Former Police Officer Indicted For Teaching How To Pass a Polygraph Test 328
George Maschke (699175) writes On Friday afternoon, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the indictment (2.6 mb PDF) of Douglas Gene Williams, a 69-year-old former Oklahoma City police polygraphist turned anti-polygraph activist for teaching two undercover agents posing as federal law enforcement applicants how to pass (or beat) a polygraph test. Williams offers instruction on how to pass polygraph tests through his website, Polygraph.com, which remains online. Marisa Taylor of McClatchy, who has been covering polygraph policy issues for several years, has written an informative report. This appears to be a case where an individual was targeted for criminal prosecution to suppress speech that the U.S. government dislikes. AntiPolygraph.org, which may also have been the target of an attempted entrapment, has a commentary.
First Post (Score:3, Insightful)
He screwed up.
Lesson #1, Question #1: "Are you guys cops?"
Re: First Post (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: First Post (Score:4, Funny)
I thought it was pretty funny the way Breaking Bad covered this one. DJ Qualls played that undercover DEA agent who said it was against the constitution to lie about not being a cop, and then proceeds to arrest Pinkman's dealer after buying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: First Post (Score:5, Insightful)
The better Breaking Bad scene is when Mike is listening to the DEA discuss him, via the bugs he placed in their office:
He's been throwing every tail we put on him.
The guy's a pro. (Mike smiles)
Yeah, well, even pros make mistakes.
One of these days, our pal Ehrmantraut's gonna slip up.
Just gotta be there when he does. (The smile leaves Mike's face and is replaced by a look of consternation)
This is one of my favorite scenes with Mike and he doesn't have a single word of dialogue. It's all facial expressions and body language. He knows that they're right; now that they're watching him it's only a matter of time before he screws up and goes to jail. That's the problem with being involved in crime. The authorities can make an unlimited number of mistakes; the criminal can't afford to make a single one.
In this instance it appears that greed got the better of Mr. Williams. If you look at his website he's not doing anything wrong; he may be peddling snake oil but he's hardly the first one and that's not a crime. Read through the indictment and a different picture emerges. He counsels his clients to lie to Government investigators (witness tampering), arranges to receive the proceeds for this venture via the mail (mail fraud) and even ignores his own good judgment. When one of the undercover agents admits to lying on his employment application Williams cuts him off and says he can't work with him, he only works with people that are being truthful but whom are nervous about the test. This is in fact what his website says.
Had he stopped there he would have been fine. Did he? Of course not! He decides to "sleep on it" and comes up with a hair brained scheme to transfer money in a supposedly untraceable manner. He then tells his would-be client to break contact and reestablish it under a different name so that he doesn't have to knowingly counsel someone to lie.
The net proceeds of this particular venture? $5,000. The man is going to lose his freedom for a lousy five grand, all because greed overrode the little voice inside his head that said something was wrong. This is a life lesson that applies to everyone, criminal and honest citizen alike.
Re: First Post (Score:4, Insightful)
In this instance it appears that greed got the better of Mr. Williams. If you look at his website he's not doing anything wrong; he may be peddling snake oil but he's hardly the first one and that's not a crime. Read through the indictment and a different picture emerges. He counsels his clients to lie to Government investigators (witness tampering), arranges to receive the proceeds for this venture via the mail (mail fraud) and even ignores his own good judgment. When one of the undercover agents admits to lying on his employment application Williams cuts him off and says he can't work with him, he only works with people that are being truthful but whom are nervous about the test. This is in fact what his website says.
Had he stopped there he would have been fine. Did he? Of course not! He decides to "sleep on it" and comes up with a hair brained scheme to transfer money in a supposedly untraceable manner. He then tells his would-be client to break contact and reestablish it under a different name so that he doesn't have to knowingly counsel someone to lie.
The net proceeds of this particular venture? $5,000. The man is going to lose his freedom for a lousy five grand, all because greed overrode the little voice inside his head that said something was wrong. This is a life lesson that applies to everyone, criminal and honest citizen alike.
You are exactly right. I just read that indictment. I can't understand how Williams would take a chance like that.
He's been taunting the feds. They do a lot of stings like that, and it's prudent to be prepared for one. Even if the undercover agent's story had been true, the agent might have been prosecuted and might as well inform on Williams in hope of a better deal.
He said
You don't have to turn around and say, "Yeah, like I told you, I'm a lying son of a bitch." What the fuck was the reason for that, unless you wanted it on record that I was knowingly teaching someone how to lie and cheat...?
Williams knew what was happening. How could he make a stupid mistake like that? Is it the decline of age?
His line was, "The lie detector is bullshit, they can't catch criminals and then can accuse innocent people, I'm going to teach you how to pass the test. I don't want to hear about crimes. I'm not a lawyer and I can't give you lawyer-client privilege. If you want to talk about crimes, get a lawyer."
