An ever-present backlog of federal security clearances continues to grab attention from lawmakers and leadership. But one component of those clearances — polygraph exams —is getting a closer look, as well. In April, U. Customs and Border Protection, a major utilizer of polygraphs, told the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security it was evaluating the results of a six-month alternative polygraph pilot for screening new hires. Insight by Tanium: In this exclusive executive briefing, executives will discuss their approach to building a flexible and dynamic zero trust network.
Agencies may require polygraph exams for applicants to positions with certain levels of security clearance, or to renew security clearances. Most agencies who administer them are within the Defense Department and Intelligence Community. Law enforcement, courts, the scientific community and the IC debate the reliability of polygraphs for gaining truthful answers.
As such, agencies have been moving toward continuous evaluation and more polygraphs. But the Office of the Director of National Intelligence leaves it to individual agencies to determine the need for polygraph exams. In addition, not all agencies will share polygraph results, possibly requiring an existing fed to take another test for a position in a different agency, said Derrick Dortch, director of Career Services at the Institute of World Politics.
One question he said to expect was for examiners to ask candidates whether they had visited or heard of the website AntiPolygraph.
One exception was the addition of questions about disclosing classified information to media or other unauthorized recipients. Read more: Explainers. Irrelevant screening questions are described as those to orientate a respondent before a relevant question is asked, but should still be neutral and not evocative of emotion, according to the handbook.
Academic and industry experts have said examiners do affect polygraph results, based on their phrasing of questions, interpretation of responses and machine readings.
Nevertheless, training for federal polygraph examiners is not standardized across agencies. But according to the Intelligence Community Policy Guidance Additional training can also change by agency.
Want to stay up to date with the latest federal news and information from all your devices? Download the revamped Federal News Network app. Other possible training may occur at the U. In , a National Academies committee to review the scientific evidence on polygraph exams authored a report saying the scientific evidence for polygraphs as an employment screening method was relatively low and that fairly basic countermeasures could undermine the results.
This and the fact that many courts will not allow polygraph results submitted as evidence in criminal proceedings are among the reasons Sean Bigley, a frequent writer on the subject for ClearanceJobs. She said she was not aware of any systematic evaluations of polygraphs by ODNI.
The American Polygraph Association describes polygraphs as highly accurate but not infallible. The organization offers remedies for both examiners and examinees in the case of false positives or negatives due to human error.
The SF form submitted by clearance seekers says they may not be prosecuted for admitting on the form to illegal drug use within the last seven years. Having been an agent for a number of years, Special Agent Smith, had seen polygraphs and knew of their reputation:. I am also very anxious to return to the FBI. Once the results of Special Agent Smith's second polygraph were known he wrote a letter to Director Freeh. The following are excerpts from that letter:. I have not received the official results but was informed that it will probably be rated "deceptive".
This was to have been the last step before my reinstatement as a Special Agent. Now, as a result of no more than a couple of "blips" on a machine, I have been labeled a "liar" by the FBI and found ineligible for re-employment. This decision was made without any regard to my 12 years of hard work and faithful service as a federal investigator.
I told the truth during the polygraph exam. How can I prove it? How can I prove I did not lie? In many ways this situation is worse than being accused of a crime. If I were accused of a crime I would at least have a chance to face my accuser, present evidence and be judged by a jury of my peers.
This is not the case with a polygraph. The machine is the accuser, the judge and the jury There should be a better way to determine the suitability of Special Agents for reinstatement.
Surely you can see the injustice of relying so completely on the results of the polygraph examination - especially given its well-documented imperfections. It is a machine that measures stress, but not the reason for the stress.
Would it not be more just and make more sense to use the polygraph as a tool to identify areas to concentrate on during the background investigation? Both the FBI and its applicants would benefit from using the polygraph examination as it is used in investigations - as a tool: rather than as it is used now an instrument to establish facts.
The same Donald Kerr Senator Grassley questioned:. This letter is an appeal for reasonableness and fairness regarding the FBI's use of the polygraph exam in the Special Agent applicant process. It is hard for me not to sound self-serving but I appeal to you on behalf of the many Special Agent applicants I was seeking reinstatement who have been eliminated as a candidate because of a "deceptive" polygraph despite telling the truth.
