Re: Polygraph Screening

[George Maschke <gmaschke@COMPUSERVE.COM>]

At 16:47 +0100 on 23/12/99, P. O. Johnson wrote:


> Mr. Maschke's "exposé" on polygraph screening smacks of the garbage that the
> KGB used to and probably still does put out. He seems quite disturbed that
> national security agencies of our government would resort to such dastardly
> tricks to ensure that employees who have sworn to maintain official secrets
> actually do so.
>
> Does he think the government should simply take our word for it when we say
> that we have not compromised classified information? The privilege of
> serving our country by working with such sensitive information carries with
> it an awesome responsibility. Most of us are too weak to abide by every rule
> laid down by that responsibility, so we must expect the government to
> motivate us to walk that narrow line. The polygraph is a powerful motivator.
>
> poj
> Collin County College

Yes, Mr. (Ms.?) Johnson, I am indeed quite disturbed that national security agencies of our (American) government resort to lying to and deceiving their employees in addition to the general public.

Since you ask my opinion: no, I do not believe the government should simply take the word of employees with security clearances that they have not compromised classified information. Ronald Reagan used to quote a Russian proverb, "Trust, but verify." And that's what background investigations and periodic updates are for.

But relying on an unscientific procedure like polygraph screening actually harms national security. Real spies are likely to pass (à la Aldrich Ames), while the innocent are targeted for close scrutiny and sometimes lose their jobs.

See my open letter to Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson for a fuller explanation of this:

http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/people/maschke/open_letter_to_DOE.html

At the time I wrote that letter, I had thought that DOE would be using a "probable-lie" rather than a "directed-lie" polygraph screening format, based on DOE's use of the term "Counterintelligence Scope Polygraph." (The term had once been used exclusively for a form of probable-lie polygraph exam.)

In closing, I do not see any similarity between my writing and that of "KGB garbage." If you believe anything I've written to be untrue, please show me where I have erred, as I have sought only to report the truth honestly (something one cannot, unfortunately, count on from the U.S. government).

Sincerely,

George Maschke