Copyright

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
cia, copyright, downloads, fbi, lie detector



FBI Wants To Know If Applicants Have Been Downloading Unauthorized Content

from the limiting-the-supply dept

Earlier this year, FBI Director James Comey suggested that the FBI might consider backing off its policy of refusing to hire anyone who has used marijuana in order to find competent computer folks who can deal with online crimes. After some backlash (and some support) for those statements, Comey quickly backed down, claiming it was all just a joke.

Now, TorrentFreak has revealed that beyond pot smoking disqualifying you, so might your history of downloading some music and movies. This came up at a Sacramento State Career Center information session held by the FBI, where the FBI made it clear that your downloading practices matter to the agency.
“If you’re doing that, stop doing it.” Dupree said.

He explained how the FBI will ask people during interviews how many songs, movies and books they have downloaded because the FBI considers it to be stealing.

During the first two phases of interviews, everything is recorded and then turned into a report. This report is then passed along to a polygraph technician to be used during the applicant's exam, which consists of a 55-page questionnaire. If an applicant is caught lying, they can no longer apply for an FBI agent position.

“If you are accepted to intern at FBI and fail the polygraph you can no longer apply to FBI again.” Dupre said.
From the sound of that, your history might not fully disqualify you, but it may come up again later in the process. TorrentFreak, though, found a post from a few years ago on a job board, where someone says that his downloading past kept him from being hired by the FBI.

It's interesting to note that TorrentFreak also turned up an article saying that downloading unauthorized content does not disqualify you from the CIA. The difference here actually makes some sense -- since the FBI actually does handle some cases involving copyright (though, that still seems ridiculous). Either way, if the FBI is barring people who use pot and who have infringed on copyrights, they're going to find themselves with an increasingly limited supply of computer experts for its computer crimes division.

Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 2:33pm

    Of more concern

    They're basing hiring decisions on polygraph, those 'About as accurate as flipping a coin' machines.

    The fact that the FBI is using such faulty tech at all is rather more concerning than them using it to check applicants who may or may not have pirated a song or movie.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2014 @ 4:31pm

      Re: Of more concern

      You read my mind. No wonder the buffoons and chumps at the FBI can't actually catch real live actual bad guys, they're playing around with woowoo bullshit like polygraphs and only hiring the idiots stupid enough to sit still for that crap.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      G Thompson (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 1:10am

      Re: Of more concern

      actually flipping a coin is statistically 50% accurate..

      Polygraphs are way way way WAY less accurate and are actually not allowed as evidence of ANYTHING in most countries outside of the USA.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 4:20am

        Re: Re: Of more concern

        True, and a coin flip also has the added benefit over a polygraph machine of not being biased towards habitual liars.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          art guerrilla (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 11:07am

          Re: Re: Re: Of more concern

          adding my personal experiences:
          went to apply for a shitty radio shack job decades ago at the behest of some semi-friends/co-workers who went to work there...
          now, these guys were liars (salesdroids, same thing), scammers, drug fiends, and -well, not to put too sharp a point on it- thieves from work... but otherwise, great guys !

          (no, i never witnessed it, just heard of it third hand, way after they had left... these guys had been in the military as MPs and told ALL KINDS of stupid, fucked up shit they did just because they could, like driving a half-track into a lake for the hell of it, etc...)

          NOT just a pencil and pad of paper here and there, but thousands of dollars of stereo equipment, etc...

          THESE GUYS *PASSED* the super-rigorous pre-screening and polygraph test (one of them did the thumbtack in the shoe trick, the other one was just a sociopath), but little goody-two-shoes me FLUNKED, and i have no reason why...

          i answered one million percent honestly, but i guess the examiner just didn't like me... read up on the tests some time after that, and found out they are 90% bullshit...

          i would NOT be surprised if the polygraphs with the feebs are to WEED OUT goody-two-shoes and boy scouts, and SELECT FOR sociopaths who will be obedient goons for Empire...

          Empire must fall,
          the sooner the fall,
          the gentler for all

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Ed, 3 Feb 2015 @ 1:09pm

      Re: Of more concern

      Yes, you're correct. I have applied to 2 federal law enforcement positions and have been found unfavorable due to the polygraph results. It seems both agencies did not even start on the background investigation and did the polygraph first. The polygraph is used as the deciding factor of your employment.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    william (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 3:50pm

    good luck finding any young 'uns that's good at IT and is "clean".

    good luck to y'all.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      PRMan, 15 Oct 2014 @ 4:35pm

      Re:

      I have never smoked pot and I have never downloaded any songs, books or movies unless they were authorized.

