If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Man gets eight months in jail for teaching people how to beat a lie detector test. The same information is on USNews.com, AntiPolygraph.org, Wikihow.com, Lifehacker.com, LiveScience.com, Discovery.com and Amazon.com   (opposingviews.com) divider line 132
    More: Scary, Chad Dixon, polygraphs, jail  
•       •       •

10446 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Sep 2013 at 11:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



132 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-08 09:46:59 PM
Geez, even I'm not that bad a lawyer to get a guy convicted and incarcerated for giving people information.
 
2013-09-08 09:53:01 PM
There's nothing unlawful about maybe 95 percent of the business he conducted. A sentence of incarceration is absolutely necessary to deter others

Said by a judge.  A judge.  WTF.
 
2013-09-08 10:09:00 PM
How is that unlawful considering that a polygraph isn't admissible anyway?
 
2013-09-08 10:28:08 PM

slayer199: How is that unlawful considering that a polygraph isn't admissible anyway?


Apparently, it doesn't have to be unlawful for a judge to send you to jail anyway.
 
2013-09-08 10:29:43 PM

slayer199: How is that unlawful considering that a polygraph isn't admissible anyway?


It is for gov jobs that require a background check/security clearance.
 
2013-09-08 11:03:30 PM

slayer199: How is that unlawful considering that a polygraph isn't admissible anyway?


It is for certain federal jobs/contractor jobs and positions which require a security clearance.
 
2013-09-08 11:04:55 PM
Free speech....except against the government.
 
2013-09-08 11:05:40 PM
He wasn't sent to jail to teaching people how to pass a government polygraph. He was sent to jail because he told those people to lie to the government about taking his class.
 
2013-09-08 11:08:49 PM
I guess you guys forgot which country you're living in. Rights are for the rich.
 
2013-09-08 11:09:14 PM

dj_bigbird: slayer199: How is that unlawful considering that a polygraph isn't admissible anyway?

It is for gov jobs that require a background check/security clearance.


And exactly how is that working out for the government right now? Snowden/Manning kind if make that clearance process look like a joke, especially Manning who I wouldn't trust with the cashier job at a McDonald's after everything that has come out about his emotional issues.
 
2013-09-08 11:11:57 PM

Argh Not Again: He wasn't sent to jail to teaching people how to pass a government polygraph. He was sent to jail because he told those people to lie to the government about taking his class.


This.

I'm so sick of people sensationalizing this story and only reading the headlines.
 
2013-09-08 11:12:10 PM

dj_bigbird: slayer199: How is that unlawful considering that a polygraph isn't admissible anyway?

It is for gov jobs that require a background check/security clearance.


Hell, it's required for a south Florida's sheriff's IT department (I realize it's a government organization, but I'm still shocked that even a secretary's assistant needs to pass a poly and psyc eval).  They're required agency wide for every position in most SO's down here.
 
2013-09-08 11:12:20 PM
Mods have just been arrested for green-lighting this.
 
2013-09-08 11:12:56 PM

itsaidwhat: Free speech....except against the government.


Free speech does not extend to knowingly committing perjury, just so you know.

Mad_Radhu: And exactly how is that working out for the government right now? Snowden/Manning kind if make that clearance process look like a joke, especially Manning who I wouldn't trust with the cashier job at a McDonald's after everything that has come out about his emotional issues.


IIRC, wasn't Bradley Manning recommended for ELS at multiple times during his BCT and AIT because of his mannerisms and attitudes towards the military and towards the treatment of classified information?
 
2013-09-08 11:15:06 PM
The polygraph and to some extent the credit score are pretty crappy ways of judging whether or not somebody is likely to give up state secrets. Interviews with associates and former employers seems much more reliable. I only knock on credit scores because there are a lot of folks out there with good scores that are living on a fine edge of losing it all that would give up anything to get their McMansion paid off, and people that hit hard times and went bankrupt that are still very honest people. Unfortunately, the government will look at the score, rather than look at whether a person is living in a $500k house on a $60k salary, because the former is easier.
 
2013-09-08 11:15:51 PM
I don't want to be hostile.
I don't want to be dismal.
But I don't want to rot in an apathetic existance either
See I want to believe you,
and I want to trust
And I want to have faith to put away the dagger

FTA: Mr. Dixon chose to enrich himself by teaching others how to convincingly lie, cheat and steal.


And yet
I tolerate you
 
2013-09-08 11:16:05 PM

hardinparamedic: Free speech does not extend to knowingly committing perjury, just so you know.


But neither does all speech directed at the government automatically fall under perjury.
 
2013-09-08 11:16:55 PM
It was a setup, and he fell for it.

You can tell people how to steal cars all day long, you can teach classes on it, you can have a website about it. But when someone comes to you, and says I want to steal a car, how do I do it, its a crime for you to help. Likewise, when someone comes to that guy, and says I want to lie to the gov't on a polygraph, and need help not getting caught, providing help with the knowledge of how it will be used is a crime.
 
2013-09-08 11:18:00 PM
Better Call Saul?
 
2013-09-08 11:18:05 PM

Jesterling: dj_bigbird: slayer199: How is that unlawful considering that a polygraph isn't admissible anyway?

