9 ms·

FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

186 points by Jimmc414 1y ago

bediger4000 1y ago
the FBI’s employment eligibility guidelines say all employees must obtain a “Top Secret” clearance in order to work at the agency following a background check. The furor here is about Dan Bongino, and Nicole Rucker, Kash Patel's assitant The article goes on to say that FBI employees at the level Bongino and Rucker are working at have "SCI" clearance on top of Top Secret. Back in the 1990s, it was exceptionally difficult to get TS clearance. SCI on top of that must have been even harder. I guess this is no worse than Jared Kushner getting a waiver to work at the White House during Trump's first term, but holy cow, getting this kind of special treatment really does reinforce a big difference between classes, doesn't it? Any ordinary, non-rich person getting "alerts" on polygraphs would probably be immediately dropped from getting a Top Secret.
- gishh 1y ago
  > Back in the 1990s, it was exceptionally difficult to get TS clearance. SCI on top of that must have been even harder. Not really. I know a litany of people who had TS/SCI clearances in the 90s. It was literally a job requirement for entire divisions of the US govt.
  - bediger4000 1y ago
    Even for the 15 page "short form", required to get a "Secret" clearance, you had to list everywhere you'd lived for the past N years, N >= 10 as I recall and give a non-family person who could testify you lived there. You had to list all the organizations you belonged to. Some fed contacted every single reference I gave, my old scoutmaster, and the minister of the church I was a janitor for during college. Top Secret was notoriously more difficult in terms of paperwork and scrutiny of your past. The article about Bongino's waiver made it clear that TS was a requirement for FBI employment, an entire division of the government, although it wasn't clear if that was everyone, or just the higher level administrative staff.
    - majormajor 1y ago
      Thorough papwerwork is not the same as "exceptionally difficult." I've been a reference interviewed in the processes before. It was not exactly rigorous. (It would have been hard to be, frankly... I had no knowledge of them doing anything shady, and they had no specific prior area of concern to try to grill me specifically on.)
      - rkomorn 1y ago
        This reminds me that I was interviewed for someone's US security clearance even though I wasn't a US citizen at the time. I was confused that I wasn't even asked if I was a citizen, or that my friend listed me as a reference because I'm pretty sure he knew.
    - gishh 1y ago
      N=7 There is an entire industry built around clearing people, your tax dollars pay them. Of course everyone you listed was contacted, that’s the whole point. How is filling out an SF-86 hard? Maybe what you meant was, justifying the reason to get a clearance in the 90s was harder. Perhaps that is true. Getting a clearance isn’t hard.
    - Scubabear68 1y ago
      I'm really confused by your response. Divulging where you've lived for the past 10+ years, having agents contacting your references, etc for "Secret" is not very onerous or difficult. Given that, your subsequent statement that "Top Secret was notoriously more difficult in terms of paperwork" seems to be pointless.
    - crystal_revenge 1y ago
      > required to get a "Secret" clearance, you had to list everywhere you'd lived for the past N years, N >= 10 as I recall and give a non-family person who could testify you lived there. You had to list all the organizations you belonged to. As a former federal government employee, all of this is also required as part of the standard background check. People will show up in a black sedan and interview your neighbors, all you past employers and people who knew you at each residence. This happened for me and I’ve never had any real security clearance (nor required it). Just because it’s work doesn’t mean it’s rare. My father and most of his coworkers all had TS clearance in the 90s. It required flying out to Dallas (if I recall correctly) for the polygraph. Lots of work but very common.
  - KaiserPro 1y ago
    According to this: https://news.clearancejobs.com/2022/08/16/how-many-people-have-a-top-secret-security-clearance/ https://news.clearancejobs.com/2022/08/16/how-many-people-ha... The number of poepl that hold top secret clearance (assuming its the same thing...) is 1.3mil
    - gishh 1y ago
      Given the firings/retirement of a bunch of govt employees recently, it’s probably still higher than 1.3 million. Most people just back into a clearance without realizing they need one, and bounce right through the process. If you haven’t been convicted of a felony it’s basically falling-off-a-log easy to get cleared. The whole process is a charade.
- kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
  SCI is not above TS. It is a parallel system to restrict information within controlled silos. You can have SCI access with secret only.
- CGMthrowaway 1y ago
  Is Kash Patel's assistant rich? What does rich have to do with anything, that came out of nowhere. A more likely scenario is that these are political appointees and presumably an elected official wants to be able to get their guy in there no matter what
- HeinzStuckeIt 1y ago
  > Back in the 1990s, it was exceptionally difficult to get TS clearance. SCI on top of that must have been even harder. I think you are exaggerating this as the other poster points out. Every US military cryptolinguist gets a TS-SCI clearance. So, while every student at Defense Language Institute was doing his/her language course, a background check was done, and the rejection rate in the 1990s was presumably tiny. And ditto for other military intelligence roles. A certain amount of military personnel getting the clearance were semi-native speakers of a language in demand who still had foreign ties (family or land owned in the old country) but they passed nonetheless, which must speak to a certain laxness.
- moron4hire 1y ago
