SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY | STOP THE INFOWAR AGAINST CIVILIANS!

January 27, 2010

HELP THE VICTIMS!

Filed under: ©MINDCON’S THEORY OF INFOWAR AGAINST CIVILIANS!, Brain Destruction, HELP THE VICTIMS!, media, Mind Control News, Neurodemocracy, STOP INFOWAR AGAINST CIVILIANS!, Welcome to the Secret Services Globalization! — Tags: CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS, ECHELON, Electronic Warfare, Globalization, Human Rights, Information Warfare, Microwave, News, Psychological Operations, SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY — mindcon @ 10:50 pm

Dear @Sir, @Madam,

Read more here:

Lawrence T. Greenberg, Seymour E. Goodman, Kevin J. Soo Hoo, Information Warfare and International Law, National Defense University Press, 1998, < http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Greenberg_Law.pdf >.

Quote: < … >

p.1 Chapter 1: Introduction

The Development of Information Warfare

As the worldwide explosion of information technology, including computing, telecommunications, and networks, is changing the way we conduct business, government, and education, it promises to change the way we fight.1 Information technology is diffusing into virtually all military weapons, communications, and command and control systems, as well as the civilian systems that support modern industrial (or post-industrial) economies and their military efforts.< … >

As such, information warfare includes both new techniques, such as computer intrusion and disruption and telecommunications spoofing, and old ones, such as ruses, camouflage, and physical attacks on observation posts and lines of communication. < … >

The use of such tools as computer intrusion and computer viruses, for example, may take war out of the physical, kinetic world and bring it into an intangible, electronic one. < … >

Attacks could be conducted from a distance, through radio waves or international communications networks, with no physical intrusion beyond enemy borders. Damage could range from military or civilian deaths from system malfunctions, to the denial of service of important military or governmental systems in time of crisis, to widespread fear, economic hardship, or merely inconvenience for civilian populations who depend upon information systems in their daily lives. < … >

The following are examples-some likely, some perhaps farfetched-of attacks that countries or nongovernmental entities might pursue, or suffer, as they wage warfare in the Information Age.

p.2

• A “trap door” might be hidden in the code controlling switching centers of the Public Switched Network, causing portions of it to fail on command.6

• A mass dialing attack by personal computers might overwhelm a local phone system.7

• A “logic bomb” or other intrusion into rail computer systems might cause trains to be misrouted and, perhaps, crash.8

• An enemy’s radio and television network might be taken over electronically, and then used to broadcast propaganda or other information.9 Advanced techniques such as “video morphing” could make the new broadcasts indistinguishable from the enemy’s own usual broadcasts.10

• A computer intruder might remotely alter the formulas of medication at pharmaceutical manufacturers, or personal medical information, such as blood type, in medical databases.11

• A concerted e-mail attack might overwhelm or paralyze a significant network.12

• Computer intruders might divert funds from bank computers, or corrupt data in bank databases, causing disruption or panic as banks need to shut down to address their problems.13

• Computer intruders might steal and disclose confidential personal, medical, or financial information, as a tool of blackmail, extortion, or to cause widespread social disruption or embarrassment.

• A “computer worm” or “virus” could travel from computer to computer across a network, damaging data and disrupting systems.14

• An “infoblockade” could permit little or no electronic information to enter or leave a nation’s borders.15

• A nation’s command and control infrastructure could be disrupted, with individual military units unable to communicate with each other, or with a central command.

• Stock or commodity exchanges, electric power grids and municipal traffic control systems, and, as is frequently suggested, air traffic control or navigation systems could be manipulated or disrupted, with accompanying economic or societal disruption, physical destruction, or loss of life.16 < … >

But the development of information technology, specifically computers, telecommunications, and networks, makes it possible for adversaries to attack each other in new ways and with new forms of damage, and may create new targets for attack. < … >

p. 6 < … >

As discussed, the dual-use nature of many telecommunications and computing systems may make them subject to attacks that will have grave civilian consequences. < … >

p.8 < … >

None of these conventions bars information warfare activities that make use of satellite assets.53 < … >

p.9 < … >

Second, for the Outer Space Treaty’s prohibition against orbital weapons of mass destruction to apply, it would first have to be determined that the weapons used in an information warfare attack, particularly an electronically based one, were weapons of mass destruction.58 Many information warfare attacks, which may have no direct physical effects, cannot easily be considered to cause mass destruction in the same way as would, say, an atomic bomb. Furthermore, assuming that the weapons of information warfare could constitute “weapons of mass destruction,” those weapons, even when they use satellites, might not be considered to be in space. < … >

p.10 – 11 < … >

Although humanitarian law protects combatants as well as noncombatants, the most significant relevant general tenet of humanitarian law is the protection of civilians. This principle was codified over a century ago in the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which recognized that the only legitimate object of war was to weaken an enemy’s military forces.78 Civilians, as such, may not be the object of an attack. Much of the law addressing the fate of civilians stems from concern over artillery bombardment, and later aerial bombing, as that was how civilians, unless they were loitering near a battlefield, were most likely to come under fire, and it consistently places civilians off limits for attack. Under the Hague Convention (IV) of 1907, military forces could not attack or bombard “by whatever means” undefended towns, dwellings or buildings,79 a provision that has carried over into the charter of the tribunal considering war crimes in the former Yugoslavia.80 Similarly, the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal condemned wanton bombing of civilian targets.81 < … >

Despite such legal protections, the reality is that civilians are often victims of modern warfare, without legal consequences for those who hurt them. < … >

Read full article:

http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Greenberg_Law.pdf

— —

Clay Wilson, High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) and High Power Microwave (HPM) Devices: Threat Assessments, CRS Report for Congress, Order Code RL32544, March 26, 2008, <

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA480808&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf >.

