        38                        The Survivalist's Second Strike Handbook


                                    Chapter 3
        
                              INTERROGATION PROCESSES
        
             INTRODUCTION:
        
             Doing what we do best always carries the risk of someone, somewhere, 
        wanting to hold you for questioning. In this article I hope to give those 
        persons who never have been exposed to this type of thing a little insight to 
        the methods that are in use (and are in no ways happen to be all new), that 
        can give you the edge you need to come away "sin faulta". In fact, these 
        interrogation practices are used a lot by teachers, local police, the FBI and 
        Secret Service girlfriends, wives, parents, etc. to obtain information from 
        you that you probably don't want to give out.
        
             Interrogation is the art of questioning and examining a source in order 
        to obtain the maximum amount of useful information. The goal of any interroga
        tion is to obtain useful and reliable information in a lawful manner and in a 
        minimum amount of time. The goal of any source is to deceive or hinder any 
        attempts of the interrogator to get information out of him.
        
             This article will deal primarily with the principles, techniques, and 
        procedures of intelligence interrogation. By reading this article, one who 
        runs the risk of being interrogated can build countermeasures for common 
        interrogation techniques. This article has some paraphrased material from a 
        government interrogation manual but the majority of the information was from 
        personal experience and prior knowledge of the subject.
        
             You cannot hope to defeat interrogation techniques unless you first know 
        what they are. The ones listed herein are the most commonly used. After read
        ing this article, you should be able to tell when you are being interrogated 
        by people, and what technique(s) they are using when you probably would not 
        have known before. Once you know what they are up to and how they are going to 
        TRY to accomplish it, YOU have the initiative!
        
             INITIATIVE:
        
             Achieving and maintaining the initiative is essential to a successful 
        interrogation just as offense is the key to success in combat. Obtaining the 
        initiative in any interrogation must rest with the interrogator throughout the 
        entire interrogation. He will have certain advantages at the beginning of an 
        interrogation which will enable him to grasp the initiative and assist in 
        maintaining the initiative throughout the interrogation.
        
             The interrogator has a position of authority over you. You realize this 
        fact, and in some cases, believe that your future might well depend upon your 
        association with the interrogator. As in the case of police questioning, 
        "cooperate and we will go easy on you". 
        
             The interrogator knows the purpose of the interrogation; the source does 
        not necessarily know the exact reason, but can generally assume (especially in 
        the case of a computer hacker or phone phreak, which is what the term "source" 
        will be referring to during this article) because he or she is most usually 
        conscious of horrible and nasty wrong-doings he or she may have been responsi
        ble for. Unfortunately for the source, he is generally very much in the dark 


                           An M & M Enterprises Production 
        INTERROGATION PROCESSES                                         39


        about what's happening to his life while it is, in fact, crumbling around him 
        (temporarily, anyway). This gives the source a not-so-illusionary behavior 
        pattern of the proverbial chicken who's had its head chopped off.
        
             Having gained the initial advantage which is quite an understatement, 
        seeing that, although the risks to the source during the perpetration of a 
        crime are quite obvious, the possible realistic results of being caught aren't 
        quite as impressive while one is getting away with a crime than when one's 
        home is invaded by the JC Penny-suit men wearing mirrored sunglasses, the 
        interrogator must strive to maintain the initiative applying appropriate 
        interrogation techniques through the exercise of self-control; by taking 
        advantage of the source's weaknesses as they become apparent; and by continu
        ously displaying an attitude of confidence and self-assurance. The interroga
        tor, however, is 'supposed' to never take advantage of your weaknesses to the 
        extent that the interrogation involves threats, insults, torture or exposure 
        to unpleasant or inhumane treatment of any kind. Remember, the keyword is 
        supposed.
        
             It is possible for the interrogator to lose the initiative during the 
        interrogation of a source. If this should occur, he will probably postpone the 
        interrogation and reassess the situation. If the interrogation is resumed, a 
        different interrogator will probably be introduced. Following are some exam
        ples of loss of initiative:
        
               *  The interrogator becomes angry and completely loses his self-
                  control because of the arrogant actions of the source (such as the 
                  unbuttoning of a jacket to reveal "Secret Service Sucks" spray 
                  painted onto the source's T-shirt.) As a result, the interrogator 
                  loses sight of his objective and concentrates his efforts on 
                  humbling the source.
        
