The TV news anchor soberly announced the day’s top story: another city transit bus had been bombed, and a domestic terror group was claiming responsibility. The report went on to say that witnesses saw a man get off the bus just before it blew up, and that the FBI was investigating.
The scene described above—realistic as it may sound—is part of a fictional new video. But Caught on Camera is not a product of Hollywood. While it does have high production values, special effects, and narration by Annie Wersching, co-star of the TV show 24, the video was created by our Operational Technology Division to show business owners how their security cameras can aid law enforcement investigations and maybe even help solve a terrorist attack.
Using the transit bus bombing as its story line, the 20-minute instructional video shows how closed circuit television (CCTV) systems can be installed and maintained for maximum effect—not only for the business owner but for the needs of law enforcement as well.
| Caught on Camera shows how to avoid common problems such as installing cameras in the wrong places, ignoring lighting and line-of-sight issues, and having administrators who don’t understand how the systems operate. |
“Often the surveillance images we receive from these types of security cameras are of poor quality, and they don’t need to be,” she said, explaining that such images can be critical in identifying and apprehending a terrorist or fugitive.
Caught on Camera shows how to avoid common problems such as installing cameras in the wrong places, ignoring lighting and line-of-sight issues, and having administrators who don’t understand how the systems operate. “Many business owners think their systems are fine until something happens,” Gossman said.
| Transcript |
The video uses real actors as well as FBI personnel, including members of our Hostage Rescue Team. “We wanted to make a training video that wasn’t boring,” said Melody Buba, a forensic video examiner who worked on the year-long project. “It needed to be entertaining enough for business owners to watch it, but instructional.”
In the video, the terrorist shops for bomb-making material in a local home improvement store and buys backpacks at a pharmacy to transport the explosives. Many of the stores’ surveillance images are flawed, but one home improvement store camera reveals that the bomber has a distinguishing tattoo on his neck, which proves crucial to the investigation.
There are many ways for CCTV systems to fail, one of the actors explained. “But when the system works, it can make all the difference.” If you are going to install a CCTV system, the video points out, “Do it right—for yourself, for law enforcement, and for your community.”
In the case of Caught on Camera, the system did indeed work. And the outcome is fun to watch.
Caught on Camera is also available free of charge in DVD format to members of the law enforcement community, business owners, CCTV vendors, suppliers, contractors, and educators. To request a copy, send an e-mail to cctvdvd@leo.gov. Please include your name, position, agency, street address (no post office boxes), and telephone number.
ORIGINS
The FBI originated from a force of Special Agents created in 1908 by Attorney General Charles Bonaparte during the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. The two men first met when they both spoke at a meeting of the Baltimore Civil Service Reform Association. Roosevelt, then Civil Service Commissioner, boasted of his reforms in federal law enforcement. It was 1892, a time when law enforcement was often political rather than professional. Roosevelt spoke with pride of his insistence that Border Patrol applicants pass marksmanship tests, with the most accurate getting the jobs. Following Roosevelt on the program, Bonaparte countered, tongue in cheek, that target shooting was not the way to get the best men. "Roosevelt should have had the men shoot at each other, and given the jobs to the survivors." Roosevelt and Bonaparte both were "Progressives." They shared the conviction that efficiency and expertise, not political connections, should determine who could best serve in government. Theodore Roosevelt became President of the United States in 1901; four years later, he appointed Bonaparte to be Attorney General. In 1908, Bonaparte applied that Progressive philosophy to the Department of Justice by creating a corps of Special Agents. It had neither a name nor an officially designated leader other than the Attorney General. Yet, these former detectives and Secret Service men were the forerunners of the FBI. Today, most Americans take for granted that our country needs a federal investigative service, but in 1908, the establishment of this kind of agency at a national level was highly controversial. The U.S. Constitution is based on "federalism": a national government with jurisdiction over matters that crossed boundaries, like interstate commerce and foreign affairs, with all other powers reserved to the states. Through the 1800s, Americans usually looked to cities, counties, and states to fulfill most government responsibilities. However, by the 20th century, easier transportation and communications had created a climate of opinion favorable to the federal government establishing a strong investigative tradition. The impulse among the American people toward a responsive federal government, coupled with an idealistic, reformist spirit, characterized what is known as the Progressive Era, from approximately 1900 to 1918. The Progressive generation believed that government intervention was necessary to produce justice in an industrial society. Moreover, it looked to "experts" in all phases of industry and government to produce that just society. President Roosevelt personified Progressivism at the national level. A federal investigative force consisting of well-disciplined experts and designed to fight corruption and crime fit Roosevelt's Progressive scheme of government. Attorney General Bonaparte shared his President's Progressive philosophy. However, the Department of Justice under Bonaparte had no investigators of its own except for a few Special Agents who carried out specific assignments for the Attorney General, and a force of Examiners (trained as accountants) who reviewed the financial transactions of the federal courts. Since its beginning in 1870, the Department of Justice used funds appropriated to investigate federal crimes to hire private detectives first, and later investigators from other federal agencies. (Federal crimes are those that were considered interstate or occurred on federal government reservations.) By 1907, the Department of Justice most frequently called upon Secret Service "operatives" to conduct investigations. These men were well-trained, dedicated -- and expensive. Moreover, they reported not to the Attorney General, but to the Chief of the Secret Service. This situation frustrated Bonaparte, who wanted complete control of investigations under his jurisdiction. Congress provided the impetus for Bonaparte to acquire his own force. On May 27, 1908, it enacted a law preventing the Department of Justice from engaging Secret Service operatives. The following month, Attorney General Bonaparte appointed a force of Special Agents within the Department of Justice. Accordingly, ten former Secret Service employees and a number of Department of Justice peonage (i.e., compulsory servitude) investigators became Special Agents of the Department of Justice. On July 26, 1908, Bonaparte ordered them to report to Chief Examiner Stanley W. Finch. This action is celebrated as the beginning of the FBI. Both Attorney General Bonaparte and President Theodore Roosevelt, who completed their terms in March 1909, recommended that the force of 34 Agents become a permanent part of the Department of Justice. Attorney General George Wickersham, Bonaparte's successor, named the force the Bureau of Investigation on March 16, 1909. At that time, the title of Chief Examiner was changed to Chief of the Bureau of Investigation. EARLY DAYS When the Bureau was established, there were few federal crimes. The Bureau of Investigation primarily investigated violations of laws involving national banking, bankruptcy, naturalization, antitrust, peonage, and land fraud. Because the early Bureau provided no formal training, previous law enforcement experience or a background in the law was considered desirable. The first major expansion in Bureau jurisdiction came in June 1910 when the Mann ("White Slave") Act was passed, making it a crime to transport women over state lines for immoral purposes. It also provided a tool by which the federal government could investigate criminals who evaded state laws but had no other federal violations. Finch became Commissioner of White Slavery Act violations in 1912, and former Special Examiner A. Bruce Bielaski became the new Bureau of Investigation Chief. Over the next few years, the number of Special Agents grew to more than 300, and these individuals were complemented by another 300 support employees. Field offices existed from the Bureau's inception. Each field operation was controlled by a Special Agent in Charge who was responsible to Washington. Most field offices were located in major cities. However, several were located near the Mexican border where they concentrated on smuggling, neutrality violations, and intelligence collection, often in connection with the Mexican revolution. With the April 1917 entry of the United States into World War I during Woodrow Wilson's administration, the Bureau's work was increased again. As a result of the war, the Bureau acquired responsibility for the Espionage, Selective Service, and Sabotage Acts, and assisted the Department of Labor by investigating enemy aliens. During these years Special Agents with general investigative experience and facility in certain languages augmented the Bureau. William J. Flynn, former head of the Secret Service, became Director of the Bureau of Investigation in July 1919 and was the first to use that title. In October 1919, passage of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act gave the Bureau of Investigation another tool by which to prosecute criminals who previously evaded the law by crossing state lines. With the return of the country to "normalcy" under President Warren G. Harding in 1921, the Bureau of Investigation returned to its pre-war role of fighting the few federal crimes. THE "LAWLESS" YEARS The years from 1921 to 1933 were sometimes called the "lawless years" because of gangsterism and the public disregard for Prohibition, which made it illegal to sell or import intoxicating beverages. Prohibition created a new federal medium for fighting crime. But the Department of the Treasury, not the Department of Justice, had jurisdiction for these violations. Attacking crimes that were federal in scope but local in jurisdiction called for creative solutions. The Bureau of Investigation had limited success using its narrow jurisdiction to investigate some of the criminals of "the gangster era." For example, it investigated Al Capone as a "fugitive federal witness." Federal investigation of a resurgent white supremacy movement also required creativity. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK), dormant since the late 1800s, was revived in part to counteract the economic gains made by African Americans during World War I. The Bureau of Investigation used the Mann Act to bring Louisiana's philandering KKK "Imperial Kleagle" to justice. Through these investigations and through more traditional investigations of nuetrality violations and antitrust violations, the Bureau of Investigation gained stature. Although the Harding Administration suffered from unqualified and sometimes corrupt officials, the Progressive Era reform tradition continued among the professional Department of Justice Special Agents. The new Bureau of Investigation Director, William J. Burns, who had previously run his own detective agency, appointed 26-year-old J. Edgar Hoover as Assistant Director. Hoover, a graduate of George Washington University Law School, had worked for the Department of Justice since 1917, where he headed the enemy alien operations during World War I and assisted in the General Intelligence Division under Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, investigating suspected anarchists and communists. After Harding died in 1923, his successor, Calvin Coolidge, appointed replacements for Harding's cronies in the Cabinet. For the new Attorney General, Coolidge appointed attorney Harlan Fiske Stone. Stone then, on May 10, 1924, selected Hoover to head the Bureau of Investigation. By inclination and training, Hoover embodied the Progressive tradition. His appointment ensured that the Bureau of Investigation would keep that tradition alive. When Hoover took over, the Bureau of Investigation had approximately 650 employees, including 441 Special Agents. He immediately fired those Agents he considered unqualified and proceeded to professionalize the organization. For example, Hoover abolished the seniority rule of promotion and introduced uniform performance appraisals. Regular inspections of Headquarters and field office operations were scheduled. New Agents had to be between 25 and 35 years old. Then, in January 1928, Hoover established a formal training course for new Agents. He also returned to the earlier preference for Special Agents with law or accounting experience. The new Director was also keenly aware that the Bureau of Investigation could not fight crime without public support. In remarks prepared for the Attorney General in 1925, he wrote, "The Agents of the Bureau of Investigation have been impressed with the fact that the real problem of law enforcement is in trying to obtain the cooperation and sympathy of the public and that they cannot hope to get such cooperation until they themselves merit the respect of the public." Also in the early days of Hoover's directorship, a long held goal of American law enforcement was achieved: the establishment of an Identification Division. Tracking criminals by means of identification records had been considered a crucial tool of law enforcement since the 19th century, and matching fingerprints was considered the most accurate method. By 1922, many large cities had started their own fingerprint collections. In keeping with the Progressive Era tradition of federal assistance to localities, the Department of Justice created a Bureau of Criminal Identification in 1905 in order to provide a centralized reference collection of fingerprint cards. In 1907, the collection was moved, as a money-saving measure, to Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary, where it was staffed by convicts. Understandably suspicious of this arrangement, police departments formed their own centralized identification bureau maintained by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. It refused to share its data with the Bureau of Criminal Investigation. In 1924, Congress was persuaded to merge the two collections in Washington, D.C., under Bureau of Investigation administration. As a result, law enforcement agencies across the country began contributing fingerprint cards to the Bureau of Investigation by 1926. By the end of the decade, Special Agent training was institutionalized, the field office inspection system was solidly in place, and the Identification Division was functioning. In addition, studies were underway that would lead to the creation of the Technical Laboratory and Uniform Crime Reports. The Bureau was equipped to end the "lawless years." THE NEW DEAL The 1929 stock market crash and the Great Depression brought hard times to America. Hard times, in turn, created more criminals--and also led Americans to escape their troubles through newspapers, radio, and movies. To combat the crime wave, President Franklin D. Roosevelt influenced Congress in his first administration to expand federal jurisdiction, and his Attorney General, Homer Cummings, fought an unrelenting campaign against rampant interstate crime. Noting the widespread interest of the media in this war against crime, Hoover carried the message of FBI work through them to the American people. He became as adept at publicizing his agency's work as he was at administering it. Prior to 1933, Bureau Agents had developed an esprit de corps, but the public considered them interchangeable with other federal investigators. Three years later, mere identification with the FBI was a source of special pride to its employees and commanded instant recognition and respect from the public. During the early and mid-1930s several crucial decisions solidified the Bureau's position as the nation's premier law enforcement agency. In 1932, Congress passed a federal kidnapping statute. Then in May and June 1934, with gangsters like John Dillinger evading capture by crossing over state lines, it passed a number of federal crime laws that significantly enhanced the Bureau's jurisdiction. Congress also gave Bureau Agents statutory authority to carry guns and make arrests. The Bureau of Investigation was renamed the United States Bureau of Investigation on July 1, 1932. Then, beginning July 1, 1933, the Department of Justice experimented for almost two years with a Division of Investigation that included the Bureau of Prohibition. Public confusion between Bureau of Investigation Special Agents and Prohibition Agents led to a permanent name change in 1935 for the agency composed of Department of Justice's investigators: the Federal Bureau of Investigation was thus born. Contributing to its forensic expertise, the Bureau established its Technical Laboratory in 1932. Journalist Rex Collier called it "a novel research laboratory where government criminologists will match wits with underworld cunning." Originally the small laboratory operated strictly as a research facility. However, it benefitted from expanded federal funding, eventually housing specialized microscopes and extensive reference collections of guns, watermarks, typefaces, and automobile tire designs. Also in 1935, the FBI National Academy was established to train police officers in modern investigative methods, since at that time only a few states and localities provided formal training to their peace officers. The National Academy taught investigative techniques to police officials throughout the United States, and starting in the 1940s, from all over the world. The legal tools given to the FBI by Congress, as well as Bureau initiatives to upgrade its own professionalism and that of law enforcement, resulted in the arrest or demise of all the major gangsters by 1936. By that time, however, Fascism in Adolph Hitler's Germany and Benito Mussolini's Italy and Communism in Josef Stalin's Soviet Union threatened American democratic principles. With war on the horizon, a new set of challenges faced the FBI. WORLD WAR II PERIOD Germany, Italy, and Japan embarked on an unchecked series of invasions during the late 1930s. Hitler and Mussolini supported the Spanish Falangists in their successful civil war against the "Loyalist" Spanish government (1937-39). Although many Europeans and North Americans considered the Spanish Civil War an opportunity to destroy Fascism, the United States, Great Britain, and France remained neutral; only Russia supported the Loyalists. To the shock of those who admired Russia for its active opposition to Fascism, Stalin and Hitler signed a nonaggression pact in August 1939. The following month, Hitler seized Poland, and Russia took Finland and the Baltic States. Great Britain and France declared war on Germany, which formed the "Axis" with Japan and Italy--and World War II began. The United States, however, continued to adhere to the neutrality acts it had passed in the mid-1930s. As these events unfolded in Europe, the American Depression continued. The Depression provided as fertile an environment for radicalism in the United States as it did in Europe. European Fascists had their counterparts and supporters in the United States in the German-American Bund, the Silver Shirts, and similar groups. At the same time, labor unrest, racial disturbances, and sympathy for the Spanish Loyalists presented an unparalleled opportunity for the American Communist Party to gain adherents. The FBI was alert to these Fascist and Communist groups as threats to American security. Authority to investigate these organizations came in 1936 with President Roosevelt's authorization through Secretary of State Cordell Hull. A 1939 Presidential Directive further strengthened the FBI's authority to investigate subversives in the United States, and Congress reinforced it by passing the Smith Act in 1940, outlawing advocacy of violent overthrow of the government. With the actual outbreak of war in 1939, the responsibilities of the FBI escalated. Subversion, sabotage, and espionage became major concerns. In addition to Agents trained in general intelligence work, at least one Agent trained in defense plant protection was placed in each of the FBI's 42 field offices. The FBI also developed a network of informational sources, often using members of fraternal or veterans' organizations. With leads developed by these intelligence networks and through their own work, Special Agents investigated potential threats to national security. Great Britain stood virtually alone against the Axis powers after France fell to the Germans in 1940. An Axis victory in Europe and Asia would threaten democracy in North America. Because of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the American Communist Party and its sympathizers posed a double-edged threat to American interests. Under the direction of Russia, the American Communist Party vigorously advocated continued neutrality for the United States. In 1940 and 1941, the United States moved further and further away from neutrality, actively aiding the Allies. In late 1940, Congress reestablished the draft. The FBI was responsible for locating draft evaders and deserters. Without warning, the Germans attacked Russia on June 22, 1941. Thereafter, the FBI focused its internal security efforts on potentially dangerous German, Italian, and Japanese nationals as well as native-born Americans whose beliefs and activities aided the Axis powers. The FBI also participated in intelligence collection. Here the Technical Laboratory played a pioneering role. Its highly skilled and inventive staff cooperated with engineers, scientists, and cryptographers in other agencies to enable the United States to penetrate and sometimes control the flow of information from the belligerents in the Western Hemisphere. Sabotage investigations were another FBI responsibility. In June 1942, a major, yet unsuccessful, attempt at sabotage was made on American soil. Two German submarines let off four saboteurs each at Amagansett, Long Island, and Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. These men had been trained by Germany in explosives, chemistry, secret writing, and how to blend into American surroundings. While still in German clothes, the New York group encountered a Coast Guard sentinel patrolling the beach, who ultimately allowed them to pass. However, afraid of capture, saboteur George Dasch turned himself in--and assisted the FBI in locating and arresting the rest of the team. All were tried shortly afterward by a military tribunal and found guilty. Six who did not cooperate with the U.S. Government were executed a few days later. The others were sentenced to life imprisonment, but were returned to Germany after the war. The swift capture of these Nazi saboteurs helped to allay fear of Axis subversion and bolstered Americans' faith in the FBI. Even before U.S. entry into the War, the FBI uncovered a major espionage ring. This group, the Frederick Duquesne spy ring, was the largest one discovered up to that time. The FBI was assisted by a loyal American with German relatives who acted as a double agent. For nearly two years the FBI ran a radio station for him, learning what Germany was sending to its spies in the United States while controlling the information that was being transmitted to Germany. The investigation led to the arrest and conviction of 33 spies. War for the United States began December 7, 1941, when Japanese armed forces attacked ships and facilities at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The United States immediately declared war on Japan, and the next day Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. By 9:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, on December 7, the FBI was in a wartime mode. FBI Headquarters and the 54 field offices were placed on 24-hour schedules. On December 7 and 8, the FBI arrested previously identified aliens who threatened national security and turned them over to military or immigration authorities. At this time, the FBI augmented its Agent force with National Academy graduates, who took an abbreviated training course. As a result, the total number of FBI employees rose from 7,400 to over 13,000, including approximately 4,000 Agents, by the end of 1943. Traditional war-related investigations did not occupy all the FBI's time. For example, the Bureau continued to carry out civil rights investigations. Segregation, which was legal at the time, was the rule in the Armed Services and in virtually the entire defense industry in the 1940s. Under pressure from African-American organizations, the President appointed a Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC). The FEPC had no enforcement authority. However, the FBI could arrest individuals who impeded the war effort. The Bureau assisted the FEPC when a Philadelphia transit workers' union went out on strike against an FEPC desegregation order. The strike ended when it appeared that the FBI was about to arrest its leaders. The most serious discrimination during World War II was the decision to evacuate Japanese nationals and American citizens of Japanese descent from the West Coast and send them to internment camps. Because the FBI had arrested the individuals whom it considered security threats, FBI Director Hoover took the position that confining others was unnecessary. The President and Attorney General, however, chose to support the military assessment that evacuation and internment were imperative. Ultimately, the FBI became responsible for arresting curfew and evacuation violators. While most FBI personnel during the war worked traditional war-related or criminal cases, one contingent of Agents was unique. Separated from Bureau rolls, these Agents, with the help of FBI Legal Attaches, composed the Special Intelligence Service (SIS) in Latin America. Established by President Roosevelt in 1940, the SIS was to provide information on Axis activities in South America and to destroy its intelligence and propaganda networks. Several hundred thousand Germans or German descendants and numerous Japanese lived in South America. They provided pro-Axis pressure and cover for Axis communications facilities. Nevertheless, in every South American country, the SIS was instrumental in bringing about a situation in which, by 1944, continued support for the Nazis became intolerable or impractical. In April 1945, President Roosevelt died, and Vice President Harry Truman took office as President. Before the end of the month, Hitler committed suicide and the German commander in Italy surrendered. Although the May 1945 surrender of Germany ended the war in Europe, war continued in the Pacific until August 14, 1945. The world that the FBI faced in September 1945 was very different from the world of 1939 when the war began. American isolationism had effectively ended, and, economically, the United States had become the world's most powerful nation. At home, organized labor had achieved a strong foothold; African Americans and women, having tasted equality during wartime labor shortages, had developed aspirations and the means of achieving the goals that these groups had lacked before the war. The American Communist Party possessed an unparalleled confidence, while overseas the Soviet Union strengthened its grasp on the countries it had wrested from German occupation--making it plain that its plans to expand Communist influence had not abated. And hanging over the euphoria of a world once more at peace was the mushroom cloud of atomic weaponry. POSTWAR AMERICA In February 1946 Stalin gave a public address in which he implied that future wars were inevitable until Communism replaced capitalism worldwide. Events in Europe and North America convinced Congress that Stalin was well on his way to achieving his goal. The Russian veto prevented the United Nations from curbing Soviet expansion under its auspices. Americans feared Communist expansion was not limited to Europe. By 1947, ample evidence existed that pro-Soviet individuals had infiltrated the American Government. In June, 1945, the FBI raided the offices of Amerasia, a magazine concerned with the Far East, and discovered a large number of classified State Department documents. Several months later the Canadians arrested 22 people for trying to steal atomic secrets. Previously, Americans felt secure behind their monopoly of the atomic bomb. Fear of a Russian bomb now came to dominate American thinking. The Soviets detonated their own bomb in 1949. Counteracting the Communist threat became a paramount focus of government at all levels, as well as the private sector. While U.S. foreign policy concentrated on defeating Communist expansion abroad, many U.S. citizens sought to defeat the Communist threat at home. The American Communist Party worked through front organizations or influenced other Americans who agreed with their current propaganda ("fellow travelers"). Since 1917, the FBI and its predecessor agencies had investigated suspected acts of espionage and sabotage. In 1939 and again in 1943, Presidential directives had authorized the FBI to carry out investigations of threats to national security. This role was clarified and expanded under Presidents Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Any public or private agency or individual with information about subversive activities was urged to report it to the FBI. A poster to that effect was distributed to police departments throughout the country. At the same time, it warned Americans to "avoid reporting malicious gossip or idle rumors." The FBI's authority to conduct background investigations on present and prospective government employees also expanded dramatically in the postwar years. The 1946 Atomic Energy Act gave the FBI "responsibility for determining the loyalty of individuals ...having access to restricted Atomic Energy data." Later, executive orders from both Presidents Truman and Eisenhower gave the FBI responsibility for investigating allegations of disloyalty among federal employees. In these cases, the agency requesting the investigation made the final determination; the FBI only conducted the investigation and reported the results. Many suspected and convicted spies, such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, had been federal employees. Therefore, background investigations were considered to be just as vital as cracking major espionage cases. Despite the threats to the United States of subversion and espionage, the FBI's extended jurisdiction, and the time-consuming nature of background investigations, the Bureau did not surpass the number of Agents it had during World War II--or its yearly wartime budget--until the Korean War in the early 1950s. After the Korean War ended, the number of Agents stabilized at about 6,200, while the budget began a steady climb in 1957. Several factors converged to undermine domestic Communism in the 1950s. Situations like the Soviet defeat of the Hungarian rebellion in 1956 caused many members to abandon the American Communist Party. However, the FBI also played a role in diminishing Party influence. The Bureau was responsible for the investigation and arrest of alleged spies and Smith Act violators, most of whom were convicted. Through Hoover's speeches, articles, testimony, and books like Masters of Deceit, the FBI helped alert the public to the Communist threat. The FBI's role in fighting crime also expanded in the postwar period through its assistance to state and local law enforcement and through increased jurisdictional responsibility. Advances in forensic science and technical development enabled the FBI to devote a significant proportion of its resources to assisting state and local law enforcement agencies. One method of continuing assistance was through the National Academy. Another was to use its greater resources to help states and localities solve their cases. A dramatic example of aid to a state occurred after the midair explosion of a plane over Colorado in 1955. The FBI Laboratory examined hundreds of airplane parts, pieces of cargo, and the personal effects of passengers. It pieced together evidence of a bomb explosion from passenger luggage, then painstakingly looked into the backgrounds of the 44 victims. Ultimately, Agents identified the perpetrator and secured his confession, then turned the case over to Colorado authorities who successfully prosecuted it in a state court. At the same time, Congress gave the FBI new federal laws with which to fight civil rights violations, racketeering, and gambling. Up to this time, the interpretation of federal civil rights statutes by the Supreme Court was so narrow that few crimes, however heinous, qualified to be investigated by federal agents. The turning point in federal civil rights actions occurred in the summer of 1964, with the murder of voting registration workers Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney near Philadelphia, Mississippi. At the Department of Justice's request, the FBI conducted the investigation as it had in previous, less-publicized racial incidents. The case against the perpetrators took years to go through the courts. Only after 1966, when the Supreme Court made it clear that federal law could be used to prosecute civil rights violations, were seven men found guilty. By the late 1960s, the confluence of unambiguous federal authority and local support for civil rights prosecutions allowed the FBI to play an influential role in enabling African Americans to vote, serve on juries, and use public accommodations on an equal basis. Involvement of the FBI in organized crime investigations also was hampered by the lack of possible federal laws covering crimes perpetrated by racketeers. After Prohibition, many mob activities were carried out locally, or if interstate, they did not constitute major violations within the Bureau's jurisdiction. An impetus for federal legislation occurred in 1957 with the discovery by Sergeant Croswell of the New York State Police that many of the best known mobsters in the United States had met together in upstate New York. The FBI collected information on all the individuals identified at the meeting, confirming the existence of a national organized-crime network. However, it was not until an FBI Agent persuaded mob insider Joseph Valachi to testify that the public learned firsthand of the nature of La Cosa Nostra, the American "mafia." Although federal racketeering and gambling statutes were passed in the 1950s and early 1960s to aid the Bureau's fight against mob influence, the two strongest weapons for combatting organized crime were given to the FBI during President Richard Nixon's Administration. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 provided for the use of court-ordered electronic surveillance in the investigation of certain specified violations. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Statute of 1970 allowed organized groups to be prosecuted for all of their diverse criminal activities, without the crimes being linked by a perpetrator or all-encompassing conspiracy. Along with greater use of Agents for undercover work by the late 1970s, these provisions helped the FBI develop cases that, in the 1980s, put almost all the major traditional crime family heads in prison. A national tragedy produced another expansion of FBI jurisdiction. When President Kennedy was assassinated, the crime was a local homicide; no federal law addressed the murder of a President. Nevertheless, President Lyndon B. Johnson tasked the Bureau with conducting the investigation. Congress then passed a new law to ensure that any such act in the future would be a federal crime. THE VIETNAM WAR ERA President Kennedy's assassination introduced the violent aspect of the era known as the "Sixties." This period, which actually lasted into the mid-1970s, was characterized by idealism, but also by increased urban crime and a propensity for some groups to resort to violence in challenging the "establishment." Most Americans objecting to involvement in Vietnam or to other policies wrote to Congress or carried peace signs in orderly demonstrations. Nevertheless, in 1970 alone, an estimated 3,000 bombings and 50,000 bomb threats occurred in the United States. Opposition to the war in Vietnam brought together numerous anti-establishment groups and gave them a common goal. The convergence of crime, violence, civil rights issues, and potential national security issues ensured that the FBI played a significant role during this troubled period. Presidents Johnson and Nixon and Director Hoover shared with many Americans a perception of the potential dangers to this country from some who opposed its policies in Vietnam. As Hoover observed in a 1966 PTA Magazine article, the United States was confronted with "a new style in conspiracy--conspiracy that is extremely subtle and devious and hence difficult to understand...a conspiracy reflected by questionable moods and attitudes, by unrestrained individualism, by nonconformism in dress and speech, even by obscene language, rather than by formal membership in specific organizations." The New Left movement's "romance with violence" involved, among others, four young men living in Madison, Wisconsin. Antiwar sentiment was widespread at the University of Wisconsin (UW), where two of them were students. During the very early morning of August 24, 1970, the four used a powerful homemade bomb to blow up Sterling Hall, which housed the Army Math Research Center at UW. A graduate student was killed and three others were injured. That crime occurred a few months after National Guardsmen killed four students and wounded several others during an antiwar demonstration at Kent State University. The FBI investigated both incidents. Together, these events helped end the "romance with violence" for all but a handful of hardcore New Left revolutionaries. Draft dodging and property damage had been tolerable to many antiwar sympathizers. Deaths were not. By 1971, with few exceptions, the most extreme members of the antiwar movement concentrated on more peaceable, yet still radical tactics, such as the clandestine publication of The Pentagon Papers. However, the violent Weathermen and its successor groups continued to challenge the FBI into the 1980s. No specific guidelines for FBI Agents covering national security investigations had been developed by the Administration or Congress; these, in fact, were not issued until 1976. Therefore, the FBI addressed the threats from the militant "New Left" as it had those from Communists in the 1950s and the KKK in the 1960s. It used both traditional investigative techniques and counterintelligence programs ("Cointelpro") to counteract domestic terrorism and conduct investigations of individuals and organizations who threatened terroristic violence. Wiretapping and other intrusive techniques were discouraged by Hoover in the mid-1960s and eventually were forbidden completely unless they conformed to the Omnibus Crime Control Act. Hoover formally terminated all "Cointelpro" operations on April 28, 1971. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover died on May 2, 1972, just shy of 48 years as the FBI Director. He was 77. The next day his body lay in state in the Rotunda of the Capitol, an honor accorded only 21 other Americans. Hoover's successor would have to contend with the complex turmoil of that troubled time. In 1972, unlike 1924 when Attorney General Harlan Fiske Stone selected Hoover, the President appointed the FBI Director with confirmation by the Senate. President Nixon appointed L. Patrick Gray as Acting Director the day after Hoover's death. After retiring from a distinguished Naval career, Gray had continued in public service as the Department of Justice's Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. As Acting Director, Gray appointed the first women as Special Agents since the 1920s. Shortly after Gray became Acting Director, five men were arrested photographing documents at the Democratic National Headquarters in the Watergate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The break-in had been authorized by Republican Party officials. Within hours, the White House began its effort to cover up its role, and the new Acting FBI Director was inadvertently drawn into it. FBI Agents undertook a thorough investigation of the break-in and related events. However, when Gray's questionable personal role was revealed, he withdrew his name from the Senate's consideration to be Director. He was replaced hours after he resigned on April 27, 1973, by William Ruckleshaus, a former Congressman and the first head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who remained until Clarence Kelley's appointment as Director on July 9, 1973. Kelley, who was Kansas City Police Chief when he received the appointment, had been an FBI Agent from 1940 to 1961. THE AFTERMATH OF WATERGATE Three days after Director Kelley's appointment, top aides in the Nixon Administration resigned amid charges of White House efforts to obstruct justice in the Watergate case. Vice President Spiro T. Agnew resigned in October, following charges of tax evasion. Then, following impeachment hearings that were broadcast over television to the American public throughout 1974, President Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. Vice President Gerald R. Ford was sworn in as President that same day. In granting an unconditional pardon to ex-President Nixon one month later, he vowed to heal the nation. Director Kelley similarly sought to restore public trust in the FBI and in law enforcement. He instituted numerous policy changes that targeted the training and selection of FBI and law enforcement leaders, the procedures of investigative intelligence collection, and the prioritizing of criminal programs. In 1974, Kelley instituted Career Review Boards and programs to identify and train potential managers. For upper management of the entire law enforcement community, the FBI, in cooperation with the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Major Cities Chief Administrators, started the National Executive Institute, which provided high-level executive training and encouraged future operational cooperation. Kelley also responded to scrutiny by Congress and the media on whether FBI methods of collecting intelligence in domestic security and counterintelligence investigations abridged Constitutional rights. The FBI had traditionally used its own criteria for intelligence collection, based on executive orders and blanket authority granted by attorney generals. After congressional hearings, Attorney General Edward Levi established finely detailed guidelines for the first time. The guidelines for FBI foreign counterintelligence investigations went into effect on March 10, 1976, and for domestic security investigations on April 5, 1976. (The latter were superseded March 21, 1983.) Kelley's most significant management innovation, however, was implementing the concept of "Quality over Quantity" investigations. He directed each field office to set priorities based on the types of cases most important in its territory and to concentrate resources on those priority matters. Strengthening the "Quality over Quantity" concept, the FBI as a whole established three national priorities: foreign counterintelligence, organized crime, and white-collar crime. To handle the last priority, the Bureau intensified its recruitment of accountants. It also stepped up its use of undercover operations in major cases. During Kelley's tenure as Director, the FBI made a strong effort to develop an Agent force with more women and one that was more reflective of the ethnic composition of the United States. THE RISE OF INTERNATIONAL CRIME In 1978, Director Kelley resigned and was replaced by former federal Judge William H. Webster. At the time of his appointment, Webster was serving as Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He had previously been a Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. In 1982, following an explosion of terrorist incidents worldwide, Webster made counterterrorism a fourth national priority. He also expanded FBI efforts in the three others: foreign counterintelligence, organized crime, and white-collar crime. The FBI solved so many espionage cases during the mid-1980s that the press dubbed 1985 "the year of the spy." The most serious espionage damage uncovered by the FBI was perpetrated by the John Walker spy ring and by former National Security Agency employee William Pelton. Throughout the 1980s, the illegal drug trade severely challenged the resources of American law enforcement. To ease this challenge, in 1982 the Attorney General gave the FBI concurrent jurisdiction with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) over narcotics violations in the United States. The expanded Department of Justice attention to drug crimes resulted in the confiscation of millions of dollars in controlled substances, the arrests of major narcotics figures, and the dismantling of important drug rings. One of the most publicized, dubbed "the Pizza Connection" case, involved the heroin trade in the United States and Italy. It resulted in 18 convictions, including a former leader of the Sicilian Mafia. Then Assistant U.S. Attorney Louis J. Freeh, who was to be appointed FBI Director in 1993, was key to prosecutive successes in the case. On another front, Webster strengthened the FBI's response to white-collar crimes. Public corruption was attacked nationwide. Convictions resulting from FBI investigations included members of Congress (ABSCAM), the judiciary (GREYLORD), and state legislatures in California and South Carolina. A major investigation culminating in 1988 unveiled corruption in defense procurement (ILLWIND). As the United States faced a financial crisis in the failures of savings and loan associations during the 1980s, the FBI uncovered instances of fraud that lay behind many of those failures. It was perhaps the single largest investigative effort undertaken by the FBI to that date: from investigating 10 bank failures in 1981, it had 282 bank failures under investigation by February 1987. In 1984, the FBI acted as lead agency for security of the Los Angeles Olympics. In the course of its efforts to anticipate and prepare for acts of terrorism and street crime, it built important bridges of interaction and cooperation with local, state, and other federal agencies, as well as agencies of other countries. It also unveiled the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team as a domestic force capable of responding to complex hostage situations such as tragically occurred in Munich at the 1972 games. Perhaps as a result of the Bureau's emphasis on combatting terrorism, such acts within the United States decreased dramatically during the 1980s. In 1986, Congress had expanded FBI jurisdiction to cover terrorist acts against U.S. citizens outside the U.S. boundaries. On May 26, 1987, Judge Webster left the FBI to become Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Executive Assistant Director John E. Otto became Acting Director and served in that position until November 2, 1987. During his tenure, Acting Director Otto designated drug investigations as the FBI's fifth national priority. On November 2, 1987, former federal Judge William Steele Sessions was sworn in as FBI Director. Prior to his appointment as FBI Director, Sessions served as the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. He had previously served as a District Judge and as U.S. Attorney for that district. Under Director Sessions, crime prevention efforts, in place since Director Kelley's tenure, were expanded to include a drug demand reduction program. FBI offices nationwide began working closely with local school and civic groups to educate young people to the dangers of drugs. Subsequent nationwide community outreach efforts under that program evolved and expanded through such initiatives as the Adopt-A-School/Junior G-Man Program. THE POST-COLD WAR WORLD The dismantling of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 electrified the world and dramatically rang up the Iron Curtain on the final act in the Cold War: the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union, which occurred on December 25, 1991. While world leaders scrambled to reposition their foreign policies and redefine national security parameters, the FBI responded as an agency in January 1992 by reassigning 300 Special Agents from foreign counterintelligence duties to violent crime investigations across the country. It was an unprecedented opportunity to intensify efforts in burgeoning domestic crime problems--and at the same time to rethink and retool FBI national security programs in counterintelligence and counterterrorism. In response to a 40-percent increase in crimes of violence over the previous 10 years, Director Sessions had designated the investigation of violent crime as the FBI's sixth national priority program in 1989. By November 1991 the FBI had created "Operation Safe Streets" in Washington, D.C.--a concept of federal, state, and local police task forces targeting fugitives and gangs. It was now ready to expand this operational assistance to police nationwide. At the same time, the FBI Laboratory helped change the face of violent criminal identification. Its breakthrough use of DNA technology enabled genetic crime-scene evidence to positively identify--or rule out--suspects by comparing their particular DNA patterns. This unique identifier enabled the creation of a national DNA Index similar to the fingerprint index, which had been implemented in 1924. The FBI also strengthened its response to white-collar crimes. Popularized as "crime in the suites," these nonviolent crimes had steadily increased as automation in and deregulation of industries had created new environments for fraud. Resources were, accordingly, redirected to combat the new wave of large-scale insider bank fraud and financial crimes; to address criminal sanctions in new federal environmental legislation; and to establish long-term investigations of complex health care frauds. At the same time, the FBI reassessed its strategies in defending the national security, now no longer defined as the containment of communism and the prevention of nuclear war. By creating the National Security Threat List, which was approved by the Attorney General in 1991, it changed its approach from defending against hostile intelligence agencies to protecting U.S. information and technologies. It thus identified all countries--not just hostile intelligence services--that pose a continuing and serious intelligence threat to the United States. It also defined expanded threat issues, including the proliferation of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons; the loss of critical technologies; and the improper collection of trade secrets and proprietary information. As President Clinton was to note in 1994, with the dramatic expansion of the global economy "national security now means economic security." Two events occurred in late 1992 and early 1993 that were to have a major impact on FBI policies and operations. In August 1992, the FBI responded to the shooting death of Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan, who was killed at Ruby Ridge, Montana, while participating in a surveillance of federal fugitive Randall Weaver. In the course of the standoff, Weaver's wife was accidentally shot and killed by an FBI sniper. Eight months later, at a remote compound outside Waco, Texas, FBI Agents sought to end a 51-day standoff with members of a heavily armed religious sect who had killed four officers of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Instead, as Agents watched in horror, the compound burned to the ground from fires lit by members of the sect. Eighty persons, including children, died in the blaze. These two events set the stage for public and congressional inquiries into the FBI's ability to respond to crisis situations. On July 19, 1993, following allegations of ethics violations committed by Director Sessions, President Clinton removed him from office and appointed Deputy Director Floyd I. Clarke as Acting FBI Director. The President noted that Director Sessions' most significant achievement was broadening the FBI to include more women and minorities. RECENT YEARS: 1993 - Louis J. Freeh was sworn in as Director of the FBI on September 1, 1993. Freeh came to the Bureau with impeccable credentials and unusual insight into the Bureau. He had served as an FBI Agent from 1975 to 1981 in the New York City Field Office and at FBI Headquarters before leaving to join the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Here Freeh rose quickly and prosecuted many major FBI cases, including the notorious "Pizza Connection" case and the "VANPAC" mail bomb case. He was appointed a U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York in 1991. On July 20, 1993, President Clinton nominated him to be FBI Director. He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on August 6, 1993. Freeh began his tenure with a clearly articulated agenda that would respond both to deepening crime problems and to a climate of government downsizing. In his oath of office speech he called for new levels of cooperation among law enforcement agencies, both at home and abroad, and he announced his intention to restructure the FBI in order to maximize its operational response to crime. Six weeks after taking office, he announced a major reorganization to streamline Headquarters operations of the FBI. Many management positions were abolished. Selected divisions and offices were merged, reorganized, or abolished. Soon after, Freeh ordered the transfer of 600 Special Agents serving in administrative positions to investigative positions in field offices. To revitalize an aging Agent work force, Freeh gained approval to end a 2-year hiring freeze on new Agents. Freeh also instituted changes which affected current FBI employee policies and standards of conduct. These changes strengthened the FBI's traditionally high requirements for personal conduct and ethics, and established a "bright line" between what would be acceptable and what would not. In continuation of the FBI's commitment to the advancement of minorities and women within the ranks of the organization, in October, 1993, Freeh appointed the first woman, the first man of Hispanic descent, and the second man of African-American descent to be named Assistant Director. In late 1993, Freeh was given a simultaneous appointment to serve as Director of the Department of Justice's new Office of Investigative Agency Policies. From this position, he has been able to work effectively with law enforcement agencies within the Department of Justice to develop close cooperation on criminal law enforcement issues, including sharing information on drug intelligence, automation, firearms, and aviation support. Also in late 1993, Freeh moved strongly to dramatize the importance of international cooperation on organized crime issues. He traveled to Sicily to honor his late friend and colleague Giovanni Falcone, who had been killed in a bomb blast with his wife and three bodyguards the year before. On the steps of the Palatine Chapel of the Palace of the Normans, in the face of the Mafia presence, Freeh challenged the Sicilian people "to oppose them with your minds and hearts and the rule of law." This message was to be repeated and strengthened the following year in the new democratic capitals of Russia and Eastern Europe. In the summer of 1994, Freeh led a delegation of high-level diplomatic and federal law enforcement officials to meet with senior officials of 11 European nations on international crime issues. At the outset, Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, declared, "This is the evolving American foreign policy. Law Enforcement is at the forefront of our national interest in this part of the world." Meetings were held with officials of Russia, Germany, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, Poland, the Ukraine, Austria, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. On July 4, 1994, Director Freeh officially announced the historic opening of an FBI Legal Attache Office in Moscow, the old seat of Russian communism. Subsequently, international leaders and law enforcement officials have focused on ways to strengthen security measures against possible theft of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials from Russia and other former republics of the Soviet Union. They have sharpened joint efforts against organized crime, drug trafficking, and terrorism. They have also strongly supported the FBI's efforts to institute standardized training of international police in investigative processes, ethics, leadership, and professionalism: in April 1995, the International Law Enforcement Academy opened its doors in Budapest, Hungary. Staffed by FBI and other law enforcement trainers, the academy offers five eight-week courses a year, based on the FBI's National Academy concept. To prepare the FBI for both domestic and foreign lawlessness in the 21st century, Freeh spearheaded the effort by law enforcement to ensure its ability, in the face of telecommunications advances, to carry out court-authorized electronic surveillance in major investigations affecting public safety and national security. This ability was secured when Congress passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act in October 1994. He also mounted aggressive programs in specific criminal areas. During the years 1993 through 1996, these efforts paid off in successful investigations as diverse as the World Trade Center bombing in New York City; the Archer Daniels Midland international price-fixing conspiracies; the attempted theft of Schering-Plough and Merck pharmaceutical trade secrets; and the arrests of Mexican drug trafficker Juan Garcia-Abrego and Russian crime boss Vyacheslav Ivankov. In 1996, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and the Economic Espionage Act were passed in the closing days of the 104th Session of Congress, then signed into law. These new statutes enabled the FBI to significantly strengthen its criminal programs in health care fraud and the theft of trade secrets and intellectual property. At the same time, Director Freeh initiated many changes to prepare for evolving criminal challenges. For example, he began construction of a new state-of-the-art FBI forensic laboratory. He formed the Critical Incident Response Group to deal efficiently with crisis situations. He created the Computer Investigations and Infrastructure Threat Assessment Center to respond to physical and cyber attacks against U.S. infrastructure. And, in 1996, he initiated a comprehensive and integrated FBI response to nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) crisis incidents when the FBI was designated lead law enforcement agency in NBC investigations. Robert M. Mueller, III became the sixth FBI director one week before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The failure to anticipate and prevent those attacks revealed serious shortcomings in the FBI and its previous leadership. Modernization became the order of the day.
| Designated as | Date |
| No specific name assigned; referred to as Special Agent Force | July 26, 1908 |
| Bureau of Investigation | March 16, 1909 |
| United States Bureau Of Investigation | July 1, 1932 |
| Division of Investigation (The Division also inculded the Bureau of Prohibition.) | August 10, 1933 |
| Federal Bureau of Investigation | July 1, 1935 |
XXX . VX Identity document
An identity document (also called a piece of identification or ID, or colloquially as papers) is any document which may be used to prove a person's identity. If issued in a small, standard credit card size form, it is usually called an identity card (IC, ID card, Citizen Card),[a] or Passport Card.[b] Some countries issue formal identity documents, while others may require identity verification using informal documents. When the identity document incorporates a person's photograph, it may be called photo ID.
