> Some senior officials who have taken the test have been asked whether they said anything negative about the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, in a highly unusual use of the tool.
Personal loyalty tests.
You really shouldn’t be in any administrative role if you can’t handle criticism.
This reminds me of the book Animal Farm, except the corruption here is done by people too incompetent to keep their hand of cards hidden from view. A real power-coup needs to be fast and decisive, and this group is instead just setting themselves up to get absolutely obliterated by the mid-terms in 16 months.
> this group is instead just setting themselves up to get absolutely obliterated by the mid-terms in 16 months.
I'd hope this is the case, but after hundreds prior of examples of otherwise disqualifying behavior, I know there is no threshold for a big part of the voter base.
certainly feels like we're just trying to slowly turn up the temperature until everything is still okay.
There are plenty examples of things done by gov't officials today that would've ben disqualifying 20 years ago. And I'm sure there are things viewed as 'crossing the line' today, that will be fine in 4 years. And that definitely scares me.
Anyone with a security clearance is subject to a polygraph exam at any time. Depending upon the sensitivity of what you do, it can typically be never, seven years, five years, or yearly. Each exam may consist of multiple sessions.
(I was cleared to a bunch of different stuff over 40 years, and I did not get my first polygraph until 30 years ago (about 13 years in). I was getting annual polygraphs for five years, then got them every five years for the remainder of my career.)
My circumstances were not typical, but five years is a typical cycle. It coincides with the "periodic re-investigation" interval, which can also be different, depending upon the nature of the clearances.
I've thought i watched a Louis Theroux documentary where they these used to on pedophiles to see if a therapy was working. I think i recall there being an issue as one of them put anti perspirant on his hands so test wouldn't work.
Saying that even if done correctly i'd be skeptical if it worked.
'[flagged]'. oh, ok. Well I guess we're at this point, then. We know where we're off to.
Funny, because even with an explicit (and patchily applied) ban on politics here on HN, this is a technology story. Polygraphs are inherently interesting.
Polygraphs aren't unusual. It's what they are asking. They are asking opinion of and loyalty towards leadership rather than loyalty towards the constitution.
In other words this admin are using the polygraph to try to find out who doesn't like them and likely won't be loyal to them over the constitution.
> Some senior officials who have taken the test have been asked whether they said anything negative about the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, in a highly unusual use of the tool.
> Some senior officials who have taken the test have been asked whether they said anything negative about the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, in a highly unusual use of the tool.
Personal loyalty tests.
You really shouldn’t be in any administrative role if you can’t handle criticism.
This reminds me of the book Animal Farm, except the corruption here is done by people too incompetent to keep their hand of cards hidden from view. A real power-coup needs to be fast and decisive, and this group is instead just setting themselves up to get absolutely obliterated by the mid-terms in 16 months.
> this group is instead just setting themselves up to get absolutely obliterated by the mid-terms in 16 months.
I'd hope this is the case, but after hundreds prior of examples of otherwise disqualifying behavior, I know there is no threshold for a big part of the voter base.
certainly feels like we're just trying to slowly turn up the temperature until everything is still okay.
There are plenty examples of things done by gov't officials today that would've ben disqualifying 20 years ago. And I'm sure there are things viewed as 'crossing the line' today, that will be fine in 4 years. And that definitely scares me.
Keep an eye on SCOTUS. The executive is trying to unshackle itself from both the legislature and judiciary. Midterms might not matter.
I wish I had your confidence in our now-stacked Supreme Court. And military leadership.
Anyone with a security clearance is subject to a polygraph exam at any time. Depending upon the sensitivity of what you do, it can typically be never, seven years, five years, or yearly. Each exam may consist of multiple sessions.
(I was cleared to a bunch of different stuff over 40 years, and I did not get my first polygraph until 30 years ago (about 13 years in). I was getting annual polygraphs for five years, then got them every five years for the remainder of my career.)
My circumstances were not typical, but five years is a typical cycle. It coincides with the "periodic re-investigation" interval, which can also be different, depending upon the nature of the clearances.
How many 'fealty to your boss' questions were you ever asked?
https://archive.is/qZKO3
I've thought i watched a Louis Theroux documentary where they these used to on pedophiles to see if a therapy was working. I think i recall there being an issue as one of them put anti perspirant on his hands so test wouldn't work.
Saying that even if done correctly i'd be skeptical if it worked.
They don't work. You may as well use phrenology.
I mean 90% of my builds don't work but I haven't decided to abandon my computer to do coding.
Yeah but your failed builds aren't being used to falsely prosecute people I'd presume.
Did I miss some part of the article?
Link in case: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/us/politics/fbi-polygraph...
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/618/transcript
'[flagged]'. oh, ok. Well I guess we're at this point, then. We know where we're off to.
Funny, because even with an explicit (and patchily applied) ban on politics here on HN, this is a technology story. Polygraphs are inherently interesting.
But, ok, sure. Flagged.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Polygraphs aren't unusual. It's what they are asking. They are asking opinion of and loyalty towards leadership rather than loyalty towards the constitution.
In other words this admin are using the polygraph to try to find out who doesn't like them and likely won't be loyal to them over the constitution.
It should be about loyalty to the United States, not personal loyalty to the current director.
> Some senior officials who have taken the test have been asked whether they said anything negative about the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, in a highly unusual use of the tool.
"Have you ever criticized the FBI director?" has been in the set of control questions since Watergate? Source? Where's the fear mongering too?
Political loyalty tests to the Glorious Leader have been in place since Watergate?
Are you certain of that? Do you have a source for this?
If not, why did you make that post?