It is for gov jobs that require a background check/security clearance.

Hell, it's required for a south Florida's sheriff's IT department (I realize it's a government organization, but I'm still shocked that even a secretary's assistant needs to pass a poly and psyc eval).  They're required agency wide for every position in most SO's down here.


Ditto for the police department in my area. Even for civilian (non-patrol) jobs within the department.
 
2013-09-08 11:18:08 PM

hardinparamedic: itsaidwhat: Free speech....except against the government.

Free speech does not extend to knowingly committing perjury, just so you know.

Mad_Radhu: And exactly how is that working out for the government right now? Snowden/Manning kind if make that clearance process look like a joke, especially Manning who I wouldn't trust with the cashier job at a McDonald's after everything that has come out about his emotional issues.

IIRC, wasn't Bradley Manning recommended for ELS at multiple times during his BCT and AIT because of his mannerisms and attitudes towards the military and towards the treatment of classified information?


Probably. Whoever cleared him hopefully was busted back to private after everything came out.
 
2013-09-08 11:18:10 PM
FTA:

Dixon's defense attorney Nina Ginsberg said that Dixon's classes were protected by the First Amendment: "It may be unfortunate for federal law enforcement, but it is protected speech to tell people how to lie on a polygraph. Mr. Dixon gave them advice. He didn't know they were going to follow that advice."

Dixon pleaded guilty last year to wire fraud and obstructing a government proceeding


Looks like the basic problem was not the advice Dixon gave people, but the advice Nina Ginsberg gave him.
 
2013-09-08 11:18:21 PM

phalamir: But neither does all speech directed at the government automatically fall under perjury.


Conspiracy to commit perjury, and telling people to blatantly lie on a test where they tell you that knowingly lying on the test is perjury is not protected speech.

He could publish all the how-tos he wanted on it, but the moment he crosses the line into directly encouraging people to do so, it stops being free speech.
 
2013-09-08 11:19:24 PM
"Man who teaches people how to beat people who beat a lie detector test remains free."
 
2013-09-08 11:22:51 PM
Just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it.
 
2013-09-08 11:23:47 PM
How do they know that the people are telling the truth about taking the class?
 
2013-09-08 11:24:15 PM

Monty845: Likewise, when someone comes to that guy, and says I want to lie to the gov't on a polygraph, and need help not getting caught, providing help with the knowledge of how it will be used is a crime.


Citation needed. I don't think it is illegal to teach someone how to lie no matter what the reason.
 
2013-09-08 11:24:17 PM

hardinparamedic: phalamir: But neither does all speech directed at the government automatically fall under perjury.

Conspiracy to commit perjury, and telling people to blatantly lie on a test where they tell you that knowingly lying on the test is perjury is not protected speech.

He could publish all the how-tos he wanted on it, but the moment he crosses the line into directly encouraging people to do so, it stops being free speech.


Doesn't perjury only apply to statements under oath? Typically, polygraph tests aren't administered under oath as far as I know.
 
2013-09-08 11:25:18 PM

MBooda: FTA:

Dixon's defense attorney Nina Ginsberg said that Dixon's classes were protected by the First Amendment: "It may be unfortunate for federal law enforcement, but it is protected speech to tell people how to lie on a polygraph. Mr. Dixon gave them advice. He didn't know they were going to follow that advice."

Dixon pleaded guilty last year to wire fraud and obstructing a government proceeding

Looks like the basic problem was not the advice Dixon gave people, but the advice Nina Ginsberg gave him.


Came here to point this out.  If you believe your actions were Constitutionally protected, you don't plead guilty.
 
2013-09-08 11:25:49 PM

hardinparamedic: itsaidwhat: Free speech....except against the government.

Free speech does not extend to knowingly committing perjury, just so you know.

Mad_Radhu: And exactly how is that working out for the government right now? Snowden/Manning kind if make that clearance process look like a joke, especially Manning who I wouldn't trust with the cashier job at a McDonald's after everything that has come out about his emotional issues.

IIRC, wasn't Bradley Manning recommended for ELS at multiple times during his BCT and AIT because of his mannerisms and attitudes towards the military and towards the treatment of classified information?


don't know what ELS, BCT, and AIT are, but I do recall reading that they were concerned enough that he was going to go on a crazy murder/suicide shooting spree that they took away his access to the guns.
 
2013-09-08 11:25:55 PM
Only a witch could defeat a polygraph. Are you a witch? Y/N
 
2013-09-08 11:27:48 PM

Argh Not Again: He wasn't sent to jail to teaching people how to pass a government polygraph. He was sent to jail because he told those people to lie to the government about taking his class.


So since James Clapper lied to congress about the NSA inst a crime, that leaves only telling someone to lie to the govt as being an actual crime.
 
2013-09-08 11:29:45 PM
Next they'll get Penn and Teller for telling us the polygraph is BS.

But seriously, if it can be defeated by someone intentionally doing it, it can be defeated unintentionally, or show truth as a lie.

/Just like the SAT if you can study for it and do better, what is it really measuring?
 
2013-09-08 11:29:52 PM
Kind makes me think about the people that are ejected and asked to "never return" to Casinos for "card counting"...
 
