11 ms·
Man accused of teaching people to beat lie detector tests faces prison
- LoganCale 13y agoThis should absolutely not be illegal.
- adamnemecek 13y agoHow so?
- dkuntz2 13y agoConsidering that polygraphs give false positives quite frequently, and polygraph tests are inadmissible as evidence in the US, I can't see how teaching someone to manipulate one should be illegal... Of course, the guy didn't just teach people how to manipulate them, he taught people who intended to defraud the state (in a manner of soaking). If he had just not cared about their intent, he wouldn't have a problem.
- adamnemecek 13y agoYeah, that was my line of reasoning. EDIT: Oh, sorry, I misread the original comment.
- tantalor 13y agoIt's not. The part that is illegal is encouraging people to lie to the government. They're two different things.
- girvo 13y agoThe fact that you must take a polygraph test to join the government is ridiculous on its face. I cannot believe it... For some stupid reason I thought governments were better than believing obviously pseudo-scientific bullshit. Sigh :(
- LoganCale 13y agoEncouraging people to lie to the government shouldn't be illegal either. Lying to the government perhaps should be (though that's debatable), but encouraging or teaching how should not.
- tantalor 13y agoAye, and I can't find the relevant statute.
- jostmey 13y agoThe man committed a horrible deed - he helped likely criminals escape the reach of justice. But the terrible truth here is that interpreting the squiggles of a lie-detector test is not science. Perhaps we as a society rely to much on this "so called" technology.
- smutticus 13y agoThis man did not commit any terrible deed. Instructors teach people how to use guns every day. Some of these people go on to kill people and commit crimes, but no one would suggest you prosecute the firearms instructors. All this case does is point out how stupid polygraph tests are. Nothing more. If, as the government claims, Chad Dixon taught methods that allow subjects of polygraphs to effectively cheat them, then polygraphs can easily be cheated. If polygraphs can be easily cheated then why is anyone relying on polygraphs for anything. Polygraphs are part operational security theatre and part invasive intrusion on someone's personal life. As this sad story proves they offer little more.
- roryokane 13y agoThe difference between Dixon’s case and the gun instructor case is that, to use your analogy, the students on gun use actually told the instructor that they planned to go out and shoot someone. That is, people told Dixon that they were going to lie on these tests (rather than just prevent the test giving them a false negative). Now, getting a government job you’re unqualified for isn’t as bad as murdering someone, but it’s still a bad thing for society. Unqualified people in government jobs would presumably make the government run less efficiently with respect to taxpayer money, and less effectively, which could be especially bad if these government jobs help people.
- avalaunch 13y agoInstructors teach people how to use guns every day. Some of these people go on to kill people and commit crimes, but no one would suggest you prosecute the firearms instructors. Unless the students being taught told the instructors in advance that they were going to use the education to kill people and commit crimes, which is exactly what happened here. That being said, I agree with everything else you said.
- smutticus 13y agoThe emperor does NOT like being told he is naked.
- pg 13y ago"Whether the measures are effective is a matter of debate." Less so after this prosecution. It would be pretty stupid for the government to send undercover agents after him if his techniques didn't work. He'd be helping the government if he taught ineffective techniques to people to who wanted to lie to it. So either the government is very stupid (a real possibility, I admit) or his techniques work.
- TruthElixirX 13y agoHardly a possibility. More of a reality.
- unimpressive 13y agoIf I were to hypothetically send two FBI agents to your door, you'd probably take the situation very seriously. I don't see why you have trouble taking the people you don't see seriously. This isn't the DMV.
- TruthElixirX 13y agoJust because it is serious doesn't mean the government isn't stupid. That is why they are dangerous, because they are violent, stupid, and very serious.
- noonespecial 13y agoDon't forget the most scary of all, well meaning. http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/C..S..Lewis.Quote.E1E7 http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/C..S..Lewis.Quote.E...
- sliverstorm 13y agoOf course, it could also be an elaborate scheme on the part of the government to convince people his techniques work, precisely because they don't!
- wavefunction 13y ago
- chatman 13y agoThese tests should be administered on top politicians from time to time, and only would they consider banning them. Like, along with an oath, let a President take a lie-detector test.
- alan_cx 13y agoWould you believe such a test?
- devx 13y agoProbably more than I'd believe a politician directly.
