honig at sprynet.com
Fri Sep 29 09:45:56 EDT 2000
At 06:52 PM 9/27/00 +0800, manuel veloso wrote:
> From what it sounds like, polygraphs are good at flushing out the
>basic low-level kinds of things, but against someone who really wants
>to deceive it's kind of worthless.
>One positive is it's a lot less intrusive than just pulling out the
>clubs. It also saves some money, since you only need one cop to be
>both good and bad cop. I suspect, though, you can't capture large
>amounts of market share by selling a psychological prop.
I am curious why the use of disinhibiting drugs (e.g., the fast
acting barbituates, 'truth serum' to the pulp novellist) is not used (with
or without polygraphs) in the most stringent forms of intel testing? Or is
it, but its use is secret, for PR reasons?
Intelligence Forum (http://www.intelforum.org) is sponsored by Intelligence
and National Security, a Frank Cass journal (http://www.frankcass.com/jnls/ins.htm)
More information about the IntelForum