US gov’t scientists suggested monitoring brain activity for ‘anti-crime’ and ‘security’ purposes

US gov’t scientists suggested monitoring brain activity for ‘anti-crime’ and ‘security’ purposes April 17, 2023

apr 17, 2023 16, Administration, America, Americans, Biden, Biden Administration, Bioethics, biosurveillance, border, Brain, CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, commentary, Congress, content, crime, deep state, Department of Homeland Security, document, Donald Trump, electric, Family, Federal, Free, Freedom, government, government spying, illegal, illness, label, law, law enforcement, laws, meta, mind reading, National Neurological Condition Surveillance System, news, Obama, politicians, Politics – U.S., president, President Donald Trump, pro-life, public, release, Remote Detection of Covert Tactical Adversarial Intent of Individuals in Asymmetric Operations, research, secret, security, space, Spying, SUPPORT, TECHNOLOGY, threat, Trump, U.S. government, US, WHO
Lees voor

Mon Apr 17, 2023 – 2:42 pm EDT

(LifeSiteNews) — Previous articles suggested that the U.S. federal government’s “biosurveillance” systems might be used to spy on Americans every move in part by using technologies that “see into” homes, buildings, cars, etc. Some articles also described the “National Neurological Condition Surveillance System” law that was enacted by the Obama-Biden Administration after President Donald Trump was elected.

It was suggested that the “National Neurological Condition Surveillance System” might actually be a remote type of surveillance of the human brain to, basically, “mind read” a person’s intentions and to predict, in a way, such person’s future actions. Similarly, a recent article described the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) “Surveillance Systems for Mental Illness” which might also imply the use of advanced technologies for the surveillance of human brains.

Some might have objected and said something like, “U.S. federal government officials, scientists, and law enforcement would never use remote brain, neurological, psychological, or cognitive surveillance technologies to determine a person’s intent or predict their future actions.”

Such people can be shown to be incorrect with a document that was published by the U.S. federal government in 2010, entitled “Remote Detection of Covert Tactical Adversarial Intent of Individuals in Asymmetric Operations.” It is available on the official U.S. government publications website and is not a recently leaked secret document. It is a very significant document.

The U.S. government publication describes the suggestions of U.S. government scientists that were part of a U.S. government research workshop that took place in 2009. The researchers were government scientists, and again, the publication is an official publication of the U.S. government approved for public release. (Page ii) The purpose of the workshop was to make plans to develop remote detection systems that could be used to detect a person’s “intent.”

Though most probably know this, when writing articles such as these, one can be thorough, use many words, and refute many potential objections; or one can take a non-thorough approach initially with the intent to explain more thoroughly in separate articles. This article is not going to be thorough. Most of the very significant information is self-explanatory in the official U.S. government publication, in which U.S. government scientists suggest the use of remote detection of neurophysiology, psychology, and human movements for “anti-crime operations” and “security” in America. (Pages 2, 12, 26, etc.)

“Neurophysiology” is basically human brain activity. The U.S. government scientists basically suggest what many previous articles concluded: that the U.S. government might use remote detection technologies and sensors for surveillance of human brain activity to determine the plans, or “intent,” of human beings.

This might also be significant: previous articles did not mention that while the “National Neurological Condition Surveillance System” law was enacted in 2016, it was actually first presented in Congress in 2009-2010 as the “National Neurological Diseases Surveillance System Act of 2010.” This date may be significant. The “Remote Detection of Covert Tactical Adversarial Intent of Individuals in Asymmetric Operations” discussions were occurring in 2009-2010.

Again, in that document, U.S. Federal government scientists described plans to develop remote sensing technologies for human “threat detection” which integrate “kinesiology [human movements/actions], neurophysiology [brain activity], psychology [brain activity and human behavior], cognitive science [brain activity], sociocultural anthropology, and information science.” (Pages 2, 3, 23-24)

Such statements imply the government planned on using remote mind reading technologies for threat detection, or, in the words of the government scientists “cognitive mechanisms that underlie threat detection.” (Page 12) Such statements also provide very significant support for suggestions in previous articles about the U.S. government’s “Surveillance Systems for Mental Illness” and the National Neurological Condition Surveillance System.

Again, the purpose of the workshop described in “Remote Detection of Covert Tactical Adversarial Intent of Individuals in Asymmetric Operations” was to make plans to develop remote detection systems that could be used to detect a person’s “intent.” In other words, the purpose was to discuss plans to develop remote “threat detection” systems. (Pages ii and 12) Such wording is also significant because, although the document does not mention this, the U.S. government’s laws on biosurveillance require the use of detection systems to detect threats “as early as possible.”

Previous articles suggested that the earliest possible occurrence is when such potential threats are in the human brain; those articles suggested that the U.S. government might have been implying using advanced technologies which can remotely detect brain activity to determine a person’s intent.

Those previous articles are supported by the official U.S. government publication on remote detection systems which suggests using “kinesiology, neurophysiology, psychology, cognitive science, sociocultural anthropology, and information science” for government remote detection systems. (Page 2) Again, kinesiology is human movement, while neurophysiology, cognitive science, and psychology all include human brain activity.

The U.S. government scientists also suggest using “E-Field” sensor technology, which is “electric field” technology, to detect electrical activity of the human brain. (Page 16) The specific quotations are as follows:

We attempt to highlight sensing technologies that we believe can measure useful data for assessing adversarial intent…Some potential sensor domains and expected contributions are as follows: …

E-Field: Passive free-space electrodes (capacitively coupled) can detect electrical activity of the heart, brain, muscles, and hidden electronic devices. (Pages 15-16, emphasis added)

In other words, the official U.S. publication suggests using remote surveillance of “electrical activity of the…brain.” And the rest of the document supports the suggestions by continually describing the plans to develop remote threat detection technology which is based on human movements (“kinesiology”), “neurophysiology,” “psychology,” and “cognitive science.” (Pages ii, 2, 3, 24, etc.)

And, the official U.S. government publication suggests that the Department of Homeland Security and other government entities (page 25) might use such remote detection technologies for “crowd control,” “anticrime operations,” and “ensuring the security of government.” (Page 26) In other words, the remote detection technologies based on human brain activity are suggested to be used as law enforcement technology.

In 2010, the U.S. government scientists suggested “quickly…creating” such remote threat detection technologies. (Page 26) The document is significant enough to emphasize again: the U.S. government scientists suggested that the technologies should “integrate components from kinesiology, neurophysiology, psychology, cognitive science, sociocultural anthropology, and information science.” (Page 2)

Such technology could also be described as “biosurveillance” technologies, although the government scientists do not use the word biosurveillance in their publication. And at approximately the same time, the U.S. government was discussing the “National Neurological Diseases Surveillance System Act of 2010.”

The “Remote Detection of Covert Tactical Adversarial Intent of Individuals in Asymmetric Operations” government publication should motivate Americans to demand that their politicians make such technologies illegal, unlawful, or whatever the proper word is. Some might say that such technologies are already illegal; in that situation, Americans should be demanding strict punishments for those who use or have used such technologies.

And there is much more to mention on this subject but it cannot be discussed in this article.
Defend pro-life and pro-family news today!
Now is your chance to join the LifeSiteNews family and defend what your loved ones will cherish forever. Support LifeSiteNews now and take a stand with our cutting-edge pro-life news.