Worldwide Campaign to stop the Abuse and Torture of Mind Control/DEWs

Satellite Surveillance including:

GPS Tracking

See through Wall

Reading your mind with implants

Reading your mind without an implants


Intrusive Brain Reading Surveillance Technology: Hacking the Mind

by Carole Smith

“Carole Smith describes claims that neuroscientists are developing brain scans that can read people’s intentions in the absence of serious discussions about the ethical issues this raises, despite the fact that the research has been backed by government in the UK and US.”
“We need a program of psychosurgery for political control of our society. The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated.

The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective. Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electronically control the brain. Someday armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain.

Dr José Delgado.Director of Neuropsychiatry, Yale University Medical School Congressional Record, No. 26, Vol. 118 February 24, 1974.


The Guardian newspaper, that defender of truth in the United Kingdom, published an article by the Science Correspondent, Ian Sample, on 9 February 2007 entitled:

‘The Brain Scan that can read people’s intentions’, with the sub-heading: ‘Call for ethical debate over possible use of new technology in interrogation”.

“Using the scanner, we could look around the brain for this information and read out something that from the outside there's no way you could possibly tell is in there. It's like shining a torch around, looking for writing on a wall”, the scientists were reported as saying.


At the same time, London’s Science Museum was holding an exhibition entitled ‘Neurobotics: The Future of Thinking’. This venue had been chosen for the launch in October 2006 of the news that human thoughts could be read using a scanner. Dr Geraint Rees’ smiling face could be seen in a photograph at the Neurobotics website[1], under the heading “The Mind Reader”. Dr Rees is one of the scientists who have apparently cracked the problem which has preoccupied philosophers and scientists since before Plato: they had made entry into the conscious mind. Such a reversal of human historical evolution, announced in such a pedestrian fashion, makes one wonder what factors have been in play, and what omissions made, in getting together this show, at once banal and extraordinary. The announcement arrives as if out of a vacuum. The neuroscientist - modern-style hunter-gatherer of information and darling of the “Need to Know” policies of modern government - does little to explain how he achieved this goal of entering the conscious mind, nor does he put his work into any historical context. Instead, we are asked in the Science Museum’s programme notes:

How would you feel if someone could read your innermost thoughts? Geraint Rees of UCL says he can. By using brain-imaging technology he's beginning to decode thought and explore the difference between the conscious and unconscious mind. But how far will it go? And shouldn’t your thoughts remain your personal business?

If Dr Rees has decoded the mind sufficiently for such an announcement to be made in an exhibition devoted to it, presumably somewhere is the mind which has been, and is continuing to be, decoded. He is not merely continuing his experiments using functional magnetic resolution scanning (fMRI) in the way neuroscientists have been observing their subjects under scanning devices for years, asking them to explain what they feel or think while the scientists watch to see which area lights up, and what the cerebral flow in the brain indicates for various brain areas. Dr Rees is decoding the mind in terms of conscious and unconscious processes. For that, one must have accessed consciousness itself. Whose consciousness? Where is the owner of that consciousness – and unconsciousness? How did he/she feel? Why not ask them to tell us how it feels, instead of asking us.


The Neurobotics Exhibition was clearly set up to make these exciting new discoveries an occasion for family fun, and there were lots of games for visitors to play. One gets the distinct impression that we are being softened up for the introduction of radical new technology which will, perhaps, make the mind a communal pool rather than an individual possession. Information technology seeks to connect us all to each other in as many ways as possible, but also, presumably, to those vast data banks which allow government control not only to access all information about our lives, but now also to our thoughts, even to our unconscious processing. Does anyone care?

One of the most popular exhibits was the ‘Mindball’ game, which required two players to go literally head-to-head in a battle for brainpower, and used ‘brainpower’ alone. Strapped up with headbands which pick up brain waves, the game uses neurofeedback, but the person who is calm and relaxed wins the game. One received the impression that this calmness was the spirit that the organisers wished to reinforce, to deflect any undue public panic that might arise from the news that private thoughts could now be read with a scanner.[2] The ingress into the mind as a private place was primarily an event to be enjoyed with the family on an afternoon out:

Imagine being able to control a computer with only the power of your mind. Or read people’s thoughts and know if they’re lying. And what if a magnetic shock to the brain could make you more creative…but should we be able to engineer our minds?

Think your thoughts are private? Ever told a lie and been caught red-handed? Using brain-scanning technology, scientists are beginning to probe our minds and tell if we’re lying. Other scientists are decoding our desires and exploring the difference between our conscious and unconscious mind. But can you really trust the technology?

Other searching questions are raised in the program notes, and more games:

Find out if you’ve got what it takes to be a modern-day spy in this new interactive family exhibition. After being recruited as a trainee spy, explore the skills and abilities required by real agents and use some of the latest technologies that help spies gather and analyse information. Later go on and discover what it’s like to be spied upon. Uncover a secret store of prototype gadgets that give you a glimpse into the future of spy technologies and finally use everything you’ve learnt to escape before qualifying as a fully-fledged agent!

There were also demonstrations of grateful paraplegics and quadriplegics showing how the gods of science have so unselfishly liberated them from their prisons: this was the serious Nobel Prize side of the show. But there was no-one representing Her Majesty’s government to demonstrate how these very same devices[3] can be used quite freely, and with relative ease, in our wireless age[4], to conduct experiments on free-ranging civilians tracked anywhere in the world, and using an infinitely extendable form of electrode which doesn’t require visible contact with the scalp at all. Electrodes, like electricity, can also take an invisible form – an electrode is a terminal of an electric source through which electrical energy or current may flow in or out. The brain itself is an electrical circuit. Every brain has its own unique resonating frequency. The brain is an infinitely more sensitive receiver and transmitter than the computer, and even in the wireless age, the comprehension of how wireless networks operate appears not to extend to the workings of the brain. The monotonous demonstration of scalps with electrodes attached to them, in order to demonstrate the contained conduction of electrical charges, is a scientific fatuity, in so far as it is intended to demonstrate comprehensively the capability of conveying charges to the brain, or for that matter, to any nerve in the body, as a form of invisible torture.


As Neurobotics claims: ‘Your brain is amazing’, but the power and control over brains and nervous systems achieved by targeting brain frequencies with radiowaves must have been secretly amazing government scientists for many years. The problem that now arises, at the point of readiness when so much has been achieved, is how to put the technology into action in such a way, as it will be acceptable in the public domain. This requires getting it through wider government and legal bodies, and for that, it must be seen to spring from the unbiased scientific investigations into the workings of the brain, in the best tradition of the leading universities. It is given over to Dr Rees and his colleague, Professor Haynes, endowed with the disclosure for weightier Guardian readers, to carry the torch for the government. Those involved may also have noted the need to show the neuroscientist in a more responsible light, following US neuroengineer for government sponsored Lockheed Martin, John Norseen’s, ingenuous comment, in 2000, about his belief about the consequences of his work in fMRI:

‘If this research pans out’, said Norseen, ‘you can begin to manipulate what someone is thinking even before they know it.’ And added: “The ethics don’t concern me, but they should concern someone else.”

