New Instruments of Surveillance and Social Control: Wireless Technologies which Target the Neuronal Functioning of the
Brain
Increasingly there are indications that the uses of wireless technologies have been developed to target an individual’s
biological body, with specific focus upon the neuronal functioning of the brain. In this paper I examine how some of
these uses have had detrimental effects, and what this implies for both present and upcoming developments for particular
wireless/sensor technologies. I consider whether this is not shifting dangerously towards a psycho–civilised society,
where greater emphasis is placed upon social control and pre–emptive strategies.
Introduction
The rate of technological innovation in some fields is developing exponentially with new advances in wireless sensor
networks, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, motes, nodes, grids, and media platforms. Information flows are increasing
not only in their quantity and density, but also in their immersive quality. The historical developments of information
communication systems can be said to have traced a similar path to how nation states have organised their global power
base and dominance. First, power over the land and dominance in waging war on one’s neighbours through ground battle,
the domesticated horse and the infantry soldier. Second, domination of the seas and the strongest Navy gave advantage to
sea–faring Empires, such as Portugal, Spain, and Britain. The end of naval dominance then gave rise to the advent of the
railroad and the dynamic change in transport technology, both in routes and in speed. The transcontinental scope of the
railroads finally gave out to air power, winning the World Wars through dominance in the skies. And now, finally, the
‘final frontier’ is space, for ‘the vast potential resource base of outer space is presumably so enormous, effectively
inexhaustible, that any state that can control it will ultimately dominate the earth’ [ 1].
Likewise, modern communication technologies have moved from the land (the telegraph); to the sea (wireless radio;
radar); back to land (cables; fibre optics); and to the intermediate land/air stage (masts/antenna); to the outer
frontier of space (satellites); and finally now even beyond these frontiers towards a solar system Internet (Turner,
2007). Whoever controls these channels for communication can, in some degree, to be said to ‘dominate the earth’. And
the possible uses of wireless communications for the dissemination, targeting, and receiving of clandestine
‘communications’ is an active industry.
The aim of this paper is to examine some of the examples and instances where the use of wireless technologies have been
developed to target an individual’s biological body, with specific focus upon the neuronal functioning of the brain. I
also show how some of these uses have had detrimental effects, and what this implies for both present and upcoming
developments in particular wireless/sensor technologies. This paper shows that an upcoming area of importance is
neurotechnology, a discipline that places brain functioning and knowledge of the human brain as primary. Technologies
are now being researched and trialled that seek to penetrate and, to a degree, intervene in neural functioning. Whilst
some have termed this positively as a coming ‘neural society’ (Lynch, 2004), I consider whether this is not shifting
dangerously towards a psycho–civilised society, where greater emphasis is placed upon social control and pre–emptive
strategies. I trace a timeline that follows developments from a historical context to the present; and finally to future
scenarios and implications. It may be that the social pursuit of increasingly connective and immersive technologies has
the potential to open up a Pandora’s box of problematics.
Opening Pandora’s box
The background to this narrative begins with the story of a true Pandora’s box — a U.S. project titled Project Pandora
that was organized and administered by the psychology division of the psychiatry research section of Walter Reed Army
Institute of Research (WRAIR). This project was set–up to specifically research programs on the health effects of
microwave exposure following the ‘Moscow Embassy’ incident. From 1953 to 1976, the Soviets directed microwave radiation
at the U.S. embassy in Moscow from the roof of an adjacent building. Whilst this clandestine microwave targeting was
allegedly known for some time by U.S. officials, the event was not made public until 1976 when the U.S. State Department
finally accused the Soviet Union of bombarding the U.S. embassy in Moscow with microwave radiation for illicit purposes.
It was initially reported as a harmless procedure for charging Soviet spy–bugs: ‘Soviet antennas, which are beaming the
waves in both to charge up the batteries of their listening devices and to jam embassy–based U.S. electronic monitoring
of Russian communications’ (Time, 1976a; 1976b). However, the State Department soon indicated that, in addition to interference mechanisms, the
microwave radiation could have serious adverse effects on the health of the occupants of the embassy (O’Connor, 1993).
This was supported by Soviet data in which Soviet non–ionising electromagnetic energy (NIEM) ‘research literature
reported adverse health effects in laboratory animals and in Soviet radar workers at levels well below the 10 mW/cm2
U.S. ANSI safety recommendations’ [ 2]. Despite this being below the U.S. recommended levels the Soviet standards
excluded military personnel whilst the U.S. did not, according to the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements (NCRP), 1986 (O’Connor, 1993).
