> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
It's not like Trump et al were unknowns during the 2024 election and that their goals were hidden:
'[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.
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.
downvoted, there hasn't been a pervasive oath to loyalty in an administration in recent history. this is just bad defending of a horrible authoritarian.
And there likely isn't any sort of "oath" at all related to any polygraph. The poly isn't about signing agreements, it's about truthfully answering questions. The scope of the questions is different depending upon the agency and the clearance. The NYT is not an unbiased source. To quote the article:
"In interviews and polygraph tests, the F.B.I. has asked senior employees whether they have said anything negative about Mr. Patel, according to two people with knowledge of the questions and others familiar with similar accounts."
So this can be true and misleading at the same time. Some of the questions asked relate to social media activities and posts related to classified work. I can imagine a scenario where answering these questions would lead to a discussion about Kash Patel. Having a poor opinion of your boss while working in a classified environment could make a person more prone to leaking sensitive information. The FBI has been leaking like a sieve lately.
15 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 31.6 ms ] threadPersonal loyalty tests.
You really shouldn’t be in any administrative role if you can’t handle criticism.
Saying that even if done correctly i'd be skeptical if it worked.
It's not like Trump et al were unknowns during the 2024 election and that their goals were hidden:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
People voted for them anyway. See "Why Do So Many People Think Trump Is Good?":
* https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/07/trump-admi...
* http://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/...
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.
(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.
"In interviews and polygraph tests, the F.B.I. has asked senior employees whether they have said anything negative about Mr. Patel, according to two people with knowledge of the questions and others familiar with similar accounts."
So this can be true and misleading at the same time. Some of the questions asked relate to social media activities and posts related to classified work. I can imagine a scenario where answering these questions would lead to a discussion about Kash Patel. Having a poor opinion of your boss while working in a classified environment could make a person more prone to leaking sensitive information. The FBI has been leaking like a sieve lately.