- ihsw 13y agoNo, the polygraph examination is a psychologically manipulative torture technique meant to intimidate the subject into submission. The main goal of the polygraph examination is to get the examinee to incriminate themselves through a verbal confession. Nobody should be subject to it, and its use should be banned. It should be no surprise that the widespread use of this technique has attracted sadists and other predatory individuals.
- roryokane 13y agoNote this detail from the article: “Teaching about the flaws of polygraph testing is not inherently illegal. […] Dixon was charged after he helped undercover agents learn to cheat the test after they told him specifically that they intended to lie as they applied for federal jobs.” So Dixon’s charge isn’t simply helping people beat a government test. It’s aiding candidates in gaining government jobs, even though he knows that those candidates are unqualified for those jobs (according to official measures). I think that makes Dixon’s charging more understandable. Now, one may disagree that the questions they ask in such tests are an accurate way of finding good candidates. I don’t know what sorts of questions they ask. But the government’s response is understable, because they believe that the tests really do qualify one for the job.
- hayksaakian 13y agoWas it actually confirmed that he was actually told that? Seems like a good story to justify shutting him down.
- TruthElixirX 13y agoIs it a crime to lie on a resume then? Is it a crime for me to explain how to lie to you on a resume? Is it cool to throw someone in jail for explaining the best way to lie? Every thing is a nail to you people, waiting to be solved with the hammer of violence.
- cynwoody 13y agoFrom reading the article, the crucial point is that Dixon's clients told him they were going to use his training to do illegal stuff. Up to that point, Dixon's teachings were protected by the First Amendment. He should have told them to get lost and reported them to the appropriate authorities. E.g., it's perfectly legal to write articles and teach classes and post YouTube videos on picking locks. Even if the knowledge you spread causes lock makers to lose money and their employees to lose jobs. Indeed, your teachings help society by exposing false security. However, if someone tells you they are planning a burglary spree and tries to engage you to give a seminar on unusual locks, then you better tell them to take a hike, or you are prosecutable.
- Sukotto 13y agoWhat are the legalities in the US with respect to teaching people? If I'm teaching something and a student says they intend to use what I'm teaching to commit a crime am I legally required to do anything at that point? Is it different if the student says they're going to use the education to cheat a background test as opposed to some other bad activity? Is it different if the skills are generally considered more harmful (martial arts, lock picking) versus less harmful (bike riding, painting, gymnastics)?
- tantalor 13y ago> am I legally required to do anything at that point? No, but if you continue you become an accomplice.
- alan_cx 13y agoIn a way then, why aren't lawyers under the same kind of threat? Don't they advise people in order to avoid incriminating themselves?
- marze 13y agoInteresting strategy, to prosecute, as the publicity will only raise awareness of lie detector beating techniques. Better to research new mind reading style lie detection systems.
- ihsw 13y agoIt serves far more than to simply raise awareness of the techniques for beating it, namely to deter other would-be teachers. The government's hounding of him -- like their current hounding of Edward Snowden and their previous hounding of Aaron Schwartz -- is a naked assertion of dominance.
- clicks 13y agohttp://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-(Lie-Detector) http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-(Lie-Detector) has several good tips on how to cheat polygraph tests. I actually strongly encourage everyone to read up on polygraph tests and how to cheat them, here's why: they've been wrong again and again, they've gotten innocent men in trouble. There's a very real probability that the polygraph can say you're lying even when you're not lying. To save yourself from getting caught by these pseduo-scientific tests if ever you're in the position, prepare yourself now, learn about the polygraph tests and how you can use them to your benefit.
- DevX101 13y agoI don't know about you, but my programs never compile the first time I write them. I wouldn't recommend anyone using these techniques on the internet unless you can test them out on a real polygraph.
- saiko-chriskun 13y agoThe problem is it's very hard to test even with a real polygraph. You'd have to somehow induce real fear. It's not just about lying, in of itself.
- mistercow 13y agoThe bad news is that replicating an actual polygraph scenario is basically impossible. Even if you go in for a real polygraph, it won't be the same as having something riding on it. The good news is twofold: 1. It's seems not to be as difficult to fool a polygraph as it is to get code to compile. 2. You can measure some of the factors they look at. A heart rate monitor, for example, can aid in practicing raising your pulse.
