Personal 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.
Don't give them ideas...
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.
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.
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.
(Note: I don't agree with a lot of the mantra regarding the effectiveness of the polygraph. IMHO, the machine does nothing more than create an excuse for an interrogator to pressure the subject into confessing their wrongdoings. I've known a few sociopaths (including high-level security officers) who would pass with flying colors, because they were 100% comfortable with their lies.)
The (flagged) article tries to ridicule the current administration for enforcing the same policies that every previous administration has enforced: Obeying the orders and the rules.
"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.
Atreiden•7mo ago