Quote: < … > p.10 < … > Description of High-Power Microwave

Microwaves are characterized by electromagnetic energy with wavelengths as small as centimeters or millimeters, and can be used at moderate power levels for communications or for radar.15 High Power Microwaves can be produced as a weapon when a powerful chemical detonation is transformed through a special coil device, called a flux compression generator, into a much stronger electromagnetic field.16 Other methods, such as combining reactive chemicals or using powerful batteries and capacitors, can also be used to create a reusable HPM weapon. < … >

p.12 < … > However, microwave energy weapons (HPM) are smallerscale, are delivered at a closer range to the intended target, and can sometimes be emitted for a longer duration. These capabilities can cause a painful burning sensation or other injury to a person directly in the path of the focused power beam, or can be fatal if a person is too close to the microwave emitter.22 < … >

p.20 < … > Human Rights

HEMP and HPM energy weapons primarily damage electronic systems, with little or no direct effect on humans, however, these effects may be difficult to limit or control. As HEMP or HPM energy fields instantly spread outward, they may also affect nearby hospital equipment or personal medical devices, such as pace-makers,

or other parts of the surrounding civilian infrastructure. For this reason, some international human rights organizations may object to the development or testing of HEMP or HPM weapons. < … >

Read full article:

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA480808&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

======================================

Clay Wilson, Information Operations, Electronic Warfare, and Cyberwar: Capabilities and Related Policy Issues, CRS Report for Congress, Order Code RL31787, March 20, 2007, <

http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RL31787.pdf >.

Quote: < … > p.6 < … > Psychological Operations (PSYOP)

DOD defines PSYOP as planned operations to convey selected information to targeted foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.5 < … >

DOD policy prohibits the use of PSYOP for targeting American audiences. However, while military PSYOP products are intended for foreign targeted audiences, DOD also acknowledges that the global media may pick up some of these targeted messages, and replay them back to the U.S. domestic audience. Therefore, a sharp distinction between foreign and domestic audiences cannot be maintained.8 < … >

p.10 < … > Electromagnetic Non-Kinetic Weapons. < … >

Also, at reduced power, electromagnetic non-kinetic weapons can also be used as a non-lethal method for crowd control. < … >

The Active Denial System (ADS), developed by the Air Force, is a vehiclemounted nonlethal, counter-personnel directed energy weapon. Currently, most non-lethal weapons for crowd control, such as bean-bag rounds, utilize kinetic energy. However, the ADS projects a focused beam of millimeter energy waves to

induce an intolerable burning sensation on an adversary’s skin, repelling the individual without causing injury. Proponents say the ADS is safe and effective at ranges between 50 and 1,600 feet. The nonlethal capabilities of the ADS are designed to protect the innocent, minimize fatalities, and limit collateral damage.19 < … >

p.14 < … > Law and Proportionality for Information Operations

The new U.S. Cyber Command reportedly will follow the law of Armed Conflict, meaning a response taken after receiving an electronic or cyber attack will be scaled in proportion to the attack received, and distinctions will be maintained between combatants and civilians.37 < … >

Read full article:

http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RL31787.pdf

— —

Dr. Steve Wright, FUTURE SUB-LETHAL, INCAPACITATING & PARALYSING TECHNOLOGIES – THEIR COMING ROLE IN THE MASS PRODUCTION OF TORTURE, CRUEL, INHUMANE & DEGRADING TREATMENT, A Draft Paper Presented To The Expert Seminar On Security Equipment & The Prevention Of Torture, 25-26 October 2002. London, UK, < http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/nov/torture.pdf >.

Quote: < … > 3.3 Bio-weapons For Racially Selective Mass Control

As a result of breakthroughs in the Human Genome and the Human Diversity Projects and the revolution in neuroscience, the way has opened up using blood proteins to attack a particular racial group using selected engineered viruses or toxins. A recent report to the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Committee of the European Parliament has suggested that whilst such a possibility of genetic weapons was dismissed in the past because human beings are so genetically similar, recent scientific breakthroughs biotechnology including gene therapy now make them feasible. The differences in blood group proteins are now thought to be sufficiently stable and large for them to be targeted by using genetically modified organisms or toxins which select for a particular genetic marker.45 The report warns that as the data on human receptor sites accumulates, the risk of breakthroughs in malign targeting of suitable micro organisms at either cell membrane level or via viral vector, grows accordingly.46

Given the heterogeneous nature of many populations including those in Europe and the US, only certain areas and borders could be targeted without the risk of so called _ friendly fire. _ Unfortunately, this has not deterred certain governments from undertaking preliminary research to potentially target specific ethnic groups either within their own state or on their borders. In 1997, in a confidential Pentagon Report, US Defence Secretary William Cohen, warned that he had received reports of countries working to _create types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific. _ This warning was given credence a year later when the Sunday Times reported that Israeli scientists working at the biological institute in Nes Tziyona47 were exploiting medical advances to identify genes carried by some arabs and to engineer organisms which would attack only those bearing these distinctive genes. The work mirrored that of Daan Goosen, the Head of a South African biological warfare plant who has alleged in hearings to the Truth Commission that his team was ordered to create a _ pigmentation weapon _ which targeted only black people. That work failed but the Israeli team according to the Sunday Times _have succeeded in pinpointing a particular characteristic in the generic profile of certain Arab communities, particularly the Iraqi people48. _ The disease could be spread either by air spraying the organisms of inserting them into the water supply. However the newest dispersion mechanisms for CBW agents is micro-encapsulation which is being advanced in the US for _ anti-materiel and anti-personnel Non-lethal weapons related to area denial and vessel stopping. _ The technology consists of micro balls of the active agent surrounded by a thin shell wall whose properties are specific to the application and are designed to release the agent upon _pressure, contact with water, or at a specific temperature. _49