Soviet studies in the area of electromagnetic microwave radiation reported psychological symptoms in human subjects that
included lethargy, lack of concentration, headaches, depression, and impotence [ 3]. O’Connor notes how the Soviet
medical journals termed these collective symptoms microwave sickness whilst the U.S. literature referred to the symptoms
as neurasthenia (1993). Time magazine reported in March 1976 that the State Department launched:
a medical investigation of the thousands of U.S. diplomats and their families who served in Moscow since the early
1960s. In the wake of the microwave disclosures, former embassy employees and their families have recalled suffering
strange ailments during their tenure in Moscow, ranging from eye tics and headaches to heavy menstrual flows. Some point
out that former Ambassadors to Moscow Charles Bohlen and Llewellyn Thompson both died of cancer, within the last two
years one other Moscow diplomat died of cancer, and five women who lived there have undergone cancer–related
mastectomies — although no medical authorities attribute these deaths and illnesses to radiation. (Time, 1976b)
U.S. officials and military, long before the public exposure, were aware and concerned about the consequences of
microwave bombardment of civilian and military targets. In 1972 the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) released an
internal report (later declassified through the Freedom Of Information Act [FOIA] Program [ 4]) that had been previously
prepared by the U.S. Army Office of the Surgeon General Medical Intelligence Office titled ‘Controlled Offensive
Behaviour — USSR’ (initially released in July 1972). The report states that
This report summarizes the information available on Soviet research on human vulnerability as it relates to
incapacitating individuals or small groups. The information contained in this study is a review and evaluation of Soviet
research in this field of revolutionary methods of influencing human behavior and is intended as an aid in the
development of countermeasures for the protection of U.S. or allied personnel. Due to the nature of the Soviet research
in the area of reorientation or incapacitation of human behavior, this report emphasises the individual as opposed to
groups. (LaMothe, 1972)
It is interesting to note that the Report authors believed the Soviet research to be in the area of ‘reorientation’;
suggesting that the U.S. were worried over concerns that the Soviets may be planning a mass zapping of U.S. citizens
with the hope of ‘brainwashing’ them into a newly orientated ideological outlook. The 174–page Report is extensive, with
much material extended upon various forms of beamed energies and wireless strategies. On the opening section on
Electromagnetic Energy the report concludes that
Super–high frequency electromagnetic oscillations (SHF) may have potential use as a technique for altering human
behavior. Soviet Union and other foreign literature sources contain over 500 studies devoted to the biological effect of
SHF. Lethal and non–lethal aspects have been shown to exist. In certain non–lethal exposures, definite behavioural
changes have occurred. [ 5]
During this time the U.S. establishment was not naïve to the potential of conducting neurological at–a–distance effects upon human behaviour.
In the 1970s José Manuel Rodríguez Delgado was a controversial figure in neuroscience; a professor of physiology at Yale
University, he was an acclaimed neuroscientist. In 1970 “the New York Times Magazine hailed him in a cover story as the impassioned prophet of a new ‘psychocivilized society’ whose members would influence
and alter their own mental functions” [ 6]. Yet two decades earlier, in 1952, Delgado co–authored the first
peer–reviewed paper describing long–term implantation of electrodes in humans (Horgan, 2005). As an example of the
achievement into wireless–neurological devices Delgado’s most famous experiment took place in 1963 at a bull–breeding
ranch in Cordoba, Spain. Delgado implanted radio equipped electrodes, which he termed ‘stimoceivers’, into the brains of
several ‘fighting’ bulls and stood in a bullring with one bull at a time and attempted to control the actions of the
bull by pressing buttons on a handheld transmitter. In one instance Delgado was able to stop a charging bull in its
tracks only a few feet away from him by the press of a button. The New York Times published a front page story on the event, “calling it ‘the most spectacular demonstration ever performed of the
deliberate modification of animal behavior through external control of the brain’” [ 7]. In 1969 Delgado described
wireless brain–behaviour modification and its implications in his book Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society (1969). Delgado’s research during this time was supported not only by academic grants but also by the U.S. Office of
Naval Research. This research is now over forty years old, and much has happened in the intervening four decades.
Technologies that can wirelessly transmit information from and to the body is an area of research that has attracted
various interested parties post–World War II. Such energy–information distribution and targeting within the
electromagnetic spectrum can variously be used for medical, industrial, military, and telecommunications purposes. I now
turn to examine some of the military–industrial research and uses of wireless technologies.
Beams, firewalls and brain scanning: Inside the military–industrial complex
Researcher Igor Smirnov of the Russian Academy of Sciences is by all accounts an odd person, referred to by a Newsweek article as ‘A Subliminal Dr. Strangelove’ (Elliott and Barry, 1994). Smirnov was apparently contacted by the FBI during
the Davidian sect siege in Waco, Texas in 1993. Experts from the FBI Counter–Terrorism Center met with Smirnov in
Arlington, Virginia to discuss ways of affecting the behaviour of Davidian sect leader David Koresh. Smirnov’s plan was
to send subliminal messages through the phone lines during negotiations; and for targeting David Koresh the plan was to
use the voice of Charlton Heston to subliminally play God (Elliott and Barry, 1994). Smirnov’s strategies, whilst
sounding eccentric, are closely tied with military research into behaviour modification via wireless transmissions.
