Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Full Details of My Attempted Entrapment For Teaching Polygraph Countermeasures

timothy posted about a year ago | from the we-control-the-vertical-graph dept.

Censorship 465

George Maschke writes "In May of this year, I was the target of an attempted entrapment, evidently in connection with material support for terrorism. Marisa Taylor of McClatchy reported briefly on this in August. I've now published a full public accounting, including the raw source of the e-mails received and the IP addresses involved. Comments from Slashdot readers more technically savvy than I are welcome."

cancel ×

465 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

We need a workers government (5, Funny)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about a year ago | (#45319659)

For a Soviet America! Build a revolutionary workers party with the program of Lenin and Trotsky!

Re:We need a workers government (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45319881)

Enjoy life. Enjoy ainol. [wikipedia.org]

Re:We need a workers government (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45319883)

The emerging dialectic has left Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, and Maoist revolution on the ash heap of history. Only Democratic Capitalism has delivered on the promises of the communist party which has seen its own promises go unfulfilled and proven to be empty for a century! Throw off your chains of thought, brother, and join us in the present! Down with Lenin! Down with Trotsky! Down with Stalin! Down with Mao! Long live free enterprise! Long live opportunity! And yes, long live the true unions for workers free from communism!

Ha ha ha (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about a year ago | (#45319917)

What a joke you are. Marx is more relevant than ever.

Like Lenin taught us -- you speak of freedom, but freedom for WHAT CLASS? Under capitalism ther is free buying and selling. Under communism there will be free people. To get to communism we need to free the workers and put the capitalists under the workers dictatorship.

what about (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45319989)

Those self made multimillionaires such as myself? While you dumbasses were playing COD in your mom's basement, and decided how retarded you were going to be going forward, others were dedicating their entire existence to ideas and the execution of success.

Yeah, I think I'll keep my capitalism and let you debt slaves who refuse to contribute anything to society - but still demand your god-given handout - keep complaining about how you've been 'screwed by the system'.

Marxists - jealous bastards sitting in their parent's basement complaining about successful hard working people since the 1850's .

Re: what about (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320035)

Sounds like someone just finished a copy of Atlas Shrugged is feeling smug. Dont let your mom catch you on the internet before your homework is done.

Re: what about (2, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | about a year ago | (#45320173)

My standard answer on Atlas Shrugged is the end of Douglas Adams' second Hitchhiker novel (The Restaurant at the End of the Universe), where Arthur Dent and Ford Prefect meet the people from Golgafrincham. Those people are the leftovers when the elite on Golgafrincham turned their planet into an Randian paradise, with the econonomical elite ruling without bounds, and an army of slave like serfs are working for them.

In the end, only the leftovers, the seemingly superfluous, tedious people, involved in regulations, law enforcement and taxing, the people Dent and Prefect met, survive, and are able to found a new civilisation on Earth, while the Randian Golgafrincham dies out due to an infection.

Re:what about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320235)

Eat the rich!!!

You're dinner, Bitch!

And I think I'll buy desert with food stamps.

In a democracy the 1% will eventually lose everything.

Re:what about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320277)

Oh look, an Internet Rich Guy. About as impressive and believable as an Internet Tough Guy.

Re:what about (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#45320311)

What makes you think you're in any way relevant just because you amass money?

If you're looking for someone with a misplaced feeling of entitlement, look for a mirror.

Re:Ha ha ha (1, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#45320231)

What a joke you are. Marx is more relevant than ever.

True. And also it's true that five Marxes beat one Marx any day of the week.

Re:We need a workers government (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about a year ago | (#45319919)

Huh.... Uh, no.

Re:We need a workers government (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45319995)

While adopting Communism might not be the best idea, there are many many things we can learn from the ideologies that are as relevant as ever. Of course rethuglicans and conservatards will whine but with any luck their days are numbered and stuck in the 20th century

Re:We need a workers government (2, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#45320055)

there are many many things we can learn from the ideologies that are as relevant as ever

Such as killing a hundred million people should be bad?

Of course rethuglicans and conservatards will whine but with any luck their days are numbered and stuck in the 20th century

Who's the conservative? The person trying to create an adventurous 21th century economic system or the person still fighting 19th century problems that went away a century ago?

Re:We need a workers government (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320083)

there are many many things we can learn from the ideologies that are as relevant as ever

Such as killing a hundred million people should be bad?

Killing hundred million people was not a part of ideologies. You should learn to distinguish between interfaces and implementations.

Re:We need a workers government (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#45320149)

Killing hundred million people was not a part of ideologies. You should learn to distinguish between interfaces and implementations.

How do you plan to elminate private property without murdering the millions who want to keep theirs?

Communism can only be imposed by force and mass murder, because it's so completely incompatible with human nature.

Re:We need a workers government (0, Troll)

Bob_Who (926234) | about a year ago | (#45320325)

Communism can only be imposed by force and mass murder, because it's so completely incompatible with human nature.

People are incompatible with human nature.

Oh shit! We're all gonna die!

ALL of us, even them!

Now what should we do ?

(a) Draw straws and see who dies first?
(b) Read Lord of the Flies?
(c) Plan your retirement?
(d) Kill mutants?
(e) Burma Shave

Re:We need a workers government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320175)

The millions of supposed murders were only for those who refused to be re-educated.