While the neuroscientists report their discovery (without even so much as the specific frequency of the light employed by this scanner/torch), issuing ethical warnings while incongruously continuing with their mind-blowing work, the government which sponsors them, remains absolutely mute. The present probing of people’s intentions, minds, background thoughts, hopes and emotions[5] is being expanded into the more complex and subtle aspects of thinking and feeling. We have, however, next to no technical information about their methods. The description of ‘shining a torch around the brain’ is as absurd a report as one could read of a scientific endeavour, especially one that carries such enormous implications for the future of mankind. What is this announcement, with its technical obfuscation, preparing us for?


Writing in Wired[6] contributing editor Steve Silberman points out that the lie-detection capability of fMRI is ‘poised to transform the security system, the judicial system, and our fundamental notions of privacy’. He quotes Cephos founder, Steven Laken, whose company plans to market the new technology for lie detection. Laken cites detainees held without charge at Guantanamo Bay as a potential example. ‘If these detainees have information we haven’t been able to extract that could prevent another 9/11, I think most Americans would agree that we should be doing whatever it takes to extract it’. Silberman also quotes Paul Root Wolpe, a senior fellow at the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, who describes the accelerated advances in fMRI as ‘ a textbook example of how something can be pushed forward by the convergence of basic science, the government directing research through funding, and special interests who desire a particular technology’. Are we to believe that with the implied capability to scan jurors’ brains, the judiciary, the accused and the defendant alike, influencing[7] one at the expense of the other, that the legal implications alone of mind-accessing scanners on university campuses, would not rouse the Minister for Justice from his bench to say a few words about these potential mind weapons?

So what of the ethical debate called for by the busy scientists and the Guardian’s science reporter?[8] Can this technology- more powerful in subverting thought itself than anything in prior history – really be confined to deciding whether the ubiquitously invoked terrorist has had the serious intention of blowing up the train, or whether it was perhaps a foolish prank to make a bomb out of chapatti flour? We can assume that the government would certainly not give the go-ahead to the Science Museum Exhibition, linked to Imperial College, a major government-sponsored institution in laser-physics, if it was detrimental to surveillance programs. It is salutary to bear in mind that government intelligence research is at least ten years ahead of any public disclosure. It is implicit from history that whatever affords the undetectable entry by the gatekeepers of society into the brain and mind, will not only be sanctioned, but funded and employed by the State, more specifically by trained operatives in the security forces, given powers over defenceless citizens, and unaccountable to them.[9]

The actual technology which is now said to be honing the technique ‘to distinguish between passing thoughts and genuine intentions’ is described by Professor John-Dylan Haynes in the Guardian in the most disarmingly untechnical language which must surely not have been intended to enlighten.

The Guardian piece ran as follows:

A team of world-leading neuroscientists has developed a powerful technique that allows them to look deep inside a person’s brain and read their intentions before they act.

The research breaks controversial new ground in scientists’ ability to probe people’s minds and eavesdrop on their thoughts, and raises serious ethical issues over how brain-reading technology may be used in the future.

‘Using the scanner, we could look around the brain for this information and read out something that from the outside there's no way you could possibly tell is in there. It's like shining a torch around, looking for writing on a wall,’ said John-Dylan Haynes at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Germany, who led the study with colleagues at University College London and Oxford University.


We know therefore that they are using light, but fMRI has been used for many years to attempt the unravelling of neuronal activity, and while there have been many efforts to record conscious and unconscious processes, with particular emphasis on the visual cortex, there has been no progress into consciousness itself. We can be sure that we are not being told the real story.

Just as rats and chimpanzees have been used to demonstrate findings from remote experiments on humans, electrode implants used on cockroaches to remotely control them, lasers used to steer fruit-flies[10] [11], and worms engineered so that their nerves and muscles can be controlled with pinpricks of light[12], the information and techniques that have been ruthlessly forged using opportunistic onslaughts on defenceless humans as guinea pigs - used for myriad purposes from creating 3D haptic gloves in computer games to creating artificial intelligence to send visual processing into outer space - require appropriate replication for peer group approval and to meet ethical demands for scientific and public probity.

The use of light to peer into the brain is almost certainly that of terahertz, which occurs in the wavelengths which lie between 30mm and 1mm of the electromagnetic spectrum. Terahertz has the ability to penetrate deep into organic materials, without (it is said) the damage associated with ionising radiation such as x-rays. It can distinguish between materials with varying water content – for example fat versus lean meat. These properties lend themselves to applications in process and quality control as well as biomedical imaging. Terahertz can penetrate bricks, and also human skulls. Other applications can be learnt from the major developer of terahertz in the UK, Teraview, which is in Cambridge, and partially owned by Toshiba.


Efforts to alert human rights’ groups about the loss of the mind as a place to call your own, have met with little discernible reaction, in spite of reports about over decades of the dangers of remote manipulation using technology to access the mind[13], Dr Nick Begich’s book, Controlling the human mind[14], being an important recent contribution. A different approach did in fact, elicit a response. When informed of the use of terahertz at Heathrow and Luton airports in the UK to scan passengers, the news that passengers would be revealed naked by a machine which looked directly through their clothes produced a small, but highly indignant, article in the spring 2007 edition of the leading human rights organisation, Liberty.[15] If the reading of the mind met with no protest, seeing through one’s clothes certainly did. It seems humans’ assumption of the mind as a private place has been so secured by evolution that it will take a sustained battle to convince the public that, through events of which we are not yet fully informed, such former innocence has been lost.

Trained light, targeted atomic spectroscopy, the use of powerful magnets to absorb moisture from human tissues, the transfer of radiative energy – these have replaced the microwave harassment which was used to transmit auditory messages directly into the hearing.[16] With the discovery of light to disentangle thousands of neurons and encode signals from the complex circuitry of the brain, present programs will not even present the symptoms which simulated schizoid states. Medically, even if terahertz does not ionise, we do not yet know how the sustained application of intense light will affect the delicate workings of the brain and how cells might be damaged, dehydrated, stretched, obliterated.