Smirnov’s laboratory in Moscow is named the Institute of Psycho–Correction and using electroencephalograph scanning
(EEG) he measures brain waves which he then computes to create a map of various human impulses–brain waves correlation.
This data can then be used for experimenting upon affecting brain–body modification at–a–distance. Asked in a 2004
interview whether it was possible to defeat terrorism Smirnov replied that
Only informational war is capable of defeating terrorism completely. And we possess this weapon. Peoples’ actions can
in fact be controlled by unnoticed acoustic influence. Look — it’s easy. All I have to do is record my voice, apply
special coding, which converts my voice to mere noise and afterwards, all we have to do is record some music on top of
that. The words are indistinguishable to your conscious; however, your unconscious can hear them clearly. If we were to
play this music over and over again on the radio for instance, people will soon start developing paranoia. This is the
simplest weapon. (Pravda, 2004)
Smirnov’s capabilities were demonstrated to U.S. observers as far back as 1991 when infra–sound — a very low frequency
transmission — was shown to be able to transmit acoustic messages via bone conduction [ 8].
Military strategist Timothy Thomas examined these implications in his paper ‘The Mind Has No Firewall’ in which he
states that ‘We are on the threshold of an era in which these data processors of the human body may be manipulated or
debilitated. Examples of unplanned attacks on the body’s data–processing capability are well–documented’ [ 9]. He
references a Russian military article on the same subject which declared that “‘humanity stands on the brink of a
psychotronic war’ with the mind and body as the focus” [ 10]. The context here is that the human body is a complex
communication system that is constantly receiving signal inputs, both external and internal. Thus,
The “data” the body receives from external sources — such as electromagnetic, vortex, or acoustic energy waves — or
creates through its own electrical or chemical stimuli can be manipulated or changed just as the data (information) in
any hardware system can be altered. [ 11]
Military thinking in this area is beginning to shift towards a systemic viewpoint which considers the human as an open
system rather than as a closed, bounded system.
In this new systemic approach the human communicates with, and can be communicated by, the environment through
information flows and communications media. By this understanding military thinking has begun to openly declare that
‘one’s physical environment, whether through electromagnetic, gravitational, acoustic, or other effects, can cause a
change in the psycho–physiological condition of an organism’ [ 12]. Simpson’s investigations into the sociological
discipline of communication research, which crystallised in the U.S. in the early 1950s, shows that it was financed and
mentored by governmental psychological warfare programs:
Government psychological warfare programs helped shape mass communication research into a distinct scholarly field,
strongly influencing the choice of leaders and determining which of the competing scientific paradigms of communication
would be funded, elaborated, and encouraged to prosper. [ 13]
Dominance over the airwaves, and the capability to exert coercive control over information communications is a vital
area in military planning. Documented and declassified evidence shows that what may have begun as a program in
standardized propaganda and psychological warfare has now developed into research on wireless information targeting and
‘psychocivilized’ control practices. To this effect the term ‘psycho–terrorism’ was coined by Anisimov of the Moscow
Anti–Psychotronic Center and Anisimov admits to testing such devices as are said to ‘take away a part of the information
which is stored in a man’s brain. It is sent to a computer, which reworks it to the level needed for those who need to
control the man, and the modified information is then reinserted into the brain’ [ 14]. In such cases there is concern
that the ‘mind has no firewall’ and may be vulnerable to accidental, unwanted and/or rogue interventions. Thomas’s paper
concludes by stating that ‘In reality, the game is about protecting or affecting signals, waves, and impulses that can
influence the data–processing elements of systems, computers, or people. We are potentially the biggest victims of
information warfare, because we have neglected to protect ourselves’ [ 15].
