6 ms·

Note this detail from the article: “Teaching about the flaws of polygraph testing is not inherently illegal. […] Dixon was charged after he helped undercover a

Note 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 ago
Was it actually confirmed that he was actually told that? Seems like a good story to justify shutting him down.
TruthElixirX 13y ago
Is 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 ago
  From 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.
  - TruthElixirX 13y ago
    I am not arguing whether or not it is prosecutable, I am arguing whether or not it is fucking stupid. Criminalizing knowledge is bullshit. Why should the burden of ratting people out be placed on this dude? It is such bullshit. Should it be illegal to tell people how to make meth? What about making alcohol? Should it have been illegal to teach people to make liquor in 1919? What about December 31st 11:59 PM 1918? This whole thing is fucking stupid and the feds have way more interesting things to do than harass people for telling people how to cheat tests. Its the same line of thought as suing gun manufacturers for murders or alcohol companies for drunk driving. It removes responsibility from the individual. Not to mention this was a fucking manufactured crime. Glad every serious crime has been solved so we can bust a dude for teaching people to pass lie detector tests, which are unscientific pieces of garbage to begin with.
    - cynwoody 13y ago
      >Not to mention this was a fucking manufactured crime. Absolutely. Dixon was obviously entrapped. That is to say, the feds threw a bunch of shills at him, who said basically, "teach me how to beat the machine so I can do something wrong". Dixon fell for it, pleaded guilty, and now is awaiting sentencing. The interesting question is, what did Dixon do that caused the feds to go to such lengths to railroad him?
      - pyre 13y ago
        "entrapment" is such a diluted phrase these days. What entrapment really means is that a law enforcement officer encouraged someone to do something that they wouldn't have done otherwise. If an undercover cop asks a drug dealer for drugs, this is not entrapment. Entrapment would be like if an undercover officer put a gun to someone's head and told them to steal something, then arrested them for stealing. Or if an undercover officer became the leader of a peaceful activist movement, and then started preaching that they should get violent; then arrested all of the protesters that got violent. It gets a little sticky in some cases, like the Portland bomber case. The undercover FBI agents kept asking him if he really wanted to do it. Looking at it one way you could say that they were discouraging him from doing it. On the other hand, he thought that they were terrorists, so even if he found himself in over his head, he would be unlikely to feel like he could back out at any time. Saying, "You can back out at any time," could just as easily be a ruse to test his resolve.
- dkuntz2 13y ago
  It's less teaching them to lie, and more aiding them in defrauding the state. If he didn't know their purpose it wouldn't be a problem.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  "Is it a crime to lie on a resume then? " Yes, in some cases, it is :) It depends on the job you are applying for, and what the lie is.
  - TruthElixirX 13y ago
    It shouldn't be a criminal offense. It should be a civil tort. Please explain the rationale of using jail to punish someone for lying on a resume. How does that make the world a better place?
    - tantalor 13y ago
      Possibly because you can put lives at risk by lying. Suppose I falsely claim I know CPR. My employer is now not liable if I fail to perform CPR correctly and kill somebody, since my fraud was criminal.
      - TruthElixirX 13y ago
        You don't check a resume to see if someone is able to perform a task, especially CPR. There are certifications for that. Pretty much anything remotely safety critical these days relies on some sort of licensing, so you would have to create a fake document certifying yourself. Your example is so fucking contrived it isn't funny.
    - carlob 13y ago
      Surgeon and civil engineer come to mind as rofessions where you can be criminally incompetent.
      - TruthElixirX 13y ago
        Again, surgeons and engineers have to take certifications to prove they have the credentials they speak of. They would have to forge documents on top of lying on their resumes. You're really drifting from lying to fraud.
- rmc 13y ago
  Is it a crime to lie on a resume then? Yes, that's called fraud.
  - marincounty 13y ago
    There's degrees of fraud. I have never met another human being who wasen't a fraud. It's how much of a fraud they are? I don't trust anyone who claims they never lie, or broke the law. Excuse the bad grammer; I'm tired.
Zimahl 13y ago
You're probably going to be voted down for saying that, even though you are right. It's like loaning or selling a felon a gun - if I know they are a felon, I'm breaking the law. A bunch of sanctimonious posters on here will scream out the first amendment and the erosion of our rights but won't bother actually seeing this story for what it really is.
- girvo 13y ago
  Polygraphs are such bullshit, that I still think this was a case of governmental insanity.
tantalor 13y ago
The article never actually connects the conviction with the story, so we have to speculate I suppose. > even though he knows that those candidates are unqualified for those jobs How would he know that? Is he familiar with the hiring criteria of every government agency?

hayksaakian 13y ago

Was it actually confirmed that he was actually told that? Seems like a good story to justify shutting him down.

