[HN Gopher] FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for...
___________________________________________________________________
FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior
Staff
Author : Jimmc414
Score : 119 points
Date : 2025-11-15 18:03 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.propublica.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.propublica.org)
| bediger4000 wrote:
| _the FBI's employment eligibility guidelines say all employees
| must obtain a "Top Secret" clearance in order to work at the
| agency following a background check._
|
| The furor here is about Dan Bongino, and Nicole Rucker, Kash
| Patel's assitant
|
| The article goes on to say that FBI employees at the level
| Bongino and Rucker are working at have "SCI" clearance on top of
| Top Secret. Back in the 1990s, it was exceptionally difficult to
| get TS clearance. SCI on top of that must have been even harder.
|
| I guess this is no worse than Jared Kushner getting a waiver to
| work at the White House during Trump's first term, but holy cow,
| getting this kind of special treatment really does reinforce a
| big difference between classes, doesn't it? Any ordinary, non-
| rich person getting "alerts" on polygraphs would probably be
| immediately dropped from getting a Top Secret.
| gishh wrote:
| > Back in the 1990s, it was exceptionally difficult to get TS
| clearance. SCI on top of that must have been even harder.
|
| Not really. I know a litany of people who had TS/SCI clearances
| in the 90s. It was literally a job requirement for entire
| divisions of the US govt.
| bediger4000 wrote:
| Even for the 15 page "short form", required to get a "Secret"
| clearance, you had to list everywhere you'd lived for the
| past N years, N >= 10 as I recall and give a non-family
| person who could testify you lived there. You had to list all
| the organizations you belonged to.
|
| Some fed contacted every single reference I gave, my old
| scoutmaster, and the minister of the church I was a janitor
| for during college. Top Secret was notoriously more difficult
| in terms of paperwork and scrutiny of your past.
|
| The article about Bongino's waiver made it clear that TS was
| a requirement for FBI employment, an entire division of the
| government, although it wasn't clear if that was everyone, or
| just the higher level administrative staff.
| majormajor wrote:
| Thorough papwerwork is not the same as "exceptionally
| difficult."
|
| I've been a reference interviewed in the processes before.
| It was not exactly rigorous. (It would have been hard to
| be, frankly... I had no knowledge of them doing anything
| shady, and they had no specific prior area of concern to
| try to grill me specifically on.)
| rkomorn wrote:
| This reminds me that I was interviewed for someone's US
| security clearance even though I wasn't a US citizen at
| the time.
|
| I was confused that I wasn't even asked if I was a
| citizen, or that my friend listed me as a reference
| because I'm pretty sure he knew.
| gishh wrote:
| N=7
|
| There is an entire industry built around clearing people,
| your tax dollars pay them. Of course everyone you listed
| was contacted, that's the whole point.
|
| How is filling out an SF-86 hard?
|
| Maybe what you meant was, justifying the reason to get a
| clearance in the 90s was harder. Perhaps that is true.
| Getting a clearance isn't hard.
| Scubabear68 wrote:
| I'm really confused by your response.
|
| Divulging where you've lived for the past 10+ years, having
| agents contacting your references, etc for "Secret" is not
| very onerous or difficult.
|
| Given that, your subsequent statement that "Top Secret was
| notoriously more difficult in terms of paperwork" seems to
| be pointless.
| crystal_revenge wrote:
| > required to get a "Secret" clearance, you had to list
| everywhere you'd lived for the past N years, N >= 10 as I
| recall and give a non-family person who could testify you
| lived there. You had to list all the organizations you
| belonged to.
|
| As a former federal government employee, all of this is
| _also_ required as part of the standard background check.
| People will show up in a black sedan and interview your
| neighbors, all you past employers and people who knew you
| at each residence. This happened for me and I've never had
| any real security clearance (nor required it).
|
| Just because it's work doesn't mean it's rare. My father
| and most of his coworkers all had TS clearance in the 90s.
| It required flying out to Dallas (if I recall correctly)
| for the polygraph. Lots of work but very common.
| moron4hire wrote:
| TS is "more difficult" than S in the sense that is more
| difficult to win a lottery jackpot than the smaller prizes.
| It's not "more difficult" in the sense that there are
| higher expectations or you're held to a higher standard. If
| you fail a TS clearance investigation, you won't be able to
| have any position of public trust at all, even if it's just
| being in HR and processing government employees' health
| insurance elections.
| jki275 wrote:
| Bongino was a secret service agent..
| KaiserPro wrote:
| According to this:
| https://news.clearancejobs.com/2022/08/16/how-many-people-
| ha...
|
| The number of poepl that hold top secret clearance (assuming
| its the same thing...) is 1.3mil
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| SCI is not above TS. It is a parallel system to restrict
| information within controlled silos. You can have SCI access
| with secret only.