      And I would NEVER work for the FBI because I don't believe in their current mission of anti-terrorism while ignoring human rights violations by local cops (what they used to specialize in).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2014 @ 4:44pm

        Re: Re:

        I know this is weird (and I'm surprised at myself), but reading that you've never smoked pot makes me skeptical of you.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          RonKaminsky (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 8:38pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          > but reading that you've never smoked pot makes me skeptical of you

          Yes, of course! That's much more suspicious than... choosing a nick called "PRMan".

          Can anyone send me some of what that AC was smoking?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Rikuo (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 10:14pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I've never smoked anything. I've had all of maybe two or three pints of beer and absolutely no non-medicinal drugs, either smoked or injected or whatever. Do you believe me?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Editor-In-Chief, 15 Oct 2014 @ 11:24pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Most of the people I know (including myself) have never smoked pot. On the other hand, many of those I went to uni with, drank like fish. As a group, we basically thought of those using pot and other illicit drugs as drongoes. Our basic policy was to ensure that for each car going somewhere that there was at least one person who was going to stay cold stone sober and would be the nominated driver. This was over thirty years ago, getting on towards forty. Any car owner who wouldn't comply, would have the keys physically forcefully removed from them. We did lots of crazy things back then but we were cold stone sober when we did them.

          David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2014 @ 3:54pm

    Will the question be "have you ever" or "do you currently."

    This legitimately tests two character traits, honesty and judgment.
    Judgment comes in because . If you are applying for a job with law enforcement you better know you need to be on your best behavior during the process.
    Also any word on whether being honest and admitting you used to is a disqualifying factor?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2014 @ 4:25pm

      Re:

      the term honest doesn't really apply to American law enforcement that much anymore.

      I realize not everyone is corrupt criminals, just the vast majority of them seem to be.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      JEDIDIAH, 16 Oct 2014 @ 10:07am

      It may have all been perfectly legal.

      The problem I have with those kinds of questions is that they ask things that on the surface seem like they may be illegal but may not necessarily be. This applies to both the use of narcotics and the downloading of files from the Internet.

      Also, the FBI definition of "illegal downloading" seemed to include even legal sources.

      This is similar to the problem with asking you if you've ever smoked pot.

      These kinds of questions muddle together large classes of use and abuse.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Michael, 15 Oct 2014 @ 3:54pm

    During the first two phases of interviews, everything is recorded

    So they can record interviews, but they are unreliable for interrogations?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2014 @ 4:22pm

      Re:

      >So they can record interviews, but they are unreliable for interrogations?

      This is even more delicious due to their policy on recording field agent interviews.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Get off my cyber-lawn! (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 4:13pm

    candidate pool the size of a soup bowl

    The only people left to try to recruit would be introverted, socially inept loners with little or no contact outside of the workplace. Of course they can't hire that person either because that is the definition of their "insider threat" personality description. Looks like they'll be outsourcing to China soon.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sorrykb (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 4:25pm

      Re: candidate pool the size of a soup bowl

      Nah, the FBI will still have plenty of viable candidates from the "lying sociopaths" pool. They have no problems with polygraphs.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2014 @ 7:29pm

      Re: candidate pool the size of a soup bowl

      The only people left to try to recruit would be introverted, socially inept loners with little or no contact outside of the workplace.

      This place sure would a fertile field for FBI recruiters.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 8:26pm

      Re: candidate pool the size of a soup bowl

      When this story showed up on Slashdot, the Amish appeared the only viable pool left to them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 1:28am

      Re: candidate pool the size of a soup bowl

      or people so dumb they cant perform even simple computer operations

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 12:51pm

      Re: candidate pool the size of a soup bowl

      >The only people left to try to recruit would be introverted, socially inept loners with little or no contact outside of the workplace. Of course they can't hire that person either because that is the definition of their "insider threat" personality description. Looks like they'll be outsourcing to China soon.

      Oh, and tone-deaf as well, not interested in music.

      Plus... using a polygraph. Aren't those things basically operator woo, sufficiently unreliable that the courts don't believe them?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 4:17pm

    i FIND IT fUNNY

    Trying to hire people that dont know HOW, WHERE, WHy something is done..
    Is like hiring a Physician that has never operated..