               * During the interrogation the interrogator fails to note significant 
                  discrepancies in the source's story. The interrogator may lose his 
                  initiative as the source gains confidence from his success and 
                  resorts to further deception, leading the interrogator away from 
                  his objective.
        
               * The interrogator becomes overly friendly with the source and allows 
                  him to lead the interrogation. The source reports only what he be
                  lieves to be important and neglects several significant items of 
                  info which could have been obtained had the interrogator main
                  tained the initiative.















                                (c) 1990 
        40                        The Survivalist's Second Strike Handbook


             PHASES OF INTERROGATION:
        
                  Approach Phase:
        
             Regardless of the type of source you are and your outward personality, 
        you do possess weaknesses which, if recognized by the interrogator, can be 
        exploited. A human being is likely to:
        
              o Talk, especially after harrowing experiences
              o Show deference when confronted by superior authority
              o Rationalize acts about which he feels guilty
              o Lack the ability to apply or to remember lessons he may
                have been taught regarding security if confronted with
                a disorganized or a strange situation.
              o Cooperate with those who have control over him
              o Attach less importance to a topic which the interrogator
                demonstrates identical or related experiences and knowledge
              o Appreciate flattery and exoneration from guilt
              o Cooperate readily when given material rewards
              o Cooperate readily when treated as an equal
        
                       TECHNIQUES:
        
                            "File and Dossier"
        
             The interrogator prepares a dossier containing all available info ob
        tained from records and documents concerning you. Careful arrangement of the 
        material within the file may give the illusion that it contains more data than 
        is actually there. The file may be "padded" with extra paper, if necessary. 
        Index tabs with titles such as "education", "employment", "criminal record", 
        "bulletin boards", "violated computer systems", and others are particularly 
        effective for this purpose. The interrogator will confront you with the dossi
        er at the beginning of the interrogation and explain that "intelligence" has 
        provided a complete record of every significant happening in your life; there
        fore, it would be useless to resist interrogation. The interrogator may read a 
        few selected bits of known data to further impress you. If the technique is 
        successful, you will be impressed with and more importantly, terrified by the 
        "voluminous" file, conclude that everything is known, and resign to complete 
        cooperation.
        
                            "We know ALL"
        
             This technique may be employed in conjunction with the above or by it
        self. The interrogator must first become thoroughly familiar with the avail
        able data concerning you. To begin the interrogation, the interrogator asks 
        questions based on his known data. When you hesitate, refuse to answer, or 
        provide an incomplete or incorrect reply, the interrogator himself provides 
        the detailed answer. Through the careful use of the limited number of known 
        details, the interrogator may convince you that all the info is already known; 
        therefore, your answers to the questions are of no consequence. When you begin 
        to give accurate and complete information, the interrogator interjects ques
        tions designed to gain the needed info. Questions to which answers are already 
        known are also asked to test you and to maintain the deception that all the 
        info is already known. A VERY effective technique I might add.



                           An M & M Enterprises Production 
        INTERROGATION PROCESSES                                         41


                            "Rapid Fire"
        
          This approach technique involves a psychological ploy based on the princi
        ples that:
        
            * Everyone likes to be heard when they speak; and
        
            * It is confusing to be interrupted in mid-sentence with an
              unrelated question.
        
             This technique may be used with one, or simultaneously by two or more 
        interrogators in questioning the same source. In employing this technique the 
        interrogator asks a series of questions in such a manner that you do not have 
        time to answer a question completely before the next question is asked. This 
        tends to confuse you and you are apt to contradict yourself, as you have 
        little time to prepare your answers. The interrogator then confronts you with 
        the inconsistencies, causing further contradictions. In many instances you 
        will begin to talk freely in an attempt to explain yourself and deny the 
        inconsistencies pointed out by the interrogator. In attempting to explain your 
        answers, you are likely to reveal more than you intend, thus creating addi
        tional leads for the interrogator.
        
