Polygraph (Lie Detector) without consent or attorney
 

I'm doing my best to overcome my "securiphobia," but this trial of polygraph testing in Knoxville makes my skin crawl.

As I see it, a Federal representative can select me from a line of people and ask me to answer questions while under physiological observation. The TSA will not reveal the nature of the questions.

My gut reaction would be, "Not without an attorney." But the TSA's response would no doubt be, "Do you want to fly today?"

Something is terribly wrong here. Polygraph testing is not admissable in court, but apparently is admissable in the kangaroo airport court. And this is being conducted without consent and without legal counsel.

Will I be put on the "no fly" list if my blood pressure goes up?

Has anyone spoken up about this issue? ANYONE?

I'm just wondering if they're going to take a response that they consider a "lie" and use that "lie" as the basis for harassment prosecutions -- especially when they have nothing else to go on. Sort of like prosecutor's use of "falsification", "obstruction of justice", and other such charges against a person who was arrested on more serious charges that can't be made to stick in a jury trial.

So if/when they make the "interrogators" law enforcement officials/proxies (and they are already trying use the TSO designation), the chances rise substantially that a growing proportion of the public will be subject to such face-saving "desperate law-enforcement/prosecutor charges".

I sent an e-mail to the authors of the article to ask if those selected to participate in this testing were allowed to refuse. I'll let you know if I get a response.

I'd also like to know if there were any comments in the WSJ on this subject, but I don't subscribe to it.

Did I miss something? What polygraph trial in Knoxville?

There is no way they can force you to take a polygraph test or even answer questions. They are not law enforcement - and even law enforcement cannot require you to answer questions or take a polygraph, even if you were charged with a crime!

They cannot prevent you from flying - and do not take such threats lying down if you hear them.

Please tell me more about this so-called 'trial'.

Google is your friend. The top result for "knoxville polygraph" is:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article...html?mod=blogs

This device doesn't even approach a real polygraph machine or exam. Its main purpose is to spook people into spilling their guts voluntarily. Shame on us if we buy this carnival booth contraption. BTW, this "spooking" potential is the real value to a polygraph. The results of the exam aren't admissible, but everything you say in the room when the machine is turned off is recorded and can be used. As I've stated below, you sign a paper up front in which you acknowledge this.

Having said that, there is a real 5th amendment issue here. Everytime I've ever been put on the machine, I always had to sign a document stating that I understood that the 5th amendment provision against self-incrimination applied to this exam and that I could stop at any time and request a lawyer. Also contained in this document was basically the Miranda text.

Heck, the TSA blatantly blows off the Privacy Act. Blowing off another amendment and Miranda doesn't surprise me one bit.

Discussed here

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=590140

Why, its not a lie detector, just a machine that measures BP, pulse, and sweat while they ask you questions. :td:

Did you voluntarily enter the machine, or were you not given a choice? Just curious if you went through it out of your own curiosity or because you were forced to? Could you tell them 'no'?

I love the irony of the fact that "entrepeneurs" from Israel are promoting security measures that would make the Gestapo blush. It would probably open a can of worms if I suggested that a better approach would be to withdraw any support from Israel and let them duke it out with Ahmadinejad and co. until the last man is standing.

I was talking about a real polygraph exam for my various security clearances. Even those were voluntary, but you risked losing your clearance and your job (which required the clearance).

My portion of a hypothetical conversation between a screener and me if I was ever chosen as a volunteer for this contraption would begin with, "Over my dead body..." and probably end with, "...and the horse you rode in on."

I like the part about watching for unusual behavior, including having a heavy coat on a hot day.

My friends and I are figure skating judges. We often fly places just for the day, and we bring winter type clothing even on the hottest days, because we will be in rinks all day. One friend got secondaried this week, and we figured it was because she had her winter coat with her.

I am also still laughing about how TSA trusts their employees more than a machine. That's a hoot!

Of course, on a more serious note, this is outrageous and I pity the fool that tries to subject me to it.

What's the problem? Just answer the questions truthfully with, "it's none of your business."

I understand that it is a touch screen, so that is probably not one of the choices listed. :D

And probably "Your mama" is not either... :rolleyes:

Reporter responded to my inquiry
 

My email:

Mr. Karp and Ms. Meckler

In your article, you did not indicate if passengers asked to "step behind the curtain" were allowed to refuse to acceed to the request.

Were you able to speak with any passengers who went through the testing? If so, how did they feel about it (less the "anything for security" comments)?

Is the testing still on-going? If not, how many passengers were subjected to this intrusion?

Thank you.

From Jonathan Karp:

I would venture a guess that most, if not all, of those who participated would fall squarely in the "anything for security" column.