Blog Archives

Constitutional Rights , Human Microchip Implantation & Brain Waves


Constitutional Rights

Devices described above can be said to impinge upon various constitutional rights, depending on the embodiment. Here we focus on the relation of human microchip implantation to the Fourth and the Fifth Amendments.[86] The Fourteenth Amendment will be discussed in conjunction with the impingement upon property rights.

Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. A type of search which has been frequently tested for potential violation of constitutional rights is the use of electronic surveillance. In that instance, a bifurcated framework has been used to analyze which acts of surveillance constitute illegal searches. This approach considers first the implications of the attachment of the surveillance device and second the implications of continual monitoring once a device is in place.[87] These considerations must also take into account the requirements of probable cause and particularity.[88] There must be a definite reason for suspicion necessitating the search, and the search must also be placed within finite limits. In this section, a search will first be defined, then the method of determination of whether or not a search is constitutional will be explained, and finally the applicability to microchip implantation will be explored.

The courts often examine whether or not the activity under surveillance normally has associated with it a legitimate expectation of privacy in making their determinations as to whether or not a “search” (requiring constitutional protection) took place. This factor may be illustrated by a hypothetical surveillance of an individual walking on the sidewalk. Privacy often has two aspects: 1) actual expectations and 2) their reasonableness.[89] Applying these to the hypothetical, just because a pedestrian thinks sidewalk activities are private and precluded from surveillance does not mean that they are. Legally, because of no reasonable expectation of privacy on a sidewalk, observing the pedestrian does not amount to a search for Fourth Amendment purposes.

The same type of question has been asked in litigation over whether or not surveillance of a moving automobile is a search. If a beeper is placed on an automobile for tracking, is it within the realm of public activities and therefore a type of surveillance which is not a search? Courts have answered that question in the affirmative, terming driving an activity associated with a “diminished expectation of privacy,” not a search because “[a] car has little capacity for escaping public scrutiny.”[90] The same reasoning has also been applied to beepers placed on airplanes,[91] and the use of infrared devices to examine the heat content emanating from buildings.[92]

The generalized concepts relating to the definition of a search have been related to external examples of beepers or wiretapping. However, the Fourth Amendment has also been invoked with reference to internal intrusions upon individuals to obtain evidence which could be used against them. Examples include the withdrawal of blood and bodily searches which require surgical procedures or other means to extract substances from the body. In Winston v. Lee,[93] a robber was shot during an escape of the scene of an attempted robbery. Shortly thereafter, a man with a gunshot wound was discovered in the vicinity. To confirm that the suspect was connected with that particular robbery, the police wanted to compel surgery to remove the bullet. Because of the complicated and life-threatening surgery required to remove the bullet, the Supreme Court ruled that the surgery would be an unreasonable search.[94] Alternatively, other decisions have classified these highly intrusive searches as warrantless searches rather than unreasonable ones.[95] Thus, it seems that the courts are unwilling to totally relinquish the power to conduct a highly intrusive search, regardless of the conditions involved.

Arguments have also been made that taking blood samples is another example of an internal search which may be said to implicate the Fourth Amendment, where those samples indicate intoxication.[96] The same reasoning has been suggested as a reason to prevent the collection of blood samples from convicted criminals to obtain DNA for a genetic data bank.[97] However, these arguments have not been successful against the claim that greater restraints on liberties are required for the convicted.

Once it has been established that a search has indeed taken place, it is thereafter unconstitutional only if a valid warrant was not obtained prior to the search. The warrant is evidence that the proposed search has been examined, and considered not to infringe upon the suspect’s rights. The leading case detailing the constitutionality of the search when a warrant is provided is Katz v. United States,[98] which examined the constitutionality of wiretap surveillance by the government. The petitioner had been convicted based on improperly-obtained evidence because the safeguard of first obtaining a search warrant before bugging the phone booth had been ignored. On appeal the court stated that “[i]n the absence of such safeguards, this Court has never sustained a search upon the sole ground that officers reasonably expected to find evidence of a particular crime and voluntarily confined their activities to the least intrusive means consistent with that end.”[99]

The principles evolved for Fourth Amendment claims can be applied to microchip implants. The clearest application will be to the embodiment of the device that can read-write and track. Still, read only and read-write devices also implicate Fourth Amendment principles because, once installed, either could be scanned by police to obtain information about the individual. Scanning of the microchip would be considered as a search.

The first question to consider is whether or not a search (worthy of Fourth Amendment protection) took place. Thus, scanning or interrogation of the implanted microchip to obtain information from it is the action to be evaluated. The act of implantation itself does not constitute a search.[100] Rather, it is subsequent actions relating to the garnering of information from the microchip which are of consequence to the Fourth Amendment analysis.

In the case of any of the embodiments, an individual may have an expectation of privacy as to the information on the microchip. However, it would be more difficult to defend that expectation as a justifiable one, if the microchip carried information of medical records on a read-write device.[101] Because the information is vital for the good of society, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Proponents of this theory would argue that such information was available and on record already, and that this technology merely increased the speed with which it could be recovered. If these arguments prevail, there would be no search and no Fourth Amendment protection.