Re:We need a workers government (5, Insightful)

radiumsoup (741987) | about a year ago | (#45320253)

so far, there have been no implementations of the Communist ideology *without* suppression of free people to the extreme of mass murdering the dissenters.

Re:We need a workers government (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320347)

"suppression of free people to the extreme of mass murdering the dissenters."

You mean killing the shit heaps that parrot shit about the individual and fuck everybody that isn't me? Ya, real loss there

Re:We need a workers government (2)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#45320331)

You should learn to distinguish between interfaces and implementations.

Don't worry, I have. I just have copious evidence that Communism is an interface that should never be implemented at the national or global level.

Re:We need a workers government (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320095)

"adventurous 21th century economic system"

What a scummy way to say "fuck minorities and the poor"

Re:We need a workers government (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#45320383)

Get with the times. Don't you know that if you're poor it's your own damn fault? And if you don't have bread, why not eat cake?

Re:We need a workers government (2)

Bob_Who (926234) | about a year ago | (#45320435)

"adventurous 21th century economic system"

What a scummy way to say "fuck minorities and the poor"

Or as H.S.Thompson would paraphrase Nixon in 'Where the Buffalo Roam': "The doomed....I hate the doomed"

But I agree with you.

Its sink or swim for ALL of us on this ship of fools. If anyone thinks that other people deserve to be tossed off of the boat into the abyss, they are free to volunteer themselves to that cause. As for the rest of us, lets all coexist as golden rulers. And that starts with helping each other. Even the doomed. Even Nixon.

Re:We need a workers government (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320135)

If you are in the Bay Area (most major metro areas have a chapter though) these folks [answercoalition.org] are a great source for literature and assistance. They helped out A LOT in our anti-2nd amendment march in Vallejo during the Zimmerman trial this past summer.

No thanks! (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about a year ago | (#45320207)

A bunch of sub-reformist stalinoid liberal hacks. Marxists oppose gun control.

Re:No thanks! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320223)

The second amendment was penned with the blood of the lower classes. I see that IHBT and you're just another scum-fuck right winger with a micro penis

Don't teach, and certainly don't learn ... (5, Insightful)

DavidClarkeHR (2769805) | about a year ago | (#45319695)

Want to stay safe? Don't learn ANYTHING that the government doesn't explicitly approve.

If you're living in the 40s, that means avoid learning about integration.
In the 90s? avoid learning about marriage equality.
Living in 2013? Don't learn about avoiding government interrogation.
Living in 2015? Don't even THINK about avoiding surveillance.

Re:Don't teach, and certainly don't learn ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45319727)

We would never have had PGP or encryption research outside government labs if everyone followed such rules.

Re:Don't teach, and certainly don't learn ... (4, Interesting)

Lisias (447563) | about a year ago | (#45319803)

We would never have had PGP or encryption research outside government labs if everyone followed such rules.

The way I see it, no one would be using encryption nowadays if Obama managed to be president in the nineties.

Re:Don't teach, and certainly don't learn ... (2)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year ago | (#45319885)

The way I see it, no one would be using encryption nowadays if Obama managed to be president in the nineties.

Not before 1997, according to the age rules in the constitution [wikipedia.org] . Since Obama was born in August 1961, this limits his eligibility for presidency to August 1996 onwards, which effectively means January 1997 onwards due to the schedule of presidencies in the US.

Re:Don't teach, and certainly don't learn ... (5, Informative)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about a year ago | (#45319933)

We would never have had PGP or encryption research outside government labs if everyone followed such rules.

The way I see it, no one would be using encryption nowadays if Obama managed to be president in the nineties.

Were you around in the nineties? That was when Clinton used CALEA to force telecoms to build the exact infrastructure that was exploited after 9/11 by Bush, and later Obama. That was when Clinton pushed the ultimately doomed "Clipper Chip", with all other strong encryption to be criminalized. Turns out, something as ham-handed as Clipper turned out to be un-necessary, since the NSA was just able to (apparently) subvert certification authorities and cripple hardware-based random number generators.

If Clinton had allowed a secure digital infrastructure to be built in the first place, none of the current shenanigans would have been possible, or at least would have been way harder.

Re:Don't teach, and certainly don't learn ... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320297)

CALEA (1994) was the bargain for foregoing the Clipper Chip (1993).

That's no defense of CALEA. But it's worthwhile to get the history correct, because the politicians and officials who compromised in 1994 are going to want to know what they're going to get if you discard CALEA. Of course, it's unlikely CALEA is going anywhere.

Re:Don't teach, and certainly don't learn ... (5, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#45320433)

"Were you around in the nineties? That was when Clinton used CALEA to force telecoms to build the exact infrastructure that was exploited after 9/11 by Bush, and later Obama."

The lesson is clear: even if the current administration pushes something through while promising not to abuse it, that has absolutely no bearing on whether someone else will, later.

Re:Don't teach, and certainly don't learn ... (1)

fred911 (83970) | about a year ago | (#45320019)

I doubt Phil Zimmerman cared about the political environment.