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| Is Kash Patel's assistant rich? What does rich have to do with
| anything, that came out of nowhere. A more likely scenario is
| that these are political appointees and presumably an elected
| official wants to be able to get their guy in there no matter
| what
| HeinzStuckeIt wrote:
| > Back in the 1990s, it was exceptionally difficult to get TS
| clearance. SCI on top of that must have been even harder.
|
| I think you are exaggerating this as the other poster points
| out. Every US military cryptolinguist gets a TS-SCI clearance.
| So, while every student at Defense Language Institute was doing
| his/her language course, a background check was done, and the
| rejection rate in the 1990s was presumably tiny. And ditto for
| other military intelligence roles. A certain amount of military
| personnel getting the clearance were semi-native speakers of a
| language in demand who still had foreign ties (family or land
| owned in the old country) but they passed nonetheless, which
| must speak to a certain laxness.
| moron4hire wrote:
| I think this is a misunderstanding a lot of people have about
| clearance.
|
| The different clearance levels are not really an indication of
| different levels of vetting being done to a person. If you can
| get cleared for Secret, there's no particular reason you
| couldn't get cleared for TS. It's the same SF-86 form, the same
| investigation (well, not that I know, exactly. All I know is
| that it didn't look any different from my perspective), the
| same interview. There are some differences in how often you'll
| get re-interviewed, I think. It's not really anything so
| onerous that you have to ever think about it, really.
|
| The different levels are much more about need to know, which is
| driven by potential impact of breach. You don't even have to go
| through the lower levels before you get to the higher ones. The
| selectiveness of giving people higher clearance levels is more
| about controlling exposure surface area.
|
| On top of that, clearance level is kind of more about what
| meetings you'll be allowed in, what conversations you'll be
| allowed to participate in. SCI is more having ongoing access to
| data. Then there are additionally "caveats", which are
| clearances to specific programs. Each of these things are a
| different axis in the clearance system, not different levels of
| a linear system.
|
| Contrary to somewhat popular belief, a polygraph is not
| required to obtain TS/SCI. You can do a polygraph and that's a
| whole additional designation, "TS/SCI with Poly," as you might
| see in various job ads.
|
| The fact that these people can't pass TS is extremely telling
| and extremely concerning. Not being able to pass basically
| means the investigation revealed information that the person
| has a reasonable chance of being coerced into providing
| information. A simple example: maybe you have a mistress you're
| trying to hide; a foreign intelligence service could try to
| blackmail you into providing them information. Maybe you have a
| lot of debt, especially gambling debt; you'd be judged
| particularly susceptible to taking bribes, which would also set
| you up to be easily blackmailed.
|
| But I know at least one guy who is a raging pothead who has had
| high level clearance for the last 20 years. They didn't care
| because he was open about it. If he was open about it with
| them, then it was clear it wasn't an issue he could be coerced
| over. I know people who had past criminal charges on their
| records. They were fine, too, for the same reason. It used to
| be you couldn't hold a clearance if you were _gay_ , but
| nowadays, people are much more open and accepting of it such
| that it's not a reasonable attack vector for coercion.
|
| Basically, it means you've got major skeletons in your closet
| and probably tried to lie about them if you can't pass for S or
| TS. If you can't pass for TS then you probably shouldn't have a
| position of public trust at all, even for just handling CUI.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> these people can 't pass TS_
|
| Where does it say that?
| moron4hire wrote:
| Why would they need a waiver?
| jki275 wrote:
| There are literally hundreds of thousands of TS/SCI cleared
| government employees and contractors. There is nothing
| "exceptionally difficult" about any of this.
| jghn wrote:
| It'd matter more if polygraphs weren't completely bogus
| pseudoscience in the first place
| trehalose wrote:
| Sure, but don't you find it a little curious that these tests
| are being waived so selectively? If the FBI _believes_
| polygraphs serve some purpose, why would it choose to waive
| them?
| jghn wrote:
| Does it bother me? Yes. But the real solution is to not have
| polygraphs at all, not to get upset that a few people didn't
| get them.