However, one court has found that personal information should be kept private and not readily accessible.[102] In a Doe case, this philosophy was validated for medical information by judges who declared that “Doe has a right to privacy (or confidentiality) in his HIV status, because his personal medical condition is a matter that he is normally entitled to keep private.”[103] Therefore, under Doe, retrieval of information from a microchip read-write device is a search when the information retrievable is of a type that is normally protected.

Monitoring a read-write device with tracking capabilities could be defined as a search if the implanted citizen were law-abiding. Because criminals have lesser privacy rights, tracking in their case wouldn’t be termed a search.[104]

Once it has been established that a search has occurred, the Fourth Amendment protections insure that the search is only permissible under certain conditions: that a warrant has been issued and that the search is described with particularity. Even if it is a possibility that blanket warrants could be issued, or that a warrant could be easily obtained, it will be difficult to evade the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment with reference to microchip implantation. That requirement is to prevent an overbroad search which impinges on an individual’s privacy rights.[105]

If the embodiment of the device is read only or read-write, the particularity requirement could be satisfied with a warrant. Conversely, if the device was read-write with tracking capabilities, the search would not be defined with particularity, as a person could be monitored at any time, in any place.[106] In summation, in any form, interrogation of the microchip implant can be considered a search under the bifurcated analytical framework. The Fourth Amendment protections to make a search constitutional could conceivably be met by the government when the search involves certain information from read only or read-write devices. However, if the device is used for tracking purposes, it will fail the particularity test and thus violate the Fourth Amendment on the grounds that a valid warrant has not been issued.

Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment provides, in part, that no citizen “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”[107] Verbal self-incrimination is commonly understood to be covered by the amendment,[108] but it has also been applied to removal of objects from someone’s body.[109] “[A] person is compelled to be a witness against himself not only when he is compelled to testify, but also when… incriminating evidence is forcibly taken from him by a contrivance of modern science” according to a concurrence by Justice Black.[110]

Non-verbal communications are not as easily categorized. For example, in a case concerning whether or not blood withdrawn from a suspect could be used to prove intoxication, the court commented that “[s]ince the blood test evidence, although an incriminating product of compulsion, was neither petitioner’s testimony nor evidence relating to some communicative act or writing by the petitioner, it was not inadmissible on privilege grounds.”[111] Yet later in the same opinion, Justice Brennan tempered the decision in the following manner: “That we today hold that the Constitution does not forbid the States minor intrusions into an individual’s body under stringently limited conditions in no way indicates that it permits more substantial intrusions, or intrusions under other conditions.”[112] Thus, there appears to be some disagreement as to the extent of the reach of the Fifth Amendment’s protection as applied to bodily intrusions. However, a common theme in such cases is that the courts examine the difficulty involved in terms of the level of intrusiveness required to obtain the “non-verbal communication,” to determine whether it is constitutional.

The Fifth Amendment could be applied to the use of microchip implants in humans because it could be a form of self-incrimination where the device has tracking capabilities.[113] Note that the implantation itself would not be incriminating, but the scanning or tracking of the implant could be. The question which arises is whether or not the act of carrying the implant is self-incrimination. According to decisions which require a communicative act such as speech or writing, the implant would not be an example of self-incrimination worthy of Fifth Amendment protection. Yet the carrying of the implant might properly be categorized as a communicative act because the chip would provide for constant communication of location. If the government has the ability to determine where someone is at all times, that information could be used as evidence in the commission of certain crimes. It would be analogous to the situation in which a suspect wore a beeper for surveillance 24 hours a day for the rest of his life.[114] In that instance, it might be most properly characterized as self-incrimination and therefore prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. Conversely, if the implantation were consensual, it could hardly be said to represent self-incrimination because of acquiescence.

Moreover, if tracking or scanning of the microchip is considered merely as a non-verbal communication, it may not qualify for Fifth Amendment immunity if constitutionally obtained. Since the act of scanning or tracking does not involve any life-threatening operation, or serious physical disruption, but rather only the monitoring of an electronic device, it would not be intrusive enough a method to qualify for immunity.

Property Rights

Property rights are protected from governmental deprivation without due process by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.[115] Here, we focus on the latter. To determine what is protected by the due process clauses, it is necessary to understand what is meant by the term “property.” This is constantly refined and expanded by the courts, but basically it refers to a collection of rights held in a particular object.[116] They may be tangible, as in the case of land or possessions, or intangible, as in the case of intellectual property. Property has been defined as “every species of valuable right and interest” which may be protected by the State.[117] Although the concept of one’s own body as one’s property has not been embraced by the courts, there is some precedent for that expansion. The law does not provide an overtly obvious method of insulation from bodily intrusions such as mandatory microchip implantation, but it is argued that novel situations require novel applications and expansions of existing legal concepts.

Here, the current rationale for and against the definition of the body as property will be examined, followed by current indications that the theory should be generally adopted. Last, the application of the concept of the body as property to the use of microchip implantation into humans will be explained.

1. Rationale

As explained, the concept of the human body as property is not generally accepted. One reason is fear that if the body were property, one could sell oneself or a portion thereof to another for profit. The basic rights in property include the right to transfer it as one wishes.[118] However, those fears could be allayed by specific statutes covering and limiting transfers. Even the transfer of land is subject to, e.g., zoning restrictions.[119] Another reason for hesitation to consider the body as property is that it harkens back to slavery.