    AS to the MJ, I would rather hire a person that uses MJ then a DRUNK..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2014 @ 4:18pm

    the dependence on polygraph is astounding

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 4:21pm

    Can't smoke weed, can't download.

    Well that eliminates every single competent computer tech I know... Including one that was actually offered a job at the FBI. He didn't accept, so he never took his "Have you ever smoked pot" interview.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 9:50am

      Re: Can't smoke weed, can't download.

      I've known a lot of top shelf software engineers over the decades and, while not all of them have been pot smokers, it has been the majority.

      Every type of career seems to have a recreational substance that is trendy for it. Lawyers have coke, doctors have painkillers, truckers have speed, and software engineers have pot.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2014 @ 4:22pm

    Of course what illegal activities the current FBI employees are doing do not qualify under this requirement to be a member of their organization.


    This is like the mob telling their new recruits they cannot join their organization if they have beaten people up.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2014 @ 4:24pm

    There are all kinds of countermeasures to use to foil a polygraph. All you need to do is use one of those, and make it harder to to detect that you are lying.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 8:38pm

      Re:

      I don't attest any validity whatsoever to polygraphs. They're about as truthful as e-machines (as in Scientology).
      They're psycho-babble. Uri Geller level realistic. They can be used to scare ignorant people in interrogations, that's all. Water-boarding/torture is about as effective.

      Makes me hang my head in shame for humanity. We can do better than this pathetic !@#$. Yet the TLAs still believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Damned sad.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 9:53am

      Re:

      Polygraphs don't really work whether or not you're using countermeasures.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2014 @ 4:34pm

    So full of fail

    "He explained how the FBI will ask people during interviews how many songs, movies and books they have downloaded because the FBI considers it to be stealing."

    The national law enforcement agency is so miserably ignorant, so relentlessly uneducated, so appallingly stupid, that it fails to observe the existence of millions of songs, movies and books that are free to download.

    (slow clap)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2014 @ 4:37pm

    There is a difference between the CIA and FBI. The CIA is not involved in federal law enforcement, so this disqualification could also apply to the Secret Service, Homeland Security, US Customs, and Coast Guard.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    New Mexico Mark, 15 Oct 2014 @ 4:54pm

    Polygraphs are a joke

    Years ago I knew that results from polygraphs were unreliable (hence their inadmissibility as evidence in court), but I didn't realize how nonsensical they were until after I failed one while qualifying for a three-letter agency when I knew for a fact that I answered 100 percent truthfully on every question. I was retested and passed, but ultimately declined the job because I could buy a mansion with dozens of acres of beautiful land where I live for the cost of a crappy condo in the DC area.

    After that I did some research, and found that not only are polygraphs unreliable, but that the most truthful people often fail because they are worried and second-guessing themselves in order to make sure they are not omitting anything.

    On the other hand, sociopaths and trained spies can most certainly pass polygraphs. So I guess polygraphs are good for ensuring your organization hires a disproportionate number of those folks while eliminating the really truthful ones. (The conspiracy theorist in me wonders is this is the true purpose of such a nonsensical procedure -- the lunatics are running the asylum?)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 8:49pm

      Re: Polygraphs are a joke

      > The conspiracy theorist in me wonders is this is the true purpose of such a nonsensical procedure ...

      They're selecting for those who can convincingly lie to their bosses, juries, Congress, ... High praise. What a message to send to our younger generations.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anon, 16 Oct 2014 @ 12:56pm

        Re: Re: Polygraphs are a joke

        > They're selecting for those who can convincingly lie to their bosses, juries, Congress, ... High praise. What a message to send to our younger generations.

        Don't forget the congenitally stupid too. There are people out there who despite news, adverts before movies, and warnings everywhere, do not realize that downloading is wrong.

        I once did a bit of tech support where one office, half the people were running LimeWire and did not realize they were getting and sharing all their music illegally. (Of course, this was Canada, so back then there was no harassment about this.)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2014 @ 5:10pm

    That would disqualify almost everybody from my high school class back in the 1980s. I don't think there is someone in my high school graduating class that did not pirate SOME software title, and this was back before piracy became a crime.

    This was also in the days before cable TV piracy became a criminal offence, and most of us had built circuits to descrmble the over the air UHF pay services from the likes of Star TV. UHF-based pay-Tv services were so easy to descramble back in the early 80s, and most everyone in my high school class did it.