  I think this is a misunderstanding a lot of people have about clearance. The different clearance levels are not really an indication of different levels of vetting being done to a person. If you can get cleared for Secret, there's no particular reason you couldn't get cleared for TS. It's the same SF-86 form, the same investigation (well, not that I know, exactly. All I know is that it didn't look any different from my perspective), the same interview. There are some differences in how often you'll get re-interviewed, I think. It's not really anything so onerous that you have to ever think about it, really. The different levels are much more about need to know, which is driven by potential impact of breach. You don't even have to go through the lower levels before you get to the higher ones. The selectiveness of giving people higher clearance levels is more about controlling exposure surface area. On top of that, clearance level is kind of more about what meetings you'll be allowed in, what conversations you'll be allowed to participate in. SCI is more having ongoing access to data. Then there are additionally "caveats", which are clearances to specific programs. Each of these things are a different axis in the clearance system, not different levels of a linear system. Contrary to somewhat popular belief, a polygraph is not required to obtain TS/SCI. You can do a polygraph and that's a whole additional designation, "TS/SCI with Poly," as you might see in various job ads. The fact that these people can't pass TS is extremely telling and extremely concerning. Not being able to pass basically means the investigation revealed information that the person has a reasonable chance of being coerced into providing information. A simple example: maybe you have a mistress you're trying to hide; a foreign intelligence service could try to blackmail you into providing them information. Maybe you have a lot of debt, especially gambling debt; you'd be judged particularly susceptible to taking bribes, which would also set you up to be easily blackmailed. But I know at least one guy who is a raging pothead who has had high level clearance for the last 20 years. They didn't care because he was open about it. If he was open about it with them, then it was clear it wasn't an issue he could be coerced over. I know people who had past criminal charges on their records. They were fine, too, for the same reason. It used to be you couldn't hold a clearance if you were gay, but nowadays, people are much more open and accepting of it such that it's not a reasonable attack vector for coercion. Basically, it means you've got major skeletons in your closet and probably tried to lie about them if you can't pass for S or TS. If you can't pass for TS then you probably shouldn't have a position of public trust at all, even for just handling CUI.
- jki275 1y ago
  There are literally hundreds of thousands of TS/SCI cleared government employees and contractors. There is nothing "exceptionally difficult" about any of this.
- dmix 1y ago
  > getting this kind of special treatment really does reinforce a big difference between classes The Trump admin has always been an example of ignoring the elite political class and bringing in whoever he likes. Kash Patel himself came from a family of asylum seekers who fled India and he got his start as a public defender. Not exactly old money. The guy he brought on as an assistant (without a polygraph) got his start as a beat cop from NYPD before joining the Secret Service.
jghn 1y ago
It'd matter more if polygraphs weren't completely bogus pseudoscience in the first place
- trehalose 1y ago
  Sure, but don't you find it a little curious that these tests are being waived so selectively? If the FBI believes polygraphs serve some purpose, why would it choose to waive them?
  - bogomipblips 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - jghn 1y ago
    Does it bother me? Yes. But the real solution is to not have polygraphs at all, not to get upset that a few people didn't get them.
    - exasperaited 1y ago
      You really mean it's not worth getting upset that employees are put through stupid and sometimes even quite invasive or degrading questioning in a humiliating and fear-driven process that bosses don't?
      - jghn 1y ago
        I'd prefer they just get rid of them altogether. They're stupid.
        tialaramex 1y ago
        Right, when people sow chaos sometimes the random chaos includes a few nuggets that are good. "No more polygraphs" isn't quite "Stop making pennies" but it's also not "We're reintroducing slavery" is it?
        1y ago
yahoozoo 1y ago
Bongino use to be Secret Service, tasked with protecting Bush then Obama, for what it’s worth.
- 3eb7988a1663 1y ago
  I suppose that matters of how closely the body guards get exposed to state secrets. Surely there is some accidental leakage, but you would hope that getting elevated to the top would require close scrutiny. From mid-way in the article He’s had a rocky tenure so far, marked by public fights with senior Cabinet officials and accusations that he leaked information to the press, which Bongino denied. In August, Trump appointed Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey as co-deputy director at the FBI, setting off speculation that the White House had lost faith in Bongino. But he remains in the job. ProPublica could not determine whether Bongino sat for a polygraph exam or what its results were. Though the existence of a polygraph waiver is an indication he may not have passed the test, it is possible Bongino received a preemptive exemption, a former senior FBI official with knowledge of the vetting program told ProPublica. When ProPublica sought comment from the FBI, the agency denied that Bongino or the other senior staff members failed polygraph tests. “It is false that the individuals you referenced failed polygraphs,” wrote spokesperson Ben Williamson. Unfortunately, a testimony form this administration is not worth much, so I am stuck in a schordinger's situation where he both passed and failed the polygraph.
Ms-J 1y ago
Polygraphs must not be used as they are completely unreliable and subject to many issues. The government does a lot of security theater and campaigns to make you believe that they are competent.
