And I see through your Brain (With sub dermal RFID chips)?

There are two interesting articles issued by Stanford Technology Law Review

Neurology Imaging
RFID Chips

Stanford Technology Law Review

The Stanford Technology Law Review (STLR) sets a new standard in multidisciplinary legal scholarship as an innovative forum for intellectual discourse on critical issues at the intersection of law, science, technology, and public policy. STLR uniquely combines technological expertise with scholarly outlook to provide timely, insightful, and important contributions to scholarly discussion in a broad array of topical areas.

I have glanced over the articles and it did not take me long to put 2 and 2 together. What if
RFID was being used to "see through our Brains"? If (and thats a big if in my opinion), it is
not happening already, how long do you all think it will be untill it does? Please keep the debate
lively and civilized.

stlr.stanford.edu...

stlr.stanford.edu...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I added two additional threads that could explain some of the things going on
with Soldiers and Veterans. I have a feeling many will say that all of this is highly
speculative however with the security risks of the RFID chips already proven, False
flag operations to target the U.S. military is not only highly probable but inevitable
in my opinion. (if not already the case).

Such an intersection of focas is a welcome junction - placing law and technology together in harmonious balance is certainly what's missing. I wonder how effective they are in regards to changing law, and who does this Stanford legal group work for.

I can't see that neuroimaging someones brain will form an effective basis for determining the intent of past actions that individual took, in defence of action, or as a prosecution method. It might uncover disease, or attention might be drawn to non-working, working, and over-working portions of the brain. In a nutshell, to say that a certain brain model which matches the activities of other individuals with a similar brain-model, as it determines likely behaviour patterns, is circumstantial. It might sway a juries or judges mind. It still can't prove that the psychotic aspects of the (otherwise) friendly postman wasn't from too many dog attacks, or that the anger-driven ex-con wasn't enjoying a sundae with his kids while the murder took place.

Neuroimaging is namely for the sake of establishing a case for or against someone?

reply to post by Mr. D


Really, there's not many things more different than fMRI and RFID. Maybe granite and yogurt. Parakeets and cheese, that sort of thing.

99.95% of what you read in the conspiracy press on RFID is just wrong, anyway. But no, there's no connection whatsoever between fMRI and RFID.

Originally posted by Northwarden
Such an intersection of focas is a welcome junction - placing law and technology together in harmonious balance is certainly what's missing. I wonder how effective they are in regards to changing law, and who does this Stanford legal group work for.

I can't see that neuroimaging someones brain will form an effective basis for determining the intent of past actions that individual took, in defence of action, or as a prosecution method. It might uncover disease, or attention might be drawn to non-working, working, and over-working portions of the brain. In a nutshell, to say that a certain brain model which matches the activities of other individuals with a similar brain-model, as it determines likely behaviour patterns, is circumstantial. It might sway a juries or judges mind. It still can't prove that the psychotic aspects of the (otherwise) friendly postman wasn't from too many dog attacks, or that the anger-driven ex-con wasn't enjoying a sundae with his kids while the murder took place.

Neuroimaging is namely for the sake of establishing a case for or against someone?

Brain wave patterns are shared by most humans I believe.

en.wikipedia.org...

RFID has been around since (around that time) WWII, Imagine the leaps and bounds
the technology has made since then. It's a small step to imagine that this has been
going on since then given the penchant for secrecy the government has for technology.
I do not think that the U.S. is the only country with this technology,there is no such
thing as IT security my friend.

reply to post by Bedlam


Same answer to your reply.

Brain wave patterns are shared by most humans I believe.

en.wikipedia.org...

RFID has been around since (around that time) WWII, Imagine the leaps and bounds
the technology has made since then. It's a small step to imagine that this has been
going on since then given the penchant for secrecy the government has for technology.
I do not think that the U.S. is the only country with this technology,there is no such
thing as IT security my friend.

Some more information regarding brain patterns. The transmission of signals
(Electronic stimulation to evoke neural responses) via Radio frequency is not
that far fetched.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Mr. D


First, not all radio based devices are RFID, although for some reason there's this bizarre tendency to lump anything with a radio link into that pile.

But fMRI takes a huge amount of equipment, you really should look into "what makes an fMRI machine work" and then I don't think you'd be expecting that out of an unpowered radio-frequency id tag.

Also, I don't think "most people have the same brain patterns", depending on what you mean by that - it's sort of ambiguous.

Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by Mr. D

 

First, not all radio based devices are RFID, although for some reason there's this bizarre tendency to lump anything with a radio link into that pile.

But fMRI takes a huge amount of equipment, you really should look into "what makes an fMRI machine work" and then I don't think you'd be expecting that out of an unpowered radio-frequency id tag.

Also, I don't think "most people have the same brain patterns", depending on what you mean by that - it's sort of ambiguous.

en.wikipedia.org...

Functional MRI or functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) is a type of specialized MRI scan. It measures the hemodynamic response (change in blood flow) related to neural activity in the brain or spinal cord of humans or other animals. It is one of the most recently developed forms of neuroimaging. Since the early 1990s, fMRI has come to dominate the brain mapping field due to its relatively low invasiveness, absence of radiation exposure, and relatively wide availability.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d09a08efdcf8.jpg[/atsimg]

How do you think this Image with all the information therein is generated and displayed?
Via Electromagnetic frequencies / Energy. How hard is it to attach an antenna and
a few other hardware item to obtain the results that we are discussing? not hard at all
if you have the funds to do it with.

