My husband works for one of the government labs that is under heavy scrutiny for security violations. He won’t even tell me what he does, exactly, because he doesn’t want to compromise his security clearance. Anyway, over the years he has had his clearance re-investigated 2 or 3 times (among other things, the FBI interviewed our friends and neighbors), he’s under heavy security while at work , & he’s always known that he COULD BE required to take a lie-detector about his life & his security compliance.
Anyway, now the government has made lie-detectors mandatory for all Lab employees who have access to “secret” information. A bunch of the Scientists there are up-in-arms about it. They say, “it’s a violaton of their privacy”.
Do you think that it’s a violation, or do you think it’s a fair request to people who have access to National Secrets?
As one of those who believes that most lie-detectors work on the “bluff the victim” principle and that there are a sizable number of people who either beat the test or are falsely convicted by the tests, I just think they’re stupid.
I have an extremely low opinion of polygraphs as “lie detectors.” They will certainly define an individual’s physical reactions; but it is totally at the interpretation of the operator to say that this reaction means that is going on in his/her behavior.
How many people would not have the same nervous reaction that they would when consciously lying if telling the total truth about some subject on which they are sensitive?
On the rights question: the term “rights” is bandied about. If I am working (as I am) in a job with access to confidential information, it is no violation of my freedom of speech to demand that I sign away a portion of that freedom, as regards the confidential information with which I come in contact, as a condition of working there.
By the same token, this gentleman is not obliged to continue working in a job with security clearance. If polygraph tests are a part of the job requirements, then they are not “taking away his rights” – he has the option of submitting to one or not working there.
Finally, do keep in mind that an innocent military officer has the right to demand a court martial regarding questionable circumstances in which he was involved for the express purpose of establishing his innocence. If they worked right, polygraph and drug tests would have the virtue of ensuring, by demonstration, the continued innocence of the person who was trusted enough in the first place to be put in that sensitive position.
Yeah, Polycarp, but lie detectors were not a condition of employment when the employees were hired, if I read the OP correctly.
Would you feel the same way about your position if they decided that they were going to bring in a clairvoyant to examine your bona fides each year? I have as much faith in those as in lie detectors.
And while a military officer may demand a court martial for an unproven charge, I am not sure that that officer may demand a court martial to fight a reassignement–and I know that a civilian employee does not have those rights, at all.
Sorry, I mis-read the aspect of always having the lie-detector over his head. I had a similar situation, but the company policy was to bring in a lie-detector only when there was a charge to be proved.
(Of course, that just fires me up more, because even polygraph proponents will (reluctantly) admit that the stupid things have a very poor record determining general truthfulness (as opposed to ferreting out specific acts).
I think that the original question is a clear case of killing the messenger. There is absolutely nothing about a lie detector, per say, that violates privacy. For example, if they were to simply ask the questions, devoid of the polygraph, would the question of invasion of privacy stand? Yes, it would be unchanged because the test is irrelevant to the privacy issue, only the questions asked matter. Now, you may be personally insulted by the presumed assumption that you are lying, but that’s not a privacy issue.
If they have the right to question your husband, they have the right to use a test that they feel insures true answers. But I also think that there are some questions that they have no right to ask. That, however, is totally outside the scope of whethere or not they use a lie detector of any kind, be it sodium pentathol, a psychiatrist, a police interrogator, a polygraph machine, a psychic, or just simply trust the answers employees give.
I’m sorry if I didn’t make this clear before:
My husband knew that as a condition of his employment, whenever they reviewed his clearance, he would sign papers about his (our) personal life. Additionally, he knew that he could be randomly called in for questioning regarding his answers. This could include a polygraph.
Because of this, he’s never talked about his work outside of the Lab. Therefore, except for the fear of it returning errors, he doesn’t mind submitting to a lie detector.
We both find it funny that people who have been employed under the same circumstances could object under the premise of “privacy”.
There is no right of ‘privacy’ under the federal constitution, with the possible exception of choosing what contraceptives to use (Griswold v. Connecticut, or POSSIBLY with regard to abortion (Roe v. Wade). Some states have privacy rights written into their constitutions (California is one), but those provisions would not apply to the federal government as an employer.
Which, of course, doesn’t address the MORAL aspects of ‘privacy.’
As for your husband, well, he knew what he was getting into.
I think that if they knew about it when they signed up, they don’t have much right to bitch now. But on the other hand, Tom is precisely right when he says they might as well bring in a clairvoyant. I mean, how many polygraphs did that CIA spy go through (the one who was passing secrets to Russia a few years ago – can’t remember his name)? He passed 'em all. Ooooh, they’re so effective…