- ajross 1y ago
  Nonetheless waiving the theater for Bongino et. al. implies that Patel thinks the theater works, or at least that these guys were likely to fail anyway regardless of "many issues". It smells corrupt, like everything else in this administration. And IMHO that's more important than a technical critique of a particular interrogation method.
- estearum 1y ago
  No, polygraphs are bad lie detectors/truth detectors. They are perfectly fine as detectors of areas of interest for investigators to probe deeper.
  - andy_ppp 1y ago
    Yes or to pressure you into confessing, honestly good interrogators can do this without the machinery.
    - estearum 1y ago
      Good carpenters can build stuff without nail guns, doesn’t mean it makes sense to use hammers.
      - bathtub365 1y ago
        Carpenters use hammers all the time…
        estearum 1y ago
        Uh yeah… just like investigators use tools other than polygraphs. The point is that just because something can be done without a specific tool does not mean you should never use the tool. I guess I should’ve added “doesn’t mean it makes sense to use hammers exclusively" for the HN pedants.
CGMthrowaway 1y ago
Good writeup of what happens in an FBI pre-employment polygraph: https://www.andrewwatters.com/hall-of-shame/FBI-SACU/FSL/poly.phtml https://www.andrewwatters.com/hall-of-shame/FBI-SACU/FSL/pol...
- tru3_power 1y ago
  Dang so this is much more comprehensive than a normal polygraph. I know the write up says it would be almost impossible to beat, but is that true?
  - bragr 1y ago
    Well the FBI prosecuted a guy who provided training on how to beat it.
    - datavirtue 1y ago
      Yes, the polygraph has one purpose, instill fear. It's an over the top interrogation. Level 1 torture.
    - giles_corey 1y ago
      Indeed, the FBI participated in the criminal investigation of the late Doug Williams, who offered training on how to pass or beat a polygraph "test." Because there was no actual crime for which to prosecute him, federal agents set out to stage one in a "sting" operation they dubbed "Operation Lie Busters": https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2016/04/26/operation-lie-busters-a-travesty-of-justice/ https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2016/04/26/operation-lie-bust...
puppycodes 1y ago
The only way polygraphs work is by convincing people its an actual lie detection machine. Cops leveredge this belief and tell you that you "failed miserably" so you ultimately confess because "your caught". They are about as accurate as flipping a coin.
- tucnak 1y ago
  This is not accurate. Polygraphs are not detecting lies, they're used to assess your sensitivities; there are really talented interrogators in counterintelligence, whose full-time job is to fuck with you in subtle ways. To poly a person at will is very much a power move, and some guys fucking love it. But that's a different story all together. Most of the time it's a formality like everything else. In reality, people don't have remotely enough bandwidth to pursue stuff like that unless there's a genuine investigation. But office politics people will office-politique. Unpopular opinion: private companies should poly people more often in hiring, it could prove more useful than other arbitrary kind of culture fit interviews. Food for thought.
  - fnordlord 1y ago
    Unpopular because it’s a bad idea. You’re now hiring better liars and scaring away humble talent.
    - sigwinch 1y ago
      And if you stop doing it, you now have a group who were polygraphed and a group who were not.
  - general1465 1y ago
    > private companies should poly people more often in hiring, it could prove more useful than other arbitrary kind of culture fit interviews. Useful in what sense? That you can't figure out anyway what tested person is capable of because tested person can believe that they have skills on godlike senior level, but they are junior at best?
expedition32 1y ago
[flagged]
- tomhow 1y ago
  Please stop posting flamewar-style comments on HN. It's not what HN is for and it destroys what it is for. Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them if you want to participate here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
KaiserPro 1y ago
Yes polygraphs are bollocks, but, rules are rules. The issue is, if exceptions are made, what's stopping other breaking the rules? I don't care if he's a dem, rep or maga, rules are rules.
- shermantanktop 1y ago
  Rules are only words on paper unless they are enforced, especially to constrain the actions of the powerful. Once they are consistently broken, the rules only matter for the powerless. There have always been stupid rules, and legitimate reasons to break them. But “I am an unqualified appointee and this unqualified person is my friend” is not a legitimate reason.
- jandrewrogers 1y ago
  The rule has always been that this can be waived at the discretion of specific senior officials. It isn't done for average Federal employees, and not always for political positions, but it is a thing that exists.
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  So many things we thought were rules or laws or regulations were never actually anything but customs, traditions, and gentlemens' agreements. Which works great as long as the people in command are sane and ethical. When you have an FBI director who spells his name with a dollar sign, well...
- CSMastermind 1y ago
  When I was in college they did an audit to see if I could graduate and it was flagged that I had been allowed to skip the Introduction to Computer Science class because I got a 5 on the AP Comp Sci test. The problem was that I took the test while it was administered in C++ and it had later switched to Java. The school decided they were not going to recognize the test results and instead would only credit me with an elective class for it, I would still have ot pass the introductory class. This is in spite of pass all the later comptuer science classwork. I escalated it to the dean, who told me that while he recognized this made no sense, "rules are rules and if we didn't follow them they wouldn't be rules".