All such products would be illegal under the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. However, unlike the CWC, there are no agreed verification procedures. The BTWC has the status of a gentleman _s agreement – the review conference in 2001 was effectively sabotaged by the US. Consequently, research on this area is accelerating as drug companies race towards mapping out human receptor sites in the brain to bio-engineer specific drug effects. This work will be examined most meticulously by the worlds CBW laboratories and unless very effective measures are put in place it is likely that malign applications will emerge. 50 < … >

Quote: < … > 3.5 Directed Energy Weapons

-8-

Directed weapons offer what is known as a tuneable munition and such a capability now goes hand in hand with the Pentagon _ s notions of _layered defence. _52 Essentially this means attacking civilians and combatants together assuming an onion approach where each progressive layer becomes more lethal with combatants at the centre of the onion being targeted with old fashioned lethal force. These are perhaps the most controversial and potentially illegal (viz EU directive, SiRUS laser ban etc) variants of alternative APM _ s. Directed Energy or Radio frequency Weapons using the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum are probably the most controversial area of development. They are discussed in Non- Lethal Weapon circles but little in the way of hard data is provided given their sensitivity. They are seen as offering a potential rheostatic or tunable response from less-lethal; to lethal. Already demonstrated is the ability to induce a heating effect up to 107 degrees F to induce an artificial fever. There has been much speculation but a dearth of hard data about such psychotronic weapons which are already worrying those concerned about bioethics. Such electronic neuro-influence weapons would be in breach of the recent EU resolution regarding technologies which interact directly with the human nervous system. Voice to skull technology has already been discussed in the literature.

3.6 Acoustic Weapons

Acoustic weapons again might be accurately thought of in terms of a directed energy weapon and again surrounded in controversy. They are allegedly able to vibrate the inside of humans to stun, nauseate or according to one Pentagon official to _liquify their bowels and reduce them to quivering diarrhoreic messes. _53 Other writers argue that this is nonsense because the physics doesn _t add up.54 We know that explosive devices deployed in Russia created damage to hearing and it is likely that any workable device would be based on controlled explosions.

One US based corporate research group. Scientific Applications and Research Associates (Sara) reported to be building an acoustic device to make internal organs resonate. Reported to be undergoing trials in 1998 by US Marines, supposedly protects buildings by inducing sea sickness in would be intruders.55 SARA _s acoustic devices have reportedly been tested at the Camp Pendeleton Marine Corps Base, near the company _s Huntington Beach office. This system allegedly works on the Vortex ring concept and the final report will discuss in much greater detail the physics behind this development and its associated health consequences. Altman believes such devices breech the SirUS criteria by attacking one specific part of human anatomy and making requisite treatment difficult if not impossible in field conditions.56

< … >

Quote: < … > 4. NEW INCAPACITATION TECHNOLOGIES & HUMAN RIGHTS

ABUSE

The US military is far from naive in terms of the advantages and disadvantages of Non-lethal Weapons. It is the first to admit that the role of these technologies is that of force supplementation rather than replacement and that their remain and outstanding set of problems in regard to existing international conventions and treaties. Whilst the public relations presentation of this policy is benign intervention, the Omega Foundation sees the ever present risk of creating a wide range of unanticipated consequences, particularly given that even one of the original proponents of the doctrine see attacks on refugees as a legitimate role.76 The difficulty for those attempting to control these weapons is likely to be that the first purpose and presentation of these technologies will be as alternatives to lethal firepower. Many of the weapons discussed below offer what is known as a tuneable munition and such a capability now goes hand in hand with the Pentagon _s notions of _layered defence. _77 Essentially this means attacking civilians and combatants together assuming an onion approach where each progressive layer becomes more lethal with combatants at the centre of the onion being targeted with old fashioned lethal force. < … >

Quote: < … > 6. CONCLUSIONS

Some of the devices discussed above will find a future role in mass producing torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Other technologies will follow as governments find ever new mechanisms to quell dissenters, punish civilians who would migrate into their territory, as well force multiplying tools or as surprise devices to immobilise combatants. At both the UN and the EU levels, we should attempt to enhance controls on such technologies which are anticipatory in that they can be applied to new devices and inventions on the horizon rather than just the single function torture weapons of old. This expert seminar will have served its purpose if it begins critical thinking on that process. Not many researchers are actively working in this area and those that are, are often severely pushed because of conflicting demands. If political agreement is reached on what should be further controlled in the future, a greater sharing of expertise must be sought since like all technologies, these systems will continuously change and proliferate. Alas, good laws, export controls and regulations do not guarantee good practice. Whatever controls are eventually agreed, it is sensible to assume that loopholes will be found accompanied by traditional denials of government and corporate collusion. Taking this as a starting point, it would be prudent for the responsible authorities to re-examine the resources needed both by customs and intelligence agencies to adequately prioritize tracking of malfactors in the future. It would also seem prudent to put in place further field research and audit procedures to ensure that the information required to monitor the torture trail enables a more prophylactic approach. < … >

Read full article:

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/nov/torture.pdf

— —

Mr. Steve Wright, AN APPRAISAL OF THE TECHNOLOGY OF POLITICAL CONTROL, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIONS ASSESSMENT, STOA, PE 166 499, Luxembourg, 6 January 1998, < http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/may/steve-wright-stoa-rep.pdf >, < http://www.pdf-search-engine.com/an-appraisal-of-technologies-of-political-control-html-www.statewatch.org/news/2005/may/steve-wright-stoa-rep.html >,

20 August 1999: Link to follow-up STOA reports on “Development of Surveillance Technology and Risk of Abuse of Economic Information (an appraisal of technologies of political control),”

p.16 – 20 Quote: < … >

4. DEVELOPMENTS IN SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY

Surveillance technology can be defined as devices or systems which can monitor, track and assess the movements of individuals, their property and other assets. Much of this technology is used to track the activities of dissidents, human rights activists, journalists, student leaders, minorities, trade union leaders and political opponents.

“Subtler and more far reaching means of invading privacy have become available to the government. Discovery and invention have made it possible for the government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet.”

So said US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, way back in 1928. Subsequent developments go far beyond anything which Brandeis could have dreamt of. New technologies which were originally conceived for the Defence and Intelligence sectors, have after the cold war, rapidly spread into the law enforcement and private sectors. It is one of the areas of technological advance, where outdated regulations have not kept pace with an accelerating pattern of abuses. Up until the 1960’s, most surveillance was low-tech and expensive since it involved following suspects around from place to place and could use up to 6 people in teams of two working 3 eight hour shifts. All of the material and contacts gleaned had to be typed up and filed away with little prospect of rapidly cross checking. Even electronic surveillance was highly labour intensive. The East German police for example employed 500,000 secret informers, 10,000 of which were needed just to listen and transcribe citizen’s phone calls.

By the 1980’s, new forms of electronic surveillance were emerging many of these were directed towards automation of communications interception. This trend was fuelled in the U. S. in the 1990’s by accelerated government funding at the end of the cold war, with defence and intelligence agencies being refocussed with new missions to justify their budgets, transferring their technologies to certain law enforcement applications such as anti-drug and anti-terror operations. In 1993, the US department of defence and the Justice department signed memoranda of understanding for “Operations Other Than War and Law Enforcement” to facilitate joint development and sharing of technology. According to David Banisar of Privacy International, “To counteract reductions in military contracts which began in the 1980’s, computer and electronics companies are expanding into new markets – at home and abroad – with equipment originally developed for the military. Companies such as E Systems, Electronic Data Systems (founded by Ross Perot ) and Texas Instruments are selling advanced computer systems and surveillance equipment to state and local governments that use them for law enforcement, border control and Welfare administration.”36

According to Banisar, the simple need for increased bureaucratic efficiency – necessitated by shrinking budgets has been a powerful imperative for improved identification and monitoring of individuals. “Fingerprints, ID cards, data matching and other privacy invasive schemes were originally tried on populations with little political power, such as welfare recipients, immigrants, criminals and members of the military, and then applied up the socioeconomic ladder. One in place, the policies are difficult to remove and inevitably expand into more general use.”37 These technologies fit roughly into three broad categories. namely surveillance, identification and networking, and are often used in conjunction as with video cameras and face recognition or biometrics and ID cards. For Banisar, “They facilitate mass and routine surveillance of large segments of the population without the need for warrants and formal investigations. What the East German secret police could only dream of is rapidly becoming a reality in the free world.”38

4.1 Vehicle Recognition Systems

A huge range of surveillance technologies has evolved, including the night vision goggles discussed in 3 above; parabolic microphones to detect conversations over a kilometre away(see Fig.18);

laser versions marketed by the German company PK Electronic, can pick up any conversation from a closed window in line of sight; the Danish Jai stroboscopic camera (Fig.19) which can take hundreds of pictures in a matter of seconds and individually photograph all the participants in a demonstration or March; and the automatic vehicle recognition systems which can identify a car number plate then track the car around a city using a computerised geographic information system.(Fig.20) Such systems are now commercially available, for example, the Talon system introduced in 1994 by UK company Racal at a price of £2000 per unit. The system is trained to recognise number plates based on neural network technology developed by Cambridge Neurodynamics, and can see both night and day. Initially it has been used for traffic monitoring but its function has been adapted in recent years to cover security surveillance and has been incorporated in the “ring of steel” around London. The system can then record all the vehicles that entered or left the cordon on a particular day.39

Such surveillance systems raise significant issues of accountability particularly when transferred to authoritarian regimes. The cameras in Fig 21 in Tiananmen Square were sold as advanced traffic control systems by Siemens Plessey. Yet after the 1989 massacre of students, there followed a witch hunt when the authorities tortured and interrogated thousands in an effort to ferret out the subversives. The Scoot surveillance system with USA made Pelco camera were used to faithfully record the protests. the images were repeatedly broadcast over Chinese television offering a reward for information, with the result that nearly all the transgressors were identified. Again democratic accountability is only the criterion which distinguishes a modern traffic control system from an advanced dissident capture technology. Foreign companies are exporting traffic control systems to Lhasa in Tibet, yet Lhasa does not as yet have any traffic control problems. The problem here may be a culpable lack of imagination.(Fig.22) Several European countries are manufacturing vehicle and people tracking technologies, including France40, Germany41, The Netherlands42 and the UK43.

