12 ms·
I took a polygraph twice for an NSA internship (TS/CSI Clearance). It's an interesting process. In the first phase, you go over your security forms (SF-86 and
by throwawy123 7y ago
I took a polygraph twice for an NSA internship (TS/CSI Clearance). It's an interesting process.
In the first phase, you go over your security forms (SF-86 and related) in detail with your polygraph examiner. They ask a lot of detailed questions, sometimes including things you aren't legally required to disclose (drug use and foreign travel outside the listed time limits).
In the second phase, they hook you up to the polygraph and ask two series of very specific questions, one called "lifestyle" and one called "national security." Lifestyle questions include questions about drug use, possible crimes, etc., and national security questions include questions about foreign contacts, involvement in terrorism, etc. They're very specific, like "Are you withholding any information about your involvement with illegal drugs in the past ten years?"
About half the time (based on my discussions with other prospective interns), the examiner becomes convinced you're lying about one of these questions and really drills into you. Most of the polygraph examiners are past FBI or CIA interrogators, so they know how to make you very uncomfortable.
I was explicitly told that I failed my first polygraph (the examiner was convinced I used more drugs than I let on), but some of the other interns were drilled about crazier things, like contacts with foreign governments or involvement with terrorist groups.
If you're particularly desirable to the managers who're looking to hire you, they'll keep inviting you to take more polygraphs, and you'll eventually pass.
I ended up turning down the NSA internship for better opportunities after realizing that NSA folks are not the most fun people in the world to hang out with.
- fulldecent2 7y agoMe too. I'm interested to know when this was because I am reading between the lines and believe little has changed on the questions between when you did it and I. At my time I was told that all interviews at a certain exit off I-95 in Maryland were done by FBI. I expect several people reading your note might also have gone through this process and failed. Interested to hear if anyone has successfully retrieved transcripts using a FOIA request.
- teddyh 7y ago> the examiner was convinced I used more drugs than I let on No they weren’t. They merely pretended they were convinced. It’s all part of the act to make you nervous.
- hutzlibu 7y agoPossible, but how can you know for sure, if you were not there?
- teddyh 7y agoTechnically, nobody can know for sure, even someone who was there cannot read minds. But I posit that it’s way more likely that it’s part of the standard intimidation technique used by basically every professional intimidator ever – i.e. pretend to be angry and convinced about the person’s guilt in order to get them to either confess or to break down.
- zacharycohn 7y agoThe parent poster is correct. This is a standard practice for polygraph interviews. The pick one question, more or less at random, and double/triple/quadruple down on it until you break. Or don't. I got "have you ever committed a crime" (and after a actually pretty cool conversation about filesharing vs recording songs off the radio with a tape recorder, I passed). A friend of mine got "have you ever had sex with animals." I don't think he enjoyed his experience quite as much.
- bostonpete 7y agoOh, man. I would so much rather get the animal question. For the crime question I'd just be sitting there reaching my brain about what level of teenage transgressions I'm supposed to come clean about...
- Kemschumam 7y agoOne of the nsa's biggest breaches was perpetrated by a guy who admitted to bestiality during his polygraph.
- nyolfen 7y agolol, you can’t just leave us hanging here
- 7y ago
- ghostbrainalpha 7y agoForgive me for asking if you are uncomfortable saying, but were they correct about your drug use? I'm coming very close to being 100% eligible for my security clearness but some of those questions would be tricky for me right now. I've often wondered if I could round 8 years up to 10 to pass a polygraph.
- Tushon 7y agoAs far as I've heard, it is more about lying than past use (unless that past is a month ago and was a real bender). Telling them the truth about something that happened 9 years ago isn't likely to get you booted.
- throwawy123 7y agoUnless you used to have a serious meth or heroine problem I'd say you're fine. ;) I was pretty honest about my drug use. The way they phrase the questions sometimes leaves you with a bit of doubt, though. Like, "How many times did you use this drug?" I'm not sure who keeps a really diligent record of how many times they do drugs at parties. But, yeah, I tried to be as accurate as possible, modulo that doubt about how possible it is to accurately answer these questions.
- bradknowles 7y agoAt least when they interviewed me back in 1989, I was as honest with them as I could be about what I could remember, and I was honest with them about how much I couldn't remember. I have no idea what the rules are now.
- everdrive 7y agoJust don't be inconsistent.
- tdfx 7y agoDepends on the position. For defense and intelligence agencies, they want to see that there's nothing "recent" (past few years) or "chronic" (borderline or outright addictive behavior). If you smoked pot or did cocaine 8 years ago very infrequently you should have no issues. HOWEVER: law enforcement agencies are quite a different story and tend to be much stricter in their requirements. Some, like the FBI, have public drug qualifier policies you will need to meet [1] and there is no wiggle room (1 day short of 10 years and you're 100% ineligible). Some agencies do not publish this policy (i.e. Secret Service) and you have to guess whether you're eligible. The most important thing to remember is that whatever you admit on these forms will be on record for review by any agency for the rest of your life. DO NOT try to give extract or estimated numbers of usage on your SF-86 unless they are exceedingly low numbers. You can be honest with your background investigator during the followup but there's no reason to commit those things to writing on a form that's likely to be easily accessible later on. [1] https://www.fbijobs.gov/working-at-fbi/eligibility https://www.fbijobs.gov/working-at-fbi/eligibility
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- zacharycohn 7y agoWas this a high school internship? If so, I think we went to the same school system.
- Causality1 7y agoI wonder if you could get prosecuted or investigated for things you admit to during the interview. I also wonder if there's any sort of legal privacy requirement that stops the examiner or someone else with records access from spreading around information related to your examination. I'd warrant most people have gotten away with doing things that should've gotten them arrested.