yieldcrv 1y ago
polygraphs are federally banned for employment except for in the federal government, so that's more controversial circumventing the federal government's hypocrisy you're blind if you want to pretend that this specific action is the top of a slippery slope when we're below the slope at this point, Congress isn't gong to do anything so why even act surprised. let's focus on the hypocrisy of polygraph being standard at all
Animats 1y ago
That's just the FBI side. The Trump administration has, as a policy, that the Counsel for the President can clear someone without them going through the usual clearance process. Some senior White House staff have been "cleared" that way. The standard process starts, as it has for decades, with filling out Standard Form 86.[1] I see they only want residences for the last 10 years. It used to be "list all residences from birth". Then, all of that gets checked.[2] These criteria are not, apparently, applied to White House staff or Presidential appointees. [1] https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86/ https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86/ [2] https://sgp.fas.org/spb/bginvest.html https://sgp.fas.org/spb/bginvest.html
api 1y ago
The fact that these are still used is a bit of a scandal. They are total bullshit. If they “work” at all it’s by convincing gullible people they work, so they might make someone slip up or confess thinking the magic machine will get them. Of course things have improved. Decades ago they were trusted a lot more to the point that a lot of innocent people got prosecuted and guilty people went free based on polygraphs. These days they’re inadmissible in court, but they’re still used in the court of public opinion and in some jobs.
jki275 1y ago
polygraphs are junk science. I don't know who the other two are, but Bongino was already polygraphed and cleared for the Secret Service -- there's no reason to pretend that he wasn't cleared for the job. This article reads like a political hit piece and has no real grasp of reality. It also has statements that clearly betray its author doesn't really understand how security clearances work anyway -- most clearances don't require polygraphs, those are an IC and LE thing, and any OCA can grant any waiver they choose to grant. In this particular case if the AG wanted to review this decision she could do so as his boss, but it really makes no difference. Given that polygraphs are, again, junk science, who gives a shit.
- unethical_ban 1y ago
  Then they could remove them altogether, but they aren't pushing that. Your argument about the effectiveness of polygraphs is entirely irrelevant. The inconsistency and special treatment is the problem.
jancsika 1y ago
Rank speculation-- polygraph is a fake tool, but when people who think it works attempt to avoid it, real data is produced. :)
notepad0x90 1y ago
I think many on this thread are missing the point. the fact that it had to be waived alone speaks volumes. Sure they're about as accurate as a coin flip as the top commenter said, but they are theatrics and what you do before, during, and after usually gives interrogators lots of clues about you that they wouldn't otherwise have observed. If you're trying "tricks" to get past it for example, that's one data point. It's useful for things like clearance investigations because there is a counter-intel side to it, your comms, pattern of live and other things will be scrutinized. it is essentially a "vibe" tool. Do you look too clam, too nervous,etc.. That said, people end up contradicting themselves when focusing too much on beating the polygraph too. Skilled interrogators throw questions that will cause that. Do you sound too prepared and detailed, answering questions with details most people won't remember? Are you too consistent, indicating recollection of prepared facts, instead of wading through unreliable human memory? Even without a polygraph, your eye movements alone are hard to get under control unless you practice for it. That's why they baseline you first with simple things you're expected to lie on, and then more complex things that most people would at least partially lie about. The accuracy of the polygraph itself is not too relevant. If you're hiring someone for a senior role at the FBI, a polygraph is the formality that opens you up to all kinds of legal trouble. it's purpose is to put the subject under legal jeopardy. A simple interrogation will do, but a polygraph introduces an adversarial evidentiary element into the equation. In short, it gives the FBI in this case the option to say "this guy is acting shady, we can't trust him". Even if they're wrong, the sensitivity of the position requires passing on good candidates if they must. An investigator on their own would have to prove/justify their conclusion. a polygraph is their way out. They've seen spies, traitors, etc.. it's a way to filter people out with a somewhat justifiable cause. The question you should be asking is why was it waived in this case just for those three staff members? If it is indeed unreliable, why not stop it entirely? Millions of Americans have TS/SCI clearance, which had them pass a polygraph just fine. The government isn't losing a lot of talent who're fumbling a polygraph. This is a big deal. Any conversation about the reliability of a polygraph is a distraction.
- roenxi 1y ago
  It doesn't speak volumes. It just says that the people being hired had enough status that they don't have to go through what amounts to an initiation ritual. Polygraphs appear to be another sad outcrop from the same pseudoscience formation as phrenology or witch-ducking; basically theatre to legitimise people exercising power in a way they were already going to do. The fact that it gets used speaks more volumes about the culture in intelligence services than the people who may or may not undergo the test.
dvh 1y ago
[flagged]
- zahlman 1y ago
  Please speak plainly. What point are you trying to make, and on what evidence?
solotronics 1y ago
Now that we have real time brain scanning techniques I bet there is something way more accurate than a polygraph out there now.