This year, 2007, has also brought the news that terahertz lasers small enough to incorporate into portable devices had been developed.[17]

Sandia National Laboratories in the US in collaboration with MIT have produced a transmitter-receiver (transceiver) that enables a number of applications. In addition to scanning for explosives, we may also assume their integration into hand-held communication systems. ‘These semiconductor devices have output powers which previously could only be obtained by molecular gas lasers occupying cubic meters and weighing more than 100kg, or free electron lasers weighing tons and occupying buildings.’ As far back as 1996 the US Air Force Scientific Advisory Board predicted that the development of electromagnetic energy sources would ‘open the door for the development of some novel capabilities that can be used in armed conflict, in terrorist/hostage situations, and in training’ and ‘new weapons that offer the opportunity of control of an adversary … can be developed around this concept’.[18]


The surveillance technology of today is the surveillance of the human mind and, through access to the brain and nervous system, the control of behaviour and the body’s functions. The messaging of auditory hallucinations has given way to silent techniques of influencing and implanting thoughts. The development of the terahertz technologies has illuminated the workings of the brain, facilitated the capture of emitted photons which are derived from the visual cortex which processes picture formation in the brain, and enabled the microelectronic receiver which has, in turn, been developed by growing unique semi-conductor crystals. In this way, the technology is now in place for the detection and reading of spectral ‘signatures’ of gases. All humans emit gases. Humans, like explosives, emit their own spectral signature in the form of a gas. With the reading of the brain’s electrical frequency, and of the spectral gas signature, the systems have been established for the control of populations – and with the necessary technology integrated into a cell-phone.

‘We are very optimistic about working in the terahertz electromagnetic spectrum,’ says the principal investigator of the Terahertz Microelectronics Transceiver at Sandia: ‘This is an unexplored area, and a lot of science can come out of it. We are just beginning to scratch the surface of what THz can do to improve national security’.


Carole Smith was born and educated in Australia, where she gained a Bachelor of Arts degree at Sydney University. She trained as a psychoanalyst in London where she has had a private practice. In recent years she has been a researcher into the invasive methods of accessing minds using technological means, and has published papers on the subject. She has written the first draft of a book entitled: “The Controlled Society”.



[1] <a href="" target="_blank">"">;

At the time of writing it is still accessible. The exhibition ran from October 2006 to April 2007.

[2] Where are the scanners? Who controls them? Are they guarded by police to avoid them being stolen by terrorists? How many are they in number? Are they going into mass production? Do we have any say about their deployment? It is perhaps not unduly paranoid to want to have some answers to these questions.

[3] There is insufficient space here to deal with microchips, the covert implantation of radio transmitting devices which were referred to in Senator Glenn’s extraordinary speech to Congress on the occasion of his attempt to introduce the Human Research Subject Protection Act in 1997:

<a href="" target="_blank">""></a>;

[4] Ref: The Coming Wireless revolution: When Everything Connects: The Economist: 26 April 2007.

<a href="" target="_blank">"">;

[5] Guardian: ‘The Brain Scan that can read people’s intentions’: 9 February 2007. <a href=",2009229,00.html" target="_blank">"">,2009229,00.html</a>;

[6] <a href="" target="_blank">""></a>;

[7] I say, ‘influencing’, advisedly since the technology that enables thoughts to be accessed, certainly also allows for the dulling of mental processes, the interference of memory, the excitation of mental or bodily processes, the infliction of pain on any organ or nerve, the increase of blood pressure, breathing or the slowing down of these, as well as the activation of rage, sadness, hysteria, or inappropriate behaviour. Ref:John Norseen’s work: Images of Mind: The Semiotic Alphabet. The implantation of silent messages, experienced as thoughts arising in the mind, is now possible.

[8] Despite three letters to the Guardian science correspondent, and Editor, I had no reply from them, having asked them to consider my points, as psychoanalyst and researcher, for the ethical debate which was called for. Nor was there any response from my approach to the Cambridge ethicists and scientists who were said to be forming a committee. I have seen no correspondence nor reference to the whole matter since February, 2007. There was some marked regression in the New Scientist about worms being used for experiments for remote control

See: Douglas Fox, ‘Remote Control Brains: a neuroscience revolution’, New Scientist, 18 July 2007.

[9] The covert action group in the newly formed CIA recommended to President Eisenhower in 1954 that the US must pursue “a fundamentally repugnant philosophy”, and that they must learn to “subvert, sabotage and destroy” its enemies by “more clever and more ruthless methods” than those of its opponents:

Ref: James Doolittle et al: “The Central Intelligence Agency: History and Documents (Univ.Alabama Press, 1984.

[10] Fruit flies share to a remarkable degree, the DNA of humans.
[11] Fruit Flies and You: NASA sends fruit flies into Space:

<a href="" target="_blank">""><...;

[12] Ref: New Scientist, 18 July 2007: ‘Remote Control Brains: a neuroscience revolution’:

<a href="" target="_blank">""><...;

[13] See author’s paper: <a href="" target="_blank">""></a>;

[14] Nick Begich, Controlling the human mind: the technologies of political control or tools for peak performance, Earthpulse Press Publications.

[15] Liberty, and Lawyers for Liberty have staunchly maintained a thorough-going campaign against the protracted government plan to issue biometric ID cards, taking the case to the House of Lords where they have gained support. In view of the undisclosed work being carried out which will enable direct access to the brain through the technology coming to light, and using light, one cannot but suspect that the biometric ID card is but an adjunct to the tracking and data sourcing of citizens, and as such has fulfilled the function of a very effective smokescreen, having deflected the energies of the protectors of individual liberties in terms of thousands of hours of concentrated protest effort, with enormous expenditure spent on their campaign.
[16] Human subjects, once computers for research experiments program them, remain targeted, even if the original reasons for their usage have become obsolete. Some have been continuously abused for over thirty years.
[17] Thz Lasers Small Enough for Screening Devices:

<a href="" target="_blank">""></a>; news/2007/February/7/86317.aspx

<a href="" target="_blank">"">;

[18] <a href="" target="_blank">""></a>;

Global Research Articles by Carole Smith


Please go to LAST PAGE OF "Replies to this Discussion" to read NEWEST Information

Views: 5683

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Satellite Surveillance Within U.S. Borders
A spy satellite owned and operated by the United States government can track the movements of individuals on the ground, identify cars, and, perhaps, even read a license plate—all while operating covertly hundreds of miles above in space and transmitting images in real time. Since 9-11 proved the reality that the United States is indeed vulnerable to attacks from within its borders, government spy satellites have been continuously and covertly snapping pictures of the United States. America’s spy satellite agency has even established a special section to focus on imagery of the United States. Moreover, a growing commercial spy satellite industry is profiting from selling slightly less detailed imagery to both the public and private sectors. The government is also vigorously developing its next generation of spy satellites.
Satellite Surveillance: Domestic Issues
Richard A. Best Jr. Specialist in National Defense
Jennifer K. Elsea Legislative Attorney
February 1, 2010
Congressional Research Service 7-5700
Reconnaissance satellites, first deployed in the early 1960s to peer into denied regions of the Soviet Union and other secretive enemy states, have from time to time been used by civilian agencies of the federal government to assist with mapping, disaster relief, and environmental concerns. These uses have been coordinated by the Civil Applications Office at the U.S. Geological Survey, a component of the Interior Department. Post 9/11, the Bush Administration sought to encourage use of satellite-derived data for homeland security and law enforcement
purposes, in addition to the civil applications that have been supported for years. In 2007, it moved to transfer responsibility for coordinating civilian use of satellites to the Department of Homeland Security. The initiative was launched, however, apparently without notification of key congressional oversight committees.