- mipmap04 7y agoThey do threaten legal action if you lie about something on your SF-86.
- bradknowles 7y agoLying about something on your federal forms would make you vulnerable to blackmail, so that would definitely be something that the investigators would try to turn up. In my case, I was extremely open and honest with the main investigator that I was interviewed by, including the things I did during college with recreational pharmaceuticals. I told all my friends to just "tell the truth" about what they saw happen. I think my biggest benefit there was telling the story about how I saw that kind of stuff tear lives apart, and turn people who had been best friends into worst enemies, and the negative follow-on impacts of what happens when you can't pay your rent, you can't pay your electric bills, etc... because you have this debt to someone else that suddenly must be repaid this afternoon.
- throwawy123 7y agoSince Chinese hackers stole a huge cache of SF-86s, this is somewhat ironic. If you omitted something incriminating from your SF-86, you are, perhaps, safer from blackmail.
- lastofus 7y agoConsidering lie detectors are inadmissible in court, probably not. Being the cause of further investigation on the other hand...
- 7y ago
- dheera 7y ago> questions about foreign contacts This sounds unreasonably intrusive IMO. What if you have a couple thousand acquaintances and friends around the world?
- scarejunba 7y agoIt's the NSA, dude. They specifically want someone who'll be _their spook_. What makes you think they want Mr. Cosmopolitan who lunches with Erdogan's third cousin and breakfasts with the Pope? Nothing about it sounds unreasonably intrusive. The national security guys should be rightfully paranoid.
- dheera 7y ago> What makes you think they want Mr. Cosmopolitan who lunches with Erdogan's third cousin and breakfasts with the Pope? Maybe this person has a better understanding of what's going on around the world and how different cultures work, possibly speaks multiple languages, and it might be a good thing to welcome their knowledge instead of scaring them off?
- NullPrefix 7y agoIt would be harder to persuade the same person about the evils of said cultures.
- cblades 7y agoWhich is why they are interested in the applicant lying about those contacts. The application will provide an opportunity to disclose foreign contacts.
- aksss 7y agoit's all about context. You're not asking for a job at the local donut shop, you're specifically getting involved in an organization that preoccupies itself with threats to the nation-state, internal and external. Kinda makes sense that they'd be intrusive. I'm not sure what the line of unreasonableness is in that context. You have no inherent "right" to work for the National Security Agency.
- bradknowles 7y agoWhen I graduated college, my first job was working for what was then the Defense Communication Agency (now Defense Information Systems Agency), in a job that required a successful Secure Background Investigation for a TS/SCI clearance, and I was told that the position required a lifestyle polygraph + random urinalysis. I used this to my advantage on more than one occasion, when the gaming group I was with was a bit too casual with their use of certain recreational pharmaceuticals. I told them straight out that my job required a lifestyle poly and random urinalysis, and that if they decided to do that to me the next morning, then I would be totally giving up my friends to the examiners. That usually convinced them to be more careful. Strangely, the government never actually gave me a polygraph or urinalysis test, ever.
- geomark 7y agoVery similar to my experience, but different 3-letter agency. Two rounds. Lots of questions about drug use. I wasn't shy about it because I had had legal run-ins over it when I was young so I knew it was already out there. But examiner claimed that I was being evasive. My employer really wanted me cleared so I was coached a bit, told that unless I admit to being a spy it almost doesn't matter what I admit I have done, as long as I am truthful. I was invited back for a second polygraph. Lots more questions about drugs, some really bizarre things I had never heard of. I thought WTF, and just "admitted" to most everything the examiner asked me. He still said I was being evasive. I thought, this is stupid, it doesn't work at all, he's just guessing.
- jldugger 7y agoAt this point, I assume the point of the process isn't to ferret out liars, but to ferret out people who were trained to pass a polygraph under stress, on the theory that such people are more likely to be spies. It's the only thing that makes sense given the scientific unreliability, the random unfounded accusations by interviewers and whatnot. But maybe I'm being to generous.
- hiram112 7y agoDid you pass?
- inflatableDodo 7y ago>If you're particularly desirable to the managers who're looking to hire you, they'll keep inviting you to take more polygraphs, and you'll eventually pass. Now, I am no expert on these things, but something tells me that they are doing this wrong. "All of your previous polygraph tests indicated to us that you couldn't be trusted as far as we could throw you, however your latest one clearly shows that you have suddenly become as honest as the day is long. Welcome to the team."
- fulldecent2 7y agoPolygraphs can be "inconclusive" many times. Especially if you the kind of person that is uncomfortable sitting still and breathing in the same rhythm for an extended period.
- myrandomcomment 7y agoThe key is just to answer honestly no matter what the question. Did you have sexy with a goat? If the answer yes, then say yes. They do not care. What they care about is you tell the truth with no reservation as it a sign you cannot be blackmailed.
- stephen_g 7y agoThe polygraph can't actually measure anything that can (with any reliability) indicate whether you're telling the truth or lying though. It's basically just a prop to try and stress the subject out and convince them that the examiner can tell what they're thinking. The examiner (really interrogator, calling it a "test" is too generous) will literally pick random things that they feel you're being evasive about and drill you on it, even if it has no relation to the truth!
- myrandomcomment 7y agoWhat does admitting you had sex with a goat have to do with if the machine works or not? If I was not clear, they are looking to see if you can be blackmailed. They may know already you buggered a goat, or snorted a kg of the white stuff. They just want to know you will admit anything you have done as that is the key to make sure others cannot gain leverage over you.