The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) brief on this subject titled ‘Controlled Effects’ also noted the power to use
the electromagnetic spectrum for wirelessly interfering into human subjects’ thinking and behaviour. By this stage the
strategy had been dubbed ‘non–lethal weapons’, as explored more fully in the work of non–lethal defence at Los Alamos by
retired Army Colonel John B. Alexander (Alexander, 1999). The AFRL report states that
the panel investigated the potential for using electromagnetic and other nonconventional force capabilities to achieve
strategic, tactical, lethal, and nonlethal force projection ... . For the Controlled Personnel Effects capability, the S panel explored the potential for targeting individuals with nonlethal force, from a militarily useful range, to make
selected adversaries think or act according to our needs. (AFRL, 2004)
These theories and concerns to affect command and control at–a–distance were echoing the conclusions from a much larger
and significant military report that was published and made available in 1996 titled ‘New World Vistas’. ‘New World
Vistas’ was a major undertaking by the U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board to examine future developments in
weapons, and totalled 14 volumes of studies. The fifteenth ‘ancillary’ volume concluded by putting forth some potential
developments for a possible future man–machine integration. In a section dealing with ‘Biological Process Control’ the
Report states that
One can envision the development of electromagnetic energy sources, the output of which can be pulsed, shaped, and
focused, that can couple with the human body in a fashion that will allow one to prevent voluntary muscular movements,
control emotions (and thus actions), produce sleep, transmit suggestions, interfere with both short–term and long–term
memory, produce an experience set, and delete an experience set. (USAF Scientific Advisory Board, 1995)
In military–speak the term ‘experience set’ implies a person’s stored memories and life experiences; thus suggesting
that such a technology could delete and then replace a person’s memories, or ‘experience set’. Research and development
along these lines have so far materialised a technology dubbed by the military as active denial system (ADS).
The Active Denial System is a non–lethal, directed–energy weapon system recently unveiled by the U.S. military and which
directs, or pulses, electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 95 Gigahertz (GHz) towards the target subjects. The
radiated beam of millimetre–wave energy can travel over a range of 500m and heats the water molecules in the epidermis
skin up to 54C (130F) (BBC, 2007). The result can be an intensely painful burning sensation. Such a system was designed
for such uses as crowd control. A fully operational and mounted system was demonstrated to journalists by U.S. military
personnel at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia, on 24 January 2007. A Reuters correspondent who volunteered to be shot with
the beam during the demonstration described it as ‘similar to a blast from a very hot oven — too painful to bear without
diving for cover’ (BBC, 2007). The diagram below illustrates the active denial system (ADS).
These technologies show uses of wireless–to–body communication and directed energy weapons for possible military attack
or defence purposes. Another area for research and development is in both military and industrial uses for operator
enhancement.
Real–time brain scanning of pilots and similar operators under stress is an increasingly active area for research
involving military and industrial partnerships. Since the early 1990s research has been made into detecting and
interpreting brain and body signals, especially brainwaves, for computerized monitoring of pilots. This information can
be used to measure pilot fatigue and to compensate for this with increased automation of the airplane in order to avoid
pilot error. Initially this was conducted by measuring the pilot’s brain waves through unobtrusive sponge sensors in the
flight helmet:
By measuring the amplitude of the brain waves generated, fatigue of the pilot can be recognized. By increasing the
brightness of the instrumental panel lights, the amplitude of the brain waves can be returned to their normal height,
thus compensating for fatigue. To get the “evoked response” from the pilot’s brain, the instrument panel lights could be
made to flash so fast that the pilot would not be aware of the flashes. [ 16]
Researchers have said that the brain can ‘register’ up to 145 flickers per second, which can then be followed up by
beaming a near infrared light into the subject’s eye, causing a spot of light to be reflected off the cornea in order to
track eye movement and measure the degree of pilot concentration. This type of research, which is still ongoing, has
been referred to by at least one current R laboratory as ‘Real–Time EEG for Operator State’ [ 17]. Brain monitoring of people in situations where fatigue could be
fatal now involves real–time analysis and observation of motorists. A technology now being considered is one called
‘Sensation’.
This technology is non–intrusive and includes a small camera that monitors a driver’s eye movements, looking out for
repeated blinking, which can be evidence of tiredness. To compliment this the driver’s seat is also lined with a
material which monitors changes in body temperature. The steering wheel too checks for handling pressure. Finally, other
sensors, if needed, can be fitted to the finger and ear to send out measurements of pressure to indicate fatigue and
levels of concentration. The driver is now wirelessly monitored, both by camera and wireless sensors, to create a more
extensive immersive driving experience (Millward, 2006).
This research and these innovations indicate that a shift is occurring in how the human is enmeshed into an increasingly
information saturated environment. These developments recognise that the human body is itself becoming the most capable
data–processing subject. The rest of this paper explores how these trends to envelop the body–brain into an environment
of information flows are being developed into social and commercial applications.
Emotional gaming and dangerous intentions: Inside the social–civil sphere
The use of EEG brain scanning has now moved into the gaming industry with up–to–date developments in sensory gaming.
Recently Emotiv publicly released information on their upcoming ‘Project Epoc’, a developmental technology that
interprets electrical signals emitted by the brain and converts them into actions on a computer. In this way the
user/gamer is able to direct actions via their thoughts in the online environment. Below are pictures of two prototypes
which the company expects to market some time in 2008 [ 18].