If the body were recognized as property, it would provide certain advantages. Namely, the Fourteenth Amendment which insures that the individual will not be deprived of property without due process of law could then be invoked against intrusions into an individual’s body. It may be argued however, that the individual is already afforded Fourteenth Amendment protection through the liberty aspect of the amendment.[120] Liberty is generally thought to refer to personal rights in conjunction with torts such as battery, assault and false imprisonment.[121] These may be categorized as external events, ones which are not the doing of the individual himself, but rather the acts of another against the self. Conversely, property rights in one’s own body would cover the acts of the self concerning the self. Therefore the liberty interest does not strictly apply, and the property interest in the self could result in a right distinct from the liberty interest. The importance of this feature will be illustrated below.

Current Indications

Evidence for some situations in which the body has been considered as property, or at least as quasi-property, can be found in statutes and court decisions. For example, individuals can have limited rights with respect to the corpse of another, referred to as quasi-property rights.[122] Surviving spouses often have the ability to determine how to dispose of the dead.[123] Other rights in an individual’s body are defined by the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) which determines how and to whom gifts of transplantable organs can be made subsequent to the death of a donor.[124] Since one of the rights attached to property is the ability to alienate it, the introduction of the UAGA serves as evidence that it is permissible to have property rights in one’s body,[125] though they are statutorily limited.[126]

In York v. Jones, a couple had an embryo cryogenically frozen for future use.[127] Later, they wished to transfer it from an in-vitro fertilization institute in Virginia to another in California. The Virginia institute refused, citing the Cryopreservation agreement signed by the couple which specified only one of three fates for cryopreserved embryos. Interinstitutional transfer was not one agreed upon. The Yorks’ argument, adopted by the court, was that the Cryopreservation Agreement was an admission by the Institute that the Yorks had property rights in addition to contract rights in the embryos.[128] Thus, within the confines of a contract, the court was willing to recognize property rights in an embryo.

In a later dispute over the ownership of frozen embryos, another court was not as willing to go as far.[129] The Davises had seven in-vitro fertilized embryos stored at a clinic for later implantation. Afterwards, in divorce proceedings they disagreed over who should get the embryos. Finding it impossible to call the embryos “persons”, and unwilling to call them “property”, the court compromised by putting them in an “interim category that entitles them to special respect because of their potential for human life.”[130] The rights or duties entailed by the interim category were not further elaborated upon other than to indicate that the interest of the parents was one of ownership (where they had equal weight in determining the fate of the embryos).[131] In both York and Davis, the emphasis was on an embryo outside of the human body. Property rights exerted, where granted, are still external to the human body.

In a third example, external rights were also the issue where a man sued to obtain the monetary gain of the use of his cells to create a profitable cell line.[132] In part of his argument, he claimed that he had property rights in the cells removed from him during the course of his treatment. Because he never agreed that his cells could be used by the researchers to develop a new cell line, he claimed that they had converted his property based on the belief that the cells were still his property (because he had not released them) even after they were removed from his body.[133] The argument had been accepted by the lower court, but was not confirmed by the California Supreme Court. Instead, that court sustained the demurrers of the defendants to the cause of action of conversion, citing that the burden that would be placed on researchers to confirm consent before utilization of human body fluids in research would be too great.[134] Here again, the case focused on the ability of one to define products of his body external to himself as his property.

Applications of Property Law Concepts

Implantation of microchips concerns an internal property interest in the self because placement of the device involves breaking the skin to place a foreign object within the body permanently. It may be likened to the use of an artificial eye or a pace-maker. However, in those cases, the implant is desired. In the case of the microchip, there is only a convenient accounting system and repository for government information. Thus, new questions such as whether or not property rights can be extended to oneself now arise.

If York could be used as a precedent, it would then be possible to extend the right from a frozen embryo removed from the body, to internal bodily organs. If embryos outside an individual’s body are his or her property, why then couldn’t the embryos inside the body also be that individual’s property? From there the conclusion that anything within an individual’s body was the property of that individual, or that the body as a whole is property if its components are, could be reached. York is somewhat different however, because concerns and interests in reproductive freedom enter into disputes over fetuses, embryos and contraception in general.[135] York or Davis or other cases concerning reproductive rights and technologies are therefore not the best models for the microchip, but they are closest in substance.[136] Additionally, the very closest legally applicable statutory precedent is the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. Unfortunately, as previously stated, because this Act covers intrusions into self only after death, it is not directly applicable either.

As stated previously, in the absence of close precedent, and in the face of emerging technology, it is sometimes necessary to forge new legal concepts to cover the previously unanticipated developments of science. The use of microchip implants in humans is such an instance, wherein the application of novel legal theories is required, because of the novelty and the direness of the implications for humans. The concept of property should be extended to oneself as concerns internal matters to prevent technology from swallowing up the individual.

One important aspect of property is the owner’s right to exclude others from it. It follows that if an individual can be said to have property rights in himself, he can exclude others from invading his body which he controls as his property. Thereafter, if it is recognized that the individual has that right to prevent intrusions into his own body under property law, he can invoke Fourteenth Amendment protection to dissuade others or the government from requiring the placement of foreign objects in his body or at minimum provide adequate compensation.