| exasperaited wrote:
| You really mean it's not worth getting upset that employees
| are put through stupid and sometimes even quite invasive or
| degrading questioning in a humiliating and fear-driven
| process that bosses don't?
| jghn wrote:
| I'd prefer they just get rid of them altogether. They're
| stupid.
| tialaramex wrote:
| Right, when people sow chaos sometimes the random chaos
| includes a few nuggets that are good. "No more
| polygraphs" isn't quite "Stop making pennies" but it's
| also not "We're reintroducing slavery" is it?
| exasperaited wrote:
| Yes, but do you think that will be the outcome? Uniform
| scrutiny and uniform rules that benefit everyone equally
| and don't advantage the loyal coterie is _not_ how
| situations like this go, and it 's not how _this_ one is
| going so far, is it? Exceptions to rules for insiders and
| the loyal is how it is actually going.
|
| "For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law" --
| Oscar Benavides.
| sigmarule wrote:
| That solution is to a problem that is not the topic of
| conversation here.
|
| The problem is selective waiving of vetting processes due
| to political pressure and affiliation.
|
| Acting as if the efficacy of the vetting process is a point
| relevant to this conversation either implies you believe
| they waived this process for these three due to their
| ineffectiveness - very much not the belief held my most
| observers, why just 3 then - otherwise it's a pure strawman
| argument. Neither option is good.
| breve wrote:
| > _The problem is selective waiving of vetting processes
| due to political pressure and affiliation._
|
| It's all part of the same problem.
|
| When you have agencies lead by people so incompetent that
| they believe polygraphs work then you will inevitably get
| more bad decision making.
| majormajor wrote:
| Let's ignore that they're crap.
|
| Person A believes they work.
|
| Person A says "we shouldn't use this on Persons B, C, D".
|
| Pretty major implications about the integrity and
| suitability of Persons B, C, and D, _and_ about how _Person
| A suspects they have stuff to hide._
|
| (In some ways this is a good reason to _keep_ them around.
| Even if some people know they 're crap, the existence and
| popular mythology causes people to reveal more than they
| otherwise would through actions like this.)
| MBCook wrote:
| If they were using dowsing rods instead of polygraphs
| would you still feel the same way?
|
| It's certainly suspicious. But it's _also_ a huge problem
| they use them at all when the private sector was banned
| from doing so since they're so unreliable _decades_ ago.
| msandford wrote:
| I think that's one very reasonable interpretation. The
| other is "I really want these people w to come work here
| and they don't want to do the polygraph because it's a
| huge pain so I as the manager I'm going to waive it to
| reduce their objections to being hired".
|
| That's something that companies do all the time, they pay
| people "out of band" or give them extra benefits or
| accelerate their vacation accrual or vesting, or one of
| hundreds of other things.
|
| I agree it looks bad for sure but it isn't necessarily
| sinister.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| There has always been a contingent of people that do
| sensitive work for the government because they have
| important expertise but are either "unclearable" or
| unwilling to go through the formal clearance process.
| Limited affordances are sometimes made in these cases at
| the discretion of senior officials with that authority.
| For the government it is a practical risk/benefit
| calculus and they still have the ability to do a
| substantial background check on their own without a
| formal process.
|
| While it would never be allowed for the average Federal
| employee it does exist outside of purely political
| positions.
| tptacek wrote:
| Nope. The tests don't do anything. It sucks that we require
| them for anybody but I have bigger fairness fish to fry with
| this administration.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| The reason it's interesting is that the subjects of these fake
| tests _thought they might work_ and thus they skipped them.
|
| It's irrelevant whether they do anything. It's more important
| _why_ they were skipped. What questions would the interviewer
| ask that they didn 't want to risk answering?
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > The reason it's interesting is that the subjects of these
| fake tests thought they might work and thus they skipped
| them.
|
| This is just something you made up. Here's an alternative
| idea:
|
| You are deciding whether to take a test. The test's results
| are 100% subjective. Anything you say during the test can be
| interpreted as a negative statement about yourself, and this
| determination will be made by the examiner.
|
| Is taking this test a good idea? Why or why not?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| I think distinction needs to be made between:
|
| * Polygraph "tests" presented as objective, independent
| evidence for the truth or falsehood of statements, and
|
| * Polygraph used as an additional channel (similar to but on
| top of assessment of body language, voice tone, etc.) by an
| interviewer to determine how to guide an interview to elicit
| information from a subject, including information that they
| might prefer to conceal.