Re:Don't teach, and certainly don't learn ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320307)

Of course you have every right to your opinion. But I think you should take into account that no man can be a specialist in every subject and the day of every leader of any country is packed full to the point where hundreds of calls or emails will go unanswered even though they work 16 hours every day. So they have to rely on advisors in subjects they are not too familiar with to form their opinion.
Obama may have poor judgement when it comes to going with his own opinion or rather following his advisors (who as sure as hell will make him feel like he doesn't know shit and will lobby for whatever the fuck they believe in or they are payed to believe in).
But I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have enabled him or his advisors to stop openssl, truecrypt, or anything else. AFAIK exporting encryption technology to outside the US for the longest time was banned and I'm fairly certain the only reason that ban was lifted was because it became obsolete with leaps in what the NSA could accomplish.

Re:Don't teach, and certainly don't learn ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320395)

However, your disappointment in Obama I can fully understand. Especially as a german I feel let down. I understand he has tough decisions but especially since he can't get re-elected he could give guantanamo back to cuba, strategic advantages for future presidents be damned. public opinion be damned.
nobody ever gave a damn about spying. everybody spies, that's pretty much consensus, the general american public doesn't feel it's wrong at all that the US (along with canada, etc) spies on virtually everyone. it's the best thing for the US obviously.
What I expected from Obama was a grand gesture that the US won't be the dominant force in the 21th century and wants to play fair with everyone. And for me that menas most of all economically and judicially. It means working together to end the reign of the financial sector over the production sector. It means ending land grabbing and being responsible for the quality of life of people who live in the vicinity of land owned by corporations.
I say that also as a german who has seen what Krupp does to the quality of life of many people without so much as paying a single cent for cancer treatment, much less lowering their exhaust of dangerous chemicals in those regions too poor and weak to defend themselves.

Re:Don't teach, and certainly don't learn ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320455)

also just in case that wasn't clear: economic consequences be damned. Take it from the rich, give it to the poor. Fuck the beneficiairs of the current system all the way to poor peoples hell. Limit the boni of managers, don't let companies and people go virtually tax free, collect that money and invest it into large scale infrastructures like solar energy plants, high speed railroads and electric cars for metropolitans.
the true leeches to society aren't the people who work two jobs and still can't afford rent. the leeches are the ones who have a short stay with their private jets.

antipolygraph.org (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year ago | (#45319807)

is already a Slashdotted site...

Re:Don't teach, and certainly don't learn ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320191)

Marriage equality? What the heck does that even mean?

Can siblings marry now? What about people who are already married? Children?

Re:Don't teach, and certainly don't learn ... (2)

Entropius (188861) | about a year ago | (#45320265)

Can siblings marry now?

Incest is unethical because of the risk of inbreeding; a marriage between siblings with no biological children hurts nobody.

What about people who are already married?

Why not? Brazil ruled that a triad had a constitutional right to marry.

Children?

They aren't able to form binding contracts.

Re:Don't teach, and certainly don't learn ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320263)

God, you young idiots are so blinded by this cult of the Enlightenment.

No on in the 1990s had a fucking clue what marriage equality was. No one discussed it seriously until this recession began 5 years ago, so that idiots like yourself would think it's more important to worry about some queers sodomizing each other in the ass than the wholesale collapse of our economy.

Madness.

FYI: it's conclusively proven that homosexuality is caused by a disease. Numerous studies have proven that homophobia is genetic in origin, and that homosexuality is not. The genetic origin of homophobia would not have evolved had it provided a survival advantage.

This is further supported by the fact young people are the most afraid of homosexuals, likely due to the fact they are the most susceptible to the disease. You will find very few examples of children NOT afraid of homosexuals anywhere in the world. The same is true for spiders, snakes, and similar creatures.

It is hypothesized that this disease operates in a manner similar to toxoplasmosis. Instead of making mice seek out cats, or crazy cat ladies, it makes men have a pathological desire to sodomize other young men due to the excellent disease transmission rate of anal sex given the fragile nature of the flesh that is violently ripped open.

Now, your little crusader of equality heart is probably horrified by this reality. Well, you're going to be even more horrified with what is going to happen once word of this gets out in the world. Nice, stupid white people like yourself will never be a threat to anyone. However, Africans, Arabs, and every other people of the world is going to slaughter these people without remorse and in huge numbers. So, before you think about expressing your rage towards this post, why don't you think carefully how you can deal with this reality.

In time, a vaccine will be developed. As with toxoplasmosis, the neurological changes that cause the deviant behavior are likely permanent, so this is the only real hope.

I'd say we have a few years until the actual germ is identified, and probably 10 more years until a vaccine is found. So, homosexuality will be largely eradicated in the not so distant future. The only thing you should be thinking about is how to have this occur as peacefully as possible.

Re:Don't teach, and certainly don't learn ... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320333)

2/10, far too obvious.

Go back to GameFAQs, or maybe Digg if you're feeling confident. You're years away from being ready to troll here.

Re:Don't teach, and certainly don't learn ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320279)

If you're living in the 40s, that means avoid learning about integration.

Sorry, I don't want to be integrated.

The Rancidest Hole of All (-1, Troll)

sI4shd0rk (3402769) | about a year ago | (#45319719)

My, my, my... What do we have here? I've never seen such a rancid asshole before! My cock will now become One With Bayerhole right this minuteness! I can't wait to shoot my ass-seeking cock right into your rancidhole and get this fucking party started! What say you?

Re:The Rancidest Hole of All (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45319761)

i say yes, please

Re:The Rancidest Hole of All (1)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about a year ago | (#45319815)

Alpha we know its you now. Fuck off.

