Featured Image

(LifeSiteNews) — One consequence of U.S. government secrecy about police, FBI, and other security and law enforcement methods, sources, and surveillance technologies is that Americans have to theorize on what those government employees might be doing or are capable of doing. American citizens might even be obligated to do such theorizing, in part due to the history of government employees secretly harming citizens, and because U.S. citizens are supposed to control the actions of government employees (especially law enforcement) through voting and other civil processes.

Americans’ right to vote, among other rights (including the right to freely live the Catholic Faith in all spheres of society), implies the ability to know what U.S. government employees are doing, have done, and plan to do in the future. Again, this especially includes the actions of local police, the FBI, and all other security and law enforcement entities. (Similarly, though it is off-subject, U.S. government employee secrecy about those methods and technologies almost necessarily interferes with the right to vote.)

For example, the FBI’s guidelines explain, without using the words “conspire” or “conspiracy,” that the FBI might conspire with local police to commit “otherwise illegal activity” against Americans, potentially including violence. One must necessarily theorize, then, about those conspiracies if voting will actually have the effect, for instance, of requiring FBI and local police conspiracies to be publicized and/or prevented.

One subject which Americans almost necessarily have to theorize about is U.S. government or local government surveillance technologies in use or planned to be used in the future. 

Some articles theorized that U.S. “biosurveillance” laws could be interpreted to imply that the U.S. government might be using advanced technologies to spy on Americans (like advanced radar which “sees into” homes and observes every move a person makes, ultrasound technologies, or infrared, radio frequency, and several other technologies on the electromagnetic spectrum which can surveil human biology and decode brain activity, potentially being able to at least partially “mind-read” thoughts, emotions, and intentions). 

U.S. government documents support this suggestion, potentially even implying that it is more than merely a possibility.

In 2010, the U.S. government published two documents entitled “Remote Detection of Covert Tactical Adversarial Intent of Individuals in Asymmetric Operations” and “Research Directions in Remote Detection of Covert Tactical Adversarial Intent of Individuals in Asymmetric Operations.” One document explained the U.S. government’s plans to develop a surveillance system which can remotely detect a person’s intentions, potentially including technologies which can detect human brain activity. The U.S. government suggested those technologies could be used for “anticrime” and “security” in America, and other governments had similar plans. 

The other U.S. government publication was more specific and suggested producing an “operational working system” for the remote detection of covert tactical adversarial intent of individuals by approximately 2020. (Page ii) 

Additionally, a significant theme throughout both documents is the clear description of the use of advanced human biological technologies, including “e-field” technologies which “detect electrical activity of the…brain,” to potentially be remotely and secretly used determine human beings’ intentions. (Page 16, Page 7, etc.) 

In other words, those documents very clearly explain that the U.S. government (and other governments) planned on developing a surveillance system of technologies which remotely and secretly surveil human biology, or a “biosurveillance” system, to be used to determine individuals’ intentions. 

The documents also clearly describe that human biological metrics (often commonly referred to as “biometrics,” a word that is not used in the documents) or the measurement of human functions and processes, might be used for surveillance to determine human intentions. The documents are significant support of the claim that U.S. biosurveillance laws indeed allow some of the worst surveillance of Americans possible, potentially including brain surveillance.

More examples can be provided. Specifically, one document described subjects discussed at a U.S. Army Research Laboratory Strategic Directions Workshop in 2009. The planned research included technologies to determine human intentions and which were to be operable from 3 to 50 meters away, but ultimately the plan was to develop technologies operable from more than 50 meters (Page 6) and, again, potentially for anticrime operations and security in America. (Page 26) Some technical themes discussed at the workshop included

Principles from kinesiology, neurophysiology, psychology, cognitive science, sociocultural anthropology, and information science that link covert adversarial intent with data/information that can be observed noncooperatively through physical sensor networks at 3–50 m. (Page 3)


Metrics for measuring adversarial intent. All metrics need to be based on cognitive, psychological, neurophysiological, and/or kinesiological principles. (Page 3)

Thus, U.S. government scientists clearly implied that biological surveillance technologies are also “biometric” technologies.