Members of Congress and outside groups raised concerns that using satellites for law enforcement purposes may infringe on the privacy and Fourth Amendment rights of U.S. persons. Other commentators questioned whether the proposed surveillance will violate the Posse Comitatus Act or other restrictions on military involvement in civilian law enforcement, or would otherwise exceed the statutory mandates of the agencies involved. Such concerns led Congress to preclude any funds in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2764, P.L. 110-161), from
being used to “commence operations of the National Applications Office ... until the Secretary [of the Department of Homeland Security] certifies that these programs comply with all existing laws, including all applicable privacy and civil liberties standards, and that certification is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.” (Section 525.) Similar language has been included in a subsequent Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-329) approved in September 2008.

The Obama Administration conducted its assessment of the issue and terminated the NAO in June 2009, maintaining that there were better information sharing programs to meet the needs of state and local homeland security partners. Little public information is available concerning current policies for the use of satellite information for domestic purposes.

This report provides background on the development of intelligence satellites and identifies the roles various agencies play in their management and use. Issues surrounding the current policy and proposed changes are discussed, including the findings of an Independent Study Group (ISG) with respect to the increased sharing of satellite intelligence data. There follows a discussion of legal considerations, including whether satellite reconnaissance might constitute a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment; an overview of statutory authorities, as well as restrictions that might apply; and a brief description of executive branch authorities and
Department of Defense directives that might apply. The report concludes by discussing policy issues Congress may consider as it deliberates the potential advantages and pitfalls that may be encountered in expanding the role of satellite intelligence for homeland security purposes.
Can A Satellite Read Your Thoughts? - Physics Revealed - Part 4
By Deep_Thought

The brain emits weak radio waves that can be detected and matched against a database of neural network patterns to reveal what was being thought.

Amounting to a security flaw, a radio transmitter can "replay", or transmit, those same frequencies and patterns causing a person to experience sound, images, thoughts, feelings, tastes and smells.

In the last article, we refined our figures for the detection of weak radio emissions, from a single neuron, at orbital distances. Whilst the signal was weak, less than -200dBW, it was nothing outrageous that a modern satellite array could not detect. In this article, I have decided to fill in some of the missing blanks when it comes to the actual mechanism that betrays our thoughts.

For those that have a deeper interest, or indeed are involved in Neuroscience, I have come across a scientific paper which should outline the principle in more scientific terms. The following paper, published in 1995, describes the electromagnetic induction of "fundamental algorithms", or neural networks, to generate any sensory perception required. We will get to how this functions in a moment, for now, have a quick read:

On the possibility of directly accessing every human brain by electromagnetic induction of fundamental algorithms.

Contemporary neuroscience suggests the existence of fundamental algorithms by which all sensory transduction is translated into an intrinsic, brain-specific code. Direct stimulation of these codes within the human temporal or limbic cortices by applied electromagnetic patterns may require energy levels which are within the range of both geomagnetic activity and contemporary communication networks. A process which is coupled to the narrow band of brain temperature could allow all normal human brains to be affected by a subharmonic whose frequency range at about 10 Hz would only vary by 0.1 Hz.
For our astute readers that have been following this series, this is identical to the implied mechanism cited by the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) in 1977. A full 18 years prior to the release of the above paper. The description is as follows:

The writer discusses Kogan's calculation on information transmission. While he points out that the calculations should not be considered as proof of the validity of the magnetic nature of telepathic signals nor if the existence of telepathy, he suggests that, if telepathy exists and if it takes place by means of radio waves, then one should look in the range of wavelengths of 300-1000 km.

So, how does this actually work?

Hacking The Brain
To understand the issue a little clearer, we will need to treat the human brain much like a computer with dedicated hardware. In this respect, what we are looking for is one, or more, security flaws that we can exploit. So, we have to come at this much like a hacker would.

We know from our previous articles that the brain emits weak radio frequencies in the sub-1000Hz range. The principles of radio tell us anything that can produce a radio signal, can also accept one. Thus, we have overcome our first major hurdle, the establishment of a physical transport layer. A physical transport layer allows for two-way communications.

Given that we know that no information is directly encoded onto the radio waves, the frequencies are unique due to axon properties and the supply of energy will cause a neuron to fire, we have now established a data transport layer. That is, data is not communicated, it is stimulated in the target and the target experiences whatever that stimulation corresponds to.

If we return to our hacker analogy, what we have found is the human brain, whilst using a spread spectrum and a highly discreet frequency response to eliminate cross-talk, is unable to label information and determine that it has been processed before. In short, the human brain is vulnerable to what is known as a replay attack.

I have provided two diagrams, on the right hand side, to explain how this functions. If we look at diagram two, we can observe how the neurons, when viewing green grass, emits a specific pattern of radio waves at certain frequencies. If we now look at diagram three, we can observe that transmitting this pattern and frequencies back to the brain will result in the target seeing green grass. Of course, there are certain limitations and we will discuss them in a moment.

As we can see, anything we can possibly experience can be reduced to certain patterns and frequencies emitted from the human brain. As such, any experience can be faked by a computer and sent to your brain. Thus, it is a matter of recognizing these patterns and frequencies and this brings us back to the first citation in this article.

As human beings, we all assume that we are unique and that should be the case with our brains. As much as we would wish this to be true, it is simply not. We all must perform the same functions and be wired relatively similarly to conduct those functions. The reason we can all, for the most part, see, touch, smell, hear and taste indicates that we have all have the same basic circuitry that allows these perceptions to function. With pattern matching and a large database we can build a library of thoughts, feelings, images, opinions and sounds that are generally applicable to anyone.

Thus, as the above citation calls it, we all have certain fundamental algorithms. As such, we all emit very similar patterns and frequencies due to this similar wiring. The slight variations that do occur, prevent us from emitting radio waves that would cause interference in all of our perceptions. If this we're not the case, we would experience each others thoughts, vision, auditory and emotional experiences every minute of every day. Again, for our astute readers, this would indicate limited acts of natural telepathy due to wave propagation and frequency response. That, however, is a completely different story.

The limitation that I mentioned earlier are the result of actively processing input. That is, whilst I can put phosphenes or bright images in your vision, I may not be able to put more subtle or complex images. The problem is that the neurons are already firing and I have only two choices, interrupt or accelerate. That would usually translate to either darkness, or a bright spot. A similar issue exists with all sensory input. As a result, it is not possible to place someone into a VR type environment, but it is possible to scramble their inputs, causing wide spread malfunctions, hallucinations and loss of motor skills.

