by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
This is an update to a story originally posted here by Charlton Stanley, “Polygraphers trigger fear response in Federal prosecutors.”
Chad Dixon, a 34 year old Marion, Indiana little league coach who ran the “PolygraphExpert.net” website teaching people how to defeat polygraph tests, was sentenced to eight months in jail for threatening national security by teaching government job applicants how to beat lie-detector tests. Teaching such techniques and discussing them is not per se illegal. It is an admitted gray area in 1st Amendment jurisprudence. However, U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady found the evidence compelling enough that Dixon had crossed the line when he advised some clients, including two undercover officers, to conceal what he taught them while undergoing government polygraphs. This is in addition to the charges of obstruction and wire fraud Dixon plead guilty to last year.
Nina Ginsberg, Dixon’s attorney, accused prosecutors of trying to turn her client into a “poster child for its newly undertaken campaign” to stop people from using the polygraph disruption techniques. the prosecution had sought a two year sentence, but Judge O’Grady thought that eight months was sufficient. O’Grady said, “There’s nothing unlawful about maybe 95 percent of the business he conducted,” although he added that “a sentence of incarceration is absolutely necessary to deter others.”
As Charlton Stanley’s original column indicated, lie detectors are anything but a lie detector. “[L]ie detector technology has no known statistical properties with regard to detecting deception of any kind. It has not been accepted as science in the scientific community. The only thing scientists seem to agree on is most of these machines measure stress reactions in humans, and to that extent, they can measure stress in people who feel stress—that’s it.”
Deterrent based on legitimate concerns or chilling of free speech in the name of protecting a test of dubious value?
What do you think?
Source: Seattle Times
~submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Carol Cromarty,
I removed your two comments. You can’t just post someone else’s email address in a comment, especially without any explanation of why you posted them. You are welcome to comment, but please don’t put the email address of persons other than yourself in your comment.
Larry asked:
“What about Gaydar?”
~+~
I don’t think the sheriff would have taken too kindly for me to put in a budget request to become gaydar certified. 🙂
Torture—OK.
Lying to Congress–OK if government official
Stealing billions, lying to investors and to congress–OK if you are a banker
Lying to the American people about anything —OK if government official, banker, billionaire or candidate …..
But helping people avoid the pit falls of a process that doesn’t even worK—prosecution and jail.
Ain’t that America!
There was a case in some state a while ago where a person was charged with obstructing law enforcement for waring others of a speed trap ahead by flashing their lights to oncoming drivers to warn them of police ahead, resulting in those drivers reducing their speed to avoid tickets. It was ruled at some appellate level this was protected speech and not obstructing. Maybe this is a different level.
Darren,
What about Gaydar? 🙂
I haven’t been much of a fan of polygraphs myself. And, I’ve had to take them to get hired into LE. There is something to be said about how much is subjective and what is objective as to interpreting the readings. The strategy I think works for job applicants seeking a position with the PD is to just tell everything no matter how trivial or insignificant before the test and then there should be nothing to worry about, as you have disclosed everything, even if someone was 4 years old when they snuck into the movie theater.
But if a person was ever accused of a crime and the offer to take a polygraph was brought to the defendant, my reflexive response would be “NO WAY.” because unlike a red light, it is either red or it isn’t, much of the data as to whether or not the person is being deceptive is subject to interpretation and if the operator is motivated by a pre-conceived notion it might tilt the operator (even if unintentionally) to mark deceptive. (apologies to my cousin who is a capable polygraph examiner, but I have a difference of opinion) I will give that the sheets / readouts can be subject to a reexamination by someone else to be confirmed or denied.
I might add something to the comparison with a RADAR. There are interpretations that need to be made to determine if a reading of a vehicle’s speed is true or not. But it is much more certain than a few wavy lines on a graph. RADARs emit a sound based upon the target acquisition. It is essential to know the heuristcs of that sound to know if the reading is true. In fact you have to be able to articulate that the reading was not from another vehicle in the antenna’s view and that the pitch is commensurate with the speed of the target vehicle and the patrol car. LIDAR is different as well.
But there are I suppose with the polygraph some definate times when the person is being deceptive and it is obvious to a trained operatof, but it is the person who’s readings are right at the crossover between Truth and Deception where the problems are going to crop up.
