[headcanon]

I was looking for a statement by the "other side", someone in government who could give a justification as to why they're being used.

Is it simply because its the "standard" now, and bureaucrats don't want to stick their neck out by getting rid of it? Is the fact that it is a machine that has been around for awhile, regardless of efficacy, give people that much comfort? Or are enough people really that misinformed?

Its a bit like marijuana legalization coverage - its rare to find arguments for maintaining the status quo as opposed to getting rid of it.

[bilbo0s]

Lots of technology doesn't work, but we're still going to use it. Sometimes because it's better than nothing. Sometimes because no one gets fired for using <insert standard technology here>. And sometimes just because the politicians owe favors to their corporate handlers.

Lie detectors, Sea Wolf submarines, facial recognition software, etc etc etc. Many security technologies lie on the spectrum from "impractical" to out and out "doesn't work". But we just have to get comfortable with them, because they aren't going away.

[s73v3r_]

That's a rather defeatist attitude to take.

[daveFNbuck]

One other side is that most applicants don't know that lie detectors are bunk, so their use can result in more honest answers.

[AviationAtom]

There is no good reason. It just gives them the feels. Countless super innocent people get denied, while spies make it through.