
Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph - giles_corey
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2020/08/18/accused-spy-alexander-yuk-ching-ma-evidently-beat-the-polygraph-to-penetrate-the-fbi/
======
jacquesm
The polygraph is pseudoscience. _Of course_ it can be beaten, it doesn't work
to begin with.

Why the US still puts so much weight on them when they know they don't work is
a mystery to me. Just get rid of the damn things and do your homework better.

~~~
Imnimo
I think its a way to get people to admit to things. Like even knowing they
don't work, it's stressful to be strapped into that chair, and even knowing
the technician is probably lying when they say they're detecting deception on
a particular question, it's stressful when they accuse you of lying. I bet a
lot of people crack and admit to things they were hoping to hide.

The trouble comes from the fact that in order for all of this to work, you
need to say the polygraph works. If you admit it's fake, or even if your
procedures imply it's fake, it loses its magic. And so you naturally develop
procedures that put a lot of stock in the polygraph. People start to believe
in it. You build up a culture that relies on the magic of the polygraph. And
then things like this happen.

~~~
gameswithgo
>I think its a way to get people to admit to things

This is the standard way human discourse happens when talking about something
for which there is no evidence of efficacy. You back up and try to rationalize
some other reason for it's use, even when it makes no sense. Like in this
case, using it to get people to admit things, can lead to false confessions or
false convictions, especially when some of the people you threaten to use it
on know it doesn't work! Do you think the agent who knows it doesn't work, and
just uses it as a threat, is going to drop the case when you take the
polygraph and fail? Nope!

It remind me very much of when people discuss some supplement that doesn't
have evidence: "Oh well those studies didn't use enough/too much/wrong
schedule" or acupuncture : "oh well even if it doesn't work the placebo effect
is valuable"

you just can't get through to people

~~~
Imnimo
Yeah, I bet it elicits a whole lot of false confessions. But I also suspect
that intelligence agencies are perfectly happy to incorrectly reject a
significant portion of applicants if they think it increases the number of
malicious applicants they manage to reject. Like they only care about having
high recall for detecting spies, even if they have terrible precision.

I'm not saying that makes for an actually effective system. I think it
probably does more harm than good in that it leads to people thinking "well
this guy passed the polygraph, so I can definitely trust him".

And of course, the calculus is totally different in criminal proceedings,
where we absolutely should not be willing to make that recall-precision trade.
I can at least understand why someone would think they're a helpful tool for
counterintelligence screening, but any use in criminal investigations just
strikes me as ludicrous.

------
moomin
It's a bit of a joke, really. I doubt there's anyone reading this on here who
didn't already know polygraphs don't work. The only people who don't seem to
know polygraphs don't work are the ones making national security decisions
relating to polygraphs.

~~~
bluntfang
let's get real, polygraphs are a ruse in order to humiliate people and see how
they react in torture situations. Using them is a power play. It lets the
victim know who the boss is.

~~~
LatteLazy
Partly its that. Partly its about tricking juries, "He failed/refused the
polygraph" is a very nice way to discredit someone. At least 5 of the 12
people there will find that concerning and not know its BS.

~~~
zxcvbn4038
Any lawyers in the house? I was under the impression that (in the US) refusing
to take a polygraph was not considered an admission of guilt though could be
grounds for dismissal from federal employment.

~~~
ta17711771
What's legal has nothing to do with swaying a jury.

~~~
zxcvbn4038
If the opposing side brought up refusing to take a polygraph you would object
and ask the judge to explain to the jury why that had to be disregarded,
right?

~~~
jki275
I doubt that any judge would allow that to even be brought up in a trial. If
it were, it would probably be an appealable issue that would get the case
thrown out.

------
LatteLazy
Ah yes, polygraphs, long proven nonsense and not used in virtually any other
western country. I wonder how he beat that?

~~~
firebaze
I'd guess that polygraph tests need belief into them working, thus making it
work. Polygraphs should be able to (at least) measure nervousness correctly
(e.g. due to transpiration), so if you believe polygraphs _may_ work you're
probably someone on which they will work (1).

In other words, long proven nonsense as long as you don't believe in it.