2013-09-08 11:30:11 PM

Mad_Radhu: Doesn't perjury only apply to statements under oath? Typically, polygraph tests aren't administered under oath as far as I know.


If they're being administered for a Single Scope Background Check for clearance, you are under oath when you take it.
 
2013-09-08 11:30:41 PM
Also, what with polygraphs having been proven inaccurate don't they pretty much defeat themselves?
 
2013-09-08 11:31:09 PM
just wanna add...card counting is an ABILITY ...not a crime.
 
2013-09-08 11:34:22 PM
But can it beat this guy?

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-09-08 11:34:29 PM

GratefullyAlive: just wanna add...card counting is an ABILITY ...not a crime.


Technically, it is merely frowned on. By burly guys with Italian accents, blowtorches, and a pair of pliers.
 
2013-09-08 11:35:01 PM

hardinparamedic: Mad_Radhu: Doesn't perjury only apply to statements under oath? Typically, polygraph tests aren't administered under oath as far as I know.

If they're being administered for a Single Scope Background Check for clearance, you are under oath when you take it.


Which is stupid. Might as well use a ouji board or crystal ball. Just because it's electronic doesn't mean it's not hocus pocus.
 
2013-09-08 11:36:18 PM
USA! USA! US....what?

I can't even say US*bang*.

/America, you farked up, bro
 
2013-09-08 11:39:03 PM
A) Appeal, there is an obvious vendetta in play here
B) Never hire Nina Ginsberg
C) Have Nina Ginsberg disbarred
D) For God's sake, stop using that ridiculous gizmo.  It was completely discredited as some kind of pseudoscience years ago but we have allowed it to somehow find its way back into use.

The method the interrogator uses is what gets you to admit guilt, not the machine.
THE STUPID, IT BURNS!
 
2013-09-08 11:40:38 PM

Argh Not Again: He wasn't sent to jail to teaching people how to pass a government polygraph. He was sent to jail because he told those people to lie to the government about taking his class.


He wasn't sent to jail for advising people about this.  He was sent to jail for advising people about that.  It's completely different.
 
2013-09-08 11:40:58 PM

doglover: hardinparamedic: Mad_Radhu: Doesn't perjury only apply to statements under oath? Typically, polygraph tests aren't administered under oath as far as I know.

If they're being administered for a Single Scope Background Check for clearance, you are under oath when you take it.

Which is stupid. Might as well use a ouji board or crystal ball. Just because it's electronic doesn't mean it's not hocus pocus.


I think the idea is that it's going to deter someone who wouldn't pass from even attempting to take it.

I don't think you want it to show up a lie when they ask if you ever committed a felony crime and didn't get caught.
 
2013-09-08 11:41:02 PM
Land of the free, home of the brave.
 
2013-09-08 11:41:06 PM

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: How do they know that the people are telling the truth about taking the class?


If only there was a way to tell if they are lying, like a device of some kind
 
2013-09-08 11:42:11 PM

Mr. Ekshun: Also, what with polygraphs having been proven inaccurate don't they pretty much defeat themselves?


They're not accurate enough to pass the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" test of a court of law, but they're accurate enough to be given consideration when hiring someone for a job.
 
2013-09-08 11:43:06 PM

doglover: hardinparamedic: Mad_Radhu: Doesn't perjury only apply to statements under oath? Typically, polygraph tests aren't administered under oath as far as I know.

If they're being administered for a Single Scope Background Check for clearance, you are under oath when you take it.

Which is stupid. Might as well use a ouji board or crystal ball. Just because it's electronic doesn't mean it's not hocus pocus.


Like I said earlier, the current process is obviously broken, so we may as outlaw lie detectors for official use and overhaul the system. If Bradley Manning gets clearance with all the red flags he threw up, there is no way the current system can be trusted any more.
 
2013-09-08 11:44:51 PM

MBooda: FTA:

Dixon's defense attorney Nina Ginsberg said that Dixon's classes were protected by the First Amendment: "It may be unfortunate for federal law enforcement, but it is protected speech to tell people how to lie on a polygraph. Mr. Dixon gave them advice. He didn't know they were going to follow that advice."

Dixon pleaded guilty last year to wire fraud and obstructing a government proceeding

Looks like the basic problem was not the advice Dixon gave people, but the advice Nina Ginsberg gave him.


Why does it take so long for this on Fark nowadays?
 
2013-09-08 11:44:55 PM

Mad_Radhu: doglover: hardinparamedic: Mad_Radhu: Doesn't perjury only apply to statements under oath? Typically, polygraph tests aren't administered under oath as far as I know.

If they're being administered for a Single Scope Background Check for clearance, you are under oath when you take it.

Which is stupid. Might as well use a ouji board or crystal ball. Just because it's electronic doesn't mean it's not hocus pocus.

Like I said earlier, the current process is obviously broken, so we may as outlaw lie detectors for official use and overhaul the system. If Bradley Manning gets clearance with all the red flags he threw up, there is no way the current system can be trusted any more.


s2.dmcdn.net <---like in Oceans...13?
 
Displayed 50 of 132 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report