Originally posted by Mr. D
How do you think this Image with all the information therein is generated and displayed?

I think that's the part you're not understanding.

There's not any way to do this with some non-powered implant. Not even with a powered one. Not even close.

Seriously, go do some basic reading on what doing an fMRI takes, in terms of apparatus. Not just "it's some electronic magic (hand wave hand wave) so with enough money and secret technology anyone can do it"

I can't implant a jet engine in your feet to make you fly around like astroboy, either, no matter how much money I chuck at it. I can't put a nuclear reactor in your coccyx capable of putting out a few GW/years of power. I can't put a bunch of fold-out mechanized wings, bullet shields, telescopic laser death rays or what not that all pop out when you say "go go gadget helicopter" because it won't fit.

You cannot put an fMRI imager inside a person in the form of some sub-mm implant.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by Mr. D
How do you think this Image with all the information therein is generated and displayed?

I think that's the part you're not understanding.

There's not any way to do this with some non-powered implant. Not even with a powered one. Not even close.

Seriously, go do some basic reading on what doing an fMRI takes, in terms of apparatus. Not just "it's some electronic magic (hand wave hand wave) so with enough money and secret technology anyone can do it"

I can't implant a jet engine in your feet to make you fly around like astroboy, either, no matter how much money I chuck at it. I can't put a nuclear reactor in your coccyx capable of putting out a few GW/years of power. I can't put a bunch of fold-out mechanized wings, bullet shields, telescopic laser death rays or what not that all pop out when you say "go go gadget helicopter" because it won't fit.

You cannot put an fMRI imager inside a person in the form of some sub-mm implant.

They have implants that the human body can power. This is ancient history and I'm surprised
you haven't heard of it. You don't have to put an fMRI imager inside a person, only transmit
the data that they want to analyze. think of how they send information from the mars lander
or satelites in space. it's broken down in bits and bytes and then reassembled almost in
real time because we are not as far as mars is. (Supercomputers). This technology below
was developed in the 60's and hit the markets 20 years later. That means whatever they
are using now won't be for sale until 2030, doesn't mean they ain't using it. RFID has been
around since about WWII, when did the term become mainstream? How long has Nano
technology been around i wonder considering.......Do the math.

en.wikipedia.org...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b0d84bc15493.jpg[/atsimg]

Surface mount technology was developed in the 1960s and became widely used in the
late 1980s. Much of the pioneering work in this technology was by IBM. The design approach
first demonstrated by IBM in 1960 in a small-scale computer was later applied in the Launch
Vehicle Digital Computer used in the Instrument Unit that guided all Saturn IV and Saturn V
vehicles. (See Saturn Launch Vehicle Digital Computer article for a description of this type of
electronic packaging as of 1964. See [1] for high-resolution photos of components/PCBs.)
Components were mechanically redesigned to have small metal tabs or end caps that could
be directly soldered to the surface of the PCB. Components became much smaller and
component placement on both sides of a board became far more common with surface
mounting than through-hole mounting, allowing much higher circuit densities. Often only the
solder joints hold the parts to the board, although parts on the bottom or "second" side of the
board are temporarily secured with a dot of adhesive as well. Surface mounted devices (SMDs)
are usually made physically small and lightweight for this reason. Surface mounting lends itself
well to a high degree of automation, reducing labor cost and greatly increasing production rates.
SMDs can be one-quarter to one-tenth the size and weight, and one-half to one-quarter the cost
of equivalent through-hole parts.

Originally posted by Mr. D
They have implants that the human body can power. This is ancient history and I'm surprised
you haven't heard of it.

In your case, you need to be more circumspect in what you read.

There are a few really preliminary attempts to capture energy from muscle motion, you don't have a lot of power you can gather there, but there's some. The crap you've read about running from heat is just that, crap.

Nonetheless, there's just not that much power available you can scavenge from the body.

You don't have to put an fMRI imager inside a person, only transmit
the data that they want to analyze.

Your first post was obviously trying to say "see, this fMRI imager can capture all this information, what if they did that with an implant". Well, you can't get that data by making an implantable fMRI. If you want to change tacks here, ok.

think of how they send information from the mars lander
or satelites in space. it's broken down in bits and bytes and then reassembled almost in
real time because we are not as far as mars is. (Supercomputers). This technology below
was developed in the 60's and hit the markets 20 years later. That means whatever they
are using now won't be for sale until 2030, doesn't mean they ain't using it.

assembled in real time because we're not as far as Mars is? Wow, the words are connected grammatically, but there doesn't seem to be a logical flow there. At any rate, you first have to have your data before you can transmit it. Then you have to transmit it. Neither of these things are particularly amenable to an RFID solution. I see you're going to keep using RFID for anything with a communications link. Whatever. I guess I have an RFID TV then, and an RFID phone, and a nice RFID deck in the car.