In the absence of a formal identity document, a driver's license may be accepted in many countries for identity verification. Some countries do not accept driver's licenses for identification, often because in those countries they do not expire as documents and can be old or easily forged. Most countries accept passports as a form of identification. Some countries require all people to have an identity document available at any time. Many countries require all foreigners to have a passport or occasionally a national identity card from their country available at any time if they do not have a residence permit in the country.
The identity document is used to connect a person to information about the person, often in a database. The photo and the possession of it is used to connect the person with the document. The connection between the identity document and information database is based on personal information present on the document, such as the bearer's full name, age, birth date, address, an identification number, card number, gender, citizenship and more. A unique national identification number is the most secure way, but some countries lack such numbers or don't write them on identity documents
A version of the passport considered to be the earliest identity document inscribed into law was introduced by King Henry V of England with the Safe Conducts Act 1414.
For the next 500 years and before World War I, most people did not have or need an identity document.
Photographic identification appeared in 1876[2] but it did not become widely used until the early 20th century when photographs became part of passports and other ID documents such as driver's licenses, all of which came to be referred to as "photo IDs". Both Australia and Great Britain, for example, introduced the requirement for a photographic passport in 1915 after the so-called Lody spy scandal.
The shape and size of identity cards were standardized in 1985 by ISO/IEC 7810. Some modern identity documents are smart cards including a difficult-to-forge embedded integrated circuit, that were standardized in 1988 by ISO/IEC 7816. New technologies allow identity cards to contain biometric information, such as photographs, face, hand or iris measurements, or fingerprints. Electronic identity cards (or e-IDs) are already available in countries including Belgium, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Morocco, Portugal and Spain.
Adoption
Law enforcement officials claim that identity cards make surveillance and the search for criminals easier and consequently support the universal adoption of identity cards. In countries that don't have a national identity card, there is, however, concern about the projected large costs and potential abuse of high-tech smartcards.In many countries - and especially English-speaking countries such as Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States - there are no government-issued compulsory identity cards to all citizens. Ireland has the Public services card, it is a national identity card.
There is debate in these countries about whether such cards and their centralised database would constitute an infringement of privacy and civil liberties. Most criticism is directed towards the enhanced possibilities of extensive abuse of centralised and comprehensive databases storing sensitive data. A 2006 survey of UK Open University students concluded that the planned compulsory identity card under the Identity Cards Act 2006 coupled with a central government database generated the most negative attitudinal response among several alternative configurations. None of the countries listed above mandate possession of identity documents, but they have de facto equivalents since these countries still require proof of identity in many situations. For example, all vehicle drivers must have a driving licence, and young people may need to use specially issued proof of age cards when purchasing alcohol. In addition, and uniquely amongst native English speaking countries without ID cards, the USA require all its male residents between the ages of 18 and 25, including foreigners, to register for military conscription.
Arguments for
Arguments for identity documents as such:- In order to avoid mismatching people, and to fight fraud, there should be a way, as securely as possible, to prove a person's identity.
- Every human being already carries their own personal identification in the form of DNA, which is extremely hard to falsify or to discard (in terms of modification). Even for non-state commercial and private interactions, this may shortly become the preferred identifier, rendering a state-issued identity card a lesser evil than the potentially extensive privacy risks associated with everyday use of a person's genetic profile for identification purposes.
- If using only private alternatives, such as id cards issued by banks, the inherent lack of consistency regarding issuance policies can lead to downstream problems. For example, in Sweden private companies such as banks (citing security reasons) refused to issue ID cards to individuals without a Swedish card. This forced the government to start issuing national cards. It is also more hard to control information usage by private companies, such as when credit card issuers or social media companies map purchase behaviour in order to assist ad targeting.
Arguments against
Arguments against identity documents as such:- The development and administration costs of an identity card system can be very high. Figures from GBP30 (USD45) to GBP90 or even higher were suggested for the abandoned UK ID card. In countries like Chile the identity card is personally paid for by each person up to GBP6; in other countries, such as Venezuela, the ID card is free.[9] This, however, does not disclose the true cost of issuing ID cards as some additional portion may be borne by taxpayers in general(See also Parable of the broken window.)
- Rather than relying on government-issued ID cards, US federal policy has the alternative to encourage the variety of identification systems that already exist, such as driver's or firearms licences or private cards.
- Cards reliant on a centralized database can be used to track anyone's physical movements and private life, thus infringing on personal freedom and privacy. The proposed British ID card (see next section) proposes a series of linked databases managed by private sector firms. The management of disparate linked systems across a range of institutions and any number of personnel is alleged to be a security disaster in the making.[10]
- If religion or ethnicity is registered on mandatory ID documents, this data can enable racial profiling.
National policies
According to Privacy International, as of 1996[update], possession of identity cards was compulsory in about 100 countries, though what constitutes "compulsory" varies. In some countries (see below), it is compulsory to have an identity card when a person reaches a prescribed age. The penalty for non-possession is usually a fine, but in some cases it may result in detention until identity is established. For people suspected with crimes such as shoplifting or no bus ticket, non-possession might result in such detention, also in countries not formally requiring identity cards. In practice, random checks are rare, except in certain times.A number of countries do not have national identity cards. These include Andorra, Australia, Canada, Denmark, India (see below), Japan, New Zealand, Norway,[11] the United Kingdom. Other identity documents such as passports or driver's licenses are then used as identity documents when needed.
A number of countries have voluntary identity card schemes. These include Austria, Finland, France (see France section), Hungary (however, all citizens of Hungary must have at least one of: valid passport, photocard driving licence, or the National ID card), Iceland, Sweden and Switzerland. The United Kingdom's scheme was scrapped in January 2011 and the database was destroyed.
In the United States, the Federal government issues optional identity cards known as "Passport Cards" (which include important information such as the nationality). In the other hand, states issue optional identity cards for people who do not hold a driver's license as an alternate means of identification. These cards are issued by the same organization responsible for driver's licenses, usually called the Department of Motor Vehicles. Note, this is not an obligatory identification card for citizens.
For the Sahrawi people of Western Sahara, pre-1975 Spanish identity cards are the main proof that they were Saharawi citizens as opposed to recent Moroccan colonists. They would thus be allowed to vote in an eventual self-determination referendum.
Companies and government departments may issue ID cards for security purposes or proof of a qualification. For example, all taxicab drivers in the UK carry ID cards. Managers, supervisors, and operatives in construction in the UK have a photographic ID card, the CSCS (Construction Skills Certification Scheme) card, indicating training and skills including safety training. Those working on UK railway lands near working lines must carry a photographic ID card to indicate training in track safety (PTS and other cards) possession of which is dependent on periodic and random alcohol and drug screening. In Queensland and Western Australia, anyone working with children has to take a background check and get issued a Blue Card or Working with Children Card, respectively.
case study South Korea
Every citizen of South Korea over the age 17 is issued an ID card called Jumindeungrokjeung (주민등록증) and required to carry it always. A small fine can be charged if one does not carry it. It has had several changes in its history, the most recent form is a plastic card meeting the ISO 7810 standard. The card has the holder's photo and a 15 digit ID number calculated from the holder's birthday and birthplace. A hologram technology is applied for the purpose of hampering forgery. This card has no additional features used to identify the holder except comparing the photo and a holder's face. Other than this card, the South Korean Government accepts a driver's license card, a passport and a public officer ID card as an official ID card.the student on Taiwan
ID card issued in Taiwan
The Identification Card contains the holder's photo, ID number, Chinese name, and (Minguo calendar) date of birth. The back of the card also contains the person's registered address where official correspondence is sent, place of birth, and the names of parents and spouse.
If residents move, they must re-register at a municipal office (Chinese: 戶政事務所).
ROC nationals with household registration in Taiwan are known as "registered nationals". ROC nationals who do not have household registration in Taiwan (known as "unregistered nationals") do not qualify for the Identification Card and its associated privileges (e.g., the right to vote and the right of abode in Taiwan), but qualify for the Republic of China passport, which unlike the Identification Card, is not indicative of residency rights in Taiwan. If such "unregistered nationals" are resident in Taiwan, they will hold a Taiwan Area Resident Certificate as an identity document, which is nearly identical to the Alien Resident Certificate issued to foreign nationals/citizens resident in Taiwan.
Vietnam student boys
In Vietnam, all citizens above 14 years old must possess a People's Identity Card provided by the local authority.Poland studential
Polish national ID card
XXX . VX0 IN BUREAU ; Cyber Terror
Anyone ever misquoted recognizes the importance of context. Wrong assumptions about concepts, words, and phrases easily lead to misunderstanding. In the law enforcement community, officers who use a weapon in the line of duty to defend themselves or innocent bystanders may kill but not murder. Context often serves as the crucial variable justifying the use of deadly force. Murder is always killing, but killing is not always murder. Similarly, accurate knowledge of the context and targets of cyber attacks enhances clarity and helps to avoid obscuring intent.
“Cyber terrorism is a component of information warfare, but information warfare is not...cyber terrorism. For this reason, it is necessary to define these topics as separate entities.”1 Said another way, undefined and misunderstood terms easily could lead a conversation to proceed along parallel lines rather than an intersecting track. Thus, differentiating concepts and terms is important, as in the case of understanding what cyber terror is and what it is not.
Information Warfare
Dorothy Denning, one often-cited expert, describes but does not define information warfare (IW): “Information warfare consists of offensive and defensive operations against information resources of a ‘win-lose’ nature.” Further, “Information warfare is about operations that target or exploit information resources.”2 Nevertheless, several secondary and tertiary sources term her description “Denning’s Definition.”3 Other researchers assert that “Information warfare is combat operations in a high-tech battlefield environment in which both sides use information technology means, equipment, or systems in a rivalry over the power to obtain, control, and use information.”4
IW has several variants. Electronic warfare (EW), primarily a military term, is older than IW and dates back to World War II. Information operations (IO) is the more contemporary military nomenclature. EW and IO both are synonymous with IW. None of the three, however, are synonymous with cyber terror. IW, EW, and IO encompass the use of cryptography (cryptology and cryptanalysis), radar jamming, high-altitude aerial reconnaissance, electronic surveillance, electronically acquired intelligence, and steganography. Cyber terrorists may use these same tools. The distinction, however, is not the technological tools employed but the context and target.
In 1991 during Operation Desert Storm, coalition forces used IW, EW, and IO through the clandestine introduction of viruses and logic bombs into Iraqi Republican Guard (IRG) command-and-control-center computers and peripherals, causing the disruption and alteration of the targeting and launching of Scud missiles.5 Military combatants engaging one another on the battlefield constitutes IW, EO, and IO. Attacking the largely civilian critical infrastructure is not warfare, but terrorism—cyber terror. But, how does cyber terror differ from IW, EW, and IO?
In 1991 during Operation Desert Storm, coalition forces used IW, EW, and IO through the clandestine introduction of viruses and logic bombs into Iraqi Republican Guard (IRG) command-and-control-center computers and peripherals, causing the disruption and alteration of the targeting and launching of Scud missiles.5 Military combatants engaging one another on the battlefield constitutes IW, EO, and IO. Attacking the largely civilian critical infrastructure is not warfare, but terrorism—cyber terror. But, how does cyber terror differ from IW, EW, and IO?
The term was coined in the 1980s by Barry Collin who discussed this dynamic of terrorism as transcendence from the physical to the virtual realm and “the intersection, the convergence of these two worlds....”6 The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has defined it as “the use of computer network tools to shut down critical national infrastructures (e.g., energy, transportation, government operations) or to coerce or intimidate a government or civilian population.”7 The author defines cyber terror as “the intimidation of civilian enterprise through the use of high technology to bring about political, religious, or ideological aims, actions that result in disabling or deleting critical infrastructure data or information.”
As an illustration in size, this article does not compare to the holdings of the Library of Congress. The loss of the former would be traumatic to the author, but would impact few other people. Loss of the latter, likely irreplaceable, would prove devastating if a cyber attack deleted those files. Of course, neither could compare to the loss of one human life. But, if data or information from any of the nation’s critical infrastructure databases were attacked and destroyed, that certainly would impact quality of life.
One expert asserted that if people wanted to know how much to spend on information security, they should calculate the cost of replacing their hard drives and databases in the event they became intentionally wiped out—then, double that estimate.8 Recently, a graduate student observed that “Cyber terrorism is a critical threat to national security and public policy. The intelligence community (IC) is at a turning point because it is difficult to catch a criminal who establishes an identity in cyberspace. Further, [we are at] a critical point in [time] for public policy because the government will have to devise regulations of electronic data transfer for public, as well as private, information that can be identified and accessed via the Internet.”9
Although some experts assert that no credible evidence exists that terrorists have initiated cyber attacks, groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, allegedly undertook such attacks more than a decade ago.10 “Lone wolves” have perpetrated more recent ones. The highest levels of government have emphasized the need to focus on this specter.11
As an illustration in size, this article does not compare to the holdings of the Library of Congress. The loss of the former would be traumatic to the author, but would impact few other people. Loss of the latter, likely irreplaceable, would prove devastating if a cyber attack deleted those files. Of course, neither could compare to the loss of one human life. But, if data or information from any of the nation’s critical infrastructure databases were attacked and destroyed, that certainly would impact quality of life.
One expert asserted that if people wanted to know how much to spend on information security, they should calculate the cost of replacing their hard drives and databases in the event they became intentionally wiped out—then, double that estimate.8 Recently, a graduate student observed that “Cyber terrorism is a critical threat to national security and public policy. The intelligence community (IC) is at a turning point because it is difficult to catch a criminal who establishes an identity in cyberspace. Further, [we are at] a critical point in [time] for public policy because the government will have to devise regulations of electronic data transfer for public, as well as private, information that can be identified and accessed via the Internet.”9
Although some experts assert that no credible evidence exists that terrorists have initiated cyber attacks, groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, allegedly undertook such attacks more than a decade ago.10 “Lone wolves” have perpetrated more recent ones. The highest levels of government have emphasized the need to focus on this specter.11
What are the most vulnerable targets of cyber terrorists? What constitutes the significance of the targets and the magnitude of the threat? Does it matter what the threat is called? Does cyber terror constitute an element of computer crime?
Computer Crime
More than a half century later, not even the most prominent authorities have reached a consensus about what constitutes computer crime. According to one of the pioneers of this genre, the earliest occurrence of such abuse occurred in 1958.12 The first prosecution under federal law, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Title 18, Section 1030, U.S. Code, was of Robert Tappan Morris, Jr., then a graduate student of computer science, who unleashed the so-called Internet Worm in 1988.13
Along the time continuum, this is where the line begins to blur between “conventional” computer crime and what the author refers to as cyber terror. This genus includes the Melissa Virus (1999), ILOVEYOU Virus (2001), Code Red Worm (2002), Blaster Virus (2004), and Conficker Worm (2008). These attacks differ from extortion, fraud, identify theft, and various scams, all of which certainly are malicious. However, acts of cyber terror as here defined impact society—even the nation—not just an individual, elements of the business sector, or government agencies.
Space limitations do not allow for an incident-by-incident accounting of cyber terror episodes. One example is the case of U.S. v. Mitra. In 2003, Rajib K. Mitra undertook an ongoing attack on a police emergency radio system. Initially, authorities investigated Mitra’s cyber assaults as a violation of Wisconsin state law, but, ultimately, deemed them attacks on the critical infrastructure. The case was prosecuted under federal law (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act). Mitra, a lone wolf, was tried and convicted on March 12, 2004, and later sentenced to 96 months imprisonment. Subsequently, his appeal failed. U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals judges ruled unanimously, noting that “it is impossible to fathom why any sane person would think that the penalty for crippling an emergency-communication system on which lives may depend should [not] be higher than the penalty for hacking into a Web site to leave a rude message.”14
Clearly, law enforcement agencies need to stay well informed about what the experts think. Most contemporary professionals remain cautious. However, if people wait until they have absolute proof positive, it may be too late. The cyber trends seem clear. Over the course of approximately 13 years, both the number and frequency of instances of digital disorder have intensified, and the sophistication and diversity of types of cyber attacks have increased.
Computer Crime
More than a half century later, not even the most prominent authorities have reached a consensus about what constitutes computer crime. According to one of the pioneers of this genre, the earliest occurrence of such abuse occurred in 1958.12 The first prosecution under federal law, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Title 18, Section 1030, U.S. Code, was of Robert Tappan Morris, Jr., then a graduate student of computer science, who unleashed the so-called Internet Worm in 1988.13
Along the time continuum, this is where the line begins to blur between “conventional” computer crime and what the author refers to as cyber terror. This genus includes the Melissa Virus (1999), ILOVEYOU Virus (2001), Code Red Worm (2002), Blaster Virus (2004), and Conficker Worm (2008). These attacks differ from extortion, fraud, identify theft, and various scams, all of which certainly are malicious. However, acts of cyber terror as here defined impact society—even the nation—not just an individual, elements of the business sector, or government agencies.
Space limitations do not allow for an incident-by-incident accounting of cyber terror episodes. One example is the case of U.S. v. Mitra. In 2003, Rajib K. Mitra undertook an ongoing attack on a police emergency radio system. Initially, authorities investigated Mitra’s cyber assaults as a violation of Wisconsin state law, but, ultimately, deemed them attacks on the critical infrastructure. The case was prosecuted under federal law (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act). Mitra, a lone wolf, was tried and convicted on March 12, 2004, and later sentenced to 96 months imprisonment. Subsequently, his appeal failed. U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals judges ruled unanimously, noting that “it is impossible to fathom why any sane person would think that the penalty for crippling an emergency-communication system on which lives may depend should [not] be higher than the penalty for hacking into a Web site to leave a rude message.”14
Clearly, law enforcement agencies need to stay well informed about what the experts think. Most contemporary professionals remain cautious. However, if people wait until they have absolute proof positive, it may be too late. The cyber trends seem clear. Over the course of approximately 13 years, both the number and frequency of instances of digital disorder have intensified, and the sophistication and diversity of types of cyber attacks have increased.
“Clearly, law enforcement agencies need to stay well informed about what the experts think.”
One high-profile specialist contended that “stories of terrorists controlling the power grid, or opening dams, or taking over the air traffic control network and colliding airplanes, are unrealistic scare stories.” He went on to invoke a cost-benefit ratio perspective: “We need to understand the actual risks. Here’s the critical question we need to answer: Just how likely is a terrorist attack, and how damaging is it likely to be?”15 Another authority notes that “threats to the critical infrastructure are becoming increasingly frequent” and goes on to say, “Cyber attacks are one of the greatest threats to international peace and security in the 21st Century.”16 Where there is smoke, is fire not obviously far behind? And, what about the future? What technological innovations will impact the ability to serve and protect in the near-term future?
Tomorrow’s Challenges
Concerning the use of the term cyber terror, do experts resemble the proverbial blind men who feel different parts of the same elephant? On the near-term horizon, technological wonders will arise of which the unscrupulous will avail themselves, just as others before them have done.17 But, where do vulnerabilities lie, and what technological tools will terrorists use?
SCADA Systems
Not the only concern, but certainly a major worry, are supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems. Closely related are digital control systems (DCS) and programmable logic controllers (PLC). SCADA systems are more ubiquitous than personal computers and laptops combined. Without onsite human intervention, they automatically and remotely collect data from sensors in devices used for industrial processing. They store information in databases for subsequent central-site management and processing.
SCADA systems have existed since the 1960s. In the early days, they were stand-alone, and few were networked. Today, virtually all are accessed via the Internet. This may be great as a cost-cutting measure, but not from an information security perspective. Quietly and without fanfare, SCADA systems have proliferated rapidly—for starters, in the electric, oil, and gas; water treatment; waste management; and maritime, air, railroad, and automobile traffic control industries. SCADA systems also are embedded in “telephone and cell phone networks, including 911 emergency services.”18
These obscure little drone-like computer systems have virtually no security, firewalls, routers, or antivirus software to protect them. They are spread far and wide across the nation, even in some of the most remote places imaginable.19 One anonymous hacker interviewed for a television program said, “SCADA is a standard approach toward control systems that pervades everything from water supply to fuel lines.” He goes on to describe that the systems run operating systems that make them vulnerable.20
Tomorrow’s Challenges
Concerning the use of the term cyber terror, do experts resemble the proverbial blind men who feel different parts of the same elephant? On the near-term horizon, technological wonders will arise of which the unscrupulous will avail themselves, just as others before them have done.17 But, where do vulnerabilities lie, and what technological tools will terrorists use?
SCADA Systems
Not the only concern, but certainly a major worry, are supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems. Closely related are digital control systems (DCS) and programmable logic controllers (PLC). SCADA systems are more ubiquitous than personal computers and laptops combined. Without onsite human intervention, they automatically and remotely collect data from sensors in devices used for industrial processing. They store information in databases for subsequent central-site management and processing.
SCADA systems have existed since the 1960s. In the early days, they were stand-alone, and few were networked. Today, virtually all are accessed via the Internet. This may be great as a cost-cutting measure, but not from an information security perspective. Quietly and without fanfare, SCADA systems have proliferated rapidly—for starters, in the electric, oil, and gas; water treatment; waste management; and maritime, air, railroad, and automobile traffic control industries. SCADA systems also are embedded in “telephone and cell phone networks, including 911 emergency services.”18
These obscure little drone-like computer systems have virtually no security, firewalls, routers, or antivirus software to protect them. They are spread far and wide across the nation, even in some of the most remote places imaginable.19 One anonymous hacker interviewed for a television program said, “SCADA is a standard approach toward control systems that pervades everything from water supply to fuel lines.” He goes on to describe that the systems run operating systems that make them vulnerable.20
“...where do vulnerabilities lie, and what technological tools will terrorists use?”
Ominous Threats
Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) bombs and high-energy radio frequency (HERF) weapons differ from the malicious codes, computer viruses, and worms of yesteryear. While the latter remain worrisome, EMP and HERF are serious menacing perils of the near-term technological age. EMP devices are compact, and perpetrators can use them to overload computer circuitry. These devices can destroy a computer’s motherboard and permanently, irretrievably erase data in memory storage devices.21 Like EMPs, HERF devices use electromagnetic radiation.22 They, too, deliver heat, mechanical, or electrical energy to a target. The difference is that individuals can focus HERF devices on a specific target using a parabolic reflector.23 HERF, as asserted, does not cause permanent damage—EMP does.24 An array of demonstrations of the power of such homemade devices is depicted at several Web sources, such as YouTube.
Bots
Two decades ago, an expert warned about Internet agents, including bots (robots), Web crawlers, Web spiders, and Web scutters, software apps that traverse the Internet while undertaking repetitive tasks, such as retrieving linked pages, specified words or phrases, or e-mail addresses.25 Although bots have served benign functions—for example, harvesting e-mail addresses—for many years, they now loom large as a near-term future IC and policing issue. More recent research supports this contention. Given these forecasts, the question is not what might happen tomorrow, but, rather, how well-prepared law enforcement will be to protect and serve.
Implications for Law Enforcement
Federal agencies responsible for investigating terrorism, including cyber terror, must remain vigilant. This includes ensuring adequate funding for staffing, equipment, and training. But, beyond that, local law enforcement officers must encourage citizens to be alert and to report suspicious behavior. Many local law enforcement agencies have had useful resources, such as citizens’ police academies, for decades. These programs can educate taxpayers about activity in the physical realm that should be reported. However, what about transcendence to the virtual realm? Since 1996, the FBI’s InfraGard Program, an information sharing and analysis effort, has focused on marshaling the talents of members of America’s information security (INFOSEC) community.26 However, what of “main street USA”?
Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) bombs and high-energy radio frequency (HERF) weapons differ from the malicious codes, computer viruses, and worms of yesteryear. While the latter remain worrisome, EMP and HERF are serious menacing perils of the near-term technological age. EMP devices are compact, and perpetrators can use them to overload computer circuitry. These devices can destroy a computer’s motherboard and permanently, irretrievably erase data in memory storage devices.21 Like EMPs, HERF devices use electromagnetic radiation.22 They, too, deliver heat, mechanical, or electrical energy to a target. The difference is that individuals can focus HERF devices on a specific target using a parabolic reflector.23 HERF, as asserted, does not cause permanent damage—EMP does.24 An array of demonstrations of the power of such homemade devices is depicted at several Web sources, such as YouTube.
Bots
Two decades ago, an expert warned about Internet agents, including bots (robots), Web crawlers, Web spiders, and Web scutters, software apps that traverse the Internet while undertaking repetitive tasks, such as retrieving linked pages, specified words or phrases, or e-mail addresses.25 Although bots have served benign functions—for example, harvesting e-mail addresses—for many years, they now loom large as a near-term future IC and policing issue. More recent research supports this contention. Given these forecasts, the question is not what might happen tomorrow, but, rather, how well-prepared law enforcement will be to protect and serve.
Implications for Law Enforcement
Federal agencies responsible for investigating terrorism, including cyber terror, must remain vigilant. This includes ensuring adequate funding for staffing, equipment, and training. But, beyond that, local law enforcement officers must encourage citizens to be alert and to report suspicious behavior. Many local law enforcement agencies have had useful resources, such as citizens’ police academies, for decades. These programs can educate taxpayers about activity in the physical realm that should be reported. However, what about transcendence to the virtual realm? Since 1996, the FBI’s InfraGard Program, an information sharing and analysis effort, has focused on marshaling the talents of members of America’s information security (INFOSEC) community.26 However, what of “main street USA”?
“...law enforcement agencies should be prepared to deal with the aftermath of hard-to-forecast, but not regularly reoccurring, cyber attacks on the nation’s critical infrastructure.”
"See Something, Say Something" is a terrific crime prevention slogan promoted in New York City.27 It seems to have resonated recently in Times Square when an observant man, a street vendor and Vietnam veteran, alerted the New York Police Department to the SUV used in what turned out to be, fortunately, a failed Taliban-sponsored car-bombing attempt.28 Any such program should be augmented to provide to its participants examples of behavior in the business community, including those in a work environment, that could alert authorities to precursors of potential cyber misdeeds. Just as someone does not need specialized education to recognize threats in real life, anyone can recognize these digital threats. One authority notes that “an example of suspicious behavior might be a bit of malicious program attempting to install itself from opening an office document.” To reduce the threat, employees could add a “‘behavior’ layer to [antivirus products].”29 Of course, this suggestion could unnerve many civil liberty-oriented watchdog organizations; there is no reason not to include such agencies in the discussion, planning, and implementation of the augmentation here proposed. What, then, is the bottom line?
Necessary Preparations
Earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, volcanoes, toxic spills, forest fires, and shark attacks do not occur with great frequency. Precautions, nevertheless, are in place to protect people from the physical threats posed when these natural but seldom-occurring violent events occur. Although they cannot be forecast with great accuracy, we are prepared for them. Similarly, law enforcement agencies should be prepared to deal with the aftermath of hard-to-forecast, but not regularly reoccurring, cyber attacks on the nation’s critical infrastructure.
Criminals are menacing our cyber shores, preparing to launch a large-scale attack. What is clear is that it will happen. What is not obvious is by whom or when. Respected INFOSEC authorities have made a compelling case for the “swarm”—attacks via different paths by dispersed cells. Al Qaeda already has demonstrated an understanding of the technique.30 Other countries, such as India, Saudi Arabia, China, France, Brazil, and Spain, already have experienced such attacks.31 Additionally, well-known U.S. companies have reported major breaches targeting source code.32
Cyber terrorists are pinging ports and probing our digital fortifications as they endeavor to identify vulnerabilities. Daily crackers and terrorists are skulking, battering firewalls, and learning more each time they do so. Clearly, preparations to thwart such attacks are necessary.
Earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, volcanoes, toxic spills, forest fires, and shark attacks do not occur with great frequency. Precautions, nevertheless, are in place to protect people from the physical threats posed when these natural but seldom-occurring violent events occur. Although they cannot be forecast with great accuracy, we are prepared for them. Similarly, law enforcement agencies should be prepared to deal with the aftermath of hard-to-forecast, but not regularly reoccurring, cyber attacks on the nation’s critical infrastructure.
Criminals are menacing our cyber shores, preparing to launch a large-scale attack. What is clear is that it will happen. What is not obvious is by whom or when. Respected INFOSEC authorities have made a compelling case for the “swarm”—attacks via different paths by dispersed cells. Al Qaeda already has demonstrated an understanding of the technique.30 Other countries, such as India, Saudi Arabia, China, France, Brazil, and Spain, already have experienced such attacks.31 Additionally, well-known U.S. companies have reported major breaches targeting source code.32
Cyber terrorists are pinging ports and probing our digital fortifications as they endeavor to identify vulnerabilities. Daily crackers and terrorists are skulking, battering firewalls, and learning more each time they do so. Clearly, preparations to thwart such attacks are necessary.
“...officers must encourage citizens to be alert and to report suspicious behavior.”
Conclusion
The skills, tools, and techniques are the same, but information warfare is conducted between military combatants; cyber terrorism targets civilians. Cyber terrorists indiscriminately will attack the nation’s critical infrastructure and civilians—the innocent. Thus, the context and targets, not the technological tools or frequency of attacks, are the more appropriate delimiters that distinguish cyber terror from information warfare.
The skills, tools, and techniques are the same, but information warfare is conducted between military combatants; cyber terrorism targets civilians. Cyber terrorists indiscriminately will attack the nation’s critical infrastructure and civilians—the innocent. Thus, the context and targets, not the technological tools or frequency of attacks, are the more appropriate delimiters that distinguish cyber terror from information warfare.
Some of these criminals are being caught and prosecuted, but more remain undetected. To best serve its motto, “to protect and serve,” law enforcement must proactively guard this country’s national security on every front.
What We Investigate
Intellectual property theft involves robbing people or companies of their ideas, inventions, and creative expressions—known as “intellectual property”—which can include everything from trade secrets and proprietary products and parts to movies, music, and software.
It is a growing threat—especially with the rise of digital technologies and Internet file sharing networks. And much of the theft takes place overseas, where laws are often lax and enforcement is more difficult. All told, intellectual property theft costs U.S. businesses billions of dollars a year and robs the nation of jobs and tax revenues.
Preventing intellectual property theft is a priority of the FBI’s criminal investigative program. It specifically focuses on the theft of trade secrets and infringements on products that can impact consumers’ health and safety, such as counterfeit aircraft, car, and electronic parts. Key to the program’s success is linking the considerable resources and efforts of the private sector with law enforcement partners on local, state, federal, and international levels.
It is a growing threat—especially with the rise of digital technologies and Internet file sharing networks. And much of the theft takes place overseas, where laws are often lax and enforcement is more difficult. All told, intellectual property theft costs U.S. businesses billions of dollars a year and robs the nation of jobs and tax revenues.
Preventing intellectual property theft is a priority of the FBI’s criminal investigative program. It specifically focuses on the theft of trade secrets and infringements on products that can impact consumers’ health and safety, such as counterfeit aircraft, car, and electronic parts. Key to the program’s success is linking the considerable resources and efforts of the private sector with law enforcement partners on local, state, federal, and international levels.
New Strategy
The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced a new strategy that involves partnering more closely with businesses in an effort to combat these types of crimes more effectively. The FBI—working with its investigative partners at the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (NIPRCC)—will play an integral part in this strategy.The Bureau has already been collaborating for years with brand owners, copyright holders, and trademark holders because we know the harm that intellectual property theft causes: legitimate businesses lose billions of dollars in revenue and suffer damaged reputations, consumer prices go up, the U.S. and global economies are robbed of jobs and tax revenue, product safety is reduced, and sometimes lives are even put at risk. FBI efforts with these businesses to date have involved shared information, aggressive criminal initiatives based on current or emerging trends, and investigations.
Under the FBI’s new strategy, we’re expanding our efforts to work with third-party entities—such as online marketplaces, payment service providers, and advertisers—that may inadvertently enable the activities of criminals.
- Third-party online marketplaces draw consumers to their sites with competitive pricing and a sense of security, but criminal counterfeiters exploit these marketplaces to gain an appearance of legitimacy, access to far-reaching advertising, and efficient sales transactions.
- Payment service providers—such as credit card payment processors and related payment alternatives—also give counterfeiters the appearance of legitimacy when they provide payment options that consumers mistakenly interpret to mean that the businesses they service are legitimate.
- Online advertising systems and platforms enable website owners to outsource the process of monetizing their website traffic. Criminals have begun exploiting advertising as an alternative revenue stream, drawing traffic to their sites by offering counterfeit products for sale or pirated digital content for download.
Also new in our approach to intellectual property theft is an enhanced relationship between our criminal and counterintelligence personnel when working theft of trade secrets cases. A trade secrets case worked under the counterintelligence program—which occurs when the involvement of state-sponsored actors is suspected—will be referred to a criminal squad if no state sponsorship is found. And when criminal investigators begin to suspect the involvement of a state sponsor, the case will be referred to the counterintelligence squad. The Bureau's goal is to contain and/or even prevent the theft as quickly as possible, no matter who’s behind it.
National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center
The FBI participates in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigations-led National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (NIPRCC), which stands at the forefront of the U.S. Government's response to global intellectual property (IP) theft and enforcement of its international trade laws.The mission of the NIPRCC is to ensure national security by protecting the public's health and safety, the U.S. economy, and our war fighters, and to stop predatory and unfair trade practices that threaten the global economy.
To accomplish this goal, the IPR Center brings together multiple federal agencies—along with Interpol, Europol and the governments of Canada and Mexico—in a task force setting. This task force structure enables the NIPRCC to effectively leverage the resources, skills, and authorities of each partner and provide a comprehensive response to IP theft.
For more information, visit the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center website.
Initiatives and Operations
Operation Chain Reaction
Operation Chain Reaction, an initiative by the NIPRCC, is a comprehensive effort that targets counterfeit goods entering the supply chains of the Department of Defense (DoD) and other U.S. government agencies. Chain Reaction began in June 2011 to combat the proliferation of counterfeit goods into the DoD and federal government supply chains. While individual agencies have focused on counterfeit and misbranded items entering the federal supply chain, Chain Reaction is the first time that NIPRCC participants have collectively addressed this ongoing problem. As a task force, the NIPRCC uses the expertise of its member agencies to share information, coordinate enforcement actions, and conduct investigations to protect the public’s health and safety, the U.S. economy, and the war fighters.Chain Reaction combines the expertise of 16 agencies, including Homeland Security Investigations, Customs and Border Protection, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, U.S. Army-Criminal Investigative Command, General Services Administration, Defense Logistics Agency, U.S. Air Force-Office of Special Investigations, Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Reconnaissance Office, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Interpol, U.S. Coast Guard and the Department of Justice-Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section.
Some examples of recent investigations involving counterfeit products entering the federal supply chain include:
- An investigation uncovered the purchase of counterfeit Cisco converters by an individual, who intended to sell them to the DoD for use by the Marine Corps to transmit troop movements, rely intelligence and maintain security for a military base.
- An investigation uncovered a global procurement and distribution network based in California that provided counterfeit integrated circuits to various governmental agencies, including the military and prime DoD contractors. Agents conducted undercover purchases from individuals within the company under official navy contracts and were provided counterfeits for various weapon platforms.
- An investigation identified a Florida-based electronics broker providing counterfeit integrated circuits to a prime DoD contractor fulfilling a Navy contract for components destined for implementation into ship and land based antennas.
Operation Apothecary
Operation Apothecary, another NIPRCC initiative, targets the growing problem of Internet crime. Particular emphasis is placed on the use of the Internet as the primary means of communication and ordering of pharmaceuticals. Criminals, posing as legitimate pharmaceutical providers, advertise prescription grade drugs and/or inexpensive alternatives without requiring a valid prescription. The consumer purchases the pharmaceutical with the belief that the product advertised is a legitimate product,but in fact, is often purchasing a counterfeit or unapproved version of the drug that has often been manufactured in unsanitary conditions or not subjected to any safeguards or quality control regimes.Apothecary provides for a two-pronged attack on pharmaceutical smuggling:detecting violations at the border; and providing opportunities for investigations and enforcement actions against traffickers of counterfeit drugs and medical devices. Apothecary specifically measures and attacks vulnerabilities in the entry process, which allow for the smuggling of commercial quantities of unapproved, counterfeit, or adulterated pharmaceuticals. The operation seeks to identify and dismantle domestic organizations that illegally import and/or distribute pharmaceutical and scheduled drugs in the U.S. In addition, Apothecary identifies and dismantles foreign organizations that sell and ship pharmaceuticals that are illegally imported into the U.S., and detects, seizes, and forfeits commercial shipments of illegally imported pharmaceuticals.
Operation Engine Newity
A third NIPRCC initiative, Operation Engine Newity, focuses on countering the threat of counterfeit automotive, aerospace, rail, and heavy industry related components that are illegally imported and distributed throughout the United States. These counterfeit components represent a grave threat to public safety due to the critical nature of transportation-related applications and can include such components as airbags, brake pads, steering rods, and bearings. The faulty operation of these devices alone can cause bodily harm such as a counterfeit airbag, but in some cases can result in a catastrophic accident like an air crash or major train derailment.Operation Engine Newity seeks to bring to bear all elements of federal law enforcement to counter this threat by educating industry stakeholders and the public, interdicting the counterfeit goods at the ports of entry, and investigating and prosecuting individuals who traffic these goods for monetary gain.
