relax you
wear off.

~~~
omarchowdhury
Cannabis edibles can easily exceed an effect duration of 4 hours.

Really though, the long interrogation time is probably so because people
eventually become uncomfortable, being in the same state for such a long time.
They want to see how you react in that situation.

~~~
CaptainMorgan
Especially things like relaxants, maybe Valium or Vicodin, last about that
time frame... and granted, these might as well be prescribed and perfectly
legal!

------
Hoff
Folks that want to apply these techniques have jobs and management and
organizations that I simply don't want to have to deal with; fixed,
inflexible, distrustful, political, bureaucratic.

There might well be good and valid reasons for any or all of these
organizational choices, but I too have a choice in the matter. And I choose
not.

~~~
CaptainMorgan
I disagree, while stressful depending on the situations, certainly there a few
agencies that do have flexible work schedules... one that I refuse to name,
that you can find with a little digging, adheres to the employee's work
schedule.. so if you like working at night, they'll provide that schedule for
you, granted that you've gone through some reasonable hoops to get there.

------
uuilly
They were probably pretty clear about the fact that this guy is NOT supposed
to discuss what happens in a government poly especially on a public forum.
There are reasons beyond his career to want to keep that information close.
People are constantly trying to beat our system and the more they know about
it, the easier it is. If this guy is serious about pursuing a career in the
intel world he should respect the rules they lay down. They are bureaucratic
and often silly, but they have reasons for them beyond what a young hacker can
understand. This guy has shown that he is not responsible or mature enough to
handle classified material.

~~~
anonymous-c
Polygraph tests don't depend on secrecy. I, and millions of other people, have
received one and it's fairly well documented. From what I can tell, the way
that they polygraph criminals and people in intelligence is roughly the same.

It's used as more of a method to trick you into telling the truth than it is
to detect lies. I don't think it's very easy to beat unless you teach yourself
how to regulate your heartbeat.

~~~
rjprins
It is in fact very easy to beat.

You don't have to control your hartbeat, you have to overreact to control
questions (performing heavy mental calculations combined with holding your
breath 2 seconds will do the trick!), so your (normal) response to the
important questions will be less severe in comparison.

If your response to control question is stronger than your response to
relevant questions, you pass the test. It that simple.

~~~
Derrek
Over a 22-year period, Robert Hanssen, one of the most notorious spies in US
history, passed several polygraph tests during his tenure at the FBI while he
also sold secrets to Russia.

~~~
uuilly
Both hanssen and Ames came up inconclusive in their polys. But they were able
to cleverly explain them away. Coming up inconclusive is easy, passing
outright is hard. To get a job at an intel shop you must pass. The problem
with Ames and hanssen was in the organization, not the poly.

------
CaptainMorgan
I think, at least what I found from that site as a pointer from this link is,
that people confuse the polygraph with being a lie-detector which in
truth(again based on the readings), it is not. What it is, is an agent used in
an interrogation, simply put. You are being interrogated and judged on how
well they think you can actually be trusted with a security clearance(along
with other factors in your application). It will have you believe that they
are on to you by showing your reactions to certain questions, when in reality,
there is really only one person in that room that truly knows if an answer is
true or false, and it is proven that it is not the person administering the
examination.

------
staunch
Seems like fun in a sick kind of way. I wonder if there's a way you could turn
this into a novelty game and charge for the experience. The biggest problem
would be capturing the authenticity I think. Is there a market for doing NSA
quality interrogations? :-)

~~~
DTrejo
Authenticity could be gained not telling the subject the date of the
interrogation.

------
yters
The effectiveness of the lie detector seems like another version of the belief
that God can see your every thought and will judge you accordingly. It is
something that is more effective in producing confessions the more people
suspect it might be true.