4.2 CCTV Surveillance Net Works

In fact the art of visual surveillance has dramatically changed over recent years. of course police and intelligence officers still photograph demonstrations and individuals of interest but increasingly such images can be stored and searched. (Fig. 23) The revolution in urban surveillance will reach the next generation of control once reliable face recognition comes in. It will initially be introduced at stationary locations, like turnstiles, customs points, security gateways, etc., to enable a standard full face recognition to take place. However, in the early part of the 21st. century, facial recognition on CCTV will be a reality and those countries with CCTV infrastructures will view such technology as a natural add-on. It is important to set clear guidelines and codes of practice for such technological innovations, well in advance of the digital revolution making new and unforeseen opportunities to collate, analyze, recognise and store such visual images. Such regulation will need to be founded on sound data protection principles and take cognizance of article 15 of the 1995 European Directive on the protection of Individuals and Processing of Personal Data.44 Essentially this says that:

“Member States shall grant the right of every person not to be subject to a decision which produces legal effects concerning him or significantly affects him and which is based solely on the automatic processing of data.”

The attitude to CCTV camera networks varies greatly in the European Union, from the position in Denmark where such cameras are banned by law to the position in the UK, where many hundreds of CCTV networks exist. Nevertheless, a common position on the status of such systems where they exist in relation to data protection principles should apply in general. A specific consideration is the legal status of admissibility as evidence, of digital material such applies to CCTV, to avoid confusion amongst both CCTV data controllers as well as citizens as data subjects. Primary legislation will make it possible to extend the impact of the Directive to areas of activity that do not fall within community law. Articles 3 and 13 of the Directive should not create a blanket covering the use of CCTV in every circumstance in a domestic context.

A proper code of practice should cover the use of all CCTV surveillance schemes operating in public spaces and especially in residential area. The Code of Practice should encompass:- a) a purpose statement covering the key objectives of the scheme; b) a consideration of the extent to which the scheme falls within the scope of Data Protection legislation; c) the responsibilities of the owner of the scheme and those of local partners; d) the way the scheme is to be effectively managed and installed; e) the principles of accountability; f) the availability of public information on the scheme and the principles of its operation in residential areas; g) the formal approaches to be used to assess, evaluate and audit the performance of both the scheme and the accompanying Code of Practice; h) mechanisms for dealing with complaints and any breaches of the Code including those of security; i) detailing the extent of any police contacts or use of the scheme; and j) the procedures for democratically dealing with proposals of technological change.

Given that the United Kingdom has one of the most advanced CCTV network coverage in Europe and that the issues of regulation and control have been perhaps more developed that elsewhere, it is suggested that the Civil Liberties Committee formally consider the model Code of Practice for CCTV produced by the Local Government Information Unit (LGIU, 1996) in London (A Watching Brief) at a future meeting of this committee, with a view to recommending it for adoption throughout the EU.

4.3 Bugging & Tapping Devices

A wide range of bugging and tapping devices have been evolved to record conversations and to intercept telecommunications traffic. (See Fig. 24) In recent years the widespread practice of illegal and legal interception of communications and the planting of ‘bugs’ has been an issue in many European states. For example, Italy, France, Sweden,45 Belgium,46 Germany,47 Norway,48 the Netherlands49 and the U.K.50 The level and scale of some of these illegal activities is astonishing. For example, a court meeting on 30 September 1996 was told that the Presidential Palace’s antiterrorist unit was tapping six former Mitterand administration officials, including ex-cabinet chief Giles Manage.51 An official panel, the independent Commission for the Control of Security Interceptions, said that 100,000 telephone lines are illegally tapped each year in France and that state agencies may be behind much of the eavesdropping. They found that curbs imposed by official bodies may have tempted them to farm out their illegal bugging to private firms.52

However, planting illegal bugs like the one shown in (Fig 24) is yesterday’s technology. Modern snoopers can by specially adapted lap top computers like that shown in Fig.24), and simply tune in to all the mobile phones active in the area by cursoring down to their number. The machine will even search for numbers ‘of interest’ to see if they are active. However, these bugs and taps pale into insignificance next to the national and international state run interceptions networks.

4.4 National & International Communications Interceptions Networks

Modern communications systems are virtually transparent to the advanced interceptions equipment which can be used to listen in. Some systems even lend themselves to a dual role as a national interceptions network. For example the message switching system used on digital exchanges like System X in the UK supports an Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) Protocol. This allows digital devices, e.g. fax to share the system with existing lines. The ISDN subset is defined in their documents as “Signalling CCITT1-series interface for ISDN access. What is not widely known is that built in to the international CCITT protocol is the ability to take phones ‘off hook’ and listen into conversations occurring near the phone, without the user being aware that it is happening. (SGR Newsletter, No.4, 1993) This effectively means that a national dial up telephone tapping capacity is built into these systems from the start. (System X has been exported to Russia & China)

Similarly, the digital technology required to pinpoint mobile phone users for incoming calls, means that all mobile phone users in a country when activated, are mini-tracking devices, giving their owners whereabouts at any time and stored in the company’s computer for up to two years. Coupled with System X technology, this is a custom built mobile track, tail and tap system par excellence.(Sunday Telegraph, 2.2.97).

