Why Teaching How to Beat Polygraphs Can Land You in Jail

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Why Teaching How to Beat Polygraphs Can Land You in Jail

Last September, Chad Dixon was sentenced to 8 months in a federal prison for teaching clients counter-measures for polygraph tests. Federal prosecutors charged Dixon with obstructing justice—they view his business as undermining an important tool used to check the credibility of government employees and prosecute criminals.

The information Dixon was selling wasn't new. Books on beating polygraphs have been around since the machines were invented. So why is the federal government cracking down now?

In an effort to stop the next Edward Snowden, officials are emphasizing polygraphs' ability to prevent leaks by keeping employees honest. The NSA has recently gone from polygraphing its employees once every five years to four times a year.

Relying on polygraphs is extremely risky according to most scientists. "There is no unique physiological signature that is associated with lying," says Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists. Polygraphs can only record physiological responses to situations and, Aftergood explains, you can train yourself to control those responses: "You can learn to regulate your heartbeat, you can learn to control your breath, and you can generate spurious signals."

Supporters of polygraphs believe that up-to-date machines and well-trained operators can detect lies, making the counter-measures Dixon was teaching obsolete. "We're trained in all those type of counter-measures," says Darryl DeBow of the Virginia Polygraph School. "They are so antiquated, we know when they are doing it." Yet if the counter-measures can easily be detected, it throws doubt on the argument that Dixon was hindering the federal government's work.

4 minutes.

Produced by Joshua Swain. Shot by Swain and  Amanda Winkler. Narrated by Todd Krainin.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.

Comments

[Doug Williams]

When polygraph operators say I teach people "countermeasures" in order for them to "beat the test". I simply say, that's bullshit, because polygraph operators routinely call truthful people liars - and my technique is the only way for honest, truthful people to protect themselves from being falsely accused of lying. On the CBS 60 MINUTES investigative report I helped to produce and see the proof yourself - three out of three polygraph operators called three different truthful people liars on a crime that never even happened!

But, for the sake of argument, let me ask a few more pertinent questions: If people can indeed be taught to use "countermeasures" to "beat the test", wouldn't that prove the polygraph is not a "lie detector"? Does the validity and reliability of the polygraph test demand that the subjects of the test must be ignorant about how it works? If anyone could be taught how to produce and/or prevent a reaction on the polygraph at will, wouldn't that make the whole idea of a "lie detector" a fraud? And wouldn't polygraph operators have to admit their little machine is actually just a sick joke - and that the polygraph instrument is simply a prop used by an interrogator to frighten people into making admissions and confessions? And would it not be prudent for the government to quit wasting money on something that is nothing but a fraud and a con job? The fact is the answer to all these questions is a resounding YES!

[CatoTheElder]

I have both first-hand and second-hand knowledge that polygraphs give false positives as lie detectors. I got fired from a job back in the 70s because of a lie detector test. I also knew a woman who was similarly identified as a liar and who I know with metaphysical certainty that she was not lying. I only know of a few people who have been subjected to a polygraph, and at least two had a false positive, which is something like 20%. I know they are bullshit, and will never be convinced otherwise or submit to this bogus "science".

[SQRLSY One]

To ANYONE out there wanting to market anti-piggly-wiggly "lie detector" tests?
My suggestion for you, is a suggestion for any potential USA-based providers of polygraph-thwarting services (teaching, training, etc.) to re-label themselves as, not polygraph-thwarting services, but "Church" of Scientology "E-meter" thwarting services instead! The IRS (fed tax-man) in the USA has recognized this "Church" as being legitimate, and so any training in dealing with the poly-graph-like "E-Meter" (Scientology "religious device") would then fall under religious freedom! PLEASE spread this idea! (And of course do the same thing to the labels of your services, prominently denying that you would want to thwart the obvious "good things" that our Lords and Masters are doing to help prevent "terrorism"... It is pretty terrifying for them to think that their slaves might revolt, you know... Your services are ONLY for RELIGIOUS uses with the E-meter, not Good Government Polygraphs. OK?).

[thoreu]

As an experienced investigator, the polygraph is nothing more than a tool along with many others available. reliance on any one tool or technique spells eventual trouble for all involved.

