3 ms·

Interestingly, in the US most private employers are not allowed to polygraph their employees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Polygraph_Protection_Act ht

by astura 7y ago

Interestingly, in the US most private employers are not allowed to polygraph their employees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Polygraph_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Polygraph_Protection_... >However, the act does permit polygraph tests to be administered to certain applicants for job with security firms (such as armored car, alarm, and guard companies) and of pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers. The law does not cover federal, state, and local government agencies. Since doesn't apply to any governments (local, state, federal) so so government employees are subjected to polygraphs. Interestingly, it can be argued that polygraphs may have their place in a limited amount of employment situations as long as the lying/truthful results are thrown out as the test may work as a "placebo" for the interviewee to admit to serious skeletons in their closet. https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/23/16511732/border-patrol-polygraph-trump-boots-on-border https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/23/16511732/border-patrol-p... >Polygraph results are of questionable scientific value, but the interviews have an unexpected benefit apart from their dubious powers of detection: under pressure from interviewers, applicants frequently admit to wrongdoing. To be clear I personally lean towards not using polygraphs at all for employment situations.

himinlomax 7y ago
Polygraphs should not be used at all, for anything except maybe research.
staticautomatic 7y ago
"it can be argued that polygraphs may have their place in a limited amount of employment situations as long as the lying/truthful results are thrown out as the test may work as a "placebo" for the interviewee to admit to serious skeletons in their closet." If the test cannot distinguish between true and false, then any purported "skeleton" is as likely to be false as it is to be true.
- 0xcde4c3db 7y ago
  The idea isn't that the machine is actually detecting anything here, it's that the general atmosphere of the "test" and a sufficiently convincing performance of "the machine says you're not being truthful" will get people to volunteer information that they would otherwise have kept to themselves. It's a variation on an old technique where an interrogator will claim to have incriminating evidence or eyewitness testimony that they actually don't.
  - thrwaway69 7y ago
    Now I wait for someone to complain about companies abusing their hires through this in another hn thread for hiring practices.

by astura 7y ago

himinlomax 7y ago

Polygraphs should not be used at all, for anything except maybe research.

staticautomatic 7y ago

"it can be argued that polygraphs may have their place in a limited amount of employment situations as long as the lying/truthful results are thrown out as the test may work as a "placebo" for the interviewee to admit to serious skeletons in their closet." If the test cannot distinguish between true and false, then any purported "skeleton" is as likely to be false as it is to be true.

0xcde4c3db 7y ago
The idea isn't that the machine is actually detecting anything here, it's that the general atmosphere of the "test" and a sufficiently convincing performance of "the machine says you're not being truthful" will get people to volunteer information that they would otherwise have kept to themselves. It's a variation on an old technique where an interrogator will claim to have incriminating evidence or eyewitness testimony that they actually don't.
- thrwaway69 7y ago
  Now I wait for someone to complain about companies abusing their hires through this in another hn thread for hiring practices.