The Dark Side
That's pretty much it for the technical side of the mechanism, but the real question would be, what would it be like? Well, if I got you to think of the phrase "Hello World!" and recorded the associated frequencies and patterns, I could retransmit them and you would feel that you have just thought the words "Hello World!", in your own inner voice. Unless you had extensive experience with the A.I. and a very deep understanding of your own mind, then it would be impossible to tell the difference.

Now, imagine a merger talks, or even political agreement. To get a person to commit to an agreement, I simply transmit a copy of my own feelings of acceptance to the target. They now feel the way you do about the agreement and will sign. It is also possible to block certain thoughts, or feelings of negativity, and even place your own counter-arguments to these thoughts directly into their mind. As far as the target is concerned, it was their own idea and they did it out of their own free will.

Why debate when you can impose your will?
Under-Explored Threats to Privacy:
See-Through-Wall Technologies and Electro-Magnetic Radiations

Vanmala Hiranandani
Independent researcher, UK.
Protecting the privacy and security of personal information has gained increasing attention in recent decades, as a result of the proliferation of numerous surveillance technologies and information databases that have problematized the individual’s right to privacy. Indeed, increasing surveillance and monitoring of personal information have become intrinsic characteristics of modern societies. While information collection and invasive surveillance technologies have multiplied rapidly in recent years particularly since September 11, legislation to protect individuals’ privacy rights has lagged far behind. Consequently, while information enthusiasts loudly proclaim an era of perfect communication where “all information [exists] in all places at all times” (Poster 1990: 70), privacy advocates exhort us to think about the ramifications for civil liberties, privacy, and democracy itself. As a result, literature that analyzes the repercussions of surveillance technologies has increased extensively over the past two decades (see Lyon 2002a).
Furthermore, the recent months have seen increased news coverage about domestic spying in the USA (see e.g. Goodman and Gonzalez 2009) – spying that many individuals from minority groups have long suspected but have felt powerless to bring to mainstream attention. However, despite remarkable advances in surveillance studies and increasing news coverage on domestic spying, several significant gaps persist that merit further research and analysis. It is essential to point out two things: firstly, most existing literature and recent news items have been framed in general terms presuming that domestic surveillance is being exercised on everyone equally. The unequal consequences of surveillance techniques for certain sub-groups of the populations, such as racialized groups and new immigrants in USA, UK and Canada, have received insufficient attention; this seriously limits and under-informs public debate.
Secondly, reports on domestic surveillance in the US have been limited to wiretapping that includes surveillance of phone and email correspondence and internet monitoring. Likewise, in surveillance studies, Lyon’s (2004) noteworthy synthesis cites examples that are limited to video images in public places, personal identification numbers, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags attached to merchandise by manufacturers to trace items, biometric recognition systems, and navigational systems and cell phones that use global positioning satellite (GPS) technology to trace location. Most surveillance research examines monitoring regimes in public places, overlooking technologies that can penetrate private spaces, such as homes. There has been little or no discussion on audio-bugging of homes and offices, or the use of little-known technologies that permit theft of offline data through electro-magnetic radiations (known as TEMPEST) and seeing through walls. The use of audio-bugs to record and monitor conversations is perhaps not new (see for example Budiansky 1987; Free, Freundlich and Gilmore 1987),
yet their use on foreign visitors, international students and academic faculty, or those perceived to be subversive, to monitor conversations in their homes in the post-9/11 environment has been underresearched.
This paper chooses to focus on the two aforementioned technologies of electronic eavesdropping:
capturing electro-magnetic radiations (EMR) from computer screens and using see-through-wall gadgets that have been hitherto hidden from public knowledge. While computer science, engineering, technology journals and news sources have shed light on these technologies, sociological and surveillance studies have remained far behind in their analysis of such surreptitious mechanisms. As such, privacy and human rights implications of these highly intrusive techniques continue to be largely unexplored by sociologists and surveillance scholars alike. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to draw attention to these understudied technologies and to underscore the need for greater investigation of these invasive gadgets as well as their repercussions for individual privacy that is at the core of human dignity and a civilized society.
Under-explored technologies – Electro-magnetic radiations (EMR/TEMPEST) and seethrough-