Those principles can be analogized to the scenario of governmental mandate of microchip implantation. If the government desires to mandate microchip implantation, it must provide just compensation for those implanted. The question would then become how to value this level of intrusion. Compensation required would include money damages for the initial implantation,[137] as well as carrying a foreign substance,[138] difficult calculations indeed. Even if an amount could be calculated, it is unlikely that the government could give its value in cash because the total amount required for compensation of all individuals would be prohibitively high.[139]

Thus, if property interests were recognized in self, the compensation required by each individual from the government to implant the chip in each individual would be very great. The renumerative aspects of the program would effectively make it difficult to uniformly mandate the implantation of the microchip.[140] To overcome this obstacle, the government might insist on some form of nonmonetary compensation. For example, a tax break, an additional legal holiday or some other compensatory program might be invoked which did not involve an actual exchange of money on the part of the government.

In summation, property rights in self should be recognized in the case of mandated microchip implantation.[141] This would ensure that individuals receive compensation for their inconvenience, though the government may provide nonmonetary compensation which would be less satisfactory.

Advertisements

Synthetic telepathy also known as techlepathy or psychotronics

The following article is an entry that appeared on Wikipedia. Within the last 24 hours a major “edit war” broke out and it appeared, at least to me, that the information was being suppressed. The article goes into depth about a field of espionage that employs a technology known as “silent sound” or “Synthetic telepathy”. If you’re interested in high tech espionage, this makes for a very good read.
Synthetic telepathy

Synthetic telepathy also known as techlepathy or psychotronics – is a term used to describe the process in brain-computer interfaces by which human thought (as electromagnetic radiation) is intercepted, processed by computer and a return signal generated that is perceptible by the human brain. (ref 1,2,3,4)

==History==
In 1967, Edmond M. Dewan published a paper in Nature demonstrating the control of Alpha waves, turning them on and off, to produce Morse code. (ref 5) Using an EEG machine, Dewan and his fellow researchers were able to send words and phrases by thought alone.

In 1976, Robert G. Malech was awarded United States Patent 3951134 for remotely monitoring and altering brainwaves using radio.(ref 6) This patent makes reference to demodulating the waveform, displaying it to an operator for viewing and passing this to a computer for further analysis.

In 1988, Farwell, L.A. & Donchin, D. produced a paper describing a method of transmitting linguistic information using the P300 response system. (ref 7) This system combined matching observed information to what the subject was thinking of. In this case, being able to select a letter from the alphabet that the subject was thinking of. In theory, any input could be used and a lexicon constructed.

United States Patent 6,011,991, granted January 4, 2000, describes a method of monitoring an individual’s brain waves remotely, for the purposes of communication. Filed December 7, 1998, the patent outlines a system that monitors an individual’s brainwaves via a sensor, then transmits this, specifically by satellite, to a computer for analysis. This analysis would determine if the individual was attempting to communicate a “word, phrase, or thought corresponding to the matched stored normalized signal”.(ref 8)

==Theory==
Approaches to synthetic telepathy can be categorized into two major groups, passive and active. Like sonar, the receiver can take part or passively listen.

Passive reception is the ability to “read” a signal without first broadcasting a signal. This can be roughly equated to tuning into a radio station, the brain generates electromagnetic radiation which can be received at a distance. That distanced is determined by the sensitivity of the receiver, the filters used and the bandwidth required. Most universities would have limited budgets and receivers such as EEG (and similar devices) would be used. A related military technology is the surveillance system TEMPEST, the effective range of which is classified. (ref 9) Given that US Congress attempted to enact a bill in Oct 2001 banning these type of devices as “space weapons”, (ref 10) may indicate that fluctuations in the human magnetic field can be intercepted by satellite.

Robert G. Malech’s approach requires a modulated signal to be broadcast at the target. The method uses an active signal which is interfered with by the brain’s modulation. Thus, the return signal can be used to infer the original brainwave. This approach does expose the transmitter, but is ultimately required for generating return signals that can be processed by the brain.

The research of Farwell, L.A. & Donchin, D, is the first public revelation that could lead to a generic lexicon being developed, however, this is implied in the work of Robert G. Malech in 1976.

==Current research==

Current research, as of 2010, is being driven by military for “covert speech”, however, given that much of this is unclassified, it would suggest that the bulk of the research was performed much earlier and dedicated to the field of intelligence gathering during the cold war. Additional reports suggest that a version is deployed in combat zones to demoralize enemy troops and a smaller number of reports indicate a potential use to undermine governments and cause public unrest. (ref 11, 12)

Today, the driving force appears to be silent communication with battlefield troops. A mere $4 million was provided to DARPA for the fiscal year 2009/2010 to develop such a system called “Silent Talk”. (ref 13) Much of the research is being conducted at The Cognitive NeuroSystems Lab at UC Irvine. (ref 14)

A further $4 million was allocated by the Army to the University of California to investigate computer-mediated “synthetic telepathy”.(ref 15) The research aims to detect and analyze the word-specific neural signals, using EEG, which occur before speech is vocalized, and to see if the patterns are generalizable. (ref 16) The research is part of a wider $70 million project that began in 2000 which aims to develop hardware capable of adapting to the behavior of its user.(ref 17)

Quite apart from linguistic information, images have been extracted from the brain. Researchers at Japan’s ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories have been able to reconstruct images that a subject can currently see. The ultimate goal of the unclassified project is to view both retinal and imagined images in real-time, including dreams. (ref 18)

==Computer mediation==

Computer mediation falls into two basic categories, interpretative and interactive.

