This memo was forwarded to us by numerous interested parties:
The problem of false-positives has never been addressed...
Careers are at stake. So is national security.
To/MS: LANL Employees
From/MS: Roger L. Hagengruber, MS A105
Phone/Fax: 606-2263/606-2264
Symbol: DIR-CCSO: 07-010
Date: April 30, 2007
Subject: DOE Polygraph Program
For some years, DOE has been planning to implement a polygraph
policy as part of its counter-intelligence (CI) program.
Recently, LANL was notified of the official commencement of
random counter-intelligence scope polygraph examinations for
personnel in certain “high risk” categories. These exams will
cover employees across the NNSA facilities including LANL. In the
past week, we have received a list of names of individuals at the
lab that will be contacted soon to set up the schedule for their
polygraph. This memorandum is intended to announce the new
program and to provide you with some explanation of the
situation.
The letter of notification that we received is reproduced in part
below:
“Effective October 30, 2006, the Department of Energy issued
10CFR 709 Counterintelligence Evaluation Regulations.
Subparagraph 709.3 explains the provisions covering Random CI
Evaluations, including the requirement to complete a counter
intelligence scope polygraph examination. The Counter
Intelligence Evaluations Division (CIED) is responsible for
administering this program.
This regulation may be accessed on the DOE Homepage under the
National Security, Intelligence and Counterterrorism tab. ……..”
In our discussions with DOE, it became apparent that LANL had
essentially no choice in shaping the policy implementation for
the lab. Per direction from DOE/CI, LANL provided names and other
data for all people in the categories that they specified. Some
of this information was conveyed to DOE/CI via NNSA or IN. This
included all personnel at the laboratory with the following
accesses or clearances:
1. NNSA Special Access Programs (an access requiring a Q)
2. SCI (a clearance)
3. Classified computer system administrators (a position
within LANL)
4. Sigma 14 and 15 (an access within RD)
5. All LANL Counter Intelligence personnel (a position
within LANL)
6. All personnel within the Human Reliability Program at
LANL (HRP) (an additional personnel vetting process at LANL)
(Some of these categories have already required that a security
agreement be signed that included an acknowledgement that the
signer could be subject to a polygraph examination.)
All people in the above categories will be subject to random as
well as investigatory polygraph examination. If informed to
present themselves for a polygraph, they are to understand that
participation is mandatory. Should they fail to pass the test,
they will be removed from the pertinent category list and will
not be allowed to participate in any of the other categories. If
they choose to object now to the implied participation in the
polygraph program, they will immediately become ineligible for
any of the accesses or programs listed. They will be informed
that failure to participate in the polygraph program by itself
will not affect their basic security clearance.
The total number of names submitted by LANL numbers over 5000
(for Sandia some 3800). We expect the random sampling rate to be
a few percent at most per year since the capacity for exams is
limited, which means that the likelihood of being called in any
year is very small. The LANL/CI organization will notify
individuals when we are given a list of people that will be
contacted directly by DOE/CI. The Chief Security Office and CI
will schedule sessions to explain the polygraph program and to
help people prepare.
21 comments:
Make no doubt about it. If you're a senior weapons designer, work with HRP, or are involved in any SCI projects... your job at the lab now hangs on the whims of the interrogator who sits behind that polygraph machine. Fail to pass the test or even be labeled as 'inconclusive' and you career is suddenly over.
This is not the promise that DOE made to us when they first brought in the polygraph back around 2000. Then, they told us not to worry. They would NEVER use the polygraph as the sole basis to pull a clearance. At best, it would be used to indicate that further background investigations might be required. Only additional hard evidence, they said, would cause a loss of clearance. No more. DOE lied. As of today, the equation is:
* Fail to pass the polygraph == Loss of clearance
* Loss of clearance == Loss of projects and programs
* Loss of projects and programs == Loss of job.
Note how the memo says they already have the names of people the want to wired up. DOE knew they were going to do this, but kept it quiet from everyone so they could suddenly spring it on staff as a fait accompli. Nice touch, don't you think?
And these are the same people who told us during the RFP's pension negotiations: "Trust us, we're the DOE. We won't let you new pension go down the tubes". Right.
Surely you are Joking DOE!
Polygraphs are virtual psuedoscience, used primarily to intimidate witnesses into copping a plea!
My advice is, if you are called for a polygraph exam, employ the Pedicini Requirement:
Only accede to their demand for a polygraph exam on the condition that you are allowed to have two witnesses of your choosing during the procedure, one of which is permitted to make a video of the whole process. Also, demand an immediate Xerox copy of both the polygraph tracings and the examiner's report before leaving the examination room. This will ensure that there is a video timeline corresponding to the output of the machine, and that the examiner cannot change his/her mind about your "performance."
