13 ms·

"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 ag

by 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 ago
Hardly a possibility. More of a reality.
- unimpressive 13y ago
  If 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 ago
    Just 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 ago
      Don'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 ago
Of 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
Shutting this guy up via prison also provides some value in maintaining the fiction of the efficacy of polygraphs, so it may not necessarily be an endorsement of his methods. It is my opinion that much of modern LEO's abilities to solve crimes are based on maintaining a facade of authority built up by the common perception of their methods. Specifically I mean the methods of analysis like hand-writing analysis, polygraphs, and even more "scientific" methods like finger-prints or DNA evidence. These methods of investigation are often portrayed in popular media as 100% effective in providing proof, however their real rates of effectiveness are quite a bit lower. Much of these techniques are not as effective as claimed or perceived, but are used as a tool to bring pressure to bear on criminals to cause them to implicate themselves indirectly or confess completely to their crimes. Much crime is solved merely by rounding up the "likely suspects" and tricking them into thinking that the case is already solved and the criminal just has a chance to admit and gain some sort of ameliorative to their sentence.
- samstave 13y ago
  >...a facade of authority built up by the common perception of their methods... And a hell of a lot of force, backed by weapons and corrupt officials willing to "make an example" out of anyone who stands against their false authority.
  - ihsw 13y ago
    Don't forget the plea bargain, where they threaten you with the death penalty and life in prison unless you confess.
    - samstave 13y ago
      Fun fact: NEVER defend yourself in court. Iwas in divorce court with my ex. I was required to pay her attorney fees, as such - I could not afford my own attorney. As I was talking to the judge, her attorney was balking, sniffling and laughing at the things I was saying. I stopped, turned to her and said "Excuse me, you're not being very professional" She physically recoiled, and said "what!" The judge said "I am sorry, what did he say" The attorney said "I don't know - he mumbled and threatened me under his breath!" THe bailiff began to scream at me and get in my face threatening to take me to jail. I turned back to the judge and said "No I did not! I told her she was being unprofessional for making snide comments and sounds while I was discussing my case with you. There is audio recording of everything in this room. Replay the recording." The judge dismissed the whole event, as she knew it were shenanigans on the part of the lawyer. The bailiff continued to glare at me. I gave the law firm a poor review on Yelp, Sagaria Law in San Jose, ca. Yelp kept removing it as Sagaria law kept contacting them about the reviews. I will never respect or trust a lawyer again. This is endemic in our society.
ohashi 13y ago
Prison seems like a good place to have those skills and pass them along.
- solnyshok 13y ago
  I sometimes think of prisons as of wolf-farms. Place where wolves get trained and where they go to rest to come back even stronger. Coursera of criminal world.
  - s_q_b 13y ago
    There is something theater of the absurd about forcing large numbers of people with criminal tendencies to spend long periods of time together and then releasing them into society. The line from the movie Blow comes to mind: Danbury wasn't a prison. It was a crime school. I went in with a Bachelor of Marijuana. Came out with a Doctorate of Cocaine.
rgraciano 13y ago
Letting the guy go because his techniques are ineffective only guarantees that everyone will sit up and take notice when they do prosecute someone. IMO, a better strategy would be to prosecute everyone, including and preferably starting with those whose techniques are _not_ effective. Following that line of logic, if we believe the government to be clever, then we can't draw conclusions as to the efficacy of his techniques, but if we believe the government to be naive or reactionary, then we should conclude that his techniques work. Either way, the real method will find its way into the public domain sooner or later, and the only question is how easily accessible it'll be to the average joe.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
s_q_b 13y ago
The most dangerous element that he, and several other, anti-polygraph coaches are teaching is that the polygraph itself isn't a very effective lie detector. With proper sensors, a skilled technician, and good data analysis it's pretty accurate for specific questions (e.g. did you beat your wife), but terrible for general queries (e.g. do you have any desire to take any action which would cause damage to the United States, her government, or her interests.) Soviet agents routinely beat the polygraph during the Cold War (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich_Ames https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich_Ames, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Klingberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Klingberg) The usefulness of the polygraph for clearance purposes relies mainly upon the fact that people believe it works. Over 90% of information used to deny clearances is derived from voluntary admissions during the polygraph. The truth is that Snowden used one of these services, and so now the government is shutting them all down. The particular company that investigated him for his clearance in Pennsylvania, which employs about 1,500 people, is also facing likely shutdown and serious charges. Maybe, maybe, functional MRIs will give us real lie detectors, but until then it's really just a way to scare people while they're questioned by a skilled interrogator. That said, definitely wouldn't recommend trying to lie. A good investigator is a pretty damn good lie detector all by him or herself. Also, can we finally agree that wire-fraud, mail-fraud, and obstruction of justice are ridiculously overly broad statutes that basically make federal criminal jurisdiction universal?
- silho 13y ago
  >it's pretty accurate for specific questions (e.g. did you beat your wife) Funny that you would use that gender-specific example. As if women didn't beat their husbands/boyfriends.
  - s_q_b 13y ago
    You're right. A fairly large statistical portion of domestic violence is female to male, and the stereotype of the wife-beater has certainly led to a lot of false prosecutions against men (falsely accused of being the aggressor) and situations that police ignored until a female assailant escalated to deadly force. I used it because it's the standard placeholder of an unwitnessed violent crime in law enforcement discussions. Perpetuating harmful stereotypes is not cool in any case. Sincere apologies. I lieu of editing, since the time's elapsed, have some karma :)

by pg 13y ago

TruthElixirX 13y ago

Hardly a possibility. More of a reality.