If he had stuck to that, he would have been OK.
Re: First Post (Score:5, Insightful)
undercover agents don't have to answer that truthfully... it's just a misconception reinforced by hollywood
Uniformed officers don't have to answer that truthfully either, although that would seem a rather poor strategy on their part.
Cops can lie to you under a broad range of circumstances, so the best strategy is not to engage them at all [youtube.com]./P
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually a pretty good idea (obviously it wouldn't work if someone already knew how to beat a polygraph), but having a test at the start of the whole thing and making one of the questions whether you were a law enforcement officer or not.
Re:First Post (Score:5, Funny)
First amendment!
*Void where prohibited by law..
Re: (Score:2)
Lesson #1, Question #1: "Are you guys cops?"
That doesn't actually work, FYI
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Although telling them you want a lawyer and making them ask you a question before talking again would be an interesting tactic under those circumstances.
Drug Dealer: "I want a lawyer"
Buyer: "Huh?"
Drug Dealer: [Silence]
Buyer: "What are you talking about?"
Drug Dealer: "So you wanted to buy some weed?"
Buyer: "You're under arrest."
Drug Dealer: "That's fine."
Buyer: "WTF do you mean that's fine?"
Drug Dealer: "Miranda guarantees that all questioning by law enforcement must cease after the suspect requests a lawyer
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm astonished at the number of people who don't get this. It isn't the first thing he asks casually, it's the first thing he asks once they're hooked to the polygraph. Not exactly brilliant humor, but it was worth a chuckle and certainly beats "First Post!"
Perhaps the fact that his client base knowingly includes many cops undermines the joke.
Cops are his customer ... (Score:2)
He screwed up.
Lesson #1, Question #1: "Are you guys cops?"
Cops are his customer. Why would he ask that? To see if they are eligible for a Fraternal Order of Police union discount?
Re: (Score:2)
It's just an alternate way to ask if he wants a donut with his coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
He screwed up.
Lesson #1, Question #1: "Are you guys cops?"
Doesn't work. Cops are allowed to lie and they routinely do during sting operations.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're the media in which case it is apparently ok to lie.
http://www.projectcensored.org... [projectcensored.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, often to get away your only choice is to lie to the cops.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, often to get away your only choice is to lie to the cops.
Big mistake. That will net you an obstruction charge. The only safe course of action is to refuse to speak to them at all. Give them your name, address, and the following statement: "I do not wish to make any statement without the benefit of counsel." If you have information that they want badly enough they'll give you immunity. Otherwise keep your fucking mouth shut.
Re:First Post (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, often to get away your only choice is to lie to the cops.
Big mistake. That will net you an obstruction charge. The only safe course of action is to refuse to speak to them at all. Give them your name, address, and the following statement: "I do not wish to make any statement without the benefit of counsel." If you have information that they want badly enough they'll give you immunity. Otherwise keep your fucking mouth shut.
Exactly. Take some free legal advice [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Remember that detentions are voluntary unless you verbally ask to leave. Any time police detain you, it’s a good idea to ask if you’re free to go. If the officer says you may leave, it’s up to you to leave the scene of the encounter. If you choose to stay, the detention is automatically legal. [flexyourrights.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can. "Officer, those aren't my drugs". Ever heard of someone being prosecuted for saying this? We would need a full-time "liar's court" to prosecute all the liars.
False reporting is a crime, as in completely falsifying a police report.
The FBI however has much more prosecution power in this regard. They typically throw this charge at someone they would like to indict but don't have anything else on them.
Re:First Post (Score:4, Insightful)
This is exactly right. He's not being charged with teaching people how to beat a polygraph. He's facing two counts of mail fraud (he conducted his business via the USPS) and three counts of witness tampering (advising people to lie to Federal investigators)
One can discuss the theory of how the polygraph works. A simple Google search will reveal dozens of papers on the subject. What one can not do is advise people to lie to a sworn Federal law enforcement officer while charging money for said "advice" that is delivered via the USPS. I read through the whole indictment and I have zero sympathy for him. This gem stands out: WILLIAMS told Undercover A, "I haven't lived this long and fucked the government this long, and done such a controversial thing that I do for this long, and got away with it without any trouble whatsoever, by being a dumbass."
Lesson Number One: Never say anything that would look damning if read back to you in a court of law, particularly to a total stranger that you're involved in a criminal conspiracy with.
Lesson Number Two: You can't fuck Uncle Sam. It doesn't matter how clever you are. Uncle Sam gets to make an infinite number of mistakes. If you make a single one you go to jail. The only winning move is not to play.
