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: 5681

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Wiretap Debate Déjà Vu

Documents show Ford White House embraced wiretap law
instead of claiming "inherent" Presidential authority in 1976
despite objections from Rumsfeld, G.H.W. Bush, Kissinger

Web posting includes Justice report on criminal liability for 1970s
warrantless wiretapping, 1990s directives on US surveillance.

For more information contact
Thomas Blanton

Posted - February 4, 2006

Washington, D.C., February 4, 2006 - Despite objections from then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and then-CIA director George H. W. Bush, President Gerald Ford came down on the side of a proposed federal law to govern wiretapping in 1976 instead of relying on the "inherent" authority of the President because the "pros" outweighed the "cons," according to internal White House documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and posted on the Web today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.

After much debate, the Ford administration in 1976 decided to support legislation requiring a warrant for the government to conduct electronic surveillance within the U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes, according to this memorandum prepared for President Ford by his counsel, Philip Buchen.

White House counsel Philip Buchen described a Situation Room meeting on March 12, 1976 with Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Bush, national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, and attorney general Edward Levi (notably absent was White House chief of staff Richard Cheney) in which Buchen's and Levi's outline of the advantages of a wiretapping law reduced the "adamant opposition" to neutrality, allowing Levi to testify before Congress in favor of a wiretapping statute on March 29, 1976.

Buchen's talking points said the proposed law (ultimately enacted as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA) "avoids likelihood that … courts will eventually decide a warrant is required," "eliminates question of validity of evidence obtained," "protects cooperating communications carriers," and would not "materially inhibit surveillance of these kinds of targets."

On the "cons" side of his talking points, Buchen described exactly the arguments against such a law that the Bush administration has now adopted as the basis for its warrantless wiretapping: "requires resort to the judiciary for exercise of an inherent Executive power" and "could result in troublesome delays or even a denial of authority in particular cases."

"Yogi Berra was right, the current wiretapping debate is déjà vu all over again, except that President Bush has come down on the con side against the law," remarked Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive.

Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld, President Gerald Ford and Deputy Chief of Staff Richard Cheney at the White House, April 28, 1975 (Photo: Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library)

Today's posting also includes the TOP SECRET Justice Department reports in June 1976 and March 1977 on the potential criminal liability of the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency for operations such as SHAMROCK (interception of all international cable traffic from 1945 to 1975) and MINARET (use of watchlists of U.S. dissidents and potential civil disturbers to provide intercept information to law enforcement agencies from 1969 to 1973). Justice released these reports to author James Bamford under the Freedom of Information Act in the late 1970s, but in 1981, the NSA persuaded Justice to threaten Bamford with prosecution for "possession of classified information," a threat that helped Bamford's book The Puzzle Palace become a best-seller.

The Justice Department in the reports ultimately recommended against prosecution, concluding that "If the intelligence agencies possessed too much discretionary authority with too little accountability, that would seem to be a 35-year failing of Presidents and the Congress rather than the agencies" (p. 171, 30 June 1976).

"Federal employees who are carrying out President Bush's warrantless wiretapping will be especially interested in the Justice Department's 1976 assessment of whether such wiretapping makes them criminally liable," commented Blanton. "One of the main reasons the Ford administration supported having a law that governed wiretapping was that such a law would protect government officials and the telecom companies as long as they followed the law."

The Archive's posting, compiled by senior fellow Dr. Jeffrey Richelson (author of the forthcoming book, Spying on the Bomb), includes key historic documents brought to light by the Church Committee investigations of intelligence abuses, and a series of National Security Agency documents from the 1990s released under the Freedom of Information Act that describe the limits imposed by FISA and the Fourth Amendment on surveilling U.S. persons.

The posting also includes two important studies by the now-defunct Office of Technology Assessment in 1985 and 1995 on the challenges of electronic surveillance and civil liberties in a digital age, as well as a wide range of key documents from the current wiretapping debate, as featured on the web site (complete legislative history of the FISA), the web site (the Project on Government Secrecy has published the relevant Congressional Research Service studies, among other important documents), and which published the FBI's 2002 guide, "What do I have to do to get a FISA?"