TruthElixirX 13y ago

Is 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 ago
From 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.
- TruthElixirX 13y ago
  I am not arguing whether or not it is prosecutable, I am arguing whether or not it is fucking stupid. Criminalizing knowledge is bullshit. Why should the burden of ratting people out be placed on this dude? It is such bullshit. Should it be illegal to tell people how to make meth? What about making alcohol? Should it have been illegal to teach people to make liquor in 1919? What about December 31st 11:59 PM 1918? This whole thing is fucking stupid and the feds have way more interesting things to do than harass people for telling people how to cheat tests. Its the same line of thought as suing gun manufacturers for murders or alcohol companies for drunk driving. It removes responsibility from the individual. Not to mention this was a fucking manufactured crime. Glad every serious crime has been solved so we can bust a dude for teaching people to pass lie detector tests, which are unscientific pieces of garbage to begin with.
  - cynwoody 13y ago
    >Not to mention this was a fucking manufactured crime. Absolutely. Dixon was obviously entrapped. That is to say, the feds threw a bunch of shills at him, who said basically, "teach me how to beat the machine so I can do something wrong". Dixon fell for it, pleaded guilty, and now is awaiting sentencing. The interesting question is, what did Dixon do that caused the feds to go to such lengths to railroad him?
    - pyre 13y ago
      "entrapment" is such a diluted phrase these days. What entrapment really means is that a law enforcement officer encouraged someone to do something that they wouldn't have done otherwise. If an undercover cop asks a drug dealer for drugs, this is not entrapment. Entrapment would be like if an undercover officer put a gun to someone's head and told them to steal something, then arrested them for stealing. Or if an undercover officer became the leader of a peaceful activist movement, and then started preaching that they should get violent; then arrested all of the protesters that got violent. It gets a little sticky in some cases, like the Portland bomber case. The undercover FBI agents kept asking him if he really wanted to do it. Looking at it one way you could say that they were discouraging him from doing it. On the other hand, he thought that they were terrorists, so even if he found himself in over his head, he would be unlikely to feel like he could back out at any time. Saying, "You can back out at any time," could just as easily be a ruse to test his resolve.
dkuntz2 13y ago
It's less teaching them to lie, and more aiding them in defrauding the state. If he didn't know their purpose it wouldn't be a problem.
DannyBee 13y ago
"Is it a crime to lie on a resume then? " Yes, in some cases, it is :) It depends on the job you are applying for, and what the lie is.
- TruthElixirX 13y ago
  It shouldn't be a criminal offense. It should be a civil tort. Please explain the rationale of using jail to punish someone for lying on a resume. How does that make the world a better place?
  - tantalor 13y ago
    Possibly because you can put lives at risk by lying. Suppose I falsely claim I know CPR. My employer is now not liable if I fail to perform CPR correctly and kill somebody, since my fraud was criminal.
    - TruthElixirX 13y ago
      You don't check a resume to see if someone is able to perform a task, especially CPR. There are certifications for that. Pretty much anything remotely safety critical these days relies on some sort of licensing, so you would have to create a fake document certifying yourself. Your example is so fucking contrived it isn't funny.
  - carlob 13y ago
    Surgeon and civil engineer come to mind as rofessions where you can be criminally incompetent.
    - TruthElixirX 13y ago
      Again, surgeons and engineers have to take certifications to prove they have the credentials they speak of. They would have to forge documents on top of lying on their resumes. You're really drifting from lying to fraud.
rmc 13y ago
Is it a crime to lie on a resume then? Yes, that's called fraud.
- marincounty 13y ago
  There's degrees of fraud. I have never met another human being who wasen't a fraud. It's how much of a fraud they are? I don't trust anyone who claims they never lie, or broke the law. Excuse the bad grammer; I'm tired.

Zimahl 13y ago

You're probably going to be voted down for saying that, even though you are right. It's like loaning or selling a felon a gun - if I know they are a felon, I'm breaking the law. A bunch of sanctimonious posters on here will scream out the first amendment and the erosion of our rights but won't bother actually seeing this story for what it really is.

girvo 13y ago
Polygraphs are such bullshit, that I still think this was a case of governmental insanity.

tantalor 13y ago

The article never actually connects the conviction with the story, so we have to speculate I suppose. > even though he knows that those candidates are unqualified for those jobs How would he know that? Is he familiar with the hiring criteria of every government agency?