XXX . VX00 IN BUREAU ; Signals intelligence
Signals intelligence (SIGINT) is intelligence-gathering by interception of signals, whether communications between people (communications intelligence—abbreviated to COMINT) or from electronic signals not directly used in communication (electronic intelligence—abbreviated to ELINT). Signals intelligence is a subset of intelligence collection management.
As sensitive information is often encrypted, signals intelligence in turn involves the use of cryptanalysis to decipher the messages. Traffic analysis—the study of who is signaling whom and in what quantity—is also used to derive information.
Electronic interception appeared as early as 1900, during the Boer War of 1899-1902. The British Royal Navy had installed wireless sets produced by Marconi on board their ships in the late 1890s and the British Army used some limited wireless signalling. The Boers captured some wireless sets and used them to make vital transmissions.[] Since the British were the only people transmitting at the time, no special interpretation of the signals that were intercepted by the British was necessary.[1]
The birth of signals intelligence in a modern sense dates from the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. As the Russian fleet prepared for conflict with Japan in 1904, the British ship HMS Diana stationed in the Suez Canal intercepted Russian naval wireless signals being sent out for the mobilization of the fleet, for the first time in history.[2]
Development in World War I
The British in particular built up great expertise in the newly emerging field of signals intelligence and codebreaking. On the declaration of war, Britain cut all German undersea cables.[4] This forced the Germans to use either a telegraph line that connected through the British network and could be tapped, or through radio which the British could then intercept.[5] Rear-Admiral Henry Oliver appointed Sir Alfred Ewing to establish an interception and decryption service at the Admiralty; Room 40.[5] An interception service known as 'Y' service, together with the post office and Marconi stations grew rapidly to the point where the British could intercept almost all official German messages.[5]
The German fleet was in the habit each day of wirelessing the exact position of each ship and giving regular position reports when at sea. It was possible to build up a precise picture of the normal operation of the High Seas Fleet, indeed to infer from the routes they chose where defensive minefields had been placed and where it was safe for ships to operate. Whenever a change to the normal pattern was seen, it immediately signalled that some operation was about to take place and a warning could be given. Detailed information about submarine movements was also available.[5]
The use of radio receiving equipment to pinpoint the location of the transmitter was also developed during the war. Captain H.J. Round working for Marconi, began carrying out experiments with direction finding radio equipment for the army in France in 1915. By May 1915, the Admiralty was able to track German submarines crossing the North Sea. Some of these stations also acted as 'Y' stations to collect German messages, but a new section was created within Room 40 to plot the positions of ships from the directional reports.[5]
Room 40 played an important role in several naval engagements during the war, notably in detecting major German sorties into the North Sea. The battle of Dogger Bank was won in no small part due to the intercepts that allowed the Navy to position its ships in the right place.[6] It played a vital role in subsequent naval clashes, including at the Battle of Jutland as the British fleet was sent out to intercept them. The direction-finding capability allowed for the tracking and location of German ships, submarines and Zeppelins. The system was so successful, that by the end of the war over 80 million words, comprising the totality of German wireless transmission over the course of the war had been intercepted by the operators of the Y-stations and decrypted.[7] However its most astonishing success was in decrypting the Zimmermann Telegram, a telegram from the German Foreign Office sent via Washington to its ambassador Heinrich von Eckardt in Mexico.
Postwar consolidation
With the importance of interception and decryption firmly established by the wartime experience, countries established permanent agencies dedicated to this task in the interwar period. In 1919, the British Cabinet's Secret Service Committee, chaired by Lord Curzon, recommended that a peace-time codebreaking agency should be created.[8] The Government Code and Cypher School (GC&CS) was the first peace-time codebreaking agency, with a public function "to advise as to the security of codes and cyphers used by all Government departments and to assist in their provision", but also with a secret directive to "study the methods of cypher communications used by foreign powers".[9] GC&CS officially formed on 1 November 1919, and produced its first decrypt on 19 October.[8][10] By 1940, GC&CS was working on the diplomatic codes and ciphers of 26 countries, tackling over 150 diplomatic cryptosystems.[11]The US Cipher Bureau was established in 1919 and achieved some success at the Washington Naval Conference in 1921, through cryptanalysis by Herbert Yardley. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson closed the US Cipher Bureau in 1929 with the words "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail."
World War II
A Mark 2 Colossus computer. The ten Colossi were the world's first programmable electronic computers, and were built to break the German codes.
Bletchley's work was essential to defeating the U-boats in the Battle of the Atlantic, and to the British naval victories in the Battle of Cape Matapan and the Battle of North Cape. In 1941, Ultra exerted a powerful effect on the North African desert campaign against German forces under General Erwin Rommel. General Sir Claude Auchinleck wrote that were it not for Ultra, "Rommel would have certainly got through to Cairo". "Ultra" decrypts featured prominently in the story of Operation SALAM, László Almásy's mission across the desert behind Allied lines in 1942.[12] Prior to the Normandy landings on D-Day in June 1944, the Allies knew the locations of all but two of Germany's fifty-eight Western-front divisions.
Winston Churchill was reported to have told King George VI: "It is thanks to the secret weapon of General Menzies, put into use on all the fronts, that we won the war!" Supreme Allied Commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower, at the end of the war, described Ultra as having been "decisive" to Allied victory.[13] Official historian of British Intelligence in World War II Sir Harry Hinsley, argued that Ultra shortened the war "by not less than two years and probably by four years"; and that, in the absence of Ultra, it is uncertain how the war would have ended.[14]
Technical definitions
A52 Oste, an Oste class ELINT (Electronic signals intelligence) and reconnaissance ship, of the German Navy
_Burum_Fr_NL.jpg)
Satellite ground station of the Dutch Nationale SIGINT Organisatie (NSO) (2012)
- A category of intelligence comprising either individually or in combination all communications intelligence (COMINT), electronic intelligence (ELINT), and foreign instrumentation signals intelligence, however transmitted.
- Intelligence derived from communications, electronic, and foreign instrumentation signals.[15]
Targeting
A collection system has to know to look for a particular signal. "System", in this context, has several nuances. Targeting is an output of the process of developing collection requirements:- "1. An intelligence need considered in the allocation of intelligence resources. Within the Department of Defense, these collection requirements fulfill the essential elements of information and other intelligence needs of a commander, or an agency.
- "2. An established intelligence need, validated against the appropriate allocation of intelligence resources (as a requirement) to fulfill the essential elements of information and other intelligence needs of an intelligence consumer."[15]
Need for multiple, coordinated receivers
First, atmospheric conditions, sunspots, the target's transmission schedule and antenna characteristics, and other factors create uncertainty that a given signal intercept sensor will be able to "hear" the signal of interest, even with a geographically fixed target and an opponent making no attempt to evade interception. Basic countermeasures against interception include frequent changing of radio frequency, polarization, and other transmission characteristics. An intercept aircraft could not get off the ground if it had to carry antennas and receivers for every possible frequency and signal type to deal with such countermeasures.Second, locating the transmitter's position is usually part of SIGINT. Triangulation and more sophisticated radio location techniques, such as time of arrival methods, require multiple receiving points at different locations. These receivers send location-relevant information to a central point, or perhaps to a distributed system in which all participate, such that the information can be correlated and a location computed.
Intercept management
Modern SIGINT systems, therefore, have substantial communications among intercept platforms. Even if some platforms are clandestine, there is a broadcast of information telling them where and how to look for signals.[16] A United States targeting system under development in the late 1990s, PSTS, constantly sends out information that helps the interceptors properly aim their antennas and tune their receivers. Larger intercept aircraft, such as the EP-3 or RC-135, have the on-board capability to do some target analysis and planning, but others, such as the RC-12 GUARDRAIL, are completely under ground direction. GUARDRAIL aircraft are fairly small, and usually work in units of three to cover a tactical SIGINT requirement, where the larger aircraft tend to be assigned strategic/national missions.Before the detailed process of targeting begins, someone has to decide there is a value in collecting information about something. While it would be possible to direct signals intelligence collection at a major sports event, the systems would capture a great deal of noise, news signals, and perhaps announcements in the stadium. If, however, an anti-terrorist organization believed that a small group would be trying to coordinate their efforts, using short-range unlicensed radios, at the event, SIGINT targeting of radios of that type would be reasonable. Targeting would not know where in the stadium the radios might be, or the exact frequency they are using; those are the functions of subsequent steps such as signal detection and direction finding.
Once the decision to target is made, the various interception points need to cooperate, since resources are limited. Knowing what interception equipment to use becomes easier when a target country buys its radars and radios from known manufacturers, or is given them as military aid. National intelligence services keep libraries of devices manufactured by their own country and others, and then use a variety of techniques to learn what equipment is acquired by a given country.
Knowledge of physics and electronic engineering further narrows the problem of what types of equipment might be in use. An intelligence aircraft flying well outside the borders of another country will listen for long-range search radars, not short-range fire control radars that would be used by a mobile air defense. Soldiers scouting the front lines of another army know that the other side will be using radios that must be portable and not have huge antennas.
Signal detection
Even if a signal is human communications (e.g., a radio), the intelligence collection specialists have to know it exists. If the targeting function described above learns that a country has a radar that operates in a certain frequency range, the first step is to use a sensitive receiver, with one or more antennas that listen in every direction, to find an area where such a radar is operating. Once the radar is known to be in the area, the next step is to find its location.
Countermeasures to interception
Spread-spectrum communications is an electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) technique to defeat looking for particular frequencies. Spectrum analysis can be used in a different ECCM way to identify frequencies not being jammed or not in use.Direction-finding
Direction finding
The earliest, and still common, means of direction finding is to use directional antennas as goniometers, so that a line can be drawn from the receiver through the position of the signal of interest. (See HF/DF.) Knowing the compass bearing, from a single point, to the transmitter does not locate it. Where the bearings from multiple points, using goniometry, are plotted on a map, the transmitter will be located at the point where the bearings intersect. This is the simplest case; a target may try to confuse listeners by having multiple transmitters, giving the same signal from different locations, switching on and off in a pattern known to their user but apparently random to the listener.Individual directional antennas have to be manually or automatically turned to find the signal direction, which may be too slow when the signal is of short duration. One alternative is the Wullenweber array technique. In this method, several concentric rings of antenna elements simultaneously receive the signal, so that the best bearing will ideally be clearly on a single antenna or a small set. Wullenweber arrays for high-frequency signals are enormous, referred to as "elephant cages" by their users.
An alternative to tunable directional antennas, or large omnidirectional arrays such as the Wullenweber, is to measure the time of arrival of the signal at multiple points, using GPS or a similar method to have precise time synchronization. Receivers can be on ground stations, ships, aircraft, or satellites, giving great flexibility.
Modern anti-radiation missiles can home in on and attack transmitters; military antennas are rarely a safe distance from the user of the transmitter.
Traffic analysis
Traffic analysis
When locations are known, usage patterns may emerge, from which inferences may be drawn. Traffic analysis is the discipline of drawing patterns from information flow among a set of senders and receivers, whether those senders and receivers are designated by location determined through direction finding, by addressee and sender identifications in the message, or even MASINT techniques for "fingerprinting" transmitters or operators. Message content, other than the sender and receiver, is not necessary to do traffic analysis, although more information can be helpful.For example, if a certain type of radio is known to be used only by tank units, even if the position is not precisely determined by direction finding, it may be assumed that a tank unit is in the general area of the signal. Of course, the owner of the transmitter can assume someone is listening, so might set up tank radios in an area where he wants the other side to believe he has actual tanks. As part of Operation Quicksilver, part of the deception plan for the invasion of Europe at the Battle of Normandy, radio transmissions simulated the headquarters and subordinate units of the fictitious First United States Army Group (FUSAG), commanded by George S. Patton, to make the German defense think that the main invasion was to come at another location. In like manner, fake radio transmissions from Japanese aircraft carriers, before the Battle of Pearl Harbor, were made from Japanese local waters, while the attacking ships moved under strict radio silence.
Traffic analysis need not focus on human communications. For example, if the sequence of a radar signal, followed by an exchange of targeting data and a confirmation, followed by observation of artillery fire, this may identify an automated counterbattery system. A radio signal that triggers navigational beacons could be a landing aid system for an airstrip or helicopter pad that is intended to be low-profile.
Patterns do emerge. Knowing a radio signal, with certain characteristics, originating from a fixed headquarters may be strongly suggestive that a particular unit will soon move out of its regular base. The contents of the message need not be known to infer the movement.
There is an art as well as science of traffic analysis. Expert analysts develop a sense for what is real and what is deceptive. Harry Kidder, for example, was one of the star cryptanalysts of World War II, a star hidden behind the secret curtain of SIGINT.
Electronic order of battle
Generating an electronic order of battle (EOB) requires identifying SIGINT emitters in an area of interest, determining their geographic location or range of mobility, characterizing their signals, and, where possible, determining their role in the broader organizational order of battle. EOB covers both COMINT and ELINT.[18] The Defense Intelligence Agency maintains an EOB by location. The Joint Spectrum Center (JSC) of the Defense Information Systems Agency supplements this location database with five more technical databases:- FRRS: Frequency Resource Record System
- BEI: Background Environment Information
- SCS: Spectrum Certification System
- EC/S: Equipment Characteristics/Space
- TACDB: platform lists, sorted by nomenclature, which contain links to the C-E equipment complement of each platform, with links to the parametric data for each piece of equipment, military unit lists and their subordinate units with equipment used by each unit.
Signals intelligence units will identify changes in the EOB, which might indicate enemy unit movement, changes in command relationships, and increases or decreases in capability.
Using the COMINT gathering method enables the intelligence officer to produce an electronic order of battle by traffic analysis and content analysis among several enemy units. For example, if the following messages were intercepted:
- U1 to U2, requesting permission to proceed to checkpoint X.
- U2 to U1, approved. please report at arrival.
- (20 minutes later) U1 to U2, all vehicles have arrived to checkpoint X.
The EOB buildup process is divided as following:
- Signal separation
- Measurements optimization
- Data Fusion
- Networks build-up
By gathering and clustering data from each sensor, the measurements of the direction of signals can be optimized and get much more accurate than the basic measurements of a standard direction finding sensor.[19] By calculating larger samples of the sensor's output data in near real-time, together with historical information of signals, better results are achieved.
Data fusion correlates data samples from different frequencies from the same sensor, "same" being confirmed by direction finding or radiofrequency MASINT. If an emitter is mobile, direction finding, other than discovering a repetitive pattern of movement, is of limited value in determining if a sensor is unique. MASINT then becomes more informative, as individual transmitters and antennas may have unique side lobes, unintentional radiation, pulse timing, etc.
Network build-up, or analysis of emitters (communication transmitters) in a target region over a sufficient period of time, enables creation of the communications flows of a battlefield.[20]
COMINT
COMINT (Communications Intelligence) is a sub-category of signals intelligence that engages in dealing with messages or voice information derived from the interception of foreign communications. It should be noted that COMINT is commonly referred to as SIGINT, which can cause confusion when talking about the broader intelligence disciplines. The US Joint Chiefs of Staff defines it as "Technical information and intelligence derived from foreign communications by other than the intended recipients".[15]COMINT, which is defined to be communications among people, will reveal some or all of the following:
- Who is transmitting
- Where they are located, and, if the transmitter is moving, the report may give a plot of the signal against location
- If known, the organizational function of the transmitter
- The time and duration of transmission, and the schedule if it is a periodic transmission
- The frequencies and other technical characteristics of their transmission
- If the transmission is encrypted or not, and if it can be decrypted. If it is possible to intercept either an originally transmitted cleartext or obtain it through cryptanalysis, the language of the communication and a translation (when needed).
- The addresses, if the signal is not a general broadcast and if addresses are retrievable from the message. These stations may also be COMINT (e.g., a confirmation of the message or a response message), ELINT (e.g., a navigation beacon being activated) or both. Rather than, or in addition to, an address or other identifier, there may be information on the location and signal characteristics of the responder.
Voice interception
A basic COMINT technique is to listen for voice communications, usually over radio but possibly "leaking" from telephones or from wiretaps. If the voice communications are encrypted, traffic analysis may still give information.In the Second World War, for security the United States used Native American volunteer communicators known as code talkers, who used languages such as Navajo, Comanche and Choctaw, which would be understood by few people, even in the U.S. Even within these uncommon languages, the code talkers used specialized codes, so a "butterfly" might be a specific Japanese aircraft. British forces made limited use of Welsh speakers for the same reason.
While modern electronic encryption does away with the need for armies to use obscure languages, it is likely that some groups might use rare dialects that few outside their ethnic group would understand.
Text interception
Morse code interception was once very important, but Morse code telegraphy is now obsolete in the western world, although possibly used by special operations forces. Such forces, however, now have portable cryptographic equipment. Morse code is still used by military forces of former Soviet Union countries.Specialists scan radio frequencies for character sequences (e.g., electronic mail) and fax.
Signaling channel interception
A given digital communications link can carry thousands or millions of voice communications, especially in developed countries. Without addressing the legality of such actions, the problem of identifying which channel contains which conversation becomes much simpler when the first thing intercepted is the signaling channel that carries information to set up telephone calls. In civilian and many military use, this channel will carry messages in Signaling System 7 protocols.Retrospective analysis of telephone calls can be made from Call detail record (CDR) used for billing the calls.
Monitoring friendly communications
More a part of communications security than true intelligence collection, SIGINT units still may have the responsibility of monitoring one's own communications or other electronic emissions, to avoid providing intelligence to the enemy. For example, a security monitor may hear an individual transmitting inappropriate information over an unencrypted radio network, or simply one that is not authorized for the type of information being given. If immediately calling attention to the violation would not create an even greater security risk, the monitor will call out one of the BEADWINDOW codes[21] used by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States, and other nations working under their procedures. Standard BEADWINDOW codes (e.g., "BEADWINDOW 2") include:- Position: (e.g., disclosing, in an insecure or inappropriate way, "Friendly or enemy position, movement or intended movement, position, course, speed, altitude or destination or any air, sea or ground element, unit or force."
- Capabilities: "Friendly or enemy capabilities or limitations. Force compositions or significant casualties to special equipment, weapons systems, sensors, units or personnel. Percentages of fuel or ammunition remaining."
- Operations: "Friendly or enemy operation – intentions progress, or results. Operational or logistic intentions; mission participants flying programmes; mission situation reports; results of friendly or enemy operations; assault objectives."
- Electronic warfare (EW): "Friendly or enemy electronic warfare (EW) or emanations control (EMCON) intentions, progress, or results. Intention to employ electronic countermeasures (ECM); results of friendly or enemy ECM; ECM objectives; results of friendly or enemy electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM); results of electronic support measures/tactical SIGINT (ESM); present or intended EMCON policy; equipment affected by EMCON policy."
- Friendly or enemy key personnel: "Movement or identity of friendly or enemy officers, visitors, commanders; movement of key maintenance personnel indicating equipment limitations."
- Communications security (COMSEC): "Friendly or enemy COMSEC breaches. Linkage of codes or codewords with plain language; compromise of changing frequencies or linkage with line number/circuit designators; linkage of changing call signs with previous call signs or units; compromise of encrypted/classified call signs; incorrect authentication procedure."
- Wrong circuit: "Inappropriate transmission. Information requested, transmitted or about to be transmitted which should not be passed on the subject circuit because it either requires greater security protection or it is not appropriate to the purpose for which the circuit is provided."
- Other codes as appropriate for the situation may be defined by the commander.
Electronic signals intelligence
Electronic signals intelligence (ELINT) refers to intelligence-gathering by use of electronic sensors. Its primary focus lies on non-communications signals intelligence. The Joint Chiefs of Staff define it as "Technical and geolocation intelligence derived from foreign noncommunications electromagnetic radiations emanating from other than nuclear detonations or radioactive sources."
Signal identification is performed by analyzing the collected parameters of a specific signal, and either matching it to known criteria, or recording it as a possible new emitter. ELINT data are usually highly classified, and are protected as such.The data gathered are typically pertinent to the electronics of an opponent's defense network, especially the electronic parts such as radars, surface-to-air missile systems, aircraft, etc. ELINT can be used to detect ships and aircraft by their radar and other electromagnetic radiation; commanders have to make choices between not using radar (EMCON), intermittently using it, or using it and expecting to avoid defenses. ELINT can be collected from ground stations near the opponent's territory, ships off their coast, aircraft near or in their airspace, or by satellite.
Complementary relationship to COMINT
Combining other sources of information and ELINT allows traffic analysis to be performed on electronic emissions which contain human encoded messages. The method of analysis differs from SIGINT in that any human encoded message which is in the electronic transmission is not analyzed during ELINT. What is of interest is the type of electronic transmission and its location. For example, during the Battle of the Atlantic in World War II, Ultra COMINT was not always available because Bletchley Park was not always able to read the U-boat Enigma traffic. But "Huff-Duff" (High Frequency Direction Finder) was still able to find where the U-boats were by analysis of radio transmissions and the positions through triangulation from the direction located by two or more Huff-Duff systems. The Admiralty was able to use this information to plot courses which took convoys away from high concentrations of U-boats.Yet other ELINT disciplines include intercepting and analyzing enemy weapons control signals, or the Identification, friend or foe responses from transponders in aircraft used to distinguish enemy craft from friendly ones.
Role in air warfare
A very common area of ELINT is intercepting radars and learning their locations and operating procedures. Attacking forces may be able to avoid the coverage of certain radars, or, knowing their characteristics, electronic warfare units may jam radars or send them deceptive signals. Confusing a radar electronically is called a "soft kill", but military units will also send specialized missiles at radars, or bomb them, to get a "hard kill". Some modern air-to-air missiles also have radar homing guidance systems, particularly for use against large airborne radars.Knowing where each surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery system is and its type means that air raids can be plotted to avoid the most heavily defended areas and to fly on a flight profile which will give the aircraft the best chance of evading ground fire and fighter patrols. It also allows for the jamming or spoofing of the enemy's defense network (see electronic warfare). Good electronic intelligence can be very important to stealth operations; stealth aircraft are not totally undetectable and need to know which areas to avoid. Similarly, conventional aircraft need to know where fixed or semi-mobile air defense systems are so that they can shut them down or fly around them.
ELINT and ESM
Electronic support measures (ESM) or Electronic Surveillance Measures are really ELINT techniques using various Electronic Surveillance Systems, but the term is used in the specific context of tactical warfare. ESM give the information needed for electronic attack (EA) such as jamming, or directional bearings (compass angle) to a target in signals intercept such as in the HUFF-DUFF Radio Direction Finding (RDF) systems so critically important during the WW-II Battle of the Atlantic. After WW-II, the RDF originally applied in only communications was broadened into systems to also take in ELINT from radar bandwidths and lower frequency communications systems, giving birth to a family of NATO ESM systems, such as the shipboard US AN/WLR-1—AN/WLR-6 systems and comparable airborne units. EA is also called electronic counter-measures (ECM). ESM provides information needed for electronic counter-counter measures (ECCM), such as understanding a spoofing or jamming mode so one can change one's radar characteristics to avoid them.ELINT for meaconing
Meaconing[23] is the combined intelligence and electronic warfare of learning the characteristics of enemy navigation aids, such as radio beacons, and retransmitting them with incorrect information.Foreign instrumentation signals intelligence FISINT
FISINT (Foreign instrumentation signals intelligence) is a sub-category of SIGINT, monitoring primarily non-human communication. Foreign instrumentation signals include (but not limited to) telemetry (TELINT), tracking systems, and video data links. TELINT is an important part of national means of technical verification for arms control.Counter-ELINT
Still at the research level are techniques that can only be described as counter-ELINT, which would be part of a SEAD campaign. It may be informative to compare and contrast counter-ELINT with ECCM.SIGINT versus MASINT
Signals intelligence and measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) are closely, and sometimes confusingly, related.[24] The signals intelligence disciplines of communications and electronic intelligence focus on the information in those signals themselves, as with COMINT detecting the speech in a voice communication or ELINT measuring the frequency, pulse repetition rate, and other characteristics of a radar.
MASINT also works with collected signals, but is more of an analysis discipline. There are, however, unique MASINT sensors, typically working in different regions or domains of the electromagnetic spectrum, such as infrared or magnetic fields. While NSA and other agencies have MASINT groups, the Central MASINT Office is in the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).
Where COMINT and ELINT focus on the intentionally transmitted part of the signal, MASINT focuses on unintentionally transmitted information. For example, a given radar antenna will have sidelobes emanating from other than the direction in which the main antenna is aimed. The RADINT (radar intelligence) discipline involves learning to recognize a radar both by its primary signal, captured by ELINT, and its sidelobes, perhaps captured by the main ELINT sensor, or, more likely, a sensor aimed at the sides of the radio antenna.
MASINT associated with COMINT might involve the detection of common background sounds expected with human voice communications. For example, if a given radio signal comes from a radio used in a tank, if the interceptor does not hear engine noise or higher voice frequency than the voice modulation usually uses, even though the voice conversation is meaningful, MASINT might suggest it is a deception, not coming from a real tank.
See HF/DF for a discussion of SIGINT-captured information with a MASINT flavor, such as determining the frequency to which a receiver is tuned, from detecting the frequency of the beat frequency oscillator of the superheterodyne receiver.
Legality
Since the invention of the radio, the international consensus has been that the radio-waves are no one's property, and thus the interception itself is not illegal.[25] There can however be national laws on who is allowed to collect, store and process radio traffic, and for what purposes. Monitoring traffic in cables (i.e. telephone and Internet) is far more controversial, since it most of the time requires physical access to the cable and thereby violating ownership and expected privacy.Sources may be neutral, friendly, or hostile, and may or may not be witting of their involvement in the collection of information. "Witting" is a term of intelligence art that indicates that one is not only aware of a fact or piece of information, but also aware of its connection to intelligence activities. Examples of HUMINT sources include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Advisors or foreign internal defense (FID) personnel working with host nation (HN) forces or populations
- Diplomatic reporting by accredited diplomats (e.g. military attachés);
- Espionage clandestine reporting, access agents, couriers, cutouts;
- Military attachés
- Non-governmental organizations (NGOs);
- Prisoners of war (POWs) or detainees;
- Refugees;
- Routine patrolling (military police, patrols, etc.)
- Special reconnaissance
- Traveler debriefing (e.g., CIA Domestic Contact Service)
Basic HUMINT operations
Human source screening is the logical start of collection of HUMINT. This involves selecting people who may be sources of meaningful HUMINT, possibly positively identifying them, and conducting interviews of various types. Properly recording and cross-indexing the results of interviews is essential. No intelligence collection discipline is more likely to find meaning in apparently small bits of information than is HUMINT. Especially when there is reason to have additional interviews with the same individual, the subsequent interviews need careful planning, especially when the interrogator does not speak the language of the person being interviewed.Intelligence preparation for working in cultures
As with other intelligence collection disciplines, intelligence analysis can play many supporting roles. An obvious one is biographical intelligence, to help identify known hostile undercover personnel, or individuals who will impartially mislead an assortment of national intelligence services for profit.Equally important is the broader area of cultural intelligence, which draws heavily on the social sciences. In a book review in the CIA professional journal, Lloyd F. Jordan recognizes two forms of study of culture, both of which are relevant to HUMINT.[2] In the review, Jordan describes Patai's book[3] as an excellent example of a second type of cultural analysis. He reviews the first group of scientific analyses of culture and character as beginning with "cultural anthropology as early as the 1920s. During World War II, those methods employed earlier in the academic community in this field of research were brought to bear upon a variety of problems connected with the war effort.
"It was precisely the inaccessibility of the target country and the availability of only fragmentary information about it that made national character research relevant to intelligence analysis during the war. The cultural anthropologists had long been developing models of former and disappearing cultures from fragmentary materials. The anthropologists, joined by the psychiatrists, combined the use of psychoanalytic theory, interaction theory, child development theory, and learning theory with standard anthropological research methods to construct models of the contemporary cultures of wartime enemy countries, Japan and Germany." The classic work of this type is Ruth Benedict's study of Japan, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword.[4]
Mike observes that Benedict's approach was the only one in use until the late 1950s. "National character studies" focused on the statistically most significant personality characteristics of the group (i.e., the modal personality), rather than the most common manifestation of the traits. "...modal personality construct[s] tended to be related to the total culture, or at least, its salient features."
The second class of studies, of which Patai's is an exemplar for Arab culture, had a more narrow focus. "...they concentrated on the relationship of personality traits to subsets of a given society or a given category of roles of that society, rather than on the identification of relationships between personality and the social structure as a whole." A third category, the comparative study, included Francis L. K. Hsu's Americans and Chinese.[5] Indeed, some recent and controversial works, such as Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order can be regarded as an extension of comparative study into the idea of conflicts among the groups compared.[6]
Basic differentiation by subject type
Different types of human subjects will share information voluntarily or involuntarily. The interrogator builds a relationship with the subject, a relationship that can be based on trust, fear, friendship, or any of a range of human emotions. Prisoners have an understandable fear of what may happen, and, contrary to "tough guy" images, it can be important to relax them and, as much as possible, put them at ease.[7] Some organizations teach their members that the other side tortures everyone, and, if that is known, that fear must be addressed; Japanese prisoners in WWII often attempted suicide for that reason[8] but were sometimes dissuaded, as by Guy Gabaldon."The question of torture should be disposed of at once. Quite apart from moral and legal considerations, physical torture or extreme mental torture is not an expedient device. Maltreating the subject is from a strictly practical point of view as short-sighted as whipping a horse to his knees before a thirty-mile ride. It is true that almost anyone will eventually talk when subjected to enough physical pressures, but the information obtained in this way is likely to be of little intelligence value and the subject himself rendered unfit for further exploitation. Physical pressure will often yield a confession, true or false, but what an intelligence interrogation seeks is a continuing flow of information."[7]
Especially when the subject is a prisoner, the screener, who need not be the main interrogator, should examine the Enemy Prisoner of War (EPW) captive tag or other basic information giving the circumstances of capture: when, where, how, by whom, and so forth.[9] If the subject is not under any restraint, it is still quite useful for a screener to prepare contact information comparable to the information on the EPW tag.
When the subject is a POW, screeners should pay particular attention to rank insignia, condition of uniforms and equipment, and behavior demonstrated by the source. Screeners should look for things like attempts to talk to the guards, intentionally joining placement in the wrong segregation group, or any signs of nervousness, anxiety, or fear. Any source whose appearance or behavior indicates that he is willing to talk should be noted by the screeners.[9]
Assuming the subject has been under guard, the screener often can get valuable information about the subject's behavior from the guards. They can tell the screener how the source has responded to orders, what requests have been made by the source, what behavior has been demonstrated by the source, and so forth.[9] Along with the basic contact information, such observations can be extremely helpful to the interrogator, who can study the information before the interview. Having background on the subject helps the interrogator retain the initiative in an interview.
Again for prisoners, screeners should examine the documents captured with the source and any documents pertaining to the source.[9] If the subject is voluntary and providing documents, they may even be more valuable. Screeners may need to get help from linguists or document specialists in understanding the material. If the documents have insignia or other graphics, these should be compared with an existing graphics register, and added to it if they are new.
Documents captured with the source (identification card, letters, map sections, and so forth) can provide information that identifies the source, his organization, his mission, and other personal background (family, knowledge, experience, and so forth). This information can be used to verify information from documents captured with the source and further assess his willingness to cooperate. When examining documents, screeners should look for items that will indicate whether the source is cooperative or willing to cooperate based on any specific personal interest.
If the source has information pertaining to new foreign material, contact appropriate TECHINT specialists, and if the source has information of target exploitation interest, contact the appropriate staff members who deal with targeting. These specialists are not necessarily qualified interrogators and may need to meet jointly with the subject and interrogator, or pass questions to the interrogator.
Selecting potential sources
It involves evaluating an individual, or group of individuals, "to determine their potential to answer [intelligence] collection requirements or to identify individuals who match a predetermined source profile. The goal of the process is to identify individuals who may have information of interest, and are willing or can be persuaded to cooperate. Willing individuals will undergo debriefing, and, subject to the relevant laws, regulations and policies of the HUMINT organization, unwilling people may be interrogated.Screening techniques also can select individuals who may be prospects to collect intelligence or work, in other ways, with the HUMINT organization or its sponsor. Individuals may also be identified who are of interest to counterintelligence or to technical intelligence specialists.[10]
| Cooperation level | Cooperation code | Knowledgeability level | Knowledgeability code |
|---|---|---|---|
| Responds to direct questions | 1 | Very likely to have pertinent information | A |
| Responds hesitantly | 2 | May have pertinent information | B |
| Does not respond | 3 | Unlikely to have pertinent information | C |
Identification
Since the identity of individuals is very relevant to HUMINT, it makes extensive use of biometric data (e.g., fingerprints, iris scans, voice prints, facial/physical features) collected on persons of interest.[11]Types of interviews
Subject interview has many of the same dynamics as a psychotherapeutic relationship. In an extended interrogation, if there is dialogue between interrogator and subject, there will be dynamics closely related to the psychotherapeutic concept of transference and countertransference. In the former, the subject projects emotional experiences of his own onto the interrogator, and in the latter, the interrogator will start thinking of the subject in terms of his own life experiences.There are other ways to use social science to understand interviews, in the broad sense of cooperative debriefing and hostile interrogation. Speaking of interrogation in the law enforcement context, "There is a vast literature on interrogation ... but hardly anything on it at all in the field of argumentation theory.... Argumentation theorists have taken as their point of interest rational argumentation in which two parties reason together to try to get at the truth of a matter following collaborative rules of procedure. And the interrogation is scarcely a model of how to conduct balanced rational argumentation. Far from that, it seems to represent a coercive kind of dialogue exchange that is associated with intimidation..."[12] but a debriefing is not necessarily coercive
In some cases, an interrogation becomes less coercive, if the subject begins to identify with the conceptual framework of the interrogator. The latter can be a false Stockholm syndrome context, or it can be a case where the subject actually sees that his belief system has fallacies, and he may start to share aspects of the interrogator's mindset.
With WWII Japanese prisoners who believed that the shame of capture permanently separated them from that culture,[13] and who were unable to commit suicide,[8] appeared to see themselves as now part of the interrogator's culture, and became quite cooperative. "...there was one infallible method of convincing a reluctant Japanese prisoner to tell all he knows: to tell him, via interpreters, that they will send his name and picture back to Japan. ... We might note that few Japanese ever attempt to hold anything back. Being taken prisoner is not in their handbooks. No Japanese is ever taken alive. Thus, they are not drilled in the "Name- Rank- Serial No- nothing more" routine. They usually reveal everything easily without any persuasion and seem unhappy when their lack of information does not permit them to answer a specific question. [a captured officer]...doesn't expect to return to Japan ever, has completely excluded his family and his wife from his thinking, and appears pleasantly resigned to going to the States and working there even as a prisoner for the rest of his life."[13] In argumentative theory, interrogation is a form of information-seeking dialogue, but also can include other kinds of dialogue, such as negotiation. In both police and intelligence interviews, there may be bargaining, where the interrogator offers incentives for the subject to reveal information. The revealed information, especially in a HUMINT context, is not necessarily about the interrogation and also may involve persuasion of the subject to speak.[12]
Before going on to study the relationship of the interrogation to information seeking dialogue, some account must be given of other types of dialogue related to interrogation as well. For the interrogation has a way of shifting from pure information-seeking to other types of dialogue. As an example, argumentative theory recognizes 'persuasion', in the sense meant in the persuasion dialogue,[12] with certain strategic interrogations, the interrogator might objectively question some of the practices of the subject's side. This is not done for direct elicitation of information, but to set a new context for further interrogation in which the subject might question some of his own loyalties and assumptions. In the case of the Japanese prisoners of the US, they began to operate in that new context.[13]
Debriefing
Debriefing involves getting cooperating human sources to satisfy intelligence requirements, consistent with the rules, laws, and policies of the HUMINT organization. People being debriefed are usually willing to cooperate, although it is possible to obtain information through casual conversation. Debriefing may be conducted at all echelons and in all operational environments.Types of people being interviewed include both "tasked" and "non-tasked" individuals. Tasked individuals are, in some way, part of the interviewer's organization.
| Tasked | Not tasked |
|---|---|
| Military police and infantry patrols in nominally controlled areas | Residents of nominally controlled areas |
| Special reconnaissance teams (see special reconnaissance) | Nongovernmental organization workers in the area of operations |
| Diplomats of one's own country | Friendly or neutral foreign diplomats |
| National or higher command level subject matter experts (e.g., intelligence personnel) | Persons outside the area but knowledgeable about it (e.g., émigrés) |
Other than talking to tasked personnel, there is a tendency for some HUMINT collectors to regard debriefing as a waste of time. The approach to a voluntary source needs to be quite different from that to a cooperative prisoner, especially if the interrogator has reason to believe the source is knowledgeable. While a subject may be a volunteer, a refugee or displaced person is likely to have some of the fears and uncertainty undergone by POWs. Active listening and sympathy can pay great benefits, especially in the areas of love of family, and anger at those who made them homeless.
The HUMINT collector should allow specialized or senior sources more latitude to interpose their opinions and evaluations. Prior to the meeting, collectors need to examine all available information, to have an idea of the subject's personality and motivations when beginning to talk to them. It also may require unobtrusive observation of the subject to establish such things as patterns of activity and likes and dislikes. The closer the interview environment can be to the customary surroundings of the subject, the more comfortable and cooperative the source may be.
One example of source that should have latitude are trained foreign internal defense (FID) or unconventional warfare (UW) personnel that work with local residents, or military forces, on a routine basis. Such people may very well themselves have HUMINT and/or CI training; US Special Forces groups have two-man HUMINT/CI teams that can augment operational detachments.
Historically, after the WWII experience of resistance leaders such as the Jedburgh teams, occurred to various commanders that soldiers trained to operate as guerillas would have a strong sense of how to fight guerillas. Even before specialist FID/UW units were constituted, organizations such as Military Assistance Advisory Groups, as in Greece just after WWII, also had extensive local knowledge. Before the partition of French Indochina in 1954, French Groupement de Commandos Mixtes Aéroportés (GCMA) took on this role, drawing on French experience with the Jedburgh teams.[14] GCMA, operating in Tonkin and Laos under French intelligence, was complemented by Commandos Nord Viêt-Nam in the North. In these missions, the SOF teams lived and fought with the locals.
United States Army Special Forces, U.S. Marine Corps Combined Action Program (CAP) program personnel (originally in Vietnam,[15] but now in Iraq[16]) and various training detachments are apt to have valuable and structured information.
In all cases, the more knowledgeable the interrogator is to the volunteer, the better the result is likely to be. A collector does not need to keep the same level as control as in a hostile interrogation. Sometimes, admitting ignorance of a custom, and respectfully asking for explanation, will trigger a flow of information.
While it takes sophistication, the best general approach to willing subjects is a planned elicitation of information, always with a specific goal in mind. The key to elicitation is the establishment of a rapport between the elicitor and the source, normally based on shared interests. In the initial stages of an elicitation, the collector confines his conversations to innocuous subjects such as sports and social commentary. Dependent on the value of the source, the collection environment, and the security consciousness of the subject, the HUMINT specialist will then shift to a more focused topic.
Once in that mode, elicit the information by continuing to ask for clarification, with questions of the form "I agree, however, what did you mean by....?") or expressing a hypothetical situation. The focused discussion can involve mild flattery and interest in the conversation, or, in a much more delicate approach, selectively challenging statements or introducing new information to show knowledge and stimulate more responses.[10]
Interrogation
As opposed to debriefing, the subject of interrogation is not necessarily cooperating with the obtaining of information by the organization. The subject is normally in custody, although the legal circumstances may be such that an uncooperative subject may be able to leave.Examples of subjects being interrogated include POWs, individuals detained by patrol as not being from the area, and a thief arrested by the civilian police.
Interrogation is a skilled technique, which often involves building rapport with the subject. In an intelligence context, interrogators should be trained specialists, although they may work with linguists and subject matter experts.[17]
Regardless of whether the interview is voluntary or involuntary, the interrogator needs to keep the initiative. To keep the initiative, the interrogator may not need to be harsh. Indeed, the many successful interrogators are formally polite within the subject's cultural traditions.[9] If, in societies with a strong host-guest tradition, the interrogator takes the role of host, that can allow polite domination of the conversation.
The interrogation process itself is a HUMINT collection, not analysis, technique. It may well be that the interrogator, after the interview, does analysis, cross-checking statements made against name indices and "wiring diagrams" of social networks.[18] The interrogator checks his notes against the finished report to ensure that the report contains and identifies the information as heard, seen, or assumed by the source[9]
Planning the initial interview
While the actual interview technique will vary with the attitude of the subject and the needs of the interviewer's service, the interrogator should develop a basic plan for the first interview. This might be put into a paper folder along with documents (or copies) associated with the subject, or, if available, it can go into a HUMINT database so other interrogators, analysts, cultural and language specialists, can review it. Reviews can help plan the current interview, or give ideas to other interrogators for other interviews.The basic elements to collect are:
- Any urgent HUMINT collection requirements
- Serial number of EPW/detainee to be questioned.