| gadsnprch wrote:
| Many say the same about remote viewing but results matter.
| general1465 wrote:
| If remote viewing would be a thing, spy networks would not be
| necessary and encryption would not matter.
| yahoozoo wrote:
| Bongino use to be Secret Service, tasked with protecting Bush
| then Obama, for what it's worth.
| 3eb7988a1663 wrote:
| I suppose that matters of how closely the body guards get
| exposed to state secrets. Surely there is some accidental
| leakage, but you would hope that getting elevated to the top
| would require close scrutiny.
|
| From mid-way in the article He's had a rocky
| tenure so far, marked by public fights with senior Cabinet
| officials and accusations that he leaked information to the
| press, which Bongino denied. In August, Trump appointed
| Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey as co-deputy director
| at the FBI, setting off speculation that the White House had
| lost faith in Bongino. But he remains in the job.
| ProPublica could not determine whether Bongino sat for a
| polygraph exam or what its results were. Though the existence
| of a polygraph waiver is an indication he may not have passed
| the test, it is possible Bongino received a preemptive
| exemption, a former senior FBI official with knowledge of the
| vetting program told ProPublica. When ProPublica
| sought comment from the FBI, the agency denied that Bongino or
| the other senior staff members failed polygraph tests. "It is
| false that the individuals you referenced failed polygraphs,"
| wrote spokesperson Ben Williamson.
|
| Unfortunately, a testimony form this administration is not
| worth much, so I am stuck in a schordinger's situation where he
| both passed and failed the polygraph.
| Ms-J wrote:
| Polygraphs must not be used as they are completely unreliable and
| subject to many issues.
|
| The government does a lot of security theater and campaigns to
| make you believe that they are competent.
| estearum wrote:
| No, polygraphs are bad lie detectors/truth detectors.
|
| They are perfectly fine as detectors of _areas of interest_ for
| investigators to probe deeper.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Yes or to pressure you into confessing, honestly good
| interrogators can do this without the machinery.
| estearum wrote:
| Good carpenters can build stuff without nail guns, doesn't
| mean it makes sense to use hammers.
| bathtub365 wrote:
| Carpenters use hammers all the time...
| estearum wrote:
| Uh yeah... just like investigators use tools other than
| polygraphs.
|
| The point is that just because something _can_ be done
| without a specific tool does not mean you should _never_
| use the tool.
|
| I guess I should've added "it doesn't mean carpenters use
| hammers _exclusively_ " for the HN pedants.
| datavirtue wrote:
| No, because I would never talk to them.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| Unless you just never talk to anyone, how can you be sure
| you'd know?
| ajross wrote:
| Nonetheless waiving the theater for Bongino et. al. implies
| that Patel thinks the theater works, or at least that these
| guys were likely to fail anyway regardless of "many issues". It
| smells corrupt, like everything else in this administration.
| And IMHO that's more important than a technical critique of a
| particular interrogation method.
| YZF wrote:
| It's interesting to note that the scandal going on in Israel
| wrt/ the chief prosecutor of the IDF leaking a prisoner abuse
| video was uncovered in a polygraph test.
|
| "A routine Shin Bet polygraph test of a senior officer close to
| Military Advocate General reportedly exposed new clues about
| video leak, prompting Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara to
| order a full criminal investigation"
|
| https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bkbichbjbe
|
| While polygraphs are not perfect they are widely used as part
| of a broader set of measures. I'm not sure "must not be used"
| is really the right way to approach this. This person would not
| have been caught if it wasn't for this polygraphs screening.
| bigyabai wrote:
| That's a very peculiar non-sequitur to pick.
|
| Plus, finding "clues" could mean anything, including false
| leads. If the Shin Bet is resorting to interviews under
| duress, they really must not have much physical evidence to
| work with.
| parineum wrote:
| > A routine Shin Bet polygraph test of a senior officer close
| to Military Advocate General reportedly exposed new clues
| about video leak...
|
| It should probably read, "A senior officer exposed clues
| during a polygraph test..."
|
| The polygraph is a McGuffin. The interviewer applies pressure
| by psychologically manipulating the suspect. That's all the
| polygraph is, psychological manipulation.
| itronitron wrote:
| The main point of the screening is to have a highly structured
| question and answer session that is recorded for posterity, and
| which can/will be referenced at the next screening 'n' number
| of years later.