- topynate 13y agoYou can replicate a real test, but it requires considerable effort: First, you need someone capable of imitating a trained polygrapher. The simplest option is to hire one, but from what I know of polygraphy I'm pretty sure that a magician could do the job with a few hours study. Second, you need an accurate simulation of real polygraphy equipment. Again, you can just pay for a test, or you can rig something up with a galvanometer, heart rate monitor, and spirometer. Thirdly, as you said, you see to have "something riding on it." Hand a trusted confidant a quarter of your monthly income and tell them to give it to a charity antithetical to your beliefs if you fail the test.
- dhx 13y agoThe Anderson Report[1] into scientology stated that the E-meter[2] is used: "...to assume, intensify and retain control over the minds and wills of preclears. Fears of its abilities keep them in constant subjection. Its use can be so manipulated by cunningly phrased questions that almost any desired result can be obtained, and it is used unscrupulously to dominate students and staff alike. All the evil features of scientology are intensified where the E-meter is involved. When used in conjunction with hypnotic techniques, its evil impact is greatly increased. This simple electrical device is not, of course, the sole basis for the condemnation of scientology, but without the E-meter scientology would be partly disarmed." The use of psychological manipulation[3] tools works well for scientology. Polygraphy works better because it is backed by a larger community of supporters that are just as deceived as the subjects. Polygraphy has also benefited from decades of use in movies--ensuring much of the world's population now believes in the deception. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_Report [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation
- ihsw 13y agoIt should be noted that both Scientology and the variety of government intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA, etc) have an obsession with berating examinees accusatory and spurious questions and claims, the goal being to get the examinees to incriminate themselves. Famously (or infamously), a Scientologist examiner's opening question is usually "What are your lies? Everybody has lies, tell me about yours."
- victorf 13y agoThe next time someone asks you why privacy matters, you can remind them that the government is now prosecuting speech as thoughtcrime.
- morgante 13y agoI'd like to be outraged, but it does seem like he deserves to serve time. He's not being prosecuted for providing information generally on how to cheat a polygraph. He committed a crime when he willingly and knowingly aided actual criminals. (Ex. a federal agent with drug cartel ties.) That's absolutely a crime. Just like it's legal to sell thallium, but it's certainly not legal to sell it to someone who tells me they intend to kill with it. And it seems he didn't maintain plausible deniability. (Bring on the downvotes.)
- ihsw 13y ago> aided actual criminals Could you be more specific in what crimes he aided in? Falsifying polygraph test results isn't a crime, since the test results are inadmissible in court cases.
- morgante 13y ago> Falsifying polygraph test results isn't a crime, since the test results are inadmissible in court cases. True. But it is an obstruction of justice, and it seems pretty clear that some people were soliciting his services to cover up non-polygraph crimes. For example, providing false identification to members of the Zetas drug cartel is definitely a crime (and, considering their penchant for bloodshed, a pretty despicable one). It's also whether the "convicted sex offenders" used his training to avoid capture for additional crimes (which would make him something of an accomplice). Just not clear how we could defend a man who knowingly trained people doing some pretty nefarious things.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- tantalor 13y ago> Falsifying polygraph test results isn't a crime Yes it is: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505
- mistercow 13y ago
- teawrecks 13y agoPenn and Teller did an episode of bullshit on this. The key is to clench your anus muscles. Immediately spikes the charts. Just keep doing that to every question and all of their data is invalid.
- tantalor 13y agoAh, the Kegel defense.
