OPINION: Unreliable lie detector tests make their way to Capital Hill

 

Lie detector tests have developed an association with crime dramas and high-risk spy movies, but this faulty interrogation method has found its way out of Hollywood and into Capitol Hill.

 

According to reports by CNN and Fox News, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is considering the possibility of giving national security staff lie detector tests in order to find the people responsible for a number of high profile leaks, including the phone calls between President Donald Trump and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto earlier this year.

 

“I strongly agree with the president and condemn in the strongest terms the staggering number of leaks undermining the ability of our government to protect this country,” Sessions said at a press meeting in August.

 

There are increased security concerns due to the number of leaks that have occurred during Trump’s short time in office. This is not the first-time information from an administration has been leaked, but it is unusual that it is happening so early and so often in the President’s term. However, it is unlikely that the use of polygraph tests on staff will cut down on the leaks.

 

An APA research article states that a polygraph test measures a person’s physiological responses to a mixture of control and interrogation questions. The control questions are meant to gauge the difference of response when the person being examined is answering questions relevant to the specific issue.

 

“There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious,” the APA article stated concerning the validity of the tests.

 

Lie detector tests are given to some Department of Defense and federal clearance applicants before they are accepted into the job. This testing is not unusual in the intelligence world, but there are some questions raised as to why this unreliable system is used.

 

Using an untrustworthy system like the polygraph increases the potential that an innocent person may be found guilty of a crime they did not commit. Additionally, there are a variety of more reliable alternatives to polygraph testing, such as brain imaging and the electroencephalogram.

 

 

 

 

The Constitution protects people from invasion of privacy – intellectual and physical. However, if an employee is suspected of untrustworthy behavior, government authorities are responsible for ensuring that their team is honest and works together as a cohesive unit.

 

“That Sessions would seriously entertain such a startling action reveals how frustrated he’s become about the rampant leaking of classified information,” Johnathan Swan, a journalist for Axios said.

 

While the cost of security justifies the need for secrecy and the prevention of leaks, lie detector tests are an unreliable method and are a pointless waste of time. Stricter vetting of potential employees and limited access to sensitive information may be a better option to consider when trying to decrease the amount of leaking in an administration.

 

Essentially, if the employees that are hired are untrustworthy from the start, no amount of protection against leaking will suffice. The only long-term solution to this problem is hiring staff the administration can trust and limiting access to classified information.