186 points by Jimmc414 1y ago

the FBI’s employment eligibility guidelines say all employees must obtain a “Top Secret” clearance in order to work at the agency following a background check. The furor here is about Dan Bongino, and Nicole Rucker, Kash Patel's assitant The article goes on to say that FBI employees at the level Bongino and Rucker are working at have "SCI" clearance on top of Top Secret. Back in the 1990s, it was exceptionally difficult to get TS clearance. SCI on top of that must have been even harder. I guess this is no worse than Jared Kushner getting a waiver to work at the White House during Trump's first term, but holy cow, getting this kind of special treatment really does reinforce a big difference between classes, doesn't it? Any ordinary, non-rich person getting "alerts" on polygraphs would probably be immediately dropped from getting a Top Secret.

gishh 1y ago
> Back in the 1990s, it was exceptionally difficult to get TS clearance. SCI on top of that must have been even harder. Not really. I know a litany of people who had TS/SCI clearances in the 90s. It was literally a job requirement for entire divisions of the US govt.
- bediger4000 1y ago
  Even for the 15 page "short form", required to get a "Secret" clearance, you had to list everywhere you'd lived for the past N years, N >= 10 as I recall and give a non-family person who could testify you lived there. You had to list all the organizations you belonged to. Some fed contacted every single reference I gave, my old scoutmaster, and the minister of the church I was a janitor for during college. Top Secret was notoriously more difficult in terms of paperwork and scrutiny of your past. The article about Bongino's waiver made it clear that TS was a requirement for FBI employment, an entire division of the government, although it wasn't clear if that was everyone, or just the higher level administrative staff.
  - majormajor 1y ago
    Thorough papwerwork is not the same as "exceptionally difficult." I've been a reference interviewed in the processes before. It was not exactly rigorous. (It would have been hard to be, frankly... I had no knowledge of them doing anything shady, and they had no specific prior area of concern to try to grill me specifically on.)
    - rkomorn 1y ago
      This reminds me that I was interviewed for someone's US security clearance even though I wasn't a US citizen at the time. I was confused that I wasn't even asked if I was a citizen, or that my friend listed me as a reference because I'm pretty sure he knew.
  - gishh 1y ago
    N=7 There is an entire industry built around clearing people, your tax dollars pay them. Of course everyone you listed was contacted, that’s the whole point. How is filling out an SF-86 hard? Maybe what you meant was, justifying the reason to get a clearance in the 90s was harder. Perhaps that is true. Getting a clearance isn’t hard.
  - Scubabear68 1y ago
    I'm really confused by your response. Divulging where you've lived for the past 10+ years, having agents contacting your references, etc for "Secret" is not very onerous or difficult. Given that, your subsequent statement that "Top Secret was notoriously more difficult in terms of paperwork" seems to be pointless.
  - crystal_revenge 1y ago
    > required to get a "Secret" clearance, you had to list everywhere you'd lived for the past N years, N >= 10 as I recall and give a non-family person who could testify you lived there. You had to list all the organizations you belonged to. As a former federal government employee, all of this is also required as part of the standard background check. People will show up in a black sedan and interview your neighbors, all you past employers and people who knew you at each residence. This happened for me and I’ve never had any real security clearance (nor required it). Just because it’s work doesn’t mean it’s rare. My father and most of his coworkers all had TS clearance in the 90s. It required flying out to Dallas (if I recall correctly) for the polygraph. Lots of work but very common.
- KaiserPro 1y ago
  According to this: https://news.clearancejobs.com/2022/08/16/how-many-people-have-a-top-secret-security-clearance/ https://news.clearancejobs.com/2022/08/16/how-many-people-ha... The number of poepl that hold top secret clearance (assuming its the same thing...) is 1.3mil
  - gishh 1y ago
    Given the firings/retirement of a bunch of govt employees recently, it’s probably still higher than 1.3 million. Most people just back into a clearance without realizing they need one, and bounce right through the process. If you haven’t been convicted of a felony it’s basically falling-off-a-log easy to get cleared. The whole process is a charade.
kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
SCI is not above TS. It is a parallel system to restrict information within controlled silos. You can have SCI access with secret only.
CGMthrowaway 1y ago
Is Kash Patel's assistant rich? What does rich have to do with anything, that came out of nowhere. A more likely scenario is that these are political appointees and presumably an elected official wants to be able to get their guy in there no matter what
HeinzStuckeIt 1y ago
> Back in the 1990s, it was exceptionally difficult to get TS clearance. SCI on top of that must have been even harder. I think you are exaggerating this as the other poster points out. Every US military cryptolinguist gets a TS-SCI clearance. So, while every student at Defense Language Institute was doing his/her language course, a background check was done, and the rejection rate in the 1990s was presumably tiny. And ditto for other military intelligence roles. A certain amount of military personnel getting the clearance were semi-native speakers of a language in demand who still had foreign ties (family or land owned in the old country) but they passed nonetheless, which must speak to a certain laxness.
moron4hire 1y ago
I think this is a misunderstanding a lot of people have about clearance. The different clearance levels are not really an indication of different levels of vetting being done to a person. If you can get cleared for Secret, there's no particular reason you couldn't get cleared for TS. It's the same SF-86 form, the same investigation (well, not that I know, exactly. All I know is that it didn't look any different from my perspective), the same interview. There are some differences in how often you'll get re-interviewed, I think. It's not really anything so onerous that you have to ever think about it, really. The different levels are much more about need to know, which is driven by potential impact of breach. You don't even have to go through the lower levels before you get to the higher ones. The selectiveness of giving people higher clearance levels is more about controlling exposure surface area. On top of that, clearance level is kind of more about what meetings you'll be allowed in, what conversations you'll be allowed to participate in. SCI is more having ongoing access to data. Then there are additionally "caveats", which are clearances to specific programs. Each of these things are a different axis in the clearance system, not different levels of a linear system. Contrary to somewhat popular belief, a polygraph is not required to obtain TS/SCI. You can do a polygraph and that's a whole additional designation, "TS/SCI with Poly," as you might see in various job ads. The fact that these people can't pass TS is extremely telling and extremely concerning. Not being able to pass basically means the investigation revealed information that the person has a reasonable chance of being coerced into providing information. A simple example: maybe you have a mistress you're trying to hide; a foreign intelligence service could try to blackmail you into providing them information. Maybe you have a lot of debt, especially gambling debt; you'd be judged particularly susceptible to taking bribes, which would also set you up to be easily blackmailed. But I know at least one guy who is a raging pothead who has had high level clearance for the last 20 years. They didn't care because he was open about it. If he was open about it with them, then it was clear it wasn't an issue he could be coerced over. I know people who had past criminal charges on their records. They were fine, too, for the same reason. It used to be you couldn't hold a clearance if you were gay, but nowadays, people are much more open and accepting of it such that it's not a reasonable attack vector for coercion. Basically, it means you've got major skeletons in your closet and probably tried to lie about them if you can't pass for S or TS. If you can't pass for TS then you probably shouldn't have a position of public trust at all, even for just handling CUI.
jki275 1y ago
There are literally hundreds of thousands of TS/SCI cleared government employees and contractors. There is nothing "exceptionally difficult" about any of this.
dmix 1y ago
> getting this kind of special treatment really does reinforce a big difference between classes The Trump admin has always been an example of ignoring the elite political class and bringing in whoever he likes. Kash Patel himself came from a family of asylum seekers who fled India and he got his start as a public defender. Not exactly old money. The guy he brought on as an assistant (without a polygraph) got his start as a beat cop from NYPD before joining the Secret Service.