|
| One could even argue that the polygraph benefits the person
| being screened, as it provides some additional motivation for
| them to take it seriously.
| themafia wrote:
| The FBI and CIA have polygraphs.
|
| The FBI and CIA still have moles and they often times operate
| out of the highest levels.
|
| They're like door locks. They keep honest people honest. They
| provide zero security.
| varenc wrote:
| Door locks are a deterrent that increase the difficulty and
| cost of a crime. If your neighbor's house is locked and
| yours isn't, then you're going to be more of a target. In
| that sense they do provide security, but of course any lock
| might still be defeated.
|
| Similarly, I can see how structured psychological
| interrogation, assisted by a polygraph, is a useful
| deterrent. The presence of moles doesn't negate all of its
| value. Just like having your house broken into once doesn't
| mean you'll stop using door locks.
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| Good writeup of what happens in an FBI pre-employment polygraph:
| https://www.andrewwatters.com/hall-of-shame/FBI-SACU/FSL/pol...
| tru3_power wrote:
| Dang so this is much more comprehensive than a normal
| polygraph. I know the write up says it would be almost
| impossible to beat, but is that true?
| bragr wrote:
| Well the FBI prosecuted a guy who provided training on how to
| beat it.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Yes, the polygraph has one purpose, instill fear. It's an
| over the top interrogation. Level 1 torture.
| puppycodes wrote:
| The only way polygraphs work is by convincing people its an
| actual lie detection machine. Cops leveredge this belief and tell
| you that you "failed miserably" so you ultimately confess because
| "your caught".
|
| They are about as accurate as flipping a coin.
| tucnak wrote:
| This is not accurate.
|
| Polygraphs are not detecting lies, they're used to assess your
| sensitivities; there are really talented interrogators in
| counterintelligence, whose full-time job is to fuck with you in
| subtle ways. To poly a person at will is very much a power
| move, and some guys fucking love it. But that's a different
| story all together. Most of the time it's a formality like
| everything else. In reality, people don't have remotely enough
| bandwidth to pursue stuff like that unless there's a genuine
| investigation. But office politics people will office-
| politique.
|
| Unpopular opinion: private companies should poly people more
| often in hiring, it could prove more useful than other
| arbitrary kind of culture fit interviews. Food for thought.
| fnordlord wrote:
| Unpopular because it's a bad idea. You're now hiring better
| liars and scaring away humble talent.
| general1465 wrote:
| > private companies should poly people more often in hiring,
| it could prove more useful than other arbitrary kind of
| culture fit interviews.
|
| Useful in what sense? That you can't figure out anyway what
| tested person is capable of because tested person can believe
| that they have skills on godlike senior level, but they are
| junior at best?
| andy99 wrote:
| Yes I'm also curious. From what I know polygraphs and
| similar interrogation are for assessing whether there is
| anything that could be used to blackmail or compromise you.
| Whether one agrees with the method, the goal seems logical
| for intelligence orgs. For companies, industrial espionage
| would be the obvious parallel. I don't know how polygraphs
| would relate to culture fit though... watching to see if
| candidates perspire and their heart beats faster when asked
| if they have grit and value diversity :)
| tucnak wrote:
| Well, my perspective is having to do with Ukrainian mil
| tech, but I believe the same is true in e.g.
| cybersecurity, and it helps that the newcomers are often
| familiar with the process. Poly is not for everyone. Now,
| when you say "industrial espionage" it sounds dandy and
| fine, but for all intents and purposes there is no such
| thing. There is exploitation, yes, and it may easily
| cross from industrial, to defence, to political depending
| on trade.
|
| I never said I subscribe to the unpopular opinion, but
| it's a point of contention regardless!
| 0x53 wrote:
| Thankfully, it is illegal for private companies to do that.
| 05 wrote:
| Unfortunately, that doesn't really prevent companies from
| doing things being illegal if they turn out to be
| profitable enough. You could use a multispectral hidden
| camera and an mmwave radar fed into 'AI' to simulate a lie
| detector - you can definitely get pulse and breathing rate
| out of it, probably also perspiration..
| brookst wrote:
| Sure. And then someone who set that up will get fired and
| leak the scheme, and nudes from mmWave will be found, and
| it's all lawyers and liability.
| nerdsniper wrote:
| Unless you work in a pharmacy. Or you're a 'mall-cop'. Or
| literally any employee anywhere who is suspected of fraud
| or embezzlement or any "incident that resulted in a
| specific economic loss to the employer".