Re:The Rancidest Hole of All (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#45320219)

My, my, my... What do we have here? I've never seen such a rancid asshole before! My cock will now become One With Bayerhole right this minuteness! I can't wait to shoot my ass-seeking cock right into your rancidhole and get this fucking party started! What say you?

You would think that General Keith Alexander, head of the National Security Agency, would have something better to do than troll a Slashdot comments section. Aren't there illegal wiretaps to order or surveillance records to be shredded?

Already Slashdotted (2)

BoRegardless (721219) | about a year ago | (#45319729)

Well, maybe later.

Re:Already Slashdotted (-1, Troll)

sI4shd0rk (3402769) | about a year ago | (#45319757)

Is that erection coincidental, or do you want to jam your fetid-as-fuck cock straight into the deepest reaches of my rancid, feces-filled asshole? I think we both know it's the latter. Oh, yeah! I'm wigglin' my bare snap all over your cock! It's a feces-fiesta, and your disgusting cock has full omega access to the deepest, most rancid parts of my smelly asshole! Come on! My foul asshole just opened up like a circular door from a science fiction movie; it's waiting for your fetid little friend! What say you?

Re:Already Slashdotted (1)

fisted (2295862) | about a year ago | (#45319841)

Get laid, bro.

Re:Already Slashdotted (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45319847)

My cock is way too big for your ass anyway.

Re:Already Slashdotted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45319907)

...or perhaps it's actually a deliberate DOS attack, mysteriously conducted by... "someone". (hint: not Slashdot)

Re:Already Slashdotted (1)

Jonah Hex (651948) | about a year ago | (#45319929)

Coral is very slow for his site [nyud.net] but not sure if it's loading anything except the title. It's not timing out yet, we'll see.

Re:Already Slashdotted (1)

cdagobah (612641) | about a year ago | (#45320099)

I removed https from the link and the page eventually loaded (without pictures)...

Re:Already Slashdotted (1)

WalksOnDirt (704461) | about a year ago | (#45320321)

Good tip.

Similar Concerns (2)

mrclisdue (1321513) | about a year ago | (#45319733)

I'm in a similar situation as the submitter, but I mostly just tell people how to lie to their wives (partners, etc)

I often get emails from Princes, Damsels-in-distress, penis pill pushers, and a plethora of other fake and scammy looking stuff.

I'm pretty sure it's my wife, because she can't spell worth a shit.

Is the submitter *spoken-for* ? It could just be the partner, messin' with him. I believe I can be of help.

cheers,

As said Einstein... (1)

Lisias (447563) | about a year ago | (#45319767)

"Two things are infinite: the Universe and human stupidity. (And I'm not sure about the Universe)".

From now on, these "lectures" will be taught world wide, except by USA. Or do you think the remaining ones will just sit and wait for the feds knock their door?

A little ham fisted to be pros. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45319813)

I have no special expertise, but this seems a little ham fisted to be agents of the state, don't you think? Seems more likely they'd go with tried and true techniques of human intelligence. I'd beware of any attractive women suddenly taking an interest, or people who appear to have money who want to support the cause, etc. And if you don't already, get a good lawyer and vet everything through him/her. Also, if the authorities do come knocking, make sure you know how to handle the situation so you don't incriminate yourself or make the situation worse (talk to your lawyer, but it amounts to keep your cool and your mouth shut).

Re:A little ham fisted to be pros. (2)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#45319855)

Not really. 'The State' is made up of many agents, some much smarter than others. It could easily be someone bucking for a promotion trying to work out of his league to prove his value.

Just like with drug stings. I have read about well done stings and I have had obvious cops trying to look like teenagers ask me in a parking lot "Would you like to purchase some marijuana?".

Re:A little ham fisted to be pros. (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#45320143)

No, agents of the state are often incompetent. They also have the means to use force without reprimand, which enables the incompetent to get further.

Two things to remember about polygraphs: (5, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | about a year ago | (#45319831)

1) there is no such thing as a "lie detector". Polygraphs are voodoo.

2) NEVER talk to the police. [youtube.com]

HTH,

-jcr

Re:Two things to remember about polygraphs: (1)

ledow (319597) | about a year ago | (#45319891)

Despite the fact that most of the world knows this, there's still one country that thinks such things can be admissible in court.

Re:Two things to remember about polygraphs: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320183)

What country? They aren't in the US.

Re:Two things to remember about polygraphs: (4, Informative)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about a year ago | (#45320399)

They certainly are in many places in the US. Nineteen states allow them under various circumstances and the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical set the Federal standard to be the discretion of the judge.

Re:Two things to remember about polygraphs: (1)

gmanterry (1141623) | about a year ago | (#45319945)

It looks like the website has either been Slashdotted or killed by the Feds. I have actually visited the site several times and find it informative. I have been polygraphed one time, and passed it. It was to get a license to become a minimum wage + $.15 an hour security guard at a bank. The site says that the more you believe in the concept of lie detectors the greater the reaction displayed on the machine. It is a great tool for enhancing interrogations because of the fear factor.

Re:Two things to remember about polygraphs: (5, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | about a year ago | (#45319975)

So it's actually the WORST device in the world to use then.

Because the people who you don't want to get into the job, the ones who know that it's a load of baloney and any idiot can "pass" the test, will. And the people who are innocent but have that "guilty fear" that comes with natural innocence will "fail".