    Even though we were not breaking any laws of that era, it seems that the FBI wants to disqualify "pirates", even if they were not breaking the law at the time they did what they did.

    So I could see people having pirated Star TV, and other scrambled UHF services, being disqualified, even if they were not breaking the law at the time.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 5:13pm

    Polygraphs? Polygraphs?!?! Polygraphs are garbage voodoo magic. Might as well use Phrenology.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2014 @ 5:23pm

    Well it's a "murican" standoff

    How can anyone work for the FBI? They engage in illegal, unethical and immoral conduct continually as a matter of course. Then justify their conduct with lame, transparent excuses like terrorism, in-spite of the plots being instigated by themselves for PR purposes. And they want to accuse someone that rips a CD of some great crime?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2014 @ 6:11pm

    lol

    Oh, the horror!! Can't get hired by criminals because of misdemeanors and civil offenses? What a joke!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    got_runs? (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 6:16pm

    James Comey is coo coo for cocoa puffs.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2014 @ 6:32pm

    this is simple

    They're simply looking for people that can lie and subsequently pass a polygraph... I'm sure they have good reason to hie people with this skill...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 6:47pm

      Re: this is simple

      That... is eerily possible actually(probably not the real reason, but as a potential one, it would make sense).

      I mean, when you've got federal agencies lying left and right to everyone, it would make sense for them to be on the look-out for those skilled in lying, so they can hire them and put them to use lying for the agency.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    TKnarr (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 6:37pm

    I wonder what the FBI does with all those people who've bought music through Amazon in digital format and downloaded it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2014 @ 7:22pm

    'Downloaded'. FBI may want to narrow in the definition here.

    I once had a Myspace account and every friends page had music streaming from it. In every instance my computer would have 'downloaded' the track in question. Am I expected to have certified each track that loaded was legal before visiting each page?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    TruthHurts, 15 Oct 2014 @ 8:26pm

    First, lets filter our current government and alphabet agencies..

    First filter out all current and previous staff and elected or appointed officials that fail any of these tests.

    Include any who did the following:

    Recorded Radio to cassette tapes.
    Recorded Cable to VCR and lent the tapes out.
    Used VCRs to duplicate VCR Rentals
    Smoked or drank alcohol as a minor
    Cheated in high school
    Had sex before they were 18, that's child molestation now
    Picked on anyone while in school (K-12 and College) - bullying is supposedly a crime now
    Got into a car after having 1 drink, regardless of whether they were intoxicated or not.
    Had a joint
    Drove while on any kind of medication that altered their judgement, reaction times, etc (pain meds, cold meds, allergy meds) - this is the same as driving drunk.

    All of these things are illegal, and are at the same or worse than downloading (which is entirely legal) a song or movie. Downloading isn't illegal, never has been, never will be. Anyone claiming otherwise is a liar.


    Now that we've removed the entire U.S. Government, Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches as well as all Federal agencies of any staff, we can start over and actually think before we blow our own brains out with stupidity like this.

    Whoever in the FBI came up with this has had to have had at least 3 lobotomies, and should never have been let out of their straight-jacket.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      TruthHurts, 15 Oct 2014 @ 8:39pm

      Re: First, lets filter our current government and alphabet agencies..

      Edit:

      Got into a car after having 1 drink

      should read

      Got into a car and drove after having 1 drink

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 10:12am

      Re: First, lets filter our current government and alphabet agencies..

      Recording radio to cassette tapes was never illegal in the United States.

      Cheating school is immoral, but not a criminal offence in the U.S.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    bgmcb (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 8:44pm

    Missed the point

    Steal from the boss and there is no redemption.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2014 @ 10:11pm

    How is this even an item for them to bring up in a serious manner? It almost appears that this was course of action was authorized by those who don't use a computer except to "check email" or access the "world wide web" (insert any outdated computer concept here). I'd ask who are they? The morality police?

    It does ask the question of when such line of questioning is introduced in other areas of employment for reason X (think of the children accessin/downloading those public domain ebooks!!)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2014 @ 10:17pm

    “If you’re doing that, stop doing it.” Dupree said.


    Mr. Dupree, if your agency is trying to influence social policy, stop doing it.

    Sounds just as stupid as we would demand of you doesn't it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2014 @ 10:48pm

    No wonder China is hacking the crap out of us. The talent pool used to recruit FBI employees is so small that it's no larger than a kiddie pool.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    McCrea (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 11:06pm

    I approve!