| themafia wrote:
| > whose full-time job is to fuck with you in subtle ways.
|
| And this is a process that you expect to produce an output
| with any predictive value what so ever?
|
| > it could prove more useful than other arbitrary kind of
| culture fit interviews.
|
| You could also just end up selecting for psychopaths and
| sociopaths for whom this test does not function, regardless
| of how much you "fuck with them."
| tucnak wrote:
| I did paint a cynical picture, so please do take it with a
| grain of salt.
|
| Poly is just one tool, and it's never a solution to
| anything. What you say about potential abuses, undesirable
| selection, etc. I agree 100% and hate the office-politique
| jockeys as much as the next man. In most corporate
| environments, fucking with people has no place and use, but
| it's far from only application, in fact it's pretty much
| the worst application possible. Doesn't change the fact
| that it happens, even though it shouldn't. I also believe
| that it's important for many orgs to start taking security
| seriously; in the world where there's so much exploitation,
| and where applicable, it helps a lot if your org can have
| some kind of counterintel function. It doesn't have to
| include poly, but whatever helps you better understand the
| people you work with is surely a boon.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| > _Unpopular opinion: private companies should poly people
| more often in hiring, it could prove more useful than other
| arbitrary kind of culture fit interviews. Food for thought._
|
| Because what we need is _more_ inscrutable judgement calls in
| the interview process?
| puppycodes wrote:
| _> "This is not accurate"_
|
| I don't get what you thought was inaccurate?
|
| I couldn't disagree with you more about your unpopular
| opinion.
|
| I've been hiring for years and imo the best interview is a
| trial period doing the actual work with the actual team, not
| cop movie cosplay.
| saghm wrote:
| Sure, but that's an argument against them ever being used in
| the screening process they use for people joining, not to only
| exempt specific high-level appointees.
| expedition32 wrote:
| Have you ever had paid sex with an underage girl?
|
| BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP
|
| The cesspool that has been opened in the US the last few years is
| both mesmerising and appalling.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| Yes polygraphs are bollocks, but, rules are rules.
|
| The issue is, if exceptions are made, what's stopping other
| breaking the rules?
|
| I don't care if he's a dem, rep or maga, rules are rules.
| shermantanktop wrote:
| Rules are only words on paper unless they are enforced,
| especially to constrain the actions of the powerful.
|
| Once they are consistently broken, the rules only matter for
| the powerless.
|
| There have always been stupid rules, and legitimate reasons to
| break them. But "I am an unqualified appointee and this
| unqualified person is my friend" is not a legitimate reason.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| The rule has always been that this can be waived at the
| discretion of specific senior officials. It isn't done for
| average Federal employees, and not always for political
| positions, but it is a thing that exists.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| So many things we thought were rules or laws or regulations
| were never actually anything but customs, traditions, and
| gentlemens' agreements.
|
| Which works great as long as the people in command are sane and
| ethical. When you have an FBI director who spells his name with
| a dollar sign, well...
| CSMastermind wrote:
| When I was in college they did an audit to see if I could
| graduate and it was flagged that I had been allowed to skip the
| Introduction to Computer Science class because I got a 5 on the
| AP Comp Sci test. The problem was that I took the test while it
| was administered in C++ and it had later switched to Java.
|
| The school decided they were not going to recognize the test
| results and instead would only credit me with an elective class
| for it, I would still have ot pass the introductory class. This
| is in spite of pass all the later comptuer science classwork.
|
| I escalated it to the dean, who told me that while he
| recognized this made no sense, "rules are rules and if we
| didn't follow them they wouldn't be rules".
| steele wrote:
| Not the same
| elgertam wrote:
| But the "rule" in this case is that political appointees can
| have the polygraph waived at some senior leader's discretion,
| up to the president.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| polygraphs are federally banned for employment except for in the
| federal government, so that's more controversial circumventing
| the federal government's hypocrisy
|
| you're blind if you want to pretend that this specific action is
| the top of a slippery slope when we're below the slope at this
| point, Congress isn't gong to do anything so why even act
| surprised. let's focus on the hypocrisy of polygraph being
| standard at all
| Animats wrote:
| That's just the FBI side. The Trump administration has, as a
| policy, that the Counsel for the President can clear someone
| without them going through the usual clearance process. Some
| senior White House staff have been "cleared" that way.
|
| The standard process starts, as it has for decades, with filling
| out Standard Form 86.[1] I see they only want residences for the
| last 10 years. It used to be "list all residences from birth".