Within Europe, all email, telephone and fax communications are routinely intercepted by the United States National Security Agency, transferring all target information from the European mainland via the strategic hub of London then by Satellite to Fort Meade in Maryland via the crucial hub at Menwith Hill in the North York Moors of the UK. The system was first uncovered in the 1970’s by a group of researchers in the UK (Campbell, 1981). The researchers used open sources but were subsequently arrested under Britain’s Official Secrets legislation. The ‘ABC’ trial that followed was a critical turning point in researcher’s understanding both of the technology of political control and how it might be challenged by research on open sources.(See Aubrey,1981 & Hooper 1987) Other work on what is now known as Signals intelligence was undertaken by researchers such as James Bamford, which uncovered a billion dollar world wide interceptions network, which he nicknamed ‘Puzzle Palace’. A recent work by Nicky Hager, Secret Power, (Hager,1996) provides the most comprehensive details to date of a project known as ECHELON. Hager interviewed more than 50 people concerned with intelligence to document a global surveillance system that stretches around the world to form a targeting system on all of the key Intelsat satellites used to convey most of the world’s satellite phone calls, internet, email, faxes and telexes. These sites are based at Sugar Grove and Yakima, in the USA, at Waihopai in New Zealand, at Geraldton in Australia, Hong Kong, and Morwenstow in the UK.

The ECHELON system forms part of the UKUSA system but unlike many of the electronic spy systems developed during the cold war, ECHELON is designed for primarily non-military targets:

governments, organisations and businesses in virtually every country. The ECHELON system works by indiscriminately intercepting very large quantities of communications and then siphoning out what is valuable using artificial intelligence aids like Memex. to find key words. Five nations share the results with the US as the senior partner under the UKUSA agreement of 1948, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia are very much acting as subordinate information servicers.

Each of the five centres supply “dictionaries” to the other four of keywords, phrases, people and places to “tag” and the tagged intercept is forwarded straight to the requesting country. Whilst there is much information gathered about potential terrorists, there is a lot of economic intelligence, notably intensive monitoring of all the countries participating in the GATT negotiations. But Hager found that by far the main priorities of this system continued to be military and political intelligence applicable to their wider interests. Hager quotes from a”highly placed intelligence operatives” who spoke to the Observer in London. “We feel we can no longer remain silent regarding that which we regard to be gross malpractice and negligence within the establishment in which we operate.” They gave as examples. GCHQ interception of three charities, including Amnesty International and Christian Aid. “At any time GCHQ is able to home in on their communications for a routine target request,” the GCHQ source said. In the case of phone taps the procedure is known as Mantis. With telexes its called Mayfly. By keying in a code relating to third world aid, the source was able to demonstrate telex “fixes” on the three organisations. With no system of accountability, it is difficult to discover what criteria determine who is not a target.

In February, The UK based research publication Statewatch reported that the EU had secretly agreed to set up an international telephone tapping network via a secret network of committees established under the “third pillar” of the Mastricht Treaty covering co-operation on law and order. Key points of the plan are outlined in a memorandum of understanding, signed by EU states in 1995.(ENFOPOL 112 10037/95 25.10.95) which remains classified. According to a Guardian report (25.2.97) it reflects concern among European Intelligence agencies that modern technology will prevent them from tapping private communications. “EU countries it says, should agree on “international interception standards set at a level that would ensure encoding or scrambled words can be broken down by government agencies.” Official reports say that the EU governments agreed to co-operate closely with the FBI in Washington. Yet earlier minutes of these meetings suggest that the original initiative came from Washington. According to Statewatch, network and service providers in the EU will be obliged to install “tappable” systems and to place under surveillance any person or group when served with an interception order. These plans have never been referred to any European government for scrutiny, nor one suspects to the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament, despite the clear civil liberties issues raised by such an unaccountable system. We are told that the USA, Australia, Canada, Norway and Hong Kong are ready to sign up.All these bar Norway are parties to the ECHELON system and it is impossible to determine if there are not other agendas at work here. Nothing is said about finance of this system but a report produced by the German government estimates that the mobile phone part of the package alone will cost 4 billion D-marks.

Statewatch concludes that “It is the interface of the ECHELON system and its potential development on phone calls combined with the standardisation of “tappable communications centres and equipment being sponsored by the EU and the USA which presents a truly global threat over which there are no legal or democratic controls.”(Press release 25.2.97)

Clearly, there needs to be a wide ranging debate on the significance of these proposals before further any further political or financial commitments are made. The following recommendations have that objective in mind.

< … >

p.21 – 23 Quote: < … > 5. INNOVATIONS IN CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS

The original development of riot weapons goes back to Paris before the first World War, where the police began chemical crowd control using bombs filled with ethyl bromoacetate, an early form of teargas. The British colonies proved to be the forcing ground for the wide range of chemical and kinetic impact weapons which followed. The irritant CS for example was first used in Cyprus in 1956, and between 1960 and 1965, CN and CS were used on 124 occasions in the colonies. (Ackroyd et al, 1977).The growing demands of counter-insurgency and urban warfare generated a first generation of new riot weapons serviced by a growing police industrial complex.

Thus plastic and rubber bullets were products of British colonial experience in Hong Kong where the flying wooden teak baton round became the template for future kinetic weapons. The concept was one of a flying truncheon which could disperse a crowd without using small arms. They were however regarded as too dangerous for use on white people, so in 1969, Porton Down came up with a ‘safer’ version for use in Northern Ireland in 1970. Just as plastic bullets were considered far too dangerous for use in mainland Britain until 1985 when they proliferated throughout the UK’s police forces,so were wooden baton rounds regarded as too dangerous for the residents of Northern Ireland but not Hong Kong. Now plastic bullets have been deployed in virtually every continent from the USA to Argentina, from South Africa to Israel and China. Obviously, the shift in whether or not a riot weapon was appropriate or safe had nothing to do with differences in physiology. Wooden and plastic baton rounds created injuries which did not take account of generation or race. A predominant concern appears to have been what can be portrayed as politically safe in a particular context.