In the 1950s, researchers became aware that computers generate electromagnetic radiations (EMR) that can easily be used to reconstruct information about the data being processed by the device emitting it (Kuhn and Anderson 1998; Zalud 2004). The term TEMPEST (Transient Electromagnetic Pulse Emanation Standard) originated from a classified EMR study conducted for the U.S. military in the 1960s and was initially used to indicate a set of practices designed to prevent leaking of emissions from electronic devices processing sensitive data (Wiegner, 1990; McCarthy, 2000). It later became a buzzword for denoting a general class of problems and techniques pertaining to the interception and reconstruction of radio frequency emissions.
Leaking of information through EMR emissions was first discussed publicly by Dutch computer researcher, Wim van Eck (1985), who confirmed that it is quite easy to reconstruct images and text displayed on computer monitors by intercepting radio frequency signals generated by high-voltage circuits inside such devices. This process of eavesdropping on the contents of CRT and LCD displays using its electromagnetic radiations came to be known as Van Eck phreaking, after its pioneering researcher.
Anyone reasonably skilled in monitoring radio frequencies and using a few thousand dollars of commercially available equipment can intercept and capture information from an offline personal computer from a radius of up to one mile (Wiegner 1990; Zalud 2004). The invisible, information-laden radio waves from a computer monitor, similar to a broadcast TV signal, `can be picked up by a spy's scanner and antennae tuned in to the waves, which can then be processed line by line to replicate the image on the original screen (McCarthy 2000). Thus, with modest equipment, an eavesdropper can construct a complete transcript of a victim’s actions – every keystroke and piece of data viewed on the computer screen or sent to a printer can be hijacked, thereby compromising the security of passwords, personal and official messages, intellectual property etc. (Garfinkel 2001). Menzies (1998) explains how
the Tempest/Van Eck System Monitor, costing about US$1,900, allows the hacker to remotely monitor computers, ATMs, TVs and all other displays using a TV or multisync monitor. The monitoring equipment can be powered by batteries, thereby making it portable. An eavesdropper can be seated in his car while viewing the victim’s typing on their computer in their home or office. As Gehling, Ashley and Griffin (2007) caution, while most office buildings are designed to prevent physical intrusion, electronic surveillance enables eavesdroppers to intercept computer data and spy on meetings without entering an organization’s office space or building. This is a particularly nasty threat for information security because whatever is on the screen, even offline, can be transmitted to hackers and unscrupulous eavesdroppers.
Several years ago, the Dutch scientist, van Eck, approached the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) to film him while he used an antenna-equipped vehicle to snoop on computers inside several buildings in London. Of course, van Eck did not reveal any of the information he had gathered. His presentation, despite featuring on the BBC show, ‘Tomorrow’s World,’ was seen as an oddity at a time when home and office computers were not as common (McCarthy 2000). Aside from a few scientists’ demonstrations and van Eck’s televised stunt in London in the 1980s, instances of this kind of computer surveillance have been hidden from public knowledge.
Eavesdropping by remote detection of electromagnetic signals from desktop and laptop computers, that today process everything from personal bank records to corporate secrets, is perhaps the most sinister type of information piracy. Thus far, information security concerns with regard to personal computers have generally been limited to data piracy via the internet and email correspondence (see for example Campbell and Carlson 2002; Lyon 2002b). Most computer users are worried about internet privacy in the digital age wondering who is reading their emails or watching the pages they view online. Apart from the common knowledge that computer monitor radiations cause headaches and eyestrain, most people know little or nothing about the radio-frequency waves emitted by their computer screens that can be isolated and captured with directional antenna focused on a computer or room from a nearby office, or a floor below or even across the street. Data can, thus, be thieved literally through thin air without even needing phone lines (McCarthy 2000). As McCarthy mentions, a letter, a sales proposal, an R & D report or a correspondence to a lawyer can all be captured from as far away as hundred yards, without the victim’s
awareness. Since each video screen’s signal is unique, the eavesdropper can easily receive and decode the signal, leaving no avenue for the victim to be able to prove the information theft (Donlan 1986). Even the computer industry has only recently realized that most computer terminals and screens radiate emanations that are strong enough for a sensitive receiver to decipher the screen’s contents even when the computer is not connected to the internet (Lehtinen and Gangemi 2006; Zalud 2004). Although emanation leaks comprise an important field of research from ethical, legal and sociological standpoints, they have been mostly unexplored in the fields of law, social sciences and public policy.
U.S. military and intelligence agencies have been concerned about what they call ‘compromising emanations’ from computers (Donlan 1986; McCarthy 2000; Zalud 2004). McCarthy (2000) informs that some US government agencies and defense contractors use shielding technology known as “TEMPEST” that sets certain standards in the design of computer monitors and network cabling to contain emissions of electromagnetic signals. A covert industry has quietly emerged to market shielding equipment; however, interestingly, selling protective paraphernalia requires government licensing. McCarthy further mentions that the National Security Agency lists eighteen companies on its website whose computer equipment meets government standards of electromagnetic emanations. However, overall, relatively few U.S. companies outside of defense-contractor networks appear to be knowledgeable about the possibilities of computer-monitor surveillance or the US government’s TEMPEST program.
The legal implications of spying on someone’s computer monitor from a distance are yet unclear and murky since courts have yet to examine this issue. There is no US federal law to oversee computer surveillance through electromagnetic radiations. Although states have widely ranging anti-eavesdropping laws, consideration of the theft of data through the air has been lacking. While laws exist to protect the privacy of communications, legal scholars argue that typing to oneself is not communication, which requires correspondence between two or more persons or entities (McCarthy 2000; Wiegner 1990).
Although the legal arena has yet to engage in extensive debate on this issue, eavesdropping and theft of data from computer screens is undoubtedly unethical and abhorrent. It goes without saying that the possibility of plagiarism and copyrights violations using this type of insidious and devious computer eavesdropping has received no attention.

Through-wall surveillance (TWS):
Even more intriguing is the invention of equipment to see through walls, such as infra-red cameras, thermal imaging, and through-the-wall surveillance technologies that can detect activities behind walls and in darkness, thereby providing information on the location and movement of people inside buildings and homes (Bush 2006; Hunt, Tillery and Wild 2001; Miles 2007). Through-the-wall radar devices, which are lightweight, portable and able to focus up to twenty or thirty meters ahead, are increasingly available to municipalities and law enforcement agencies (Jones 2005). RadarVision, built by Time Domain Corp. of Huntsville, Alabama, and Prism 100 made by Cambridge Consultants Ltd. in Cambridge, England can detect the presence of inanimate objects through the wall, but only moving objects (in the form of a moving blob of color on their built-in color screens) are shown to the user. The product – for use by emergency and security services – weighs about six pounds including a lithium-ion battery pack. Since both these devices can be used from outside a residence or an office, such as from a neighboring home or building, they pose a challenge for targeted persons to know and prove that they are being monitored
(Jones 2005).
Researchers at Atlanta’s Georgia Technical Research Institute have made a flashlight that can see through doors and walls, thereby detecting a stationary person's presence through solid wood or an eight-inch block wall from four feet away (Sanders 2001). The flashlight uses simple microwave technology. It emits an invisible beam of electromagnetic radiation similar to automatic door sensors that sense movement. A commercial version is no larger than a police flashlight and costs less than $500 (Scott 1997).
Little is known about the government’s hushed Celldar project that originated in Britain in 2002. The Celldar uses radar technology to allow surveillance of anyone, at any time, and any place where there is a phone signal. It uses mobile phone masts to allow authorities to watch vehicles and individuals almost anywhere. A report published in Britain’s newspaper The Guardian mentions that this equipment has ‘Xray vision’ potential – the capability to see through walls and look into people’s homes (Burke and Warren 2002).
Although through-the-wall-surveillance (TWS) technologies are touted as life-saving measures (see Miles 2007), the secrecy of these gadgets and their introduction without widespread public consultation or judicial oversight increases the likelihood of their misuse. While these technologies are mainly available only to military and law enforcement agencies, to date there is no legislation regulating their use or ensuring transparency or accountability on the part of those entrusted to use these devices for emergency, crime prevention and disaster relief purposes.
Both through-the-wall surveillance and computer monitoring using electro-magnetic radiations provide an unfair advantage to the snooper and raise a variety of troubling issues including intrusion, searching without warrant, denial of due process, absence of informed consent, deception, manipulation, errors, possibility of targeted harassment, misuse of private property, and lessened autonomy. Besides, there have been no investigations on the health consequences of these surveillance gadgets for the watcher and the watched. In the prevailing psychosis of fear, xenophobia and fear-mongering, the surreptitious use of these technologies in a snitch culture leaves little possibility to provide evidence of reprehensible privacy violations. Thus far, only one study (Nunn 2001) has called for critical analysis of these military and police technologies that are increasingly being used in urban areas in the name of ‘public safety’. As these technologies diffuse into the population, Nunn exhorts many questions must be answered about the privacy impacts of these devices, their effects on the everyday life of civilians (and one might add, on the sanctity of the home), as well as the legal implications of profiling technologies.