Other themes at the U.S. government workshop included “research on identifying emotions” and 

Quantitative procedures that can, in extensive clutter, automatically infer from remotely observed data/information (shape, color/spectrum, movement, temperature, etc., on scales from micro to macro) covert adversarial intent of individuals. (Page 3) 

In other words, it should be evident that the U.S. government researchers were not merely discussing detecting a person’s facial expression from 100 feet away to determine emotions or intentions. Nor were they discussing, for example, surveillance of intentions expressed during a long-distance conversation between a Jihadist in Michigan and a Jihadist in the Middle East. Instead, “micro” scales of color/spectrum, movement, temperature, etc. suggests detecting biological activity underneath the skin, skull, and within the human body and brain.

And because the focus was on metrics for measuring specifically “covert” or secret intent and that metrics were required “to be based on cognitive, psychological, neurophysiological, and/or kinesiological principles,” one can not only reasonably conclude, but one must almost necessarily conclude, that remote mind-reading technologies were implied as a possibility.

The U.S. government scientists continue in the document by describing technologies which are typically used for “medical diagnosis” which could be improved to be used from distances further away from human bodies. Specifically, as mentioned previously, the scientists suggested “e-field” technologies which can detect electrical activity of the brain. (Page 16)

Additionally, the scientists suggested developing “hyperspectral imagers” which can detect “subsurface blood flow.” (Page 15) The scientists were clearly suggesting surveillance of human biology to determine intentions rather than merely the subject of the FISA surveillance powers (again, for example, what one Jihadist said to the other).

Hyperspectral” includes technologies which utilize the electromagnetic spectrum like infrared or near-infrared technologies. Hyperspectral imaging can detect very small substances, or “nanoparticles,” in humans. Hyperspectral imaging can specifically also detect the movement of blood in the human brain (which might be implied when the government scientists describe observing “subsurface blood flow” to remotely determine covert intentions).

Additionally, a separate U.S. government document explains that “portable, near-infrared spectroscopy can already provide non-invasive readouts of brain activity in social settings.” (Page 30)

Similarly, other brain scientists are more specific in describing measuring and decoding “spatiotemporal patterns of brain activity” with functional magnetic resonance imaging (a type of hyperspectral imaging) as “mind-reading.” The same scientists used hyperspectral imaging for their research in identifying emotions based off of brain activity (as opposed to detecting emotions based off of facial expressions).

There is more. In 2013, the Obama-Biden Whitehouse published their research plans for biosurveillance technologies to be used in America. The document included the plan to

Integrate emerging remote sensing capabilities/analysis (such as biological, chemical, and hyperspectral) with fixed, distributed autonomous or semi-autonomous surveillance platforms and conventional molecular biological tools to characterize and ultimately predict spatially and temporally important environmental variables that influence disease emergence within ecosystems, including humans (Page 12)

Emphasis should be on the inclusion of “remote sensing capabilities/analysis (such as…hyperspectral)” technologies for biosurveillance within ecosystems, “including humans.”

Finally, some might be interested in U.S. government officials with the idea of using advanced surveillance technologies to detect and understand intentions. The subject was mentioned as early as 2006 during a Congressional debate on the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act which would have purportedly greatly expanded U.S. government surveillance powers. A former U.S. Representative said the following:

our country needs to rapidly and effectively bring every intelligence tool to bear to find our enemies, detect and understand their intentions, and thwart their hostile and terrorist acts against our country and our people. (Page H7864)

In other words, while government officials do not talk about the subject much, they have indeed previously suggested using surveillance to detect and understand intentions. And one need not be an expert to determine that intentions occur in the activity of the human brain. Detecting intentions, then, could imply using advanced intelligence tools, or surveillance, of the activity of the human brain.

Americans should indeed be concerned about government surveillance of conversations, but it seems as though Americans should also be concerned about the government using some of the most advanced surveillance technologies possible, potentially including biosurveillance technologies which decode human brain activity and at least partially mind-read.