The company Web site claims that they provide the ultimate human–computer interface and that they are pioneers in brain
computer interface technology. In their press release of 7 March 2007 they state that
Emotiv has created the first brain computer interface technology that can detect and process both human conscious
thoughts and non–conscious emotions. The technology, which comprises a headset and a suite of applications, allows
computers to differentiate between particular thoughts such as lifting an object or rotating it; detect and mimic a
user’s expressions, such as a smile or wink; and respond to emotions such as excitement or calmness. [ 19]
In the same press release the company foresees in the future that ‘Emotiv’s technology has the potential to be applied
to numerous industries, including interactive television, accessibility design, market research, medicine, and security’
[ 20]. A similar corporate gaming company, NeuroSky, claims to have gone even further than Emotiv and reduced ‘the
brainwave pickup to the minimum specification imaginable — a single electrode. Existing versions of this electrode are
small enough to fit into a mobile phone and ... they will soon be shrunk to the size of a thumbnail, enabling people to
wear them without noticing’ (Economist, 2007). The company Web site claims its ‘bio sensor and signal processing system for the consumer market’ will unlock
‘worlds of new applications such as consumer electronics, health, wellness, education and training’ [ 21].
Clearly there is a potential commercial market envisioned here for wireless–brain technology that goes beyond the sphere
of gaming. Somewhat on the extreme to this, wireless acoustic transmissions have now been developed to ‘stop’ people
from over–gaming; in other words, as a treatment for gaming addiction. In highly technologised Asian countries such as
South Korea teenagers are spending an unhealthy amount of time at their computers in gaming environments. There have
even been instances where gamers have died after extensively long sessions in front of a computer without a break, such
as in MMORPGs (Massive Multiplayer Online Role–Playing Game). South Korean company Xtive, established in 2005, spent a
year of research to develop a system of acoustic sound waves that act as subliminal transmissions during the gaming
experience:
We incorporated messages into an acoustic sound wave telling gamers to stop playing. The messages are told 10,000 to
20,000 times per second ... . Game users can’t recognize the sounds. But their subconscious is aware of them and the
chances are high they will quit playing ... . Game companies can install a system, which delivers the inaudible sounds
after it recognizes a young user has kept playing after a preset period of time. (Tae–gyu, 2007)
This emphasises that research into techno–information flows are increasingly being developed that wirelessly interact
with a person as a biological construct, utilising the already present bio–neural functioning. And this is a trend that
is attracting more corporate players wishing to enter the field.
Gaming giant Sony Corporation has submitted and been granted a patent on a device for transmitting sensory data directly
into the human brain. Sony’s patent describes the device as firing “pulses of ultrasound at the head to modify firing
patterns in targeted parts of the brain, creating ‘sensory experiences’ ranging from moving images to tastes and sounds”
(Hogan and Fox, 2005). This is based upon a technique known as transcranial magnetic stimulation that activates the
nerves by using rapidly changing magnetic fields to induce currents in brain tissue. The patent also claims that this
technology could give blind or deaf people the chance to see or hear. Niels Birbaumer, a neuroscientist at the
University of Tübingen in Germany who has himself developed similar devices, examined the Sony patent and commented that
‘I looked at it and found it plausible’ (Hogan and Fox, 2005). Since Sony’s initial patent application in 2000 (granted
in March 2003), a series of further patents have been applied for. However, this line of research is not totally new.
For several years there has been research conducted into decoding thoughts from the brain for sending signals to an
external device such as manipulating cursors on a screen, which has been developed for disabled people, as in the case
of Matthew Nagle (Pollack, 2006). In recent years several other companies have emerged claiming to offer brain–computer
wireless interaction for either gaming purposes or for various health impairment benefits. One example is S.M.A.R.T.
BrainGames, a company based in California that offers EEG caps designed to treat people with attention deficit and
hyperactivity disorder. The company claims to offer superior neurofeedback technology at what it calls ‘affordable
prices’ [ 22]. The body–brain is increasingly shifting towards becoming a biologically–enhanced data processor for
wireless reception and transmission. Computer software giant Microsoft is aware of this and already ahead of the game.
In 2004 Microsoft was awarded U.S. Patent 6,754,472, titled ‘Method and apparatus for transmitting power and data using
the human body’ [ 23]. In this patent Microsoft is granted exclusive rights to a technology that uses the electrical
capacity of the human body to act as a computer network (Adam, 2004). Microsoft envisages ‘using the human skin’s
conductive properties to link a host of electronic devices around the body, from pagers and personal data assistants
(PDA) to mobile phones and microphones, although the company is uncharacteristically coy about exactly what it may have
in mind’ (Adam, 2004). This supports what Bill Gates himself has said about the computer finally disappearing into the
environment and the world around us (Gibson, 2005). This may be the ultimate wireless network, using the complete skin
of the body, from fingers to toes, receiving and transmitting flows of information. The patent also proposes that an
area of skin could even act as a keypad making a person capable of typing by tapping on their arm (Adam, 2004).