If these demands are unacceptable to the polygraphers, then refuse to take it. It worked for Pedicini; it should work for anyone.
On Pinky and the Brain's blog, I mentioned that Pedicini was successful in thwarting the bullies behind the polygraph "ouija board." They retreated into the recesses of their dank cave, knowing full well that polygraphy == voodoo, DEEP voodoo.
If 5000 Q-cleared people at LANL stood up with stiff spines and said "No way, J. Edgar!", this stupid game of NNSA's would be over. Without a coordinated mass movement, the corporate bosses will pick off their virtual RIFees one at a time (on the cheap, no less). And THAT is the REAL game going on here.
Privatization of national security is being carried out by greedy traitors.
Brad -
We respect that you have stood up and been counted. We respect this enormously.
We fit one of the 6 catagories (actually 2 of them until recently) and am considering declining that clearance level with two intentions:
1) Avoiding the "threat"
2) Making a statement.
Are you suggesting that those who are in those categories maintain their tickets but "threaten" openly to refuse a Poly; OR do you suggest keeping the tickets and refusing the Poly (on penalty of losing the tickets, or the whole clearance, or the job and career?)
We realize this is what they depend on... the lack of our ability to predict *how* they will handle it. How can we sort this out without risking our job/career.
There won't be 5000 folks standing up, we will be lucky if there are a round dozen... and if most or all of those are so squeeky clean that they can't be discredited by another means, even a little bit.
I respect you Brad, help talk us through this a little more?
First, they came for our piss and we freely gave it to them. Next, they came for our very souls and we all meekly complied.
The pattern has been set and DOE now knows just how low they can go in their treatment of lab staff. I doubt much can change the course we have now all collectively decided to follow.
This is ridiculously juvenile.
When called for the polygraph, I will impose the Pedicini Requirement. Then, it's Their move.
Meantime, Doc, will you organize a picket line of scientists? The news media would love it. Such a startling act will focus the Neoconservative "mind," since they want both nukes and the management fee, while at the same time, they have a deep desire to join the howling chorus of Congressmen (and women) who want to shut LANL down for its sins. I love conundra.
Brad Holian wrote: "When called for the polygraph, I will impose the Pedicini Requirement. Then, it's Their move."
Sure is easy to be the hero when you've already retired and have little to lose, eh?
Brad -
If we though we would not be standing on the picket line with our pants down, just you and I, maybe we'd do that. Like 5:50, I feel a little more exposed than maybe you do... but I respect you nevertheless.
Let's see if we can build a little groundswell of indignation here first...
5:50 -
Get over yourself. I resent the fact that Brad might be more free than I to walk away if he has to, but I don't resent Brad for it. I envy him. There are hundreds of folks who could do what he has, but have not even made a peep.
All-
A friend of mine working at the lab (a former lawyer with a JD) pulled the thread on the DOE policy for me and gave me his best summary. I'm not prepared to give it to you here, but I can say that the letter they sent us only scratches the surface. It is fairly clear that by policy they can pull anyone in with a Q (and maybe an L?) for a polygraph if they want. What is not clear is what the consequences of refusing actually would be. At the least, the list of clearances and accesses in the memo would be pulled. There is nothing to indicate (despite the letter's implied promise) that one's Q couldn't be pulled as well, and one's employment (at-will, remember?) couldn't be pulled too.
I'm ready to decline my "higher clearance" on principle... (notice We are not using the collective pronoun in this sentence?) but I'm not quite ready to have my employment involuntarily terminated.
The DOE policy indicates that the "Pedicini requirement" is unacceptable... they suggest that one can "obtain counsel" but they cannot attend the actual polygraph examination. An audio (only?) recording will be made of the proceedings but the interogatee (victim) cannot walk away with their own copy... but they can "request" same under the FOIA (of course, nothing indicates if/when they might actually respond positively to said request).
Anonymous (May 02, 2007 5:50 PM) sez:
"Sure is easy to be the hero when you've already retired and have little to lose, eh?"
Cheap shot. I'm still working at the Lab a couple of days a week. Not even breaking even, including UC retirement, much less "double-dipping." As to "hero," well, that's not what I am, nor have ever pretended to be. But I have been pretty ornery for many years. It's a lifetime habit, I guess you could say, being a libertarian. Is "little to lose" what you would have said to an aging Jew in Germany in the 1930's?
What say we all consider forcing the Pedicini Requirement on the DOE/NNSA? It would be so much more satisfying than just meekly taking their wooden bar of "soap."
OK, maybe that was a bit of a cheap shot. Everyone's situation is unique and I am not in a position to judge yours. However, it is true that bravery is easier to muster when the personal stakes are lower.