- mistercow 13y agoThat is not quite a nuanced enough approach to be effective. First of all, what you have to do is determine which questions are "control" questions. These are questions where the interregator expects less than 100% honesty, and they use responses to these questions as a comparison when asking you the "relevant" questions. For example, they might ask "Have you ever lied to get out of trouble?", or "Have you ever revealed a secret told to you by a friend?" You use your false-positive triggers on these questions, exaggerating the response the interrogator will associate with deception. [Edit: To clarify, the point here is that you don't want to give the interrogator a high entropy data set; that would just lead to them thinking you were lying at random. You want their data to give a very specific indication: that you have been truthful on all relevant questions] Secondly, the latest edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector[1] notes that examiners have begun using sensors to attempt detect physical countermeasures, such as sensors to detect changes in weight distribution. It has not been determined if they are able to detect intentional anus constriction, but in the interest of caution, they advise sticking to mental countermeasures and tongue-biting, which definitely cannot be detected (although I would expect some attempt to detect the latter in the future). Finally, it's really important to remember that these examiners are interrogators. The lie detector is a tool that they use, and in many ways it is a misdirection. One of its key purposes is to make you feel that they have an edge. Knowing that you can fool it is an important piece of the puzzle, but you must always remember that their bottom line is to get you to make damaging admissions. They are well-trained at this, and they will certainly use other techniques besides their toys. [1] https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf
- downandout 13y agoThe government is abusing the justice system to imprison anyone that represents even a low level threat to it. That is a hallmark of some of the worst regimes in the history of the world. Regardless of his sentence, they have achieved their purpose: to make sure that Americans believe, incorrectly, that it is illegal to protect their rights when the government wants to encroach them. They convicted this guy largely on a technicality - that they happened to mention that they would be using the knowledge he was teaching them illegally. Even that is a stretch of the law. Next we'll have DEA agents walking into 7-11's buying skittles and Arizona watermelon fruit juice, saying the word "lean" to the checkout person, then indicting the 7-11 organization for complicity in illegal drug manufacturing if they sell the items.
- D9u 13y agoI was under the impression that polygraph results were inadmissible as evidence in court proceedings, and if so, of what importance is teaching people how to beat "lie detector" tests?
- tantalor 13y agoThey are used widely in employment screenings at the NSA, CIA, etc.
- mistercow 13y agoThey are essentially inadmissible as evidence (this is apparently not quite that clear cut, but as far as I can tell, it'll do for our discussion) but it is not disallowed as a post-conviction measure. Apparently, once you've been convicted, the laws of logic magically stop applying to your situation.
- gojomo 13y agoAs a Lie Detector Antidetection Instructor – a "Lie Instructor", essentially – any prospective student who tells you their illegal plans is either an undercover agent, or has so little natural talent for lying they should be rejected from further instruction in any case.
- mistercow 13y agoCould you tell people something like "If you did intend to lie on the polygraph test, you should by no means tell anyone that, including me"? Or would that be too legally risky. It seems like otherwise you have something of a moral quandry. The lie detector is ineffective, so without instruction in countermeasures, a person guilty of one thing could still end up accused of another based on their performance. Whatever they're actually guilty of, that scenario is negative utility for everyone.
- tantalor 13y agoHe plead to 18 USC § 1505 "Obstruction of proceedings". http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505 Seems he was party to an evading an investigation by misrepresenting testimony. That is, knowingly helping somebody lie. This reminds me of 18 USC § 1001, "Making false statements". This could be used to go after other "polygraph countermeasure" purveyors. You would have to never advise clients to lie. "Don't lie, try to evade the question, etc."
- tantalor 13y agomistercow points out that this statute only applies to antitrust investigations, I don't see how it could apply in this case. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6309891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6309891
- Daniel_Newby 13y agoCongress shall make no law ...
- mattjaynes 13y agoMichael Shermer of "Skeptic" magazine covered how easy lie detectors are to game here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLL3wtgBiFA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLL3wtgBiFA In the video, a former Polygraph Examiner, Doug Williams coaches him on how to beat the test. Then they test Mr Shermer and he defeats the test easily. Polygraphs are so prone to bad data, they should be retired ASAP. They're slightly more effective than dowsing rods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing In related news, Iraq spent $38 million on dowsing rods to "detect" bombs: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-11/in-iraq-the-bomb-detecting-device-that-didnt-work-except-to-make-money http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-11/in-iraq-the-... How many lives have been lost or ruined due to lack of basic understanding of available science?
- sologoub 13y agoDoes anyone know what "wire fraud" has to do with this? That charge has been used in a number of recent "hacking" cases, where it makes a bit more sense (though still over blown), but I can't quite figure out what it has to do with teaching people how to remain calm while being questioned.
- reginaldjcooper 13y agoThere was a wire and some fraud? Prosecutors love to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks, it also helps them extort a plea bargain when the choice is between argue your way out of 1000 years in prison or take 5.
- pearjuice 13y agoDoes it occur to anyone here that he is set up and put in prison to teach someone in prison working for some shady agency how he can deal with his next interrogation and be set free of guilt? Would be a great movie script, though.