Electronic Surveillance
From the Cold War to Al-Qaeda

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 178
Edited by Jeffrey Richelson and Thomas Blanton

On December 16, 2005, The New York Times published a front-page story revealing that months after Al-Qaeda's September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, President George W. Bush formally authorized the National Security Agency to monitor telephone conversations and e-mails of Americans and other individuals, originating in the United States, without the court-approved warrants usually required for domestic surveillance. The monitoring program was reported to consist of targeting the telephone and e-mail communications of hundreds and perhaps thousands of people inside the United States - with about 500 being monitored at any one time. Purely domestic communications, according to the story, were still monitored only after a warrant was obtained from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). (Note 1)

Further reporting, since the initial revelation by the Times, has added to information and claims about the program. It has become known that NSA began the warrantless eavesdropping effort prior to receiving formal approval from President Bush; that the operation involved NSA obtaining the cooperation of American telecommunication companies, which allowed the agency to tap "directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries"; that the information gathered was turned over to other agencies, including the Defense Intelligence Agency, which compared the information with data from other sources; and some purely domestic communications (which both originated and terminated in the United States) were accidentally intercepted. (Note 2)

The revelations about the eavesdropping program have produced numerous editorials (for and against), discussion of why the administration decided to by-pass the surveillance court, questions from the judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, criticism and support of the program from members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and defense of the program, in oral and written form, from the president, vice-president, senior intelligence officials, and the Justice Department. The legality of the program, the adequacy of administration briefings to members of Congress, and the program's effectiveness have been challenged and defended. Two inquiries are planned or in progress-a Congressional inquiry as well as investigation by NSA's inspector general-and two lawsuits have been filed demanding that the program he halted immediately. (Note 3)

The controversy surrounding the program is not the first controversy concerning whether U.S. signals intelligence and electronic surveillance activities might compromise the Fourth Amendment rights of U.S. persons. (Note 4) In the years immediately prior to 9/11, press coverage of the NSA's ECHELON program-the placement of computer software at selected satellite ground stations operated by the NSA and key allies that allowed keyword sorting of some of the international communications relayed through commercial communications satellites and intercepted at those ground stations-resulted in concern that the privacy of Americans (as well as foreign nationals) would be sacrificed for the needs of U.S. foreign intelligence collection. (Note 5)

In the mid-1970s, several decades before ECHELON became an issue, as a result of a Senate investigation of intelligence community activities, it had been revealed that NSA had been conducting two programs of questionable propriety. One, SHAMROCK, originated in the days just after the conclusion of the Second World War. It involved U.S. communications companies giving NSA access to the cable traffic passing through the companies' facilities. The second, MINARET, created a watch list of U.S. persons-including military deserters and those involved in civil disturbances and antiwar movements and demonstrations-whose communications were to be monitored. Included on the watch list were a number of anti-war activists, including Joan Baez, Jane Fonda and Dr. Benjamin Spock. (Note 6)

The concern over NSA's domestic intelligence activities resulted in the 1978 passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Act established the three-judge Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review applications for monitoring the communications (at the time, almost exclusively conventional telephone communications) of U.S. persons suspected of involvement in espionage or terrorist activities. It also created a review process in the event the U.S. government was displeased with the court's decision.

The requirement to obtain court-orders for wiretaps of U.S. persons did not prevent NSA from intercepting the communications of Americans when the intercept was the result of targeting a non-U.S. person at a communications node outside of the United States - an activity whose legality survived a challenge before the Supreme Court. But NSA operated under restrictions concerning how much information about the American participating in the intercepted conversation could be incorporated in intelligence reports or employed for law-enforcement purposes. In many cases the name or other identifying information would have to be removed and replaced by a term such as "U.S. person." Such restrictions were first codified in the 1980 United States Signals Intelligence Directive "Limitations and Procedures in Signals Intelligence Operations of the USSS" (USSID 18), which was updated in 1993. (Note 7)

The collection of documents concerning U.S. electronic surveillance activities presented here stretch from the later Cold War years to today. Among the documents included are memoirs of the SHAMROCK investigation, pre-9/11 NSA memos on electronic surveillance, several expressions of Congressional concern concerning the current warrantless eavesdropping program, a variety of administration defenses of the program, and several Congressional Research Service analyses of the legality of the program and the adequacy of administration briefings to Congress.   