Interpretative mediation is the passive analysis of signals coming from the human brain. A computer “reads” the signal then compares that signal against a database of signals and their meanings. Using statistical analysis and repetition, false-positives are reduced over time.

Interactive mediation can be in a passive-active mode, or active-active mode. In this case, passive and active denote the method of reading and writing to the brain and whether or not they make use of a broadcast signal. Interactive mediation can also be performed manually or via artificial intelligence.

Manual interactive mediation involves a human operator producing return signals such as speech or images. A.I. mediation leverages the cognitive system of the subject to identify images, pre-speech, objects, sounds and other artifacts, rather than developing A.I. routines to perform such activities. A.I. based systems may incorporate natural language processing interfaces that produce sensations, mental impressions, humor and conversation to provide a mental picture of a computerized personality. Not only can this A.I hold a conversation via the internal monologue but it may also perform routing of information to and from specific groups or individuals. This provides a broad range of potential applications from acting as a communications system to conducting interrogations.

This latter form is currently being researched at UC Irvine for an unclassified US military project. (ref 19) Given the high value to espionage and counter-terrorism, it is likely that such a system is already deployed in a classified manner.

==Military uses==

In a military context, the first obvious uses is to both read and write information to the internal monologue. This provides two major areas of interest, the first being two-way communication for field agents and the second is the intelligence gathering and interrogation. A fundamental problem arises when using the system for communication purposes, in that, it is impossible to authenticate the source of the transmission. Synthetic telepathy has limited uses as a communication system unless direct-contact headset systems are used and supported by encrypted channels. As such, standard radios are more effective in combat situations. Synthetic telepathy also requires the thought stream to be processed which results in a minor lapse of attention, rather like a daydream, that could have deadly consequences on the battlefield.

With respect to intelligence gathering and interrogations, synthetic telepathy has a wide range of drawbacks and limitations. Contrary to popular belief, synthetic telepathy does not provide the ability to read a person’s mind or memories. What it does provide is the ability to read the internal monologue (or anything that causes electrical change/radiation) and the trick is to get the subject to “voice” their memories and cross-reference that with their emotional state. In other words, basic psychological manipulation is a key factor and makes the technology not much more reliable than a standard lie-detector test. In practice, passive monitoring of the internal monologue over a long time period (months-years) is probably the most effective method of intelligence gathering.

The capability to put a person into a state of hypnosis is often touted by conspiracy theorists. In actual fact, the suggestive capabilities of synthetic telepathy use a different mechanism, basic impulses and sensations. This is merely a different form of writing to the brain. To formulate thought, the brain has a pipeline through which information is processed. (ref 20) At its most basic, impulses guide human behavior and manipulation of these impulses provides a strategic advantage in both combat and political situations. By altering the motivational factors of a target subject or group, it makes it easier to guide their higher level decision making processes.

Crowd or riot control can be achieved by generating impulses that are essentially common to all humans, resulting in the dispersion of crowds or a willingness to co-operate with authorities. This type of synthetic telepathy is arguably a political tool as it suppresses dissent. (ref 21)

Amnesia (retrograde and anterograde) can be induced as any active signal is essentially interferring with normal operations of the brain. Thus, transfer from shortterm to longterm memory can be inhibited. (ref 22) Vision and auditory systems could also be compromised, as with any neural processing system, corruption of the inputs would result in halucinations, much like the effects of LSD. With a proper interface to such regions, events such as “alien abductions” or “seeing God” could be faked quite readily and “mental illness” used as a cover for the extraction of information. (ref 23, 24, 25)

==Silent Sound Spread Spectrum (SSSS/S-Quad)==

ITV News Service, in March 1991, produced a report of ultrasound piggybacked on a commercial radio broadcast (100Mhz) aimed at entraining the brains of Iraqi troops and creating feelings of despair. (ref 26) This has been related to United States Patent 5,159,703 awarded to Oliver M. Lowery which refers to a “silent communications system in which nonaural carriers, in the very low or very high audio frequency range or in the adjacent ultrasonic frequency spectrum, are amplitude or frequency modulated with the desired intelligence and propagated acoustically or vibrationally, for inducement into the brain, typically through the use of loudspeakers, earphones or piezoelectric transducers.”(ref 27)

Human hearing is roughly in the range of 20Hz-20,000Hz (20 kHz), although a human adult will lose the ability to hear the higher ranges as they grow older. In addition, most cheap radios have a limited frequency response range (ref 28) that will be unable to reproduce silent sound as encoded originally making it ineffective.

As such, an alternative explanation for the effectiveness of S-Quad is provided in human biology:

1. Cells amplifying radio signals at certain frequencies.
2. Cells can demodulate voice on a basic carrier wave.

This is not as strange as it seems, it has been noted for a long time that fillings, or dental braces, can result in radio stations being heard in the mouth of an individual. (ref 29)

==Mind control==

Conspiracy theory and popular science fiction would have the world believe that the human mind can be remotely controlled. That individuals can be turned into mindless automatons and directly controlled by computers to produce sleepers or assassins. (ref 30) The reality is much less clear.

