9 ms·
Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rshnotsecure 6y agoKGB did not use or believe in polygraphs. Always found that an interesting comparison to American intelligence.
- wongarsu 6y agoDoes anyone outside the US use or believe in polygraphs?
- giles_corey 6y agoYes, unfortunately. The governments of the following countries, among others, rely on polygraphy to varying extents: Canada, UK, Israel, Russia, Ukraine, and China.
- edwinyzh 6y agoChina has recently abandoned the use of Polygraph (I read such a news recently).
- jacobush 6y agoNo private companies hustling polygraph consultants and gear in communist Soviet Union.
- petre 6y agoNo, they would just break your fingers or <insert torture> until you admitted to basically anything just to make them stop. They didin't need a polygraph for that, just a hammer, a drawer or a door.
- sildur 6y agoAh, the Guantanamo tourist pack.
- mc32 6y agoNo, I think it was the archipelago tour where millions of people got to stay in remote islands but to their dismay never got to leave but they did get to write birthday cards to the steel man.
- formerly_proven 6y agoThe Panetta review (CIA-internal) and the SSCI torture report (one of those "S"'s are for United States Senate) concluded that torture is largely inefficient at extracting information from extremists. You can torture someone for years on end with them still keeping the things you ask from you. Someone who doesn't know anything, will tell you anything, while someone with deep faith will feed you shit.
- petre 6y agoIt's true, however that didn't matter much in the USSR. What mattered is that somebody got punished, paperwork was taken care of and the agents were doing their jobs. All of this is nicely illustrated in the Citizen X movie, although in a different context.
- pmachinery 6y agoCitizen X is an American drama. If it depicts what you're saying (I've seen it but can't remember it) then it's just another Western dramatization depicting post-Stalin Soviet Union in cliches from the 1930s. In the real life case Citizen X is inspired by[0], nobody was tortured for a conviction, even the guilty man, who was simply put into a cell with a police informer to gather information and questioned normally by investigators who only had ten days under Soviet law to release or charge him. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Chikatilo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Chikatilo
- actuator 6y agoAren't there psychoactive meds which weaken control and should work better unless the person has developed resistance against that compound.
- cik2e 6y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_serum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_serum TL;DR No, there aren’t.
- actuator 6y agoAll the Reliability section of that page says is, there isn't a randomised study you can trust.
- formerly_proven 6y agoAlcohol
- GuB-42 6y agoThere are, the most well known being alcohol. However, while it makes people more talkative, it doesn't make them more truthful. So it is not considered effective as an interrogation technique.
- yyx 6y agoAnd yet in Russia it's used when applying for a job in police.
- booleandilemma 6y agoDid they use vodka instead?
- LatteLazy 6y agoAh yes, polygraphs, long proven nonsense and not used in virtually any other western country. I wonder how he beat that?
- firebaze 6y agoI'd guess that polygraph tests need belief into them working, thus making it work. Polygraphs should be able to (at least) measure nervousness correctly (e.g. due to transpiration), so if you believe polygraphs may work you're probably someone on which they will work (1). In other words, long proven nonsense as long as you don't believe in it. (1) https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf (Chapter 3)
- mlang23 6y agoHypnosis comes to mind :-)
- LatteLazy 6y agoPer the article: >It is to be noted that around the time Ma applied for employment with the FBI, the Bureau had a roughly 50% polygraph failure rate for special agent applicants, with many honest persons being wrongly branded as liars and barred for life from FBI employment So either 50% of FBI Applicants were actually foreign agents AND believed in polygraphs (why would they if they were trained foreign agents?) OR it's just total bullshit. I think the "it works if you believe in it and some people do" myth is just that... It's a very attractive idea that we can tell (even partially) whether someone is lying. We actually might be able to with an fMRI setup I think. But polygraphs should be long gone as rubbish. I have no idea why anyone in the USA takes them seriously.
- Spooky23 6y ago> So either 50% of FBI Applicants were actually foreign agents AND believed in polygraphs (why would they if they were trained foreign agents?) OR it's just total bullshit. I think the "it works if you believe in it and some people do" myth is just that... It's even dumber than that. From what I've heard, the big failure rate is often with respect to drugs. You're allowed to have experimented with marijuana a specific, small number of times.
- mc32 6y agoMy understanding is polygraphs are used as a tool to have people trip over themselves by using it as a prop when the administrator thinks they have something to catch them on. Now that makes me wonder, if they don’t use fMRI is it because it’s also just a prop but with more studies behind it?
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoExactly. It's just an interrogation technique but you need one less body on the payroll because you don't need a "good cop". Pretty much every manipulation technique used in negotiation, sales and interrogation is useless if the person it's being applied to realizes it. Polygraphs are about the lowest quality because the machine is right f-ing there for the world to see whereas with other techniques there's at least a non-zero chance that the person using them is being earnest and it's not just a technique.
- bluntfang 6y ago>Pretty much every manipulation technique used in negotiation, sales and interrogation is useless if the person it's being applied to realizes it. That is just wholly incorrect. The whole point of marketing is that it works even if you know it's happening to you. Anchoring, a common sales tactic, works even if you know they're doing it to you. You can absolutely respond to it with your own tactics if you know about it, but it still effects you. We really aren't better than our animal brains.
