I'm a government contractor who is required to have high security clearances. Every 5 years we are expected to undergo our "re-poly". I think they require re-polys to keep our lifestyles honest as we age. So that people don't get in clean and then get dirty after the fact. My beef is with the whole polygraph "test" in general.

Whenever I have a poly coming up, I run the gamut of emotions:
annoyed, embarrassed - that our government feels this is a cost-effective deterrent of dishonesty
scared, distressed - that my job rests on my passing a "test" orchestrated not by science but by trickery, all with the pressure(anxiety-inducing) of losing my entire income based on an outcome that is dependant on how calm, non-anxious I can be.

This site:
antipolygraph.org
outlines the facts surrounding the claim that POLYGRAPHS JUST DON'T WORK. Honest people get fingered out by polygraphs every day. And spies pass polygraphs just as often. The book "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector" is a free publication that is available to all people who need to "pass" a polygraph "test".

Our own government knows that foreign spies are trained to beat polygraphs, just like we teach our own spies how to beat polygraphs. So why all the farce? They know it is ineffective. I spent 5 hours at my last polygraph. I was being paid with government contractor dollars, and the polygrapher was also being paid with government dollars (AKA TAX DOLLARS). And 5 hours isn't unusual.

Not only are tons of tax dollars being used to pay people to give and receive these arbitrary ordeals, but tax dollars are used to send polygraphers to training for these unscientific, ineffective "tests".

I agree whole-heartedly that we need to screen employees with access to sensitive information in the interest of national security. But there must be a better way. If there isn't a better way, that does not justify wasting money on an ineffective way.

Just because the threat of having to take a polygraph might discourage dishonest people from applying; it does not prevent MOTIVATED, EDUCATED dishonest people from applying. Is the cost really worth the protection? Would you spend a million dollars on a water filter that only removed dirt from the drinking supply, but let microscopic bacteria through?

Should the government continue to waste tax payer dollars in the hopes of discouraging petty liars, but without the guarantee that they are filtering out serious liars? Also, with the added consequence of losing qualified, often talented, honest people who can't calm themselves during a polygraph? Can we think of a better way?

I have never seen anything to show that a polygraph test is a valid scientific test. I still wonder if that means its a waste of time and money. There is no real scientific evidence that a cop or a judge and tell when someone is lying, but many insist that they can. The CIA, FBI, NSA all use this test even though it is anything but 100% reliable. I don't allways like the way money is spent in these agencies with redundant screening prcedures, but I think they must see the need for it. "Our government is hemorrhaging [sensitive information] in a way that I have never seen in my lifetime," said Director of the CIA, George J. Tenet, in 1999.

I had a conversation with textbook salesman who was afraid that the internet was going to put him out of a job. I told him that there was no substitute for an individule meeting a potential customer one on one. I think it can be usefull and is obviously considered helpfull by people who are supposed to know what they are doing. I think it would be great if we could think of a better way of screening out people who cant maintain a baseling honsty, I just have no idea what we could use to replace it. On the other hand maybe we are just producing a better skilled class of liars and screening out people with a senstitive conscience.

I'm in the same boat as you, perspective, having a 3-letter customer & a 5-letter clearance. I do not see it as a waste of tax dollars, when factored in to the total cost of keeping you billable on your contract. But, i understand your beef isn't with fiscal irresponsibility, but rather with the false guaruntee of nat'l security. For me, it has kept my lifestyle well reigned in, and the "threat" of being fluttered did not discourage me from applying for this position, even though interesting items will come up in my next (actually, first) poly. The 5-yr is no biggie, just a box-checker. If they really want to be effective, they'll come down to your cube & wisk you away & ask you questions without prior notice. I believe maximum anxiety is achieved when your "rehearsal" is comprised of the pre-brief (without being hooked up) only minutes before the show starts. It's a fascinating headtrip, eh?

As i understand it, The Man just wants to know how you can be exploited by someone who may have dirt on you, or if you have money problems (biggie!). Nothing more.

Thanks for the links, i'll check 'em out & bone up on my countermeasures.

I would say no. I think you could have a panel of psychologists and other professionals who could screen an individual by administering a personality test or some other test that could gauge if a person has the potential to betray their own country. Nothing will be 100%, but you are correct-changes need to be made.

If I can share my own story-I've applied for jobs where a writing sample was requested. Upon receiving such a request, I throw the application in the trash. If my employer believes in such quackery, then I don't want to work for him!

Surely the intelligence community understands that polygraphs are not even nearly fool-proof - so that makes me wonder if the real point of them is to try and create fear/anxiety and hopefully therefore stop any ''subversive'' behavior before its had a chance to occur?

So maybe the real intention behind the polygraphs is as a preventative measure rather than a sleuthing method?