- Location and time for the questioning.
- Primary and alternate approaches.
- Questioning plan including topics to be covered and the planned sequence of these topics.
- Prepared questions for unfamiliar or highly technical topics.
- Method of recording and reporting information obtained
- Linguist support, if needed
- Additional general or technical interrogators needed
How much psychological pressure to use, how many symbols of dominance are appropriate to use, require great judgment. Some classic interviewing techniques, without threatening the subject, make him uncomfortable, as, for example, having "interrogators – preferably two of them – seated behind a table at the far end of a long room, so that the subject after entering will have some distance to walk before taking his chair in front of them. This device will enable them to observe his poise and manner, and may often quite unsettle the subject. In this pressure-oriented technique, the interrogators should sit with their backs to the main source of light in order to obscure their faces, veil their expressions, and place a strain on the prisoner. The subject can be placed under further strain by providing him an uncomfortable chair, say one with a polished seat and shortened front legs so that he tends to slide off it, or one with wobbly legs.[7]
"On the other hand, an opposite technique has sometimes been successful: the prisoner is made so comfortable, after a hearty lunch with beer, that he drops his guard in drowsiness.[7] When conducting military source operations, the location of the questioning will have psychological effects on the source. The questioning location should be chosen and set up to correspond to the effect that the HUMINT collector wants to project and his planned approach techniques. For example, meeting in a social type situation such as a restaurant may place the source at ease. Meeting in an apartment projects informality while meeting in an office projects more formality. Meeting at the source's home normally places him at a psychological advantage, while meeting in the HUMINT collector's work area gives the collector a psychological edge. The HUMINT collector should consider the status and level of the source, security, the workspace available, furnishings, the amount of lighting provided, and the ability to heat or cool the room as needed.[10]
Characteristics of the interrogator(s)
Interrogation is an interaction, and, even before considering the different attitudes the subject may have, the interrogator needs to know his own style, strengths and weaknesses. He needs to judge if he needs cultural advice, how to handle language issues, and if he needs specialist help.The HUMINT collector must also consider the physical conditions of the source and himself. After extended operations, there may be a limit on how long either the HUMINT collector or source can concentrate on a given subject.
Support needs
If the interrogator thinks that offering incentives will help, he must decide what they are and how they are obtained. If incentives were promised in earlier interviews, the collector must know if they were delivered. If they were not, the interrogator needs to plan how the failure to deliver may interfere with any trust built, and how to correct the problem.The HUMINT collector must decide if he will need additional support including analytical, technical, or interpreter support. On rare occasions, it may be desirable for the HUMINT collector to seek polygraph support or support from a Behavioral Science Consultant (BSC). BSCs are authorized to make psychological assessments of the character, personality, social interactions, and other behavioral characteristics of interrogation subjects and advise HUMINT collectors of their assessments, as needed.
Attitudes of the subject
The basic attitude of the subject will help define the approach to the interview. There are four primary factors that must be considered when selecting tentative approaches:- The source's mental and physical state. Is the source injured, angry, crying, arrogant, cocky, or frightened?
- The source's background. What is the source's age and level of military or civilian experience? Consider cultural, ethnic, and religious factors.
- The objective of the HUMINT collection. How valuable is the source's potential information? Is it beneficial to spend more effort convincing this source to talk?
- The HUMINT collector himself. What abilities does he have that can be brought into play? What weaknesses does he have that may interfere with the HUMINT collection? Are there social or ethnic barriers to communication? Can his personality adapt to the personality of the source?
Cooperative and friendly
A cooperative and friendly source offers little resistance to the interrogation and normally speaks freely on almost any topic introduced, other than that which will tend to incriminate or degrade him personally.To obtain the maximum amount of information from cooperative and friendly sources, the interrogator takes care to establish and to preserve a friendly and cooperative atmosphere by not inquiring into those private affairs which are beyond the scope of the interrogation. At the same time, he must avoid becoming overly friendly and losing control of the interrogation.[9] The interrogator, however, may need to get expert advice on the customs of the subject's culture. While Americans might not spend time inquiring about the journey to the place of the interrogation, the health of one another's family, etc., not to do so is extremely impolite in some cultures. Not following cultural norms may transform a cooperative subject into a silent one.
For example, Arab cultural norms, reasonable to follow in a friendly conversation with a subject of that culture, do, often in ceremonial terms, speak of family. Handshakes are traditional at the start and end of the meeting.[19]
Neutral and nonpartisan
A neutral and nonpartisan source is cooperative to a limited degree. He normally takes the position of answering questions asked directly, but seldom volunteers information. In some cases, he may be afraid to answer for fear of reprisals by the enemy. This often is the case in low-intensity conflict (LIC) where the people may be fearful of insurgent reprisals. With the neutral and nonpartisan source, the interrogator may have to ask many specific questions to obtain the information required.Hostile and antagonistic
A hostile and antagonistic source is most difficult to interrogate. In many cases, he refuses to talk at all and offers a real challenge to the interrogator. An interrogator must have self-control, patience, and tact when dealing with him.Inexperienced interrogators may do well to limit their interview, and pass the subject to a more senior interrogator. When handing off the subject, the next interrogator will find it very useful to have any clues why the subject is being hostile.
"The recalcitrant subject of an intelligence interrogation must be "broken" but broken for use like a riding horse, not smashed in the search for a single golden egg."
No two interrogations are the same. Each interrogation is thus carefully tailored to the measure of the individual subject. The standard lines of procedure, however, may be divided into six parts:
- arrest and detention
- preliminary interview and questioning
- intensive examination
- exploitation.
- Plan
- to react scheduling budgeting
"Showing some subjects up as liars is the very worst thing to do, because their determination not to lose face will only make them stick harder to the lie. For these it is necessary to provide loopholes by asking questions which let them correct their stories without any direct admission to lying".[7]
The questioning itself can be carried out in a friendly, persuasive manner, from a hard, merciless and threatening posture, or with an impersonal and neutral approach. In order to achieve the disconcerting effect of alternation among these attitudes it may be necessary to use as many as four different interrogators playing the following roles, although one interrogator may sometimes double in two of them:
- the cold, unfeeling individual whose questions are shot out as from a machine-gun, whose voice is hard and monotonous, who neither threatens nor shows compassion.
- the bullying interrogator who uses threats, insults and sarcasm to break through the subject's guard by making him lose his temper or by exhausting him.
- the ostensibly naive and credulous questioner, who seems to be taken in by the prisoner's story, makes him feel smarter than the interrogator, gives him his rope and builds up false confidence which may betray him.
- the kind and friendly man, understanding and persuasive, whose sympathetic approach is of decisive importance at the climactic phase of the interrogation. He is most effectively used after a siege with the first and second types, or after a troubled sleep following such a siege.
Planning additional interviews
The main factor for human intelligence is getam. This can be part of softening-up, or part of the exploitation phase. "When the cover story and the will to resist have been broken, when the subject is ready to answer a series of carefully prepared questions aimed at an intelligence target, the exploitation can begin, often in a veiled spirit of cooperation and mutual assistance. At this stage the interrogation may for example be moved to an office assigned the subject, where he might even be left alone for a few minutes to show that he is being trusted and that there is something constructive for him to do. This feeling of trust and responsibility can be very important to a broken subject, because he may now have suicidal inclinations; he must be given something to occupy his mind and keep him from too much introspection.Which course is better will depend on the subject's character, the way he was broken, and his present attitude toward those who have been handling him. Sometimes only a fresh interrogator can get real cooperation from him. Sometimes, on the other hand, he is so ashamed of having broken that he is unwilling to expose himself further and wants to talk only to his original questioner. And sometimes he has built up a trustful and confiding relationship with his interrogator which should not be destroyed by the introduction of another personality.
Principles of questioning
The HUMINT collector adopts an appropriate persona based on his appraisal of the source but remains alert for verbal and non-verbal clues that indicate the need for a change in the approach techniques. The amount of time spent on this phase will depend mostly on the probable quantity and value of information the source possesses, the availability of other sources with knowledge on the same topics, and available time. At the initial contact, a businesslike relationship should be maintained. As the source assumes a cooperative attitude, a more relaxed atmosphere may be advantageous. The HUMINT collector must carefully determine which of the various approach techniques to employ.If a source cooperates, his or her motivations vary. They can range from altruism to personal gain; they may be based on logic or emotion. From a psychological standpoint, the HUMINT collector must be cognizant of the following behaviors.[10] People tend to—
- Want to talk when they are under stress and respond to kindness and understanding during trying circumstances. For example, enemy soldiers who have just been captured have experienced a significant stress-producing episode. The natural inclination is for people to want to talk about this sort of experience. If the EPW has been properly segregated and silenced, the HUMINT collector will be the first person the EPW has a chance to talk to. This is a powerful tool for the collector to use to get the subject talking. The desire to talk may also be manifested in refugees, DPs, and even local civilians when confronted by an unsettled situation.
- Show deference when confronted by superior authority. This is culturally dependent but in most areas of the world people are used to responding to questions from a variety of government and quasi-government officials.
- Operate within a framework of personal and culturally derived values. People tend to respond positively to individuals who display the same value system and negatively when their core values are challenged.
- Respond to physical and, more importantly, emotional self-interest. This may be as simple as responding to material rewards such as extresponding to support in rationalizing guilt.
- Fail to apply or remember lessons they may have been taught regarding security if confronted with a disorganized or strange situation.
- Be more willing to discuss a topic about which the HUMINT collector demonstrates identical or related experience or knowledge.
- Appreciate flattery and exoneration from guilt.
- Attach less importance to a topic if it is treated routinely by the HUMINT collector.
- Resent having someone or something they respect belittled, especially by someone they dislike.
Building rapport
"Establish and maintain a rapport between the HUMINT collector and the source. Rapport is a condition established by the HUMINT collector that is characterized by source confidence in the HUMINT collector and a willingness to cooperate with him. This does not necessarily equate to a friendly atmosphere. It means that a relationship is established and maintained that facilitates the collection of information by the HUMINT collector. The HUMINT collector may establish a relationship as superior, equal, or even inferior to the source. The relationship may be based on friendship, mutual gain, or even fear.If he does introduce himself, normally he will adopt a duty position and rank supportive of the approach strategy selected during the planning and preparation phase. The HUMINT collector must select a rank and duty position that is believable based on the HUMINT collector's age, appearance, and experience. A HUMINT collector may, according to international law, use ruses of war to build rapport with interrogation sources, and this may include posing or "passing himself off" as someone other than a military interrogator. However, the collector must not pose as—
- A doctor, medic, or any other type of medical personnel.
- Any member of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) or its affiliates. Such a ruse is a violation of treaty obligations.
- A chaplain or clergyman.
- A journalist.
- A member of the civilian government, such as a Member of Parliament.[10]
"At this interview the interrogators should do as little as possible of the talking, however many questions they are anxious to have answered. The prisoner should be asked to tell his story in his own words, describe the circumstances of his arrest, give the history of some period of his life, or explain the details of his occupation. The object is to get him to talk without prompting in as much continuous narrative as possible; the more he talks the better the interrogators can assess his personality.
Use of recorders
"The interview must of course be recorded, either [as audio] or in stenographic notes." An audio recording is particularly useful if the interview requires an interpreter. If the interpreter is not a regular member of the interrogator's forces, a recording, which can be reviewed by a staff linguist, can be an important part of quality control."The interrogators must on no account try to do this job themselves; it would distract them from the critical task of framing questions and steering the course of interrogation according to the implications of the subject's replies. Whether the stenographer or recorder should be concealed or visible depends on the subject's sophistication and the state of his alert. If the recording process is not evident some subjects may become careless of what they say when they see that the interrogators are not taking notes, whereas a visible recording would alert them to be more cautious. For others, consciousness of a recording going on in full view may be unnerving, and they may betray the weak links in their stories by showing signs of distress at these points.
"At a later stage of the interrogation it may be of value to play back to the subject some part of this recording. The sound of his own voice repeating his earlier statements, particularly any with intonations of anger or distress, may make a psychological breach in his defenses."
Working with interpreters
"Without doubt an interrogator using the subject's language is in a much better position than one who has to work through an interpreter. But the interrogation skill is infinitely more important than the language skill, and a good linguist should not be substituted for a good interrogator. In the absence of an interrogator who speaks the language, an interpreter should be used, preferably one with some training in interrogation techniques. It is very important that the interpreter not only report accurately what both parties say but also reflect as faithfully as he can their inflection, tone, manner, and emphasis. He should try to become part of the furniture in the room rather than a third personality, and the interrogator should act as though he were not there."[7]Interpreters are frequently a necessary aid to HUMINT collection. There are certain advantages to using an interpreter. The most obvious is that without an interpreter, a HUMINT collector without the proper language or necessary proficiency in that language is severely limited. Furthermore, if properly trained, briefed, and assessed, the interpreter can be a valuable assistant to the HUMINT collector.
Interpreters may have more knowledge of the local culture as well as the language, but the HUMINT manager must be cautious that the interpreter is not, for example, a member of a subculture, religion, etc., of the area, that would be offensive to the subject.
Going through an interpreter will slow the process, and also increase the chance of miscommunication. HUMINT collectors also need to be sure that local or third-country nationals are aware of security, and indeed will be loyal to the interpreter's side.
The collector should be aware of potential problems in interpretation. Some warning signs include:
- Long-to-short. If the interpreter delivers a long statement of yours as a short statement in the subject language, there are several possibilities. The interpreter may be trying to speed the interview, and the collector has to insist on accurate translation. The question may relate to a sensitive subject, perhaps even inducing fear in the interpreter.
- Short-to-long. If a brief question of the collector turns into a lengthy statement, it must be resolved that the interpreter does not have his own agenda. It is possible that the interpreter is using honorifics, indirect approach, or other culturally appropriate phrasing. There are times, however, when a translation, to control the relationship, needs to be translated exactly and without indirect language.
- Body-language shift. If the interpreter seems to change his body language or tone, the collector needs to learn the reason. This may be a justification to suspend the questioning until the interrogator can speak privately with the interpreter and find out if there is a problem. Sometimes, the change may be due to nothing more than fatigue or physical discomfort, but the interrogator must be sure that the native-language conversation has not gotten into dislike, threats, or personal connection that would bias the translation.
Recruited/trusted sources
Special Reconnaissance Patrolling
Special reconnaissance is done by soldiers, normally uniformed, who observe enemy activity deep beyond the front line of one's own side. See special reconnaissance for details. Since these are highly trained specialists, they will usually have been communicating clandestinely to the HUMINT organization, and will be systematically prepared for debriefing. The debriefing may be done by HUMINT officers of their own organization, who are most familiar with their information-gathering techniques. Some of those techniques may be extremely sensitive and held on a need-to-know basis within the special reconnaissance organization. They operate significantly farther than the furthest forward friendly scouting and surveillance units; they may be tens to hundreds of kilometers deeper. They may enter the area of operations in many ways.Their mission is not to engage in direct combat. It may be to observe and report, or it may include directing air or artillery attacks on enemy positions. If the latter is the case, the patrol still tries to stay covert; the idea is that the enemy obviously knows they are being attacked, but not who is directing fire.
Espionage
Espionage is the collection of information by people either in a position of trust for the enemy, or with access to people with such access. The process of recruiting such individuals and supporting their operations is the HUMINT discipline of agent handling.It may be possible for an agent handler to meet directly with the agent and debrief him. More commonly, agents send messages to the organization for which they work, by radio, Internet, or by leaving the messages in a hard-to-find place. The latter technique, called a dead drop, will have either a courier or the agent handler retrieve them in a clandestine manner. These are examples of espionage tradecraft.
Analyzing relationships among HUMINT subjects
After interviews, be they debriefings or interrogations, there is likely to be data about other people with whom the subject has had contact or knows about. These data are focused on human relationship networks, not, for example, on military information that the subject knows.Once information is obtained, it is put into an organized form. Very frequently, information obtained at one interview may help structure the next interview with the same person, or with another subject.
Identifying other people of interest
During interviews, a subject is apt to mention things about other people, or be prompted in a seemingly conversational way.Operational network "wiring diagram"
Much modern interest in tracking networks of people are relevant to guerilla operations and terrorist networks, two loose categories that do not completely overlap. When examining the overall structure of terrorist groups, there are two general categories of organization: networked and hierarchical. A terrorist group may employ either type or a combination of the two models. Newer groups tend towards organizing or adapting to the possibilities inherent in the network model. Ideology can have an effect on internal organization, with strict Leninist or Maoist groups tending towards centralized control and hierarchical structure.[20] Whether the organizational model is hierarchical or not, the operational personnel almost invariably use the cell system for security.One relevant study looks at modeling terrorist networks in a manner similar to other systems that "exhibit regularity but not periodicity (i.e., locally random, but globally defined).[21]
Their model focuses at the "mid-range", "not at the level of state leadership, and not at the level of mapping and predicting the behavior of each individual terrorist, but rather at an intermediate or organizational level"... Much as vulnerability analysis of connectionless packet networks such as the Internet[22] concentrates on the nodes whose loss would most interfere with connectivity, the study here looks for the "pattern of connections surrounding a node that allows for wide network reach with minimal direct ties. "Structural holes" at the intersection of flows across knowledge communities position unique and superior nodes. It is the individuals spanning these "internal holes of opportunity" that impact the network's functioning and performance. The implicit corollary of this is that if a small number of these critical nodes can be identified and "clipped" from the network, then command signals will not be able to propagate through the system."
In the 9/11 case, the pilots were such key nodes, once the US operational groups were in-country and operating.[23] Taking the observation of centrality a step farther, COMINT can complement HUMINT in finding the nodes of a geographically dispersed human network.
Obstacles to development of HUMINT capabilities
The following observations are drawn from the article by Lawrence Wright who interviews Director of National Intelligence John Michael McConnell.Inability to recruit people who are different due to a misperception of security risk factors
To develop HUMINT agents it is necessary to recruit HUMINT controlling officers with native foreign-language skills. However, the U.S. Security clearance process has several problems:- It is biased against first-generation immigrants with active relationships to their former country.
- It is biased against non-heterosexuals. (For overview see Wikipedia article Sexual orientation and military service.) The U.S. Army, for example, has dismissed hundreds of gays with important language skills, during a time of critical national need for Arabic linguists.[25] This while, according to Wright's article, the FBI has gone from 8 Arabic-speaking agents to 9 in the seven years since the 9/11 attacks.
- It takes up to two years to complete, longer than many immigrants are willing to put their careers on hold while waiting for a clearance.
- Shorten the clearance process to a month or less.
- Subject officers to "'life-cycle monitoring' – that is, constant surveillance".
- Alan Turing's homosexuality versus Britain's need for cryptanalysis.
- Robert Oppenheimer's radical politics versus US need for nuclear weapons.
"'Look back at all the spies we've had in our history', he said. 'About a hundred and thirty. How many did it for money? A hundred and twenty-eight.'"For example,
- Philip Agee allegedly received $1 million from Cuban intelligence service to publicize the names of CIA agents as part of an active measures campaign by the KGB.[
- Israel Defense Forces psychiatrist David Shamir "attempted to make contact with the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Hamas officials, and the Russian intelligence service, the FSB, with the intention of selling them classified information which he came upon during his military service".[27] While his claimed motivation was political, the bottom line was still money (emphasis added in quote):
- "Shamir said his prime motivation for his actions was what he viewed as the continued breakdown of the state's social fabric. 'The idea was to save my life and that of my son and the last years of my parents' lives, and to have things happen so that we can really be saved,' he said. 'The thinking was that I would receive money which I would use to attain asylum for me, my son, and my family, and to enable them to live as reasonably as possible, not in Iran, not in Lebanon, but rather in a European country.' "
Inability to trust people who are different due to failure to innovate in technical OPSEC
Wright claims that "Much of the intelligence community is technophobic and is also hamstrung by security concerns. Only recently have BlackBerrys made their way into some agencies, and many offices don't even have Internet connections." Hence it is difficult to institute technical controls that would allow the organization to effectively compartimentalize the knowledge of officers in the organization so that even moderately untrusted people could serve. I.e., in many cases of "moles" or internal spies, low-level spies have had access to huge volumes of secret data. This would not be possible if adequate technical measures were instituted to effectively compartmentalize information access on a more finely categorized and motivated need-to-know basis. In other words, there is a so far lost opportunity to use technical measures to improve operational security while at the same time allowing a broader range of people to serve. Another aspect of this would be to automatically filter information "down to" and tailored to a specific subject-matter need-to-know characterization of the requesting individual.A third obstacle to HUMINT and intelligence analysis in general is effective information sharing across the intelligence community. Wright's article notes that "the community still relies on more than thirty online networks and eighty databases, most of which are largely inaccessible to one another". Lack of information sharing has been partly addressed technically by adding new information-sharing tools
- Intellipedia, using MediaWiki software with additional security features.
- A-Space, "based on sites such as MySpace and Facebook – in which analysts post their current projects as a way of creating social networks."
- The Library of National Intelligence,[28] which "is an online digest of official reports that will soon provide analysts who use it with tips, much the way Amazon and iTunes offer recommendations to their customers."
XXX . VX000 IN BUREAU ; Invasion of the Hardware Snatchers: Cloned Electronics Pollute the Market
Fake hardware could open the door to malicious malware and critical failures
Plant DNA vs. Counterfeit Chips
It’s not just car parts that are being cloned; network routers and parts for routers are also popular targets for cloners. That may not sound particularly scary until you consider that a hacker who has control of a cloned router can then intercept or redirect communications on the network. Look at the 2010 case of Saudi citizen Ehab Ashoor, who was convicted of purchasing cloned Cisco Systems gigabit interface converters with the intent to sell them to the U.S. Department of Defense. The devices were to be installed in Iraq in Marine Corps networks used for security systems and for transmitting troop movements and relaying intelligence from remote field operations to command centers.
While Ashoor appears to have been motivated by greed rather than any desire to do harm, the impact of ersatz equipment in critical electronic systems like a secure router or a car’s engine can still be catastrophic, regardless of the supplier’s intent.
And unlike counterfeit electronics of the past, modern clones are very sophisticated. Previously, counterfeiters would simply re-mark or repackage old or inferior components and then sell them as if they were new and top of the line; the main problem with these knockoffs was poor reliability. Cloned electronics these days are potentially more nefarious: The counterfeiters make their own components, boards, and systems from scratch and then package them into superficially similar products. The clones may be less reliable than the genuine product, having never undergone rigorous testing. But they may also host unwanted or even malicious software, firmware, or hardware—and the buyer may not know the difference, or even know what to look for.
Already, entire lines of consumer electronics have been cloned. Back in 2004, the Japanese electronics giant NEC Corp. received reports from Beijing and Hong Kong that pirates were selling keyboards, CDs, and DVDs bearing the company’s logo. When NEC investigated further, it discovered the problem was far worse: The cloners had developed a host of consumer electronic products—including home entertainment systems, MP3 players, batteries, microphones, and DVD players—and then sold them under the NEC label. The cloners even provided official-looking warranty documents to customers.
While there appear to be no published reports of injury or hacking related to this cloning, the risks are bigger today because more of the systems we interact with daily are connected to the Internet of Things. Cloned hardware may lack the security modules intended to protect such devices, and so it opens up the unsuspecting user to cyberattack.
And cloning microchips, especially today’s billion-transistor versions, is even more challenging. A chip becomes an attractive target for cloners only if the market demand is high enough to make it worth the effort. That can happen when a manufacturer stops producing a particular chip, thus forcing anyone who wants to use the discontinued chip to buy it through a distributor that still has stock. As time goes on, the chip will become scarce. Consider two Texas Instruments microprocessors with essentially the same specifications: The discontinued XOMAP3525BCBB lists for US $72, and the still-manufactured OMAP3515ECBBA lists for $52. As the price of the discontinued chip continues to climb, at some point cloners may be willing to make the investment in reverse engineering the original chip. Or, if they get their hands on a pirated design file, they can produce a clone without a big investment.
Nobody really knows the true scale of electronics cloning, thanks to the clandestine nature of the activity and the lack of adequate detection measures in the global supply chain. But we can infer the size of the market by extrapolating from the cloned products that are seized each year by police and customs authorities.
Using this kind of extrapolation, the International Chamber of Commerce estimated that trade in counterfeit and cloned products—including nonelectronic products such as designer handbags—amounted to $650 billion globally in 2011. The ICC projected that the figure would nearly triple, to $1.7 trillion, by the end of 2015. (The organization does not track electronics separately.)
Estimates do exist for certain types of electronics. In 2005, for example, the FBI, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection kicked off Operation Network Raider, an international initiative to control the illegal distribution of fake network hardware. Between 2005 and 2010, the campaign led to 30 felony convictions and the seizure of nearly $143 million worth of fake network hardware; similar efforts leading to arrests and equipment seizures continued after that campaign ended, but the numbers haven’t been aggregated.
Whatever the true size of the cloned electronics market, we are sure that it is growing, based on our work with SMT Corp., whose labs specialize in identifying cloned and counterfeited components in global supply chains. Among the trends contributing to the growth of cloning are more-sophisticated imaging and analysis tools—we’ll discuss these in a moment—and the spread of contract manufacturing, a business model in which the companies that design chips and systems outsource their fabrication. As design files are passed back and forth between the designer and the contractor, cloners will exploit any crack in security to get those files. Once a cloner succeeds in fabricating credible copies, the ubiquity of online sales makes it easy for the sellers to hide their identities and attract bargain-minded customers.
So who exactly are the cloners? They could be just a couple of guys in a garage or a big state-funded organization, or something in between. State-sponsored cloning is thought to be common. Cloners in some countries argue that they don’t trust U.S. manufacturers, so they clone U.S. chips to make sure their chips are free of deliberately implanted malicious circuits—sometimes called hardware Trojans. A side benefit is that the fake chips come with no licensing fees. These clones can and do get onto the international market.
Regardless of who’s doing the cloning, they generally follow a two-step process: First, they copy a design, and second, they fabricate the product. The cloners may secretly buy the design from an employee at the target company, or they may hack into a computer containing that information.
A slightly more sophisticated approach is to reverse engineer the intended product. This kind of work has gotten much easier in the past two decades. The advent of better and cheaper imaging instruments and analysis tools have enabled reverse engineering of even the most complex microchips. Today’s optical microscopes can produce 3D images of a chip with superfine resolution. Scanning electron microscopes and transmission electron microscopes can image the microchip’s inner layers; high-resolution digital X-ray machines do the same for PCBs. Reverse-engineering companies like TechInsights (which recently acquired Chipworks) use this kind of imaging legitimately for the purposes of competitive analysis and patent research.
The other type of reverse engineering involves taking the product apart to understand how it’s made. Using chemical etching, for instance, a cloner can remove each layer of a chip or PCB. Unlike the technique using high-end microscopes and X-ray machines mentioned above, this process requires only a low-power optical microscope to view the result. But the cloner might have to go through 50 or more chips or PCBs to get the design right.
In system-level cloning, such as that needed to reproduce routers and other network hardware, cloners may use some form of reverse engineering, or they may buy the design details from a friendly source at the manufacturer, along with stray parts or products that failed testing. But to complete the clone design, they also need to install firmware—the basic programs used to tell the system how to operate. Firmware for a router might include information such as what frequency the router communicates over or what type of security protocols it uses. On most PCBs, the system firmware is stored in nonvolatile memory—ROM, EEPROM, or flash. A cloner can copy it during the power-up cycle, by tapping a data bus when the processing unit loads system instructions from nonvolatile storage into active memory. Alternatively, the cloner can look directly at the memory itself, using a scanning electron microscope or infrared backside imaging; the latter takes advantage of the fact that semiconductor materials are transparent to certain wavelengths of light. Under a powerful microscope, the cloner can actually see the stored 1s and 0s and reconstruct the code.
Finally, to fabricate the fake, the cloner typically turns to an independent manufacturing facility, which may be similar to or even the same as that used to make the genuine product. Occasionally, cloners use their own production lines, but that’s an expense few cloners can afford.
So researchers in academia, government, and industry have been working on other approaches. One tactic involves tagging chips and circuit boards with special materials, such as plant DNA. Clone fighters take botanical DNA sequences and scramble them, creating unique patterns that can be used as a signature for a batch of electronic parts. They then mix this DNA with selected fluorophores, which are chemicals that glow under specific wavelengths of light, and tag the electronics with this DNA ink.
Purchasers trying to confirm whether a chip is authentic will scan it for the fluorescent signature; if it’s missing, it’s a sure indication that something is wrong. If the fluorescent mark exists, the purchaser will swab the spot to pull a sample of the DNA and then send it to a lab. Standard forensic DNA techniques are used to identify the plant sequences, which get checked against the product’s database to confirm whether the label and the part matches.
According to Janice Meraglia at Applied DNA Sciences, one of the companies that offer DNA authentication, DNA tagging is pretty much clone proof. The DNA sequence data is held in a database that is accessible only to laboratory staff, unlike the open databases used for traditional parts IDs. Cloners also don’t have access to an essential element of the DNA tagging process: the primer required to start the chain of DNA formation. Primers are small, custom-built sequences of DNA to which other specific sequences of DNA attach; they basically help DNA sequencing tools find the start of the DNA chain.
The downsides of DNA tagging are its expense and how long it takes for authentication. Right now, the list price of a single test is $250, according to Meraglia; this cost drops when an organization signs on for a regular supply-chain testing program. And, she says, the company is working on test equipment that could be used at a parts purchaser’s location to reduce the time lag, turning tests around in under an hour.
These issues have kept the technique from becoming widely adopted, but some U.S. government agencies have already begun to tag critical electronic parts. Meraglia thinks the technology will soon move into the financial services industry to verify critical parts of its infrastructure, such as the routers that move data.
The latest promising countermeasure against electronics cloning is something called the physical unclonable function (PUF), which can potentially protect chips, PCBs, and even high-level products like routers. PUFs give each chip a unique “fingerprint.” They rely on the physical variations among transistors or other components on a chip, like the width of metal traces, which in turn cause subtle differences in behavior.
The behavior most often exploited by PUF designers is the variation among switching speeds of different transistors. When many transistors are combined into a circuit, the differences in their switching speeds affect the signal propagation along a specific path, which can be measured and compared with the signal propagation of another, supposedly identical path on the same chip. From the two paths, the manufacturer can create a 1-bit signature for the chip. For example, if the switching speeds are faster along the first path than the second one, the manufacturer can assign the bit as “1.” To create a longer signature—say, 16 or 64 bits—it typically compares more paths.
The PUF paths must be designed into the chip, either making use of existing features on the chip, such as test circuits or embedded memory, or by building in dedicated circuitry. Once a batch of chips is manufactured, the chipmaker checks how the PUF structures on each chip respond to specific inputs generated by external or internal test circuitry, and then registers the chip’s unique signature in a database. A customer can query the database to see if a chip at any phase in the supply chain is authentic or fake, in much the same way a database containing biometric fingerprints can be checked to identify a person.
Because PUF fingerprints are determined during the manufacturing process, they are extremely difficult to replicate. But they suffer from several problems that have prevented their widespread adoption. The first is instability. The tiny variations in transistors that underlie the chip’s digital signature can fluctuate along with the supply voltage or the ambient temperature. And as a transistor ages, its switching speed can slow down.
These problems can be addressed to some extent by increasing the number of signatures used for each chip. In this way, a chip can be recognized based on a less-than-perfect match over a large number of signatures; when it comes to detecting clones, a 90 percent match for 100 signatures may be as good as or better than a perfect match for just one signature. But nobody has yet figured out a way to avoid unstable signatures altogether.
Another problem with PUFs is their cost, which results from the additional design time, any new circuitry that needs to be included, and the signature-gathering from the finished chip. PUF technologies that rely on existing chip components—such as embedded memory or test structures to generate the signatures—will add little or no cost to the design.
A final problem is that cloners could use statistical modeling to predict the behavior [PDF] of some PUFs. Researchers have demonstrated that signatures from some PUF technologies aren’t as random as initially thought, and therefore chips with those types of PUFs aren’t protected from being cloned.
Despite these concerns, some companies, including Microsemi Corp. and Xilinx, have started to use PUFs for chip identification. And researchers have been extending the concept to printed circuit boards. In this case, they use random variations inside the chips that go onto the PCB as well as variations in the metal traces that connect them. This approach is particularly exciting because, unlike chip fingerprints, PCB fingerprints can be checked remotely to verify the authenticity of a piece of equipment. So the technique could be used, for example, to ensure that critical infrastructure components, once installed, aren’t later replaced with clones.
Research on advanced methods for clone detection is just beginning. Government and industry will need to pay more attention to this issue, as powerful reverse-engineering tools become cheaper and more accessible to would-be cloners.
And as the number of Internet of Things devices grows, everyone should become more aware of the dangers that cloned products pose. Some industry projections estimate the IoT population could reach 30 billion by 2020. Imagine if just 1 percent of those connected devices were clones harboring malicious hardware or software. That would mean a potential army that’s 300 million strong, waiting for the opportunity to launch an attack of the clones.
TECH MAPPING
Using the Sunway TaihuLight, Chinese researchers captured the 2016 Gordon Bell Prize [PDF] for their work modeling atmospheric dynamics. “That shows it wasn’t just a stunt machine,” says Jack Dongarra of the University of Tennessee, one of the creators of the Top500 rankings.
You might be wondering why for the past five years the United States has seemingly given up on reclaiming the top spot. In fact, there was no such surrender. In 2014, U.S. engineers drafted proposals for a new generation of supercomputers. The first of these will bear fruit later this year in the form of a supercomputer named Summit, which will replace Titan at Oak Ridge. The new machine’s peak performance will be around 200 petaflops when it comes on line in a few months, which will make it the most powerful supercomputer on the planet.
Maybe.
“We’re very open in the U.S. with our machines,” says Arthur “Buddy” Bland, project director of the Leadership Computing Facility at Oak Ridge. That is, he’s confident that Summit will be completed as planned and that it will be the most powerful supercomputer in the United States. But in the meantime, China, or some other country for that matter, could field a new supercomputer or upgrade an existing one to exceed Summit’s performance. Could that really happen? “We have no idea,” says Bland.
He and his colleagues at Oak Ridge aren’t losing any sleep over the question—and they need all the sleep they can get these days because they still have a lot of work ahead of them as they labor to replace Titan with Summit. They are not, however, following the pattern that they used to build Titan, which was created as a result of a series of increasingly elaborate upgrades to an earlier Oak Ridge supercomputer called Jaguar.
Jaguar was installed in 2005, when computing hardware became obsolete very quickly (as anyone who purchased a personal computer in that era will attest). “We’d do an upgrade every year,” recalls Bland. Jaguar became the most powerful supercomputer in the world in 2009. An even more significant upgrade that began in 2011 allowed Jaguar to be reborn as Titan in 2012.
Why not just upgrade the machine’s internal hardware again instead of building a whole new supercomputer? “We think upgradability is a valid goal,” says Bland—but not one that works in this case, because Titan uses hardware from Cray. “Now we’re going to a machine from IBM: It would not have been possible or reasonable to recycle.” So Titan will keep running for now, but it will be shut down about a year after Oak Ridge’s new supercomputer becomes operational.
Although Summit will be the most capable, it’s not the only U.S. supercomputer of its class coming on line in 2018. A supercomputer called Sierra, which is expected to exceed 120 petaflops of peak performance, will be completed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in California. Argonne National Laboratory, too, was slated to begin operating a new supercomputer, one offering 180 petaflops of peak performance, in 2018. But the Illinois lab’s plans for constructing that machine, called Aurora, have been delayed until 2021 in an attempt to expand its capabilities and make it the first U.S. “exascale” (1,000 petaflops, or 1 exaflop) supercomputer.
These huge numbers refer to peak performance, but real-world applications make use of only a fraction of that potential. The often-quoted Linpack benchmark typically runs at 75 percent of a supercomputer’s peak, says Dongarra. “Our dirty little secret is that most real applications are like 3 percent.”
Clearly, figuring out clever ways to boost actual performance matters as much as the number of peak flops theoretically available. And the supercomputer specialists at Oak Ridge are putting plenty of their energies into that effort, too. Joseph Oefelein, who will be using Summit in his studies of the physics and chemistry of combustion at Georgia Tech, puts it succinctly: “There’s more to this game than saying you have the fastest computer.”
XXX . VX0000 OUT / IN BUREAU ; Citizenship & Naturalization
The United States has a long history of welcoming immigrants from all parts of the world. The United States values the contributions of immigrants who continue to enrich this country and preserve its legacy as a land of freedom and opportunity. USCIS is proud of its role in maintaining our country’s tradition as a nation of immigrants and will administer immigration and naturalization benefits with integrity.
U.S. citizenship is a unique bond that unites people around civic ideals and a belief in the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The promise of citizenship is grounded in the fundamental value that all persons are created equal and serves as a unifying identity to allow persons of all backgrounds, whether native or foreign-born, to have an equal stake in the future of the United States.
This volume of the USCIS Policy Manual explains the laws and policies that govern U.S. citizenship and naturalization.
USCIS administers citizenship and naturalization law and policy by:
•Providing accurate and useful information to citizenship and naturalization applicants;
•Promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship; and
•Adjudicating citizenship and naturalization applications in a consistent and accurate manner.
Accordingly, USCIS reviews benefit request for citizenship and naturalization to determine whether:
•Foreign-born children of U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization meet the eligibility requirements before recognizing their acquisition or derivation of U.S. citizenship.
•Persons applying for naturalization based on their time as lawful permanent residents meet the eligibility requirements to become U.S. citizens.
•Persons applying for naturalization based on their marriage to a U.S. citizen meet the eligibility requirements for naturalization through the provisions for spouses of U.S. citizens.
•Members of the U.S. armed forces and their families are eligible for naturalization and ensure that qualified applicants are naturalized expeditiously through the military provisions.
•Persons working abroad for certain entities, to include the U.S. Government, meet the eligibility requirements for certain exceptions to the general naturalization requirements.
Volume 12, Citizenship and Naturalization, contains detailed guidance on the requirements for citizenship and naturalization.
Volume 12: Citizenship and Naturalization
| ||
|---|---|---|
Volume 12 Parts
|
Guidance
| |
Citizenship and Naturalization Policies and Procedures
|
General policies and procedures relating to citizenship and naturalization
| |
Naturalization Examination
|
Naturalization examination, to include security checks, interview and eligibility review
| |
Accommodations
|
Accommodations and modifications that USCIS may provide in the naturalization process
| |
General Naturalization Requirements
|
General naturalization requirements that apply to most lawful permanent residents
| |
English and Civics Testing and Exceptions
|
Testing for educational requirements for naturalization
| |
Good Moral Character
|
Good moral character for naturalization and the related permanent and conditional bars
| |
Spouses of U.S. Citizens
|
Spouses of U.S. citizens who reside in the United States or abroad
| |
Children of U.S. Citizens
|
Children of U.S. citizens who may have acquired or derived citizenship stateside or abroad
| |
Military Members and their Families
|
Provisions based on military service for members of the military and their families
| |
Oath of Allegiance
|
Oath of Allegiance for naturalization, to include modifications and waivers
| |
Certificates of Citizenship and Naturalization
|
Issuance and replacement of Certificates of Citizenship and Certificates of Naturalization
| |
Revocation of Naturalization
|
General procedures for revocation of naturalization (denaturalization)
| |
B. Background
Upon the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, the first U.S. citizens were granted citizenship status retroactively as of 1776. Neither an application for citizenship, nor the taking of an Oath of Allegiance was required at that time. [1] See Frank G. Franklin, The Legislative History of Naturalization in the United States; From the Revolutionary War to 1861 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1906). Persons only needed to remain in the United States at the close of the war and the time of independence to show that they owed their allegiance to the new Government and accepted its protection.
The following key legislative acts provide a basic historical background for the evolution of the general eligibility requirements for naturalization as set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Evolution of Naturalization Requirements Prior to the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952
| |
|---|---|
Act
|
Statutory Provisions
|
Naturalization
Act of 1790
|
•Established uniform rule of naturalization and oath of allegiance
•Established two year residency requirement for naturalization
•Required good moral character of all applicants
|
Naturalization
Act of 1798
|
•Permitted deportation of foreign nationals considered dangerous
•Increased residency requirements from 2 years to 14 years
|
Naturalization
Act of 1802
|
•Reduced residency requirement from 14 years to 5 years
|
Naturalization
Act of 1891
|
•Rendered polygamists, persons suffering from contagious disease and persons convicted of a “misdemeanor involving moral turpitude” ineligible for naturalization.
|
Naturalization
Act of 1906
|
•Standardized naturalization procedures
•Required knowledge of English language for citizenship
•Established the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization
|
The Alien Registration
Act of 1940
|
•Required the registration and fingerprinting of all aliens in the United States over the age of 14 years
|
In addition, persons who are born outside of the United States may be U.S. citizens at birth if one or both parents were U.S. citizens at their time of birth. Persons who are not U.S. citizens at birth may become U.S. citizens through naturalization. Naturalization is the conferring of U.S. citizenship after birth by any means whatsoever.
