Lies, damned lies, and polygraphs

Press, 29 January 1986, Page 16

Lies, damned lies, and polygraphs

From

HUGH NEVILL,

in Washington

The unequivocal statement by the Secretary of State, George Shultz, that—if asked—he would submit to one lie-detector test then resign, has raised anew the question of how accurate polygraphs are, how widespread their use is, and the morality of using them at all. President Reagan last year authorised random polygraph tests of tens of thousands of senior civil servants, including top appointees, but backed off after Mr Shultz’s declaration. They will be used now only for specific reasons. The machines measure such things as pulse-rate and sweating to determine whether people are lying. The procedure is painless, physically, but many subjects find it humiliating.

The use of lie-detectors is routine among agencies such as the F. 8.1. and the C.l.A.—for

staff as well as “clients.”

Many of America’s biggest private industry companies are also administering lie-detector tests, routinely, and a significant number insist that all applicants for jobs undergo a polygraph test.

These companies include those which have contracts with the Pentagon, with security clearances needed for employees working on secret projects, but many have no business affecting national security. Questions include checks on job applicants’ resumes, to see if entries have been padded or invented.

Smaller companies can now get to “corner-store” lie-detector companies to check on such things as suspected staff theft.

Law suits have so far failed to produce any definitive ruling on

whether polygraph tests constitute invasion of privacy, which is protected by the Constitution. Civil servants, private sector employees, and such bodies as the American Civil Liberties Union are worried because they suspect the accuracy of the machines and because they fear that anyone who refuses a teston any grounds—will be tagged with an implicit label of “guilty.” No one really seems to know just how accurate the tests are.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is checking—as far as it can—with a questionnaire to all bureaux designed to find out how often lie-detector tests have generated inaccurate leads in F. 8.1. investigations. The National Security Agency maintains that “the combination of electro-mechanical instrument and qualified investigator” is 90 to 95 per cent reliable. The invasion of privacy aspect was highlighted by a Defence

Department manual which has since been rescinded.

Questions suggested in that manual included asking subjects whether they had engaged in sexual acts with animals.

Other questions went into general sexual proclivities and whether the subjects had ever been party to an abortion. The suggested questions covered use of drugs, affiliation to religious bodies and to such organisations as the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (a respectable organisation), and membership of political parties.

Publication of the details of that manual followed testimony last year by then Deputy Undersecretary of Defence, Richard Stilwell, that the military restricted its questioning to specific counter-intelligence matters. Politicians, including Democrat Jack Kemp, of Texas, the chairman of the House Government Operations Committee, denounced the manual as both illegal and inappropriate. Government employees cannot be dismissed on the results of a polygraph examination alone, but that has not halted the widespread opposition to their use. The C.I.A. and the N.S.A., which between them have about 109,000 employees, use liedetectors to screen all applicants and test all employees periodically. The Defence Department has 152 trained examiners, and the F. 8.1. has 40 to 45. Defence officials say one examiner working at top speed can conduct 300 tests a year. A former United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick, wrote recently that the routine use of liedetectors would lead to "the institutionalisation of distrust” in Government.

Roy Cohn, a lawyer who won fame, or infamy, as a communist-hunting assistant to Senator Joe McCarthy in the early 19505, says his opinion is that lie-detectors “are not worth a damn.” Mr Cohn has used lie-detectors in his practice. A negative result, he said in a recent article, may not mean that the subject is guilty, just that he is a nervous type who is shaken merely by having to take the test.

“Conversely, a subject lying

through his teeth could remain undetected as long as he is super-cool.” Mr Cohn gave the example of a client who was a prominent New York legislator accused of election fraud. The legislator was outraged, Mr Cohn said, and demanded publicly to be given a lie-detector test He put him through a private trial run, and the legislator failed miserably. "Not surprisingly, he immediately withdrew the offer that he be tested under official auspices. The investigation continued, and he was totally and completely cleared and all charges were dismissed.”

In another case, Mr Cohn said, “a client whom I considered quite guilty offered to take a liedetector test We gave him one, and because of his calm demeanour he passed it with flying colours. The fact is, he was guilty.” Mr Stilwell, on the other hand, says.that in the experience of the National “Security and Central Intelligence Agencies “the examination has repeatedly produced information relevant to an individual’s trustworthiness that failed to surface in background investigations or by other means.”

Numerous cases are on record, he maintains, where “the polygraph examination has unmasked persons seeking employment for the purpose of espionage.” Two convicted spies, Christopher Boyce and William Bell, said they would not have considered spying if they had had to undergo regular lie-detector tests.

In 1983, though, Congress’s bipartisan Office of Technology Assessment concluded that “the available research does not establish the scientific validity of the polygraph test for personnel security screening." It looks now as though their use has become institutionalised, in spite of the misgivings.

The main brake on their use will be lack of qualified examiners. Most Government examiners are trained at a special school operated by the army, but only 48 went through the course last year. The school is now being expanded so it can take 108 students a year.