jghn 1y ago

It'd matter more if polygraphs weren't completely bogus pseudoscience in the first place

trehalose 1y ago
Sure, but don't you find it a little curious that these tests are being waived so selectively? If the FBI believes polygraphs serve some purpose, why would it choose to waive them?
- bogomipblips 1y ago
  [flagged]
- jghn 1y ago
  Does it bother me? Yes. But the real solution is to not have polygraphs at all, not to get upset that a few people didn't get them.
  - exasperaited 1y ago
    You really mean it's not worth getting upset that employees are put through stupid and sometimes even quite invasive or degrading questioning in a humiliating and fear-driven process that bosses don't?
    - jghn 1y ago
      I'd prefer they just get rid of them altogether. They're stupid.
      - tialaramex 1y ago
        Right, when people sow chaos sometimes the random chaos includes a few nuggets that are good. "No more polygraphs" isn't quite "Stop making pennies" but it's also not "We're reintroducing slavery" is it?
      - 1y ago

yahoozoo 1y ago

Bongino use to be Secret Service, tasked with protecting Bush then Obama, for what it’s worth.

3eb7988a1663 1y ago
I suppose that matters of how closely the body guards get exposed to state secrets. Surely there is some accidental leakage, but you would hope that getting elevated to the top would require close scrutiny. From mid-way in the article He’s had a rocky tenure so far, marked by public fights with senior Cabinet officials and accusations that he leaked information to the press, which Bongino denied. In August, Trump appointed Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey as co-deputy director at the FBI, setting off speculation that the White House had lost faith in Bongino. But he remains in the job. ProPublica could not determine whether Bongino sat for a polygraph exam or what its results were. Though the existence of a polygraph waiver is an indication he may not have passed the test, it is possible Bongino received a preemptive exemption, a former senior FBI official with knowledge of the vetting program told ProPublica. When ProPublica sought comment from the FBI, the agency denied that Bongino or the other senior staff members failed polygraph tests. “It is false that the individuals you referenced failed polygraphs,” wrote spokesperson Ben Williamson. Unfortunately, a testimony form this administration is not worth much, so I am stuck in a schordinger's situation where he both passed and failed the polygraph.