In general, an applicant files a naturalization application and then USCIS grants citizenship after adjudicating the application. In some cases, a person may be naturalized by operation of law. This is often referred to as deriving citizenship. In either instance, the foreign citizen or national must fulfill all of the requirements established by Congress. In most cases, a person may not be naturalized unless he or she has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.
Deciding to become a U.S. citizen is one of the most important decisions an immigrant can make. Naturalized U.S. citizens share equally in the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship. U.S. citizenship offers immigrants the ability to:
•Vote in federal elections;
•Travel with a U.S. passport;
•Run for elective office where citizenship is required;
•Participate on a jury;
•Become eligible for federal and certain law enforcement jobs;
•Obtain certain state and federal benefits not available to noncitizens;
•Obtain citizenship for minor children born abroad; and
- USCIS Authority to Naturalize
It has long been established that Congress has the exclusive authority under its constitutional power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and to enact legislation under which citizenship may be conferred upon persons. [1] See Chirac v. Chirac, 15 U.S. 259 (1817). Before 1991, naturalization within the United States was a judicial function exercised since 1790 by various courts designated in statutes enacted by Congress under its constitutional power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
As of October 1, 1991, Congress transferred the naturalization authority to the Attorney General (now the Secretary of DHS). [2] See INA 310(a). USCIS is authorized to perform such acts as are necessary to properly implement the Secretary’s authority. [3] See INA 310. In certain cases, an applicant for naturalization may choose to have the Oath of Allegiance [4] See INA 337(a). administered by USCIS or by an eligible court with jurisdiction. Eligible courts may choose to have exclusive authority to administer the Oath of Allegiance.
Naturalization Examination
USCIS conducts an investigation and examination of all naturalization applicants to determine whether an applicant meets all pertinent eligibility requirements to become a U.S. citizen. The investigation and examination process encompasses all factors relating to the applicant's eligibility: [1] See INA 335. See 8 CFR 335.1 and 8 CFR 335.2.
•Completion of security and criminal background checks;
•Review of the applicant’s complete immigration record;
•In-person interview(s) with oral and written testimony;
•Testing for English and civics requirements; and
•Qualification for a disability exception.
USCIS officers have authority to conduct the investigation and examination. [2] See INA 335(b). See 8 CFR 332.1 and 8 CFR 335.2. The authority is delegated by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The authority includes the legal authority for certain officers to administer the Oath of Allegiance, obtain oral and written testimony during an in-person interview, subpoena witnesses, and request evidence. [3] See INA 332, INA 335, and INA 337. See 8 CFR 332, 8 CFR 335, and 8 CFR 337.
The applicant has the burden of establishing eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence throughout the examination. [4] See 8 CFR 316.2(b). The officer must resolve any pending issues and obtain all of the necessary information and evidence to make a decision on the application. Uniformity in decision-making and application processing is vital to the integrity of the naturalization process. Consistency in the decision-making process enhances USCIS’ goal to ensure that the relevant laws and regulations are applied accurately to each case.
B. Background
Beginning in 1906, a complete examination and questioning under oath was required of the “petitioner” (now “applicant”) for naturalization and his or her witnesses at the final hearing for naturalization in court. [5] In 1981, Congress enacted legislation which eliminated the character witness requirements of naturalization, though USCIS has the authority to subpoena witnesses if necessary. Congress amended the statute in 1940 to include English language requirements and a provision for questioning applicants on their understanding of the principles of the Constitution. [6] See the Nationality Act of 1940, Pub. L. 76-853, 54 Stat. 1137 (October 14, 1940).
Today, USCIS conducts an investigation and examination of all applicants for naturalization to determine their eligibility for naturalization, including the applicant’s lawful admission for permanent residence, ability to establish good moral character, attachment to the Constitution, residence and physical presence in the United States, and the English and civics requirements for naturalization
Background and Security Checks
A. Background Investigation
USCIS conducts an investigation of the applicant upon his or her filing for naturalization. The investigation consists of certain criminal background and security checks. [1] See INA 335. See 8 CFR 335.1. The background and security checks include collecting fingerprints and requesting a “name check” from the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). In addition, USCIS conducts other inter-agency criminal background and security checks on all applicants for naturalization. The background and security checks apply to most applicants and must be conducted and completed before the applicant is scheduled for his or her naturalization interview. [2] See 8 CFR 335.2(b).
B. Fingerprints
1. Fingerprint Requirement
USCIS must collect fingerprint records as part of the background check process on applicants for naturalization regardless of their age. [3] See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9), 8 CFR 335.1, and 8 CFR 335.2. See Part I, Military Members and their Families, Chapter 6, Required Background Checks [12 USCIS-PM I.6], for guidance on the background and security check procedures for members or veterans of the U.S. armed forces. In general, applicants receive a biometric service appointment at a local Application Support Center (ASC) for collection of their biometrics (fingerprints, photographs, and signature). [4] See 8 CFR 103.2(a).
USCIS notifies applicants in writing to appear for fingerprinting after filing the naturalization application. Fingerprints are valid for 15 months from the date of processing by the FBI. An applicant abandons his or her naturalization application if the applicant fails to appear for the fingerprinting appointment without good cause and without notifying USCIS. [5] See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(13)(ii). See Chapter 4, Results of the Naturalization Examination [12 USCIS-PM B.4].
Previously, USCIS had waived the fingerprint requirements for applicants 75 years old or older because it was difficult to capture readable fingerprints from this age group. As a result, applicants 75 years old or older were not required to appear at an ASC. Electronic processing of applications and improved technology now allows USCIS to capture fingerprints for applicants of all ages and enhances the ability to confirm identity and perform required background checks. [6] See INA 335 . See 8 CFR 335.1 .
Once an ASC collects an applicant’s biometrics, USCIS submits the records to the FBI for a full criminal background check. [7] See 8 CFR 335.2(b). The response from the FBI that a full criminal background check has been completed includes confirmation that:
•The applicant does not have an administrative or a criminal record;
•The applicant has an administrative or a criminal record; or
•The applicant’s submitted fingerprint records have been determined unclassifiable for the purpose of conducting a criminal background check and have been rejected.
Accommodations
USCIS makes special arrangements to accommodate the needs of applicants who are unable to attend an appointment, including applicants with disabilities and homebound or hospitalized applicants. All domestic USCIS facilities are accessible to applicants with disabilities. Applicants who are homebound or hospitalized may request an accommodation when unable to appear at an ASC for biometrics processing. Applicants should submit a copy of the appointment notice and medical documentation verifying the need for an in-home appointment with the local field office.
Applicants who need to request an accommodation for their appointment can submit a request online or call the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at any time at 800-375-5283 (TDD: 800-767-1833). [8] See USCIS webpages on Homebound Processing and How to Request Special Accommodation.
2. Fingerprint Waivers
Applicants with Certain Medical Conditions
An applicant may qualify for a waiver of the fingerprint requirement if the applicant is unable to provide fingerprints because of a medical condition, to include birth defects, physical deformities, skin conditions, and psychiatric conditions. Only certain USCIS officers are authorized to grant a fingerprint waiver.
An officer responsible for overseeing applicant fingerprinting may grant the waiver in the following situations:
•The officer has met with the applicant in person;
•The officer or authorized technician has attempted to fingerprint the applicant; and
•The officer determines that the applicant is unable to be fingerprinted at all or is unable to provide a single legible fingerprint.
An applicant who is granted a fingerprint waiver must bring local police clearance letters covering the relevant period of good moral character to his or her naturalization interview. All clearance letters become part of the record. In cases where the applicant is granted a fingerprint waiver or has two unclassifiable fingerprint results, the officer must take a sworn statement from the applicant covering the period of good moral character.
An officer should not grant a waiver if the waiver is solely based on:
•The applicant has fewer than 10 fingers;
•The officer considers that the applicant’s fingerprints are unclassifiable; or
•The applicant’s condition preventing the fingerprint capturing is temporary.
An officer’s decision to deny a fingerprint waiver is final and may not be appealed.
C. FBI Name Checks
The FBI conducts “name checks” on all naturalization applicants, and disseminates the information contained in the FBI’s files to USCIS in response to the name check requests. The FBI’s National Name Check Program (NNCP) includes a search against the FBI’s Universal Index (UNI), which contains personnel, administrative, applicant, and criminal files compiled for law enforcement purposes. The FBI disseminates the information contained in the FBI’s files to USCIS in response to the name check requests.
The FBI name check must be completed and cleared before an applicant for naturalization is scheduled for his or her naturalization interview. A definitive FBI name check response of “NR” (No Record) or “PR” (Positive Response) is valid for the duration of the application for which they were conducted. Definitive responses used to support other applications are valid for 15 months from the FBI process date. A new name check is required in cases where the final adjudication and naturalization have not occurred within that timeframe or the name check was processed incorrectly
Naturalization Interview
A. Roles and Responsibilities
1. USCIS Officers
Authority to Conduct Examination
USCIS officers have authority to conduct the investigation and examination, to include the naturalization interview. [1] See INA 335(b). See 8 CFR 335.2. The officer should introduce him or herself and explain the purpose of the naturalization examination and place the applicant under oath at the start of the interview.
USCIS’ authority includes the legal authority for officers to:
•Place an applicant under oath;
•Obtain oral and written testimony during an in-person interview;
•Subpoena witnesses;
•Request evidence; and
•Administer the Oath of Allegiance (when delegated by the Field Office Director).
Questions on Eligibility
An officer’s questioning of an applicant during the applicant’s naturalization interview must cover all of the requirements for naturalization. [2] See Part D, General Naturalization Requirements [12 USCIS-PM D]. In general, the officer’s questions focus on the information in the naturalization application. The officer may ask any questions that are pertinent to the eligibility determination. The officer should provide the applicant with suitable opportunities to respond to questions in all instances.
In general, the officer’s questions may include, but are not limited to, the following questions:
•Biographical information, to include marital history and military service;
•Admission and length of time as a lawful permanent resident (LPR);
•Absences from the United States after becoming an LPR;
•Places of residence and employment history;
•Knowledge of English and of U.S. history and government (civics);
•Moral character and any criminal history;
•Attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution;
•Affiliations or memberships in certain organizations;
•Willingness to take an Oath of Allegiance to the United States; and
•Any other topic pertinent to the eligibility determination.
In most cases, the officer conducting the naturalization interview administers the required tests relating to the applicant’s ability to read and write English, and his or her knowledge of U.S. history and government (civics), unless the applicant is exempt. [3] See Part E, English and Civics Testing and Exceptions [12 USCIS-PM E]. The officer who conducts the naturalization interview and who determines the applicant’s ability to speak and understand English is not required to also administer the English reading and writing, and civics tests. Accordingly, a different officer may administer the tests.
Grounding Decisions on Applicable Laws
An officer must analyze the facts of each case to make a legally sound decision on the naturalization application. The officer must base his or her decision to approve or deny the application on the relevant laws, regulations, precedent decisions, and agency guidance:
•The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is the primary source of pertinent statutory law. [4] See Pub. L. 82-414 (June 27, 1952), as amended.
•The corresponding regulations explain the statutes further and provide guidance on how the statutes are applied. [5] See Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR). Most of the corresponding regulations have been promulgated by legacy INS or USCIS.
•Precedent decisions have the force of law and are binding on cases within the jurisdiction of the court or appellate body making the decision. [6] Precedent decisions are judicial decisions that serve as an authority for deciding an immigration matter. Precedent decisions are decisions designated as such by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), and appellate court decisions. Decisions from district courts are not precedent decisions in other cases.
•USCIS guidance provides the agency’s policies and procedures supporting the laws and regulations. The USCIS Policy Manual is the primary source for agency guidance. [7] The Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) and policy memoranda also serve as key sources for guidance on topics that are not covered in the Policy Manual.
2. Authorized Representatives
An applicant may request the presence and counsel of a representative, to include attorneys or other representatives, at the applicant’s in-person interview. The representative must submit to USCIS a properly completed notice of entry of appearance. [8] See 8 CFR 335.2(a). The representative must use the Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative (Form G-28).
In cases where an applicant requests to proceed without the assistance of a representative, the applicant must sign a waiver of representation. If the applicant does not want to proceed with the interview without his or her representative, the officer must reschedule the interview. Officers should consult with a supervisor if the representative fails to appear for multiple scheduled interviews.
The representative’s role is to ensure that the applicant’s legal rights are protected. A representative may advise his or her client on points of law but should not respond to questions the officer has directed to the applicant.
An applicant may be represented by any of the following:
•Certain reputable individuals who are of good moral character, have a pre-existing relationship with the applicant and are not receiving any payment for the representation; [11] See 8 CFR 292.1(a)(3).
•Accredited representatives from organizations accredited by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA); [12] See 8 CFR 292.1(a)(4) and 8 CFR 292.2.
•Accredited officials of the government to which a person owes allegiance; [13] See 8 CFR 292.1(a)(5). or
3. Interpreters
An interpreter may be selected either by the applicant or by USCIS in cases where the applicant is permitted to use an interpreter. The interpreter must:
•Translate what the officer and the applicant say word for word to the best of his or her ability without providing the interpreter’s own opinion, commentary, or answer; and
•Complete an interpreter’s oath and privacy release statement and submit a copy of his or her government-issued identification at the naturalization interview.
A disinterested party should be used as an interpreter. If the USCIS officer is fluent in the applicant’s native language, the officer may conduct the examination in the applicant’s language of choice.
USCIS reserves the right to disqualify an interpreter provided by the applicant if an officer considers that the integrity of the examination is compromised by the interpreter’s participation.
B. Preliminary Review of Application
A USCIS officer who is designated to conduct the naturalization interview should review the applicant’s “A-file” and naturalization application before the interview. The A-file is the applicant’s record of his or her interaction with USCIS, legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and other governmental organizations with which the applicant has had proceedings pertinent to his or her immigration record. The officer addresses all pertinent issues during the naturalization interview.
1. General Contents of A-File
The applicant’s A-file may include the following information along with his or her naturalization application:
•Documents that show how the applicant became an LPR;
•Other applications or forms for immigration benefits submitted by the applicant;
•Correspondence between USCIS and the applicant;
•Memoranda and forms from officers that may be pertinent to the applicant’s eligibility;
•Materials such as any criminal records, [16] For example, a Record of Arrest and Prosecution (“RAP” sheet). correspondence from other agencies, and investigative reports and enforcement actions from DHS or other agencies.
2. Jurisdiction for Application [17] See Part D, General Naturalization Requirements, Chapter 6, Jurisdiction, Place of Residence, and Early Filing [12 USCIS-PM D.6].
In most cases, the USCIS office having jurisdiction over the applicant’s residence at the time of filing has the responsibility for processing and adjudicating the naturalization application. [18] An applicant who is a student or a member of the U.S. armed forces may have different places of residence that may affect the jurisdiction requirement. See 8 CFR 316.5(b). An officer should review whether the jurisdiction of a case has changed because the applicant has moved after filing his or her naturalization application. The USCIS office may transfer the application to the appropriate office with jurisdiction when appropriate. [19] See 8 CFR 335.9. In addition, an applicant for naturalization as a battered spouse of a U.S. citizen [20] See INA 319(a). or child may use a different address for safety which does not affect the jurisdiction requirements.
In cases where an officer becomes aware of a change in jurisdiction during the naturalization interview, the officer may complete the interview and then forward the applicant’s A-file with the pending application to the office having jurisdiction. The officer informs the applicant that the application’s jurisdiction has changed. The applicant will receive a new appointment notice from the current office with jurisdiction.
3. Results of Background and Security Checks [
An officer should ensure that all of the appropriate background and security checks have been conducted on the naturalization applicant. The results of the background and security checks should be included as part of the record.
4. Other Documents or Requests in the Record
Requests for Accommodations or Disability Exceptions
USCIS accommodates applicants with disabilities by making modifications to the naturalization examination process. [22] See Part C, Accommodations [12 USCIS-PM C]. An officer reviews the application for any accommodations request, any oath waiver request or for a medical disability exception from the educational requirements for naturalization.
Previous Notice to Appear, Order to Show Cause, or Removal Order
An officer reviews an applicant’s record and relevant databases to identify any current removal proceedings or previous proceedings resulting in a final order of removal from the United States. If an applicant is in removal proceedings, a Notice to Appear or the previously issued “Order to Show Cause” may appear in the applicant’s record. [24] An “Order to Show Cause" was the notice used prior to enactment of IIRIRA on April 1, 1997. USCIS cannot make a decision on any naturalization application from an applicant who is in removal proceedings. [
The officer should deny the naturalization application if the applicant has already received a final order of removal from an immigration judge, unless:
•The applicant was removed from the United States and later reentered with the proper documentation and authorization; or
C. Initial Naturalization Examination
All naturalization applicants must appear for an in-person examination before a USCIS officer after filing an Application for Naturalization (Form N-400). [27] See 8 CFR 335.2(a). The applicant’s examination includes both the interview and the administration of the English and civics tests. The applicant’s interview is a central part of the naturalization examination. The officer conducts the interview with the applicant to review and examine all factors relating to the applicant’s eligibility.
The officer places the applicant under oath and interviews the applicant on the questions and responses in the applicant’s naturalization application. [28] If an applicant is unable to undergo any part of the naturalization examination because of a physical or developmental disability or mental impairment, a legal guardian, surrogate or an eligible designated representative completes the naturalization process for the applicant. See Part J, Oath of Allegiance, Chapter 3, Oath of Allegiance Modifications and Waivers [12 USCIS-PM J.3]. The initial naturalization examination includes:
•An officer’s review of information provided in the applicant’s naturalization application,
•The administration of tests on the educational requirements for naturalization, and
The applicant’s written responses to questions on his or her naturalization application are part of the documentary record signed under penalty of perjury. The written record includes any amendments to the responses in the application that the officer makes in the course of the naturalization interview as a result of the applicant’s testimony. The amendments, sworn affidavits, and oral statements and answers document the applicant’s testimony and representations during the naturalization interview(s).
At the officer’s discretion, he or she may record the interview by a mechanical, electronic, or videotaped device, may have a transcript made, or may prepare an affidavit covering the testimony of the applicant. [31] See 8 CFR 335.2(c). The applicant or his or her authorized attorney or representative may request a copy of the record of proceedings through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). [32] The applicant or authorized attorney or representative may request a copy of the record of proceedings by filing a Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Request (Form G-639).
The officer provides the applicant with a notice of results at the end of the examination regardless of the outcome. [33] The officer must use the Naturalization Interview Results (Form N-652). The notice provides the outcome of the examination and should explain what the next steps are in cases that are continued. [34] See Chapter 4, Results of the Naturalization Examination [12 USCIS-PM B.4].
D. Subsequent Re-examination
USCIS may schedule an applicant for a subsequent examination (re-examination) to determine the applicant’s eligibility. [35] A USCIS field office may allow the applicant to provide documentation by mail in order to overcome any deficiencies without scheduling the applicant to come in person for another interview. During the re-examination:
•The officer reviews any evidence provided by the applicant in a response to a request for evidence issued during or after the initial interview.
•The officer considers new oral and written testimony and determines whether the applicant meets all of the naturalization eligibility requirements, to include re-testing the applicant on the educational requirements (if necessary).
In general, the re-examination provides the applicant with an opportunity to overcome deficiencies in his or her naturalization application. Where the re-examination is scheduled for failure to meet the educational requirements for naturalization during the initial examination, the subsequent re-examination is scheduled between 60 and 90 days from the initial examination.
If the applicant is unable to overcome the deficiencies in his or her naturalization application, the officer denies the naturalization application. An applicant or his or her authorized representative may request a USCIS hearing before an officer on the denial of the applicant’s naturalization application. [
E. Expediting Applications from Certain SSI Beneficiaries
USCIS will expedite naturalization applications filed by applicants:
•Who are within one year or less of having their Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits terminated by the Social Security Administration (SSA); and
•Whose naturalization application has been pending for four months or more from the date of receipt by USCIS.
Although USCIS will prioritize processing of these applications, each applicant is still required to meet all eligibility requirements for naturalization at the time of filing. Applicants, who have pending applications, must inform USCIS of the approaching termination of benefits by InfoPass appointment or by United States postal mail or other courier service by providing:
•A cover letter or cover sheet to explain that SSI benefits will be terminated within one year or less and that their naturalization application has been pending for four months or more from the date of receipt by USCIS; and
•A copy of the applicant’s most recent SSA letter indicating the termination of their SSI benefits. (The USCIS alien number must be written at the top right of the SSA letter).
Applicants who have not filed their naturalization application may write “SSI” at the top of page one of the application. Applicants should include a cover letter or cover sheet along with their application to explain that their SSI benefits will be terminated within one year or less.
Results of the Naturalization Examination
USCIS has 120 days from the date of the initial naturalization interview to issue a decision. If the decision is not issued within 120 days of the interview, an applicant may request judicial review of his or her application in district court. The officer must base his or her decision on the laws, regulations, precedent decisions, and governing policies.
The officer may:
•Approve the application;
•Continue the examination without making a decision (if more information is needed), if the applicant needs to be rescheduled, or for other relevant reasons; or
•Deny the application.
The officer must provide the applicant with a notice of results at the end of the interview regardless of the outcome. The notice should address the outcome of the interview and the next steps involved for continued cases. [1] The officer issues a Notice of Examination Results (Form N-652).
A. Approval of Naturalization Application
If an officer approves a naturalization application, the application goes through the appropriate internal procedures before the USCIS office schedules the applicant to appear at a ceremony for the administration of the Oath of Allegiance. [2] See Part J, Oath of Allegiance [12 USCIS-PM J]. The internal procedures include a “re-verification” procedure where all approved applications are reviewed for quality. The officer who conducts the re-verification is not the same officer who conducts the interview. While the officer conducting the re-verification process does not adjudicate the application once again, the officer may raise any substantive eligibility issues.
USCIS does not schedule an applicant for the Oath of Allegiance in cases where USCIS receives or identifies potentially disqualifying information about the applicant after approval of his or her application. [3] See 8 CFR 335.5. See Chapter 5, Motion to Reopen [12 USCIS-PM B.5]. If USCIS cannot resolve the disqualifying information and the adjudicating officer finds the applicant ineligible for naturalization, USCIS then issues a motion to reopen and re-adjudicates the naturalization application.
B. Continuation of Examination
1. Continuation to Request Evidence
An officer issues the applicant a written request for evidence if additional information is needed to make an accurate determination on the naturalization application. [4] The officer issues a request for evidence on Form N-14. In general, USCIS permits a period of 30 days for the applicant to respond to a request for evidence. [5] See 8 CFR 335.7. The applicant has up to three more days after the 30-day period for responding to an RFE in cases where USCIS has mailed the request. See 8 CFR 103.8(b).
The request for evidence should include:
•The specific documentation or information that the officer is requesting;
•The ways in which the applicant may respond; and
•The period of time that the applicant has to reply.
The applicant must respond to the request for evidence within the timeframe specified by the officer. If the applicant timely submits the evidence as requested, the officer makes a decision on the applicant’s eligibility. If the applicant fails to submit the evidence as requested, the officer may adjudicate the application based on the available evidence. [6] See 8 CFR 335.7.
2. Scheduling Subsequent Re-examination
If an applicant fails any portion of the naturalization test, an officer must provide the applicant a second opportunity to pass the test within 60 to 90 days after the initial examination unless the applicant is statutorily ineligible for naturalization based on other grounds. [7] See 8 CFR 312.5(a) and 8 CFR 335.3(b). An officer should also schedule a re-examination in order to resolve any issues on eligibility.
The outcome of the re-examination determines whether the officer conducting the second interview continues, approves, or denies the naturalization application. [8] See Part E, English and Civics Testing and Exceptions, Chapter 2, English and Civics Testing [12 USCIS-PM E.2].
If the applicant fails to appear for the re-examination and USCIS does not receive a timely or reasonable request to reschedule, the officer should deny the application based on the applicant’s failure to meet the educational requirements for naturalization. The officer also should include any other areas of ineligibility within the denial notice.
C. Denial of Naturalization Application
If an officer denies a naturalization application based on ineligibility or lack of prosecution, the officer must issue the applicant and his or her attorney or representative a written denial notice no later than 120 days after the initial interview on the application. [9] See INA 335(d). See 8 CFR 336.1(a). The written denial notice should include:
•A clear and concise statement of the facts in support of the decision;
•Citation of the specific eligibility requirements the applicant failed to demonstrate; and
•Information on how the applicant may request a hearing on the denial. [10] See 8 CFR 336.1(b). See Chapter 6, USCIS Hearing and Judicial Review [12 USCIS-PM B.6].
The table below provides certain general grounds for denial of the naturalization application. An officer should review the pertinent parts of this volume that correspond to each ground for denial and its related eligibility requirement for further guidance.
General Grounds for Denial of Naturalization Application (Form N-400)
| |
|---|---|
Failure to establish…
|
Citation
|
Lawful Admission for Permanent Residence
| |
Continuous Residence
| |
Physical Presence
| |
3 Months of Residence in State or Service District
| |
Good Moral Character
| |
Attachment and Favorable Disposition to the Good Order and Happiness of the United States
| |
Understanding of English (Including Reading, Writing, and Speaking)
| |
Knowledge of U.S. History and Government
| |
Lack of Prosecution
| |
D. Administrative Closure, Lack of Prosecution, Withdrawal, and Holding in Abeyance
1. Administrative Closure for Failing to Appear at Initial Interview
An applicant abandons his or her application if he or she fails to appear for his or her initial naturalization examination without good cause and without notifying USCIS of the reason for non-appearance within 30 days of the scheduled appointment. In the absence of timely notification by the applicant, an officer may administratively close the application without making a decision on the merits. [11] See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(13)(ii), 8 CFR 335.6(a), and 8 CFR 335.6(b). Generally, military applicants may file a motion to reopen at any time. See Part I, Military Members and their Families [12 USCIS-PM I].
An applicant may request to reopen an administratively closed application without fee by submitting a written request to USCIS within one year from the date the application was closed. [12] See 8 CFR 335.6(b). See Chapter 5, Motion to Reopen [12 USCIS-PM I.5]. The date of the applicant’s request to reopen an application becomes the date of filing the naturalization application for purposes of determining eligibility for naturalization. [13] See 8 CFR 335.6(b).
If the applicant does not request reopening of an administratively closed application within one year from the date the application was closed, USCIS:
•Considers the naturalization application abandoned; and
2. Failing to Appear for Subsequent Re-examination or to Respond to Request for Evidence
If the applicant fails to appear at the subsequent re-examination or fails to respond to a Request for Evidence within 30 days, officer must adjudicate the application on the merits. [15] See INA 335(e). See 8 CFR 335.7. This includes cases where the applicant fails to appear at a re-examination or to provide evidence as requested.
An officer should consider any good cause exceptions provided by the applicant for failing to respond or appear for an examination in adjudicating a subsequent motion to reopen.
3. Withdrawal of Application
The applicant may request, in writing, to withdraw his or her application. The officer must inform the applicant that the withdrawal by the applicant constitutes a waiver of any future hearing on the application. If USCIS accepts the withdrawal, the applicant may submit another application without prejudice. USCIS does not send any further notice regarding the application.
If the District Director does not consent to the withdrawal, the officer makes a decision on the merits of the application. [16] See INA 335(e). See 8 CFR 335.10.
4. Holding Application in Abeyance if Applicant is in Removal Proceedings
USCIS cannot adjudicate the naturalization application of an applicant who is in removal proceedings. [17] See INA 318. This does not apply in cases involving naturalizations based on military service under INA 329 where the applicant may not be required to be lawfully admitted for permanent residence. In general, USCIS holds the application in abeyance until the immigration judge has either issued a final order of removal or terminates the removal proceedings. Field offices should follow the advice of local USCIS counsel on how to proceed with such cases.
Motion to Reopen
A. USCIS Motion to Reopen
An officer must execute a motion to reopen a previously approved naturalization application if:
•USCIS receives or identifies disqualifying derogatory information about the applicant after approval of his or her application prior to the administration of the Oath of Allegiance; [1] See 8 CFR 335.5. or
•An applicant fails to appear for at least two ceremonies to take the Oath of Allegiance without good cause. [2] See 8 CFR 337.10.
USCIS notifies the applicant in writing about the receipt of derogatory information or multiple failures to appear through the motion to reopen. The applicant has 15 days to respond to the motion to reopen and overcome the derogatory information or provide good cause for failing to appear at the Oath ceremony. [3] See 8 CFR 335.5.
If the applicant overcomes the derogatory information and qualifies for naturalization, the officer denies the motion to reopen and schedules the applicant for the Oath of Allegiance. If the applicant is unable to overcome the derogatory information, the officer grants the motion to reopen and denies the application on its merits. [4] See 8 CFR 336.1.
USCIS must not schedule an applicant for the administration of the Oath of Allegiance if USCIS receives or identifies disqualifying derogatory information. USCIS must not administer the Oath of Allegiance to the applicant until the matter is resolved favorably.
An applicant who fails to appear for at least two ceremonies to administer the Oath of Allegiance without good cause abandons his or her intent to be naturalized. USCIS considers multiple failures to appear to be equivalent to receipt of derogatory information after the approval of a naturalization application. [5] See 8 CFR 337.10.
B. Motion to Reopen Administratively Closed Application
An applicant may request to reopen an administratively closed naturalization application with USCIS by submitting a written request to USCIS within one year of the date his or her application was administratively closed. [6] Generally, military applicants may file a motion to reopen at any time. See Part I, Military Members and their Families, Chapter 6, Required Background Checks, Section C, Ways Service Members may Meet Fingerprint Requirement [12 USCIS-PM I.6(C)]. The applicant is not required to pay any additional fees. USCIS considers the date of the applicant’s request to reopen an application as the filing date of the naturalization application for purposes of determining eligibility for naturalization. [7] See 8 CFR 335.6(b). USCIS sends the applicant a notice approving or denying the motion to reopen.
XXX . VX00000 OUT/IN BUREAU ; Genetic Testing Company Raided by FBI
FBI agents have raided the headquarters of Proove Biosciences, a controversial genetic testing company that claims its DNA tests can improve the effectiveness of pain management and determine whether a patient is at risk of opioid addiction.
Over two dozen FBI agents appeared at Proove offices in Irvine, California Wednesday as part of a healthcare fraud investigation. They were later seen carrying dozens of boxes out of two buildings
“It is an ongoing investigation out of our San Diego office. It involves healthcare fraud. And unfortunately we are unable to say anything more about it at this time. The affidavit supporting the search warrant is under seal,” Cathy Kramer, an FBI special agent, told KABC-TV.
STAT News reported in February that the FBI and the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) were investigating possible criminal activity at Proove.
Former and current employees who were interviewed by the FBI told STAT the agents were focused on possible kickbacks to doctors who encouraged patients to take Proove’s DNA tests. Physicians reportedly could make $144,000 a year in kickbacks that were called “research fees.”
The HHS Inspector General issued a Special Fraud Alert in 2014 warning physicians that any payments, referrals, rent or reimbursements from lab testing companies could be seen as violations of anti-kickback laws.
Proove promotes itself as the “leader in personalized pain medicine” and claims its genetic tests can identify medications that would be most effective at treating pain. The company recently claimed that 94% of patients experienced significant pain relief within 60 days of treatment changes recommended by Proove. Critics say most Proove studies are not peer-reviewed and one genetic expert has called them “hogwash.”
According to STAT, doctors affiliated with Proove in California, Florida and Kentucky were also raided by the FBI. Proove said it was cooperating with the investigation, and that no arrests or charges have been made.
"Proove has been subject to a handful of inaccurate stories initiated by STAT News that we believe have contributed to this latest action," the company said in a statement. "While we originally chose not to dignify these outlandish accusations with a response, we now understand that we can no longer ignore these false stories based on unreliable sources, and filled with erroneous accusations... spread by a few disgruntled former employees and consultants. Proove is confident that the facts supported by verifiable and reliable sources will clearly restore our reputation."
Proove Linked to Montana Pain Clinic
Proove is the second laboratory testing company raided by the FBI that has been linked to Benefis Pain Management Center, a pain clinic in Great Falls, Montana.
As PNN has reported, FBI agents last November raided the offices of Confirmatrix Laboratories near Atlanta. Two days later, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Confirmatrix was founded by Khalid Satary, a convicted felon and Palestinian national that the federal government has been trying to deport for years.
In 2013, Medicare identified Confirmatrix as the most expensive urine drug testing lab in the country, charging an average of $2,406 for each Medicare patient.
Proove promotes itself as the “leader in personalized pain medicine” and claims its genetic tests can identify medications that would be most effective at treating pain. The company recently claimed that 94% of patients experienced significant pain relief within 60 days of treatment changes recommended by Proove. Critics say most Proove studies are not peer-reviewed and one genetic expert has called them “hogwash.”
According to STAT, doctors affiliated with Proove in California, Florida and Kentucky were also raided by the FBI. Proove said it was cooperating with the investigation, and that no arrests or charges have been made.
"Proove has been subject to a handful of inaccurate stories initiated by STAT News that we believe have contributed to this latest action," the company said in a statement. "While we originally chose not to dignify these outlandish accusations with a response, we now understand that we can no longer ignore these false stories based on unreliable sources, and filled with erroneous accusations... spread by a few disgruntled former employees and consultants. Proove is confident that the facts supported by verifiable and reliable sources will clearly restore our reputation."
Proove Linked to Montana Pain Clinic
Proove is the second laboratory testing company raided by the FBI that has been linked to Benefis Pain Management Center, a pain clinic in Great Falls, Montana.
As PNN has reported, FBI agents last November raided the offices of Confirmatrix Laboratories near Atlanta. Two days later, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Confirmatrix was founded by Khalid Satary, a convicted felon and Palestinian national that the federal government has been trying to deport for years.
In 2013, Medicare identified Confirmatrix as the most expensive urine drug testing lab in the country, charging an average of $2,406 for each Medicare patient.
Benefis has continued to send urine drug samples to Confirmatrix for testing even after the company filed for bankruptcy. Some Benefis patients have recently been contacted by collection agencies seeking payment for urine tests costing well over $1,000 that their insurance refused to pay for. Similar tests by other labs cost only a few hundred dollars.
According to its bankruptcy filing, Confirmatrix has 152 employees in 15 different states, including one employee in Montana who apparently works on site at the Benefis pain clinic. PNN has also learned that Proove Biosciences has had employees working at the clinic. A Proove “patient engagement representative” was employed there as early as May 2016.
“We had a meeting one day and here are these people from Proove Biosciences. They told us they were doing a research project,” says Rodney Lutes, a physician assistant (PA) who was later fired by Benefis. “They wanted to come to Benefis, into the pain department, and test our patients. We were told this would be at no cost to the patient. My understanding was that they weren’t going to charge anybody, but I found out afterwards they were charging insurance companies.
“They said providers who participated in this would get some form of payment for participating in the program and for filling out all the paperwork. What they did is they had a technician there in the department and every day I would get a list from that technician of patients that they would like to try to include in the program.”
Lutes says he recommended the DNA test to many of his patients, but never received any money from Proove. He says some of his patients later complained that their insurance was billed for the DNA test.
“One of the things that bothered me was that I signed a lot of the papers, but they also had my supervising doc on all of those papers,” Lutes told PNN. “I also felt like she was the one that brought them (Proove) in there.”
Lutes is referring to Katrina Lewis, MD, a pain management specialist at Benefis who is listed as a member of Proove’s Medical Advisory Board. Lewis plays a significant role at the pain clinic even though she only works there part time.
“Dr. Lewis works for Benefis one week a month and has been instrumental in the development of our multidisciplinary approach and current protocols,” said Keri Garman, Director of Corporate Communications at Benefis.
In a statement emailed to PNN last month, Lewis said regular urine drug testing was necessary to ensure that “appropriate levels” of medication are present. Current clinic policy is that “high risk” patients should have a urine test at least once every two months.
“Presence of too high of a level of opioids or other substances in the urine can make it inappropriate and unsafe to continue prescribing opioids. Presence of none of the prescribed opioids in the urine indicates the care plan is not being followed and further prescribing is medically unnecessary,” Lewis said.
Benefis: No Kickbacks from Testing Labs
PNN has made repeated requests to Benefis to clarify its relationship with Confirmatrix and Proove, and whether Lewis or any other Benefis employees were receiving compensation from the laboratories for referring business to them.
“We had a meeting one day and here are these people from Proove Biosciences. They told us they were doing a research project,” says Rodney Lutes, a physician assistant (PA) who was later fired by Benefis. “They wanted to come to Benefis, into the pain department, and test our patients. We were told this would be at no cost to the patient. My understanding was that they weren’t going to charge anybody, but I found out afterwards they were charging insurance companies.
“They said providers who participated in this would get some form of payment for participating in the program and for filling out all the paperwork. What they did is they had a technician there in the department and every day I would get a list from that technician of patients that they would like to try to include in the program.”
Lutes says he recommended the DNA test to many of his patients, but never received any money from Proove. He says some of his patients later complained that their insurance was billed for the DNA test.
“One of the things that bothered me was that I signed a lot of the papers, but they also had my supervising doc on all of those papers,” Lutes told PNN. “I also felt like she was the one that brought them (Proove) in there.”
Lutes is referring to Katrina Lewis, MD, a pain management specialist at Benefis who is listed as a member of Proove’s Medical Advisory Board. Lewis plays a significant role at the pain clinic even though she only works there part time.
“Dr. Lewis works for Benefis one week a month and has been instrumental in the development of our multidisciplinary approach and current protocols,” said Keri Garman, Director of Corporate Communications at Benefis.
In a statement emailed to PNN last month, Lewis said regular urine drug testing was necessary to ensure that “appropriate levels” of medication are present. Current clinic policy is that “high risk” patients should have a urine test at least once every two months.
“Presence of too high of a level of opioids or other substances in the urine can make it inappropriate and unsafe to continue prescribing opioids. Presence of none of the prescribed opioids in the urine indicates the care plan is not being followed and further prescribing is medically unnecessary,” Lewis said.
Benefis: No Kickbacks from Testing Labs
PNN has made repeated requests to Benefis to clarify its relationship with Confirmatrix and Proove, and whether Lewis or any other Benefis employees were receiving compensation from the laboratories for referring business to them.
“Benefis and its employees, including Dr. Katrina Lewis, do not receive kickbacks from Confirmatrix or Proove. As for any questions you have regarding the lab business practices of these facilities, these would be best answered by the companies directly,” Benefis spokesman Ben Buckridge said in a statement emailed to PNN last week.
“We take these accusations and defamatory statements against our organization and staff seriously. We appreciate your diligence on this issue.”
“We take these accusations and defamatory statements against our organization and staff seriously. We appreciate your diligence on this issue.”
In an earlier statement, a Benefis official said the DNA tests are voluntary and only done on patients if they are appropriate.
“Patients have the option to decline this testing, however, it proves to be very helpful in determining treatment plans for our patients in many cases. This testing has not been readily available until recently,” said Kathy Hills, Chief Operating Officer of Benefis Medical Group.
“Genetic testing allows us to see if the patient is appropriately synthesizing specific medications and can drastically alter treatment plans, showing us that sometimes the medications are not effectively metabolizing and therefore not as effective, which is why some patients have needed high doses. Our partners in this have an extensive patient assistance program that waives many costs, and patients are not penalized or removed from opioids if they refuse to have a genetic test performed.”
But a recent copy of the clinic’s opioid policy obtained by PNN says the tests are not voluntary for everyone.
“All patients on dosing levels at or higher than the maximum policy dose MUST be submitted for genetic testing,” the policy states. The word "must" is capitalized in the document.
One Benefis patient who took the DNA test said Lutes recommended it.
“He said everyone was doing it and that the insurance would be billed, but if they did not pay for it then Benefis would. I think he said something about it being a $6,000 test,” she told PNN. “To me it was a waste of time and money. The meds it said I should be taking either didn’t work, stopped working, or made me sick. And the meds I should not be taking I do just fine on.”
It is not clear whether the pain clinic's association with Proove or Confirmatrix had anything to do with Lutes’ firing in March. The 68-year old Lutes treated several hundred pain patients and was popular with many of them.
Lutes was discharged for violating Benefis policy about record keeping, opioid dosage and urine drug testing, but feels he was “written up for violations that do not exist.” His supervising physician – Katrina Lewis – also requested removal from that role, meaning Lutes could no longer practice at Benefis as a physician assistant.
Since his dismissal, many of Lutes former patients who were on relatively high doses of opioids say their medication has been reduced or stopped entirely. One patient, whose opioid dose was cut significantly, committed suicide. Still others complain they were labeled and treated as addicts by clinic doctors and staff, and now have trouble finding new physicians in the Great Falls area. The ones who remain at Benefis say they are being told to take new tests and exams.
Benefis says it cannot comment on the accusations because of patient and employee privacy rights.
“Unless Rodney Lutes, PA, or the patients with whom you are speaking will sign written releases allowing us to comment fully on the facts of their employment or their care, respectively, we are simply unable to engage in any further back and forth discussions. We have provided all the information we are able given the legal limitations governing our industry,” Buckridge said.
“Patients have the option to decline this testing, however, it proves to be very helpful in determining treatment plans for our patients in many cases. This testing has not been readily available until recently,” said Kathy Hills, Chief Operating Officer of Benefis Medical Group.