A good investigator asks why among other questions-as to any given response by the person being questioned. Polygraph and investigative horror stories result from ignorance, laziness, or both. A good investigator looks at the entire picture. Some courts have called this the "totality of the circumstances."

In the case of a polygraph examiner seeing deception-the next question should be is why? Even if a person makes an admission to something, the good investigator must verify all facts and circumstances. Again, polygraph is nothing more than a tool.

[Doug Williams]

I agree - if by "tool" you mean a psychological billy club that is used to coerce a person into confessing. The polygraph is not a tool, the polygraph is not a "lie detector" - nor is it a "test"! In fact, it is nothing but a sick joke! It is an interrogation, an intimidation, an inquisition, a trial by ordeal - and the polygraph operator is the judge, jury, and executioner! If you are found guilty of lying, there is no appeal from his decision! And to make matters worse, even if you tell the complete truth you will probably still fail! Until you take a polygraph test, you have no idea how traumatic and grueling it can be - it is that way for a reason. The polygraphers want you to be so frightened that you "spill your guts". In fact, many people are so intimidated that they make statements that the polygrapher will use to incriminate them - some people are so frightened that they confess to things they haven't even done!

[thoreu]

I have taken multiple polygraphs. The instrument used is not evil and possesses no intelligence. The examiner can be another story. That said, almost all interviews cause anxiety. The polygraph is nothing more than a tool to measure physiological responses in a person under certain questions. What I meant by tool is that the polygraph is but one thing-and it should not be the only thing-in a well trained, experienced investigator's quest for the truth. Tools employed can vary from machines like the polygraph to kinesthetic analysis, statement analysis, VSA, micro-expression analysis, various interview techniques, all the way to fMRI analysis.
However, those things are merely tools and must be verified by the facts and circumstances. Anything less is poorly done.

[Doug Williams]

It is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS to use the polygraph as "lie detector" - the theory of "lie detection" is nothing but junk science. It is based on a faulty scientific premise. The polygraph operators have the audacity to say that there is such a thing as a "reaction indicative of deception", when I can prove that "lying reaction" is simply a nervous reaction commonly referred to as the fight or flight syndrome. In fact, the polygraph is nothing but a psychological billy club that is used to coerce a person into making admissions or confessions. It is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS for government agencies to rely on the polygraph to "test" applicants, or to conduct any type of investigations relating to national security. It is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS for the criminal justice system to rely on an instrument that has been thoroughly discredited to determine whether or not a person is truthful or deceptive, or to use it to guide their investigations in any way - especially when the results cannot even be used as evidence in a court of law! And it is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS for anyone to believe they will pass their polygraph "test" if they just tell the truth!

[Kyfho Myoba]

It is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS to use the polygraph as "lie detector"

Not for the govt. I have a friend who is a registered sex offender. (Forget about the detective that harassed his 11 y.o. niece for 3 hours until she reversed her previous statements that he never touched her inappropriately.) He got 4 years probation. It is the policy of this county that all those on probation/parole for sex offences must be polygraphed quarterly while on probation/parole. The cost is $275. If you "fail", it's $175 for every retest until you "pass". These guys have a really hard time getting jobs in the first place.

The main reason polygraphs are effective is because people don't know the truth about them, and end up confessing to something, true or not. My friend spent thousands on this fraud. The polyghapher insisted that he was showing deceit when asked if he'd had any contact with his "victim". (His niece had moved out of state to an unknown location.) The govt doesn't give two shits about all the false positives, it just means that there are more "guilty" people to process - got to feed the machine!

[Doug Williams]

When you factor in all the damage done to people who are falsely branded as liars by these con men and their unconscionable conduct, this fraud of "lie detection" perpetrated by the polygraph industry should be a federal crime! The protection provided to some people by the EPPA should be extended to protect everyone from this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture! Shame on anyone who administers these "tests" - and shame on the government for continuing to allow this state sponsored sadism!

So, here we have this diabolical dichotomy - the government protects some people from polygraph abuse and perpetrates polygraph abuse on others! The Congress outlaws the use of the polygraph in the private sector, (and distributes my manuals, teaching people how to pass their tests), the Justice Department argues that it should not be used as evidence in court, the Supreme Courts agrees and refuses to allow polygraph results into evidence, and the OTA issues a report saying all the scientific evidence proves it is not reliable - yet, after all this, many government agencies greatly expand the use of the polygraph to numbers never seen before in the history of the country!