Lesson Number Three: Don't be a greedy dumbass. It's too much to cut and paste but if you read the indictment you'll see that he initially refused to help Undercover A, because Undercover A admitted to lying on his employment application. Williams said that he could only help those he assumed were being truthful but whom are nervous about the polygraph. This would have been a good place to stop. Of course, Williams decided to "sleep on it", then called Undercover A back and cooked up a scheme to transfer funds in a manner that couldn't be traced. The total amount of these funds? $5,000 plus travel expenses.
That's right, he rolled the dice on rolling his freedom for a lousy $5,000. This brings to mind something a law enforcement friend told me once upon a time: "It's not that we're so smart, it's that the criminals are mind numbingly stupid."
Well, I for one feel safer... (Score:5, Insightful)
knowing that the federal government is protecting the sanctity of the occult practice of using a ouija board to determine if someone should be given a security clearance.
Re: (Score:2)
They gave me a secret clearance and never used a ouija board or any other device, including a lie detector. Apparently they care more about people who missed a credit card payment than people who lie. Since most of the process is done without actively involving the candidate, I can understand that.
Re:Well, I for one feel safer... (Score:4, Informative)
I had to go through one for my Top Secret clearance, as well as have an investigator interview my references. A few years later I got a Secret clearance and all that was involved was filling out paperwork. The temporary clearance came in 2 weeks, the final one took another 6 weeks.
I am pretty sure all they do for a Secret clearance is check your credit, criminal record, and citizenship. If nothing comes up you get a rubber stamp. It only gets complicated if they dig up Iranian relatives, or some other red flag.
My opinion on the polygraph is that it is horse pucky. Half the folks they were screening that day failed, some got yelled at and accused of being terrorists (pre 9/11, FYI). One girl fell asleep. I had nothing to hide, but having read up on it ahead of time I decided to do calculus problems in my head when they baselined me for telling a lie to make sure I registered a strong response during the LOOOONG wait they put in between questions to let a guilty mind wander. I was the first one done. I am quite happy to no longer be working on government BS, there just isn't much interesting or well paying left being done at government agencies or at their contractors.
Let me get this straight... (Score:2)
... a former police officer has been dragged into court by the U.S. Department of Justice for teaching people how to beat a pseudoscientific method of detecting whether somebody is lying, a method that itself isn't even admissible as evidence courts in most parts of the world? What's next? Will the surgeon general drag people into court for pointing out that when consuming a homeopathic remedy with 30C dilution, one would need to swallow a volume greater than all the water present in all the oceans of our
You don't have it straight ... (Score:3)
... a former police officer has been dragged into court by the U.S. Department of Justice for teaching people how to beat a pseudoscientific method of detecting whether somebody is lying, a method that itself isn't even admissible as evidence courts in most parts of the world? What's next? Will the surgeon general drag people into court for pointing out that when consuming a homeopathic remedy with 30C dilution, one would need to swallow a volume greater than all the water present in all the oceans of our entire planet in order to stand a good chance of swallowing just one molecule of the original substance?
He entered into a conspiracy to lie to government investigators. He promoted himself as having the ability to teach people to lie to investigators. He claimed past clients have successfully lied to investigators for decades.
If he taught people to beat a polygraph and **always** said to never lie to government investigators he would not be in trouble.
Re:You don't have it straight ... (Score:5, Insightful)
A logical government would take this as evidence that the polygraph itself is a bullshit test, and dump it. However, we have a bunch of petulant man-children in charge who just prefer to stamp their feet and hit somebody over the head instead of thinking.
Perception is a tool ... (Score:5, Insightful)
A logical government would take this as evidence that the polygraph itself is a bullshit test, and dump it. However, we have a bunch of petulant man-children in charge who just prefer to stamp their feet and hit somebody over the head instead of thinking.
Investigators often rely on intimidation. A polygraph is a tool of intimidation. It does not matter so much if it in fact works reliably. All that matters is that the subject fears that it will work reliably. It may lead such subjects to being more honest, to crack under pressure or to avoid circumstances where they will face a polygraph.
It doesn't matter if its a con to the gov't, as long as it tends to modify behavior in the desired direction.
Re: (Score:2)
... a former police officer has been dragged into court by the U.S. Department of Justice for teaching people how to beat a pseudoscientific method of detecting whether somebody is lying, a method that itself isn't even admissible as evidence courts in most parts of the world? What's next? Will the surgeon general drag people into court for pointing out that when consuming a homeopathic remedy with 30C dilution, one would need to swallow a volume greater than all the water present in all the oceans of our entire planet in order to stand a good chance of swallowing just one molecule of the original substance?
He entered into a conspiracy to lie to government investigators.
Here I thought he was teaching people how to see through the lies of government investigators. Since polygraphs are not working, the investigators claim they do, and the only effect they have is if people believe in them.