“Genetic testing allows us to see if the patient is appropriately synthesizing specific medications and can drastically alter treatment plans, showing us that sometimes the medications are not effectively metabolizing and therefore not as effective, which is why some patients have needed high doses. Our partners in this have an extensive patient assistance program that waives many costs, and patients are not penalized or removed from opioids if they refuse to have a genetic test performed.”
But a recent copy of the clinic’s opioid policy obtained by PNN says the tests are not voluntary for everyone.
“All patients on dosing levels at or higher than the maximum policy dose MUST be submitted for genetic testing,” the policy states. The word "must" is capitalized in the document.
One Benefis patient who took the DNA test said Lutes recommended it.
“He said everyone was doing it and that the insurance would be billed, but if they did not pay for it then Benefis would. I think he said something about it being a $6,000 test,” she told PNN. “To me it was a waste of time and money. The meds it said I should be taking either didn’t work, stopped working, or made me sick. And the meds I should not be taking I do just fine on.”
It is not clear whether the pain clinic's association with Proove or Confirmatrix had anything to do with Lutes’ firing in March. The 68-year old Lutes treated several hundred pain patients and was popular with many of them.
Lutes was discharged for violating Benefis policy about record keeping, opioid dosage and urine drug testing, but feels he was “written up for violations that do not exist.” His supervising physician – Katrina Lewis – also requested removal from that role, meaning Lutes could no longer practice at Benefis as a physician assistant.
Since his dismissal, many of Lutes former patients who were on relatively high doses of opioids say their medication has been reduced or stopped entirely. One patient, whose opioid dose was cut significantly, committed suicide. Still others complain they were labeled and treated as addicts by clinic doctors and staff, and now have trouble finding new physicians in the Great Falls area. The ones who remain at Benefis say they are being told to take new tests and exams.
Benefis says it cannot comment on the accusations because of patient and employee privacy rights.
“Unless Rodney Lutes, PA, or the patients with whom you are speaking will sign written releases allowing us to comment fully on the facts of their employment or their care, respectively, we are simply unable to engage in any further back and forth discussions. We have provided all the information we are able given the legal limitations governing our industry,” Buckridge said.
XXX . VX000000 OUT/IN BUREAU ; Psychotronics & Psychological Warfare
The term “Mind control” basically means covert attempts to influence the thoughts and behavior of human beings against their will (or without their knowledge), particularly when surveillance of an individual is used as an integral part of such influencing and the term “Psychotronic Torture” comes from psycho (of psychological) and electronic. This is actually a very sophisticated form of remote technological torture that slowly invalidates and incapacitates a person. These invisible and non-traceable technological assaults on human beings are done in order to destroy someone psychologically and physiologically.
Actually, as par scientific resources, the human body, much like a computer, contains myriad data processors. They include, but are not limited to, the chemical-electrical activity of the brain, heart, and peripheral nervous system, the signals sent from the cortex region of the brain to other parts of our body, the tiny hair cells in the inner ear that process auditory signals, and the light-sensitive retina and cornea of the eye that process visual activity. 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.
An entirely new arsenal of weapons, based on devices designed to introduce subliminal messages or to alter the body’s psychological and data-processing capabilities, might be used to incapacitate individuals. These weapons aim to control or alter the psyche, or to attack the various sensory and data-processing systems of the human organism. In both cases, the goal is to confuse or destroy the signals that normally keep the body in equilibrium.
Definition of psychotronic (psycho-physical) weapons.
Psychotronic Weapons (PF- weapons) this is the totality of all possible methods and means (techno-genic, suggestive, pharmacological, paranormal, complexes, and others) of hidden, forced influences on the psyche of a person for the purpose of modifying his consciousness, behavior and health for what is desired in the way of influencing aspects of control…” This is not only dangerous, this is deadly!”
Actually, the goal of mind control is to access those areas of the brain that are outside of the conscious control of the individual by circumventing the normal inhibiting response of the cerebral cortex: “an individual’s voluntary conscious self-control must be bypassed or short-circuited.” This unconscious coercion is done through electromagnetic-wave bombardment of the brain, .i.e. bombarding of the brain with low-frequency radio waves. These airborne waves can travel over distances and are known to change the behavior of animals and humans in their path. Such remote control makes possible potentially frightening uses for altering the brain’s functioning. These are invisible and deadly waves. This waves goes directly to the subconscious parts of the human brain for receiving or transcoding the messages and without the person exposed to such influence having a chance to control the information input consciously. This can alter a person thoughts, emotions, and behavior. To achieve truly lasting mind control requires the creation of “profound and deep emotional states.” Recommended are fear, shock and anxiety, which have “an intense disinhibitive effect on the human brain.” What this means, in essence, is that emotional trauma facilitates the accessing of dissociative states. In order to disable the brain’s “cortical block,” Verdier recommends alcohol, euphoric drugs, isolation, solitary confinement, and – “the most dramatic and unique item in the brainwashing arsenal” – hypnosis. All of these are methods that have been extensively tested by the CIA under the rubric of the MK-ULTRA program.
The technology is rooted in surveillance devices, such as audio and video bugs, through-the-wall and remote sensing devices, and biosensors both remote and implanted. This provides the feedback for the influencing, as well as any “entertainment” value for voyeur/sadists and intellectual property theft for thieves. Coupled with the surveillance is some sort of “effectors” or feedback path for influencing an individual.
Thus there are several categories of mind control operations, for example covert drugging, hypnosis and trauma conditioning, one-shot EM-type brain blasting, short-term mind fucks, and ongoing feedback control setups for long-term torture and exploitation of victims, to mention a few. What they have in common is the attack against the mind of the victim, as well as the deniable and denied nature of the attack. The exact means being used in any particular case are beside the point here. These techniques do not just violate one or two of what everyone knows are fundamental human rights: In one fell swoop they violate almost every fundamental human right a person has.
The electromagnetic technology works on the theory that the mind and body are an electromagnetically mediated biophysics system and the electromagnetic signals form outside sources can mimic the mind and body’s electromagnetic signals and therefore a weapon can be developed based on these principles.
There is evidence that since the 1950’s the U.S. and other government have been developing electromagnetic weapons which can remotely target the electromagnetic system of the human body for military and intelligence purposes.
The First phase is the harassment/surveillance program
During the first phase of this Govt. program a person is broken physically and mentally. The methods used are typical CIA and FBI tactics like Cointelpro tactics. They use Echelon, Tempest, microchips, implants, see through wall radar, obtain informants, neighbors, and co-conspirators to harass, discredit, and harm an individual. Victims loose their families, jobs, homes, and cars. Ultimate goal to destroy a persons life which will isolate them from family, friends. The isolation is needed to have access to the person to conduct many of the experiments on them. All privacy and constitutional rights are thus stripped away.
The second phase is the assaults of Directed Energy Weapons.
After a victim becomes isolated from everyone in the world. The victim now having feelings of regret, remorse, of loss, trauma, and are drained and broken emotionally and physically. During this time many have been implanted with microchips. Many begin experiencing extreme pain to their head. Some hear voices. Then pain is delivered to various other parts of their bodies. The pain is delivered by Directed Energy Weapons. No one sees anyone around them causing the pain and no one is touching them. It is an invisible energy force. Along with drugs being administered by the scientist through either a drip system which!has been inserted into an individual, food tampering, or injection all without the victims permission. Then Mind Entrainment begins.
Directed Energy Weapons
Some of the weapons were known as non-lethal weapons. They use such weapons as extremely low frequency Elf electromagnetic weapons (which has been used in mind control), acoustics, harmonics (which have been used as a mind control technique), ultrasound, microwave audiograms, microwave pulsed, and radio frequency. Another electromagnetic energy beam can be used to induce “considerable agitation and muscular activity” or “induce muscular weakness and lethargy” this weapon is know as Ultra High Frequency EM.
Psychological warfare tactics are being used against unsuspecting citizens to destroy their jobs, their families and their lives. The perpetrators will stop at nothing. Their objective is to utterly destroy a person, very often resulting in a person taking his or her own life, or ending up in a mental hospital. This has been taking place for years and nothing is ever said about it. Nothing is ever written about it. For the sake of those who came before us, and those who come after us, the world needs to know what is happening.
For many people, this comes out of nowhere. They don’t know whose toes they stepped on in order to warrant such a brutal attack. For others who are whistleblowers, they know full well how they garnered such attention. For some, they don’t even realize that they are the targets of an orchestrated attack to destroy their lives. Some of it can be so subtle that it is difficult to tell. But for others, the attacks can be blatant and obvious, leaving no doubt that something unspeakable and devastating is happening.
What makes this crime so heinous is that the most sophisticated techniques of psychological warfare are employed against a person in order to make them look like they are crazy. Friends and family members don’t believe the things that are happening and often believe the targeted person is crazy.
This whole exercise is a criminal & terrorist activity. One aspect deals with the gang stalking part of it, which targets experience to varying degrees. This involves stalking by a multitude of individuals both on foot and while you’re in the car. Known as “street theatre” by those who experience it, it involves vandalism to house, car and personal property. Gang stalking can also be referred to as cause stalking, vengeance stalking and multi-stalking.
Some people also experience electronic harassment. This is extremely distressing, painful and invasive, and feels like one’s mind and body is undergoing constant rape, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The technology used to do this is unknown, but hundreds of victims report the same physical sensations and experiences. Many take their lives in an attempt to escape the horror. It is so distressing that only fellow targets can really understand what another target is experiencing.
In either case, the attacks are so well orchestrated that only the victim is aware of them. This is intentional, and it appears that these groups have perfected these techniques over many years. Mistakes are rarely made, and clearly the perpetrators are successful at what they do, since new targets are completely bewildered as to what is happening to them, having never heard a peep out of the media about such occurrences (except in relation to mental illness). Their actions are based on many of the same tactics as those employed in ritual abuse, and are designed to weaken the target’s mind and perpetrators are becoming increasingly addicted to this game of predator/prey, always needing more targets to satisfy their unending thirst for a thrill.
“Electronic harassment” or e-harassment is a catch-all term used to describe a group of circumstances which a large number of people are currently experiencing in common. In general, this term refers to the use of electronic technology to view, track and/or harass a person from a distance. Whether this is done by satellite, land based systems or locally (i.e. by neighbors) is largely personal opinion. There is no definitive proof that would allow any of the present victims to launch a court case, but the numbers of victims and the commonality of experience speaks for itself.
The technology involves the use of electromagnetic waves of various frequencies to achieve different results. Some frequencies will make a person tired, while others may cause confusion or memory loss. With the rapid increase in cell phone usage, many experiments have been conducted on the detrimental effects of those particular frequencies on animals. The results indicate that the invisible e.m. signals from cell towers can cause a wide range of physical ailments. If that is the case with the relatively narrow range of cell phone frequencies, it is even more likely the case with the frequencies which may be used to cause direct, intentional harm to a person.
Electronic harassment is sometimes referred to as “psychotronics”, but would more accurately be described as “criminal psychotronics”.
Types of Weapons:
Electromagnetic Weapons
Microwave Weapons
Non-Lethal Weapons
ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) Weapons
Directed Energy Weapons
Acoustic Weapons
Psychotronic Weapons
RF (Radio Frequency) Weapons
Soft Kill Weapons
Less-Than-Lethal Weapons
AUDIO IMPLANTS
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The concepts used in audio implants had been discovered in the first half of the 20th century, but the refinement of technology to take advantage of what had been discovered waited until the second half of the century. The development of audio implants ran on two tracks, one was the public medical research and the other was the secret Illuminati/Intelligence Agencies’ research. Audio implants began to be publicly placed into people in the 1960s. The Illuminati was experimenting on some victims at this stage, and the military in the Vietnam war used auditory implant devices to aid communicating to their men who were sent into tunnels and who were placed into forest situations where audible noise would compromise their locations to the enemy. The Illuminati/Intelligence/& Military consortium was keeping the experimentation secret. It appears from looking at the worldwide research on audio implants that the Illuminati realized that the field was so ambiguous, and open to so many different approaches, that rather than straightjacket the research community by a specific strategy, they encouraged a wide variety of approaches in the research. Consequently, research by one group would overlap or duplicate research by another. Much to their credit, a few researchers rejected offers to get involved because they saw the sinister ramifications. By the 1970s, the intelligence agencies were willing to start using hundreds of people to experiment operationally with the implants. People in every state of the U.S. were selected as victims. Many of these implant victims had programmed multiple personalities already. The controllers were very heavy handed with the people they implanted, and they used the full force of the Illuminati/Intelligence agencies power to keep these people under their control at all times. These innocent victims have had their lives totally destroyed. Some tried to fight back, spending thousands of dollars to get out from underneath the incessant audio messages that the implants sent, but the system was too big and too powerful to fight. Police, congressmen, psychologists and many other people turned their backs on these victims. Some victims who initially fought back gave up resisting, some committed suicide, and some continued to fight. Meanwhile, on the public track during the 1970s & 1980s, medical researchers kept putting more and more audio implants into deaf and hard-to-hear persons. Hundreds of people in the U.S. and many hundreds in other nations such as the U.K., Germany, Austria, Israel, Australia, France and other countries began to receive the cochlear implants. Australia was so proud of their audio implant research/development they issued a postage stamp showing an implant device (“bionic ear”) developed in Australia. The question begs asking, if thousands of people have publicly received audio implants, isn’t obvious that the secret societies and secret intelligence agencies have done at least as much if not far more?
BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF AUDIO IMPLANTS
1790–first known attempt by Volta to electrically stimulate the ears. He shot approximately 50 volts of electricity into his auditory system, and experienced the sensation of a blow to the head followed by a sound like the boiling of viscous liquid.
1850–Electro-otiatrics was begun by otologists who hoped electricity could help ear diseases in various ways.
1925–Sounds were created in people by radio engineers by placing electrodes near the ear with a modulated alternating current.
1930–Weaver & Bray discovered the principles used later in the cochlear microphonic implants.
1937–By passing an alternating electrical current in the audible frequency range from an electrode to the skin, Steven, Jones, Lurie and Flottorp found they could have people hear sounds. For a number of years these men studied this phenomena.
1957–Djourno and Eyries in France woke the world up concerning the ability to electrical stimulate the auditory nerves and produce sound with their reports. A patient from France reportedly gets William F. House, MD interested in developing an implant device.
1961–William House implants two patients with short-term audio implants. One patient receives a multiple electrode implant.
1960s–intense research for audio implants is conducted in California in places like Sanford, the Univ. of Calif., in L.A. etc. The military uses audio implants operationally to be able to talk to soldiers in situations where external noise would compromise the location of the American soldiers, such as exploring tunnel system.
1970s–Various researchers around the world begin publicly implanting audio implants into people. The Illuminati and intelligence agencies begin to secretly implant people, this is known because many of the early victims can pin point at time in the 1970s when they got their audio implants.
1980–The FDA establishes Federal regulations regarding cochlear audio implants.
1984–By this year, 369 people have publicly received the House Cochlear Audio Implants, which have been implanted by 36 different clinics. The 3M Cochlear Implant System! House Design for use in adults, which is already in hundreds of adults, receives FDA approval in Nov.
1990s–Audio implants along with other implants begin to be used more aggressively by the mind-control programmers. Successful intelligence operations are carried out with the aid of audio implants.
BASICS OF HOW THE IMPLANTS CAN FUNCTION
Thousands have publicly received audio implants, and thousands have received audio implants without their permission by the New World Order. The implants (whether secret or public) basically have to contain A. a receiver(s), B. a processor, C. a transmitter, D. electrodes or electrical stimulating device. When sound waves arrive to the human ear, the sound causes biological reactions all along the auditory pathway–from the cochlea, the auditory nerve, the brain stem nuclei and the primary cortical projection areas. Each of these areas are fair game for machinations of the mind-control researchers. There are brain stem potentials which originate in the auditory brain stem nuclei–primarily in the inferior colliculi. The public auditory implants produce a small electrical stimulus that bypasses damaged hair cells and directly stimulates the remaining auditory neural elements. This means that for the secret implants, the electrical impulse that is generated to stimulate the person to hear a sound or sentence is totally unnoticed by everyone but the victim. As mentioned before, psychologists are being used to shut victims up, by declaring that they are crazy for claiming to hear voices. How do these psychologists know that the person isn’t hearing voices from an implant? Some psychologists are declaring the implant victims are “crazy”, “delusional”, & “insane”, because audio implants supposedly don’t exist–therefore it is useless to give any credence to the complaints of victims. In other words, psychologists are being used as the establishment’s witch doctors to cover up the mind-control activities of the New World Order. What’s new? Establishment shrinks helped cover up the programmed multiplicity for decades by labelling the programmed-multiple slaves “paranoid schizophrenics”. During experiments, it was discovered that the skin of a person can pick up auditory vibrations, so tests were run to see if implants in other parts of the human body could be used for auditory implants. The vibrotacticle system of the skin has an upper limit of sensitivity to 400 to 500 Hz. In contrast the auditory system had a frequency range between 20 to 20,000 Hz and an optimum range of 300 to 3,000 Hz. The auditory system had a dynamic range of 130 dB (decibels) which the vibrotactile had only a 30-35 dB range. In other words, using the skin like on the chest to send auditory vibrations to the brain was a very limited way to create sound. For most purposes it isn’t a viable approach, even though some experimental auditory implants were placed in places like the chest. The ones that were tested only reconfirmed the suspicions that the best results are by using the inner cochlea and the auditory canal area. Dr. Begich’s and later others showed that a nonlinear function will translate one frequency to another frequency, but although it does jump, this method is inadequate for the current mind control signals, and a linear function is used which operates simply on the energy that the implants have.
Originally single channel devises were used, but then multichannel devices were soon found superior. The processing units of a device, had to have an extraction method to determine the pitch of the signal and then would present a square wave at the rate of that frequency. Soon the miniature computers that made up part of the audio implant were made so that they were programmable. Some of the publicly implanted people (for instance some who got a 4 mm. cochlear auditory implant), who thought they were getting medical help, were later followed up a decade later by the intelligence agencies for their own agenda, and instead of just hearing the world, they got to hear mind-control drivel from some handler communicating via the implant. As sound waves come into the public implants, they are fast Fourier transformed into many channels lying between say 100 and 4000 Hz. Each channel may be assigned to a specific electrode located on an array of electrodes. The electrodes are stimulated for instance at 300 pulses per minute. The transmissions go to receiver/stimulators that then stimulate the subject to hear something. (Fourier transforms have also been identified being used by human brains to encode memory.)
In order to keep their signals to their implanted victims secret, the Network employs a tactic called piggybacking where they piggyback their own audio transmission onto standard FM frequencies.
CANAL is the acronym for an system that is used simultaneously for transmission and reception via the use of a double-frequency shift keying (DFS). Radio transmitters that send quick signals are variously called BURST, SQUIRT, SQUASH, or high-speed transmitters.
USES OF THE IMPLANTS
a. by themselves
b. with other implants
c. in conjunction with other mind-control devices
TYPES OF AUDIO IMPLANTS–
Part A. Publicly admitted audio implants
Part. B. Secretly implanted audio implants.
Part A. Publicly admitted audio implants.
The entire world has gotten involved in audio implant research. The British Cochlear Implant Group has been setting up “implanting centres” for the UK. Not all the publicly known implants will be listed here, for instance, some of those I chose not to list include some developed in Spain by Bosch & Colomina, the ones created in Thailand by upgrading american made implants, and several made in East and West Germany before the wall went down, and the Swiss implant which was simply the Austrian audio implant used with their own processor.
3M COCHLEAR IMPLANT SYSTEM/HOUSE DESIGN–MODEL 7700 (AKA ALPHA)
BANFAI, EMG –Several models developed by Banfai in Cologne-Dueren, West Germany. It is digital, with a pulsatile signal and a programmable memory. The implant can be communicated with using an interface device hooked to a computer. The patient has a keyboard. It was first implanted in 1977 and has 8/14 and 16 channels. It has been implanted into hundreds of people.
BRITISH, for instance UCH– Developed by Douek, Fourcin and Moore in London and implanted with a single electrode in 1978 and multiple electrodes in 1990. The implant has bioglass, and promontory grooves for the electrode, and neural network programming in its computer memory.
CHEN AUDIO IMPLANT–developed in Guangzhoi, mainland China and first implanted in 1984. It was said by the chinese that 20 people received this implant.
CZECHOSLOVAKIAN–Implants were created by Volvoda and Tichy in Prague and implanted in the 1980s into a few people.
FRASER–Developed in London, and first implanted in 1983. It was notable because it had a round window in the implant. In the first few years it was implanted into 56 people. The encapsulated the implant in a high-grade Silastic rather than an epoxy, as some other European researchers had done
FRAYASE–Developed in Toulouse, France, this audio implant was implanted with its receiver in the chest. It was first implanted in 1981, and 22 people were said to have received it.
GOA–developed in Shanghai, China by Lee and Lin.
INERAID- (fka Symbion) produced by the Richards Company, USA. In the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Mar. 1994, vol. 95, pp. 1677-1678, they have an article about a woman who had an implant in one ear and not the other. She was asked to compare the pitch signals from natural sources versus the right ear audio implant. The most apical implanted electrode was not as accurate as the more basal located electrodes using an Ineraid implant.
IMPLEX COM 12–Comes with an interfacing computer and a Syncom patient self-tester
LAURA–Developed at Antwerp, Belgium. These were first implanted in 1986, and had an internal canal antenna, a microphone entirely internal in the auditory canal, a pre-amp, an antenna, and a data control circuit. Only a few subjects got this implant. It comes with a computer, and an interface unit. It does have a programmable memory.
MED-EL –Developed in Austria at Vienna and Innsbruck by Hochmair, and first implanted in 1977. Hundreds of people were implanted with this audio implant. Some were implanted externally with it and some internally inside the ear canal. It has one channel and a multitude of electrodes stimulating the audio channel. It is analogue, and sends an analogue signal. It does not have a programmable memory.
MXM- -Developed by Chouard in Paris and first implanted in 1974. It had been implanted by 1990 into 179 people.
NUCLEUS 22, NUCLEUS MINISYSTEM 22, and other NUCLEUS AUDIO IMPLANTS (aka CLARK’s Implants)–At least two models developed in Australia at Melbourne. This audio implant was first implanted in 1978. The implant is programmable from the outside. It has been implanted into many hundreds of people. It has a multitude of electrodes that stimulate the audio system. It is digital, sends a pulsatile signal, and has a programmable memory. The implant comes with a diagnostic and programming interface computer. The Australian government heavily subsidized with millions of dollars research into audio implants and got the Cochlear Corporation (Nucleus) going. Nucleus uses what is called MULTIPEAK which provides high-frequency information from 2000 to 7000 Hz. With this 4 electrodes are stimulated in rapid succession, and special algorithms are used which change the relationship between the pulse amplitude and the pulse duration in order to allow 4 pulses to occur within a single frame. The Nucleus Minisystem 22 was approved by the FDA for implantation in both adults and children.
Storz Instrument Co.’s Implant–developed at Univ. of Calif, San Francisco.
Part. B. Secretly implanted audio implants.
There were several profiles of people that were used in the World Order’s selection of secret victims to implant. The following were criteria that they liked in the selection process, a. vulnerable, such as single women, b. people who were already programmed with trauma-based mind-control, c. psychics, who had already told people they heard or saw things ordinary people don’t, d. people, not highly regarded by society such as minorities, criminals, street people, mentally insane, who would not be able to find a support system to help them fight the experimentation. They also did the audio implants into some of their own intelligence agents, apparently to some who were getting somewhat difficult to their superiors. Because of this type of profile, and some other things this author learned, it appears that the initial two decades were used more for experimentation and development than they were for actual operations. However, with more than 2 decades of experience, they are now fully operational. From watching their interaction (messages) with victims of audio implants, it is clear that they are not in the testing stage, but are fully operational, and have a full cadre of trained operatives (men & women) to staff the secret bases from which the monitor and broadcast signals to their slaves. The staff their bases with 3 shifts and the graveyard shift leaves approx. 6 a.m. In other words, from what we can tell they are using standard shift times for the audio implant control staffs.
COCHLEAR IMPLANTS–There are Cochlear implants for auditory control secretly implanted without permission. A rubber molding skin color covers the outer lining of the ear canal. There are tiny slits in this lining, which when pushed to the side would show the presence of coils and a plastic rod/wire embedded in the area. Sometimes burn marks occur on sides of face due to intense heat generated by implants, which is painful.
DENTAL AUDITORY IMPLANTS–At least a dozen victims have complained that after their teeth were capped they began hearing voices. Other sources indicate that during the filing process implants are being put into people. This is the type of implant placed into J. Z. Knight and left dormant for many years until they decided to activate her as New Age guru.
RIDGE IMPLANTS– These implants can produce Theta waves and even voices. They are designed to suppress a particular type of thinking. The body may be sent into paralysis or given various stimulus-response stimuli in order to suppress certain thought patterns. If the slave begins to have certain thought patterns that threaten the programming and programming structures, these implants kick in to divert the person’s mental activity to something else.
Forced Dreams (Mining for Information)
“Thought reading”, i.e. “MINING” someone’s brain for information from a distance is SPECULATIVE. We targeted individuals have no way to verify that is happening, however, we do know that we are “fed” hypnotic signals to force consistent “neutral” content DREAMS(but of different character than prior to becoming test subjects,).
These forced, neutral content (“bland” content) dreams occur every single night and may represent the harassers’ (or experimenters’) efforts to have our experiences portray themselves in such dreams, in effect, MINING our experiences. Again, this is SPECULATION, but it seems very logical. It is therefore extremely likely that these forced dreams can be displayed on the experimenters’ screens in an adjacent apartment or adjacent house, (which are
made obvious to the involuntary experimentee.)
Finally, among the 300 known neuro-electromagnetic experimentees, we often have strangers either tell us what we are thinking, say they can pick up our broadcast thoughts, or tell us about events inside our homes at times when they could not have seen from the outside.
Some of the ” forced dreams” are pretty much surreal and disconnected from normal dreams pattern.
This is the basic idea for the movie INCEPTION.
ELECTRONIC HARASSMENT AND IMPLANT TECHNOLOGY (Mind Control in Practice)
- Introduction
- Battle for the Mind
- The Mind Controllers (MCs)
- The Human Brain and Behaviour
- Covert Wars With Civilian Populations – Human Experimentation and MKULTRA
- Alien Abduction and Medical Exploration
- The Human Body, Radio Communication and Electromagnetic Stimulation
- The Implant Specialists
- The Gaffer
- The Design, Testing and Analysis of Implants
the British MindControl Agent
(An Introduction)
Introduction
Conspiracy theory is a very controversial subject and has captivated the media’s attention for countless years. Journalists, due to their exceptional capability to sniff out a story, have actively leaked and exposed information of a classified nature in an effort to prove to themselves and anyone who will listen just how prominent government corruption really is.
On a global scale every nation funds its own team of secret police and military enforcers whose prime objective is to sustain and develop national-security strategies and policy. Understandably the majority of their activities are conducted covertly on an extensive level; MI6, the CIA and the KGB being prime examples. Their various dealings have always been enlightening if not interesting, suggesting they have murdered, poisoned, gassed, drugged and brainwashed enemies of the state and unwitting citizenry on a surprisingly frequent basis. It is also proven fact that these intelligence-gathering establishments have conducted unethical testing on their own soldiers and intelligence personnel using a varied range of lethal arsenal. Journalists have detailed these arcane schemes and suspicious goings-on in their books, magazines, movies and television documentaries. ‘Mind Control’ in particular has taken centre stage. John Marks’ The Search for the Manchurian Candidate, for instance, highlighted extensive CIA pursuits of mind-control intelligence and weaponry.
Undoubtedly the pungent cocktail of national-security legislation and lack of primary sources to interview places restrictions on the research avenues that journalists may pursue. As a result, the secrecy surrounding mind control developments has now piqued unquenchable global curiosity.
Battle for the Mind
Since the beginning of civilisation topical issues concerning the human brain have always attracted substantial attention for a number of obvious reasons. The human brain is a most valuable asset and extremely unique, as it holds the precious cocktail of individuality and personality. It is what separates the timid from the aggressive and the academically gifted from Mr Average. The brain controls physical movement, all cognitive capabilities (memory, counting and language) and regulates a vast array of bodily functions.
Although substantial headway has been made in pursuit of understanding the brain and its function, scientists are still a long way from mastering and controlling the mechanisms that work within it. This situation has uncovered many dilemmas for law-enforcement agencies, the military and medical communities, who all believe there is great potential to be found in mastering physical control of the brain and mind.
Criminal psychologists, for example, are no longer blaming environmental circumstance and adverse social conditioning as the sole cause of criminal activity. They stress some individuals may be more susceptible to committing murders and assaults due to their inherited genetic wiring. This theory asserts that there are chemicals within the brain which can trigger anger and antisocial behaviour. Those who commit grievous bodily harm may be victims of chemical imbalances which they are unable to control without the intervention of drugs and other inhibitors. Naturally it is hoped that brain exploration will offer some answers.
Medical practitioners and surgeons believe chemicals in the brain that influence behaviour may be supplemented or suppressed by drugs which in the long run can make an individual’s behaviour more desirable and manageable. They foresee great potential in the use of implants and other artificial aids to assist the body’s performance and maintain organs to optimal working condition. Consultants view the exploration and control of the brain as a fascinating realm of discovery where new breakthroughs in psychiatric treatment and disease can be made. Utilising medical research and analysis, their sole objective is to rid the world of every brain dysfunction and life-threatening condition known to mankind.
The military, unlike the medical and law-enforcement professions, hold slightly different interests in brain exploration. The brain, in their eyes, contains the ultimate secret to world domination, biological warfare and intelligence gathering. They wish to discover newfound ways to torture, interrogate and annihilate enemy troops and civilians of opposing nations. They strongly believe that the man who can crack the complex code of human behaviour is the man who has the power to manipulate, control and modify the actions and thoughts of another.
It is abundantly clear why so many government-funded establishments are interested in methods which control human brains and minds because the capability to detect criminals, advance medical technology and win wars runs paramount with the security and advancement of British society.
1. Criminals cost the British government millions of pounds in surveillance, rehabilitation, punishment and victim-support services.
2. An unhealthy nation places pressure on the social services and hospital staff, as well as spreading disease and infections which are difficult to eradicate. Humans with permanent illnesses are repeatedly forced into unemployment as a consequence.
3. Intelligence agents and soldiers are very expensive to pay; the government could cut MoD, MI6, police service and MI5 workers by a quarter if they could infiltrate plots, assassinations, expose spies and ascertain threats to national security using quality technological surveillance and interrogation techniques.
Scientists who can unravel the mysteries of brain function are worth billions of pounds to the British government and are now in mass abundance. Ultimately, it is the unhealthy and often stressful state of government politics, and heightened security fears, which have led to the emergence of the mind-control professional.
Many will have their own definitions of mind control and its meaning, and these definitions often vary slightly. This paper follows the assertion that ‘Mind Control’ encompasses all theoretical and technological applications which are used to gain minimal or complete control over an individual’s brain or psychological state of mind and behaviour, both covertly and overtly. The aim of the game is to control an individual to the point where he will do the manipulator’s bidding against his will or, alternatively, to adjust his behaviour in a desirable way in order to satisfy an expressed agenda, whatever this may be.
British research into mind control technology is a very important issue and stands high on the political agenda.
The Mind Controllers (MCs)
Scientists who conduct mind control research for British intelligence agencies are commonly referred to as Mind Controllers (MCs). Their main aim is to:
- design and produce lethal and non-lethal mind-control weaponry which can be used against criminals, foreign government spies and military personnel;
- design and use equipment which can counter the affects of foreign mind-control techniques, and prevent spies and terrorists from extracting/intercepting information from British agents, military scientists and politicians.
As active behavioural scientists MCs are great believers in trial-and-error experimentation and follow this principal like a bible. A practising mind controller must torture a real human being to acquire credible information on torture and its effect on the physical body and mental state.
| Mind Control Applications: | |
| Sensory deprivation (to create disorientation and fear) | Torture/physical assault (kicks, punches, burning, cutting, electrocution, sexual assault, chronic induced sickness, cramps, vomiting, temporary blindness) |
| Verbal abuse (shouting, threats and insults) | Starvation and dehydration |
| Positive and negative reinforcement/ punishment versus reward | Hallucinogens (induced paranoia) and narcotics |
| Sleep deprivation | Induced personality disorders |
| Hypnosis | Electromagnetic frequencies (the use of electromagnetic waves to influence the human brain) |
| Sound technology (the incessant use of music and voices to arouse certain thoughts and feelings) | Brainwashing and totalitarianism |
| Lobotomy and neurosurgery | Interrogation techniques and lie detectors – polygraph tests |
The most alarming aspect of mind control research is that experimentation on the unwitting human being is condoned by security bureaucrats and military personnel, who have convinced themselves and the involved parties that their sometimes ruthless investigations are honest attempts to search for scientific truth. It is of small consequence if the pregnant mother is given LSD without her knowledge as the investigative results may revolutionise the way LSD is used in the future by the British population; and by business sectors who treat LSD addicts, and pharmaceutical companies that produce and examine LSD properties.
The case of Frank Olson, for instance, in 1953 highlighted the dangerously dark side of human experimentation when the scientist plunged to his death from an upper-floor window after CIA mind-control agents spiked his drink with LSD.
The phrase ‘one life for many’ is the core golden rationalization here and, irrespective of links with law enforcement, MCs aren’t strangers to unconstitutional murder as some of their projects are terminal, meaning the victim’s life is expendable and the objectives of the study must be fulfilled by any means necessary.
Mind-control operatives establish themselves as law abiding social scientists whose prime objective is to nurture society to help it flourish and develop to its full potential. In the idyllic society man is co-operative, productive, law abiding and happy to help his fellow man. He is flawless, a well-balanced individual with the drive and motivation to promote and encourage happiness wherever he goes. There is no place in harmonious society for his exact antithesis. Via tampering with the human brain MCs hope to determine what causes differences in behaviour and find ways of manipulating the natural processes of thought and behaviour with the intention of ultimately dictating it.
British security acts legislate MI5 (the security service), MI6 (the secret intelligence service), GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) and national crime services to work in partnership and direct support of one another’s schemes. Mind-control agents are no exception to this rule and have the full use of government services at their disposal, including the Metropolitan Police Force. Their use of covert torture, expansive spy network and spates of criminal activity identify them as some of the most influential and dangerous civil servants functioning in political arenas today.
The Human Brain and Behaviour
To run a plausible mind control operation MCs must remain informed about new developments within their field. This means being open to the idea that theorists from a variety of occupational sectors may inadvertently offer new, healthy, innovative notions from which feasible mind control strategies may be born. This section explores two fundamental mind and behaviour theories.
One very famous pioneer interested in the advancement of brain exploration was Dr Jose Delgado. He became the Professor of Physiology at Yale University and wrote the controversial book ‘Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society’. Dr Delgado highlights the need to study the brain as a quest for human survival. He stresses that man survived life where other species, like the dinosaur, failed because of his unique ability to acquire knowledge and adapt his behaviour to the harsh elements. He insists man has come a long way since realising he could increase his welfare and wealth by investigating the properties of the planet and manipulating their function to his own devices. He portrays the human being as a master manipulator of the environment, flawless in many ways but ignorant of the conscious mind working behind the innovations and formations he creates. Ideally the doctor hoped to use his findings of brain exploration as a stepping stone to creating a healthier society.
His genius lies within his ability to carefully weigh up the advantages and relevance of brain activity in everyday living. He states the following issues as being at the foundation of his theory.
“There are basic mechanisms in the brain responsible for all mental activities, including perceptions, emotions, abstract thought, social relations, and the most refined artistic creations. These mechanisms may be detected, analyzed, influenced, and sometimes substituted for by means of physical and chemical technology. This approach does not claim that love or thoughts are exclusively neurophysiological phenomena, but accepts the obvious fact that the central nervous system is absolutely necessary for any behavioural manifestation.” (Delgado J, 1969)
What Dr Delgado highlights is the fact that the human body is a machine (controlled by the brain), and that its overall behaviour, response and function may be predicted and modified. This theory reaffirms the MCs’ suspicion that, with the right selection of armaments and expertise to hand, they could manipulate a human into doing anything they so desired.
- A prisoner of war may be brainwashed into another way of thinking using advanced conditioning and thought-reform techniques. Ultimately, the soldier switches sides and starts working in partnership with the enemy feeling and believing the enemy’s pain.
- A human being may be drugged and suspended in an emotional high of acute depression or prolonged euphoria for weeks at a time.
- Mind-reading machines could extract a human being’s personal thoughts and decode them into actual verbal or textual output. Intelligence hidden within the realms of the brain would no longer be inviolable.
Vernon and Frank stress that there are parts of the brain that, in ‘susceptible individuals’, help trigger violence. These areas can be pinpointed clearly and are often associated with aggression-based feeding, fleeing, sexual activity and fighting. Their general viewpoint asserts that there are different types of violent behaviour, and that these negative outbursts can be analysed and categorised into predictable causes, influences and outcomes.
From a political perspective, violent acts help to whittle away and undermine respect and co-operation for the laws the British government uphold in the regulation of civilian behaviour. On a global perspective, governments are placed in the inevitable position where they must spend billions of pounds on an annual basis paying for the damage that (foreign and native) rioters, terrorists and vigilantes inflict on property. It is, understandably, the MCs’ responsibility to help contain this problem and redress the balance of power.
Due to the nature of their work (espionage, sabotage and military enforcement) MCs are active participants in violence and aggression, but are also frequent casualties themselves. It is only logical, therefore, that they maintain a vested interest in this arena.
Covert Wars With Civilian Populations – Human Experimentation and MKULTRA
Mind-control victims (MCVs) are very diverse characters of differing background, age, race and class. Individual claims of victimisation tend to be extremely uncommon and are especially sparse in relation to the world’s population as a whole. One is more likely to come across witches and Santa Claus than genuine MCVs.
First of all, there aren’t any apparent limitations as to where MCVs and MCs are found. Evidence clarifies that they are actively resident in America, Sweden, England and Canada, and most likely the rest of the world too. Secondly, human subjects are usually ‘Mr Average’ and have no social links with either government agencies or dissident groups. Only a sparse number are members of spy networks, or terrorists who pose a genuine threat.
The general characteristics of mind control victimisation suggest MCs are running extensive experiments on MCVs ranging across continental borders.
- The British are deploying their MCs to foreign countries to acquire experimental subjects.
3. Victims range from the newborn child to the elderly, suggesting there is a great need for extensive studies spanning a possible eighty years of an individual’s life. Undoubtedly human development and age influence the efficiency and practicality of some forms of arsenal. When administering hallucinogens, for example, the dosage must be customised to the size of the person, and gender is an obvious issue.
Perhaps the most notorious mind control experiments known to mankind were those conducted by the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) in the mid-twentieth century. They began their research in the early 1950s under the code name MKULTRA and it was rumoured that superpowers Great Britain and Canada joined the MKULTRA scheme as a partnership, aiding with the testing and intelligence gathering. The CIA were particularly interested in studies concerned with memory enhancement, psychotherapy for psychological-warfare purposes, truth serums, poisons and electroconvulsive therapy.
The CIA had an extensive requirement for human subjects and strove hard to find them. Unwitting victims were the most prized as their reactions to arsenal realistically put theory into practice and was the ultimate indication of success or failure.
Mr Harvey Weinstein, a qualified psychiatrist (in partnership with the American Psychiatric Press), published the book ‘Psychiatry and the CIA: Victims of Mind Control’ to shed some light on the entire MKULTRA affair. In the book, Harvey passionately makes firm reference to his father’s admission to the Allan Memorial Psychiatric Institute (Canada), where he was treated by the renowned professional Dr Ewen Cameron who at the time had been commissioned by the CIA to undergo testing on his patients. The experiments hoped to provide exceptional insight into the effects of sensory deprivation, electroconvulsive therapy, LSD, Chlorpromazine, coercion and thought reform. Dr Ewen Cameron called his technique ‘Psychic Driving’.
Following unrelenting global exposure and prosecution from MKULTRA victims, the CIA were rumoured to have burned all their mind-control files during the 1980s. However, conspiracy theorists and members of the American military remain sceptical, believing that the MKULTRA project is thriving but has evolved into a new scheme utilising exactly the same techniques and regimes.
Britain’s MI6 might not have officially been charged with MKULTRA dealings like the CIA but were equally active in the programme, and were major players in the race for political power and world domination. Whilst mind control techniques and strategies may have changed throughout the decades, the ethos and concept remains the same. The British Empire hasn’t faired badly in war on a global perspective and their pursuit of mind control strategy may be one of the many reasons why.
Definitions of some of the most prevalent mind control specialisms are listed below.
ESB (Electrical Stimulation of the Brain)
ESB involved the transmission of electrical currents (using electrodes) to different parts of the human brain. Using ESB, MCs could influence the human thinking process, manipulate motor movements and place victims under a number of different emotional states, like anger, happiness and fear. ESB proved the human body could be controlled externally via the brain by use of permanently implanted electrodes and a remote control.
