As the FBI’s deputy director, Bongino receives some of the country’s most sensitive secrets, including the President’s Daily Brief. His ascent to that position without passing a standard bureau background check is unprecedented, insiders say.
Let me clarify. They do not use polygraph tests alone to determine when someone is lying. They use it to determine the priorities of how resources get devoted to uncovering what might become a security risk for any individual. This is common, good sense practice when handling classified information. It’s OpSec. It should be happening to keep us safe. Even if it’s, say, 80% accurate under optimal conditions, that saves time and money when devoting resources into invading the personal life of a classification candidate. It helps catch the bad candidates early, unlike what’s happening here.
Even if it’s, say, 80% accurate under optimal conditions
Why are we using 80% as an example when it’s definitely impossible for the most skilled interpreters to beat a coin flip? Right like you see the issue? The problem isn’t that it’s sometimes unreliable the problem is that is fundamentally impossible to derive any meaningful information from it
What you’re arguing for is similar to the thought experiment where they have an airport scanner that can tell with 99% accuracy whether someone is a terrorist (spoiler: even with this level of accuracy, the scanner cannot be relied on alone, because counterintuitively due to false positive rate, the end result ends up being that only one in a thousand positive scans is a true positive).
But the polygraph is simply not similar to that thought experiment. It’s like “narrowing your search results to better manage your resources” based on the results of asking a magic 8 ball. Which is why it’s illegal to submit polygraph as evidence in court
Let me clarify. They do not use polygraph tests alone to determine when someone is lying. They use it to determine the priorities of how resources get devoted to uncovering what might become a security risk for any individual. This is common, good sense practice when handling classified information. It’s OpSec. It should be happening to keep us safe. Even if it’s, say, 80% accurate under optimal conditions, that saves time and money when devoting resources into invading the personal life of a classification candidate. It helps catch the bad candidates early, unlike what’s happening here.
No I know what you mean, it just doesn’t track
Why are we using 80% as an example when it’s definitely impossible for the most skilled interpreters to beat a coin flip? Right like you see the issue? The problem isn’t that it’s sometimes unreliable the problem is that is fundamentally impossible to derive any meaningful information from it
What you’re arguing for is similar to the thought experiment where they have an airport scanner that can tell with 99% accuracy whether someone is a terrorist (spoiler: even with this level of accuracy, the scanner cannot be relied on alone, because counterintuitively due to false positive rate, the end result ends up being that only one in a thousand positive scans is a true positive).
But the polygraph is simply not similar to that thought experiment. It’s like “narrowing your search results to better manage your resources” based on the results of asking a magic 8 ball. Which is why it’s illegal to submit polygraph as evidence in court