Re: (Score:2)
... a former police officer has been dragged into court by the U.S. Department of Justice for teaching people how to beat a pseudoscientific method of detecting whether somebody is lying, a method that itself isn't even admissible as evidence courts in most parts of the world? What's next? Will the surgeon general drag people into court for pointing out that when consuming a homeopathic remedy with 30C dilution, one would need to swallow a volume greater than all the water present in all the oceans of our entire planet in order to stand a good chance of swallowing just one molecule of the original substance?
He entered into a conspiracy to lie to government investigators.
Here I thought he was teaching people how to see through the lies of government investigators.
From the indictment: "trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation"
Since polygraphs are not working, the investigators claim they do, and the only effect they have is if people believe in them.
So they are useful, a prop of intimidation. Belief trumps reality. If a subject is tricked into honesty or tricked into avoiding circumstances where they will face a polygraph its a win from the government's perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
... a former police officer has been dragged into court by the U.S. Department of Justice for teaching people how to beat a pseudoscientific method of detecting whether somebody is lying, a method that itself isn't even admissible as evidence courts in most parts of the world? What's next? Will the surgeon general drag people into court for pointing out that when consuming a homeopathic remedy with 30C dilution, one would need to swallow a volume greater than all the water present in all the oceans of our entire planet in order to stand a good chance of swallowing just one molecule of the original substance?
He entered into a conspiracy to lie to government investigators.
Here I thought he was teaching people how to see through the lies of government investigators.
From the indictment: "trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation"
Since polygraphs are not working, the investigators claim they do, and the only effect they have is if people believe in them.
So they are useful, a prop of intimidation. Belief trumps reality. If a subject is tricked into honesty or tricked into avoiding circumstances where they will face a polygraph its a win from the government's perspective.
Another prop could be police brutalitu, are you pro that too, or are your fascist tendencies limited to quack science?
Re: (Score:2)
Your laws are ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Your laws are ridiculous.
Its legal to lie to government investigators in your jurisdiction? From the indictment: "trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation"
Re: (Score:2)
Your laws are ridiculous.
Its legal to lie to government investigators in your jurisdiction? From the indictment: "trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation"
Define "lie". (kudos to Bill Clinton for this one).
Certainly, if this individual has not properly identified themselves ("posing as a federal law enforcement officer applicant"), you are under no LEGAL obligation to tell them the truth.
Or do you think that you have to tell the truth all the time. How did it go when you answered "Does this dress make me look fat?" or "Do you think my sister is prettier than me?"
If he lied to the agent when he said the polygraph can be beaten, charge him with fraud (go
Re: (Score:2)
Its legal to lie to government investigators in your jurisdiction?
That's not what the guy was arrested for, dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
Its legal to lie to government investigators in your jurisdiction?
That's not what the guy was arrested for, dumbass.
Here is a new word for your vocabulary list for the week:
"conspiracy"
conspiracy, in law, agreement of two or more persons to commit a criminal or otherwise unlawful act.
http://www.reference.com/brows... [reference.com]
Here is an example of its usage, from the first line of my original response to you:
"He entered into a conspiracy to lie to government investigators."
Re: (Score:3)
Your country is the one that pretends to have absolute free speech due to your constitution banning laws such as this. Free speech includes the freedom to lie to government investigators and yet your congress seems to have passed (many) laws restricting speech.
Someone misinformed you. We have the right to not self incriminate, the right to remain silent. We have the right to voice our disagreements with the government and demand change. We have the right to voice our opinions and theories and other beliefs; even crazy or heinous things as long as we don't try to turn those words into actions. We do not have the right to perjury, libel, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like a bad joke - invented by the writer of Wonder Woman and endorsed by the King of kickbacks, J. Edgar Hoover - yet it's STILL in use today!
Re: (Score:3)
If he taught people to beat a polygraph and **always** said to never lie to government investigators he would not be in trouble.
So it's okay to lie to other people?
And his methods are universal. I find it funny how people can teach about beating a pseudoscientific lie detector without a problem up until someone tells them that they're going to use the methods to beat a government polygraph test. Then it's somehow 'bad.'
Word! Here's another similar conundrum: Is it OK to teach people how to manipulate a ouija board session until you teach people how to manipulate the outcome of a ouija board session being run by the government for the purpose of contacting the spirit of a murder victim in order to solve that person's murder? This is a completely ridiculous situation no matter how you look at it. Polygraphs are pseudo science and as such a completely unreliable metric for determining truthfulness. It's not the people who te
Re: (Score:2)
If he taught people to beat a polygraph and **always** said to never lie to government investigators he would not be in trouble.
So it's okay to lie to other people?