He entered a guilty plea. There has to be more to this story than meets the eye. I wonder if they had him on subornation of perjury charges.
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/09/chad-dixon-sentenced-to-8-months-for-lie-detector-case-93694.html
LK,
Me too. But this decision was handed down just yesterday. Maybe in the near future, more in depth materials will become available and one of us can write a follow up with greater detail.
Yeah, the actual law and more importantly the interpretation of it that the government used moving forward would be helpful. The Justice Department is a master of parsing and deconstruction, depending on what the specific arguments were related to the charges which were upheld there could be landmines in this decision. One of the statements from the Seattle Times that I found interesting was this one:
“Dixon, for instance, advised one undercover agent posing as the brother of a violent Mexican drug trafficker to withhold details during a polygraph for a U.S. Customs and Border Protection job, prosecutors said.”
What charge was that relevant to? what was the context and specific advice? Did he advocate lying by commission to specific questions posed as hypotheticals by the undercover agents or was it a more general statement along the lines of ‘In the followup interview answer the question asked with the shortest answer possible, yes or no when possible, do not volunteer information, do not provide details.’
That’s a standard instruction given by lawyers. That’s a standard instruction given to people being polygraphed by their representatives and probably shows up in some form on many ‘how-to’ sites.
These kinds of details are important because their importance in the trial and verdict could lead to take-down requests (for violating the law) to ISP’s hosting ‘how-to’ sites or be expanded to other heretofore legal and protected arenas.
If this case went to the heart of what kind of speech should be illegal, or could be stretched to that point by a creative prosecutor citing it as a precedent, that could usher in significant restrictions on information shared on the Internet and among business’, like how to make black-powder weapons or…. ? Not that the use of such a possible prosecution needs to be widespread but rather such cards might be helpful to have on ones hand if someone was being targeted in general.
I’d sure like to read this case in depth because it could be a much greater expansion of government control of speech than it appears on first blush.
I worked on a lie detection study in grad school. Defeating a lie detector is not very difficult and easily done w/o even trying. There have been books in the library on the subject for decades–a website isn’t much different.Lie detector data are, at best, probabilistic, and problem people are more easily identified by having good historical information than on something that basically functions as a gimmick.
Amazing story Gene. If polygraph’s are unreliable, how can tips on “beating” the machine be fraud? OS was right that this is one more warning to allof us. This guy gets 8 months and how many months did the banksters get? Or Clapper? Disgusting. Pass the Excedrin please.
OS,
That was kind of my reaction too, OS.
Let’s stop and think about this. Chad gets sentenced for fraud, because he revealed the polygraph is a fraud? I need an Excedrin.
If this is the case, we need to revisit the definition of “fraud.”
First, does anybody have the actual 18 USC § XXX he was charged under?
Second, while this looks bad, it is going to be worse in a decade or two when Brain Scanning Imagery is regularly used to tell when people are lying, or Advanced Pheromone Detection, or whatever. Before we know it, we will have to testify under oath with a bunch of wires taped to our heads and stuff.
I think we need an Amendment that protects our right to lie, period. Heck, the durn cops and prosecutors get to.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
eddie stinson,
There is one vital difference between radar detectors and polygraphs. Radar detectors actually work and give valid information. Polygraphs…..not so much.
Thanks for the update Gene. It appears to now be a criminal offense to reveal the fact the emperor has no clothes and is naked. This was not about Chad Dixon, it is about sending a message. For one thing, polygraphers have a sinecure going, and this is about job security.
I remember years ago when Nikita Khrushchev visited the US as a guest of President Kennedy. Later, Kennedy told reporters a joke Khrushchev told him:
Border Patrol agents in Arizona are members of Local 2544. They have weighed in on this issue as well. They have a web page devoted to it:
http://www.local2544.org/polygraph-junk-science/
George Costanza is now in jeopardy. “Jerry, it’s not lying if you believe it’s true.”
I THINK THAT IT WILL NOT BE LONG BEFORE SWAMP FOX CLIMBS INTO A TREE AND STARTS SHOOTING RED-COATS.
STEPHAN G. PATTERSON
PALMER, ALASKA
Reblogged this on Brittius.com.
This is nonsense on many levels. If this poor guy is guilty so must be the countless thousands of people with radar detectors in their cars and trucks. This is just one more obscenity by the present administration.