[thoreu]

The courts allow the admission of polygraph results-as long as both the prosecution and defense agree.

[Doug Williams]

So what explains this schizophrenia in the government? Why do they outlaw it in one area and expand it in another? I'm afraid I know - I think President Nixon told us why the government uses it when he said, "I don't know anything about polygraphs, and I don't know how accurate they are, but I know they'll scare the hell out of people, and that's why I like to use them!" That mentality regarding the polygraph is the very reason I do what I do! I educate people about the polygraph so that the polygraph thugs can't use it to scare the hell out of them - and even worse, call them liars simply because they have a nervous reaction on a relevant question! I teach people how to prove they are telling the truth because just telling the truth really only works about half the time! A person will probably fail their polygraph test unless they are trained to show the polygraph examiner what he expects to see from a truthful person. I have been asked this question many times: Can liars use this information to pass just as easily as truthful people? The answer to that question is YES! I have no control over who gets the information in my manual and video/DVD. But let me make this perfectly clear - I assume that people come to me for personal training because they know that just telling the truth only works about half the time. And, except for demonstrations on television programs, speaking engagements and seminars, I will not knowingly teach a person to deliberately lie!

[Doug Williams]

Besides, liars can pass easily whether they have been trained or not - history is full of people who have lied and passed polygraphs with no problem. Aldridge Ames, the notorious spy, passed many polygraph exams - and he was an active spy when he took, (and passed) several polygraph tests! As a matter of fact there has never been even one spy ever caught by the polygraph! I have often demonstrated how simple it is to "beat the box" on national television programs. It is true that anyone can use my techniques to pass their polygraph test regardless of whether they are nervous or not, lying or not, no matter what. I have said that for over 40 years. I say it in hopes that those who use this instrument will realize that it is not accurate or reliable as a "lie detector" and will quit using it!

[Doug Williams]

By describing my training as "countermeasures" that people use in order to pass a polygraph as a form of cheating, or something used only by liars who are trying to "beat" the "lie detector", polygraph operators are asserting something as a fact that is absolutely false - something that all evidence proves is false; i.e. that the polygraph is accurate, reliable, and effective in detecting truth and detecting deception. All the scientific evidence available proves that the polygraph is none of those things. The polygraph is no more accurate than the toss of a coin - in other words it is only able to detect deception approximately 50% of the time. This also means that unless truthful people get prepared to pass the test, over 50% of the time the polygraph con men will brand them as liars just because they are nervous. A sad irony is that often the people polygraph operators accuse people of using "countermeasures" are those who have no idea what that even means! As a matter of fact, polygraph operators are now so paranoid that one of the questions frequently asked on the polygraph test itself is if the subject has read my manual. Many of these unscrupulous jerks will fail or disqualify people just because they are suspected of the horrible Orwellian "thought crime" of educating themselves!

[Doug Williams]

As a matter of fact, the information in my manual is so effective, (and because the polygraph as a "lie detector" is so ineffective), the information in my manual and video/DVD is considered to be "contraband" - it is actually prohibited by Big Brother polygraphers in the government! This proves that polygraph operators are today's version of the thugs employed by Orwell's Ministry of Truth! The thugs in the ministry spread a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak in which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like 2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants ? or in the case of the polygraph operators a nervous reaction ALWAYS indicates deception. Polygraph operators, (and the agencies who employ them), are trying desperately to keep the myth of "lie detection" intact, and will do everything they can to punish anyone who exposes them for the frauds and conmen that they are! Click here http://www.polygraph.com/index.....o-crusader to read an excerpt from the second edition of my book FROM COP TO CRUSADER and see how far the government will go to punish me for exposing the myth of "lie detection"!

[Doug Williams]

It is bad, (but perhaps understandable, and even sometimes necessary), to use the polygraph as a prop for polygraph interrogators to frighten and intimidate people in order to get confessions or admissions of wrong doing - but it is never acceptable to take it a step further and disqualify applicants, deny security clearances, and revoke probations simply because a person has a nervous reaction on the polygraph "test" or because the polygrapher accuses them of using so-called "countermeasures". Most polygraph operators and all polygraph associations say that the polygraph should only be used as an aid to guide investigators, and that the polygraph test results should never be the sole determinant of guilt or innocence, or truth or deception, or whether or not a person gets or keeps a job or a security clearance, (see AAPP statement in footnote below) - but the sad fact is, that happens every day to thousands of people. That fact alone should be the basis for malpractice lawsuits against polygraph operators!