unimpressive 13y ago
If 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 ago
  Just 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 ago
    Don'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 ago

Of 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

Shutting this guy up via prison also provides some value in maintaining the fiction of the efficacy of polygraphs, so it may not necessarily be an endorsement of his methods. It is my opinion that much of modern LEO's abilities to solve crimes are based on maintaining a facade of authority built up by the common perception of their methods. Specifically I mean the methods of analysis like hand-writing analysis, polygraphs, and even more "scientific" methods like finger-prints or DNA evidence. These methods of investigation are often portrayed in popular media as 100% effective in providing proof, however their real rates of effectiveness are quite a bit lower. Much of these techniques are not as effective as claimed or perceived, but are used as a tool to bring pressure to bear on criminals to cause them to implicate themselves indirectly or confess completely to their crimes. Much crime is solved merely by rounding up the "likely suspects" and tricking them into thinking that the case is already solved and the criminal just has a chance to admit and gain some sort of ameliorative to their sentence.

samstave 13y ago
>...a facade of authority built up by the common perception of their methods... And a hell of a lot of force, backed by weapons and corrupt officials willing to "make an example" out of anyone who stands against their false authority.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Don't forget the plea bargain, where they threaten you with the death penalty and life in prison unless you confess.
  - samstave 13y ago
    Fun fact: NEVER defend yourself in court. Iwas in divorce court with my ex. I was required to pay her attorney fees, as such - I could not afford my own attorney. As I was talking to the judge, her attorney was balking, sniffling and laughing at the things I was saying. I stopped, turned to her and said "Excuse me, you're not being very professional" She physically recoiled, and said "what!" The judge said "I am sorry, what did he say" The attorney said "I don't know - he mumbled and threatened me under his breath!" THe bailiff began to scream at me and get in my face threatening to take me to jail. I turned back to the judge and said "No I did not! I told her she was being unprofessional for making snide comments and sounds while I was discussing my case with you. There is audio recording of everything in this room. Replay the recording." The judge dismissed the whole event, as she knew it were shenanigans on the part of the lawyer. The bailiff continued to glare at me. I gave the law firm a poor review on Yelp, Sagaria Law in San Jose, ca. Yelp kept removing it as Sagaria law kept contacting them about the reviews. I will never respect or trust a lawyer again. This is endemic in our society.

ohashi 13y ago

Prison seems like a good place to have those skills and pass them along.

solnyshok 13y ago
I sometimes think of prisons as of wolf-farms. Place where wolves get trained and where they go to rest to come back even stronger. Coursera of criminal world.
- s_q_b 13y ago
  There is something theater of the absurd about forcing large numbers of people with criminal tendencies to spend long periods of time together and then releasing them into society. The line from the movie Blow comes to mind: Danbury wasn't a prison. It was a crime school. I went in with a Bachelor of Marijuana. Came out with a Doctorate of Cocaine.

rgraciano 13y ago

Letting the guy go because his techniques are ineffective only guarantees that everyone will sit up and take notice when they do prosecute someone. IMO, a better strategy would be to prosecute everyone, including and preferably starting with those whose techniques are _not_ effective. Following that line of logic, if we believe the government to be clever, then we can't draw conclusions as to the efficacy of his techniques, but if we believe the government to be naive or reactionary, then we should conclude that his techniques work. Either way, the real method will find its way into the public domain sooner or later, and the only question is how easily accessible it'll be to the average joe.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

s_q_b 13y ago

The most dangerous element that he, and several other, anti-polygraph coaches are teaching is that the polygraph itself isn't a very effective lie detector. With proper sensors, a skilled technician, and good data analysis it's pretty accurate for specific questions (e.g. did you beat your wife), but terrible for general queries (e.g. do you have any desire to take any action which would cause damage to the United States, her government, or her interests.) Soviet agents routinely beat the polygraph during the Cold War (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich_Ames https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich_Ames, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Klingberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Klingberg) The usefulness of the polygraph for clearance purposes relies mainly upon the fact that people believe it works. Over 90% of information used to deny clearances is derived from voluntary admissions during the polygraph. The truth is that Snowden used one of these services, and so now the government is shutting them all down. The particular company that investigated him for his clearance in Pennsylvania, which employs about 1,500 people, is also facing likely shutdown and serious charges. Maybe, maybe, functional MRIs will give us real lie detectors, but until then it's really just a way to scare people while they're questioned by a skilled interrogator. That said, definitely wouldn't recommend trying to lie. A good investigator is a pretty damn good lie detector all by him or herself. Also, can we finally agree that wire-fraud, mail-fraud, and obstruction of justice are ridiculously overly broad statutes that basically make federal criminal jurisdiction universal?

silho 13y ago
>it's pretty accurate for specific questions (e.g. did you beat your wife) Funny that you would use that gender-specific example. As if women didn't beat their husbands/boyfriends.
- s_q_b 13y ago
  You're right. A fairly large statistical portion of domestic violence is female to male, and the stereotype of the wife-beater has certainly led to a lot of false prosecutions against men (falsely accused of being the aggressor) and situations that police ignored until a female assailant escalated to deadly force. I used it because it's the standard placeholder of an unwitnessed violent crime in law enforcement discussions. Perpetuating harmful stereotypes is not cool in any case. Sincere apologies. I lieu of editing, since the time's elapsed, have some karma :)