|
| Then, all of that gets checked.[2]
|
| These criteria are not, apparently, applied to White House staff
| or Presidential appointees.
|
| [1] https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86/
|
| [2] https://sgp.fas.org/spb/bginvest.html
| api wrote:
| The fact that these are still used is a bit of a scandal. They
| are total bullshit. If they "work" at all it's by convincing
| gullible people they work, so they might make someone slip up or
| confess thinking the magic machine will get them.
|
| Of course things have improved. Decades ago they were trusted a
| lot more to the point that a lot of innocent people got
| prosecuted and guilty people went free based on polygraphs. These
| days they're inadmissible in court, but they're still used in the
| court of public opinion and in some jobs.
| jki275 wrote:
| polygraphs are junk science.
|
| I don't know who the other two are, but Bongino was already
| polygraphed and cleared for the Secret Service -- there's no
| reason to pretend that he wasn't cleared for the job. This
| article reads like a political hit piece and has no real grasp of
| reality. It also has statements that clearly betray its author
| doesn't really understand how security clearances work anyway --
| most clearances don't require polygraphs, those are an IC and LE
| thing, and any OCA can grant any waiver they choose to grant. In
| this particular case if the AG wanted to review this decision she
| could do so as his boss, but it really makes no difference.
|
| Given that polygraphs are, again, junk science, who gives a shit.
| jancsika wrote:
| Rank speculation-- polygraph is a fake tool, but when people who
| think it works attempt to avoid it, real data is produced. :)
| notepad0x90 wrote:
| I think many on this thread are missing the point. the fact that
| it had to be waived alone speaks volumes. Sure they're about as
| accurate as a coin flip as the top commenter said, but they are
| theatrics and what you do before, during, and after usually gives
| interrogators lots of clues about you that they wouldn't
| otherwise have observed.
|
| If you're trying "tricks" to get past it for example, that's one
| data point. It's useful for things like clearance investigations
| because there is a counter-intel side to it, your comms, pattern
| of live and other things will be scrutinized.
|
| it is essentially a "vibe" tool. Do you look too clam, too
| nervous,etc..
|
| That said, people end up contradicting themselves when focusing
| too much on beating the polygraph too. Skilled interrogators
| throw questions that will cause that. Do you sound too prepared
| and detailed, answering questions with details most people won't
| remember? Are you too consistent, indicating recollection of
| prepared facts, instead of wading through unreliable human
| memory?
|
| Even without a polygraph, your eye movements alone are hard to
| get under control unless you practice for it. That's why they
| baseline you first with simple things you're expected to lie on,
| and then more complex things that most people would at least
| partially lie about.
|
| The accuracy of the polygraph itself is not too relevant. If
| you're hiring someone for a senior role at the FBI, a polygraph
| is the formality that opens you up to all kinds of legal trouble.
| it's purpose is to put the subject under legal jeopardy. A simple
| interrogation will do, but a polygraph introduces an adversarial
| evidentiary element into the equation.
|
| In short, it gives the FBI in this case the option to say "this
| guy is acting shady, we can't trust him". Even if they're wrong,
| the sensitivity of the position requires passing on good
| candidates if they must. An investigator on their own would have
| to prove/justify their conclusion. a polygraph is their way out.
| They've seen spies, traitors, etc.. it's a way to filter people
| out with a somewhat justifiable cause.
|
| The question you should be asking is why was it waived in this
| case just for those three staff members? If it is indeed
| unreliable, why not stop it entirely?
|
| Millions of Americans have TS/SCI clearance, which had them pass
| a polygraph just fine. The government isn't losing a lot of
| talent who're fumbling a polygraph. This is a big deal. Any
| conversation about the reliability of a polygraph is a
| distraction.
| roenxi wrote:
| It doesn't speak volumes. It just says that the people being
| hired had enough status that they don't have to go through what
| amounts to an initiation ritual.
|
| Polygraphs appear to be another sad outcrop from the same
| pseudoscience formation as phrenology or witch-ducking;
| basically theatre to legitimise people exercising power in a
| way they were already going to do. The fact that it gets used
| speaks more volumes about the culture in intelligence services
| than the people who may or may not undergo the test.
| dvh wrote:
| nash chelovek?
| solotronics wrote:
| Now that we have real time brain scanning techniques I bet there
| is something way more accurate than a polygraph out there now.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-15 23:00 UTC)