And his methods are universal. I find it funny how people can teach about beating a pseudoscientific lie detector without a problem up until someone tells them that they're going to use the methods to beat a government polygraph test. Then it's somehow 'bad.'
IANAL, but as I understand it, lying to police is not a crime. However, lying to Federal agents is a crime.
It's always better to keep your mouth shut, because even if lying to police isn't a crime, if they catch you in a lie, that can look bad if/when you're being prosecuted.
Don't talk to the police [youtube.com]. Just keep your mouth shut.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"illegal to lie to government official" - you generalize much. Lying itself isn't outlawed, only deception with the effect of damage to society. If there's no damage to society, there's no crime. It may be argued that fake tests like polygraphs don't serve the good of society and bypassing them doesn't harm it, thus it's not a crime.
From the indictment: "trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation"
Would you consider that harmful to society?
Re: (Score:2)
"illegal to lie to government official" - you generalize much. Lying itself isn't outlawed, only deception with the effect of damage to society. If there's no damage to society, there's no crime. It may be argued that fake tests like polygraphs don't serve the good of society and bypassing them doesn't harm it, thus it's not a crime.
That's actually not the case, and hasn't been since 1934 [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct, with one exception: Bill Clinton wasn't just threatened with impeachment, he WAS impeached. It's just that the impeachment did not result in his being removed from office.
impeachment [wikipedia.org] is just part of the process:
Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, but the Senate did not conduct a trial.
Re: (Score:2)
... a former police officer has been dragged into court by the U.S. Department of Justice for teaching people how to beat a pseudoscientific method of detecting whether somebody is lying, a method that itself isn't even admissible as evidence courts in most parts of the world? What's next? Will the surgeon general drag people into court for pointing out that when consuming a homeopathic remedy with 30C dilution, one would need to swallow a volume greater than all the water present in all the oceans of our entire planet in order to stand a good chance of swallowing just one molecule of the original substance?
Congratulations. The 1% of the people on this planet who would understand your joke are cracking up.
I'm guessing you don't get out much, do you...
It's basic high school chemistry. Just because you didn't learn what you were supposed to learn in school, doesn't mean we are all as ignorant as you.
Not as simple as teaching how to ... (Score:5, Informative)
If he had claimed the training was for some other purpose and always told people to never employ these techniques during a real government polygraph and to always tell government investigators the truth he would not be in trouble.
In short the method he used to promote his services got him in trouble, not the services themselves.
Re:Not as simple as teaching how to ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're quite right, of course, but the thought of a 21st century government defending voodoo pseudo science still seems horribly anachronistic.
Re: (Score:2)
You're quite right, of course, but the thought of a 21st century government defending voodoo pseudo science still seems horribly anachronistic.
The device does not have to work. The subject only has to fear that it will work and be more inclined to answer truthfully or to simply avoid entering into circumstances where they will be tested.
Plus some circumstances do not need courtroom level precision. Lets say a company needs to pick one employee to count the cash at closing time and prepare a bank deposit. If the false negative rate is sufficiently low it could be argued that a polygraph test could be a useful supplement to other considerations.
Re: (Score:2)
small correction there: a polygraph doesn't detect anything. It's entirely without scientific merit. That's proven. It's about as reliable as tea leaves and as accurate as a blind poker draw.
Re: (Score:2)
small correction there: a polygraph doesn't detect anything.
Yes and no.
The polygraph measures and records several physiological indices such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity while the subject is asked and answers a series of questions. It is the interpretation of those physiological indices that are used to "detect".
Re: (Score:2)
A comment by the head of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection polygraph unit last year
Re:Not as simple as teaching how to ... (Score:5, Informative)
If he had claimed the training was for some other purpose and always told people to never employ these techniques during a real government polygraph and to always tell government investigators the truth he would not be in trouble.
It always amuses me how simplistic the arguments can become. If you just tell how to beat an abstract polygraph without mentioning the government you'd be fine! Nonsense. If the government doesn't like what you do, there will be a way to lock you in for a long time. Even if you do everything legal.
Here's a good example. A guy in California was installing hidden compartments in cars (traps). Those were very slick and he was careful -- it was impossible to detect that something was altered. There were no switches, opening such traps would require following some elaborate sequence, like opening specific doors, rolling down the window five times, starting the car seven times, whatever. Nothing illegal here. One may think that some uses for traps would be to store drugs but there could be many legitimate reasons (like storing cash or whatever personal items). So the installer asked if the traps are going to be used for anything illegal and refused to do the job if the answer was positive. Nothing illegal. Well, some lied and stored drugs and the DEA's job became more complicated and they staged the whole kangaroo court where the trap installer guy was convicted for 22 years! 22 years for not doing anything illegal, but the thinking was that he could have imagined that some traps could be used by drug dealers and therefore he facilitated drug dealings.
