it says you are willing to cheat to get a job doing governmental work.
No, it doesn't. That's the point.
When you start assuming that mere interest in a subject or an attempt to research it necessarily implies any particular moral position on that subject or future action, you're walking a very dark path.
I have read about, and in some cases seen videos of, things that I find horrifying. That doesn't mean I condone the actions involved, and it certainly doesn't mean I have any desire to emulate them.
What next, I'm obviously interested in cracking secure networks because I studied mathematics and understand how a bunch of exploits work? I'm a potential terrorist because I studied chemistry and know many ways to make something go bang? I'm a Nazi sympathizer because I have studied European history and seen some video footage of horrible things?
The logical conclusion if we follow your line of reasoning isn't even thoughtcrime, it's penalising people on the mere suspicion of thoughtcrime, and that suspicion doesn't even need to have any rational or objective justification. You might as well throw any pretence of justice out the window by then. And the danger of that is very much greater than the danger of a few curious people reading a book about something that might or might not work anyway.
Regardless of your irrelevant implicit commentary on lie detectors, my point still stands. Nobody is forcing you to do a polygraph test when you're applying for a security clearance - that choice is yours alone to make.
So only people willing to subject themselves to a goon who could, at random, accuse them of lying with no basis in fact should get security clearances?
