Comment by Ms-J
3 months ago
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.
3 months ago
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.
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.
>This person would not have been caught if it wasn't for this polygraphs screening.
The organization whose crimes she exposed claims she would not have been caught if its wasn't for the polygraph screening. Corrupt law enforcement types love things like polygraph tests because they give them a ready avenue for parallel construction.
That was my own interpretation... but admittedly maybe too strong of a statement. Maybe she would have be caught. That said, the psychological setup in those periodic interviews with a "maybe lie detecting machine" create opportunity to find real issues.
In terms of the details here, the leak wasn't to expose the crimes, it was to resist political pressure [my speculation anyways]. The crimes were being investigated anyways and the video was available internally fairly broadly (and I think maybe externally as well). There was a political storm as a result of the investigation and the arrests made. Apparently leaking the video is was not illegal (though that's subject to some interpretations) because the role of the chief prosecutor is independent but this became more complicated when it required lying to the supreme court to cover the leak.
But yeah, it's possible the Shin Bet already had an idea but just used the polygraph as an excuse/opportunity. While it's understandable in the political climate why the chief prosecutor would leak the video it's also unethical and poor judgement for someone in her role to do so, and then to cover it up. The role of the Shin Bet is to find people in sensitive roles who are secretly doing things they should not be doing (typically spies but more generally people betraying the trust put in them). For those not following, the plot got thicker because she proceeded to throw her iPhone in the Mediterranean and it was found by a swimmer some days later. She also tried to harm herself. It's pretty crazy stuff. Now there are arguments about who should oversee the investigation with the supreme court set to decide today. It's a pretty small/tight legal community and everyone knows everyone, especially at the top. The legal system has been in a battle with the government for some while with the justice minister refusing to accept the last appointment of the chief justice of the supreme court.
Anyways, the polygraph angle is interesting. That this machine survives as a practice in many places tells us something about its usefulness (or at least people's belief in its usefulness).
2 replies →
> 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.
Maybe. The same can be said for placebo. But if it works - it works.
5 replies →
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.
This is standard procedure for everyone in certain roles. Presumably for the same reasons the FBI does this.
1 reply →
That is one of the most surprising aspect of the story for me, that a polygraph worked. (the revelation itself just confirmed what everyone already suspected).
My theory is that the new head of the Shin Bet who is pretty right wing and took a personal interest in the story was involved. They simply used the polygraph results as an excuse to direct the interview in the direction they wanted. The timing is certainly very interesting.
It's a very high profile case so i guess the truth of the matter will eventually emerge.
A polygraph test consists of two components: a bullshit machine, and an interview.
The interview is the part that exposed those clues.
The thing about pseudoscience is that it will sometimes appear to “work.” A dowser will sometimes find water. A horoscope will sometimes predict your day. My birthmark has successfully warded off tiger attacks for 40+ years.
[dead]
No, polygraphs are bad lie detectors/truth detectors.
They are perfectly fine as detectors of areas of interest for investigators to probe deeper.
Yes or to pressure you into confessing, honestly good interrogators can do this without the machinery.
Good carpenters can build stuff without nail guns, doesn’t mean it makes sense to use hammers.
2 replies →
No, because I would never talk to them.
1 reply →
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.
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.
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.
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.
1 reply →