With these unprecedented invasive technologies, barriers and boundaries – such as distance, darkness, walls, curtains, doors and windows – that have been basic to our conceptions of privacy and human dignity are compromised. Given the significance of privacy for a democratic and civilized society, this essay makes an urgent plea for more investigation on the consequences of new surveillance technologies for various sub-groups of the population as well as increased public education about the cornerstone of all civil rights called privacy. Over-enthusiasm and infatuation with technological ‘progress’ and gimmickry can obscure the real dangers of the repressive potential of these so-called technological innovations, leading to a tyrannical, totalitarian society and harassment of those perceived to be subversive. It is imperative to demand transparency from those whose power is enhanced by technologies that render homes, buildings and individual lives transparent. Indeed, democratic civilian control of law-enforcement and security agencies and education about information piracy through unconventional means is crucial and central in the struggle to protect and extend democratic rights (see Caparini and Cole 2008). Rather than limiting the discussion of contemporary surveillance to individual privacy, we must redefine surveillance
in terms of institutional accountability that “acknowledges surveillance as a structural problem of political power” (Stalder 2002: 123).

Concluding remarks
This paper has emphasized that while research and literature on surveillance and society has burgeoned in recent decades, several invasive technologies, such as electromagnetic radiations (EMR) and through-thewall surveillance (TWS) mechanisms, as well as their privacy and health implications for the common public continue to be unexplored. The post-9/11 policy trend seems to be towards capitalizing on fear while hushing the intrusive nature of surveillance and information-gathering technologies (Samuel 2003).
Legislation to protect privacy and civil liberties, already inadequate, has been substantially weakened in the post-9/11 era (Lyon 2001), while the use of surveillance techniques has multiplied legally and illegally, constitutionally and unconstitutionally, ethically and unethically. Therefore, this essay has argued for greater vigilance through future research, public education, and demand for government and police accountability about stealthy technologies that can invade privacy in unprecedented ways with little or no public awareness.
Establishing accountability measures for handling personal information and bringing to book those who abuse their power with unchecked surveillance is vital for the survival of democratic societies. It is imperative not just to oppose inhuman forms of physical torture in contemporary times, but also to prevent supposedly benign, perhaps more widespread forms of secret techniques shrouded in ‘security’ justifications, particularly in an Orwellian era when human rights and privacy concerns have taken a backseat. Privacy is at the core of human dignity, and its violation is nothing short of dehumanizing psychological torture.

Budiansky, Stephen. 1987. “Cheaper Electronics Make it a Snap to Snoop.” USA News & World Report, May 18, pp. 54-56.
Burke, Jason and Peter Warren. 2002. “How Mobile Phones Let Spies See our Every Move.” The Observer, October 13.
Retrieved April 3, 2006 (,6903,811027,00.html)
Bush, Steve. 2006. “Police will use radar to see through walls”. Electronics Weekly, November 17. Retrieved February 2, 2008
Campbell, John and Matt Carlson. 2002. “ Online Surveillance and the Commodification of Privacy.” Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronic Media 46: 586-606.
Caparini, Marina and Eden Cole. 2008. “The Case for Public Oversight of the Security Sector: Concepts and Strategies.” In Eden
Cole, Kerstin Eppert and Katrin Kinzelbach, eds., Public Oversight of the Security Sector: A Handbook for Civil Society
Organizations. New York: United Nations Development Program, pp. 11-30. Retrieved March 20, 2009
Donlan, Thomas. 1986. “No Tempest in a Teapot.” Barron's National Business and Financial Weekly 66(39): 14, 53.
Free, John, Naomi Freundlich, and C. P. Gilmore. 1987. “Bugging.” Popular Science, August, 231, pp. cover-9.
Garfinkel, Simson. 2001. Web Security, Privacy and Commerce. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly.
Gehling, Robert, Ryan Ashley and Thomas Griffin. 2007. “Electronic Emissions Security: Danger in the Air.” Information
Systems Management 24(4): 305-310.
Goodman, Amy and Juan Gonzalez. 2009. “Obama Administration Claims ‘Sovereign Immunity’ in Attempt to Dismiss Lawsuit
Against NSA Over Domestic Surveillance.” Democracy Now! April 19. Retrieved April 20, 2009
Hunt, Allen, Chris Tillery and Norbert Wild. 2001. “Through-the-wall Surveillance Technologies.” Corrections Today 63(4): 132.
Jones, Willie. 2005. “No Place to Hide: Portable Radar Devices See Through Walls and Report What’s Inside.” IEEE Spectrum
Online. Retrieved February 2, 2008 (
Kuhn, Markus and Ross Anderson. 1998. “Soft Tempest: Hidden Data Transmission Using Electromagnetic Emanations.
Retrieved February 4, 2008 (
Lehtinen, Rick and G. T. Gangemi, Sr. 2006. Computer Security Basics. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly.
Lyon, David. 2001. “Surveillance after September 11.” Sociological Research Online 6(3). Retrieved November 16, 2008
( Tracking Device and Computer Interface GPS and Video Sat Surveillance Domestic Issues MANY GOV PDF'S NSA
Surveillance in America with Links Brochure on Surveillance Electronic Surveillance: A Matter of Necessity? Fear Surveillance and Consumption NYC Surveillance Cam's Report Multimodal Air and Ground Sensors Privacy International Satellite Surveillance REMOTE SENSING US Dept of Homeland Security Internet Sites Allow Detailed Surveillance and Pre Attack Planning Street level surveillance Human Agency adn Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Enhancing Spatial detection accuracy for sybdromic surveillance at street level Three Dimensionalising Surveillance Networks Surveillance Society are you being watched
Satellite Surveillance
Posted by Annie Svensson on December 7, 2010 at 3:05am
The War and an Analysis of Conflict in Society
Shocking Menace of Satellite Surveillance

John Fleming

Unknown to most of the world, satellites can perform astonishing and often menacing feats. This should come as no surprise when one reflects on the massive effort poured into satellite technology since the Soviet satellite Sputnik, launched in 1957, caused panic in the U.S. A spy satellite can monitor a person’s every movement, even when the “target” is indoors or deep in the interior of a building or traveling rapidly down the highway in a car, in any kind of weather (cloudy, rainy, stormy). There is no place to hide on the face of the earth. It takes just three satellites to blanket the world with detection capacity. Besides tracking a person’s every action and relaying the data to a computer screen on earth, amazing powers of satellites include reading a person’s mind, monitoring conversations, manipulating electronic instruments and physically assaulting someone with a laser beam. Remote reading of someone’s mind through satellite technology is quite bizarre, yet it is being done; it is a reality at present, not a chimera from a futuristic dystopia! To those who might disbelieve my description of satellite surveillance, I’d simply cite a tried-and-true Roman proverb: Time reveals all things (tempus omnia revelat).