                            "Mutt and Jeff"
        
             This technique involves a psychological ploy which takes advantage of the 
        natural uncertainty and guilt which a source has as a result of being detained 
        and questioned. Use of this technique necessitates the employment of two 
        experienced interrogators who are convincing as actors. Basically, the two 
        interrogators will display opposing personalities and attitudes towards you. 
        
             For example the first interrogator is very formal and displays an unsym
        pathetic attitude. This is to make you feel cut off from your friends. At the 
        time when you act hopeless and alone, the second interrogator appears (having 
        received his cue by a signal, and is hidden from you), scolds the first inter
        rogator for his harsh behavior and orders him from the room. He then apolo
        gizes to soothe you, perhaps offering coffee and a cigarette. He explains that 
        the actions of the first interrogator were largely the result of an inferior 
        intellect and lack of human sensitivity. The inference is created that the 
        other interrogator and you have in common a high degree of intelligence and an 
        awareness of human sensitivity, above and beyond that of the first interroga
        tor. You are normally inclined to have a feeling of gratitude towards the 
        second interrogator, who continues to show a sympathetic attitude in an effort 
        to increase the rapport and control for the questioning which will follow. 
        Should your cooperativeness begin to fade, the second interrogator can hint 
        that since he is of high rank, having many other duties, he cannot afford to 
        waste time on an uncooperative source. He may broadly infer that the first 
        interrogator might return to continue the questioning. 
        
             When used against the proper source, this trick will normally gain com
        plete cooperation for the interrogation.







                                (c) 1990 
        42                        The Survivalist's Second Strike Handbook


                            "Repetition"
        
             Repetition is used to induce cooperation from a hostile source. The 
        interrogator listens carefully to your answer to a question, and then repeats 
        both the question and answer several times. He does this with each succeeding 
        question until you become so bored with the procedure that you answer the 
        question fully and truthfully to satisfy the interrogator and to gain relief 
        from the monotony of this method of questioning. The repetition technique will 
        generally not work when employed against introverted sources or those having 
        great self control.
        
                            "Pride and Ego"
        
           This technique works effectively on many phreaks and hackers due to the 
        fact that many are so damn egotistical. The strategy is to trick you into 
        revealing desired information by flattering you. It is effective with sources 
        who have displayed weaknesses or feelings of inferiority. The interrogator 
        accuses you of weakness or implies that you are unable to do a certain thing.  
        The proud or egotistical source will jump to the defensive. An example of an 
        opening question for this technique may be:  "Why would you own a blue box 
        when you have absolutely no idea how to use one?" or, "Why do you hack VMS 
        systems if you can't do a damn thing once you're inside of one?" It provides 
        you with the opportunity to show someone that you have "brains" and in doing 
        so, you give the interrogator more information than you should have.
        
                            "Silent"
        
           The Silent technique may be successful when used against either the nerv
        ous, or the confident-type source.  When employing this technique, the inter
        rogator says nothing to you, but looks you squarely in the eye, probably with 
        a slight smile on his face. It is important for the interrogator not to look 
        away from you, but force you to break eye contact first. You will become 
        nervous, begin to shift around in your chair, and look away. If you ask ques
        tions the interrogator probably will not answer them until he is ready to 
        break the silence. A source may blurt out questions such as, "What the hell do 
        you want with me". When the interrogator is ready to break the silence, he may 
        do so with some quite nonchalant questions such as, "You've been logging on to 
        our system for a long time now, haven't you? Did you hack the passwords your
        self?".
        
            In some cases the interrogator will use several approach techniques con
        currently, or in succession.
        
                       QUESTIONS:
        
        There are various questions that the interrogator may ask you:
        
             * Prepared questions:  When the topic under inquiry is very technical or 
               when legal aspects of the interrogation require preciseness, the 
               interrogator will have a list of prepared questions to follow during 
               the interrogation.
        
