> 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.

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.

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.

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.

Link in case: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/us/politics/fbi-polygraph...

'[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.

But, ok, sure. Flagged.

'[flagged]'. oh, ok.

[flagged]