Former Cop Earns Federal Indictment for Teaching How to Pass a Polygraph!

Updated with proper video below!

Via Slashdot comes this awful story of a former Oklahoma City cop who has been indicted by the federal government for allegedly teaching people how to beat so-called lie-detector tests. Douglas Williams Williams is the Big Kahuna of the anti-polygraph movement. He's not shy about what he's up to. Here's his website.

Especially in the wake of the Edward Snowden affair, the feds are worried that "trained liars" will beat their tests that are supposedly unbeatable. These tests, which aren't admissible in court and are about as "scientific" as astrology, are nonetheless widely used by federal and other law-enforcement agencies to test job applicants, workers, and people accused of crimes.

"There is no unique physiological signature that is associated with lying," Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists told Reason earlier this year. "You can learn to regulate your heartbeat, you can learn to control your breath, and you can generate spurious signals."

Whatevs. From the Justice Department:

Douglas Williams, 69, of Norman, Oklahoma, was charged in a five-count indictment in the Western District of Oklahoma with mail fraud and obstruction.  According to allegations in the indictment, Williams, the owner and operator of "Polygraph.com," marketed his training services to people appearing for polygraph examinations before federal law enforcement agencies, federal intelligence agencies, and state and local law enforcement agencies, as well as people required to take polygraph examinations under the terms of their parole or probation.

More here.

In February, Reason TV's Joshua Swain produced a video about Chad Dixon, an Indiana man sentence to eight months in the federal slammer for teaching people how to beat polygraphs. As disturbing, Reason TV talked with Marisa Taylor of the McClatchy newspaper chain, who has reported extensively on the war against anti-polygraph activists. Taylor discovered that not only are federal agencies increasing the number and frequency of lie-detector tests of employees but Customs and Border Patrol agents compiled lists of people who had bought books about beating polygraphs and then shared those lists with the IRS, CIA, and NSA.

Watch "Why Teaching How to Beat Polygraphs Can Land You in Jail":

Comments

[John]

You can get an indictment on anything. That just means some brain dead grand jury bought this bullshit. I don't think there is any way in hell this stands up in court. There is no law banning this. This is exactly the same as indicting someone who sells radar detectors in the absence of a law banning them on the theory that they are conspiring to obstruct justice.

[Andrew S.]

May not stand up, but they're going to get a jury to convict, and his life is going to be hell until a couple of years down the road when an appeals court throws it out.

[AlmightyJB]

Clearly a first amendment violation but yeah could take years to resolve.

[AlmightyJB]

Clearly a first amendment violation but yeah could take years to resolve.

[John]

It will never get to the jury. The judge will rule on the charge itself before they ever get that far.

[Marshall Gill]

John, it doesn't matter if it stands up in court. As Mark Steyn says, the process is the punishment. Even if you win you will have to spend how many hours and how many thousands of dollars? Not exactly, "winning".

[FUQ]

Driving people into deep debt is the way the government punishes people who who dare to challenge the government.

[John]

Very true Marshall. DOJ has to know they are going to lose this. They are doing it to bankrupt the guy not to actually win.

[mr lizard]

Wait you mean clothed bondage tit porn is a thing?

[AlmightyJB]

Works for me.

[Lord Humungus]

*boing*

[Bobarian (Mr. Xtreme)]

TIWTAAFL?

[CE]

This is why there are no female libertarians. Someone tries to write a serious article about abuse of power, and you turn it into, oh never mind...

At least avert your male gaze next time.

[AlmightyJB]

Was she just ask if they were real? They're very nice.

[Drake]

Only reason I clicked on the video.

[mr lizard]

And OT: CNN comments are perfectly functional for team Red hit piece. And the comments are pretty decent in spots.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/17/.....?c=&page=0

Back story: Post mid-terms I couldn't find a single article with the comments enabled.

[OldMexican]

"Question two: Have people complimented you on your rack?"

[Adans smith]

indited for shining the light on junk science.I'll bet the solar and wind pushers would love to do this

[Doug Williams]

This is simply an attack on my First Amendment right to free speech. This indictment was brought to punish and silence me because I have the audacity to protest the use of the polygraph.

Everything else I have to say, I have said in my book FROM COP TO CRUSADER: THE STORY OF MY FIGHT AGAINST THE DANGEROUS MYTH OF "LIE DETECTION".