Interfacing remotely to write to the brain is performed using electrical interference rather like crosstalk (electronics). (ref 31) Much like a drill next to a television, the interference pattern is processed by the brain as information, a variant which induces sensations and feelings is known as Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. (ref 32) As such, an externally generated monologue will be weaker than the internal monologue of the target subject due to a lesser signal strength. An over-powering signal would interrupt a wide range of neural functions that could impact critical autonomic systems resulting in death.

Two possible methods exist that could result in an individual killing another through the use of synthetic telepathy. The first is to leverage the natural behavior of the target subject, that is, use an individual who would kill another. The second is to induce psychotic symptoms and diminish their mental control (ref 33, 34) In both cases, the underlying mechanics are the same, to provide impulses and sensations that urge the individual to commit murder. This is not hypnosis, but merely physiological manipulation without the knowledge of the target.

Another area of interest and arguably more feasible, is the manipulation of political figures. (ref 35)Thoughts, sensations and impulses can be combined to influence political and personal decision making processes. A similar process can be used to effect the population at large to drive agendas or to maintain power for certain groups, undermining free will and self-expression. (ref 36) As the technology matures and expands to regimes throughout the globe, this will be a major source of concern for governments world-wide.

Finally, we come to the area of interrogations which can be conducted remotely whilst an individual or groups is conducting their normal daily business. The internet is saturated with such reports (ref 37) and as a possible side-effect is psychosis, it is quite likely that at least some of them are accurate.

==In law==
The term “psychotronic”, short for psycho-electronic ( ref 38) was used in the proposed Bill H.R. 2977 Space Preservation Act of 2001, which listed “psychotronic” as a list of possible spaceborne weapons which would be banned by the Act (ref 39)

In 2001, President Vladimir V. Putin signed into law a bill making it illegal to employ “electromagnetic, infrasound … radiators” and other weapons of “psychotronic influence” with intent to cause harm.

As a completely unnatural event, it is arguable that this type of technology when employed in interrogations would be classified as “cruel or unusual”. Further to this, A.I. mediated events such as mock executions or death threats would also violate the Geneva convention, International law and laws of most nations in the developed world. Counter-claims focusing on National Security would be invalid as criminal activity is, in itself, a gross violation of National Security

The European Parliament adopted a resolution on January 28, 1999[38], 28.1.99 Environment, security and foreign affairs A4-0005/99:

23. Calls on the European Union to seek to have the new ‘non-lethal’ weapons technology and the development of new arms
strategies also covered and regulated by international conventions …

27. Calls for an international convention introducing a global ban on all developments and deployments of weapons which might
enable any form of manipulation of human beings

==In the media==

60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl interviewed Tom Mitchell of Carnegie Mellon University on his work in “Thought Identification” using fMRI. (ref 40) The segment, published Jan. 4, 2009 and available on the CBS website, shows associate producer Meghan Frank having his thoughts identified by computer. (ref 41) The segment shows that a generalizable pattern exists in the human brain that can be used to identify thoughts without training a computer for each individual with 100% accuracy.

==Further reading==
Dr Nick Begich – Controlling the Human Mind, Earth Pulse Press Anchorage – isbn=1-890693-54-5}}
Walter Bowart – http://www.scribd.com/doc/24531011/Operation-Mind-Control
John Marks – In Search of the Manchurian Candidate, publisher WW Norton & Co, 1979, isbn=0-393-30794-8

