The following article is being presented due to its overall accuracy and the importance of the information in contains. However, I specifically warn the reader that I believe that the last section, under the paragraph heading "Mass Surveillance" is factually incorrect and misleading for two reasons:
- It questions whether such surveillance is technically feasible, where I do not believe there is any reason for such a question.
- It also speaks of a hypothetical "device" external to the body of the subject, where I do not see any reason for such speculation when technology implanted in the brain which makes this possible is an undisputed fact of modern science, even in the unclassified literature (see my Special Exhibits: Mind Control for documentation).
I present the article unedited as the author originally published it, so that the reader can judge for themselves. However, I have "greyed out" the section of text I find factually misleading. JP
What information can be gathered through the use of mental surveillance?
Posted by jeremy on April 24, 2011 4:40 pm.
One desired outcome of the psychological warfare waged against a targeted individual is the discreditation of the target. The targeted individual will be made aware of things that the general public assumes to be impossible, or that don’t happen to “nobodies” like him; the target’s insistence on facts his associates think they know not to be true helps discredit him in their eyes. Mental surveillance is one of those things that “everyone knows” either can’t possibly exist, or is never used against middle aged nobodies.
Mental surveillance, mentioned briefly in the Electronic Harassment section, has a few advantages over traditional forms of surveillance. It picks up high quality and real-time information about the person of interest’s location, focus of attention, and plans; it is an essential tool in psychological warfare campaigns directed at a single person.
To move this article along, I’ll assume what many targets have good reason to believe - that mental surveillance is computer-mediated, and that the target’s mental activity can be processed into human-readable form, enabling digital processing and play-back to the target or an observer.
Is this possible?
However, we’ll have to assume mental surveillance is more advanced - and therefore developed more recently - than electronic mind control.1
Don’t overestimate it
Some targets believe, based on the ability of their harassers to get at their past history and memories, that there is some sort of remote brain scan capability which doesn’t depend on the target thinking about his past. There’s a handful of alternative (and simpler) explanations:
- The target might have been singled out a long time before his targeting was made obvious, and would have been under surveillance all that time.
- Many people are under this kind of surveillance all the time, and when an individual is targeted, his record is turned over to the person or persons managing his case.
- Information about the target’s background was gathered through conventional means, and he was interrogated subliminally about key events in his life (read on).
The simplest kinds of information picked up this way:
- Sensory monitoring: If you see it, hear it, or feel it, your observer is picking it up. Every sensation you’re conscious of is processed by your brain. Not only are they getting what’s in your field of vision, but what you’re looking at, via eyeball tracking.
- Conscious verbal thoughts: If you think sentences, not only is your observer getting those sentences, but they’re automatically converted into text for further processing.
- Visualization: Again, if there’s a picture or movie in your mind’s eye, the observer is getting it.
- Probing experiential knowledge: Concepts and images presented to the target will provoke a different kind of mental reaction depending on whether or not the target has experience with them. This method was used in India to convict a suspected murderer in 20082.
- Position and movement of limbs: This should be obvious, but it deserves some special attention because of the anxiety caused by one kind of invasion of privacy - read on.
There’s probably not spy cameras in your shower
The position of your body parts relative to each other is known to your observers, even in darkness. You have a built-in sense for this, called kinesthesia or proprioception3. So if you raise your hand to scratch your head, this is known to your observers in real time.
The kind of picture they’re getting of you, if they’re even interested in that information to further your harassment campaign, is comparable to the rendering of a character in a video game. It’s an important capability, but it’s not the same as looking at you directly.
If you look at yourself in a mirror while naked, then yes, they have a picture of your body. But otherwise, probably not.
Subconscious verbal thoughts
Here’s where we begin to merge science with psychological operations. The ability to pick up subconscious thoughts will often be exaggerated, as an intimidation tactic, and as a way of tricking the target into revealing the significance of something his harassers noticed him paying attention to.
However, it is likely the case that stereotypical thought processes are associated with common phrases in most people’s minds. So as a target idly lets his thoughts follow the path of least resistance, those phrases are triggered, forming incomplete sentences, and picked up.
Subconscious verbal thoughts are apparently at a much higher rate of effective speech than conscious verbal thoughts. For example, I’ve been treated to a unique harassment episode (an “everything you do, we can do better” psychological operation belittling my interest in neural interfaces) in which several capabilities, including subconscious verbal thought monitoring and voice morphing, were demonstrated; my verbal thoughts were echoed and distorted before I could fully formulate them.
This capability is also used to alert the target’s watchers to every single word he notices or reads, in real time.
Using the above techniques in combination with well-timed stimuli, the target can be interrogated without even realizing he’s being interrogated. These stimuli may be strategically-placed objects the target’s attention is drawn to, messages placed in television or radio shows, web pages the target views, or even subliminal messages delivered directly to his mind.
The preferred location for a mental surveillance device is far away from any possible sources of RF interference or tampering, but positioned so as to be able to read a target’s thoughts no matter where he goes. Once the surveillance device is built and put into place, it is in position to surveil not just targeted individuals, but everyone in range. Why wouldn’t the owners of the device want to watch as many people as possible?
While it is not clear that real time mass mental surveillance and processing is feasible today, it’s worth pointing out that the really valuable information picked up from surveilled persons’ thought processes (meta information indicating what is significant to each person) is at a much lower bit rate, at most a few kilobits per second per individual, which is well within the processing and data warehousing abilities of the NSA and other major intelligence agencies. (Text stricken and greyed by JP 8-14-2013)
Just as Echelon has been data-mining the world’s phone conversations on a large scale for decades, so too would mass mental surveillance pick up valuable information on a large scale. Most people take it for granted that this kind of information can’t possibly be gathered. The assumption of guaranteed privacy makes the information all the more valuable, and this assumption also intensifies the shock when a target realizes it isn’t private.
- ^ In “Radio silence on mind control research for 30 years”, I point out that researchers were getting spectacular results with electronic mind control in the 1960’s, but all they had to monitor mental activity with was EEG monitors. Translating cranial electrical impulses into human-readable form seems to require lots of processing power. (Note that the NSA has always had the most powerful computers.)
- ^ "India’s Novel Use of Brain Scans in Courts Is Debated"; New York Times, September 15, 2008.
- ^ Wikipedia's page on proprioception
- ^ "Inside the Puzzle Palace", Reason Magazine, January 2006.