George Maschke – The Impact of Antipolygraph.org on the Polygraph Community
It has been several years since Antipolygraph.org emerged on the internet, and its presence has undeniably impacted the polygraph community. As its name suggests, the site is inherently critical of polygraph examinations and their role in credibility assessment. But has it truly caused the harm its creators envisioned?
As a polygraph examiner, instructor, researcher, and current officer of the American Polygraph Association (APA), I want to examine the real effects this website has had on the APA, the international polygraph community, and the field of polygraphy as a whole. My intention is not to attack the site or its founder, George W. Maschke, but to provide an objective analysis of its influence and the current state of the polygraph profession. To understand its effects, we must first explore how and why Maschke became an outspoken critic of polygraph testing.
The Origins of Antipolygraph.org
In May 1995, George Maschke, then a reserve U.S. Army intelligence captain and Arabic speaker, underwent a pre-employment polygraph examination with the FBI. The examiner determined he was deceptive and conducted a post-test interview, which ultimately disqualified Maschke from the hiring process.
Undeterred, Maschke attempted polygraph examinations with other agencies but faced similar outcomes. His struggles culminated in the loss of his security clearance, which disqualified him for promotion in the Army Reserve, leading to his discharge. During this time, Maschke launched unsuccessful appeals and began studying polygraph techniques, procedures, and applications exhaustively.
Maschke later moved to the Netherlands, where he took a position assisting an international commission processing civil claims against Iran. From there, he created and continues to manage Antipolygraph.org. Over the years, he has worked diligently to collect and publish extensive materials on polygraph methods, drawing from open-source documents, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, civil court cases, and other methods.
A Comprehensive Repository
Antipolygraph.org has evolved into a vast repository of polygraph-related information, used today by many as a research resource. Federal training materials, while not always up-to-date, are readily accessible on the site, sparing examiners the lengthy FOIA process. Despite this utility, the website serves as more than just an information hub; it is an active platform for campaigns against polygraph use in federal employment screening.
For example, Maschke initiated an online petition urging the U.S. President to ban polygraph screening in federal hiring processes. To date, it has collected just 1,280 signatures—an insignificant fraction of Maschke’s reported hundreds of thousands of annual website visitors. This low engagement suggests that the general public does not widely support abolishing polygraph screening. For those of us in the polygraph profession, this is reassuring and highlights an unintended benefit of Maschke’s work: increased public awareness of polygraph testing.
Legal Challenges and Countermeasures
Maschke has also encouraged individuals to join class-action lawsuits aimed at banning polygraph screening by federal law enforcement agencies. One such case saw plaintiffs spend considerable sums on legal representation only for the court to affirm the government’s right to use polygraphs, setting a precedent that strengthened their application in both federal and local law enforcement.
Perhaps the most significant unintended consequence of Maschke’s efforts is the advancement of countermeasure research. Early in my career, training on countermeasures was minimal, often dismissed with the assurance that examiners would “know them when they saw them.” Maschke’s e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, challenged this complacency by detailing techniques examinees could use to manipulate results.
This spurred the polygraph community to improve countermeasure detection and mitigation. Today, countermeasures are a major focus in examiner training, with ongoing research and the development of new sensors designed to identify deceptive tactics. Many examinees attempting to use advice from Antipolygraph.org have been caught and dealt with accordingly. In this regard, Maschke’s work has inadvertently strengthened the polygraph profession.
Collateral Damage
While Maschke claims to help those navigating the polygraph process, his advice has often caused more harm than good. Deceptive examinees employing his methods are typically caught and disqualified, as expected. However, the real damage occurs when truthful individuals follow his guidance.
In the past, truthful examinees who cooperated fully with the polygraph process were overwhelmingly found credible and moved forward in their careers. Today, some of these individuals are misled into using countermeasures, which, when detected, result in disqualification. This can devastate an examinee’s career aspirations and represents a loss of potential talent for the hiring agency. It is crucial for examiners to educate examinees about the risks of following such advice.
Growth Despite Opposition
Contrary to predictions by Maschke and his supporters, the polygraph profession has flourished. Membership in the American Polygraph Association has grown by 38%, from 2,043 to 2,820 members. The number of federal agencies using polygraph testing has increased from 21 to 27, with more expected to adopt the practice soon.
Polygraph testing has also expanded significantly in non-federal law enforcement, sex offender treatment programs, and international applications for counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and criminal investigations. Democratic governments around the world are increasingly recognizing the value of polygraph examinations, as evidenced by the growing number of foreign applicants to the APA.
Conclusion
George Maschke and Antipolygraph.org may have set out to dismantle the polygraph profession, but their efforts have inadvertently strengthened it. By sparking advancements in countermeasure detection, raising public awareness, and solidifying legal precedents, Maschke’s work has, in many ways, benefited the polygraph community.
As Mark Twain once said, “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” The same can be said for the polygraph profession. By nearly every measure, it is thriving—and for that, we may owe Maschke a peculiar debt of gratitude.