             * Control questions: To maintain control and to check on the truthful
               ness of a source, the normal questions will be mixed with control 
               questions-those with known answers. If you fail to answer these 


                           An M & M Enterprises Production 
        INTERROGATION PROCESSES                                         43


               questions, or answer wrong, it will indicate that you are either not 
               knowledgeable in the topic or that you are lying.
        
             * Nonpertinent questions: Sometimes it is necessary for the interrogator 
               to keep the true objective of the interrogation from you. By careful
               ly blending pertinent questions with nonpertinent questions, the 
               interrogator can conceal the true purpose of the inquiry.
        
             * Direct and leading questions: The manner in which the questions are 
               worded has a direct bearing on your response. A question may be posed 
               in a number of ways:
        
               o "What system did you hack into on 11/11/86?"
        
               o "Did you break into General Dynamics' computer on 11/11/86?"
        
               o "You did break into GD's computer on 11/11/86?"
        
               o "You didn't break into GD'S computer on 11/11/86, did you?"
        
                       PSYCHOLOGY IN INTERROGATION:
        
             The interrogator will watch for various psychological responses from you 
        during an interrogation. Some of these are:
        
             * Rationalization:  Creating plausible excuses or explanations for one's 
               acts without being aware that these excuses or explanations are way 
               off the [obvious] reality.
        
             * Identification:  To identify with and mimic a mental image of some one 
               important to you.
        
             * Compensation: Trying to make up for a psychological weakness by build
               ing up or exaggerating a psychological strength.
        
             * Exhibitionism:  Showing off, bragging, etc.
        
             * Fear, Anger, Frustration, etc.
        
             Of course when being interrogated, you should remain as emotionless as 
        possible and never show anger, or get upset (NEVER inflict physical abuse upon 
        the unsuspecting interrogator. This only creates tension between both the 
        interrogator and yourself). Your every move, every response, every action is 
        noted and used by the interrogator to get you to screw up and give him what he 
        wants.
        
             There can be two main objectives that you can obtain when being interro
        gated.
        
             The first is to find ways to force the interrogator to lose his initia
        tive. You can do this in many ways. A few that come to mind are:  Repeat 
        everything the interrogator says. Mimic the interrogator. Laugh at the inter
        rogator. Basically piss the interrogator off and make him so mad that he loses 
        sight of his objective. This may however, get you in deeper trouble, but it 
        may give you extra time while another interrogator is found.


                                (c) 1990 
        44                        The Survivalist's Second Strike Handbook


        
             Lie like hell to the interrogator and piss him off. Such as the patholog
        ical liar gimmick: "I broke into the NSA's computer, yeah, and then used their 
        network to get into the presidents private computer yeah that's it, the pass
        word was uh...Bonzo, yeah, and then used it to take control of a satellite 
        used for Star Wars, and made it land right on top of the Kremlin, yeah that's 
        the ticket!"
        
             You can also change the subject over and over again to totally unrelated 
        things such as: its a nice day out today, how's the wife and kids, how about 
        some food, who do you think is going to the superbowl, etc.
        
             The other and probably better objective is simply to pretend to fall for 
        any of the various techniques used against you and feed the interrogator more 
        and more bullshit, of course being very sincere. This way he gets totally 
        bogus information while thinking you are cooperating fully.
        
             Well, I hope you never have to put this article to use in a legal manner, 
        but you would be surprised how everyday you are interrogated without even 
        realizing it by normal people who probably don't realize they are interrogat
        ing you!
        
        The Truth About Lie Detectors
         
             Americans love gadgets, so it is not hard to explain the popularity of 
        the lie detector. Many people believe in the validity of lie detectors because 
        the instruments and printouts resemble those used by doctors and others who 
        collect scientific data and because lie detectors are simple, convenient 
        shortcuts to hard complicated decisions. Polygraphy is fast becoming an Ameri
        can obsession - an obsession, incidentally, not shared by the British or the 
        Europeans or, as far as we know, the Russians.
         
             American industry's increasing dependence on the polygraph reflects an 
        enormous faith in the rational processes of science. Each of us can recall a 
        time when our voices sounded funny as we told a lie. Surely, if we can "hear" 
        a lie, science can detect one. It comes as a disturbing shock, therefore, to 
        learn how fragile the polygraph's scientific foundations really are.
        