I'm sorry, but in my country, I'd laugh at you if you asked me to take one. And I'd probably be able to get you into the papers tomorrow in the funny section too, just to show you up. It's just that hilarious a concept. But then, to my knowledge, outside of very, very, very restricted professions we don't have work-prescribed drug testing or any of the other shit either (I don't do drugs, never have, but just the CONCEPT of someone demanding I take a drug test to work somewhere? Fuck off. And I work in education). When did your boss get to control your life?

And for a job in a BANK? FFS. The US must be much more stupid than I suspected.

Re:Two things to remember about polygraphs: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320199)

Don't worry, the US is not THAT stupid. In many states it is illegal for private employers to polygraph employees. Spooks, military, and law enforcement using them is hardly confined to the US.

Re:Two things to remember about polygraphs: (1)

pspahn (1175617) | about a year ago | (#45320295)

(I don't do drugs, never have, but just the CONCEPT of someone demanding I take a drug test to work somewhere? Fuck off. And I work in education)

I'm having a difficult time thinking of a teacher I know that *doesn't* at least smoke pot. None of the them get drug tested either.

When did the country you live in get to control your life?

Re:Two things to remember about polygraphs: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45319983)

1) there is no such thing as a "lie detector". Polygraphs are voodoo.

Translation -- submitter is teacher of a branch of "voodoo" (not to be confused with the actual religion), and scamming people out of their money.

Re:Two things to remember about polygraphs: (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#45320293)

Not really. If the voodoo will be used, there is a benefit to knowing the secret handshake that gets you past the screening. That's what the poster teaches. The people actually using the voodoo are the scammers. Unfortunately, they're the ones who are hiring.

tacit admission (5, Insightful)

globaljustin (574257) | about a year ago | (#45319877)

either Polygraphs are bullshit or these charges should be dropped...

by setting up the sting and charging the guys for what they did, they government is admitting that it is possible to fool the polygraph

if it is possible to fool the polygraph it leaves no doubt that the polygraph is not scientific or useful

by proving these men guilty, the prosecution simultaneously proves that the lie detector is a farce and negates the logical need for the entire charade in the first place

a good lawyer could get a not guilty verdict IMHO

Re:tacit admission (3, Informative)

Titus Groan (2834723) | about a year ago | (#45320059)

polygraphs don't work, it's pseudoscience. A real justice system wouldn't allow such nonsense anywhere near it.

Re:tacit admission (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#45320463)

FWIW it is possible to tell the complete total truth, and still be convicted and sentenced to prison for a long term (or worse). Although your logic makes sense intuitively, it doesn't make sense legally.

Just ask Edward Snowden.

The US of A (4, Insightful)

vikingpower (768921) | about a year ago | (#45319879)

are turning into a police state, or at least into the velvet-gloved version of it: a surveillance state. So are certain western European states. What are we going to do about it ?

Re:The US of A (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45319947)

I'm going to vote for the turd sandwich next time. That'll fix it.

Re:The US of A (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#45320157)

not if i can help it

Go giant DOUCHE!!!!

Re:The US of A (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#45320187)

What really kicks me in the ass is that all of our legislators and nearly every adult in the US remembers a time when we measured ourselves by what we are not and what we will not and do not do. Now we are doing it. People are STILL saying "we live in a free country."

Re:The US of A (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320209)

Don't blame me I voted for Kodos

Re:The US of A (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320275)

It has been this way since the country was founded, only problem is very few that bothered to notice. And it is still the same way, what cracks me up about this country, is when it comes to government we are no better then a military ran country, and are citizens are complete zombies. Look at other countries and there people know bullshit when they see it, and try to do something about it, besides the arrogant notion of voting. And the US and UK seem to want these other countries to have the same defunct democratic system that hasn't worked. Even they know it doesn't work thus they want to run things there own way, or they have there own versions of democratic system.

Really a sad time to live no matter where in the world you live. We've been reduced to rats in a maze, while our masters control where and what "they decide" you can and cannot do.

Good job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45319903)

And now you've executed a denial-of-service-attack-by-proxy on your website as well, due to the /. effect.

Why do they go through all the trouble? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45319905)

There's one thing I'll never understand about polygraphy as a whole. Clearly, the US Government (and pretty much anyone else who uses polygraphy) must know that it's a pseudo-science and that the test cannot predict whether or not someone is lying. So why do they go through so much trouble to defend it? Surely, all of this money they're investing into the machines themselves, paying the personnel to operate and "analyze" them, and trying to shut down people who openly state that the test is a fake and can be beaten could be spent more efficiently on better background checks or other investigative measures that could produce real evidence of wrongdoing.

Re:Why do they go through all the trouble? (1, Informative)

M1FCJ (586251) | about a year ago | (#45320007)

In the modern world, (i.e., Europe) polygraphs are not considered reliable evidence, in some countries completely forbidden.
Mainly in the Americas it's much more trusted.

Re:Why do they go through all the trouble? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320257)

They are not considered reliable evidence and are not allowed in court in the USA. Employers can investigators can use them, but can't admit the results into court. It's also one case where remaining silent may be used against you "he refused a polygraph, so he must be guilty".

Re: Why do they go through all the trouble? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320449)

I've heard that they are using them on sex offenders in the UK to determine weather they can be released or not when their prison time is served.