==References==
1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27162401/ – Army developing ‘synthetic telepathy’
2. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/HealthSci/US_army_developing_synthetic_telepathy/ articleshow/3596708.cms – US army developing synthetic telepathy
3.url= http://io9.com/5038464/army-sinks-millions-into-synthetic-telepathy-research – Army Sinks Millions Into “Synthetic Telepathy” Research
4. http://io9.com/5065304/tips-and-tricks-for-mind-control-from-the-us-military – Tips and Tricks for Mind Control from the US Military
5. http://cnslab.ss.uci.edu/muri/research.html#Dewan – MURI: Synthetic Telepathy
6. http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=3951134&KC=&FT=E – Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain waves
7. http://cnslab.ss.uci.edu/muri/research.html#FarwellDonchin – MURI: Synthetic Telepathy
8. http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=6011991&KC=&FT=E – Communication system and method including brain wave analysis and/or use of brain activity
9. http://www.sst.ws/tempstandards.php?pab=1_1 – TEMPEST measurement standards
10. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-2977 – Space Preservation Act of 2001
11. http://www.raven1.net/silsoun2.htm – PSY-OPS WEAPONRY USED IN THE PERSIAN GULF WAR}}
12. Wall, Judy, “Military Use of Mind Control Weapons”, NEXUS, 5/06, Oct-Nov 1998
13. Soldier-Telepathy” Drummond, Katie – Pentagon Preps Soldier Telepathy Push – http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/pentagon-preps-soldier-telepathy-push
14. http://cnslab.ss.uci.edu/muri/research.html – MURI: Synthetic Telepathy
15. Soldier-Telepathy” Drummond, Katie – Pentagon Preps Soldier Telepathy Push – http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/pentagon-preps-soldier-telepathy-push
16. Soldier-Telepathy” Drummond, Katie – Pentagon Preps Soldier Telepathy Push – http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/pentagon-preps-soldier-telepathy-push
17. Noah, Shachtman – Pentagon’s PCs Bend to Your Brain – http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/03/the_us_military
18. http://pinktentacle.com/2008/12/scientists-extract-images-directly-from-brain/ – Scientists extract images directly from brain
19. http://cnslab.ss.uci.edu/muri/research.html#Overview – MURI: Synthetic Telepathy -Overview
20. http://cnslab.ss.uci.edu/muri/research.html#ImaginedSpeechProduction – MURI: Synthetic Telepathy
21. http://www.slavery.org.uk/Bioeffects_of_Selected_Non-Lethal_Weapons.pdf -Bioeffects of selected non-lethal weapons
22. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a785359968 – Partial Amnesia for a Narrative Following Application of Theta Frequency Electromagnetic Fields
23. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html – This Is Your Brain on God
24. http://www.charlesrehn.com/charlesrehn/books/aconversationwithamerica/essays/myessays/The%20NSA.doc – The NSA & Synthetic Telepathy
25. http://www.uwe.ac.uk/hlss/research/cpss/Journal_Psycho-Social_Studies/v2-2/SmithC.shtml – Journal of Psycho-Social Studies – Vol 2 (2) 2003 – On the Need for New Criteria of Diagnosis of Psychosis in the Light of Mind Invasive Technology by Dr. Carole Smith
26. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_nonlethalweapons02.htm – Eleanor White – New Devices That ‘Talk’ To The Human Mind Need Debate, Controls
27. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,159,703.PN.&OS=PN/5,159,703&RS=PN/5,159,703 – Silent subliminal presentation system
28. http://www.audioholics.com/education/loudspeaker-basics/understanding-loudspeaker-frequency-response | – Understanding Loudspeaker Frequency Response
29. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=367925 – Q: Radio signals picked up by tooth fillings
30. http://cbcg.org/gjcs1.htm| – God’s Judgment Cometh Soon
31. http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/6587729.html – Apparatus for audibly communicating speech using the radio frequency hearing effect
32. http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/lpxdts/TMS%20info.html – Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
33. http://www.scribd.com/doc/6508206/SYNTHETIC-TELEPATHY-AND-THE-EARLY-MIND-WARS – SYNTHETIC TELEPATHY AND THE EARLY MIND WARS
34. http://newdawnmagazine.com.au/Article/Brain_Zapping_Part_One.html – Brain Zapping
35. http://genamason.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/more-on-synthetic-telepathy/ – More on synthetic telepathy
36. http://newdawnmagazine.com.au/Article/Brain_Zapping_Part_One.html – Brain Zapping
37. http://daprocess.com/01.welcome.html – DaProcess of A Federal Investigation PG 1 of 4
38. , http://www.uwe.ac.uk/hlss/research/cpss/Journal_Psycho-Social_Studies/v2-2/SmithC.shtml -Journal of Psycho-Social Studies – Vol 2 (2) 2003 – On the Need for New Criteria of Diagnosis of Psychosis in the Light of Mind Invasive Technology by Dr. Carole Smith
39. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-2977 – Space Preservation Act of 2001
40. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/31/60minutes/main4694713.shtml – 60 Minutes: Incredible Research Lets Scientists Get A Glimpse At Your Thoughts
41. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5119805n&tag=related;photovideo – 60 Minutes: Video – Mind Reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_telepathy

SYNTHETIC TELEPATHY AND ELECTROMAGNETIC TORTURE

SYNTHETIC TELEPATHY AND ELECTROMAGNETIC TORTURE

The old 1950s building at 610 E 15th St MPLS was renovated for low income persons with MI disabilities in 2005. The NRP grant was about US $ 3 million. Some of the apartments were designated for testing slowkill miniaturized direct energy weapons systems (DEW) and synthetic telepathy system and through- wall surveillance equipment. The human experimentation is done without the consent of the building’s tenants. There is more than one apartment with the DEW and synthetic telepathy system. The firm that did the renovations had the miniaturized robotic system hidden in the ceiling and in the walls as part of the construction.

Direct Energy Weapon ( DEW) : These are nonlethal slowkill low frequency electromagnetic , lasers or microwave weapons. These are called weapons of the 21st century. Persons with Mental Illness are chosen as subjects / targets for testing these weapons as they cannot complain.

Synthetic Telepathy: is the art of electronically transferring thought directly to and from a brain- a Pentagon term used for systems that can read and broadcast thoughts (subconscious voice) and control dreams using electromagnetic properties of the human brain.

I had already tested implantable earpiece for Federal agencies and their contractors. I was given the apartment without the knowledge that I’d be tortured by espionage trainees using the earpiece, DEW, through-wall surveillance and synthetic telepathy.

The crafters carefully selected the operators to be from specific rival ethnicity and/or clan, so bond would NOT develop during the training or used gang stalking to demonize the targeted individual.