More details on the story: http://www.wired.com/2013/03/a... [wired.com]
Re: (Score:3)
He installed a trap. It malfunctioned. The vehicle was brought back for repair. The illegal contents revealed. He told the owners to get the stuff off his property. He then continued to do work for these people. He in fact transition from a state of "not knowing" to "knowing" and continued working with them.
For some reason (Score:3)
Geeks have real issues with the concepts of knowledge and intent mattering in the law. They think something is either ok, or not ok, and if it is ok it is ok in all situations. Of course that's not how the law work. Intent in particular matters a hell of a lot. Something can be illegal or legal just based off of intent, or can be a different level of crime. Likewise if you know you are helping someone commit a crime, that can get you in trouble whereas doing the same thing unknowingly can be fine.
It is comp
Re: (Score:2)
Don't respond to him. He's a troll. He's coming on Slashdot of all sites and saying, "geeks are stupid because...". I was tempted to respond to him, too. But the right response isn't to respond to his discriminatory, offensive bullshit. It's to mod him (-1, Troll) if you have mod points and otherwise to ignore him like any other troll. Or, if you really must respond, don't dignify the substance of his argument with a response, and simply call for mods to mod him down.
(If it looks like I responded to h
Mod parent down for trolling (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not as simple as teaching how to ... (Score:5, Informative)
In this case, they had wire taps conversations and evidence linking him to the problem. You can read the appellate court decision [justia.com] to get a better view of the situation. If he had actually stopped helping those guys when he saw the money (which he knew was illegal), he wouldn't be in jail right now.
In other words, if you're going to do something on the edge of legality, make sure you follow the letter of the law exactly. Because it's in the details where you'll get caught up and prosecuted.
Re:Not as simple as teaching how to ... (Score:4)
I read the article you referenced. It's not as you describe it.
Installing secret compartments in vehicles when you know that its purpose is for doing something illegal, is itself illegal. Engaging in a criminal conspiracy to move drugs around the country is also illegal. Basically any time a drug dealer says to you "I need help to deliver this kilo of cocaine", and you say "Sure, as long as you pay me, I'll be happy to help", you're in some rather serious trouble if you get caught. The prosecutors were able to get one of the drug dealers to testify that he knew exactly what he was doing (in exchange for a reduced sentence). And the jury chose to believe the drug dealer.
You make this out as if the DEA somehow can throw people in prison for "doing nothing illegal". But the truth is that this fellow had a trial, a lawyer to defend himself, a judge to ensure that the law was followed, before a jury of his peers, and the jury chose to convict him.
I'm well aware that juries can make mistakes, but this doesn't seem at all like a miscarriage of justice. Not with the facts presented.
Re: (Score:2)
The drug war is 100% ridiculous to begin with, so none of that matters.
But secret compartments can be used for anything. Whether someone wants to transport drugs or not should be irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OH, well why didn'tya say so fercryinoutloud. He wasn't just saying a law enforcement tool was bullshit smoke and mirrors, he was saying you could defeat the bullshit smoke and mirrors in order to lie. Geez -- if that sort of stuff starts happening, you'll see people selling bullshit smoke and mirrors to law enforcement, so we'd better punish him severely.
Re: (Score:2)
Fascists.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a classic way to get a proponent of X into trouble: get them to say under what circumstances X would be breaking the law, and assert they were a proponent of breaking the law. Another is ordering someone not to do something legal, then charge them with disobedience. A third is to ask them if they had (ever) broken the law, then charge them with lying if they had but the statute of limitations had run out.
All are hard to defend against, as they're constructed half-truths. None addresses the prop
Re: (Score:3)
So... what's wrong with that? If I teach you how to shoot a person, is that illegal? If so, then you should close most shooting ranges out there.
Free speech includes speech that is against the establishment, and given the Founding Fathers of the US' viewpoints on thing, quite by design.
Re: (Score:2)
No protection against self incrimination ... (Score:3)
It doesn't matter what he said. The 1st Amendment is supposed to protect his right to say it. You can't just go around implying restrictions that are not written into the law. But that is what is happened and it's wrong.
The First Amendment protects his right to teach anti-polygraph techniques. The Bill of Rights protects him against being compelled to self incrimination. There is no protection against voluntary incrimination, which seems to be what happened. His self promotion of his services admitted a criminal conspiracy.
Freedom of Speech, not "some speech" (Score:2)
You are attempting to draw a distinction that does not exist. Read your Constitution, read the Federalist papers, etc... etc.. there is not even a hint at "some" speech being disallowed.