I am merely an example of what is, in my opinion, a misuse of the polygraph by the FBI. There are probably hundreds of stories just like mine I can not fully express in words what it feels like to be called a "liar" by the organization that I believe, like no other in the U.
Government, stands for truth, justice and fairness. It is especially disappointing that there is no mechanism to prove truthfulness for example; a very through background check could prove truthfulness. I would greatly appreciate a chance to sit down and meet with you in person to discuss the inherent inequity of the FBI's present polygraph policy.
FBI polygraph examiners are threatened by this site and have become so paranoid that they think everyone knows about it and countermeasures. You will have to admit everything to the second examiner that you did to the first, including your research and knowledge of countermeasures. It's really a no win situation. I'll pose the question againhas anyone ever heard of an applicant passing a retest after having failed an FBI polygraph?
Reply 12 - Apr 7 th , at pm. Polyfool, I was inconclusive, "not acceptable" accused of countermeasures , and then found acceptable. Do a search on my posts. The whole story is there. The pre-screeing polygraph is arbitrary and I believe it allows the FBI to subjectively get rid of applicants who the "good ole boys" network does not like. It is secretive and gets around normal legal hiring laws. Quite impressive for an agency charged with protecting our Constitutional rights.
Reply 13 - Oct 12 th , at am. Don't feel bad, because the polygrapher at the FBI in Little Rock told me the after about 6 tests that I had not failed or passed. He did a series of questions again, went out of the room, then came back in and said that he was going to fail me. He kept telling me through the tests that I was having a reaction to a question, but wouldn't tell me which one.
At the end when he told me he was failing me, he told me is was on the question that he combined about the use or sale of illegal drugs. I told him that I don't understand why he would get a reaction to that, that I was being truthful.
My opinion is that if you admit to ever doing anything, even if it was once or 15 times, they're still going to hold it against you, even though it says on their website all the drug rules and that if you hadn't done it over so many times, you can still work for them. I feel that if you just admit that you did anything at all, they're going to brand you as a druggie, and you're not going to get hired. I think what all they say on their webpage is just an interragation tactic as well.
They want you to admit that you did something, just so they can weed out everyone that's tried some kind of drug. They didn't say that I wouldn't get hired just because of failing that one question, and we continued the processing.
They said that it would be up to headquarters whether I would still be accepted or not. They never said anything about an appeal either. To tell you the truth, if I got a letter saying they were withdrawing my employment offer and that I could appeal the decision and ask to be retested, I don't think it's worth going through all of that again just to work for the FBI.
I'm an honest and loyal person, and I know and others know that I'm a good person, so too heck with the FBI for putting anyone that's honest through all that again. I think the Polygraph is a bunch of bull.
I have never believed in them, and whoever invented it needs to be spanked. It's utterly ridiculous. So has anyone heard of someone failing one question on the polygraph with the FBI, and they still were hired? Reply 14 - Oct 12 th , at am. Failing one question on the poly results in failing the whole series.
Applicants must pass both series drug use and national security in order for processing of their applications to be completed. Failing one question, hence, the poly, stops the application process dead in its tracks. It's no wonder your polygrapher didn't mention an appeal. Finding the information on how to go about the process is not easy and it's not provided to everyone.
No one passes a second polygraph in the FBI. It's nothing but a put-on. The agency does it to appear like it's giving applicants a fair shake or a fair appeal process. It's nothing but a joke, but does make it a little harder for the agency to get rid of you by creating a little extra work. Good luck in your future pursuits.
The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive. Verification Code: Preview. Today at pm. Max characters. Remaining characters:. Text size: pt. All Rights Reserved. Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register. You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest using a fake e-mail address such as nobody nowhere.
Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications. You can also visit our chat room where posts automatically expire after a maximum of 24 hours. Pages: [1] 2. To pm: click pillpopper's name in the upper left of his post. His user profile will appear. Scroll down to where it shows pm this person my wording is probably a little off.
Click the pm command and take off. Hope that helps. From the tone of your post, it appears that you wisely did not fall for this ploy. Instead, it is overwhelming likely that the examiner is planning to make a written report to disqualify you for either deception or an arbitrary determination that you employed countermeasures.
He is looking for a written confession to help solidify his case. You were smart not to give him one.
0コメント