The synthetic telepathy espionage trainees in order to avoid developing any sympathy for their targeted victims, probably avoid feeling the emotions of their victims, although they do read the emotional state of their victims by following the squiggly EEG or Electroencephalograph lines on computer monitor screens, as well as the silent words thought by their victims. Then again, who can feel all te emotions which a person has undergone every second of all of their life? The emotions and silent words of their victims can be broadcast against their will to anyone the synthetic telepathy torturers choose to broadcast to, and they also have the power to block or censor any emotions and words of their victims which they do not want to be broadcast. The synthetic telepathy spies can also place their own criminal or antisocial, negative emotions and words into their victims by means of subliminal, subconscious, remote control microwave brainwashing technology, and they can change the voice behind their words so as to make it appear that it is the targeted victim and not themselves who are communicating by means of synthetic telepathy. They can also store emotions and silently spoken or silently thought words onto a supercomputer memory bank which they can rebroadcast at a later time. I believe that the synthetic telepathy operators, although having high I.Q.’s, are probably predisposed towards sociopathic behaviour because of a genetic defect or combination of genetic defects, and that the only way they can sustain enthusiasm in their life is by engaging in an addictive pattern of sadiomasochistic activities. They are probably also atheist in their religious beliefs.

Pre-crime Technology in Minneapolis Homes

Pre-crime Technology in Minneapolis Homes

Pre-crime Technology in Minneapolis Homes

The world has entered “a new age” in criminality, an era in which common murders and thieves have become less perils to society than “new age” criminals who use technology to commit their crimes. The main aim of any criminal is A) to get an easy target and B) to get away without punishment. Technology can both be the medium to commit bias motivated crime and vehicle to get away from the victim. It provides a means as well as barrier. This gets more complicated if hate crime offenders infiltrate law enforcement as crime can be easily covered up without forensic traces.

The FBI defines a bias motivated crime as “a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity or national origin.”

American society is diverse and US laws protect against bias motivated crimes. American society is society based on clear and certain truths intended for all citizens and communities and stated in the Declaration of Independence –certain rights that are unalienable such as the right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.
A good example of “new age crime” would be organized crime syndicates following their business competitors and victims via the internet to commit crime by infiltrating law enforcement and local municipalities. Public-Private Partnerships sometimes evaluate deployment of vendor’s technology in an operational environment within a State or local law enforcement agency. These Public-Private Partnerships abuse minorities as subjects for their evaluation of equipment without compensation and that amounts to bias motivated crime. These Public-Private Partnerships are open to loop holes and corruption. Another example of “new age crime” would be overseas organized crime following their victims from overseas to America to destroy business competition.

The items to be tested for spy ware vendors include wireless ear piece, eyelash camera and because of serendipity the robotic system in 610 E 15th St, MPLS. The subject person becomes property of the vendor. The vendor will always monitor its secret gadgets like the ear piece (spy ware that’s implantable in ears). Russians become translators and operators for the ear piece, camera and robotic system. The Russian immigrants or Soviet Émigré have taken advantage of the Public-Private Partnerships and commit bias motivated crimes on US soil.

The only option for the vendors to shut down the operation is to pay out the subject or conspire to demonize him. Vendors hope that, like in MINORITY REPORT, some PRECRIME department will arrest/kill him in violation of the constitution. For this purpose the vendors collude with local informants and set up a website to follow the story of the subject person. These informants and visitors of the website harass the subject whenever they see him.

The vendors of Minnesota State and Local law enforcement in Minneapolis have violated the US constitution by installing neurological brain scanners in people’s homes without their knowledge. They targeted the most defenseless of all the citizens – namely the disabled and refugees for this human experimentation without consent. These scanners are part of the construction and hard to discover. By using software that’s open to manipulation these scanners can read people’s intentions or inner voices before they act, thus detecting whether or not a person has “hostile intent”.

This human experimentation is against the Common Rule & Nuremberg Code Article # 1:

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”

The apartment has robotic system that’s part of the renovation construction in 2005-2006. The robotic system is hidden in the walls and the ceiling and is part of the construction. Some of the apartments in 610 E 15th St building have the equipment. It is to be tested on people with MI disabilities. The planners would not have known who’d occupy the apartment except people with MI disabilities. The intelligence agencies’ vendors are testing the robotic system in operational setting.

The robotic system has infrared cameras, lasers, and neurological brain scanners. It includes equipment that can shoot magnetic pulse from light bulb. The robotic system includes chemical dispensers like sprinkler that highly accurate.

The robotic system is complex and includes the telepathic system that is to be used for interrogations. The work of the intelligence agencies is to gather background information. The background information is used to construct “fake dreams” using the robotic system. The telepathic equipment projects snippets of subjects’ background information and then solicits a comment. Sometimes it plays /projects a short video onto the fore lobe of the brain and the subjects’ brain reads/copies the story. The videos include stories from background history or even sex videos. It’s sort of like the equipment in the movie INCEPTION. The monitors try to plant an idea or copy story into the subjects’ brain.

The robotic system is used to train agents from all over the US especially Illinois (IL) and Minnesota (MN). The subjects of the training are people with disabilities / immigrants. After noticing the equipment, low-income persons with disabilities have limited options when it comes to housing. The cops who are training consider the subjects as real “future” criminals.

These technologies will be used for the introduction of pre-crime laws that are against the current justice system in which presumption of innocence is used. The technology testers in Minneapolis use the subjects’ FBI / CIA intelligence file and background or from another intelligence org for projecting future behavior. FBI and CIA are prohibited from engaging in illegal experimentation by the COMMON RULE.