(1) [https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-
detector.pdf](https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf)
(Chapter 3)

~~~
tingol
You're wrong, they do not magically start working if you believe in them. If
you're nervous for ANY reason it will give off a false positive. Not only if
you're nervous of the machine itself.

It is insane it's still being used in the US.

~~~
3pt14159
In former CIA officer Valery Plame's book Fair Game, she describes how an old
hand at CIA told her that the best way to get through the polygraph is to be
as detailed and honest as possible. Even on subjects that would be
embarrassing, merely focussing on describing the truth and knowing that the
interviewers appreciate candor can often alleviate nervousness.

I've never been polygraphed and I have conflicting views on it, but I suspect
if I were ever in the same situation I'd do the same thing. They may not work
perfectly, but they are a forcing function to the interviewee. Are you going
to tell the whole truth in all its messy detail or not?

That said, I don't think they belong in the justice system. Someone who is
already accused of a crime has to choose between either doing a polygraph and
being potentially being nervous because their freedom is at stake, or denying
the polygraph and looking guilty.

~~~
pc86
Polygraphs are not used in US courts and the results are not admissible at
trial, so I'm not sure what you're referring to in the last paragraph.

~~~
mc32
I think there is confusion/conflation with defendants offering to take a
polygraph to prove innocence. Sometimes it’s a naive offer sometimes it’s
someone who wants to “show proof” they “didn’t do it”.

~~~
pc86
Which is part of why they're inadmissible regardless of who wants to use them.

~~~
mc32
Sure but it’s usually a PR stunt by the defense “see my client is willing
(therefore innocent as no liar would take the test the CIA uses to expose
moles)”

“We took a privately administered test by a certified polygraph administrator
and my client passed with flying colors!!!”

------
mc32
My understanding is polygraphs are used as a tool to have people trip over
themselves by using it as a prop when the administrator thinks they have
something to catch them on.

Now that makes me wonder, if they don’t use fMRI is it because it’s also just
a prop but with more studies behind it?

~~~
thaumasiotes
I read an article somewhere in which a cop told the story of conducting an
interrogation using an ersatz lie detector. If he thought the suspect was
lying, he'd push a button, and out would come a piece of paper saying "He's
lying."

It was a Xerox machine.

~~~
dagenleg
That's a scene from The Wire.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgrO_rAaiq0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgrO_rAaiq0)

~~~
GavinMcG
The story was around before The Wire.

~~~
quickthrowman
Yes, in David Simon’s book Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets, as well as
the David Simon series Homicide: Life on the Street.

David Simon also created The Wire.

~~~
GavinMcG
Fine, it's been around since _before David Simon cribbed it_ :

[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/next-case-on-the-court-
col...](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/next-case-on-the-court-colander/)

------
ferros
50 percent chance an honest person barred for life.

50 percent chance a criminal gets let through.

If that’s true it’s a wonder the FBI managed to get this far and continues to
function.

~~~
bluGill
Most people applying are not spies. Bayes therom applies.

------
roguesupport
This is what happens when you rely on junk pseudo-science as a screening
mechanism

~~~
AdmiralGinge
Many of the water companies in the UK still use divining rods to locate pipes,
there's a lot of bollocks used in places that really ought to know better.

Source: [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/21/uk-water-
fi...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/21/uk-water-firms-admit-
using-divining-rods-to-find-leaks-and-pipes)

------
PedroBatista
What's next? the FBI does palm reading to solve their hardest cases?

~~~
TechBro8615
No, what’s next is facial recognition and “the computer says with 98%
certainty that the defendant’s face is a match, Your Honor.”

~~~
tokai
Or even "the computer says that the defendant's face is the face of a
criminal!"

------
aiyodev
Polygraphs are comic book technology. The first one was invented by the guy
who created Wonder Woman and they were popularized by a commercial for
Gillette razors. It's as ridiculous as determining guilt by batarang or
kryptonite. It's amazing we still allow them in law enforcement.

------
alex_young
The polygraph was largely invented by William Moulton Marston, the same guy
who invented Wonder Woman. It was clearly a farce when he was selling this
idea 100 years ago, and it's amazing that it's considered anything short of
snake oil today.

There's a great book on the inventor called the Secret History of Wonder
Woman: [https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-Wonder-
Woman/dp/080417...](https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-Wonder-
Woman/dp/0804173400)

------
rshnotsecure
KGB did not use or believe in polygraphs. Always found that an interesting
comparison to American intelligence.