You perhaps dislike what the guy was saying and teaching, but if I taught you to parachute and told you to jump off of the Sears building is that my fault if you do so? Hell No! You could try to sue me in civil court (good luck with that one, but people do win on occasion), but I have not done anything illegal or criminal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read your Constitution, read the Federalist papers, etc... etc.. there is not even a hint at "some" speech being disallowed.
Some of the same authors of the Constitution and Federalist papers passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Those were far more oppressive than laws against reckless endangerment (the charge you'll face for shouting fire in a crowded theater) or laws against obstructing justice.
Reckless endangerment simply says that you can't engage in conduct that carries a significant risk of causing physical injury to another person. Do you seriously take exception to such a law? What about laws against falsely reporting
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment lists no exceptions, so he's 100% protected.
Try shouting, "Fire!", in a crowded theatre and see how far that gets you.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends if the theater is on fire.
I would like the guy to plead not guilty and have the trial about the validity of polygraphy.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, he could always offer to take a lie detector test :-)
If he passes "no, I never met this person before in my life." then it throws all those other lie detector tests in doubt.
If he fails, then it shows, not a conspiracy to beat a lie detector test, but a fraud on consumers.
Either way, polygraphs are not always the appropriate solution, and any claim otherwise is stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably full of bullets, especially if Batman is on the screen.
Too soon?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No.. Do you think they were or are you being rhetorical?
There is little to no clear evidence that they told anyone to do anything but the circumstantial indications are that they did. For Reagan, there was no criminal punishment for the I
Re: (Score:2)
John Dean [wikipedia.org] was never a Democrat. I stopped reading after that as it was clear that you either have no idea what you're talking about or are a liar. Either way, you have zero credibility on this topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on written law in the US, what possible crime can be committed by speech?
IANFWUSL*, but how about something like revealing military or other state secrets?
(*I am not familiar with US law)
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole idea behind polygraph is that when you lie, your heart rate changes and you sweat more, so the conductivity of your skin changes. But this is false in both directions. Heart rate and skin conductivity can change due to other stimuli, such as (perhaps) sitting in a chair being subjected to a deeply flawed test that will help to determine whether you to prison despite innocence. In the other direction, some people can lie without exhibiting any kind of physiological "tell".
The polygraph test is and always has been a bogus fortune-teller's tool. They might as well indict somebody for explaining why astrology doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
While surely you can refuse the polygraph the prosecutor can use your "refusal" as an argument to a jury that you are guilty. Just like they can use your results _if_ you accept the request for a polygraph.
You are trying to make the answer simple, when in fact it is not. Polygraphs are not illegal, and the presumption of innocence has been a dead thought in courts for quite a long time now.
Re: (Score:2)
While surely you can refuse the polygraph the prosecutor can use your "refusal" as an argument to a jury that you are guilty.
No, just like the judge will instruct the jury that your refusal to testify on your own behalf is not to be considered in the juror's evaluation of whether someone is guilty or not. If a prosecutor tries to argue that, they're going to get their knuckles rapped in front of the jury, not exactly helping their case, and possibly causing a mistrial.
And then there's this [google.ca]. The judge in question confirms that he was the judge in the "Photocopier Lie Detector", which snopes.com dismisses because they asked th
Re: (Score:2)
Polygraphs are at best a cheap party trick. They shouldn't be used anywhere near anything to do with law enforcement or anything that has any influence over peoples lives.
The problem is not just the false positives - i.e. people lying, and beating the test - but false negatives - people who fail the test when telling the truth.
Polygraphs are an abomination and should be all destroyed and thrown in the trash.
Re: (Score:2)
It's about 70 percent accurate, which is more than any other method.
The American Psychological Association [apa.org] disagrees with you.
The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception. As Dr. Saxe and Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note, "it may, in fact, be impossible to conduct a proper validity study." In real-world situations, it's very difficult to know what the truth is.
A particular problem is that polygraph research has not separated placebo-like effects (the subject's belief in the efficacy of the procedure) from the actual relationship between deception and their physiological responses. One reason that polygraph tests may appear to be accurate is that subjects who believe that the test works and that they can be detected may confess or will be very anxious when questioned. If this view is correct, the lie detector might be better called a fear detector.
Some confusion about polygraph test accuracy arises because they are used for different purposes, and for each context somewhat different theory and research is applicable. Thus, for example, virtually no research assesses the type of test and procedure used to screen individuals for jobs and security clearances. Most research has focused on specific incident testing. The cumulative research evidence suggests that CQTs detect deception better than chance, but with significant error rates, both of misclassifying innocent subjects (false positives) and failing to detect guilty individuals (false negatives).
Research on the processes involved in CQT polygraph examinations suggests that several examiner, examinee, and situational factors influence test validity, as may the technique used to score polygraph charts. There is little research on the effects of subjects' differences in such factors as education, intelligence, or level of autonomic arousal.