The seductive notion of soft and gentle knockout weapons is recent but not new. It has its roots back in the 1970’s when so called ‘non-lethal’ weapons formed the holy grail of riot weapon Research & Development. During that decade, then Congressman James Scheur outlined a new philosophy of crowd control weapons.(see Fig.26). He saw such developments resulting from ‘spinoffs from medical, military, aerospace and industrial research’ and expressed the view that: ‘We are now in the process of developing devices and products capable of controlling violent individuals and entire mobs without injury.’53 The veracity of this assessment is briefly examined below, particularly the assertion that control is achieved without harm.

Some idea of the range and variety of riot control weapons under consideration at that time can be gleaned from the 1972 US National Science Foundation’s Report on Non-lethal Weapons. (NSF, 1972). Altogether it listed 34 different weapons, including chemical and kinetic weapons; electrified water jets; combined stroboscopic light and pulsed sound weapons; infrasound weapons;

dartguns which fire drug-filled flight stabilized syringes; stench parts which give off an obnoxious odour; the taser which fires two small electrical contacts discharging 50,000 volts into the target;

and instant banana peel which makes roads so slippery, they are impassable.

Many of these weapons were then only partly developed or had problems of public acceptability:others have since achieved operational status. They include: incapacitation weapons such as the electronic riot shields and electro-shock batons (discussed in Sections 6, 7, & 8 below); Bulk chemical irritant distributor systems, (delivered by watercannon such as the UK made Tactica or the many back pack sprays like those made by the Israeli company Ispra (Fig.27 or the German Heckler 8 Koch (Fig. 28); New forms of irritant such as OC (or peppergas); kinetic impact weapons like the German & UK plastic bullet guns (shown in Fig. 32) or the South African hydraulically fired, TFM Slingshot rubber bullet machine; biomedical weapons, such as the compressed air fired drug syringe now commercially available both in the US & China (shown in Fig. 33).

The range of weapons currently deployed for crowd control is vast indeed and defies any attempts to be comprehensive. In Britain, since the first use of CS gas, rubber bullets and water cannon at the beginning of the Northern Irish Conflict in 1969, there has been a globalisation of such public order technologies. To our knowledge some 856 companies across 47 countries have been or are currently active in the manufacture and supply of such weapons. This proliferation has been fuelled by private companies wishing to tap lucrative security markets, a process which has led to both vertical and horizontal proliferation of this technology. (See Appendix 1 [not provided with report]) For example, one company, Civil Defence Supply, who provide nearly all UK police forces with sidehandled batons, boast of an international riot training programme, having trained the entire Mexican Police Granaderos with armadillo linked riot shields, CS and baton firing guns like the Arwen and what they call the complete ‘Early Resolution System’, for its elite forces.

To understand why this arsenal of crowd control weapons has been developed, it is vital to understand the thinking which underlies their construction. An important task in assessing new crowd control technologies is to examine the criteria used to evaluate just what is an ‘acceptable’

police weapon, and to whom. In the discussion below, an attempt is made to clarify why the theory of ‘non-lethal’ weapons used for ‘minimum force’ policing, does not match the reality of paramilitarised riot squad approaches to ‘peacekeeping’. Governments themselves have been using Technology Assessment to evaluate the relative effectiveness of such weapons. For example, since 1963, there has been an exchange of information on public order weapons between the US, Canada, Britain & Australia, allowing Porton Down to share technical evaluation of proposed non-lethal hardware, with US military scientists. Virtually all the most recent US government projects on this weaponry have been classified as “special access” (see 5.6 below) but the early work is quite revealing. Military scientists working at the US Army Human Engineering Laboratory in the early 1970’s elaborated a systematic set of procedures to evaluate the desirable and undesirable effects of particular weapons. (See Chart 5a), covering a comparative assessment of both the medical and physiological consequences of each weapon type, together with an evaluation of public acceptability.(See Chart 5b).54 < … >

5.2 Harmless Weapons? – The Scientific Evidence

Statements made by military scientists and police chiefs about “non-lethal” weapons and “minimum force”, have led the public to believe that crowd control weapons were designed for humanitarian reasons and are in fact harmless. Such sentiments have been echoed by many governments and reinforced by reports from laboratories and the manufacturers actually creating the technology of political control. < … >

p.36 -37 5.6 Second Generation Incapacitation Weapons

In the Nineties, the revolution in so called ‘non-lethal weapons’ was given fresh impetus by new US programmes to fight internal conflicts – ostensibly without casualties. The US Government was driven towards finding a universal panacea because of a series of embarrassing and widely publicised debacles including the Rodney King beating, the Waco siege and their unfortunate experiences in Somalia, where they failed in crowd control operations with only lethal technology. The new policy was avidly pushed in the States by the likes of Col. John Alexander (who made his name as part of the Phoenix Assassination programmes during the Vietnam war) and science fiction writers such as Alvin Toffler (Toffler, 1994) and Janet and Chris Morris, (Morris & Morris, 1990, 1994) and picked up by the DoD and Justice Department.

Thus a second generation of kinetic, chemical, optico-acoustic, microwave, disabling and paralysing technologies is on the horizon, to join the existing arsenal of weapons designed for public order control. Much of the initial new work has been undertaken in US nuclear laboratories such as Oak Ridge, Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos. Many cynics see the work as a rice bowl initiative with scientists looking for new weapons projects to justify their future careers as the cold war made their old skill redundant. Already they have come up with a pandora’s box of new technologies.

These include:

* Ultra-sound generators, which cause disorientation, vomiting and involuntary defecation, disturbing the ear system which controls balance and inducing nausea. The system which

uses two speakers can target individuals in a crowd.