And this is not Nazi Germany. Such hyperbole is not useful in my opinion.
In terms of being ornery, I am probably just as much so as you are. So we have that in common as well.
"What say we all consider forcing the Pedicini Requirement on the DOE/NNSA? "
Do you have suggestions as to how to accomplish this in reality? Class action lawsuit? Everyone that possibly can pulling out of sigma 15 (so work does not get done at that level)? There must be something more dignified and effective than picket signs and loudspeakers.
The "We're not Nazi Germany" argument is a very familiar one, but it begs the issue of "When did the German people reach, by baby steps, the tipping point of no return?" Did we, in America start down the current worsening path a quarter of a century ago? A dozen years ago? A half-dozen years ago? When should we have said, "Wait! Stop! Enough is enough!"?
All I can say about the present darkening cloud over Los Alamos is that even Joe Stalin knew that he wouldn't get much out of scientists by putting them in isolated cells in one of his camps in the Gulag. Sure enough, there would have been no problems with security! (The ultimate wet dream of the security folks is solitary confinement.) As long as Los Alamos was really needed during the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer could win the argument with General Groves about not putting scientists into cells, and at least the fenced-in Townsite was not part of a Gulag (or even the US Army, with scientists subject to military discipline). After the War, they even took the fence around the Townsite down, and Los Alamos began to resemble a "normal" American town.
What we are faced with now at the Lab is a US Government that does not value science, or at least a significant part of the Executive Branch and its appointed Judicial Branch doesn't, along with a plurality--a veritable howling mob--of Congresspersons and Senators. If that persists, and the new Democratic majorities in House and Senate don't turn things around soon, this all may be a moot point, and the Lab may well sink into a hole that will take a decade to get out of.
But let's imagine now that the problem is simply that the politicians and policy-makers don't know how to herd scientists. It really is like beef cattle, if you think about it. Put into isolated cells, cows will wither and die, and the herd, so confined, will vanish, along with those who depend on it. If you want to get good beef production, you have to give the cattle herd at least some semblance of freedom. And the more stress (dehorning, castrating, vaccinating, ear-tagging, branding, yelling, poking with cattle prods, etc.) that you subject the herd to, the less weight they'll put on. (Really, the analogy with scientists is not that far a stretch.)
What we have now is not a good scenario for scientific "meat" production. We have some seriously stressed-out cattle in the LANL herd. Will the Powers-That-Be wake up to that fact in time? Or will a serious and valuable national resource be squandered by bad herd management?
And what can the herd do? I'm open to suggestions, since the "union" thing sure hasn't caught on, and as has been said, marching with signs and loudspeakers might work for migrant farm workers, but scientists just don't "do" that kinda thing.
--Brad
There is a lot of stuff in your interesting post that is just not very relevant. It is interesting, but tangential, so I won't address it. And most of it (whether I agree with it or not) is moot: there is nothing we can practically do about it. The Dems aren't going to turn things around. They are part of the larger problem you are painting, the seeds of which were sewn a decade more more ago. It will take decades for the country to recover, if it can. The lab will take probably 8-10 years to fully recover too if we can get started on the process.
So, getting away from the political arguments...
"And what can the herd do? I'm open to suggestions, since the "union" thing sure hasn't caught on, and as has been said, marching with signs and loudspeakers might work for migrant farm workers, but scientists just don't "do" that kinda thing."
I am not sure what to do, honestly. It is not so much that we don't "do" that sort of thing, it is just hard to imagine it being effective (and harder to imagine people actually doing it). I mean, this is not the 60's anymore. An organized sit-in at the US capitol or Bodman's office just ain't gonna happen.
The only thing I could think of was to refuse to engage in work that is sigma 14 and 15. That would help a bit. Some organizations are taking this approach to minimize impact, but perhaps it would be possible to just refuse to work on tasks that require this. There are not that many jobs that are solely based on these clearance levels here. This sort of pushback and the attendant loss of deliverables to the customer, might have some effect. I don't know. I am having a hard time coming up with a winning strategy.
The ones that are really hurting from this are the sysadmins on classified systems. What are they supposed to do? Using the S14/15 approach above won't help them. A scientist might be able to work on other things in the weapons program that don't require S14/15, but a sysadmin is kind of stuck.
So, "May 03, 2007 12:36 PM":
Your convoluted answer to Brad's "irrelevant," "tangential" post can be summarized as:
If you care about science at LANL, fuggedaboutit! We're fucked!
Izzat about right? (Let me grope around blindly for the door...)
-Anon.
I don't know, but I guess that is what your addled brain got out of it. Thanks for providing constructive suggestions to some of our current problems. Perhaps you should grope around for the door. Don't let it hit you in the rear on the way out of it.