             The roots of the lie detector, more formally known as the polygraph, go 
        back to the turn of the century, when infatuation with the newly discovered 
        powers of electricity more than once overcame common sense. But whereas elec
        tric hair restorers and high-voltage cancer cures have all but vanished, the 
        polygraph persists and even flourishes. According to the best estimates, over 
        one million polygraph examinations are administered each year in the united 
        States. They are used in criminal investigations, during government security 
        checks, and increasingly by nervous employers - particularly banks and stores. 
        In certain parts of the country, a woman must pass a lie detector test before 
        the authorities will prosecute a rape. In 1983 the television show Lie Detec
        tor added the dimension of home entertainment to polygraph tests.








                           An M & M Enterprises Production 
        INTERROGATION PROCESSES                                         45


             The National Security Agency (NSA) leads the roster of federal polygraph 
        users; both it and the CIA rely heavily on polygraph testing for pre-employ
        ment and routine security screening. The NSA reported giving nearly 10,000 
        tests in 1982 (CIA numbers are classified). Those who are labeled "deceptive" 
        often lose their jobs, even if there is no actual evidence against them. 
        Moreover, the polygraph report may become a permanent part of an employee's 
        records, and it will be extremely difficult to compel a correction.
        
             With the arrest in June 1985 of four Navy men on espionage charges, the 
        issue of using polygraphs to uncover spies or ferret out dishonest job seekers 
        has come to the forefront of the debate about what should be done to stem the 
        loss of defense and company secrets and to dispel potential thieves in the 
        workplace.
        
             Much the same issue was at the heart of the protracted wrangle between 
        the Reagan Administration and Congress over plans for expanded government use 
        of the polygraph. An executive order issued on March 11, 1983, known as Na
        tional Security Decision Directive 84, would have sanctioned for the first 
        time "adverse consequences" for a federal employee who refuses to take a test 
        when asked. The directive authorized tests to investigate candidates for 
        certain security clearances and to ask any federal employee about leaks of 
        classified information. (This directive was issued shortly after Reagan's 
        comment about being "up to my keister" in press leads.)  Almost simultaneously 
        the Department of Defense (DOD) released a draft regulation that authorized 
        use of the polygraph to screen employees who take on sensitive intelligence 
        assignments; it, too, prescribed adverse consequences for refusal.
        
             Critics of the polygraph maintain that its use represents an invasion of 
        privacy, especially when the coercive power of the government or an employer 
        is behind the application. It is hard for a job applicant to say no when a 
        prospective employer asks him or her to take a polygraph test; once hooked up 
        to the machine, the applicant may face questions not only about past criminal 
        activity but also about matters that an employer may have no business intrud
        ing upon, such as sexual practices or gambling - questions asked ostensibly to 
        assess the applicant's "character."  As a result of such abuses, nineteen 
        states and the District of Columbia have made it illegal for an organization 
        to ask its employees to take polygraph examinations.
        
             A question more basic than whether the polygraph is an unacceptable 
        invasion of privacy is, of course, whether it works. Seeking an answer in the 
        scientific literature can be a bewildering experience. A report by the Office 
        of Technology Assessment (OTA), commissioned in 1983 by Brooks's Committee on 
        Government Operations, summed up the problem by citing twenty-four studies 
        that found correct detection of guilt ranging from 35% to 100%.
        
             Polygraph theory thrives on a sort of Pinocchio vision of lying, in which 
        physiological reactions - changes in blood pressure or rate of breathing or 
        sweating of the palms - elicited by a set of questions will reliably betray 
        falsehood. Lying, goes the rationale, is deliberate, and the knowledge and 
        effort associated with it will make a person upset enough to display a physi
        cal reaction like a speedup of the heartbeat. The variables measured usually 
        include the galvanic skin response (GSR), blood pressure, abdominal respira
        tion, and thoracic respiration. The GSR is measured by fingertip electrodes 
        that produce changes in the electrical resistance in the palms when they are 
        sweating. The blood pressure and pulse are monitored through a system that 


                                (c) 1990 
        46                        The Survivalist's Second Strike Handbook


        uses a sphygmomanometer cuff, which is usually attached to the biceps (this is 
        similar to the way doctors measure blood pressure). There is no "specific lie 
        response." The polygraph merely records general emotional arousal. It does not 
        distinguish anxiety or indignation from guilt. The real "lie detector" is the 
        operator, who interprets the various body responses on the machine's output.
        