* Visual stimulus and illusion techniques such as high intensity strobes which pulse in the critical epileptic fit-inducing flashing frequency and holograms used to project active

camouflage.

* Reduced energy kinetic weapons. Variants on the bean bag philosophy which ostensibly will result in no damage ( similar claims were once made about plastic bullets). (See Fig.

32)

* New disabling, calmative, sleep inducing agents mixed with DMSO which enables the agent to quickly cross the skin barrier and an extensive range of pain causing, paralysing and

foul-smelling area-denial chemicals. Some of these are chemically engineered variants of the heroin molecule. They work extremely rapidly, one touch and disablement follows. Yet

one person’s tranquillization may be another’s lethal dose. (See Fig. 33)

* Microwave and acoustic disabling systems. (see Fig. 34)

* Human capture nets which can be laced with chemical irritant or electrified to pack an extra disabling punch. (See Fig. 34)

* Lick ’em and stick ’em technology such as the Sandia National Laboratory’s foam gun which expands to between 35-50 times its original volume. Its extremely sticky, gluing

together any target’s feet and hands to the pavement. (See Fig. 35)

* Aqueous barrier foam which can be laced with pepper spray.

* Blinding laser weapons and Isotrophic radiator shells which use superheated gaseous plasma to produce a dazzling burst of laser like light. (See Fig. 36)

* Thermal guns which incapacitate through a wall by raising body temperature to 107 degrees.

* Magnetosphere gun which delivers what feels like a blow to the head.

We are no longer at a theoretical stage with these weapons. US companies are already piloting new systems, lobbying hard and where possible, laying down potentially lucrative patents. For example, last year New Scientist reported that the American Technology Corporation (ATC) of Poway California has used what it calls acoustical heterodyning technology to target individuals in a crowd with infra-sound to pinpoint an individual 200-300 metres away. The system can also project sonic holograms which can conjure audio messages out of thin air so just one person hears.79 Meanwhile, Jane’s reported that the US Army Research Laboratory has produced a variable velocity rifle for lethal or non lethal use a new twist to flexible response.80 Other companies are promoting robots for use in riot and prison control.

The National Institute of Justice in the US is now actively soliciting new ideas for such weapons from corporate bodies,81 and corporate US has responded with bodies like SPIE (The International Society For Optical Engineering), which have enthusiastically responded with a special conference on ‘Enabling Technologies for Law Enforcement and Security’ at the Hynes Convention centre in Boston, Nov 19-21, 1996. The panel on less than lethal technologies has experts talking on subjects such as: The non-lethal laser baton; design of a variable velocity gun system for law enforcement applications; sticky shocker; definition of lethality thresholds for KE less-lethal projectiles; violence reduction and assailant control with laser sighted police pistols; directed energy technologies: weaponisation and barrier applications; pepper spray projectile for countering hostage and barricade situations; aqueous foam as a less than lethal technology for prison applications etc. A formal Pentagon policy on the use of non-lethal weapons was prepared last year in response to Congressional instructions to initiate a joint acquisitions programme. Whilst there are practical problems regarding whether it is preferable to leave an enemy or a citizen dead rather than permanently maimed, and whether or not hallucinogenic or other psychotropic ‘calmative’ agents fall foul of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the spending call was for $15 million annually over the next three years, to fund new and existing projects.82

Critics of such projects suggest that non-lethal war is a contradiction in terms. Many of the so called non-lethal weapons are in reality are far from non-lethal. They can and have killed, maimed, blinded and scalped innocent bystanders. There is a real danger that they will make conflicts more lethal by enraging crowds and by paralysing people making them more vulnerable to other operations by the military and security forces. In that sense these weapons could be considered pre-lethal and actually lead to higher casualty rates. (See above) In fact the US proponents of these weapons are under no illusions. Their focus is ‘not to replace lethal munitions but to augment existing and future capabilities which will provide a spectrum of force response options.’83 The area most commentators have not addressed is the extent that such weapons will help the military create new roles for themselves as part of internal policing operations.

Most of the debate has been about their role in war. We know from the proceedings of the Non Lethal Defence II conference, (organised by The American Defence Preparedness Association held in March last year), that the that the Joint Program Office of Special Technology Countermeasures (JPO-STC) have developed a multi-service co-ordination strategy that incorporates both the HQ Allied Forces of Southern Europe and the ‘Doctrine & Training HQ’ of the United Kingdom.84 Other formal liaison links between the USA non-lethal research community and Member States are anticipated but little public information has emerged.

The work done so far has led to dubious weapons based on dubious research, strongly influenced by commercial rather than humanitarian considerations. There is a pressing need for a wide ranging debate in the European Parliament of the humanitarian and civil liberties implications of allowing these weapons on to European soil to become part of the technology of political control in the EU.

Much of the work that has been undertaken in secret, but part of the bibliography of the present report covers a representative sample of the available literature. What is required is a much more detailed assessment of these weapons than space permits here and it is recommended that a new study be commissioned to achieve this work. In the meantime, it would be useful to ask for the European Commission to report on existing liaison arrangements between Member States and the US on Non-lethal weapons and the nature and extent of any joint activities.

<… >

p.48 7.3 Torture Liveware
In any bureaucracy of repression, there are personnel schooled in the ideological attitudes necessary to keep such systems in operation (Fig.49). In some cases this schooling takes place literally, for example at the infamous School of the Americas based at Fort Benning in General Method Effects (Purposes) Variants

General

1.Isolation.

Method

Deprives victim of all social support of his ability to resist. Develops and intense concern with self. Makes victim dependent upon interrogator.