Ms-J 1y ago

Polygraphs must not be used as they are completely unreliable and subject to many issues. The government does a lot of security theater and campaigns to make you believe that they are competent.

ajross 1y ago
Nonetheless waiving the theater for Bongino et. al. implies that Patel thinks the theater works, or at least that these guys were likely to fail anyway regardless of "many issues". It smells corrupt, like everything else in this administration. And IMHO that's more important than a technical critique of a particular interrogation method.
estearum 1y ago
No, polygraphs are bad lie detectors/truth detectors. They are perfectly fine as detectors of areas of interest for investigators to probe deeper.
- andy_ppp 1y ago
  Yes or to pressure you into confessing, honestly good interrogators can do this without the machinery.
  - estearum 1y ago
    Good carpenters can build stuff without nail guns, doesn’t mean it makes sense to use hammers.
    - bathtub365 1y ago
      Carpenters use hammers all the time…
      - estearum 1y ago
        Uh yeah… just like investigators use tools other than polygraphs. The point is that just because something can be done without a specific tool does not mean you should never use the tool. I guess I should’ve added “doesn’t mean it makes sense to use hammers exclusively" for the HN pedants.

CGMthrowaway 1y ago

Good writeup of what happens in an FBI pre-employment polygraph: https://www.andrewwatters.com/hall-of-shame/FBI-SACU/FSL/poly.phtml https://www.andrewwatters.com/hall-of-shame/FBI-SACU/FSL/pol...

tru3_power 1y ago
Dang so this is much more comprehensive than a normal polygraph. I know the write up says it would be almost impossible to beat, but is that true?
- bragr 1y ago
  Well the FBI prosecuted a guy who provided training on how to beat it.
  - datavirtue 1y ago
    Yes, the polygraph has one purpose, instill fear. It's an over the top interrogation. Level 1 torture.
  - giles_corey 1y ago
    Indeed, the FBI participated in the criminal investigation of the late Doug Williams, who offered training on how to pass or beat a polygraph "test." Because there was no actual crime for which to prosecute him, federal agents set out to stage one in a "sting" operation they dubbed "Operation Lie Busters": https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2016/04/26/operation-lie-busters-a-travesty-of-justice/ https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2016/04/26/operation-lie-bust...

puppycodes 1y ago

The only way polygraphs work is by convincing people its an actual lie detection machine. Cops leveredge this belief and tell you that you "failed miserably" so you ultimately confess because "your caught". They are about as accurate as flipping a coin.

tucnak 1y ago
This is not accurate. Polygraphs are not detecting lies, they're used to assess your sensitivities; there are really talented interrogators in counterintelligence, whose full-time job is to fuck with you in subtle ways. To poly a person at will is very much a power move, and some guys fucking love it. But that's a different story all together. Most of the time it's a formality like everything else. In reality, people don't have remotely enough bandwidth to pursue stuff like that unless there's a genuine investigation. But office politics people will office-politique. Unpopular opinion: private companies should poly people more often in hiring, it could prove more useful than other arbitrary kind of culture fit interviews. Food for thought.
- fnordlord 1y ago
  Unpopular because it’s a bad idea. You’re now hiring better liars and scaring away humble talent.
  - sigwinch 1y ago
    And if you stop doing it, you now have a group who were polygraphed and a group who were not.
- general1465 1y ago
  > private companies should poly people more often in hiring, it could prove more useful than other arbitrary kind of culture fit interviews. Useful in what sense? That you can't figure out anyway what tested person is capable of because tested person can believe that they have skills on godlike senior level, but they are junior at best?

expedition32 1y ago

[flagged]

tomhow 1y ago
Please stop posting flamewar-style comments on HN. It's not what HN is for and it destroys what it is for. Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them if you want to participate here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

KaiserPro 1y ago

Yes polygraphs are bollocks, but, rules are rules. The issue is, if exceptions are made, what's stopping other breaking the rules? I don't care if he's a dem, rep or maga, rules are rules.

shermantanktop 1y ago
Rules are only words on paper unless they are enforced, especially to constrain the actions of the powerful. Once they are consistently broken, the rules only matter for the powerless. There have always been stupid rules, and legitimate reasons to break them. But “I am an unqualified appointee and this unqualified person is my friend” is not a legitimate reason.
jandrewrogers 1y ago
The rule has always been that this can be waived at the discretion of specific senior officials. It isn't done for average Federal employees, and not always for political positions, but it is a thing that exists.
CamperBob2 1y ago
So many things we thought were rules or laws or regulations were never actually anything but customs, traditions, and gentlemens' agreements. Which works great as long as the people in command are sane and ethical. When you have an FBI director who spells his name with a dollar sign, well...
CSMastermind 1y ago
When I was in college they did an audit to see if I could graduate and it was flagged that I had been allowed to skip the Introduction to Computer Science class because I got a 5 on the AP Comp Sci test. The problem was that I took the test while it was administered in C++ and it had later switched to Java. The school decided they were not going to recognize the test results and instead would only credit me with an elective class for it, I would still have ot pass the introductory class. This is in spite of pass all the later comptuer science classwork. I escalated it to the dean, who told me that while he recognized this made no sense, "rules are rules and if we didn't follow them they wouldn't be rules".