Re:Why do they go through all the trouble? (5, Interesting)

jcochran (309950) | about a year ago | (#45320125)

The answer to that question is quite simple. Some years back, I had to take a polygraph and frankly, it felt as if a "game" was being played where I didn't know the rules. There were some issues with my test so they rescheduled me for a followup. Since I didn't like the feeling that there was a game being played, I spent the time before the follow up researching polygraphy. Turns out that there's a lot of information on the subject and I also found out that there was a classified government study on the effectiveness of polygraphs. I didn't see the contents of that study, but [i]if[/i] that study reflected the information available in the public literature and [i]if[/i] I were to be a classification authority, I too would have classified the study. The reason is because the public literature boils down to the following.

Polygraphy as a tool for distinguishing truth from lies is totally worthless. However, as a tool for eliciting voluntary confessions from naive subjects, it's quite effective.

So as long as it's kept mysterious and secret, it's quite useful. But once the pool of naive subjects is gone (and they would be gone if the reality of polygraphy were widespread), then that tool becomes worthless.

Re:Why do they go through all the trouble? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320423)

So you're saying we're all like that kid in The Wire, where the cops put his hand on the scanner-copier and asked him questions. When they thought he was lying they pretended like the copier printed out "FALSE" on a sheet of paper; "TRUE" if they thought he was telling the truth. "Works every time".

Re:Why do they go through all the trouble? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320439)

My experiences with a polygraphy test where like this, in addition there seems to be a fair amount of expert interpretation required. My expert missed a fib, but zeroed in on something else rather minor claiming there was "something more", to which I denied, but he insisted. Might have just been an interrogation technique to get another crack at my biological data to really see if anything was there. My expert also started the session with a speech about his extreme morality point of view, probably trying to amp up my reactions. I was hired, so either I passed, or the hiring manager took me anyway.

Re:Why do they go through all the trouble? (2)

Velex (120469) | about a year ago | (#45320127)

I think it's a form of hypnotism really. The government has a vested interest in keeping the masses hypnotized that polygraphs are magical lie detectors. Therefore, anyone who knows how to defeat the righteous magic must be some kind of evil super-genius. For some reason, this works in the USA. Maybe it's just yet another sign of a failed public education system and anti-intellectual sentiment that demonizes critical thinking.

We see the same kind of woo and bullshit when it comes to "cyber" security. Big companies are our angels and gods. Therefore, they must have good control over this magic called computer networking. Furthermore, if somebody comes along and accesses information they're not supposed to be able to, well, we see trivial things such as changing a get parameter in a URL hysterically painted as some evil supergenius technique all the time.

Again, keep in mind that there's nothing magical about hypnotism, either. It's just that it's easier to hypnotize somebody who places more value on "fitting in" and being seen as "normal" or "not special" than it is to hypnotize somebody who places value on being objectively correct. Somebody who is easily hypnotized, as the people in the USA seem to be on a number of issues, is merely somebody who would rather consent and do what's expected, i.e. do what the hypnotist is suggesting, so that they don't stand out as somebody with scary superpowers that could resist a hypnotist.

Of course, the hypnotist, the hacker, and the polygraph administrator are all modern versions of the witch doctor or wizard. The witch doctor and wizard draw their power, naturally, from superstition and a culture that has a deep seated need for wizards and witch doctors to exist.

Re:Why do they go through all the trouble? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320145)

Polygraphs aren't accurate or reliable enough to be admitted into evidence in a court of law, but they are considered reliable enough for informal use and, perhaps, as a means of catching people untrained/unpracticed/unfamiliar with how the polygraph works in a lie. They are also excellent tools of intimidation, again for the untrained. Sometimes the mere threat of a polygraph can get someone to confess before they're even strapped into the machine.

You can bet, however, that when the Russians or Chinese train their spies, that they train them to defeat these machines. They might be good for catching Joe Blow who decides to go rouge but hasn't actually had any espionage training from the state they're selling secrets to.

Re:Why do they go through all the trouble? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#45320159)

Beause they are a superstitutious and cowardly lot.

Re:Why do they go through all the trouble? (2)

mevets (322601) | about a year ago | (#45320259)

It is a multi-faceted intimidation tool. It works by convincing the target that their defence is hopeless. Knowing it is a myth doesn't help if everybody else in the penal(*) system believes in it. There is value in propping up the myth - it helps close cases. Even if you are falsely incarcerated because of it, you were probably guilty of something....

(*) Of course, if it were a justice system, such chicanery would have no place.

Dousing rods (5, Informative)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year ago | (#45319939)

Some fraudster in the UK went down recently for selling dousing rods as bomb detectors to the Iraqis. There were quite a few people credulous twits in the media who went after skeptics who were against this transparent ripoff, but it took a good ten years for enough momentum to build, to get this investigated, and for the criminal who ran this, to get charged with anything.

As far as I can tell, polygraphy is just as full of woo as phrenology, and it was invented roughly around the same time. I do wonder how long it'll take for the stupidity to be debunked sufficiently hard, for the public outcry to overcome the True Believers and have this snake oil abolished?

Re:Dousing rods (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about a year ago | (#45320053)

selling dousing rods as bomb detectors

So they're supposed to detect bombs by spraying water?