    I authorized each and everyone of my downloads.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    James Jensen (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 11:33pm

    KID, HAVE YOU REHABILITATED YOURSELF?

    Hmm, reminds me of a similar incident from a while back:

    I went over to the sargent, said, "Sargeant, you got a lot a damn gall to ask me if I've rehabilitated myself, I mean, I mean, I mean that just, I'm sittin' here on the bench, I mean I'm sittin here on the Group W bench 'cause you want to know if I'm moral enough join the army, burn women, kids, houses and villages after bein' a litterbug." He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send you fingerprints off to Washington." — Arlo Guthrie, Alice's Restaurant

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 12:45am

    You aren't allowed to do that before joining the FBI

    After you are hired, you can probably abuse whatever access and power you have, plus do things like download whatever.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Yeah Right, 16 Oct 2014 @ 4:51am

    Seems the FBI wants to hire people who are already good at lying. Who can blame them?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Hero, 16 Oct 2014 @ 5:09am

    There's subtlety in the wording.

    First: "'If you’re doing that, stop doing it.' Dupree said."

    Dupree is making the admission that job candidates may have pirated in the past and may currently be pirating.

    Second: "'If you are accepted to intern at FBI and fail the polygraph you can no longer apply to FBI again.' Dupre said."

    This implies that pirating music or movies will NOT get you disqualified, but rather the act of failing the polygraph. There's nothing here that says a candidate will be disqualified if they have pirated in the past, stopped, and tell the truth about it (once again, it's a polygraph test, so presumably there are occasional false positives and false negatives).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 6:32am

    A long time ago

    I too took a polygraph in order to work for a 3 letter agency, and upon my 1st attempt failed and was scheduled for a follow up examination. During my first polygraph, it felt as if there was a game being played in while I wasn't aware of the rules. Because of that feeling, before the 2nd polygraph, I did some research on the subject. I found out a lot of information about polygraphy. Among the information I discovered was the fact that there was a classified government document on the effectiveness of polygraphy. I never saw that document, but if that document reflected the publically available information on polygraphy and if I were a classification authority, I too would have classified the document. The reason is quite simple. All the available information on polygraphy boils down to this.

    As a means of distinguishing truth from deception, polygrahy is totally useless. However, as a means of eliciting voluntary confessions from naïve subjects, it is extremely effective.

    So of course the government has a vested interest in keeping that information away from the general public. After all, if there are no naïve subjects, then they lose the utility of the polygraph in obtaining such.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 9:06am

    It was only a generation ago that these federal agencies, and the military, intensely questioned applicants about homosexual tendencies. And then there were the occasional witch hunts to ferret out any that might have slipped through.

    Because just like (casual) copyright infringement today, sodomy was a crime back then, and criminals, then and now, were not eligible to join.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    btr1701 (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 10:31am

    USSS

    Secret Service does the same thing-- asks applicants if they've ever downloaded any unauthorized content.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 11:11am

    Kinda makes sense. They don't want to feel like they are hipocrites when they go to extremes when they hunt down offenders of trivial consequence as opposed to focusing on worse offenses.

    If you get to use the high tech gadgets and raid equipment, going after potheads and downloaders is alot safer than things like organized crime, citizen terrorists, or even other government agencies that have similar stuff.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 12:28pm

    If you are accepted to intern at FBI and fail the polygraph you can no longer apply to FBI again.” Dupre said.

    If however you are found to have lied to the FBI and passed the polygraph you will be hired and immediately promoted.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 3:10pm

    What if you download something illegally for legal reasons?

    Does anyone know if the agency gives a definition of "illegal download"? The reason I ask is that I've heard stories about how people purchase an expensive software program (such as Lightwave 3D), but then download the illegal version so they don't have to deal with the hardware dongle (a form of copy protection). So while the person has legally paid for the software, under a polygraph test, he might have to admit to downloading illegal software... or if he doesn't admit it, he may be nervous and the polygraph may say he's lying.

    Like other people are saying, polygraphs are barely above the science of "micro-expressions" (as seen on the TV show "Lie to Me"). All a polygraph proves is that you can answer questions without setting off the machine.
    And didn't this site have an article about how a company got into trouble for teaching people how to pass a polygraph test. And passing a polygraph test might be useful if you want to work at the FBI.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Land of the, 16 Oct 2014 @ 10:47pm

    enslaved

    USA, USA, NSA... ooops.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.