             Polygraphers claim that it is the form and mix of questions that are the 
        keys to their success. The standard format, known as the Control Question 
        Test, involves interspersing "relevant" questions with "control" questions.  
        Relevant questions relate directly to the critical matter:  "Did you partici
        pate in the robbery of the First National Bank on September 11, 1981?"  Con
        trol questions, on the other hand, are less precise:  "In the last twenty 
        years, have you ever taken something that did not belong to you?"
        
             In the pretest interview, the polygrapher reviews all the questions and 
        frames the control questions to produce "no" answers. It is in this crucial 
        pretest phase that the polygrapher's deception comes into play, for he wants 
        the innocent subject to dissemble while answering the control questions during 
        the actual test.
         
             The assumption underlying the Control Question Test is that the truthful 
        subject will display a stronger physiological reaction to the control ques
        tions, whereas a deceptive subject will react more strongly to the relevant 
        questions. That is the heart of it. Modern lie detection relies on nothing 
        more than subtle psychological techniques, crude physiological indicators, and 
        skilled questioning and interpretation of the results. 
        
             Critics claim that polygraphy fails to take the complexities of lying 
        into account. For some people lying can be satisfying, fulfilling, exciting, 
        and even humorous, depending on their reasons for lying. Other people feel 
        little or no emotion when lying. Still others believe their lies and think 
        they are telling the truth when they are not. Moreover, the theory holds that 
        deception produces distinctive physiological changes that characterize lying 
        and only lying. This notion has no empirical support. Quite the contrary:  
        Lying produces no known distinctive pattern of physiological activity.
        
             Undeniably, when being dishonest, people can feel great turmoil and a 
        polygraph can measure this turmoil. But when apprehensive about being interro
        gated, they can give a similar emotional reaction: When they think they are 
        losing the chance for job openings or their jobs are on the line, when they 
        reflect on the judgments that could be made about their answers, or, for that 
        matter, when they are angry, puzzled, or even amused by the impertinent prob
        ing of a total stranger. Some control questions may make a person appear 
        guilty. Such questions may force a subject into a minor lie or ask about an 
        invented crime that nonetheless makes the subject nervous.
        
             Lie detectors are especially unreliable for truthful people. Many more 
        innocent people test as "deceptive" than guilty people test as "innocent." 
        Those who run a special risk include people who get upset if someone accuses 
        them of something they didn't do, people with short tempers, people who tend 
        to feel guilty anyway, and people not accustomed to having their word ques
        tioned. All of these feelings can change heart rate, breathing, and perspira
        tion and their heightened feelings are easily confused with guilt.




                           An M & M Enterprises Production 
        INTERROGATION PROCESSES                                         47


             It has also been shown that polygraphs are easily manipulated. Four 
        hundred milligrams of the tranquilizer meprobamate taken an hour or two before 
        a polygraph session can make it virtually impossible to spot a liar by his 
        physiological responses. In fact, some researchers even argue that an examinee 
        can use simple countermeasures, such as biting one's tongue, gouging oneself 
        with a fingernail, or stepping on a nail concealed in a shoe, to fake a strong 
        reaction to the control questions, thus "beating" the test. According to one 
        researcher, one prison inmate, who became the jail-house polygraph expert 
        after studying the literature, trained twenty-seven fellow inmates in the seat 
        techniques; twenty-three beat the polygraph tests used tons investigate viola
        tions of prison rules. However, do not try sighing, coughing, or clenching 
        your fist or arm. Polygraphers usually are suspicious of those techniques and 
        may label you "deceptive" for that reason alone.
        
