It's interesting to note that the scandal going on in Israel wrt/ the chief prosecutor of the IDF leaking a prisoner abuse video was uncovered in a polygraph test.

"A routine Shin Bet polygraph test of a senior officer close to Military Advocate General reportedly exposed new clues about video leak, prompting Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara to order a full criminal investigation"

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bkbichbjbe

While polygraphs are not perfect they are widely used as part of a broader set of measures. I'm not sure "must not be used" is really the right way to approach this. This person would not have been caught if it wasn't for this polygraphs screening.

▲ GolfPopper 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>This person would not have been caught if it wasn't for this polygraphs screening.

The organization whose crimes she exposed claims she would not have been caught if its wasn't for the polygraph screening. Corrupt law enforcement types love things like polygraph tests because they give them a ready avenue for parallel construction.

	▲	YZF 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That was my own interpretation... but admittedly maybe too strong of a statement. Maybe she would have be caught. That said, the psychological setup in those periodic interviews with a "maybe lie detecting machine" create opportunity to find real issues. In terms of the details here, the leak wasn't to expose the crimes, it was to resist political pressure [my speculation anyways]. The crimes were being investigated anyways and the video was available internally fairly broadly (and I think maybe externally as well). There was a political storm as a result of the investigation and the arrests made. Apparently leaking the video is was not illegal (though that's subject to some interpretations) because the role of the chief prosecutor is independent but this became more complicated when it required lying to the supreme court to cover the leak. But yeah, it's possible the Shin Bet already had an idea but just used the polygraph as an excuse/opportunity. While it's understandable in the political climate why the chief prosecutor would leak the video it's also unethical and poor judgement for someone in her role to do so, and then to cover it up. The role of the Shin Bet is to find people in sensitive roles who are secretly doing things they should not be doing (typically spies but more generally people betraying the trust put in them). For those not following, the plot got thicker because she proceeded to throw her iPhone in the Mediterranean and it was found by a swimmer some days later. She also tried to harm herself. It's pretty crazy stuff. Now there are arguments about who should oversee the investigation with the supreme court set to decide today. It's a pretty small/tight legal community and everyone knows everyone, especially at the top. The legal system has been in a battle with the government for some while with the justice minister refusing to accept the last appointment of the chief justice of the supreme court. Anyways, the polygraph angle is interesting. That this machine survives as a practice in many places tells us something about its usefulness (or at least people's belief in its usefulness).

▲ 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲ parineum 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> A routine Shin Bet polygraph test of a senior officer close to Military Advocate General reportedly exposed new clues about video leak...

It should probably read, "A senior officer exposed clues during a polygraph test..."

The polygraph is a McGuffin. The interviewer applies pressure by psychologically manipulating the suspect. That's all the polygraph is, psychological manipulation.

▲ YZF 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Maybe. The same can be said for placebo. But if it works - it works.

▲ parineum 8 hours ago | parent [-]

There is really no evidence that it works, even in that way though.

The fact that the person is being asked to take the test is a pretty good indication that investigators think there's something there. The suspicion caused the interview and the interview caused the admission. There's no way to know what happens in an alternate universe with no polygraph. I worry a lot more about law enforcement that use it as justification for their erroneous suspicion.

It's a fine tool as long as the interviewer doesn't think it actually works. I've seen enough police interviews on TV shows to know that many of them are believers.

▲ defrost 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Police interviews on scripted TV copoganda dramas, or fly on the wall 'reality' police TV shows?

Either way a great many police are believers in the power of theatre. As they should be, staging power imbalnce, inserting faux sympathy, etc. are all powerful tools with strong potential for misuse which has prompted regulation in a number of countries demanding full recording of interactions with suspects.

Speaking of police interviews on TV shows:

  Opening scene to Season 5 of The Wire.
  Classic moment where a copy machine is used for a lie detector.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgrO_rAaiq0

▲

parineum 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not talking about fiction, I'm talking about interviews with detectives on a show like 20/20.

The way they talk about both people refusing to take the polygraph and whether they pass or fail belies a belif in their credibility. I also know some police personally who speak in the same way but that's a much smaller sample size.

	▲	defrost 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is still subjective feels. I absolutely believe that some police detectives have real genuine faith in polygraphs being accurate. I strongly suspect a good many do not. That's orthoganal to how detectives that don't have faith in polygraph results being "real" feel about people that refuse to take them. Many may feel that people that refuse tests that supposedly tell truth telling from lying can be ranked with people that refuse a search or to unlock their phones ... ie. that's a sign that that they very probably have something to hide. > I'm talking about interviews with detectives on a show like 20/20. These are professionals being interviewed who are projecting all manner of things, if they don't actually trust that polygraphs work as scientifically accurate tests that reliably detect lies they are still motivated to not say so and to project belief, that's all part of the theatre of manipulating suspects.

▲ bigyabai 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's a very peculiar non-sequitur to pick.

Plus, finding "clues" could mean anything, including false leads. If the Shin Bet is resorting to interviews under duress, they really must not have much physical evidence to work with.

▲

YZF 9 hours ago | parent [-]

This is standard procedure for everyone in certain roles. Presumably for the same reasons the FBI does this.

	▲	8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲ FridayoLeary 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That is one of the most surprising aspect of the story for me, that a polygraph worked. (the revelation itself just confirmed what everyone already suspected).

My theory is that the new head of the Shin Bet who is pretty right wing and took a personal interest in the story was involved. They simply used the polygraph results as an excuse to direct the interview in the direction they wanted. The timing is certainly very interesting.

It's a very high profile case so i guess the truth of the matter will eventually emerge.

▲ wat10000 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A polygraph test consists of two components: a bullshit machine, and an interview.

The interview is the part that exposed those clues.

The thing about pseudoscience is that it will sometimes appear to “work.” A dowser will sometimes find water. A horoscope will sometimes predict your day. My birthmark has successfully warded off tiger attacks for 40+ years.

▲ s5300 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]