[Doug Williams]

It is bad, (but perhaps understandable, and even sometimes necessary), to use the polygraph as a prop for polygraph interrogators to frighten and intimidate people in order to get confessions or admissions of wrong doing - but it is never acceptable to take it a step further and disqualify applicants, deny security clearances, and revoke probations simply because a person has a nervous reaction on the polygraph "test" or because the polygrapher accuses them of using so-called "countermeasures". Most polygraph operators and all polygraph associations say that the polygraph should only be used as an aid to guide investigators, and that the polygraph test results should never be the sole determinant of guilt or innocence, or truth or deception, or whether or not a person gets or keeps a job or a security clearance, but the sad fact is, that happens every day to thousands of people. That fact alone should be the basis for malpractice lawsuits against polygraph operators! Polygraph operators are out of control - they no longer abide by the commonly accepted protocols agreed upon by their own professional associations - they don't answer to anyone, and they don't give a damn about the millions of people who are traumatized, and whose lives are ruined by their arbitrary and capricious actions. That is not only wrong, it should be illegal!

[Doug Williams]

I have come to what I consider to be the only logical conclusion that can be drawn as to why government agencies, (federal, state, & local) continue to use the polygraph even though all the scientific evidence proves it is worthless as a "lie detector". I believe they are using the polygraph as a subterfuge to avoid complying with federal law! What else explains the 65% "failure" rate for applicants? These agencies can circumvent federal laws and discriminate against people, ask illegal questions, interrogate/terrorize them for hours, and use the polygraph as an excuse to deny employment to anyone they don't want to hire. They can be totally subjective in their hiring and firing practices when they use the polygraph, because all they have to do is to say the applicant "failed" a polygraph test. By simply saying the person has "failed" a polygraph test, government agencies can hire and fire people at will and then just blame it on the "failed" polygraph test. There is no way anyone can appeal a hiring or firing decision that is based on a "failed" polygraph - and those who are denied employment or terminated have no recourse - they can't bring a lawsuit for discrimination or wrongful termination! Do I believe the government agencies who utilize the polygraph are this nefarious? YES! And it is tantamount to criminal negligence on the part of those charged with oversight of these government agencies to allow them to continue to use this so-called "lie detector testing"!

[Agammamon]

You know dude, ain't nobody read, and ain't nobody goona read, a single word of what you posted.

[General Butt Naked]

I read it. It was pretty interesting.

[Agammamon]

It may be - but anyone who posts more than two large blocks of text, I tend to write off as not altogether in touch with reality. More often than not its an indication of irrationality.

[Tommy_Grand]

yeah, but that dude won the superbowl back in teh 80s.

[Zeb]

I read the first two.

Post a link, dude.

[Pavlov's Cat]

^^^ ^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ THIS!

[some guy]

Cool story, bro.

[Steve G]

Seriously he's in the wrong thread:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/02.....your-short

[some guy]

He had some good points. It's just that his presentation is off-putting. No one takes you seriously when you take something too seriously.

[Doug Williams]

If you had your life ruined by these polygraph con men, as millions of people have over the years, you would take it seriously too.

But if you want see me deal with this serious subject a little more lightly, watch me on PENN & TELLER: BULLSHIT! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r8lx2vDWB4

[GILMORE]

Next time, post a link with a short summary, Doug. You damage your own credibility when you look like you're trying to drown people with text in a public place.

[Pavlov's Cat]

I might be the only person here who got his life improved by a polygraph. It pushed me out of a bad job that kept me so exhausted I couldn't effectively look for another job.

[Tom Wolff]

In addition to the information Doug Williams has posted, check out antipolygraph.org and download the PDF, "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector". Good stuff.

[Drunketarian]

ah, a moment from one of my favorite TV shows
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u8CSFnv4Ac

[Archduke von Pantsfan]

Doug pwned the comments on this.
Great job!