Re:Dousing rods (4, Informative)

M1FCJ (586251) | about a year ago | (#45320067)

The problem with the dousing rod bomb detectors were not because they were shite, they were accepted by the UK Gov as legitimate, making it a political problem as well as a technical & ethical problem. The bastard selling them was an ex-Met police officer, had connections and even though anyone with two brain cells and a technical background could clearly say they were fake, they managed to catch the bombs roughly 50% of the time. Of course, if you flip a coin you'll get it 50% of the time but for people who don't understand probability, this sounds like a very high catch rate. The alarming reports have been around for years and years but it took a BBC documentary for people to wake up and pay attention.

Any politician who had authorized the purchase of the fake systems were just too corrupt to accept they made a huge cockup. I wonder how much money was paid in bribes, worldwide.

Re:Dousing rods (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#45320415)

Dowsing rods do sorta work. They work by giving the user 'permission' to acknowledge their gut feeling that comes from minute observations they aren't consciously aware of.

However, this was a scam since a few cents worth of bailing wire can do that and this clown was charging 'thousands' and adding worthless fake circuitry.

Confusing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320103)

typical confusing. the summary leaves me confused.

Damn, I'd better watch out. (1)

runeghost (2509522) | about a year ago | (#45320309)

Next thing you know, the Feds will be coming after me for my collection of marked tarot cards, and confiscating my 1st Edition Player's Handbook lest I share my secret spells that prevent scrying via crystal ball.

Slashdotted content (delete when available again) (4, Informative)

davecb (6526) | about a year ago | (#45320425)

An Attempted Entrapment
Posted by George Maschke on 3 November 2013, 1:34 pm

In May 2013, I was the target of an attempted entrapment.1 Whether it was a federal agent attempting to entrap me on a contrived material support for terrorism charge or simply an individual’s attempt to embarrass me and discredit AntiPolygraph.org remains unclear. In this post, I will provide a full public accounting of the attempt, including the raw source of communications received and the IP addresses involved.

As background, it should be borne in mind that a federal criminal investigation into providers of information on polygraph countermeasures, dubbed “Operation Lie Busters,” has been underway since at least November 2011, when an undercover U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent, posing as a job applicant, contacted Chad Dixon of Marion, Indiana for help on passing the polygraph. In December, 2012, Dixon pleaded guilty to federal charges of wire fraud and obstruction of an agency proceeding, for which he has been sentenced to 8 months in federal prison.

Doug Williams of Norman, Oklahoma, a former police polygrapher who has been teaching people how to pass polygraph examinations for some three decades and operates the website Polygraph.com, was also the target of a sting operation and in February 2013, U.S. Customs and Border Protection executed search warrants on his home and office, seizing business records. He has been threatened with prosecution but to date has not been charged with any crime.

With this in mind, I received a most curious unsolicited communication on Saturday, 18 May 2013 from <mohammadali201333@yahoo.com>. The message was sent to my AntiPolygraph.org e-mail address <lt;maschke@antipolygraph.org> and was titled “help help help please” (155 kb EML file.) The message body was blank, but there was a PDF attachment with a short message written in Persian, the language of Iran:

I know Persian, a fact of which the writer was evidently cognizant. Here is a translation:

Greetings and respect to you, Mr. George Maschke,

I am Mohammad Aghazadeh and have been living in Iraq for five years. I am a member of an Islamic group that seeks to restore freedom to Iraq. Because the federal police are suspicious of me, they want to do a lie detector test on me. I ask that you send me a copy of your book about the lie behind the lie so that I can use it, or that you help me in any other way. I am very grateful to you.

The book to which the message refers is The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF), AntiPolygraph.org’s free e-book that, among other things, explains how to pass (or beat) a polygraph “test.” Factors that made me highly suspicious about this message include:

Why would someone who supposedly fears the police send an unencrypted e-mail acknowledging that he’s a member of an Islamic group that is trying to change the government of Iraq?

Why would such a person also provide his full name and how long he’s been in the country?

To my knowledge, there aren’t any Iranian-backed Islamic groups seeking to “restore freedom to Iraq.” In fact, Iran and Iraq have good diplomatic relations.

Why did this person ask me to send a book that is freely available on-line? Note that this message didn’t ask for a “Persian edition” of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

I suspected the message was a likely attempt to set me up for prosecution on charges of material support for terrorism (or something similar).2 It seemed highly unlikely that the message could be genuine. Nonetheless, about half an hour after receiving the message, I provided “Mohammad Aghazadeh” the same advice I would give to anyone accused of a crime who has been asked to take a polygraph test:

Dear Mr. Mohammad Aghazadeh,

Our advice to everyone under such circumstances is not to submit to the so-called “test” and to consult with a lawyer and comply with applicable laws.

George Maschke

Evidently, that response was not satisfactory, for the following day, Sunday, 19 May, about 24 hours after receipt of the first message, I received the following reply (11 kb EML file):

It reads:

Greetings and great respect, Mr. Maschke,
I am very grateful to you for your reply about the lie detector test.
I am not in circumstances where I can refrain from taking the test.
I saw your book on the Internet, but because I don’t know English, I wasn’t able to use it.
I will be very grateful to you if you would send me the Persian edition of it.
I don’t know how I will pass the test.
They have frightened me greatly. What am I to do????

I replied, “Unfortunately, said book has not been translated to Persian.” I have received no further communication from this person.