- hashedwater 6y ago>You can absolutely respond to it with your own tactics if you know about it, but it still effects you. Of which ways that it effects a person have you learned?
- bluntfang 6y agoanecdata: i just rented a house. the listing said x. when i saw the property, the realtor said "rent is ${x+200}". I still felt like i expended my negotiations after clarifying that the rent was actually x. I knew he was fucking with me, but i needed a place to live, and i wanted to negotiate more, but it was hard to muster a negotiation after i felt like I already negotiated.
- unnouinceput 6y agoFrom my understanding of the article, he was first employed then he started spying, so not necessarily that he beat the polygraph.
- re 6y agoHe re-applied in 2003-2004, after giving information to MSS.
- roguesupport 6y agoThis is what happens when you rely on junk pseudo-science as a screening mechanism
- AdmiralGinge 6y agoMany of the water companies in the UK still use divining rods to locate pipes, there's a lot of bollocks used in places that really ought to know better. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/21/uk-water-firms-admit-using-divining-rods-to-find-leaks-and-pipes https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/21/uk-water-fi...
- PedroBatista 6y agoWhat's next? the FBI does palm reading to solve their hardest cases?
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y agoTaro cards, Runes, or crystal balls would be more apt as you don't need anyone else to be there. Just call it "AI".
- TechBro8615 6y agoNo, what’s next is facial recognition and “the computer says with 98% certainty that the defendant’s face is a match, Your Honor.”
- tokai 6y agoOr even "the computer says that the defendant's face is the face of a criminal!"
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoHandwriting analysis.
- rsynnott 6y agoI mean, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_detective#In_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_detective#In_the_Unite...
- tolbish 6y agoI understand that the CBI (California Bureau of Investigation in case it's not obvious) used to employ psychics. Not that psychics actually exist.
- rasz 6y agofunny you say that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_dentistry#:~:text=In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_dentistry#:~:text=In February 2016%2C the Texas,analysis had no scientific validity.
- ferros 6y ago50 percent chance an honest person barred for life. 50 percent chance a criminal gets let through. If that’s true it’s a wonder the FBI managed to get this far and continues to function.
- bluGill 6y agoMost people applying are not spies. Bayes therom applies.
- Rebelgecko 6y agoIn a bit skeptical of the 50% number mentioned. I think the newspaper article might be misquoting the source. I know people who have failed lifestyle polygraphs and weren't banned for life, they just had to try again
- ohm 6y agoThere was a recent talk on the subject https://archive.org/download/hopeconf2020/20200731_0900_Polygraph_Tests_and_How_to_Beat_Them.mp4 https://archive.org/download/hopeconf2020/20200731_0900_Poly...
- fakeslimshady 6y agoOh look more anti-china propaganda published right before the election. What a coincidence
- moomin 6y agoIt's a bit of a joke, really. I doubt there's anyone reading this on here who didn't already know polygraphs don't work. The only people who don't seem to know polygraphs don't work are the ones making national security decisions relating to polygraphs.
- bluntfang 6y agolet's get real, polygraphs are a ruse in order to humiliate people and see how they react in torture situations. Using them is a power play. It lets the victim know who the boss is.
- pc86 6y agoThis seems like a pretty adversarial way to look at it, using words like "power play" and "victim." From my understanding the CIA still regularly uses polygraphs. I have to wonder why that is, and it may have nothing to do with the polygraph itself. Maybe it's more just making sure someone has nothing to hide? I'm also not sure what "beating" the polygraph means in the context of them not working in the first place. How do you beat something that doesn't do what it purports to do?
- giles_corey 6y agoBeating the polygraph means passing it when you're lying about the relevant issues. Although polygraphy has no scientific basis, the methodology employed makes effective countermeasures possible.
- dx87 6y agoI've talked to someone who administers polygraphs, and they said the machine is mostly theatre, but that there is normally someone watching you through a hidden camera or double sided mirror to see how you act when you think someone isn't looking. For example, when I had to take a polygraph for work, the polygrapher left the room a few times because they "needed to get a second opinion about abnormal results". That's when the hidden person would supposedly be watching to see if I acted differently when I thought I was alone.
- mc32 6y agoWhy doesn’t the CIA just come out and tell all their recruits, we trust you and most of you truly believe in the mission and will never compromise but there are always a group of turncoats who will sell secrets or have other affiliations. Due to this we will monitor your credit and you will not know if the persons you are working with are internal investigators and we will have randomized investigations as matter of course up to the director. In other words don’t ignore the possibility but work with that limitation. Maybe they do this and people still do it, if so they’re doing a poor job of it.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- aiyodev 6y agoPolygraphs are comic book technology. The first one was invented by the guy who created Wonder Woman and they were popularized by a commercial for Gillette razors. It's as ridiculous as determining guilt by batarang or kryptonite. It's amazing we still allow them in law enforcement.
