A polygraph is just an intimidation tool. I have family who worked for 3-letter agencies who “failed” polygraphs, only to have them retaken a day later and “pass”. The polygraph examiners are pretty darn good at intimidating subjects, which understandably affects their vitals, causing false positives left and right. Heck, I have a 30-40 mmHg higher blood pressure reading in any doctor’s office than I do at home due to white coat syndrome. I can’t imagine how being interrogated would for something I didn’t do would affect me.
For those not in the know: they're unreliable to the point of uselessness and the US Government is somehow really enamoured with the fantasy of mind-reading and lie-detection. But what can you do when the government agencies suffer from chuunibyou?
Why was the acting director so insistent on viewing the specially classified material? His predecessors did not, and it wasn't even a product of his own department, it was shared from another agency.
Imagine how easy compromising or injecting compromised individuals into the chaotic and amateur Trump administration would be.
This story is actually much wilder than people yelling “polygraphs are dumb lol” (which is partly true in that they measure stress not lying).
But just to be clear this is a scenario where CISA's new director, hand-picked by Kristi Noem, asked to be "read in" to highly sensitive, compartmentalized intelligence shared with a select few people in the civilian agency by the NSA or CIA.
It was so sensitive that his predecessor had never asked to see the raw intel.
When a CISA security official asked for documentation of Noem appointee's need-to-know basis, the standard for controlled access programs, the official was suspended.
Noem's flunkie insisted again, officials asked him to take a polygraph. He failed it.
Then the those officials were also suspended.
For all of you who’ve never taken a counterintelligence polygraph it’s not at all like what I think you’re imagining (which is maybe the lifestyle one). It’s like 3 questions that are very simple yes or no questions and they have no licence to go off on a fishing expedition unless you give them a reason to do so. I think the questions from memory are basically:
1. Are you working for any organisation beyond this one?
2. Did anyone direct you to ask for these files?
3. Have you told anyone else about your plans with these files.
For whatever issues you may have with the limitations of a polygraph I promise you this is a big deal and incredibly unusual.
A polygraph is just an intimidation tool. I have family who worked for 3-letter agencies who “failed” polygraphs, only to have them retaken a day later and “pass”. The polygraph examiners are pretty darn good at intimidating subjects, which understandably affects their vitals, causing false positives left and right. Heck, I have a 30-40 mmHg higher blood pressure reading in any doctor’s office than I do at home due to white coat syndrome. I can’t imagine how being interrogated would for something I didn’t do would affect me.
everyone outside the US: lol polygraph selfown
For those not in the know: they're unreliable to the point of uselessness and the US Government is somehow really enamoured with the fantasy of mind-reading and lie-detection. But what can you do when the government agencies suffer from chuunibyou?
Even in the US, lie detector results are generally inadmissible in court.
Why was the acting director so insistent on viewing the specially classified material? His predecessors did not, and it wasn't even a product of his own department, it was shared from another agency.
Imagine how easy compromising or injecting compromised individuals into the chaotic and amateur Trump administration would be.
This story is actually much wilder than people yelling “polygraphs are dumb lol” (which is partly true in that they measure stress not lying).
But just to be clear this is a scenario where CISA's new director, hand-picked by Kristi Noem, asked to be "read in" to highly sensitive, compartmentalized intelligence shared with a select few people in the civilian agency by the NSA or CIA.
It was so sensitive that his predecessor had never asked to see the raw intel.
When a CISA security official asked for documentation of Noem appointee's need-to-know basis, the standard for controlled access programs, the official was suspended.
Noem's flunkie insisted again, officials asked him to take a polygraph. He failed it.
Then the those officials were also suspended.
For all of you who’ve never taken a counterintelligence polygraph it’s not at all like what I think you’re imagining (which is maybe the lifestyle one). It’s like 3 questions that are very simple yes or no questions and they have no licence to go off on a fishing expedition unless you give them a reason to do so. I think the questions from memory are basically:
1. Are you working for any organisation beyond this one?
2. Did anyone direct you to ask for these files?
3. Have you told anyone else about your plans with these files.
For whatever issues you may have with the limitations of a polygraph I promise you this is a big deal and incredibly unusual.
* I am skeptical of polygraphs.
* A polygraph test is probably standard procedure and career staff are being punished for administering it to a hack, and thus are punished for it.