Model 2321A Series Millimeter Wave Simplex Video Surveillance Radio Link Installation (microwave glossary) (Camera Less Microwave Surveillance)            Opto Beam Surveillance System (Directed Energy)            Microwave Downlink Primer    This is one mode of hurting people with radiation and surveillance. Some of these energies pass through everything (Large percentage) houses/bodies etc.   Radiating the crap out of us.  They are sick.          Laser Audio Surveillance      Radar Video Surveillance System            Coast to Coast / Bugweep

Northrop Grumman To Fly Surveillance Airship     (

3100 lb payload of sensors,  able to stay afloat at above 20,000ft continuosly for 21 days.

Hundreds are going to be deployed for coastal surveillance.

China Tracking Citizens With GPS Enabled Phones


Chinese media reported this week that pilot schemes were being introduced for an "information platform of real-time citizen movement" to help with traffic management.




"I think despite the excuse of traffic control this is part of the escalation of the use of technologies to control social discontent," said Wang Songlian of the Chinese Human Rights Defenders network. She pointed out that last year the government introduced compulsory registration for anyone buying a sim card.

"A lot of activists have said their cell phones are already tracked by security forces. They use it to locate where people are and whether other activists are going there," she said.

here is an interesting find on "Holographic Surveillane"

I am attaching an unclassified document that was distributed to IRAPA personal by their director Lisa Porter. If you read between the lines you may see that this document is addressing targeted individual surveillance and control programs. Also her discussion of quantum computing, and its ability to decrypt the strongest of ciphers may reinforce my conclusion that Targeted Individuals are used to communicate secret messages that these types of computers cant decrypt because it works through conditioned response amongst many individuals and their physical movements and biology to encrypt messages.


Dave Huber

Surviellance Overview from Wikipedia
Office of Survellance and BioMetrics (This may be of interest)
Under Cover Officer Sureillance Controversy
Video-rate holographic surveillance system
Holographic Surveillance System
Potential Directed Energy Weapons Site
Baltimore Chronical Article
maybe the same article as above
Stategic Defense Initiative

Future U.S. Military Satellite Communication Systems

Advanced EHF Military Communications Satellite, USA

Optimizing Communications for Government and Military

A primer on U.S. Military Ground Forces Wirless Communications Requirments and Recent Lessons learned.

Resurgence in Troposcatter Military Communications.

The U.S. Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon,"The Home of the Signal Corps

Legal citation of Surveillance Allowances and Dis-Allowances

Can A Satellite Read Your Thoughts? - Time To Come Clean

Tue May 3, 2011 8:45 PM EDT
What is the connection between Guantanamo bay, human experimentation, color revolutions, middle-east uprisings, Total Information Awareness and the War On Terror? It almost sounds like the lead in to a very funny punchline. Unfortunately, no such punchline exists. This story revolves around murder, intimidation, longitudinal experiments, witness intimidation, direct attacks on the Press, manufacture of crimes and trail that leads all the way back to the White House since the star wars program.

Flash Back To The Eighties

I am sure most people remember the film "War Games", the 1983 classic in which an WOPR fails to distinguish between reality and simulation and to know when to quit. I am sure everyone has heard for the last 20 years that A.I. was just around the corner, but hadn't quite been perfected just yet.

This was and still is, an outrageous lie.

You see, creating an Artificial Intelligence is relatively straight-forward. The real issue was only ever about shrinking the technology for domestic use. So, when you see universities making small strides in A.I., this is the result of budgetary constraints, not genuine technical limitations.

So, what happens when you have a massive "black project" budget, all the supercomputing power you could dream of and the authority to hide your activities.