yieldcrv 1y ago

polygraphs are federally banned for employment except for in the federal government, so that's more controversial circumventing the federal government's hypocrisy you're blind if you want to pretend that this specific action is the top of a slippery slope when we're below the slope at this point, Congress isn't gong to do anything so why even act surprised. let's focus on the hypocrisy of polygraph being standard at all

Animats 1y ago

That's just the FBI side. The Trump administration has, as a policy, that the Counsel for the President can clear someone without them going through the usual clearance process. Some senior White House staff have been "cleared" that way. The standard process starts, as it has for decades, with filling out Standard Form 86.[1] I see they only want residences for the last 10 years. It used to be "list all residences from birth". Then, all of that gets checked.[2] These criteria are not, apparently, applied to White House staff or Presidential appointees. [1] https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86/ https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86/ [2] https://sgp.fas.org/spb/bginvest.html https://sgp.fas.org/spb/bginvest.html

api 1y ago

The fact that these are still used is a bit of a scandal. They are total bullshit. If they “work” at all it’s by convincing gullible people they work, so they might make someone slip up or confess thinking the magic machine will get them. Of course things have improved. Decades ago they were trusted a lot more to the point that a lot of innocent people got prosecuted and guilty people went free based on polygraphs. These days they’re inadmissible in court, but they’re still used in the court of public opinion and in some jobs.

jki275 1y ago

polygraphs are junk science. I don't know who the other two are, but Bongino was already polygraphed and cleared for the Secret Service -- there's no reason to pretend that he wasn't cleared for the job. This article reads like a political hit piece and has no real grasp of reality. It also has statements that clearly betray its author doesn't really understand how security clearances work anyway -- most clearances don't require polygraphs, those are an IC and LE thing, and any OCA can grant any waiver they choose to grant. In this particular case if the AG wanted to review this decision she could do so as his boss, but it really makes no difference. Given that polygraphs are, again, junk science, who gives a shit.

unethical_ban 1y ago
Then they could remove them altogether, but they aren't pushing that. Your argument about the effectiveness of polygraphs is entirely irrelevant. The inconsistency and special treatment is the problem.

jancsika 1y ago

Rank speculation-- polygraph is a fake tool, but when people who think it works attempt to avoid it, real data is produced. :)

notepad0x90 1y ago

I think many on this thread are missing the point. the fact that it had to be waived alone speaks volumes. Sure they're about as accurate as a coin flip as the top commenter said, but they are theatrics and what you do before, during, and after usually gives interrogators lots of clues about you that they wouldn't otherwise have observed. If you're trying "tricks" to get past it for example, that's one data point. It's useful for things like clearance investigations because there is a counter-intel side to it, your comms, pattern of live and other things will be scrutinized. it is essentially a "vibe" tool. Do you look too clam, too nervous,etc.. That said, people end up contradicting themselves when focusing too much on beating the polygraph too. Skilled interrogators throw questions that will cause that. Do you sound too prepared and detailed, answering questions with details most people won't remember? Are you too consistent, indicating recollection of prepared facts, instead of wading through unreliable human memory? Even without a polygraph, your eye movements alone are hard to get under control unless you practice for it. That's why they baseline you first with simple things you're expected to lie on, and then more complex things that most people would at least partially lie about. The accuracy of the polygraph itself is not too relevant. If you're hiring someone for a senior role at the FBI, a polygraph is the formality that opens you up to all kinds of legal trouble. it's purpose is to put the subject under legal jeopardy. A simple interrogation will do, but a polygraph introduces an adversarial evidentiary element into the equation. In short, it gives the FBI in this case the option to say "this guy is acting shady, we can't trust him". Even if they're wrong, the sensitivity of the position requires passing on good candidates if they must. An investigator on their own would have to prove/justify their conclusion. a polygraph is their way out. They've seen spies, traitors, etc.. it's a way to filter people out with a somewhat justifiable cause. The question you should be asking is why was it waived in this case just for those three staff members? If it is indeed unreliable, why not stop it entirely? Millions of Americans have TS/SCI clearance, which had them pass a polygraph just fine. The government isn't losing a lot of talent who're fumbling a polygraph. This is a big deal. Any conversation about the reliability of a polygraph is a distraction.

roenxi 1y ago
It doesn't speak volumes. It just says that the people being hired had enough status that they don't have to go through what amounts to an initiation ritual. Polygraphs appear to be another sad outcrop from the same pseudoscience formation as phrenology or witch-ducking; basically theatre to legitimise people exercising power in a way they were already going to do. The fact that it gets used speaks more volumes about the culture in intelligence services than the people who may or may not undergo the test.

dvh 1y ago

[flagged]

zahlman 1y ago
Please speak plainly. What point are you trying to make, and on what evidence?

solotronics 1y ago

Now that we have real time brain scanning techniques I bet there is something way more accurate than a polygraph out there now.