May 03, 2007 3:17 PM:
Gary! Gary Stradling! Izzat YOU?
-Anon.
I'm a co-founder of AntiPolygraph.org, a non-profit, public interest website dedicated to exposing and ending waste, fraud, and abuse associated with the use of lie detectors. I'm also a former reserve military intelligence officer with experience in counterterrorism. You can read about the experience that led me to speak publicly on polygraph matters here.
As most at LANL hopefully know, polygraph "testing" is a pseudoscientific fraud. The person being "tested" is supposed to be "naive," that is, ignorant of how the procedure actually works. But you'll find the trickery on which the "test" relies exposed in Chapter 3 of our e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF). Regarding the specific technique used by DOE for its polygraph screening program, see my article, "The Lying Game: National Security and the Test for Espionage and Sabotage."
In Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, my co-author and I lay out countermeasure strategies that those facing polygraph screening may choose to employ.
But we also offer another option, what we call the "complete honesty" approach. This involves being completely up front with your polygrapher about your knowledge of polygraphy's lack of scientific underpinnings, your knowledge of polygraph procedure, and even of polygraph countermeasures (while forswearing their use).
This might be a reasonable option for those who are unwilling to suffer the career consequences of flat out refusing the polygraph, but who still wish to preserve their intellectual integrity and dignity.
Go ahead and answer the relevant questions about counterintelligence concerns. You should have no objection to doing so. But refuse to "play the lying game" and refuse to offer explanations of why you might have "reacted" to any questions (such questioning is at the heart of the polygraph interrogation). You have no reasonable obligation to explain why an invalid test may have produced inaccurate results.
Various methods of passive protest are also available. For example, AntiPolygraph.org has a number of PDF posters that you might wish to print out and place in your work area. One that might be especially apt reads: "The National Academy of Sciences Doesn't Believe in Polygraphs...Do You?"
A printout of this 1938 razor blade advertisement (5.2 mb high res PDF) featuring the creator of the lie detector (whom the FBI at the time considered to be a phony and a crackpot) will also demonstrate that you know the emperor is naked.
I recall that back around 1999, someone produced buttons saying "Just Say No to Polygraphs!" Perhaps more buttons should be made and distributed. AntiPolygraph.org offers through our on-line store a button that reads: "I Know the Lie Behind the Lie Detector" that might also be suitable (but I'm not here to sell you buttons).
In sum, I think that there are indeed viable alternatives short of picketing or mass resignations that will be more palatable to many and which, if widely adopted, would underscore the folly of DOE's misplaced reliance on polygraph screening and make its continuation more difficult.
George -
Thanks for weighing in here on this topic. We've read some of the material on antipolygraph.org and appreciate the work you are doing.
We would like to hear more about what you think might be an effective response that is not as extreme as mass protest/resistance, etc.
Our estimation of usefulness of the polygraph at this point is:
1) To intimidate (a guilty person who believes a polygraph works might "fess up" under interrogation or the threat of it).
2) To punish (an ineffectual administration might punish it's recalcitrant employees by subjecting them to the indignities of a polygraph and the possibility of a false-positive).
3) Illusion (an ineffectual administration might perform random polygraphs to convince an ineffectual set of critics that they are "doing all they can")
4) To illicit useful information from a recalcitrant informant (narrowing down where a kidnap victim or a stolen or hidden item might be). Only in situations where the cost of false-positives does not out-balance that of false-negatives.
Dr StrangeLove,
I have read everything on AntiPolygraph.org.Thanks for the links, I didn't know this great website existed. And I do believe that a program of passive resistance with the thugs of the DOE/LANL CI group may be in order. Whether it be mass countermeasure training or just a distribution of information on the uses and abuses of the polygraph. I have seen from a personal level that once an organization has an understanding of the polygraph and the falsehoods it represents, the most that the polygraphers ever get is inconclusive. And on a organizational scale, that alone would set the tone for them to realize that everyone knows there scam is gone. Just some thoughts.
Just a suggestion:
Everyone called into the polygraph room should engage the polygrapher in a scientific discussion about the machine and how it is used. Keep asking questions about the various "instruments" and how they are used and why. If the polygrapher is able to convince you of the validity of the process and it all appeals to you as a scientist (if you are one), then by all means, take the test, with a clear conscience. If not, keep asking more and more probing questions,standing up and then backing slowly out of the room, slamming the door, and running out of the building. Don't ever look back. They're the biggest bunch of quacks since Scientology and its famous "E-Meter" for ridding new recruits of their "Engrams" (hangups). It's all part of the same Twilight Zone.
Post a Comment