- girvo 13y agoWhat the actual fuck. Polygraphs are unscientific bullshit snake oil anyway and I can't believe America still uses and believes in them.
- jmadsen 13y agoI can't help but feel that there is something one-sided & missing from this story. Two questions (one being discussed already): "pleaded guilty in December to wire fraud and obstruction of an agency proceeding" 1) I didn't see any mention of the wire fraud charges - can anyone clarify that part? (Over the phone or mail, but that would have to be fraud - in which case, they are saying his technique doesn't work. Which opens a different problem) 2) There are laws against aiding & abetting. If I teach you to crack a safe, it's freedom of speech. If you tell me, "teach me how to crack a safe because I'm planning to rob 1st National", I am absolutely an accomplice & will be charged The story tries to paint this as a man being prosecuted for teaching a technique, but I don't see that at all.
- jcromartie 13y agoIt's probably just because he got paid to do it.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jarrett 13y agoIn general, teaching which is not intended to facilitate crime is protected speech. (Beating a polygraph isn't inherently, a crime. It depends on the context.) But, if you know or reasonably should know that you're aiding in the commission of crime, then you have committed a crime. You needn't be explicitly informed of criminal intentions by your students. Willful ignorance will not protect you from prosecution. So, for example, mere publication of a book on polygraph countermeasures is probably protected speech, particularly if the information is presented as valuable data for public debate, rather than instructions for would-be criminals. (Don't take my word for it, and remember I said "probably.") But, if a person coaches individuals, and a reasonable person in the same position would suspect criminal intentions, then the coach is probably no longer engaging in protected speech. One wonders, then, where the line is drawn. How much does one have to know about his students before it becomes actual knowledge of willful ignorance, both of which can result in conviction? One can reasonably assume that at least some percentage of all polygraph evaders do so in a context where it's criminal. How does this affect the legality of teaching countermeasures in a one-on-one context? It turns out that the distinctions are subtle, and the case law complex. I would recommend the following read if you're interested in the finer points: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/facilitating.pdf http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/facilitating.pdf The above article doesn't provide a clear answer about teaching polygraph countermeasures, specifically. If anything, it shows that the outcome will depend on a lot of particulars of the case. I don't think one can answer the question in a general sense.
- eksith 13y agoBefore people get too carried away, the reason why he's in trouble isn't that he was teaching people to beat the lie detector. This bit is very important: It's because he was teaching it with knowledge that the techniques would be used for nefarious and illegal things. This is arguably aiding criminal intent. IANAL, but that itself carries a very different connotation with his actions. If he was objectively teaching this to highlight the failures of the detector and showing that it can be beaten, but not directly aiding any criminal activity, it would have been different. The moment he knew the "clients" were engaging in or about to engage in something illegal or legally dubious, he should have distanced himself. And for proof, the article itself mentions that many others who do the same thing, highlight the inadequacies and teach ways to circumvent it, have thus far not been prosecuted.
- moo 13y agoTeaching a gardening class, kick out the pot smoker else you may be aiding future drug production. Easy for law enforcement to frame people and jail them for aiding and abetting a possible future criminal. That's right, not a current criminal, but hypothetical possible future intent by an individual. And we can extend that to negligence. The karate instructor better kick out the grade school student who says they want to punch the bully at school. People have to be paranoid about who they interact with and by law we must watch out for the governments interests, disassociate with those the State may label criminal for some possible crime in the future.
- powertower 13y ago> Dixon was charged after he helped undercover agents learn to cheat the test after they told him specifically that they intended to lie as they applied for federal jobs. I think that might just be the reason why they are going after this guy and not the rest. It's one thing to talk about bank robberies, it's another thing to provide bank-robbery consultation services to bank robbers.
- joeldidit 13y agoThis is BS.
- iamhamm 13y agoI'm completely confused as to how teaching someone techniques for thwarting lie detectors are "wire fraud and obstruction of an agency proceeding". Obstruction of agency proceedings is (per 18 USC c 1505) "Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so". I'm no lawyer, but that sounds to me like you would have to materially intervene in the actual agency proceedings not merely arm people with knowledge of things like breathing techniques. This strikes me as the same nonsense that used to be used against people that taught lockpicking.
- avty 13y agoThe end of freedom.
- annnnd 13y agoSo detector tests are basically "security by obscurity"?