This is a powerful example of how technologies and technological thinking is shifting away from external hardware
devices towards using the natural bio-properties of the human body for integration into a global informational
environment. As way of some examples, here are just two from many of the patents filed that claim to develop wireless
transmission technologies: patents 4,395,600 and 5,507,291. Patent No. 4,395,600 is titled ‘Auditory subliminal message
system and method’ and is geared towards subliminal messaging to influence consumer shoppers:
Ambient audio signals from the customer shopping area within a store are sensed and fed to a signal processing circuit
that produces a control signal which varies with variations in the amplitude of the sensed audio signals. A control
circuit adjusts the amplitude of an auditory subliminal anti–shoplifting message to increase with increasing amplitudes
of sensed audio signals and decrease with decreasing amplitudes of sensed audio signals. This amplitude controlled
subliminal message may be mixed with background music and transmitted to the shopping area. [ 24]
In a similar manner for affecting an individual’s mental state is patent no. 5,507,291 — ‘Method and an associated
apparatus for remotely determining information as to person’s emotional state’ — which comes very close to what has been
discussed on military uses of information warfare:
In a method for remotely determining information relating to a person’s emotional state, a waveform energy having a
predetermined frequency and a predetermined intensity is generated and wirelessly transmitted towards a remotely located
subject. Waveform energy emitted from the subject is detected and automatically analyzed to derive information relating
to the individual’s emotional state. [ 25]
In this scenario information flows are two-way with the body-brain emitting as well as receiving. Yet with the human
body–brain becoming a site for data transfer and reception, there are concerns that it is increasingly becoming a target
for various corporate interests. And not only corporate interests are involved in these developments, however, for there
are also recent innovative technologies in this area that offer serious implications for social privacy and liberty at a
state level.
At first the idea sounds like nothing more than science fiction. Indeed, it even appeared as a central feature in the
film ‘Minority Report’. This is the notion of pre–cognition: to be able to know a person’s actions before those actions
are committed. Yet now a team of neuroscientists have developed a technique that can scan a brain and learn from the
patterns of neuronal activity what a person is thinking or intending to do. This research is the culmination of recent
studies where brain imaging has been used to identify particular brain patterns pertaining to such behaviour as
violence, lying, and racial prejudice (Sample, 2007). To achieve this the team ‘used high–resolution brain scans to
identify patterns of activity before translating them into meaningful thoughts, revealing what a person planned to do in
the near future’ (Sample, 2007). This is the first acknowledged instance of having the technical capacity to judge
whether people have the intention to commit a criminal act regardless of actual hard physical evidence of the crime. According to Prof Haynes: ‘We see
the danger that this might become compulsory one day, but we have to be aware that if we prohibit it, we are also
denying people who aren’t going to commit any crime the possibility of proving their innocence’ (Sample, 2007). Since
this technology is so new there are no current ethical or moral debates on this issue and the implications for its civil
use are worrying. If developed these ‘techniques may eventually have wide–ranging implications for everything from
criminal interrogations to airline security checks. And that alarms some ethicists who fear the technology could one day
be abused by authorities, marketers or employers’ (Cheng, 2007).
A hypothetical situation in the future might place these scanning devices within regular x–ray scanning machines at
airports. On passing through to the passenger lounge all travellers will be scanned not only for potentially dangerous
physical objects but also for dangerous intentions. Yet who has not had a ‘dangerous intention’? Or rather, to quote a more familiar phrase: ‘He who is without sin among
you, let him be the first to throw a stone’ [ 26]. In this manner all travellers will have to safeguard their thoughts
at all times; who is to know whether such scanning devices are embedded into the walls of the airport lounge and
corridors? Or in the toilets; on board the airplane? This uncertain and somewhat dystopian scenario is one that could
shift technologised states into psycho–civilised societies where thoughts and intentions become part of terrorist
discourse. This could be seen as an extreme case of convergence between the social compromises required to facilitate
efficient physical–digital infrastructures and the need for securitised mobilities (Wood and Graham, 2006). It also
resembles the extremity of constructing an all–inclusive technological web of complex information flows that bypasses
traditional forms of interface.
This sees a shift away from earlier prototypes of the hardware–heavy cyborg, such as the early ‘wearcam’ work of Steve
Mann [ 27], towards people actively engaging with their informational environments both in terms of security and
surveillance. In some ways these developments have contributed to a rise in acts of self–surveillance, or sousveillance.