Sound Technology
Sound technology focused on the effects music and sound have on mental health; how certain lyrics, melodies and frequencies of sound conjure up specific fantasies, thoughts and feelings within the mind. Tunes that were played repetitively, for instance, induced depression, violent thoughts, and a sense of loss and helplessness. Others cheered people up and invoked thoughts of freedom, anarchy and happiness. This led to the understanding that concentrated, prolonged, highly explicit lyrics could aid interrogations and the ‘breaking’ of captives. This is because musical lyrics and their topical content (love, family, aspirations, sex and guns) linger within the realms of the brain’s thoughts via association even after the tracks have stopped being played. MCs ensure the captive hears music prior to and after interrogation to invoke emotional instability and lack of confidence.
Brain Mapping
Brain mapping was of great interest and concerned research that helped MCs pinpoint which parts of the brain and body were responsible for different physical capabilities, e.g. the ability to recognise smells, hear, talk, read, count numbers, be sympathetic and memorise. This line of research was pursued primarily with the intention of finding ways to understand and define human behaviour for eventual manipulation.
Sensory Deprivation
Sensory-deprivation studies investigated the psychological and physical effects the prolonged absence of touch, sight, hearing, smell and taste had on human behaviour. Popular techniques included those of:
- blindfolding captives using goggles and bags;
- forcing captives to wear sound-proof earmuffs;
- afflicting the ears with loud, frightening noises for prolonged periods in pitch darkness;
- bright, fluorescent, flashing lights, which blinded the eyes;
- exposure to severe temperatures of heat and freezing conditions.
Brainwashing and Behaviour Modification
The capability to surreptitiously alter an individual’s point of view and direct him towards another way of thinking attracted radical attention from MI6. They believed human beings could be influenced during interrogation and incarceration periods with greater efficiency, manipulating individual viewpoint and attacking personality trait. This strategy was achieved in the following three ways.
- Attacking the identity of the person. Subjects are racially abused; prominent physical features, like a large or small nose, are ridiculed; religious and occupational beliefs are questioned. This depletes the subject’s confidence in himself and, in an ideal scenario, the subject takes on the manipulator’s viewpoint and wallows in self-hatred and pity whilst striving for new perfection.
- Stripping the person of all decency. The subject is denied clothes and forced to face the humiliation of being in the nude whilst perpetrators persecute him. He is made to beg for food and water, and asked to complete outlandish tasks, such as standing on one leg and hopping up and down for an hour. This technique reinforces the idea (in the subject’s mind) that he is owned property (a slave) and that to cough, laugh or urinate without being granted permission to do so is a sin and a direct act of defiance, punishable through death.
- Enforcing morality and conformity. Using a mixture of positive and negative reinforcement, the subject is rewarded minor praise and gifts for his efforts when his behaviour is deemed acceptable. This means extra recreation time, larger food rations, a clean shower and the acquirement of items like books, pens and paper. In the case of negative reinforcement, the subject is beaten, verbally abused, sexually harassed and tortured using a wide range of arcane instruments. The subject lives by the perpetrator’s rules without questioning them and does what he is told. Out of genuine necessity the subject sees conformity as a means to survival.
Sleep deprivation arises when captives are denied sleep for two days or more, thereby stifling the nervous system’s ability to function to optimal performance. The manifestations of prolonged sleep deprivation produce, in human subjects, loss of balance, hallucinations, slurred speech, heightened confusion, exhaustion, disorientation, constant irritability and forgetfulness. British agents involved in the interrogation of suspects rely heavily on this method as it makes the extraction of information from prisoners easier.
Torture Techniques
Torture basically incorporates any act used to cause pain and suffering of a captive with the intent of orchestrating severe punishment, obtaining a confession, coercing individuals to take on a given viewpoint or enforcing behaviour modification. Torture is an ancient technique often favoured for its aid in interrogations. Usually the inflictions made on an individual result in bruises, weeping wounds or breakages to the skeleton. MCs, for obvious reasons, felt that prisoners of war could effectively be coerced into disclosing intelligence information through fear for their lives. The torture of enemy troops has always been deemed beneficial because even the smallest details of information can turn a war around and gain the captor a substantial advantage. Strategies utilised included the following.
- Stretching. Parts of the body are pulled and strained beyond their full range of motion, causing uncontrollable spasms of pain within the joints and muscles. This can be achieved using the old-fashioned rack, placing ropes on the wrists and ankles so the body is fully suspended and taut.
- Cutting, piercing, burning and scolding. This is a slow form of torture where the pressure of discomfort is gradually applied under verbal interrogation. Naked flame, hot coals, heated iron rods and a range of instrumental knives and pins are applied to sensitive parts of the body. Skin gradually sizzles and cuts fester, leaving flesh raw and splotched. Cutting and burning are century-old techniques, valued because the instruments used are cheap and easy to come by, and most British soldiers carry matches and knives as a basic utility. MI6 don’t value this highly as a preferred technique because permanent marks of disfigurement are clearly noticeable and wounds caused by cutting and burning, if left uncleansed, turn sceptic.
- Starvation. The captive is denied food and water. The body left without basic sustenance begins to deteriorate. Within one to two weeks the captive is desperate to divulge information that the captors have requested; anything to relieve the demoralising, painful and desperate suffering of dehydration and malnutrition.
- Electrocution. Electrocution is utilised because it doesn’t leave cuts or abrasions to the body, and the intensity can be amplified and decreased using a remote control. The use of electrocution as a torture technique is illegal in most nations but is utilised on civilians in the form of an electroshock stun gun or taser gun by American and UK police forces.
Hypnosis is a state of mind which is induced using concentrated focus and thought aided by the guidance of an interrogator’s reassuring and convincing voice. Visual stimulation, physical movement, external noise and environmental influence are restricted so that verbal suggestions are easily assimilated into the target’s subconscious mind. It is hoped that, once the target leaves the hypnotist’s presence, the information assimilated into the subconscious mind will be recalled by the brain at relevant intervals. The target then believes the knowledge/information which pops up from his subconscious is the ultimate truth and follows this truth as a gut reaction without questioning its logicality. MCs often administer drugs to help induce heightened hypnotic states.
As with all mind control techniques, it is the careful mixing of various applications, i.e. LSD, hypnosis and torture or sleep deprivation, brainwashing and concentrated interrogation, which makes mind control a worthy adventure.
MCs have managed to unravel an entire realm of questions and answers regarding humans and behaviour. They have divulged the great possibilities empowered to civilisation if the brain is controlled right down to the minutest components.
If mind-control scientists succeed in their technological pursuits, society will undoubtedly have to make way for these new developments and evolve with them. Over a period of countless centuries, MCs will manipulate human-being behaviour using a range of artificial devices, biological technology and social conditioning to create the British government’s ideal harmonious civilisation. MCs will also utilise this same technology to bring down populations and foreign armed forces to the brink of destruction. Mind control is a developing science, which is becoming ever more sophisticated as greater numbers of contract-funded intellectuals join the rat race.
ELECTRONIC HARASSMENT AND IMPLANT TECHNOLOGY
(Mind Control in Practice)
Alien Abduction and Medical Exploration
Human beings throughout the twentieth century have always claimed to be victims of mind control technology. Aliens from outer space have arrived in UFOs and whisked them away to unknown planets and subjected them to endless routines of torture. Implants have been surgically affixed to the ears and sinuses, and biological mechanisms have been monitored on a frequent basis. Some individuals claim to have been abducted more than twice and believe they suffer continuous harassment from their alien antagonists.
Dr Helmut Lammer, author of the book ‘MILABS: Military Mind Control and Alien Abduction’, brings to attention his analysis of implant technology and the alien abduction saga. The doctor claims mind control practice is rife, and pays particular attention to the CIA and global-warfare history, both past and present. He suggests that some alien abductees are disillusioned subjects of CIA-funded research and, in rare circumstances, have remembered what atrocities have befallen them. He backs up this theory with case studies of abductees who have proof of medical tampering, and the unauthorised deployment of treatments which physicians haven’t mentioned in the consultation room. Brain implants in particular (of various designs) are most commonly discovered by chance due to a patient’s persistent pursuit of a competent doctor and satisfactory diagnosis. The implants themselves are detected by MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) and x-rays, and can be as small as a grain of rice.
He claims the existence of aliens and their extraterrestrial implants are, therefore, not a reality, rather some fabrication of the truth brought into existence by mind-control professionals attempting to quash suspicion and hide illegal activities.
Dr Helmut Lammer alleges implant technology was developed sometime after World War II due to increased global military competition, and that the research conducted encompassed aspects of ESB, radio communication and telemetric monitoring. Electrodes relay information from brain activity to a computer. The correlations of biological activity are in eventuality decoded into actual behavioural manifestations, allowing the subject’s lifestyle to be understood and analysed. The doctor states that the similarities between alien implants and man-made telemetric devices are uncanny, and follows the assertion that the implants abductees refer to are readily available and marketed to research professionals across the world. Coincidentally, Dr Delgado (clinical biologist) was the specialist responsible for the telemetric implant called the ‘stimoceiver’, which he designed in the 1960s.
The stimoceiver is an implantable device used for direct communication with the brain. The instrument is fitted with electrodes, which monitor the electrical emissions occurring within different parts of the skull and, most importantly, can send electrical signals to defined parts of the brain to produce involuntary actions and mental states. The bio-feedback from the stimoceiver is relayed to a computer for analysis. The doctor used his stimoceivers on psychiatric patients undergoing treatment and surmised that he could block the thinking process, inhibit speech and movement, and produce fear and hallucinations. The doctor engineered research which helped establish the fact that correlations of electrical activity within the brain directly correspond with specific types of behaviour.
Modern stimoceivers are often referred to as acute probes and have been miniaturised to a mere 4mm in size. The acute probe is still in its early stages of development and, on a legal medical note, is being used to treat illnesses like dystonia and severe depression in suicidal patients. University students and lecturers also utilise them (usually in the operating theatre and in animal experimentation) for scientific inquiry.
The alien-abduction conspiracy follows the assertion that humans are experimented on: first, as a means to impregnate them for racial mixing; and second, to cause the eventual downfall of the human race using a strong concoction of biological warfare and space-age technology. It appears that in twenty-first century Britain extra-terrestrials have some mighty stiff competition from a growing number of laboratory technicians and medics.
The Human Body, Radio Communication and Electromagnetic Stimulation
Since the mid-1990s the World Wide Web has become a major player in global communications and hosts a wide range of forums, clubs and privately run chat rooms where conspiracy theorists converge and exchange information. Mind-control websites are in clear abundance and victimisation claims of electronic harassment highlight that MCs are using a number of prevalent tactics and techniques.
Audible Voice to Skull and Microwave Hearing
Voice to skull is a form of radio communication, which enables MCs to transmit conversation directly to the brain. The sound (as described by victims) appears to radiate from behind the head, the soundwaves transmitting verbal conversation like a walkie-talkie. The sound distance and intensity of radio signal remains the same regardless of the head’s orientation.
The hearing of voices in the head has always been associated with the onset of schizophrenia but military science suggests the transmission of spoken word to the brain isn’t an enormous impossibility, and that the science behind its application is coveted by MI6.
The truth is that humans can hear themselves think in spoken word and perceive sound without the aid of their external ears, and it is the complexity of the brain which empowers this. When human ears detect acoustic sound frequencies from external sources the sound waves are funnelled via the external ear, hit the eardrum and are translated into nerve impulses, which travel to the brain and are decoded by the brain as sound/verbal speech.
When MCs transmit voice to skull, they speak into a microphone, which transforms verbal speech/sound signals into encoded electrical pulses. These radio-frequency pulses are directed at the auditory nerve (bypassing the human ear) directly to the brain, which decodes the electrical pulses into understandable spoken word and sound. Ensuring the encoded electrical pulses hit the auditory nerve directly guarantees that only the intended victim hears the contact and, like radio DJs (Disc Jockeys), MCs may increase or decrease the volume and communicate with a subject many miles away.
Academics Joseph C Sharp and Dr A Frey were actually the first scientists to transmit voice-modulated microwaves at the auditory nerve during their time at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. The transmission of sound via the auditory nerve has been practised since the mid-twentieth century and has proven successful even in hard-of-hearing subjects. The employment of ESB enables targeted subjects to perceive sound depending on the frequency and amplitude of stimulation. The auditory symptoms include those of constant buzzing, clicks and what is called ‘ringing in the ears’. If utilised for extended periods of time the loudness and variation in noise causes lack of concentration, distress and high irritability.
Rumour has it that voice to skull was intended for soldiers, ensuring headquarters had unlimited communication, thus enabling the abandonment of conventional earpiece/microphone headgear, which is a visible target on the battlefield.
Voice to skull brings into focus the growing number of psychics, alien abductees, witches and psychiatric patients claiming they can speak to extra-terrestrials, can contact ghosts and liaise with the devil on a frequent basis. The realisation that MCs may effectively talk themselves into a human being’s life and pose as supernatural powers seems blasphemous. What is clear is that intelligence agents and medics have tried hard to master this skill and that there are a growing number of MCVs confirming its deployment.
Electromagnetic Torture – Involuntary Motor Movements and Actions
A brief consultation with any practising neurologist would confirm that the brain is primarily responsible for all voluntary movements and the co-ordination of a vast number of muscles within the body. The fluid movements and precision of muscle control executed by break dancers and gymnasts are very much representative of the brain’s capability. Neurologists can map the functional areas of the brain in diagram form, enabling them to pinpoint the regions most responsible for independent movement. The motor cortex, for example, is responsible for muscle control within the shoulders, arms, hands, eyes, lips, tongue, fingers and thumbs.
MCVs have long claimed that MCs have the capability to physically torture them irrespective of global whereabouts. Interestingly, the manipulation of bodily functions, inexplicable muscle movements, pain and weeping wounds MCVs claim to endure are profoundly symptomatic of the acute probe and the electrical signals it produces to cause involuntary actions.
MCs aren’t content with the medical profession’s notion of brain stimulation as consultants utilise electromagnetic research primarily to improve health, not damage it. MCs are interested in the acute probe as an intelligence aid, so it helps to know what happens when levels of brain stimulation are increased beyond the brain’s natural capacity and capability. Unsurprisingly, increased exploration of electromagnetic waves has led to the understanding that ESB may realistically be used as a torture weapon that surpasses conventional methods.
MCs, for instance, may inflict muscle spasms (fasciculation) and cramps (muscle shortening contractions) within the human body by applying variations of electrical stimulation, causing pain as the muscles and tendons are strained beyond their maximum range of motion. This form of torture is useful, the main advantage being that sensitive areas of the body, like the genitals, eyes and tongue, may be isolated and afflicted independently. The acute probe’s electrical signals travel from the brain into the spinal cord and stimulate the nerves and then the muscles; the muscle tissue then contracts. In general the severity of pain and wounds inflicted is dependent upon the longevity and levels of stimulation targeted at the brain and spine.
| Symptoms of Electromagnetic Torture: | |
| Severe pins and needles | Prickly burning sensations |
| Heightened body temperature | Increased heart rate |
| Back strain | Chronic headaches |
| Involuntary hand, finger and toe movements | Stomach cramps |
| Spot blanking of memory | Harassment of the auditory hearing with ringing, clicking and buzzing |
| Repeated spasms and contracting of muscles and tendons within the body | Bleeding and discharge from the nasal cavity |
The Implant Specialists
The culprits responsible for the upsurge in implant technology are unsurprisingly not alien invaders but human beings. Implant Specialists (IS) are MCs whose research is specific to implant technology and for the sake of espionage work for the British government under the umbrellas of MI5 and MI6. They are reflective of the modern warfare practitioner in the sense that, by preference, enemies are fought not in the field using guns and bombs but through utilising electronic-communications technology. This way they may collect information, analyse it and aid counter-intelligence operations, both covertly and overtly, limiting the potential number of casualties lost in battle. Implantable devices are just one of the many sophisticated communications products British security forces employ, and they are granted ample funding because they are multifunctional devices favoured for the following three reasons.
- Tracking. Tracking devices are inserted within the human body in a variety of places dependant on their exact function, and enable researchers to establish the whereabouts of their target using a receiver that detects the implant’s transmitter signal. This scientific technique is frequently used on mammals like sharks where their movements are tracked within the vast open seas. Conservationists, as a result, are able to locate their shark many miles away and monitor its feeding and migration habits. Modern designs of transmitter are so incredibly small now that they have permitted scientists to keep tabs on the smallest of creatures, like Harvest Mice roaming wild and cultivated fields.
- Recording and Monitoring. Implants are designed to act as interactive devices offering a direct link between the human body and computer, like electrocardiograms. These devices enable researchers to study the intimate functions of the body closely by monitoring organ activity and reactivity. They are frequently used in the monitoring and assessment of mental illness, heart activity and brain dysfunction. From an intelligence agency’s perspective, monitoring devices may reveal the biological affects of drugs, dehydration, physical exertion and chronic depression. This type of research is essentially useful to the MoD (Ministry of Defence) as these common conditions often influence soldiers and their performance on the battlefield, interfering with perception, physical co-ordination, eyesight and, ultimately, performance.
- Manipulation and Control. These implants are probably the most controversial of all as they are both intrusive and obtrusive to the human body. They empower an external party to influence the thoughts, functional body parts and behaviour of another. The devices themselves are often telemetric instruments and are frequently inserted into laboratory animals undergoing behavioural testing, e.g. a remote control enables researchers to send painful electric shocks to a dog’s brain every time the animal disobeys a command. The dog quickly learns via association and negative reinforcement that if he doesn’t sit when told to he’ll be harmed.
Bearing in mind the surveillance perspective, the possibilities are vast for intelligence agencies: audio equipment may be inserted under the skin, possibly within the face or arms, and enable operatives to eavesdrop on all of an implanted subject’s verbal conversations. This tactic surpasses all opportunities offered by phone tapping and roof surveillance, which are limited once the subject leaves his bugged household. Interaction with strangers and associates in the street is also acquirable without operatives having to rely on second-hand information from bystanders and culprits who may deceive. The most advanced implantable device is undoubtedly one which incorporates all five features of tracking, monitoring, manipulation, audio technology and radio communication.
The Gaffer
Perhaps the easiest way to understand the IS strategy is to view the entire operation as a business where there is a clear, identifiable organisational aim and staff hierarchy; a unified, cohesive workforce of multi-talented professionals working a nine-to-five shift to ensure there is twenty-four hour monitoring of a victim’s life.
Project Co-ordinators
Mind-control operations always involve an appointed project co-ordinator. The co-ordinator is the strategic driving force behind the operation and is often in control of funding initiatives, equipment, staffing levels and the distribution of workloads. The co-ordinator knows his department and subject area well, and may spend precious time holding talks and presentations throughout Great Britain at renowned universities, such as Cranfield. He is a well-paid specialist and more often than not has a Masters degree or PhD title to his name. As the head co-ordinator it is his task to be on the lookout for new opportunities to market, network, expand and spread the word about his work and team. Primarily the co-ordinator services the government but, dependant on the political environment, secrecy acts and commercial influences, expertise and implantable devices are granted deployment by private institutes and overseas military forces. A project co-ordinator’s investigations, for example, may uncover a way to cause temporary paralysis in implanted victims without the use of drug administration but using electromagnetic stimulation. This research is likely to remain classified for the immediate but, eventually, could be used for mob-management strategy on a global perspective. The traditional utilisation of police batons, tear gas, dogs and horses to calm rioting crowds would be replaced with an electromagnetic beam (transmitted from portable transmitters and receivers), which would hit all human brains within a ten-metre radius. The beam would cause immediate paralysis in marching rioters, making the booking and arrest process considerably easier. This strategy would lessen the damage to property, decrease the number of police casualties and relieve pressure from emergency services. An electromagnetic beam like this transmitted from a tank could also be utilised on the battlefield to incapacitate enemy forces without killing them, instead rendering them too sick to fight.
Consultants
The consultants comprise an invaluable team. Like the project co-ordinator, they are high-flying, wealthy academics – the best and brightest specialists Britain has to offer. They are the intelligence scientists who oversee projects and advise on all aspects of the mind control scheme.
The development of an implant in general requires the full attention and expertise of many consultants, some of them foreign if absolutely necessary. They comprise of the following.
- Neurologists and associate medical staff who understand the brain and its complicated activity.
- Engineers and medical/pharmaceutical establishments who can design and work the circuitry for miniaturised implants to be tested on animals and, eventually, humans. These implants must be easy to insert, hygienically clean and safe to use on a permanent basis.
- Sociologists and statisticians who understand human culture, economic trends and factors that influence them, e.g. birth rate, life expectancy, educational standards, the British population’s health, racial ratios, religious persuasion, class and finance, migration rates and gender studies.
- Factory contractors who can mass produce implant technology in secret and at a reasonable price.
- Psychologists and psychiatrists who can predict human behaviour under diverse environmental influences and produce behavioural models based on induced mental states.
- IT and telecommunications staff at GCHQ who can produce customised communication systems, software and interactive devices to enable the safe, covert detection, monitoring and transmission of information over vast areas of space quickly.
Field Agents
Field Agents are the mind control administrators. Their role is primarily concentrated on interacting with the victim in liaison with the project co-ordinator and consultants’ requests. They ensure the close monitoring of the victim’s life and the networking of information between internal staff.
Field agents must find an effective way to induce and nurture the behaviour that the consultants wish to observe in the victim. This means attempting to control the environment and anything else that may influence the victim’s behaviour. Harassment revolves around the victim’s lifestyle and identity, which may be split into two major areas of activity.
- Home Life and Recreation.
- Work Life.
Observation of the employment work-place routine enables agents to familiarise themselves with the layout of the building and environmental psychology – the lunch room, toilet facilities, common rooms, entrances and exits, and so on. This is so they may quickly identify where the victim’s work station is situated and how he will move in and around the office on a daily basis. Agents endeavour to create an artificial environment where the victim’s every move is interacted with, controlled and manipulated on cue to produce prolonged depressive states. Work associates and managers are spoken to in attempts to ensure the environmental psychology is in the correct balance and remains so for the duration.
Field agents work in numbers of two or more and, in cases of voice-to-skull harassment, it’s the radio communication from these agents which victims hear. They are also active networkers who keep intact the sourcing of contacts like the local GP. Victims suffering electromagnetic torture are likely to visit the doctor more often perhaps than average. The subject will convey information to the GP about his health, which may be of extreme interest and aids the research gathering process. In this event, field agents ensure the victim is sent to the relevant specialist and receives meticulous medical examination. Copies of the results are forwarded to the IS who, upon receipt, will understand the influence their electronic harassment is having.
Field agents are great believers in economic sabotage, which is often utilised in attempts to force a victim’s lifestyle to diversify in accordance with research expansion. Great Britain, for instance, is run by hundreds of different governmental authorities who as a collective help manage citizenry and divvy up benefits. Agents understand that the careful, orchestrated withdrawal of these services can both damage and improve human welfare relatively swiftly. The following two theories identify the key ideologies behind economic sabotage.
Employment = Pay Cheque
The ‘employment = pay cheque’ concept surmises that human survival in Britain comes down to career prospects and financial status. The capital raised from employment ultimately dictates the quality of lifestyle and opportunity a subject may pave for himself. This encompasses educational advantage, his stake in the property market, travel capability, nutritional diet and size of family he may comfortably afford, investment opportunities in the stock market, recreational activities and the possession of commodities like cars, computers, digital TV and telephones. Using their law-enforcement status, field agents illegally force subjects into substantial bouts of employment and falsified redundancy to best accommodate their mind control project.
Welfare State = Public Welfare
The ‘welfare state = public welfare’ theory surmises that partial aspects of a British citizen’s welfare aren’t necessarily dictated by individual financial status. The welfare state and tax system ensures funds are allotted to those who most require them as this strategy creates a sense of equality and inclusion amongst the classes. Most importantly, the minimal human requirements of food, water and shelter are met because British citizens are granted access to a number of statutory public services. Organisations like the Home Office, NHS, Social Services, Citizen Advice Bureaus, city councils, police forces and legal aid firms are instrumental to this welfare strategy. In this arena the field agents’ aim is to manipulate the advice, welfare service quality and customer care that the subject receives in a way which meets project criterion. The ‘marginalisation’ of the victim within society is most essential; it is important that every aspect of the subject’s life is under magnified analysis and is controllable down to the minutest components.
Experimental Subjects – Locating Specimens
Acquiring subjects to serve as guinea pigs for research has never been easier for the IS. The NHS (National Health Service) has an ever growing waiting list of citizens scheduled to visit consultants for a vast variety of ailments and treatments. Registered citizens across Britain have an allocated NHS number and medical record, which enables security forces to identify individuals by:
| Name and address | Date of Birth | Gender |
| Medical History | Height | Active Treatments |
| Family Relations |
In this arena, operating-theatre staff are sworn to secrecy under security act legislation. This isn’t to say, however, that medical staff are acutely aware that the patient concerned might be molested while under the influence of anaesthesia.
- In a realistic scenario how does a surgeon tell whether an acute probe is designed for medical intervention or for surveillance and torture?
- If a doctor does, in fact, suspect foul play, how does he deny an agent access to a patient without falling foul of the law himself?
- to transfer a patient to another hospital against his wishes;
- to extradite a patient without medical treatment; and
- to administer whatever medical intervention to a patient they so wish, with or without his consent and knowledge.
The Design, Testing and Analysis of Implants
There are six essential stages to the IS testing and analysis strategy.
Research
Design
Testing and Refinement
Implementation
Analysis
Conclusion
Where Research is concerned, consultants analyse the success of bygone experiments as well as appreciate the modern. This entails briefings with professionals of the relevant field and scouring the bookshelves of medical and military libraries for data-collection purposes. Case studies will be sought and investigated (depicting both success and failure) to highlight potential complications and spark innovative ideas. Foreign intelligence, if available, dictates the plans of action and overall development of implant design, which must be competitive on a global scale and outperform those already in circulation.
Using all the relevant research the consultants have collated, they must then Design a strategy that will help them achieve their objective. They will have to decide whether or not it is feasible to conduct the project overtly or covertly. In the case of a proposed experiment on a human being, the individual’s identity, age, race, class and occupation will be important. It will be decided whether or not the experimentee is consenting or unwitting, and how one is to go about finding an individual who meets the criteria and specified characteristics. The IS work in networked multi-disciplinary groups, so at some point relevant participants like doctors, military men and psychologists will meet and discuss the options available, and the feasibility and funding of the proposed operation. Various implant designs are sought and their properties investigated.
A pilot study will be performed for Testing and Refinement purposes. Obviously there is the chance of the project design being flawed; it may be that newly programmed equipment is faulty, staff aren’t sure of their role or invaluable resources and funding are withdrawn or dwindled away too quickly for the study to be concluded. Mistakes are corrected at this point and extensive adjustments made to the overall scheme of things. It is possible in rare circumstances that the entire project is abandoned and that the IS decide to start anew. At this point in the testing phase they have a vague idea of how the study will pull together, the budgeting costs, the risks involved and the quality of research likely to be acquired.
At the Implementation stage the team have ascertained where and when the research will be conducted. They will have acquired a number of human subjects who they may tap for research at relevant intervals. Surveillance and monitoring equipment is set up and professionals who can translate the output are hired. Telemetric data is recorded and archived whilst undercover field agents are deployed to subjects’ places of domicile to cover environmental and social influences. The manipulation and sabotage of the subjects’ lives will commence only if deemed crucial to the objective.
The Analysis and Conclusion involves the dissemination of research. Dependant on the surveillance systems used, results may be sent away to laboratory scientists who test and analyse data. The majority of scientists approached aren’t necessarily part of the IS team and are unaware that the research has been acquired illegally.
Once the reports are compiled, the IS set about building a picture of individual case files and eventually incorporate the information into a larger overview. They can look for common correlations and patterns of behaviour in the data and statistics. How the data is analysed will obviously vary, dependent on whether the study was to offer investigative, interventive or preventive insight.
The experimentees don’t have faces; they are simply part of a statistic, which is extracted from a computer database for intelligence committees to scrutinise. The final conclusion basically encompasses all the information based on the extensive analysis. If the experiments proved successful there is the option of pursuing research further or remaining content and assessing ways of incorporating the intelligence into future operations.
From a military perspective the IS have made substantial headway with implant technology. They have come to the realisation that the human body is a magnificent weapon in itself, and that all they need do is add a few refined capabilities.
- Radio Equipment. Surgically implanted sound-sensitive microphones enable operatives to eavesdrop on the verbal interactions occurring within their target’s physical range. This replaces the often favoured ordeal of bugging household premises. Voice to skull (microwave hearing) also enables field agents to speak to their target by transmitting electromagnetic radio frequencies directly to the auditory nerve.
- Electromagnetic Stimulation of the Spine/Brain. Permanently implanted electrodes can inflict serious illness, physical wounds and pain. This replaces the common requirement of torture instruments.
- Self-destruct Equipment. Throughout military history it hasn’t been uncommon for captives to carry poison pills as a means to commit suicide in the event of capture. Nor has it been uncommon for agents to plant bombs within buildings to kill VIP adversaries at close range. A miniaturised bomb may be implanted within the target’s body and detonated on cue. This way bombs get through Customs undetected and may be carried into high-security establishments, such as the Pentagon.
- Tracking Implants. Operatives may locate their targeted victim on a global scale and ascertain their whereabouts by country, borough and street name.
- Telemetric Monitoring. Devices implanted in the right regions of the brain or body would alert operatives to their target’s general state of health, like levels of pain and sleep patterns. Operatives are also able to ascertain, from bio-readings, psychological state of mind, stress, body temperature and breathing, etc.
MCVs engulfed in the design, testing and analysis strategy are simply pawns on a chess board. The implants they carry are the early indicators of the British government’s ‘Big Brother’ nation. Mind-control implants are primarily designed to be carried by British spies and dissidents (for covert-surveillance purposes) to track and annihilate the operations of terrorists, criminals and other enemies of state. MCVs are, therefore, the unfortunate casualties of the government’s experimental testing phase, not the long-term ultimate targets. Civilians are the safe alternative to testing on the real thing where, if the outcome is disastrous, the knock-on effects are limited.
To deploy a bugged British spy to the Pentagon and be rumbled would be a catastrophic embarrassment to the British government and could, in extreme circumstance, damage American and British relations. The Americans would detain the spy, torture him for intelligence and demand a full explanation from the British. If a suitable explanation wasn’t forthcoming, they would consider the death penalty if their security had been compromised. Preliminary testing phases are only extended to those whose identity is inconsequential. Only once a technique has been tried and tested over and over with guaranteed results will it be used on an enemy of the state.
The IS are repeatedly committing crimes in attempts to enhance the safety and security of their country. In this vicious game of silent warfare all casualties are expendable.
THE HUMAN BODY AND PRIVATE HOME IS A SACRED TEMPLE?
Mind-control developments bring into question a number of moralistic issues, which are fundamental in preserving the British legal system and human rights.
Britain has willingly signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, of course, created the British Human Rights Act 1998. The British constitution believes:
- everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person;
- no one shall be held in slavery or servitude – slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms;
- no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
- no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, or to attacks upon his honour and reputation – everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks;
- everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment;
- no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation;
- everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression – this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
The right to privacy grants citizens to live in domestic domicile without interference from the government. Citizens may develop close relationships with whom they wish whether they be social or sexual. The right to undress and bathe oneself in a dignified fashion goes without debate.
Humans are private creatures and in their element when they have unlimited control of their environment. They may control who enters their house, may divulge information about themselves in private conversation, and dictate what they wear and eat. The privately owned house and the goings-on which occur within it give the individual an impression of territory, ownership and power.
Brains enable humans to be independent thinkers; to thrive on the freedoms and opportunities free thought provides. The right to personal autonomy, to develop personal interests, dictate direction and seek stimulus are major components of a healthy, balanced mental state.
MCs work hard to challenge the longstanding assertion that a man’s home environment is sacred ground, that his physical body and psyche are inviolable, and that any proposed manipulation or violation is an unholy adventure. They believe the following.
- It is dangerous for humans to have freedom of thought, as it isn’t always in check with government idealism.
- Humans shouldn’t have a right to privacy if it distorts truth. Who knows what information the average human is concealing?
Unfortunately for the victim, betraying every private thought and intimate moment with government agents is highly likely to traumatise him to the point of severe depression and humiliation and, in an extreme scenario, provoke suicidal thoughts.
Victimisation
Mind control is a form of brain rape and torture; whether the affliction is caused by drug administration, electromagnetic stimulation, brainwashing or the nurture of personality disorders, the end result remains the same. The target is forced to endure continued harassments. IS mind control, in particular, is likened to slavery because the target’s brain and mind are tapped for research against his will. He is helpless to prevent the intrusion and resist the brain’s physical and mental reaction to electrode stimulation.
To date the American Guantanamo military base displays the most public flagrant disregard for human rights where systematic mind control is highly prevalent. Freed captives have accused the CIA of utilising sensory-deprivation and sound-technology techniques to install in them fear and hypnotic suggestions. They’ve been denied physical exercise, exposed to severe temperatures and prevented from prayer and conversation. When captives have disobeyed they have been beaten, kicked, stripped naked, sexually harassed and threatened with dogs. On the odd occasion captives have been doused with urine and threats have been made towards their families if information wasn’t forthcoming in the interrogation room. Slowly but surely the restraints which have kept the human brain and mind inviolable are being eroded by science.
So long as it remains national policy to protect the security of the British nation and its interests, the government will strive to produce mind control techniques that are ever more invasive and efficient. Mind control is such an integrative component of military warfare now that research pertaining to its use is highly classified.
The government, of course, denies that Mind Controllers exist. Exposure of their antics would prove undoubtedly that the government is committing criminal acts against the people it is sworn to protect. Exposure would also make folly of the laws which govern civilised society.
The answer to the problem is certainly clear; MCs are criminals and should be prosecuted as such. Greater openness and education regarding mind control will help aid the legal process and eventual conviction of the perpetrators who wish to make political and financial gain from the suffering of others. It is especially important that those involved in mental health understand mind control methodology and find ways to effectively treat and reverse the prolonged physical and psychological effects endured by victims and their families.
XXX . VX000000 LYER DETECTIVE CIRCUIT ON ELECTRONIC
How to Make a Portable Lie Detector Circuit and Its Working?
The Portable Lie Detector is a device which detects persons, who were telling lies based on the vibrations in their voice. These were developed by using “theory of polygraph”. When any person lying, the pitch of that person’s voice may raise, or it may stutter, these unusual changes will be identified by the lie detector, by considering the voice pattern change from silent to nervous. This kind of portable lie detectors were being developed by Lafayette Instrument Co and Johns Hopkins University. It was deployed to the US Army in Afghanistan during the year 2008.
General Lie Detector Illustration
Most commonly in airports Skin-flush lie detection is used and this will track blood flow in the face and body using thermal cameras. Bradford University and Aberystwyth University developed lie detection system. This system had grabbed plenty of publicity in Britain. A fully integrated lie detector called the Embodied Avatar Kiosk is being tested at US border posts. The ATM-sized kiosk, developed by a consortium led by the University of Arizona, interviews travellers Max Headroom style. Infrared cameras, standard cameras, microphones and touch screens analyse the responses and alert the border security personnel to suspected lies.
How to make a lie detector
You don’t have to look beyond home to find all the components needed for a lie-detector. The Xbox One game console with the latest Kinect sensor is equipped with a hi-res camera, infra-red camera and multiple microphones. It has voice controls, performs face recognition and can track fine body movements, gestures and eye movements.
Voice stress analysis software that infers lies from the tiny inflections and intonations in a speaker’s voice is already applied to phone calls by national security agencies and, excuse me if this makes you uncomfortable, in insurance company call centers. I once listened to a demo where the software emitted a beep, audible only to the operator, whenever a claimant lied. The operator may simply add questions, by concentrated on grabbing the truth. “Are you certain you left the car locked? May be you left the keys in the ignition?”
By combining inputs from the standard and infra-red cameras, it can analyze the skin-flush in your face to accurately monitor heart rate for sports games. Can we utilize it, to infer lies? Definitely, we can by applying the right software.
Computing developments continue to follow steep exponential curves and Moore’s law says it won’t be long before all the requisite sensors and processing power can be packed into a palm-sized device. We already knew that smart phones are made, capable of on-board voice processing. Before long we’ll download serious lie-detector apps (there are already toy ones) to listen in on calls to our boss, or our customers, or lovers.
There is, of course, a whole frontier in lie detection I haven’t touched on. Here I would like to mention neuroscience, brain imaging and memory mapping. Suffice to say that the latest memory imaging research at Carnegie Mellon is profound.
How the Lie Detector Circuit Works
The schematic circuit diagram of the Lie Detector is shown in the below figure. This entire system consists of three transistors TR1, TR2 and TR3, two LED lights L1 & L2, a capacitor C, five resistors R1, R2, R3, R4 & R5 and finally a variable resistor VR1. A small NPN transistor and other transistors like BC547, BC548 or BC549.
Depending on the changes in the person’s skin resistance i.e if they sweats, it means they were lying. This is how the Lie Detector circuit works. Let us have a look into the circuit in which the Resistors R1 and R2 form a voltage divider and it contains resistances of 1 000 000 ohms (1 meg ohms). Those values will be equal as the voltage at the upper probe wire is half the battery voltage i.e., nearly 4.5 volts. Transistors TR1 and TR2 act as a voltage comparator. If the voltage at the base of TR2 is higher than at the base of TR3 then the green LED (L1) will come on. If the reverse is true then the red LED (L2) will light.
Capacitor C1 works in a smooth way and it eliminates the 60Hz induced mains which is noticed on the body of person. TR1 and R3 form a buffer circuit which is called an emitter-follower. The voltage at the emitter of TR1 follows the voltage at the probe wire. This will be capable to drive transistor TR2.
The resistance of dry skin has about 1 million ohms and the resistance of moist skin will be reduced by ten factor or even it may be more.In order to test this Lie Detector you should hold the probe wire ends and now VR1 is adjusted till the green LED is on and the red LED is off. At this point, the voltage at TR2 base will be more than TR3 base. Later you have to use moist fingers to carry the probes. This decreases the resistance of the skin and makes the voltage at TR2 to drop. The voltage at TR3 base is more and the red LED will be on.
A person holding the lie detector probe wires will change the voltage at the upper probe wire depending on the skin resistance. The skin resistance is in parallel with R2 and, because it is likely to be similar to or smaller than R2, the voltage at the probe wire will lower as skin resistance drops.
How to Use the Lie Detector
The Lie Detector requires adjustment before it is used and the detector needs adjustment for every person as the nature of the skin differs from person to person.By touching the two probe wires against the palm of dry hand and the metal ends are not supposed to touch each other. Tune the control VR1 until the red light (FALSE) goes OFF. Now the Lie Detector is now adjusted for person’s skin type. If touch the wires against the palm the red light will be ON. We have to know how the Lie Detector is used to identify real lie.
A simple lie detector that is based on well-known principle of Biofeedback can be designed using this electronic circuit diagram.
This lie detector circuit described eally give two readings: one for the difficult questions and one show subject general emotional state. As electrodes can be used two flexible wires, uninsulated wrapped around the fingers or wrist.
Each change of resistance, and therefore the voltage at the input circuit will be amplified by operational amplifier A1, which is also an upstairs separately corresponding output signal will, by R3, a deviation of the measuring device.
Operational amplifier A2 is connected as an integrator and allows the circuit to automatically adjust according to the average resistance of the skin. The length of time in skin resistance to be measured is determined by R5, C2 and C3. Until this time elapses, the gauge does not give any indication, though diodes D1 and D3 ensure a rapid response of the circuit.
P1 potentiometer allows adjustment of time delay circuit. Because skin resistance varies from person to person, it may be necessary to change the resistance value R1. This resistance can be replaced by a potentiometer. Read a great value to the instrument connected to port B indicates that the subject's skin resistance is low.
This lie detector circuit described eally give two readings: one for the difficult questions and one show subject general emotional state. As electrodes can be used two flexible wires, uninsulated wrapped around the fingers or wrist.
Each change of resistance, and therefore the voltage at the input circuit will be amplified by operational amplifier A1, which is also an upstairs separately corresponding output signal will, by R3, a deviation of the measuring device.
Operational amplifier A2 is connected as an integrator and allows the circuit to automatically adjust according to the average resistance of the skin. The length of time in skin resistance to be measured is determined by R5, C2 and C3. Until this time elapses, the gauge does not give any indication, though diodes D1 and D3 ensure a rapid response of the circuit.
P1 potentiometer allows adjustment of time delay circuit. Because skin resistance varies from person to person, it may be necessary to change the resistance value R1. This resistance can be replaced by a potentiometer. Read a great value to the instrument connected to port B indicates that the subject's skin resistance is low.
Circuit Diagram:
In order to know the lie, you have to touch the two probe wires against the palm and adjust the tuning control as before until the red light just goes out. If the person lies and begins to sweat the red light will show brighter light. But the Lie Detector does not detect every lie because it detects only when the person is sweating. When the person pretends then the detector don’t show any effect.
Specifications of Lie Detector
- Printed Circuit Board dimensions 2″ x 2″ (5.08cm x 5.08cm)
- 9V battery Power supply (not included)
- Electronic kit component assembly
- soldering is required
MSN Search reports revealed by experts show the following
- It is the first voice recognition technology in the Worlds which had been placed on an IC chip.
