2/3 Border Patrol job applicants fail polygraph test, making hiring difficult

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TAZ

So this is an interesting thread given the other one where we have claims that BP is being infiltrated by gangs and cartel types. So are the 2/3 being told no due to polygraph results when in fact they may not be the correct demographic???

---

NYPD pulled something similar in the late 70's. Despite getting 100% on the exam and getting called up for the physical etc., many "generic" white candidates were weeded out by being told they had one or more of any number of "maladies". However, if a father or brother was on the dept., there didn't seem to be the same issue. (Having an uncle on the dept. wasn't good enough and I was told by the detective working my case that I should just get a letter from my doctor to countermand their findings. I told them "no thanks" based upon my uncle's recommendation.)

That same year the entry exam, which was extremely easy but for the memorization section, was challenged as being culturally biased despite the fact that candidates who spoke English as a second language scored higher than the group that brought the suit.

I was actually interviewed by a late night radio host on WPLJ (as I recall) in regard to this discriminatory practice and it blew his mind. He had a hard time wrapping his head around the reverse discrimination / quota system.

A memo by Kevin McAleenan, acting Customs and Border Protection commissioner, calls the polygraph as a “significant deterrent and point of failure” for applicants. The undated memo lays out a plan for the agency to build a force of 26,370 agents in five years. McAleenan said CBP is also considering a six-month experiment with an alternative polygraph test that takes less time to administer.
http://www.pressherald.com/2017/03/0...for-new-hires/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wendell

A memo by Kevin McAleenan, acting Customs and Border Protection commissioner, calls the polygraph as a “significant deterrent and point of failure” for applicants. The undated memo lays out a plan for the agency to build a force of 26,370 agents in five years. McAleenan said CBP is also considering a six-month experiment with an alternative polygraph test that takes less time to administer.
http://www.pressherald.com/2017/03/0...for-new-hires/

---

I used to have a cassette tape of an interrogation performed by a cartel "doctor" on a poor wretched soul who had the bad luck of having a large load of dope confiscated by yours truly. He was an airport employee who was supposed to arrange the retrieval of the consignment from Miami Int'l Airport. (I received the tape from an informant who was still in the good graces of the narco-traffickers.)

The Colombian "polygraph" apparently consisted of alcohol, psychotropic drugs and the threat of physical anguish. In the background, while the guy is being interrogated you can hear a few "witnesses" cracking up and rolling over themselves as you listen to the poor bastard sink further and further into a stupor while responding as best he can to the questions. (The purpose of the "poly" was to determine if he had ripped off his masters.)

Maybe CBP can pick up a few new twists for their future applicant interviews. Lord knows that the standard polygraph methodology is beyond repair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wendell

A memo by Kevin McAleenan, acting Customs and Border Protection commissioner, calls the polygraph as a “significant deterrent and point of failure” for applicants. The undated memo lays out a plan for the agency to build a force of 26,370 agents in five years. McAleenan said CBP is also considering a six-month experiment with an alternative polygraph test that takes less time to administer.
http://www.pressherald.com/2017/03/0...for-new-hires/

---

Voice stress test?

When I took a poly recently the interviewer said he had one person fail his drug test, but pass each of his polygraph questions relating to drug use...

Also...

https://www.forensicmag.com/news/201...arly-polygraph

On the BP forum there is a rumor posted that the polygraph may be waived for law enforcement. I know there is a waiver for certain military personnel with the right clearance. Hopefully this well extend to others as well.

The problem is relying upon a device whose interpretation is as much art as it is science. Since the polygrapher or polygraphist, (I always forget which is the proper term), is interpreting the data plus relying upon his or her impressions, we might as well substitute tea leaves, chicken guts or the magic 8 ball.

Someone's reputation and livelihood lies in the balance and absent clear and compelling evidence it just doesn't seem quite fair to rely upon a device that can both be defeated as well as mislead based upon less than objective data.

Thankfully I learned firsthand through a partner when there was nothing at stake. Imagine if the same results had been proffered when the stakes were high in terms of one's career or liberty.

These days, you could learn a lot more from a candidate's social media that you ever could from a poly.

Has anyone ever walked in to one of these polys and told the person administering that you know the test is a essentially a charade?

We don't use them in the UK. I have only ever known of one organisation, a semi-government organisation, use voice stress analysis during "chats with customers" over the telephone. Applicants for roles in the police, military and government are subject to thorough background checks, a battery of interviews and more popular recently is drug testing.

The science and thinking behind polygraphs is a nice idea, BUT, ask to see a batch of empirical data verifying results and they are flumoxed. Add to that the fact that a clever person, fit individual can control their body enough to mess with the readings and they are unreliable. When I did my first hospital stint (military time) learning to stick people with needles and sew up holes we used to wheel a couple of un-used blood pressure monitors into the staff room and hook up whilst eating lunch. It is amazing how easily you can control your blood pressure and pulse with a little practice.

A quick UK policing story: At the Divisional nick (police station) I worked in one of the detectives I knew made a lie detector. He got a box from radio shack, put a bulb on top, mounted some sockets and had wire's trailing out. In the interview room he used to tell suspects that he was going to use a lie detector on them, he would connect up a couple of wires to them and start asking questions, the light would come on if they lied. He would ask the usual simple verification questions of name, address, age and then ask if they had committed the crime. Of course the light would come on when they answered that they had not committed the crime..........because he pushed a switch under the table that turned the light on. He got away with using it for about 4 months before the first suspect mentioned in court that he had been put on a lie detector,........the judge was not happy, nor was the Chief Constable.

In our criminal fraternity they tend to use a power drill through the kneecaps when they want to have a chat with someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HCountyGuy

Has anyone ever walked in to one of these polys and told the person administering that you know the test is a essentially a charade?

---

When I took mine for my current agency (20 plus years ago) the (retired officer turned) polygraphist noted my Psych degree and asked what they taught in college about polygraphs. I figured, since I am here to be honest, told him it was basically a pseudoscience somewhat akin to throwing chicken bones on the lid of a 55 gallon drum and there was no empirical evidence that the reactions measured were proof positive of lying.

What followed was a "spirited" 45 minute lecture on the accuracy and efficacy of polygraphs.

I will say, one of the best interviewers I have ever met and been able to talk with was a polygraphist (not the same one as above). But he also realized the primary strength of the machine was not necessarily what it could do, but what the interviewee thought it could detect.