The answer is an Artificial Intelligence, a pure mind, with comparable reasoning capability to a human and a data mining capability unmatched even by Google.

To give you a clearer picture, imagine if you will that we took Stephen Hawking and could replicate his mind within a machine. We also give it a micro-world (almost like a doll's house) in which it can create objects, animations, etc., then bolted on modules to provide it with a sense of humor, replicated emotions, language interpretation, speech synthesis, object recognition, etc.

Now imagine that you are able to stand face-to-face with an Artificial Intelligence that is aware of you and itself. Imagine an A.I. that does not misunderstand when you talk and is more intelligent than the majority of humans. Imagine a system that reads and writes nearly every language on Earth and can impersonate people with a high degree of accuracy.

Imagine talking to a "digital person".

You do not need to imagine, it already exists and forms the backbone of NSA operations globally.

I am sure, if you have ever considered it, understanding how the NSA make sense of Petabytes of data was incredibly difficult.

Well, now you know.

Human Experimentation And Offensive Capability

Having an A.I. is close to useless if it does not comprehend human behavior. Before the days of the Internet, there was no way for the Artificial Intelligence to interact with thousands of people and to understand character traits and decision making processes. To further this objective and make intelligence gathering more effective, the A.I. was interfaced to a system known only as "Remote Neural Monitoring" (RNM).

RNM makes use of the fact that the human body, when neurons fire, produces very faint radio waves in an extremely narrow frequency band. These radio waves, due to their wavelengths, can pass through miles of rock with very little signal loss. By coupling the A.I. to this radio interface, the A.I. could learn the "language" of the human body through pattern analysis.

The program was highly successful. It allowed the NSA to map foreign governments, terrorist networks, major businesses, etc. Just by merely listening, the NSA had the capability to know of events long before they were put into action.

As with most US projects, mission creep became a factor and a secondary capability was added. The system now became "Remote Neural Communication" (RNC). RNC gave the A.I. the capability to send signals back to the human brain, in effect, modifying the behavior of anyone receiving the signal. The groups that the NSA once listened to, now became priority targets to enable the US government to push a global agenda.

Furthermore, it provided the NSA with an offensive capability, as it was able to interfere with the biological processes of the human body.

Long-tern longitudinal studies were instigated to test the long term effects of neural integration and offensive capabilities.

These people, today, are known as "Targeted Individuals" and are found all over the world. They range from children to pensioners who have been systematically attacked in their own homes for years on end. If discovered, the A.I. attempts to disable the person on a permanent basis, if that fails, it will fall back to a process of intimidation and death threats.

The studies continue as I write this article, with the full knowledge of the White House and numerous governments world-wide.

9/11 And Guantanamo Bay

Do not be fooled into thinking this is something recent, something in response to 9/11 and the corresponding War On Terror. This program pre-dates those events by almost two decades. In fact, the events of 9/11 have been used to both provide cover for the program and expand human experimentation's.

So, how does this relate to both Guantanamo Bay and Rendition?

The answer should really be self-evident. As the A.I. maps the terrorist networks, it identifies particular members that have committed serious crimes or provide material support. To hide the presence of the system, subjects are put through "enhanced interrogation techniques" to make them confess to the crimes. Of course, a certain number of innocent parties must be caught up in the mix, or it would raise suspicions of the accuracy of their defense.

The need for secrecy in regards to RNC is not related to the needs of National Security, as information is available all over the web, but to prevent the public becoming aware of the human experimentation that is currently being conducted.

If released, it would destroy the NSA, bring down the current government and send past-and-present members of government to jail.

Nixon looks like a saint at this point.

Total Information Awareness

I am sure that the majority of readers can now see why programs such as TIA were introduced and why it involved the same figures from Reagan's era. This technology was an outgrowth of the Strategic Defense Initiative. Behind TIA were the same people involved in the Iran-contra affair, who have a track record of sending military technology to the enemy.

So, given that this is all over the web, we can conclude that nothing has changed there.