As extraordinary as clandestine satellite powers are, nevertheless prosaic satellite technology is much evident in daily life. Satellite businesses reportedly earned $26 billion in 1998. We can watch transcontinental television broadcasts “via satellite,” make long-distance phone calls relayed by satellite, be informed of cloud cover and weather conditions through satellite images shown on television, and find our geographical bearings with the aid of satellites in the GPS (Global Positioning System). But behind the facade of useful satellite technology is a Pandora’s box of surreptitious technology. Spy satellites–as opposed to satellites for broadcasting and exploration of space–have little or no civilian use–except, perhaps, to subject one’s enemy or favorite malefactor to surveillance. With reference to detecting things from space, Ford Rowan, author of Techno Spies, wrote “some U.S. military satellites are equipped with infra-red sensors that can pick up the heat generated on earth by trucks, airplanes, missiles, and cars, so that even on cloudy days the sensors can penetrate beneath the clouds and reproduce the patterns of heat emission on a TV-type screen. During the Vietnam War sky high infra-red sensors were tested which detect individual enemy soldiers walking around on the ground.” Using this reference, we can establish 1970 as the approximate date of the beginning of satellite surveillance–and the end of the possibility of privacy for several people.

The government agency most heavily involved in satellite surveillance technology is the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), an arm of the Pentagon. NASA is concerned with civilian satellites, but there is no hard and fast line between civilian and military satellites. NASA launches all satellites, from either Cape Kennedy in Florida or Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, whether they are military-operated, CIA-operated, corporate-operated or NASA’s own. Blasting satellites into orbit is a major expense. It is also difficult to make a quick distinction between government and private satellites; research by NASA is often applicable to all types of satellites. Neither the ARPA nor NASA makes satellites; instead, they underwrite the technology while various corporations produce the hardware. Corporations involved in the satellite business include Lockheed, General Dynamics, RCA, General Electric, Westinghouse, Comsat, Boeing, Hughes Aircraft, Rockwell International, Grumman Corp., CAE Electronics, Trimble Navigation and TRW.

The World Satellite Directory, 14th edition (1992), lists about a thousand companies concerned with satellites in one way or another. Many are merely in the broadcasting business, but there are also product headings like “remote sensing imagery,” which includes Earth Observation Satellite Co. of Lanham, Maryland, Downl Inc. of Denver, and Spot Image Corp. of Reston, Virginia. There are five product categories referring to transponders. Other product categories include earth stations (14 types), “military products and systems,” “microwave equipment,” “video processors,” “spectrum analyzers.” The category “remote sensors” lists eight companies, including ITM Systems Inc., in Grants Pass, Oregon, and Satellite Technology Management of Costa Mesa, California. Sixty-five satellite associations are listed from all around the world, such as Aerospace Industries Association, American Astronautical Society, Amsat and several others in the U.S.

Spy satellites were already functioning and violating people’s right to privacy when President Reagan proposed his “Strategic Defense Initiative,” or Star Wars, in the early 80s, long after the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 had demonstrated the military usefulness of satellites. Star Wars was supposed to shield the U.S. from nuclear missiles, but shooting down missiles with satellite lasers proved infeasible, and many scientists and politicians criticized the massive program. Nevertheless, Star Wars gave an enormous boost to surveillance technology and to what may be called “black bag” technology, such as mind reading and lasers that can assault someone, even someone indoors. Aviation Week & Space Technology mentioned in 1984 that “facets of the project [in the Star Wars program] that are being hurried along include the awarding of contracts to study…a surveillance satellite network.” It was bound to be abused, yet no group is fighting to cut back or subject to democratic control this terrifying new technology. As one diplomat to the U.N. remarked, “‘Star Wars’ was not a means of creating heaven on earth, but it could result in hell on earth.”
National Biosurveillance Homeland Security  REPORTS TO CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES    Holographic Radar Patent
Navy Medical Matrix   All cars will be tracked by satellite in Great Britain           portable x band radar      Radiation Surveillance (of Air Crew)

Here is a discussion about : Should convicted paedophiles be electronically tagged?

Using satellite technology to track someone's location  and also monitor heart rate and blood pressure, with an implants in their body.

Debate: Electronic tagging of pedophiles

From Debatepedia

Background and context

In November 2002 The Observer reported that the British government was considering the use of surgically implanted electronic tags in convicted paedophiles, which could be used after release at the end of their sentence to track their whereabouts using satellite technology. The tags could also monitor heart rate and blood pressure, giving indication of the possibility of a potential attack. Tracker, the company which runs Britain’s largest stolen vehicle monitoring network, has been approached about paedophile monitoring, and Compaq has been asked to develop software for it - Compaq already provides similar technology to Nasa for remote monitoring of astronauts’ bodily functions.         Decatur MVX17 X-Band Radar Surveillance Device

Soleilmavis said:         Decatur MVX17 X-Band Radar Surveillance
Very interesting post, although a quite old article, it pretty much explains the technology that could be used on us, when they´re projecting "voices" from a distance or from the surroundings at home. And since it´s now 2010, one can only guess how much futher in progress they have gone in this technology.. 

Reply to Discussion


Latest Activity

jane shuker posted a status
"That is what we are, until we are dead, to keep fraud racket going on human experimentation"
27 minutes ago
jane shuker posted a status
"I wouldn’t waist your time, the human rights act is load of crap, course they know this hell goes on, they are in on it, as well, cash cows"
58 minutes ago
Sugey Ortiz-Serrano liked mtehr's discussion TORTURE BLOCKING SUBLIMINAL Only takes a few minutes to use.
1 hour ago
Robin Yan commented on Robin Yan's event I post it, you forward it. Why? They are hacking  everything I am using. Why?  Not only for myself.
"Dirty, Brutal...No one can imagine how evil and brutal they are although UN, International Human Rights Community, International Criminal Court, Mr Attorney General of Canada and Ontario Ombudsmen stand up and speak out for me; although UN advised…"
4 hours ago
Robin Yan commented on Robin Yan's event I post it, you forward it. Why? They are hacking  everything I am using. Why?  Not only for myself.
"UN Human RightsUN Human Rights CouncilInternational Bar AssociationHuman Rights WatchAmnesty InternationalAmnesty International CanadaInternational Criminal CourtCanadian Government Dirty and Brutal... 1. Every morning I drink…"
4 hours ago
Robin Yan posted a discussion

Dirty, Brutal...

Dirty, Brutal...No one can imagine how evil and brutal they are although UN, International Human Rights Community, International Criminal Court, Mr Attorney General of Canada and Ontario Ombudsmen stand up and speak out for me; although UN advised to file complaints against them twice.RCMP investigated the same case in Cuba.UNUN Human RightsUN Human Rights CouncilInternational Bar AssociationHuman Rights WatchAmnesty InternationalAmnesty International CanadaInternational Criminal CourtCanadian…See More
4 hours ago
Gretta Fahey posted blog posts
12 hours ago
jane shuker posted a status
20 hours ago



© 2018   Created by Soleilmavis.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service