~~~
actuator
Aren't there psychoactive meds which weaken control and should work better
unless the person has developed resistance against that compound.

~~~
cik2e
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_serum](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_serum)

TL;DR No, there aren’t.

~~~
actuator
All the Reliability section of that page says is, there isn't a randomised
study you can trust.

------
fmakunbound
Plenty of pseudoscience rubbish in law enforcement in the US (and elsewhere):

* lie detectors/polygraphs

* blood splatter patterns

* hair analysis

* bite mark analysis

* criminal profiling

------
ohm
There was a recent talk on the subject
[https://archive.org/download/hopeconf2020/20200731_0900_Poly...](https://archive.org/download/hopeconf2020/20200731_0900_Polygraph_Tests_and_How_to_Beat_Them.mp4)

------
mc32
Why doesn’t the CIA just come out and tell all their recruits, we trust you
and most of you truly believe in the mission and will never compromise but
there are always a group of turncoats who will sell secrets or have other
affiliations. Due to this we will monitor your credit and you will not know if
the persons you are working with are internal investigators and we will have
randomized investigations as matter of course up to the director.

In other words don’t ignore the possibility but work with that limitation.

Maybe they do this and people still do it, if so they’re doing a poor job of
it.

------
herodotus
From Wikipedia: "A comprehensive 2003 review by the National Academy of
Sciences of existing research concluded that there was "little basis for the
expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy." The
cited article: The Polygraph and Lie Detection. National Research Council.
2003. ISBN 978-0-309-26392-4. ([https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10420/the-
polygraph-and-lie-dete...](https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10420/the-polygraph-
and-lie-detection))

------
vslira
I know we all know that polygraphs don't work, but: is that true in practice
or in principle? I mean, there are papers out there about methods capable of
extracting complete words from brainwaves. Does it really seem impossible for
a machine with current tech to detect signals of lying with high certainty?

~~~
throw1234651234
"I mean, there are papers out there about methods capable of extracting
complete words from brainwaves"

As far as I know, this is complete fiction right now. Same with images.

There are people currently working with AI interpreting brain signals to be
reproducible, to say, move left and right in a game. It's far from working on
"left" / "right", let alone anything more sophisticated than that.

~~~
unishark
There are researchers using functional MRI (and machine learning presumably)
to try and detect lies. There may even be some trying to use it commercially.

I imagine it's about as reproducible as most fmri research, as in not.

------
StreamBright
Reminds me of
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjVVNuraly8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjVVNuraly8)

------
dirtnugget
Can't these just be beaten with some breath training and a short training in
how to answer? All they measure is your physical reaction, right?

~~~
kls
You clench you butt cheeks when they do the calibration when you want
something to register as a lie. So you tell a truth and then clench your butt
cheeks for calibrating a lie. Thus they get a strong response on a truth/lie
and a less strong response on a lie. The other trick is to recall a traumatic
event.

[https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/how-cheat-lie-
detec...](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/how-cheat-lie-detector-
test-10646341)

~~~
dirtnugget
TIL: my butt is could potentially blow my cover.

------
rasz
and I beat tiger repellent rock(1), and a bomb dousing rod (2)!

1/
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm2W0sq9ddU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm2W0sq9ddU)

2/
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651)

------
wayanon
Are polygraphs still taken seriously?

------
mindfulhack
Polygraphs are a joke for this reason among so many others: Psychopaths,
sociopaths and narcissists can fool them because they are able to feel zero
(or are _incapable_ of feeling any) biological fear or anxiety (i.e. 'stress
response'), while telling complete lies.

~~~
XaoDaoCaoCao
Which is a bit horrific when you realize they act as sieves promoting the hire
of such people in a higher proportion than the general population. Polygraphs
are worse than useless and mere jokes; they are selectors for a kakistocracy
amongst the executive levels of American governance!

------
unnouinceput
From my understanding of the article, he was first employed then he started
spying, so not necessarily that he beat the polygraph.

~~~
re
He re-applied in 2003-2004, after giving information to MSS.

