Chad Dixon, polygraph: The Obama administration doesn't want you to know how to beat a lie detector test.

I think this situation is absolutely outrageous!  It is a clear miscarriage of justice and something I never thought would happen in the United States.

I've been through quite a few polygraphs, about every 5 years from the early 1980s.  Each time I thought that the whole process was rather "shady."  If you have been through the process a few times, you'll realize that the polygraph is very unreliable.  I was told several times that I had lied, when I knew I had told the truth, for example.  It is clear that they depend upon the "mystique" around their system to try to enhance the responses of a person's body to try to determine truth or lie. Polygraphers are very polite, they dress professionally, and have a relatively standard way they do things.  Not much changed in the polygraphs I went through over my 25 year span of experience.  Yes their electronics got smaller, and their recording system went from pens on paper to electronics and digital video recording.  Polygraphers always seem to do something during the polygraph to try and get your body to respond --typically with some sort of anger.  For the tests I experienced they always treated them sort of secret.  They sent us to plain unmarked rooms and instructed us to not tell anyone what went on.  I'm suspicious that that is to try and get our bodies & minds sensitized for the test.   The whole process was typically recorded on video, or monitored by one way mirror.  There is always a mysterious "back room" of other people who have to go over the results and "get back" to you--but only if there is a problem.  You never get to meet any of the "back room" people --part of the secret!

I''m very skeptical about the value of polygraphs. I was surprised to learn that there are organizations who are not just skeptical, but are "anti-polygraph."  I've often thought that the best that a polygraph program could hope for was the deterrent effect.  People might not do something wrong, if they thought that maybe it could be uncovered in the future through a polygraph. I think it is really stretching to say that it is capable of predicting when someone will do something wrong.   When national security issues are at stake and billions of dollars of investment or lives are at stake, it is extremely important to make sure that our Government employees and contractors are honest and will not steal or reveal secrets.Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning Wikileaks have caused immeasurable harm to our country.  They didn't just embarrass our country, they did permanent damage to our intelligence system, which will seriously reduce or capability to catch terrorists, or defend against them.   It certainly would have been good to been able to prevent that from happening by determining if one of them were possibly going to expose our nation's secrets.  Examples like this, I'm sure, are very frustrating to Government security.  No mater what they do, all it takes is one person, out of hundreds of thousands, and we've blown it!  Use of polygraphs is one way of possibly protecting us from that problem -- added on top of normal background investigations and training.  However it isn't enough --and now, it is clear that we're compromising another of our freedoms by using polygraphs. Yes it is a tough trade-off!

Apparently this guy described as a normal dad and little league coach, Chad Dixon was charged with instructing people on how to beat polygraph tests.  I suspect that the so-called professional polygraph associations have rapidly pushed for this prosecution because they realize they have a "house of cards" and that this sort of situation could destroy what little believability that polygraph testing still has.   The results of polygraph aren't admissible in court already, and there is a HUGE industry of people involved in giving these tests.

Chad Dixon, polygraph: The Obama administration doesn't want you to know how to beat a lie detector test.:  I must admit, I am surprised that this prosecution is attributed to the Obama administration!  The Bush administration believed in torture, rendition, warehousing people in Guantanamo etc --but this seems to be out of character for what Obama and his administration believe in.

Clearly there is no "crime" committed if someone lies during a polygraph.  When undergoing a test we aren't "sworn to tell the truth" of course, and there are no laws requiring us to be truthful.  So now this Chad Dixon, is going to go to jail for teaching people how to lie on a polygraph! http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/08/30/4276087/feds-want-prison-time-in-unprecedented.html#.UjYk48Ym2So

  This seems to go against every understanding I have of what our Nation's Bill of Rights stands for.  Where do these prosecutors come from?  It is clear that first amendment rights are violated by this prosecution: http://rt.com/usa/feds-prosecuting-polygraph-teachers-599/
Clearly this person was singled out, since there are many web sites and other people who sell similar training: See this article: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/technology/gadgets/chad-dixon-gets-8-months-jail-teaching-how-beat-lie-detector-test#

I certainly hope that Chad Dixon will be defended by some organization like the ACLU who will help them take this case to the Supreme Court.  It is a shame that he "admitted" to doing it --but it would be hard to not do so  The question: is what he did a crime?  If someone can go to jail for teaching something, could we now see people go to prison for teaching how to grow marijuana?  how to refine cocaine?  How to practice yoga (that might relax someone so they could beat a polygraph test?).

JUDGE RULES IN NO-FLY LIST SUIT THAT PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO

I saw this article in today's Union Tribune, where a judge in Oregon has ruled that people do have a right to fly on an airplane.
JUDGE RULES IN NO-FLY LIST SUIT THAT PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO FLY | UTSanDiego.com  I'm totally in favor of maintaining a good security system for our US transportation system(s).  A no-fly list seems to be a reasonable approach to singling out suspicious individuals for special inspections of their bodies, carry-ons and luggage.  I'd assume that the no-fly list also includes criminals that probably are to be held or arrested if they are caught trying to pass through a security checkpoint.  However with millions of travelers, and possibly billions of records, it is likely that mistakes can be made with identity.

Over the past 12 years there have been a lot of situations where people have been stopped from flying on a plane due to mistaken identity with someone who is on the "no fly list" kept by Homeland Security.  There are many other people who are on the no fly list, who don't know they are on the list, and if they do find out they are on the list they have no way of finding out why they are on the list, or have any easy, quick way of "clearing their name."  They say that a form can be filled out on line, but there are no time limits.  Citizens can appeal to a Judicial Review" but are not permitted a hearing where evidence can be presented.

Apparently, when this type of situation has come to courts previously, the courts have determined that the citizens didn't have a "right" to fly, and could, instead, drive, take a bus, or ride a train.  So the Government was under no obligation to explain why a person is on the list, nor does the government have to provide a process to clear their name (expeditiously) This latest court ruling implies that we do have a right to fly, and maybe the Government should help provide a process for clearing names.  In this case, U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown of Portland has asked for more information about the "redress" process.

I've often thought that with the internet, there must be a clear, simple process for verifying  identities and for helping people clear their name if they are on the "list" due to an error.  Photos, fingerprints, face recognition and other biometrics can be sent and verified within seconds.  You would think that Homeland Security officers at the airport could use that info to validate identity etc.  I'm sure that the Government's argument is that if they had to provide more people to perform a redress process efficiently and quickly, it would increase the cost of their operation.  That is probably true.  However, to be fair to everyone, we should agree to pay that cost as part of the necessary costs for our security.

It will be interesting to see what happens based upon this ruling.  Will it go up to the US Supreme Court?