For those that don't know, the principle behind TIA was to collate all information into one central database that could be data-mined at will by various agencies.

That "database" was our A.I. and the program still continues under a variety of names. Most importantly, large social networking sites such as Facebook, Google, etc., provide direct interfaces for the NSA to crawl through retained information. This is augmented by continuous wiretaps put in place at Telecom companies such as AT&T.

Color Revolutions And The Middle-East Uprisings

Sudden sweeping revolutions, powered by social media, are only a portion of the story. RNC provides a key role in these operations. Blitting sensations, key concepts and even motivation across tens of thousands of people is the real driving force behind these sudden mass mobilizations.

Thousands of instances of the A.I. direct pro-democracy thought patterns across a nation to change the mood of an entire population. Given the short duration of each "neural payload", the outcome can never be guaranteed as other motivations can never be entirely released or controlled.

That said, it is just a matter of time and bandwidth.

Witness Intimidation & Media Program

Key to this operation is control of the media. By selecting key staff at news outlets, typically those with editorial control, the A.I. is able to "persuade" staff not to run specific items, or to think of them in a different way. This normally involves invoking feelings of patriotism, or by focusing on other motivational factors.

If, in the case of a Targeted Individual, they should become aware, such persuasion is abandons and direct threats to both the target and family member are made. On occasion, these are followed up with direct attacks. This can be anything from muscular assaults, right through to compressing muscles and accelerating the heart. Whilst in the short terms this is merely frightening, in the long run, it would have the same effect as clogged arteries causing heart failure or an enlarged heart.


Welcome to the real face of the US government. Auschwitz with fries, in the privacy of your own home.

The Nazi's would have been proud of the economic savings you have achieved.

25 July 2011


Technologies of surveillance and control, such as brain scanning, mind-body control, wireless remote control, and high-power ultrasound have been developed with government funds in semi-secret.

The references set forth here look at the potential for technology-mediated repression in a climate of intelligence agency and corporate mercenary stalking of the people of their own countries.

Writer/information artist Judy Malloy has worked as an information specialist, abstracter, and indexer in the areas of chemical engineering, biotechnology, and aerospace R&D, including Technical Librarian for Electromagnetic Research Corporation in Maryland and Technical Librarian for Ball Brothers Research Corporation in Colorado, (now Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.) where she was instrumental in the design of a computerized catalog. She has also worked as an editor for the Union Catalog at the Library of Congress in Washington DC.

From 1993-1997, she was a Consultant in Electronic Communities and the Document of the Future at Xerox PARC.

Reply to Discussion


Latest Activity

Mia Fitch left a comment for Stephen O' Neill
"Hello Stephen, It's been awhile, middle Oct in fact, that you responded to my post about my wanting to connect with the targeting community.  Your encouragement has helped me to reach out to a few targets and I intend to keep doing so. I…"
38 minutes ago
CLS posted a status
"They gave me dream of causing severe muscle pains and "bone bending" with radio freqs that a persons arm bent opposite then normal."
1 hour ago
CLS posted a status
"I swear they even caused turbulence on the plane."
1 hour ago
CLS posted a status
"My family and I going to Japan, Last time I went the idiot was EEG connected to me all the way there and my entire trip."
1 hour ago
Sugey Ortiz-Serrano posted a status
" Dic 10. 9.19 p.m Dia Internacional de los Derechos Humanos"
5 hours ago
Profile IconJerek Hodge, Camila Layal and law morgan joined peacepink
5 hours ago
Sugey Ortiz-Serrano posted a status
" Esta canción se la dedico a mi controlador, Dic 10. 8.29 p.m. Dia Derechos Humanos"
5 hours ago
cait replied to Sabrina Kaelin's discussion So this is the sick stuff they've been saying to me:
"HELP PLEASE! My girlfriend is going through this.. and it's terrifying. I can relate to mostly all of the comments above. They are always lying to her and shaming her. She at her breaking point... I don't want to lose her.. please any…"
5 hours ago



© 2018   Created by Soleilmavis.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service