Please buy this book and help me fight this important battle for free speech and more importantly to educate people about the abuses caused by the use of the insidious Orwellian instrument of torture - the "lie detector".

[Almanian!]

"The lastest in a series of books being shilled at reason.com...."

[dantheserene]

Perhaps, but the man has a point. In his position, I'd be doing everything I could to raise awareness and money. He's going to need both to survive this.

[The_Millenial]

I agree that this is a different situation.

[The_Millenial]

May I suggest The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs. It really hits home.

[Almanian!]

+1 Butters You're Grounded!

[Raston Bot]

Why not, I'm already on the list for reading this site anyway.

[The Late P Brooks]

Edward Snowden affair, the feds are worried that "trained liars" will beat their tests that are supposedly unbeatable.

They'll just have to fall back on necromancers reading chicken entrails.

[Lord Humungus]

^this^

there's a reason that lie detector results aren't (often) admissible in court.

[Catatafish]

Don't sleep on the predictive powers of offal.

[Lord Humungus]

Someone stole my wife's breasts...

[Almanian!]

I couldn't even click on the vid because huge boobs. Huge. Boobs.

Yes, I am that much of a horndog monster. I yam what I yam....

Those hooters. Shit...

[OldMexican]

Down, boy! Down!

[The Laconic]

Since they're not admissable in court, why isn't the best way to beat a polygraph simply refusing to take one?

[John]

Yes.

[WTF]

Various agencies require them for employment. No test, no job.

[Invisible Finger]

I've told employers I refuse to take drug screenings. In some cases I've responded "I'll take a drug screen after you show me your FICO score."

This keeps me out of government jobs and banking. (They're basically the same thing at this point.)

I don't care that it makes me look unmutual. Why the hell work at a place where both the employer and workforce are all so desperate? A FICO score tells you more about a person's history of responsibility.

[Zeb]

Assuming the consequences of refusing are acceptable, that would be the best way. But they are often used for employment screening.

[The Laconic]

OK, that's what I was missing.

[DesigNate]

"If you've got nothing to hide, just take this little test and we'll send you on your way."

"No."

"What's that? Hmm, you must be guilty of something. Guess we'll just have to throw you in lockup for the 1/2 ounce of pot we found on your person."

[CE]

I would admit those in court.

[Almanian!]

I just came back to look at those boobs one. more. time.

Mmm, mmm, mmm...

[DK]

You're just the person we're looking for in directing our next comet landing!

[B.P.]

"Yeah, I'm going to have to wrap the sensor right... um, uh... whoops. Excuse me. Let me try that again..."

[The Late P Brooks]

This is why Virginia Postrel hates us.

[ColonelEngineer]

Perhaps someone can elaborate, but I'm under the impression that polygraphs aren't very reliable in the first place. Any validity to this?

....also bewbs

[John]

Junk science that has never been admissible in court. And all of the most notorious spies in the last 50 years passed multiple polygraphs over the years they were selling out the country.

[Invisible Finger]

The Breathylyzer is junk science, too. And admissible in court.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that polygraphs will always remain non-admissible.

[mr lizard]

Well it does have some scientific basis. The problem is that it is the only indicating device in history that is used to produce a reading, but have no documented error. Everything from meat thermometers to spacecraft volt meters have some fixed known error.

[John Titor]

Polygraphs are insanely inaccurate nonsense. Anyone who can easily control their heartbeat and breathing can beat them. Aldrich Ames passed one by the CIA when he was a KGB informant. For awhile you could beat them by clutching your asshole for God's sake (since that information has been widely distributed on the internet they've added a pressure plate).

It reminds me of the 'fruit machine' the Canadian government used to test for homosexuality in the 20th century.

[Cyto]

It seems that the real utility of the polygraph is when the examiner tells the test subject that they have shown dishonesty and asks them to come clean. This intimidates people into making incriminating statements - even if those statements are "I don't know why it would say I was lying.... maybe it is because X."

[kelseleyuta]

my best friend's aunt makes $69 /hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for nine months but last month her check was $17708 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Get More Info....

?????? http://www.payinsider.com

[abbyhamedini]

My buddy's step-aunt makes $89 every hour on the laptop . She has been without work for 8 months but last month her check was $14034 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check out here. ???? http://www.jobsfish.com

[thorax232]

It's illegal for him to teach this, but the information is all over the internet taught by hundreds of websites? U.S. law is so stupid and arbitrary. It's based on power trips, not justice.