(In)Securities, self–sensoring and sousveillance: Inside the social panopticon
Fears over security and safety have reached new levels in the opening decade of the twenty–first century. It is, in all
respects, a post–millennium state of insecurity. The older and more familiar paradigms of warfare and security were
based upon binaries (e.g., Democracy vs. Communism; friend vs. foe). To some degree this binary distinction is still maintained and played out in
media and cultural discourse as Freedom vs. Anti–Freedom, or West vs. Islam. Yet upon deeper scrutiny this manifests as
an asymmetrical arrangement: order/authority vs.
*************
Kingsley Dennis is a Research Associate in the Centre for Mobilities Research (CeMoRe) based at the Sociology Department
at Lancaster University, U.K. His doctoral work focused on complexity theory and information communication technologies.
Post–doctoral research now involves examining physical–digital convergences and how these might impact upon social
processes. He is concerned with the digital rendition of identity and the implications of surveillance technologies.
E–mail: Kingsley [at] kingsleydennis [dot] co [dot] uk
Notes
1. Dolman, 2002, p. 41.
2. O’Connor, 1993, p. 35.
3. Ibid.
/Foia/foia.htm for list of declassified reports, accessed 11 November 2007.
5. LaMothe, 1972, p. 18.
6. Horgan, 2005, p. 67.
7. Horgan, 2005, p. 70.
8. Thomas, 1998, p. 84.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Thomas, 1998, p. 85.
12. Thomas, 1998, p. 86.
13. Simpson, 1994, p. 3.
14. Thomas, 1998, p. 87.
15. Thomas, 1998, p. 89.
16. Welsh, 1998, p. 37.
17. Part of ongoing research at the QinetiQ Group — see http://www.qinetiq.com/.
emotiv-project-epoc-sensory-gaming-for-the-masses/ , accessed 15 January 2008.
19. http://emotiv.com/3_0/pr/pr022607a.htm , accessed 5 November 2007.
20. http://emotiv.com/3_0/pr/pr022607a.htm , accessed 5 November 2007.
21. See http://www.neurosky.com/, accessed 5 November 2007.
222. http://www.smartbraingames.com/, accessed 5 November 2007.
23. For patent, see http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6754472=30YSAAAAEBAJ=6,754,472 .
24. See Google patents http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4395600=V_ItAAAAEBAJ=4,395,600 .
25. See Google patents http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5507291=940lAAAAEBAJ=5,507,291 .
26. John 8:1–9.
27. See http://wearcam.org/mann.html, accessed 17 January 2008.
28. See also BBC Report — http://news.bbc.co.uk/
1/hi/uk/6108496.stm, accessed 5 November 2007. For general information see the journal Surveillance and Society, at http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/index.htm , accessed 5 November 2007.
29. There are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain — about one for every 14 people — more than other industrialised
Western states.
30. Greenfield, 2006, p. 18.
31. Dyson, 1997, pp. 133–134.
References
D. Adam, 2004. “Computerising the body: Microsoft wins patent to exploit network potential of skin,” The Guardian (6 July),
2004/jul/06/sciencenews.microsoft, accessed 10 February 2008.
J. Alexander, 1999. Future war: Non–lethal weapons in modern warfare. London: Saint Martin’s Press.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/
americas/6297149.stm, accessed 26 January 2007.
M. Cheng, 2007. “Scientists claim first in using brain scans to predict intentions,” North West Florida Daily News (5 March); also at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/05/
ap/tech/mainD8NM0O8G0.shtml, accessed 10 February 2008.
J. Delgado, 1969. Physical control of the mind: Toward a psychocivilized society. New York: Harper & Row.
E.C. Dolman, 2002. Astropolitik: Classical geopolitics in the Space Age. London: Frank Cass.
F.J. Dyson, 1997. Imagined worlds. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Economist, 2007. “Mind games: Brain–controlled games and other devices should soon be on sale,” Economist (15 March), and at http://www.economist.com/
science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8847846, accessed 10 February 2008.
D. Elliott and J. Barry, 1994. “A subliminal Dr. Strangelove,” Newsweek (22 August), p. 57.
O. Gibson, 2005. “Gates unveils his vision of a future made of silicon,” Guardian (28 October), and at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/
2005/oct/28/newmedia.microsoft, accessed 10 February 2008.
A. Greenfield, 2006. Everyware: The dawning age of ubiquitous computing. Berkeley, Calif.: New Riders.
J. Hogan and B. Fox, 2005. “Sony patent takes first step towards real–life Matrix,” New Scientist, issue 2494 (7 April), p. 10, and at http://www.newscientist.com/
article.ns?id=mg18624944.600, accessed 10 February 2008.
J. Horgan, 2005. “The forgotten era of brain chips,” Scientific American (October), and at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006
=1=000876CF-CC6F-1331-841D83414B7FFE9F0 , accessed 10 February 2008.