[playa manhattan]

He should have authored the article.

[Ted S.]

So now we know Fist's real name.

[Jerms]

Doug Williams- superbowl hero and polygraph hater.

[Corning]

Put a tack in your shoe.

Polygraph defeated.

[playa manhattan]

Nah, you just squeeze your sphincter during the control questions.

[Jerms]

They hook the machine up to your sphincter?

[Nazdrakke]

Everything else the government does seems to involve that area, so..

[Paul.]

They hook the machine up to your sphincter?

Laughed out loud at this one. Golf clap, sir.

[Agammamon]

No need to do any of that. Just remain calm and breath normally.

I mean you actually need to feel guilt over something you've done (or at least fear that someone'll find out).

That's the majority of the trick to running a poly (IME) - get the subject to think that it works so they get scared you'll out them. I think its effectiveness is pretty close to nil unless you have targeted information to stress the subject with. Going in blind and trying to find something is nearly impossible.

[OneOut]

This.

While taking several I put a shortened tack under my big toe and took a blue valium and had one can of beer.

And that was for a job I knew I was already hired for as I had worked for the owner before.

[Rick O'Shay]

I took a polygraph for a job and they told me that they couldn't get anything from it and that most likely I'd have to take it again at a later date, which I never had to. It's kinda dumb really. They base everything off test questions like, have you ever got a speeding ticket or lied to your parents....but if you think those things are trivial and pointless, it gives a bad base level to compare other questions to.

[Paul.]

What is it about polygraphs the feds are trying to keep secret?

That they don't work?

[Doug Williams]

You nailed it Paul!

[John C. Randolph]

It can land you in jail because the courts have no interest in upholding the bill of rights. They want to support the voodoo peddlers, since polygraphs are useful tools of intimidation.

-jcr

[C. S. P. Schofield]

The State has a fondness for labor saving devices; Polygraphs, highway radar, breathalyzers. So far as I can see, none of them works as advertised, particularly not in the hands of the kind of terra-cotta toothed, sub literate imbecile that works for the State in the first place. The are going to fight like fury to keep these mythical devices in use, lest they have to start working for a living.

[Pavlov's Cat]

highway radar,

I have a 3" binder of information on microwave propagation characteristics from my college days. I put it into evidence once when I got a radar ticket and the prosecution remembered to bring the calibration information. The prosecution moved dismissal when I handed them a summary sheet showing each section's contents. One of my proudest moments.

[John C. Randolph]

BTW, if any prospective client or employer asked me to take a polygraph exam, I would decline, in the most offensive manner I could think of on the spur of the moment. I would graphically describe the services their parents offer to lonely sailors for very low prices, most likely.

-jcr

[Invisible Finger]

I once had a prospective employer ask me in an interview (in which I had already decided I didn't want the job, in part because the guy had a terminal case of taking himself too seriously) if I would take a drug test. I said "How many drugs do I have to take?"

[GILMORE]

BEST LIE DETECTOR EVER

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYvHpVwIqYY

[John C. Randolph]

In an effort to stop the next Edward Snowden, officials are emphasizing polygraphs' ability to prevent leaks by keeping employees honest.

Trouble is, they do nothing of the kind. Aldritch Ames had no problem passing his polys while he was getting every US agent in the Soviet Union killed or compromised.

-jcr

[Doug Williams]

Snowden has said he got that job solely for the purpose of getting access to that information - he planned from the outset to disclose it - and he passed two polygraph tests knowing what he planned to do. How is it going to stop "the next Edward Snowden" when it didn't stop the first one?

[Christophe]

By putting every American in jail.

It's the only way to be sure.

[Pope Jimbo]

What? No love for Moe?

[RishJoMo]

Thats messed up man. Anyone can beat a polygraph. If you convince yourself of the "truth" as you see it, then you can pass the test.

http://www.GoAnon.tk

[Kyfho Myoba]

"It's not a lie, if you believe it." - George Costanza

[jabster]

Don't take a beta blocker before a polygraph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_blocker

[Federale]

And if you claim polygraphs don't work, why do you object to the use of polygraphs and why do you want to make counter-measures legal? There is no need for counter-measures if the measure does not work.

[cheap soccer jerseys]

reply to "Doug Williams"
Very nice story