this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2025
85 points (97.8% liked)

Hacker News

3027 readers
310 users here now

Posts from the RSS Feed of HackerNews.

The feed sometimes contains ads and posts that have been removed by the mod team at HN.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
patrick@lemmy.bestiver.se
rssbot@lemmy.bestiver.se
85
FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff (www.propublica.org)
submitted 1 week ago by rssbot@lemmy.bestiver.se to c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Comments

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 41 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I mean I don’t agree with him giving special treatment to his buddies, but why is the FBI wasting time on polygraphs, which are a totally debunked pseudoscience?

Says in the article they started using them in ‘94…in ‘98 the supreme court ruled that these ‘tests’ were inadmissible in court. Because even back then it was proven that it’s impossible to determine the truth via polygraph at a rate better than simply flipping a coin.

My only guess is they might ding you on the polygraph if they already learned something through less than legal means, but it’s preposterous to think anyone making it into the FBI would be unfamiliar with the uselessness of the test itself

[–] GlitchyDigiBun@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's more about probing specifically where to look if you want to find dirty laundry when looking for security-clearance candidates. They don't assume you lied when you said you didn't do hard drugs, but your body did react to that question deliberately in a way that suggests maybe we should look into a history of drug abuse before we accept you reading about sensitive topics.

Or sexual scandal blackmail waiting to happen is a great way to get... state secrets... in the... hands of... Oh hey, they raided Mar a Lago, lookit that...

[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They don't assume you lied when you said you didn't do hard drugs, but your body did react to that question deliberately in a way that suggests maybe we should look into a history of drug abuse

You mean subconsciously?

Other than that, I guess I just don’t know what you mean about that, where they don’t assume you’re lying but it gives them a hint that they should go investigate it. Like, why else would they investigate it based on the reaction unless they thought the reaction meant something, you know?

[–] GlitchyDigiBun@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Let me clarify. They do not use polygraph tests alone to determine when someone is lying. They use it to determine the priorities of how resources get devoted to uncovering what might become a security risk for any individual. This is common, good sense practice when handling classified information. It's OpSec. It should be happening to keep us safe. Even if it's, say, 80% accurate under optimal conditions, that saves time and money when devoting resources into invading the personal life of a classification candidate. It helps catch the bad candidates early, unlike what's happening here.

[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

No I know what you mean, it just doesn’t track

Even if it's, say, 80% accurate under optimal conditions

Why are we using 80% as an example when it’s definitely impossible for the most skilled interpreters to beat a coin flip? Right like you see the issue? The problem isn’t that it’s sometimes unreliable the problem is that is fundamentally impossible to derive any meaningful information from it

What you’re arguing for is similar to the thought experiment where they have an airport scanner that can tell with 99% accuracy whether someone is a terrorist (spoiler: even with this level of accuracy, the scanner cannot be relied on alone, because counterintuitively due to false positive rate, the end result ends up being that only one in a thousand positive scans is a true positive).

But the polygraph is simply not similar to that thought experiment. It’s like “narrowing your search results to better manage your resources” based on the results of asking a magic 8 ball. Which is why it’s illegal to submit polygraph as evidence in court

[–] bulwark@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Polygraphs are useful in that you can claim the test subject is lying about anything you want. They're using it as leverage more than "fact finding."

[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

For cops interrogating like a random dude they suspect of a crime, have a little evidence on, mix in some questions they already know, etc. yeah I can see it. Part of the broader interrogation, maybe the machine really is just adding some pressure.

But for a job interview at a three letter agency? I mean who isn’t aware of the truth of these machines at that level? There really isn’t any interrogative leverage if both people know it’s a carnival game, and it’s illegal to hold it as leverage against them in any further proceedings

[–] Chakravanti@monero.town 1 points 6 days ago

...if people know...

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 6 days ago

On a technical level, they don't work at all. On a psychological level, they work quite well at getting people to say things they otherwise wouldn't for an interrogation.

[–] stupidcasey@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago

Good? Polygraph is actually a scam and should be waived for everyone and universally band.

[–] ettyblatant@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago

Well that's ridiculous! Next you'll tell me he also waived the uniform mood ring requirement! Preposterous. Well, I guess if he asked a magic eight ball what to do about the polygraph screening, and it said not to give them to senior staff, then that's just science and we need to trust science.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Polygraphs are trash. Best to focus on the special treatment.

[–] Son_of_Macha@lemmy.cafe 6 points 5 days ago

Have all the sane people in the world forgotten that polygraphs are not lie detectors and anyone can be trained to pass them?

[–] SkabySkalywag@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

It wouldn't make news, except that this crack head has been allegedly forcing polygraph testing on a ton of established agents as a 'Loyalty' test.

https://www.firstpost.com/world/fbis-polygraph-purge-kash-patel-led-us-agency-using-lie-detector-to-test-staff-loyalty-says-report-13905286.html

[–] 0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago

collapsed inline mediaimage