             It should be obvious that the interpretation of the results of any poly
        graph test will certainly be very difficult. Also, not all responses on the 
        machine will agree. What are the present qualifications for a polygrapher? 
        Most of the twenty-five or more schools that train examiners provide only an 
        eight-week course of instruction and require two years of college for admis
        sion. This is about one-sixth the study time of the average barber college.  
        Perhaps as many as a dozen contemporary polygraphers do hold Ph.D's, but the 
        vast majority of the 4,000 to 8,000 practicing examiners had no simple signif
        icant training in physiology or in psychology, even though lie detection 
        demands extremely subtle and difficult psychophysiological interpretations. 
        There are no licensing standards for polygraph operators, and, with so many 
        poorly, who trained operators, thousands of tests are conducted hastily and 
        haphazardly, resulting in highly questionable accuracy. For many innocent 
        people, their judge and jury are these unskilled operators.
        
             Honesty is also difficult to predict because it tends to be situation- 
        specific. Therefore, it is more dependent on motivation and opportunity than 
        on some personality trait. As Bertrand Russell once said, "Virtue is dictated 
        by results of circumstance."
        
             Proponents of the polygraph sometimes cite "correct guilty detections":  
        The percentage of guilty subjects who are caught by the polygraph. This figure 
        can be very impressive: In one study that does not suffer from the failings 
        already mentioned, it was 98% correct. But the same study found that 55% of 
        innocent subjects were also diagnosed as "deceptive." The handful of studies 
        that used a truly random selection of cases and scored them blind produced 
        similar results: Overall, 83% of guilty subjects were diagnosed as "decep
        tive," as were 43% of innocent subjects. It's no trick to push the rate of 
        correct guilty detections to 100% - just call everyone "deceptive." You don't 
        even need a machine to do that!
        
             Nature published its conclusions last year. Their aggregated findings 
        were based on the polygraph charts of 207 criminal suspects, which 14 polygra
        phers scored independently. On the average, they erroneously diagnosed 43% of 
        innocent suspects as deceptive. Such errors, called false positives, ranged as 
        high as 50%. The corresponding errors of deceptive persons "passing the test," 
        or false negatives, were as high as 36%.






                                (c) 1990 
        48                        The Survivalist's Second Strike Handbook


             The accuracy rates of "failed" and "passed" depend, of course, on the 
        proportion of dishonest persons in the group tested. Thus, if 800 of 1,000 
        persons tested are truthful, a test that is 72% accurate overall will accuse 
        144 liars and 224 truthful persons. This is not an impressive accuracy record.
        
             These numbers suggest that the polygraph test is biased against innocent 
        people. The problem is accentuated when the test is used in the screening 
        situations envisioned in the Reagan Administration proposals (and already 
        established at the NSA and the CIA). Everyone is tested, but presumably only a 
        very small proportion has done anything wrong. If we assume that one employee 
        in a hundred is a spy (probably a gross overestimate), and if we use the 83% 
        correct-guilty-detection rate, we find that 51 innocent persons will flunk the 
        polygraph test for every real spy who flunks. Any test, whether it is for 
        truth or for cancer, has to be extremely accurate to detect a rare phenomenon 
        without setting off a lot of false alarms in the process. Even if the test 
        were 99% accurate for both guilty and innocent detections, one innocent person 
        would be falsely branded for each spy caught. Because of this "case rate" 
        problem, the FBI forbids the use of polygraph dragnets: The tests can be used 
        only after an initial investigation has narrowed the field of suspects.
         
             Given all the doubts about their validity, why does the government per
        sist in using polygraph tests? Some clues are found in the DOD 1983 report on 
        polygraph testing - even in its title, "The Accuracy and Utility of Polygraph 
        Testing" which suggests that accuracy and utility are two different things. 
        The most that report concludes about accuracy is that it is "significantly 
        above chance." Utility, however, is quite another matter. Perhaps the most 
        telling statement about lie detectors comes from former president Nixon, who 
        declared on one of the White House tapes, "I don't know anything about lie 
        detectors other than they scare the hell out of people."




























                           An M & M Enterprises Production 