- vslira 6y agoI know we all know that polygraphs don't work, but: is that true in practice or in principle? I mean, there are papers out there about methods capable of extracting complete words from brainwaves. Does it really seem impossible for a machine with current tech to detect signals of lying with high certainty?
- ralusek 6y agoI think a good liar is just exceptionally good at convincing themselves that what they're saying is the truth. I think that even better liars are so narcissistic that they basically believe what they say as it's coming out of their mouth, on account of it being them that is the one saying it. I say all of this as a horrible liar.
- everdrive 6y agoThere are a lot of different ways to lie, and the method you point out is one of many.
- donw 6y agoIt works the other way around: polygraphs need to show that they work in replicated, controlled experiments. That hasn't happened[1]. Lying is a complex behavior. Like, really complex. Even with all of modern technology, we've only just started to detect far more gross brain functions: pre-speech motor patterns, fear responses, etc. It goes without saying that an MRI is at least slightly more complicated than something you could knock together in an afternoon after a shopping trip to Radio Shack in 1963. Polygraphs are a $2 billion industry, and Upton Sinclair said it best: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph
- throw1234651234 6y ago"I mean, there are papers out there about methods capable of extracting complete words from brainwaves" As far as I know, this is complete fiction right now. Same with images. There are people currently working with AI interpreting brain signals to be reproducible, to say, move left and right in a game. It's far from working on "left" / "right", let alone anything more sophisticated than that.
- StreamBright 6y agoReminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjVVNuraly8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjVVNuraly8
- jacquesm 6y agoThe polygraph is pseudoscience. Of course it can be beaten, it doesn't work to begin with. Why the US still puts so much weight on them when they know they don't work is a mystery to me. Just get rid of the damn things and do your homework better.
- kelvin0 6y agoLet us never forget this infamous explosives 'detector': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 Sold to law enforcement in military around the world for a while.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y agoIt actually makes sense for law enforcement even knowing the device does nothing because it can be used to give them probable cause to search somewhere they wouldn't otherwise legally be able to search. When the shit hits the fan the company that sold it takes the fall, which is part of what the police were paying for. Perhaps a similar logic is at work for the military, but one would think they'd be more concerned with actual efficacy of such a device so it seems more likely it was just collusion between purchasers and sellers to siphon tax money.
- leephillips 6y agoAll they have to do is say “I smelled weed.”
- ballenf 6y agoI also think there's value in tools that allow our subconscious to override our conscious mind when it comes to making tricky decisions. (But never in support of probable cause.) I'm reminded of the chick sexing story from a while back. About how no one can tell you what to look for to separate male from female chicks. But you can still learn how to do it through trial and error. A device that basically tells your conscious mind to pause requires that you believe the device is working. Even better would be training people to deliberately allow their subconscious to make certain decisions.
- mindfulhack 6y agoPolygraphs are a joke for this reason among so many others: Psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists can fool them because they are able to feel zero (or are incapable of feeling any) biological fear or anxiety (i.e. 'stress response'), while telling complete lies.
- XaoDaoCaoCao 6y agoWhich is a bit horrific when you realize they act as sieves promoting the hire of such people in a higher proportion than the general population. Polygraphs are worse than useless and mere jokes; they are selectors for a kakistocracy amongst the executive levels of American governance!
- everdrive 6y agoRealistically, people who have to take them regularly can also learn to do “better” at them, as you can with any “test.”
- herodotus 6y agoFrom Wikipedia: "A comprehensive 2003 review by the National Academy of Sciences of existing research concluded that there was "little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy." The cited article: The Polygraph and Lie Detection. National Research Council. 2003. ISBN 978-0-309-26392-4. (https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10420/the-polygraph-and-lie-detection https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10420/the-polygraph-and-lie-dete...)
- fmakunbound 6y agoPlenty of pseudoscience rubbish in law enforcement in the US (and elsewhere): * lie detectors/polygraphs * blood splatter patterns * hair analysis * bite mark analysis * criminal profiling
- dirtnugget 6y agoCan't these just be beaten with some breath training and a short training in how to answer? All they measure is your physical reaction, right?
- kls 6y agoYou clench you butt cheeks when they do the calibration when you want something to register as a lie. So you tell a truth and then clench your butt cheeks for calibrating a lie. Thus they get a strong response on a truth/lie and a less strong response on a lie. The other trick is to recall a traumatic event. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/how-cheat-lie-detector-test-10646341 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/how-cheat-lie-detec...
- dirtnugget 6y agoTIL: my butt is could potentially blow my cover.
- alex_young 6y agoThe polygraph was largely invented by William Moulton Marston, the same guy who invented Wonder Woman. It was clearly a farce when he was selling this idea 100 years ago, and it's amazing that it's considered anything short of snake oil today. There's a great book on the inventor called the Secret History of Wonder Woman: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-Wonder-Woman/dp/0804173400 https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-Wonder-Woman/dp/080417...
- rasz 6y agoand I beat tiger repellent rock(1), and a bomb dousing rod (2)! 1/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm2W0sq9ddU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm2W0sq9ddU 2/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651
- wayanon 6y agoAre polygraphs still taken seriously?