John D LaMothe, 1972. Controlled offensive behavior — USSR (U). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency.
Z. Lynch, 2004. “Neurotechnology and society (2010–2060),” at http://lifeboat.com/ex/neurotechnology.and.society , accessed 9 March 2007.
S Mann, 2002. Intelligent image processing. New York: Wiley.
S. Mann, 1998. “‘Reflectionism’ and ‘diffusionism’: New tactics for deconstructing the video surveillance superhighway,” Leonardo, volume 31, number 2 (April), pp. 93–102, and at http://wearcam.org/leonardo/reflectionism.htm ,
accessed 10 February 2008.
S. Mann, J. Nolan, and B. Wellman, 2003. “Sousveillance: Inventing and using wearable computing devices for data
collection in surveillance environments,” Surveillance & Society, volume 1, number 3, pp. 331–355, and at
sousveillance.pdf,accessed 16 January 2008.
D. Millward, 2006. “Gadget will stop drivers falling asleep at the wheel,” Telegraph (7 April), and at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/
2006/04/07/ndrive07.xml=/
news/2006/04/07/ixhome.html, accessed 10 February 2008.
M.E. O’Connor, 1993. “Psychological studies in nonionizing electromagnetic energy research,” Journal of General Psychology, volume 120, number 1, pp. 33–47.
A. Pollack, 2006. “Paralyzed man uses thoughts to move a cursor,” New York Times (13 July), and at http://www.nytimes.com/
2006/07/13/science/13brain.html?_r=1=slogin , accessed 10 February 2008.
Pravda, 2004. “Mind control: The Zombie Effect,” at
/19/94/379/14567_.html, accessed 21 January 2007.
I. Sample, 2007. “The brain scan that can read people's intentions,” Guardian (9 February), and at http://www.guardian.co.uk/science
/2007/feb/09/neuroscience.ethicsofscience, accessed 10 February 2008.
P. Schwartz, C. Taylor, and R. Koselka, 2006. “Quantum leap: Brain prosthetics. Telepathy. Punctual flights. A
futurist’s vision of where quantum computers will take us,” Fortune, volume 154, number 3 (7 August), and at
magazines/fortune/futureoftech_quantum.
fortune/index.htm, accessed 10 February 2008.
C. Simpson, 1994. Science of coercion: Communication research and psychological warfare, 1945–1960. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
C. Stross, 2002. “The panopticon singularity,”
rant/panopticon-essay.html, accessed 16 March 2007.
K. Tae–gyu, 2007. “Acoustic wave prevents game addiction,” Korea Times, http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/
200703/kt2007031220190210160.htm, accessed 16 March 2007.
T.L. Thomas, 1998. “The mind has no firewall,” Parameters (Spring), pp. 84–92, and at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/
Parameters/98spring/thomas.htm, accessed 10 February 2008.
Time, 1976b. “The microwave furor,” Time, volume 107, number 12 (22 March), p. 15, and at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/
article/0,9171,911755,00.html, accessed 10 February 2008.
Time, 1976a. “Moscow microwaves,” Time, volume 107, number 18 (23 February), and at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/
article/0,9171,918076,00.html, accessed 10 February 2008.
A. Turner, 2007. “Inter–planetary Internet expands to Mars and beyond,” at http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/9802/1066/ , accessed 12 March 2007.
U.K. Information Commissioner, 2006. A Report on the Surveillance Society. London: Surveillance Network, at http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/
data_protection/practical_application/
surveillance_society_full_report_2006.pdf, accessed 10 February 2008.
U.S. Air Force. Research Laboratory (AFRL), 2004. “Controlled effects (Air Force Research Laboratory long–term
challenges),” at http://www.afrlhorizons.com/
Briefs/Jun04/DE0401.html, accessed 27 January 2007.
U.S. Air Force. Scientific Advisory Board, 1995. New world vistas: Air and space power for the 21st century. Washington, D.C.?: The Board.
M. Weiser and J.S. Brown, 1996. “The coming age of calm technology,” at http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/
acmfuture2endnote.htm, accessed 16 January 2008.
C. Welsh, 1998. “The 1950s secret discovery of the code of the brain,” at http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/
ciencia/ciencia_secretdiscovery_codebrain.htm, accessed 10 February 2008.
D.M. Wood and S. Graham, 2006. “Permeable boundaries in the software–sorted society: Surveillance and differentiations
of mobility,” In: M. Sheller and J. Urry (editors). Mobile technologies of the city. London: Routledge, pp. 177–191.
First Monday, Volume 13, Number 2 - 4 February 2008
/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2084/1940
*************
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the
text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research
articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoocom
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We
are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better
understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Kingsley Dennis, GlobalResearch.ca, 2008