- This lie detector is easy to use and it gives results instantly.
- By noticing the tension in the voice the Detector shows whether the person is telling the truth or not.
Therefore, this is all about lie detector working and its specifications and that is developed by using the theory of polygraph.
The emotional states are detected not only by heart beat accelaration and trembling hands but also an increase in skin humidity whose resistance decreases causing the entry into operation of the lie detector.
Two electrodes can be used as a flexible wire, bare, wrapped around fingers or wrist.
In order to not influence the measurement result the device must be powered from two 9 Volts batteries.
Each change in resistance, and therefore the voltage at the input circuit will be amplified by operational amplifier A1, which also serves as separator. The output signal will determine, by R3, a deviation of the measuring instrument.
General emotional state of a person can be assessed by measuring the average resistance of the skin over a period of time. The indication is provided by an indicator instrument connected to point B of the circuit. Operational amplifier A2 is connected as an integrator and allows the circuit to automatically adjust according to the average resistance of the skin.
Length of time to measure the skin resistance is determined by R5, C2 and C3. Until such time elapses, the lie detector gives no indication although diodes D1 and D3 provide a rapid response of the circuit.
Human skin lie detector schematic
Potentiometer P1 allows you to adjust the time delay of the circuit. Since skin resistance varies from one person to another, may be necessary to change the resistance value R1. This resistance can be replaced with a potentiometer.
Reading a great value to the instrument connected to the output of B indicates that subject’s skin resistance is low (which is a characteristic of people with sticky hands) and it is advisable to reduce the value of R1.
lie detector components list
R1 = 47K
R2 = 1M
R3 = 3.3K
R4 = 10K
R5 = 10M
P1 = 10K
C1 = 100n
C2 = C3 = 470n
D1 = D2 = 1N4148
IC1 = IC2 = LF356
Augmentation of Brain Function: Facts,
Augmentation of brain function is no longer just a theme of science fiction. Due to advances in neural sciences, it has become a matter of reality that a person may consider at some point in life, for example as a treatment of a neurodegenerative disease. Currently, several approaches offer enhancements for sensory, motor and cognitive brain functions, as well as for mood and emotions. Such enhancements may be achieved pharmacologically, using brain implants for recordings, stimulation and drug delivery, by employing brain-machine interfaces, or even by ablation of certain brain areas
also general enough to be interesting to a broad readership. We thought the topic could cover various approaches to improving brain function in patients and healthy persons.
Until recently, the idea of brain augmentation was entertained mostly by science fiction. However, with the rapid development of neuroscience and related technological and medical fields, many of the science fiction themes are becoming real, such as reading out brain content, sending information to the brain, interconnecting different brains, adding artificial parts to the brain, etc. Judging from the publications in popular press, all these ideas and their technological implementations are of great interest to the public. So, we wanted to complement the existing scientific and popular literature with a collection of articles that would cover different approaches to brain augmentation – from BMIs and neuropharmacology to philosophy and ethical issues – and critically evaluate those methods.
In 1948 Norbert Weiner published a book, CYBERNETICS, defined as a neurological communication and control theory already in use in small circles at that time. Yoneji Masuda, “Father of Information Society,” stated his concern in 1980 that our liberty is threatened Orwellian-style by cybernetic technology totally unknown to most people. This technology links the brains of people via implanted microchips to satellites controlled by ground-based super-computers.
The first brain implants were surgically inserted in 1974 in the state of Ohio, U.S.A., and also in Stockholm, Sweden. Brain electrodes were inserted into the skulls of babies in 1946 without the knowledge of their parents. In the 50’s and 60’s, electrical implants were inserted into the brains of animals and humans, especially in the U.S., during research into behavior modification, and brain and body functioning. Mind control (MC) methods were used in attempts to change human behavior and attitudes. Influencing brain functions became an important goal of military and intelligence services. Thirty years ago brain implants showed up in xrays the size of one centimeter. Subsequent implants shrunk to the size of a grain of rice. They were made of silicon, later still of gallium arsenide. Today they are small enough to be inserted into the neck or back, and also intravenously in different parts of the body during surgical operations, with or without the consent of the subject. It is now almost impossible to detect or remove them.
It is technically possible for every newborn to be injected with a microchip, which could then function to identify the person for the rest of his or her life. Such plans are secretly being discussed in the U.S. without any public airing of the privacy issues involved.
In Sweden, Prime Minister Olof Palme gave permission in 1973 to implant prisoners, and Data Inspection’s ex-Director General Jan Freese revealed that nursing-home patients were implanted in the mid- 1980’s. The technology is revealed in the 1972:47 Swedish state report, STATENS OFFICIELLA UTRADNINGER (SOU).
Implanted human beings can be followed anywhere. Their brain functions can then be remotely monitored by supercomputers and even altered through the changing of frequencies. Guinea-pigs in secret experiments have included prisoners, soldiers, mental patients, handicapped children, deaf and blind people, homosexuals, single women, the elderly, school children and any group of people considered “marginal” by the elite experimenters. The published experiences of prisoners in Utah State Prison, for example, are shocking to the conscience.
Today’s microchips operate by means of low-frequency radio waves that target them. With the help of satellites, the implanted person can be tracked anywhere on the globe. Such a technique was among a number tested in the Iraq war, according to Dr. Carl Sanders, who invented the intelligence-manned interface (IMI) biotic, which is injected into people. (Earlier during the Vietnam War, soldiers were injected with the Rambo chip, designed to increase adrenaline flow into the bloodstream.) The U.S. National Security Agency’s (NSA) 20 billion bits/second supercomputers could now “see and hear” what soldiers experience in the battlefield with a remote monitoring system (RMS). When a 5-micromillimeter microchip (the diameter of a strand of hair is 50 micromillometers) is placed into optical nerve of the eye, it draws neuroimpulses from the brain that embody the experiences, smells, sights and voice of the implanted person. Once transferred and stored in a computer, these neuroimpulses can be projected back to the person’s brain via the microchip to be re-experienced. Using a RMS, a land-based computer operator can send electromagnetic messages (encoded as signals) to the nervous system, affecting the target’s performance. With RMS, healthy persons can be induced to see hallucinations and to hear voices in their heads. Every thought, reaction, hearing and visual observation causes a certain neurological potential, spikes, and patterns in the brain and its electromagnetic fields, which can now be decoded into thoughts, pictures and voices. Electromagnetic stimulation can therefore change a person’s brainwaves and affect muscular activity, causing painful muscular cramps experienced as torture.
The NSA’s electronic surveillance system can simultaneously follow and handle millions of people. Each of us has a unique bioelectrical resonance frequency in the brain, just like we have unique fingerprints. With electro-magnetic frequency (EMF) brain stimulation fully coded, pulsating electromagnetic signals can be sent to the brain, causing the desired voice and visual effects to be experienced by the target. This is a form of electronic warfare. U.S. astronauts were implanted before they were sent into space so their thoughts could be followed and all their emotions could be registered 24 hours a day.
The Washington Post reported in May 1995 that Prince William of Great Britain was implanted at the age of 12. Thus, if he were ever kidnapped, a radiowave with a specific frequency could be targeted to his microchip. The chip’s signal would be routed through a satellite to the computer screen of police headquarters, where the Prince’s movements could be followed. He could actually be located anywhere on the globe.
The mass media have not reported that an implanted person’s privacy vanishes for the rest of his or her life. S/he can be manipulated in many ways. Using different frequencies, the secret controller of this equipment can even change a person’s emotional life. S/he can be made aggressive or lethargic. Sexuality can be artificially influenced. Thought signals and subconscious thinking can be read, dreams affected and even induced, all without the knowledge or consent of the implanted person. A perfect cyber-soldier can thus be created. This secret technology has been used by military forces in certain NATO countries since the 1980’s without civilian and academic populations having heard anything about it. Thus, little information about such invasive mind-control systems is available in professional and academic journals. The NSA’s Signals Intelligence can remotely monitor information from human brains by decoding the evoked potentials (3.50HZ, 5 milliwatt) emitted by the brain. Prisoner experimentees in both Gothenburg, Sweden and Vienna, Austria have been found to have [missing word] brain lesions. Diminished blood circulation and lack of oxygen in the right temporal frontal lobes result where brain implants are usually operative. A Finnish experimentee experienced brain atrophy and intermittent attacks of unconsciousness due to lack of oxygen. Mind control techniques can be used for political purposes.
The goal of mind controllers today is to induce the targeted persons or groups to act against his or her own convictions and best interests. Zombified individuals can even be programmed to murder and remember nothing of their crime afterward. Alarming examples of this phenomenon can be found in the U.S. This “silent war” is being conducted against unknowing civilians and soldiers by military and intelligence agencies. Since 1980 electronic stimulation of the brain (ESB) has been secretly used to control people targeted without their knowledge or consent.
All international human rights agreements forbid nonconsensual manipulation of human beings — even in prisons, not to speak of civilian populations. Under an initiative of U.S. Senator John Glenn, discussions commenced in January 1997 about the dangers of radiating civilian populations. Targeting people’s brain functions with electromagnetic fields and beams (from helicopters and airplanes, satellites, from parked white vans, neighboring houses, telephone poles, electrical appliances, mobil phones, TV, radio, etc.), is part of the radiation problem that should be addressed in democratically elected government bodies. In addition to electronic MC, chemical methods have also been developed. Mind-altering drugs and different smelling gasses affecting brain function negatively can be injected into air ducts or water pipes. Also, bacteria and viruses have been tested this way in several countries.
Today’s supertechnology, connecting our brain functions via microchips (or even without them, according to the latest technology) to computers via satellites in the U.S. or Israel, poses the gravest threat to humanity. The latest supercomputers are powerful enough to monitor the whole world’s population. What will happen when people are tempted by false premises to allow microchips into their bodies? One lure will be a microchip identity card. Compulsory legislation has even been secretly proposed in the U.S. to criminalize removal of an ID implant. Are we ready for the robotization of mankind and the total elimination of privacy, including freedom of thought? How many of us would want to cede our entire life, including our most secret thoughts, to Big Brother? Yet the technology exists to create a totalitarian “New World Order loop .”
Covert neurological communication systems are in place to counteract independent thinking and to control social and political activity on behalf of self-serving private and military interests. When our brain functions are already is connected to supercomputers by means of radio implants and microchips, it will be too late for protest. This threat can be defeated only by educating the public, using available literature on biotelemetry and information exchanged at international congresses. One reason this technology has remained a state secret is the widespread prestige of the psychiatric DIAGNOSTIC STATISTICAL MANUAL IV produced by the U.S. American Psychiatric Association (APA), and printed in 18 languages. Psychiatrists working for U.S. intelligence agencies no doubt participated in writing and revising this manual. This psychiatric “bible” covers up the secret development of MC technologies by labelling some of their effects as symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. Victims of mind control experimentation are thus routinely diagnosed, knee-jerk fashion, as mentally ill by doctors who learned the DSM “symptom” list in medical school. Physicians have not been schooled that patients may be telling the truth when they report being targeted against their will or being used as guinea pigs for electronic, chemical and bacteriological forms of psychological warfare.
Time is running out for changing the direction of military medicine, and ensuring the future of human freedom.
Silicon detectors in High Energy Physics experiments
Silicon detectors are widely used in experiments in particle physics. The application of this detector technology is mostly for tracking detectors, i.e. detectors which measure the position of charged particles. From this information, track reconstruction software from the experiments deduces many parameters. These parameters include not only the flight path of particles, but also the momentum of the particle through the curvature in a magnetic field, the vertex of the interaction and possibly a decay vertex, called a secondary vertex, from particles with long lifetimes (e.g. a tau particle, or a hadron containing a b-quark). In some experiments silicon detectors are used as the active layers in sampling calorimeters. This field of application might become increasingly important with the necessity to have high grain calorimeters to be used by the so-called particle flow reconstruction algorithm.
The first ever silicon microstrip strip detector for particle physics, a surface barrier sensor, was tested in 1980 (Heijne, 1980) and the first silicon detectors using the planar technology and implanted strips were installed in the NA11 fixed target experiment at CERN in 1983 (Hyams, 1983). With the signals from this silicon microstrip detector the decay of particles containing a c-quark was tagged and subsequently the first measurement of the decay time and the mass of D-mesons was performed.
Working Principle
The large majority of silicon detectors used presently are realized as so-called planar structures. This indicates the common production process in semiconductor industry, whereby in subsequent production steps the surface of a silicon wafer is structured with a photolithographic process and then treated by etching, implantation, material deposition, etc. Many of these “planar” process steps are followed after each other to achieve the required structures.The bulk material is either an n- or p-doped silicon wafer, typically produced by the float zone (FZ) process which enables the production of silicon ingots with high specific resistivity (> 1 kΩ⋅cm). In the future material produced by the Czochralsky (Cz) or Magnetic Czochralski (MCz) process could become of interest in experiments within an extreme radiation environment, due to the higher oxygen content which is beneficial for the radiation tolerance. In single-sided detectors, one side of the wafer is then structured (e.g. into strips or pixels) with implantation of the opposite charges. For example, p+ doping in n-type wafers and n+ doping in p-type wafers. These shallow implanted regions form a pn-junction with the bulk material – a diode structure. To create a deep depletion zone, void of free charge carriers, an external reverse bias voltage must be applied. The depth of this depletion zone in the bulk and in the implant region can be calculated as
Silicon usually contains both n-type and p-type impurities, hence
For a typical n-type detector with a thickness of 300 µm and a specific resistivity of 1 kΩ⋅cm the depletion voltage is approximately 300 V (see also figure 3).
At the depletion voltage or above, the full volume of the detector is sensitive to charged particles, which create electron-hole pairs along their path through the bulk. The electric field created by the reverse bias voltage separates the electron-hole pairs before they recombine again, and the electrons (holes) drift through the bulk to the positive (negative) voltage connection. The drift of these charges correspond to a current pulse, which is measured by external electronics.
Strip Detectors
In silicon strip detectors the implants are thin strips (typically around 20 µm wide with an interstrip distance of 50 -100 µm). A sketch of such a detector is shown in figure 4. In this example a sensor with n-doped bulk is explained. The cut through the structure shows the p+-implants on top, covered by single or multiple layers of an insulator (SiO2 and usually a second layer of Si3N4), and an aluminum layer on top. The input of an amplifier is connected to the aluminum pad. The insulation layers form an integrated capacitor, which blocks the leakage current of the strips, but allows the high frequency signal to pass. This structure is called an AC coupling. The backside of the detector is heavily n+ doped and also covered by an aluminum layer. The doped region together with the aluminum layer allow for a proper ohmic contact to the backside.
Hybrid Pixel Detectors
In parallel to increasingly sophisticated strip detectors hybrid pixel detectors were developed. The implants in these detectors are small pixels rather than strips, with dimensions such as 100x150 μm2. The difficulty of these devices lies in the connection of the large number of pixels to the individual electronic channels. Each pixel of the sensor, realized on high-resistivity silicon material, has to be electrically connected to the corresponding input channel of the electronics chip. In hybrid pixel detectors these connections are done by a process called bump bonding.
Other Sensor Structures
Apart from strip and hybrid pixel detectors, which make the majority of detectors used in high energy physics experiments a large number of variants have been developed. Driven by the fact that hybrid pixel detectors are complex assemblies with large number of connections and also require a significant amount of material, several groups have developed monolithic pixel detectors. These detectors combine the sensor volume and the first electronics stage within one device. In the following example some of these structures will be introduced with references to more details.Charged Coupled Devices (CCD) have been in use for a long time in high energy physics experiments and in astronomy. CCDs have shallow depletion regions and collect electrons by diffusion. These electrons are then shifted through the columns and through a final row to a single readout channel. Consequently, the readout is slow and the device may be only used where speed is not critical (Abe, 1997).
Other monolithic detector structures are:
Monolithic Active Pixel Sensors (MAPS) use an n-channel MOSFET transistors (NMOS) embedded in an epitaxial p-layer similar to standard CMOS chips. The n-well of the transistor collects the electrons generated by charged particles from a thin depletion layer through diffusion only (Turchetta, 2001). A deeper depletion layer and hence larger signals can be achieved by applying higher bias voltages or by the use of high resistivity epitaxial layers. In these structures, named HV-CMOS and HR-CMOS, the electrons are collected through drift (Peric, 2007).
The Silicon on Insulator (SoI) sensors overcome the problem of the low signal from only partially depleted sensors by combining a high resistivity silicon sensor wafer with a low resistivity electronics wafer, being chemically bonded together. The transistors implemented in the electronics wafer are connected to the implant of the sensors, which is fully depleted (Arai, 2010; Marczewski, 2005).
A Silicon Drift Detector (SDD) has parallel p+ strips on both sides of the high resistivity n doped wafer. Created electrons accumulate in a potential valley within the bulk and are transferred during readout to the anodes. The two dimensional measurement comes from the strip signal and from the measurement of the drift time of the electrons to the anode (2nd coordinate) (Rehak, 1986).
Also in DEPFET (Depleted P-channel Field Effect Transistor) detectors a potential valley for electrons is created underneath the p+ strips within the n bulk. The accumulated electrons however drift underneath the gate of a field effect transistor and modify the source drain current. The DEPFET detector has therefore a built-in amplification. Following the readout the accumulated electrons have to be swept away by an active clear (Kemmer, Lutz, 1987).
Another development are 3D detectors (Parker, Kenney, Segal, 1997). These detectors employ a different concept, in the sense that the depletion does not develop from horizontal implants, but from vertical columns etched into the bulk. These columns are filled with n+ and p+ doped material. The advantage of 3D detectors is the small distance between the columns and hence the smaller depletion voltage needed for operation. Consequently lower voltages are needed for highly irradiated sensors, which leads to higher radiation tolerance – the main motivation to use 3D sensors.
Silicon Detectors under Radiation
Silicon detectors are very radiation tolerant and in many cases the only possible choice for detectors in areas of very high radiation, for example in the inner region of hadron collider experiments. This, however, does not mean that silicon is not damaged by radiation. Depending on the type of radiation one does observe the following effects.Light particles, such as electrons, positrons and photons create permanent charges within the amorphous silicon on the surface of the sensors, which alters the potentials in the interface between the silicon dioxide and the silicon. In a typical sensor this leads for example to an increase of the interstrip capacitances. These particles, however, very rarely damage the monocrystalline structure in the bulk, due to the rather low energy transfer.
Heavy particles such as protons, neutrons and pions have enough energy to also dislocate silicon atoms from their places in the silicon lattice. These defects can be simple empty lattice locations (vacancies) or silicon atoms between lattice locations (interstitials), or more complex defects also in connection with impurity atoms present in the bulk. Very hard impacts can even produce cluster defects, involving and dislocating as many as 100 silicon atoms. All defects in common is the introduction of new energy levels within the band gap between the valence band and the conduction band of the semiconductor. These additional levels are the cause for the change of detector parameters, i.e. the increase of the leakage current, the modification of the effective doping concentration, and the creation of trapping centers reducing the lifetime of the charge carriers.
The increase of the leakage current can be well described by the formula
In the present LHC experiments the detectors are designed to withstand the radiation of about 10 years of operation and an accumulated fluence of about 1014 particles/cm2. For the upgrade of the tracking detectors of the LHC experiments it is envisaged to use sensors on p-type material, thus avoiding type inversion. For future experiments with even higher radiation loads the development of silicon materials with greater oxygen content, which reduces the increase of the effective doping concentration, or the development of special structures, such as 3D detectors, is ongoing.
how Alien Implant Removals: who do ? Before and After Effects
Several years after the surgical removal of their alleged alien implants, five individuals courageously accepted to take part in an interview to discuss their “before and after effects”. All persons, one male and four females, shared one thing in common: UFO encounters and contact with non-human alien beings.
Dr. Roger Leir, a podiatrist from Thousand Oaks, California, founder of FIRST (Fund for Interactive Research and Space Technology) and Derrel Sims, C.Ht., R.H.A., a certified hypnotherapist , co-founder of FIRST and experienced UFO Investigator of over 27 year, orchestrated the successful surgeries with a team of competent medical professionals and volunteers. The first set of “implant” surgeries took place on August 19, 1995 at Dr. Roger Leir’s podiatry clinic in Thousand Oaks, California.
Dr. Roger Leir, a podiatrist from Thousand Oaks, California, founder of FIRST (Fund for Interactive Research and Space Technology) and Derrel Sims, C.Ht., R.H.A., a certified hypnotherapist , co-founder of FIRST and experienced UFO Investigator of over 27 year, orchestrated the successful surgeries with a team of competent medical professionals and volunteers. The first set of “implant” surgeries took place on August 19, 1995 at Dr. Roger Leir’s podiatry clinic in Thousand Oaks, California.
Pat Parrinellio, a 47 year old male from Houston, Texas, and Mary Jones (a pseudonym) 52, also from Texas, had the anomalous objects appear in X- rays, although both UFO experiencers had no record of previous surgeries. Both individuals were investigated by Derrel Sims of HUFON (Chief Investigator for Houston UFO Network) and referred to Dr. Roger Leir for surgery, based on their past UFO encounters and X-rays which confirmed the anomalous objects. Pat’s object was removed from the back of his left hand, and Mary’s objects excised from her left big toe. All services were performed free of charge.
The alleged implants removed from the first set of surgeries were studied by two different pathologists, and then sent to various independent laboratories for extensive scientific analysis. The tests performed on these alleged alien implants were: a pathology/tissue evaluation, laser induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS), extensive metallurgical testing involving a density immersion test, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction pattern analysis and electron/magnetic and fluorescence property analysis. Isotopic range tests are also in progress. Tests were conducted by the National Institute of Discovery of Science (NIDS), New Mexico Tech, and other independent sources.
But that is not all. While these unusual objects were being evaluated for scientific study, another set of implant surgeries took place on May 18, 1996. Two women from this second set of surgeries came forward for this interview and follow up study. Dorothy O’Hara, a 61 year old female from Palm Springs, California, and Alice Leavy , 40, from Newberry Park, California, each had similar objects removed from their left lower leg. Another woman, Licia Davidson, 37, who has had numerous UFO and alien encounters, had a rare, crystalline-like object removed from her foot in January of 1997.
The alleged implants removed from the first set of surgeries were studied by two different pathologists, and then sent to various independent laboratories for extensive scientific analysis. The tests performed on these alleged alien implants were: a pathology/tissue evaluation, laser induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS), extensive metallurgical testing involving a density immersion test, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction pattern analysis and electron/magnetic and fluorescence property analysis. Isotopic range tests are also in progress. Tests were conducted by the National Institute of Discovery of Science (NIDS), New Mexico Tech, and other independent sources.
But that is not all. While these unusual objects were being evaluated for scientific study, another set of implant surgeries took place on May 18, 1996. Two women from this second set of surgeries came forward for this interview and follow up study. Dorothy O’Hara, a 61 year old female from Palm Springs, California, and Alice Leavy , 40, from Newberry Park, California, each had similar objects removed from their left lower leg. Another woman, Licia Davidson, 37, who has had numerous UFO and alien encounters, had a rare, crystalline-like object removed from her foot in January of 1997.
Findings
“The findings of these implant surgeries are highly unusual,” reported Dr. Leir. “In all these cases, there was virtually no inflammatory response.” This is not the usual finding in foreign tissue reactions. Normally, foreign bodies embedded in tissues result in some type of acute or chronic inflammatory response, and may include fibrosis and cyst formation. Such was not the case here. The pathology reports of the first two surgeries revealed that the metallic objects were encased in a very dense, tough, grey membrane consisting of proteinaceous coagulum, hemoseridin and pure keratin. More simply, blood protein and skin cells that are usually found in the superficial layer of the skin. The tough, biological “cocoons” encasing the implants were also found to contain nerve proprioceptors – nerve and pressure cells of the wrong tissue type for that part of the body. These implant cocoons also fluoresced a bright green color in the presence of an ultraviolet light source.
The implants from the two women from the second set of surgeries did not exhibit metallic properties like the implants from the first set of surgeries. In fact, the spheroid, whitish objects did not contain the tough, biological outer jackets, or fluoresce from a UV light source. These types of implants (possibly biological) also lacked the expected inflammatory response, according to the pathology reports. The crystalline-like object excised from the foot in the most recent surgery, also lacked the tough, grey, outer membrane and had virtually no inflammatory response, as in the other implant surgeries. Test results from the first set of implants revealed that the lammelar, needle shaped metallic objects in question are basically meteoric in origin, containing at least eleven different elements.
In an interview with Alien Encounters Magazine, (July 1997 issue, United Kingdom) Derrel Sims commented on the uncommon, non-rejecting human response to the implants: “It seems that the dense fibrous membrane may have been the person’s own surface skin. If this is the case, it appears that the metallic objects are wrapped in a sheath of keratinaceous material (surface skin). Nerve fibers then surround the tissue and appear to be attached to larger nerves. The fact that both persons (from the first set of surgeries) objected verbally and physically could be an indication of this (nervous system) connection.” Mr. Sims believes the indications are very strong that these implants are extraterrestrial in origin. “But”, Mr. Sims concedes, “Whatever the scientists say who have examined the objects say, is what we will say.” Derrel Sims has stated that a scientific peer review of all tests must be done before more specifics can be released. This is the standard course of action taken in any scientific endeavor.
Scientific evaluation is our best ally, but the experiences and opinions of the courageous individuals involved in these implant surgeries are equally important. A series of simple questions were posed to each of the participants. When asked as to how and when their implants might have been inserted, Pat Parrinellio from Houston, Texas believed his implant could have been inserted during a UFO encounter he had in 1954, at six years of age . Mary Jones recalls two UFO encounters when her metallic objects could have been implanted, in 1969. “In the first frightening UFO encounter”, Mary commented, “I was on a camping trip with my family while pregnant with my third child.” Oddly enough, one month after Mary’s child was born, she had another alien encounter while at home during the night. Conversely, Dorothy O’Hara from Palm Springs, California and Licia Davidson also from California both replied, “I have no idea when the object was inserted.” Alice Leavy commented that she first noticed the lump on her leg following a UFO encounter involving other witnesses in San Diego, in 1993. “I actually noticed the lump” Alice clarified, “when I discovered the scoop mark also on my left leg, after the UFO encounter.”
If the alien “abductors” are responsible for implanting objects in the bodies of their abductees, then are the aliens cognizant of the fact that the implants have been removed? So the next question was posed, “Did you experience any UFO sightings, alien abductions, odd dreams, missing time or paranormal events just prior to, or after the implant surgery? (within a month)” Pat Parinellio revealed, “Yes, an unusual set of events took place with another witness involving an orange glowing UFO one evening about a week before the surgery. After the surgery, I noticed that my psychic abilities seemed to decrease.”
Dorothy replied, “About a week before the surgery I had a dream-like, abduction experience involving many other people in a large locker room type facility, waiting in line for what seemed to be a shot in the backs of our necks. Also, right before an appointment to meet one of Derrel Sims’ associates for an interview (regarding the implant surgery), I and another women had a strange experience. It was like getting stuck in a time warp. I ended up being very late for the appointment. And then, late one evening after I returned from the surgery, I had an alien encounter, that I couldn’t clearly recall.”
Both Licia and Alice did not recall any unusual events soon before or after the implant surgery. Mary experienced a rare, pain and swelling in her toe and foot about a week before the surgery. “At that time”, Mary revealed, “I knew exactly where the objects were in my foot, I could feel them.” Prior to that, Mary had no pain or sensations of that kind in her toe. “What was really strange,” Mary admitted, “was that the moment I stepped out of the car to meet Derrel Sims just prior to the surgery, my pain stopped.”
The real question one may wonder about is: Now that the implants have been removed, will the aliens continue to come back and abduct the abductees? All individuals except Mary Jones were able to answer with a resounding, “Yes”. Alice elaborated on an abduction she had two months after the implant surgery, “I retired to bed early due to a headache. My husband awoke at 1:00 am because the whole bedroom lit up like daylight. He looked at the clock, reached over to touch me and found that I was gone. Paradoxically, my husband quickly went back to sleep. The next day I felt very ill. I don’t recall anything during the night, but I noticed the next day that my dog had nervously clawed several areas in the house, as if he were trying to escape something frightening.”
As to changes in health, mood, dreams or psychic phenomena after the surgery, all five agreed as to some type of change. Mary Jones simply stated that she felt a sense of peace after her objects were removed. Dorothy commented, “I felt a tremendous sense of relief after the surgery.” Licia remarked, “Yes, I had a dramatic and immediate mood lift after the object was removed from my foot. I also stopped having the pain and the weird, watery sensation surrounding my foot.”
The most striking changes were noted by Dorothy. ” I had a severe diuretic effect and lost much water weight a week following the surgery. Then my health progressively worsened and I developed angina and edema. This heart problem was a recurring complication from a previous illness I had in my late twenties. I also experienced extreme fatigue, and could not concentrate. The illness lasted about a month, after which my energy and health returned with more vigor. My creativity and mental clarity improved remarkably. ( I am a writer) I had a startling improvement in my memory where I was able to recall a previous alien abduction experience from 1991. In other words, it was the first time I was able to pierce through a screen memory from an abduction, although it took me three days to process the memory. It was difficult mentally and emotionally. In hindsight, after the implant surgery and recovery from illness, I felt detoxified.” Pat, on the other hand, noticed a more subjective change and simply stated, “Yes, a part of me which remains hidden has undergone quite a few changes of paradigms.”
Alice and Dorothy shared a common symptom several months after their surgeries. Alice remarked, “About eight months afterwards, I had shooting pains in my left leg and noticed the implant scar turned bright red and hurt, and lasted for about a week. Also, around that same time period I had a strong, precognitive vision that later came true in exact detail.” Dorothy added, “Yes, I also noticed a strange reaction in my leg and implant scar about six months after the surgery. I felt shooting pains in my left leg, especially at the implant site. The incision scar turned bright red for about a month.”
Could these changes in each of the individuals interviewed alter their views of the UFO phenomena after the fact? Pat admitted he was basically in denial about the UFO abduction phenomena previous to the surgery. “And yet,” Pat stated, “it seems like the more one becomes aware of the fact, the more I realize that I don’t know anything. But I do sense that something is accelerating.” Dorothy concurred with Pat in that she formerly believed the UFO phenomena was all nonsense. Afterwards Dorothy realized, “I have been able to work through many issues in my life, now that I am no longer in denial. Now I have a more practical and spiritual approach to life, and am more concerned with helping others in a practical sense, not promoting some New Age or metaphysical philosophy.” Mary also admitted she had no interest or knowledge of the UFO abduction phenomena previously.
“Even now,” Mary added, ” I have no real interest in the UFO topic, yet cannot deny there is something to it.” Both Licia and Alice had a good knowledge and belief in the UFO abduction field. Licia stated that her views have not really changed. “The best way I can describe it,” Licia explained, “is that I have had a real powerful, extreme source of the highest of highs and the lowest of lows.” Alice admitted, “Previously, I felt the aliens were possibly evil. Now, after the surgery and as life and my abductions continue, I think the aliens just have a job to do. It’s not a good job. I think they are just following orders.”
So, is the UFO community at large telling the whole truth about what really happens to abductees? Pat says, “Truth is subjective. I know there are a few researchers who are holding to the narrow line of finding out what is going on.” Alice agreed that for the most part, the abduction researchers are reporting things as they are experienced, but for one small exception. Some top researchers are not mentioning the apparent military involvement. Licia concurred with Alice, “Top researchers are touching on the major issues, but in my opinion, do not want to get involved in the government end of it.” Dorothy forthrightly stated, “Many people in the UFO community have their head in the clouds and believe in an overly benevolent, fanciful spiritual philosophy. There is not enough critical analysis. I have learned more from one on one conversations with other abductees than from the public lecture circuit.” As to the US government covering up UFO facts from the general public, all individuals agreed. Alice concluded, “Yes, especially the Roswell, New Mexico UFO incident of 1947.
Most of the implantees described noteworthy mental, psychic or health related changes following their implant surgeries. Four of them reported a continuation of some type of alien abduction activity. The two women who had the “biological” type implants removed, experienced strikingly similar post surgical changes, involving shooting pains and reddening of the incision scar for a short period of time.
The important thing to consider here, is the whole clinical picture. Over reliance on the physical test results of the implants alone are not substantial enough to solve the implant mystery – let alone the question of the alien presence. If not, then what is? The lives and experiences of the abductees themselves, tell us that we need to stop and listen. The answer lies somewhere in between science and the hearts of the people.
The implants from the two women from the second set of surgeries did not exhibit metallic properties like the implants from the first set of surgeries. In fact, the spheroid, whitish objects did not contain the tough, biological outer jackets, or fluoresce from a UV light source. These types of implants (possibly biological) also lacked the expected inflammatory response, according to the pathology reports. The crystalline-like object excised from the foot in the most recent surgery, also lacked the tough, grey, outer membrane and had virtually no inflammatory response, as in the other implant surgeries. Test results from the first set of implants revealed that the lammelar, needle shaped metallic objects in question are basically meteoric in origin, containing at least eleven different elements.
In an interview with Alien Encounters Magazine, (July 1997 issue, United Kingdom) Derrel Sims commented on the uncommon, non-rejecting human response to the implants: “It seems that the dense fibrous membrane may have been the person’s own surface skin. If this is the case, it appears that the metallic objects are wrapped in a sheath of keratinaceous material (surface skin). Nerve fibers then surround the tissue and appear to be attached to larger nerves. The fact that both persons (from the first set of surgeries) objected verbally and physically could be an indication of this (nervous system) connection.” Mr. Sims believes the indications are very strong that these implants are extraterrestrial in origin. “But”, Mr. Sims concedes, “Whatever the scientists say who have examined the objects say, is what we will say.” Derrel Sims has stated that a scientific peer review of all tests must be done before more specifics can be released. This is the standard course of action taken in any scientific endeavor.
Scientific evaluation is our best ally, but the experiences and opinions of the courageous individuals involved in these implant surgeries are equally important. A series of simple questions were posed to each of the participants. When asked as to how and when their implants might have been inserted, Pat Parrinellio from Houston, Texas believed his implant could have been inserted during a UFO encounter he had in 1954, at six years of age . Mary Jones recalls two UFO encounters when her metallic objects could have been implanted, in 1969. “In the first frightening UFO encounter”, Mary commented, “I was on a camping trip with my family while pregnant with my third child.” Oddly enough, one month after Mary’s child was born, she had another alien encounter while at home during the night. Conversely, Dorothy O’Hara from Palm Springs, California and Licia Davidson also from California both replied, “I have no idea when the object was inserted.” Alice Leavy commented that she first noticed the lump on her leg following a UFO encounter involving other witnesses in San Diego, in 1993. “I actually noticed the lump” Alice clarified, “when I discovered the scoop mark also on my left leg, after the UFO encounter.”
If the alien “abductors” are responsible for implanting objects in the bodies of their abductees, then are the aliens cognizant of the fact that the implants have been removed? So the next question was posed, “Did you experience any UFO sightings, alien abductions, odd dreams, missing time or paranormal events just prior to, or after the implant surgery? (within a month)” Pat Parinellio revealed, “Yes, an unusual set of events took place with another witness involving an orange glowing UFO one evening about a week before the surgery. After the surgery, I noticed that my psychic abilities seemed to decrease.”
Dorothy replied, “About a week before the surgery I had a dream-like, abduction experience involving many other people in a large locker room type facility, waiting in line for what seemed to be a shot in the backs of our necks. Also, right before an appointment to meet one of Derrel Sims’ associates for an interview (regarding the implant surgery), I and another women had a strange experience. It was like getting stuck in a time warp. I ended up being very late for the appointment. And then, late one evening after I returned from the surgery, I had an alien encounter, that I couldn’t clearly recall.”
Both Licia and Alice did not recall any unusual events soon before or after the implant surgery. Mary experienced a rare, pain and swelling in her toe and foot about a week before the surgery. “At that time”, Mary revealed, “I knew exactly where the objects were in my foot, I could feel them.” Prior to that, Mary had no pain or sensations of that kind in her toe. “What was really strange,” Mary admitted, “was that the moment I stepped out of the car to meet Derrel Sims just prior to the surgery, my pain stopped.”
The real question one may wonder about is: Now that the implants have been removed, will the aliens continue to come back and abduct the abductees? All individuals except Mary Jones were able to answer with a resounding, “Yes”. Alice elaborated on an abduction she had two months after the implant surgery, “I retired to bed early due to a headache. My husband awoke at 1:00 am because the whole bedroom lit up like daylight. He looked at the clock, reached over to touch me and found that I was gone. Paradoxically, my husband quickly went back to sleep. The next day I felt very ill. I don’t recall anything during the night, but I noticed the next day that my dog had nervously clawed several areas in the house, as if he were trying to escape something frightening.”
As to changes in health, mood, dreams or psychic phenomena after the surgery, all five agreed as to some type of change. Mary Jones simply stated that she felt a sense of peace after her objects were removed. Dorothy commented, “I felt a tremendous sense of relief after the surgery.” Licia remarked, “Yes, I had a dramatic and immediate mood lift after the object was removed from my foot. I also stopped having the pain and the weird, watery sensation surrounding my foot.”
The most striking changes were noted by Dorothy. ” I had a severe diuretic effect and lost much water weight a week following the surgery. Then my health progressively worsened and I developed angina and edema. This heart problem was a recurring complication from a previous illness I had in my late twenties. I also experienced extreme fatigue, and could not concentrate. The illness lasted about a month, after which my energy and health returned with more vigor. My creativity and mental clarity improved remarkably. ( I am a writer) I had a startling improvement in my memory where I was able to recall a previous alien abduction experience from 1991. In other words, it was the first time I was able to pierce through a screen memory from an abduction, although it took me three days to process the memory. It was difficult mentally and emotionally. In hindsight, after the implant surgery and recovery from illness, I felt detoxified.” Pat, on the other hand, noticed a more subjective change and simply stated, “Yes, a part of me which remains hidden has undergone quite a few changes of paradigms.”
Alice and Dorothy shared a common symptom several months after their surgeries. Alice remarked, “About eight months afterwards, I had shooting pains in my left leg and noticed the implant scar turned bright red and hurt, and lasted for about a week. Also, around that same time period I had a strong, precognitive vision that later came true in exact detail.” Dorothy added, “Yes, I also noticed a strange reaction in my leg and implant scar about six months after the surgery. I felt shooting pains in my left leg, especially at the implant site. The incision scar turned bright red for about a month.”
Could these changes in each of the individuals interviewed alter their views of the UFO phenomena after the fact? Pat admitted he was basically in denial about the UFO abduction phenomena previous to the surgery. “And yet,” Pat stated, “it seems like the more one becomes aware of the fact, the more I realize that I don’t know anything. But I do sense that something is accelerating.” Dorothy concurred with Pat in that she formerly believed the UFO phenomena was all nonsense. Afterwards Dorothy realized, “I have been able to work through many issues in my life, now that I am no longer in denial. Now I have a more practical and spiritual approach to life, and am more concerned with helping others in a practical sense, not promoting some New Age or metaphysical philosophy.” Mary also admitted she had no interest or knowledge of the UFO abduction phenomena previously.
“Even now,” Mary added, ” I have no real interest in the UFO topic, yet cannot deny there is something to it.” Both Licia and Alice had a good knowledge and belief in the UFO abduction field. Licia stated that her views have not really changed. “The best way I can describe it,” Licia explained, “is that I have had a real powerful, extreme source of the highest of highs and the lowest of lows.” Alice admitted, “Previously, I felt the aliens were possibly evil. Now, after the surgery and as life and my abductions continue, I think the aliens just have a job to do. It’s not a good job. I think they are just following orders.”
So, is the UFO community at large telling the whole truth about what really happens to abductees? Pat says, “Truth is subjective. I know there are a few researchers who are holding to the narrow line of finding out what is going on.” Alice agreed that for the most part, the abduction researchers are reporting things as they are experienced, but for one small exception. Some top researchers are not mentioning the apparent military involvement. Licia concurred with Alice, “Top researchers are touching on the major issues, but in my opinion, do not want to get involved in the government end of it.” Dorothy forthrightly stated, “Many people in the UFO community have their head in the clouds and believe in an overly benevolent, fanciful spiritual philosophy. There is not enough critical analysis. I have learned more from one on one conversations with other abductees than from the public lecture circuit.” As to the US government covering up UFO facts from the general public, all individuals agreed. Alice concluded, “Yes, especially the Roswell, New Mexico UFO incident of 1947.
Most of the implantees described noteworthy mental, psychic or health related changes following their implant surgeries. Four of them reported a continuation of some type of alien abduction activity. The two women who had the “biological” type implants removed, experienced strikingly similar post surgical changes, involving shooting pains and reddening of the incision scar for a short period of time.
The important thing to consider here, is the whole clinical picture. Over reliance on the physical test results of the implants alone are not substantial enough to solve the implant mystery – let alone the question of the alien presence. If not, then what is? The lives and experiences of the abductees themselves, tell us that we need to stop and listen. The answer lies somewhere in between science and the hearts of the people.
==== F B I AN CELL OPERATE MATH =====