I Googled the e-mail address <mohammadali201333@yahoo.com> and found no mentions. Both e-mail messages originated from the same IP address: 159.255.160.115. This address traces to Arbil (also spelled Erbil), Iraq, where the United States has a consulate.

I checked AntiPolygraph.org’s server access log for the IP address 159.255.160.155, and here is what I found:

9 May 2013

08:24:48 (GMT), someone at this IP address landed on AntiPolygraph.org’s publications page after a search on Google.iq (search terms unknown) using Google Chrome under Windows NT 6.1 (Windows 7).

08:24:59 lands on home page after searching Google.iq for: george maschke antipolygraph.

08:25:37 downloads The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

10:09:15 fetches The Lie Behind the Lie Detector a second time after searching “george counter polygraph” but this time with Firefox 2.0.0.12 under Windows NT 5.1 en-US (Windows XP 32-bit).

18 May 2013

07:04:18 Lands on home page after unknown search on Google.iq using Microsoft Internet Explorer 10 under Windows NT 6.1 (Windows 7).

07:04:41 Fetches Federal Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examiner’s Handbook.

07:05:46 Fetches The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

07:06:27 Fetches DoDPI Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test Examiner’s Guide.

07:06:55 Fetches DoDPI Interview and Interrogation Handbook.

07:07:29 Fetches DoDPI Numerical Evaluation Scoring System.

11:07:04 Returns to home page using Microsoft Internet Explorer 10 under Windows NT 6.1.

11:07:08 Views recent message board posts. (Note: this action suggests the visitor is familiar with the site.)

11:08:10 Does a message board search (search terms not logged by server).

11:08:25 Searches message board again.

11:08:36 Searches message board again.

11:08:48 Searches message board again.

11:09:27 Searches Google (terms unknown) and lands on message board thread, Al-Qaeda Has Read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

11:10:02 Gets message board thread, Al-Qaeda Documentation on Lie Detection (which is linked early in the previous thread).

Note that both of the foregoing message threads include accusations against me of disloyalty to the United States.

11:10:34 Gets document Al-Qaeda Documentation on Lie Detection.

11:10:41 Returns to message board thread, Al-Qaeda Documentation on Lie Detection.

11:30:20 Last load of any page.

The browsing behavior documented in the server log does not suggest to me an individual who doesn’t know English. Also, the use of different web browsers and operating systems suggests to me that the IP address might belong to an organization rather than an individual.

I also found a few other visits from other nearby IP addresses (first three numerical blocks of the IP addresses are the same):

On 3 May 2013 at 10:51:20, IP 159.255.160.5 landed on an image of Tyler Buttle after searching Google.iq with an iPhone for “photo+sebel+can+sex”.

On 7 May 2013 at 18:08:25, IP 159.255.160.80 searched Google.iq for unknown terms and landed on the blog post Is Patrick T. Coffey Fit to Be Screening Police Applicants? using Firefox 20 under Windows NT 5.1 (Windows XP).

Twenty-six seconds later, at 18:08:51, the same IP moved on to the blog post Polygrapher Patrick T. Coffey Threatens Lawsuit, Demands Retraction.

I can well understand why someone in Iraq might search for sexy pictures of Sibel Can, a Turkish singer. (The searcher, who misspelled “Sibel,” must have been disappointed to find a picture of Tyler Buttle instead.) But why would anyone in Iraq be interested in Patrick T. Coffey, a private polygraph examiner based in Burlingame, California?

Coffey has done contract work in the Middle East before, and I wondered whether he might have been on contract in Iraq during the relevant period. Coffey lost his contract for pre-employment polygraphs with the San Francisco Police Department in the aftermath of S.F. Weekly’s reporting about bigoted and intemperate remarks he made on AntiPolygraph.org. Coffey clearly despises me, as you’ll observe from comments he posted under the nom de guerre TheNoLieGuy4U in the message thread Al-Qaeda Has Read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Those comments begin at page 2 and include a demand to know whether I have “personally ever translated or assisted any person in the translation of anti-polygraph materials or literature into Arabic, Farsi [Persian], or any other language?” (As if that were some sort of a crime. In fact, I haven’t.)

I was able to confirm that Coffey was indeed in Iraq for three weeks, including the relevant period when the visits to AntiPolygraph.org were made and the e-mails were sent. I called him on the morning of 26 May to ask whether he might have enlisted the aid of a Persian-speaking colleague while in Iraq in a personal effort to test and perhaps discredit me. Coffey denied any involvement with, or indeed, any knowledge of, the e-mails. He even refused to confirm that he had been in Iraq.

Coffey did volunteer that he understands from hearsay that the Department of Defense has an “open case” about me with respect to “the countermeasure question.” His implication was that it’s a criminal case. However, I have been out of the Army reserve for nine years and am not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

So was this attempted entrapment part of the U.S. government’s Operation Lie Busters, or the intrigue of a polygraph examiner with an axe to grind, or possibly a combination of both? I don’t know, but I welcome comment from any readers who might.

McClatchy newspaper group investigative reporter Marisa Taylor first reported on this matter on 16 August 2013 in “Seeing threats, feds target instructors of polygraph-beating methods.” The present article explains this incident in fuller detail. []

I should note that an “Islamic” group is not necessarily a terrorist group, or even a militant one, though I suspect that in the sender’s mind, they are the same thing. []

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?