Evidence indicates that strategies used to "beat" polygraph examinations, so-called countermeasures, may be effective. Countermeasures include simple physical movements, psychological interventions (e.g., manipulating subjects' beliefs about the test), and the use of pharmacological agents that alter arousal patterns.
Polygraph testing has generated considerable scientific and public controversy. Most psychologists and other scientists agree that there is little basis for the validity of polygraph tests. Courts, including the United States Supreme Court (cf. U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998 in which Dr.'s Saxe's research on polygraph fallibility was cited), have repeatedly rejected the use of polygraph evidence because of its inherent unreliability. Nevertheless, polygraph testing continues to be used in non-judicial settings, often to screen personnel, but sometimes to try to assess the veracity of suspects and witnesses, and to monitor criminal offenders on probation. Polygraph tests are also sometimes used by individuals seeking to convince others of their innocence and, in a narrow range of circumstances, by private agencies and corporations.
The development of currently used "lie detection" technologies has been based on ideas about physiological functioning but has, for the most part, been independent of systematic psychological research. Early theorists believed that deception required effort and, thus, could be assessed by monitoring physiological changes. But such propositions have not been proven and basic research remains limited on the nature of deceptiveness. Efforts to develop actual tests have always outpaced theory-based basic research. Without a better theoretical understanding of the mechanisms by which deception functions, however, development of a lie detection technology seems highly problematic.
For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph.
The is no scientific basis for assigning any confidence level to a lie detector test.
Re: (Score:2)
If there was not so much money wasted on this scam and it's "experts" there would be much less to worry about, but having a blind eye turned to people scamming police departments is not a good look.
Well, how DO you defeat an ordalium? (Score:2)
Because that's what it essentially is, it's basically a mix of a witch hunt and a trial by ordeal, where you're essentially already more or less sure whether or not your culprit is guilty and employ something that's for some reason thought to be a sound way to prove or disprove whatever you wanted to show.
Well, at least it's not "toss her in the water, if she swims she's a witch, if she drowns she was not"...
2.6 mb PDF (Score:2)
(2.6 mb PDF)
Thanks to warn us that the PDF's size is 2.6 millibits, my computer has issues storing fractional bits.
By the way, lots of web pages are 10 million times bigger than that nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
the polygraph is a joke (Score:2)
the polygraph is not even admissible in court because of its dubious reliability, the results of a polygraph does not prove anything
But.... (Score:3)
But I thought the polygraph was infallible, they've been saying for years that an "well trained and experienced" polygraph technician can always spot a lie. Sounds like they aren't quite a confident as the decades of propa .... I mean "public service announcements" have portrayed.
Wait, wait, wait..... (Score:2)
Who and how is this giving legitimacy to polygraph tests? We've known they're filled with errors and are at best unreliable. So who cares if someone is teaching people how to pass a fake test, or are we suddenly taking polygraph tests at face value now? Should I worry about attending the right church?
Bunk science is bunk science (Score:4, Insightful)
The polygraph is just a modern version of Trial by Ordeal. Where about the only thing modernized is the type of witchcraft it detects.
It has the reliability and reputation of tealeaf-reading. Actually, more people probably believe in mysticism than lie detectors.
Under these circumstances, any organization relying on polygraph testing deserves everything it suffers. Believe Mystic Meg's advice on lottery numbers? You aren't entitled to a refund on either. Same applies here. Such devices should have been consigned to the scrap yard (and/or the museum of failed criminology) decades ago.
It's no more easy to be sympathetic to the ex-cop. The fact that he's basically correct is irrelevant. First, he's milking the market. Ten greenbacks for a digital book that's likely to be yanked by officialdom. Even Dangermouse was content with one. Besides, most of the tricks are well-known and meditation can take care of the rest.
From the looks of it, the guy also harasses negative reviewers. That's definitely strike two.
And I'm willing to bet that he has abused authority a few times himself. That's becoming par for the course.
Nonetheless, despite despising the lot, police harassment and the de-facto classification of failings within authority are absolute no-go areas and that supersedes my dislike of Doug Williams and his profiteering.
Greedy and Criminal (Score:2)
Pretty obviously criminal. The undercover agent put out the bait, the guy recognized it was bait, hesitated, then swallowed it whole.
Makes me feel like an idiot for being a Democrat (Score:3)
Whatever else you say, you have to face that this is what Eric Holder and Barack Obama's justice department is up to.
YouTube vids: Idiot's guide to remaining an idiot (Score:2, Insightful)
The surprise is that anyone would pay money to take a "class" when all you need to do is watch some entertaining videos.
Perhaps learning a skill involves practice and feedback on your performance during that practice.
YouTube videos - The Idiot's guide to remaining an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)