RFID has been
around since about WWII, when did the term become mainstream? How long has Nano
technology been around i wonder considering.......Do the math.

What you seem to be trying to describe isn't RFID, so your example is a bit strained.

Surface mount technology was developed in the 1960s...

A really nice cut and paste of some "bees smell fear" material. Hey, maybe you could copypaste some info on tin whisker growth in lead-free solder joints next time.

edit:

The problems I see with your conjecture are these.

1) The author of your original source material is a lawyer. Lawyers are not, in general, known as being shining examples of technological literacy. The article rambles on about forcing people to be poked into an fMRI during testimony, which I'm hoping is just an intellectual exercise by the writer in order to get a paper published. Not only would the equipment fill the courtroom, but it's unconstitutionally intrusive. You don't, for example, see people on the witness stand with polygraphs strapped to them to ensure their testimony. fMRI has a lot of popular articles published in a sort of gee-whiz way, but if you look at the boring ass lab work and stats, it's somewhat more accurate than polygraphy but far far far from 100%.

Further, you have to ask yourself "what does fMRI tell me anyway", and in this case, it's only showing you the changes in blood flow. It's telling you in a vague, badly defined, general way what brain areas are the most active. It can't tell you what the thoughts are, nor can it tell a judge that you aren't daydreaming about the boobs on the nice looking juror third from the left, or worrying about your IRS audit while you're on the stand. In a lab setting with trained volunteers, yes, it can say this area becomes more active when Joe's thinking about this blue cube we just showed him and trying not to think about anything else. That's good information. But it's not so great on Suzy Gradstudent who is stuck in the thing with no coaching and is ruminating on what her grades are going to be while you're asking her about blue cubes.

2) Newssites and popular periodicals exist to sell subscriptions and click throughs. If the title read - "Boring expensive lab equipment shows that the lateral geniculate nucleus somehow has a function in the recall of images of pets" you wouldn't read it any more than you read "Advances in neuroimaging" journal. It's dry and boring and full of stats. BOORRRINGG!

So the title will inevitably be : Scientists read minds with machine!

You have to sometimes read for understanding instead of eating the blue pill the news guys try to feed you - not only are they going to make it sound like the evil mad scientists are making mind-controlled slaves, they rarely get even the basic facts right. If you find one of those articles interesting, skim over it, and then go get the actual paper - a lot of them are free. Remember, the guy that wrote the article, in general, has no math past basic algebra and one non-math science course. It's likely you understand more than he does - but he's trying to sell words and ads to you, so from his point of view, he doesn't care if it's right or not, as long as he catches your eye. Think of it as an infomercial.

3) While you perceive your thoughts as words in your internal voice, maybe images as well, those things have no concrete, absolute location in your head as some sort of NTSC signal you could stick a cable into. Your head doesn't do ANYTHING the easy way - it's made out of meat circuits that don't process all that quickly, so everything is done massively in parallel, scattered here and there. There isn't any central "you" place in the brain it all feeds into either - you can't think about it in a Descartian way with some little homunculus place in your head where you live. Any memory, thought, or perception is all over the place in ten thousand disconnected and poorly understood gobs. And it's likely that no two people are exactly alike, either, although the basic floorplan is probably similar. If you COULD understand a thought, it won't be in one place, you'd have to put it together out of thousands of parallel signals. Which, fortunately, you won't do by reading a 12 lead EEG.

4) RFID doesn't have anything to do with reading minds. RFID has to do with identification, oddly enough, that's the ID part on the end. So if you're going to say "RFID has been around since the 40's!!!", then yep, if you're talking about IFF. Not so much for sekret mind reading chips. Not everything with a communications link of some sort is RFID, in fact, in your life, it's maybe .00001% of the radio-enabled devices.

5) Radio doesn't work well as an implant. That's why most implantable RFID parts (the actual RFID parts, not stuff you are calling RFID) don't actually USE radio - the majority, Verichip for example, don't use radio waves at all, they use radio frequency magnetic signaling which doesn't have any range to it. Radio signals per se are absorbed and reflected by your body so that it's very difficult to get a real radio signal out of you, worse to get one in.

6) No one knows how to read your thoughts with a "chip". In order to get the data, you'd have to put millions upon millions of leads into the brain, then no one knows how to interpret it. Then you'd have to send out a huge amount of data, which doesn't work so well from inside the body, and you'd have to interpret it somehow, and even if you COULD get around all that, what's the end result? They know the thoughts of some guy that fixes the plumbing, or does accounting at the local candle shop or what not? Yeah - I can see that being worth spending a few hundred million per person.

Here's an alternative - no one cares about your thoughts at the government level, and if they really wanted to keep you from doing something, they could for about 2 cents, pop a 9mm in your head. Or, they could subject you to massive invasive brain surgery which no one knows how to do, hook you up to a massive supercomputer complex which no one knows how to write the software for, and spend millions of dollars per hour in loaded labor and equipment costs to read your mind and track your location, maybe inject some new thoughts. Because controlling the mind of a shoe salesman at the local mall is just...that...important.

Hmm. I bet I know which one would be true here. YMMV.

reply to post by Bedlam


Nice "rebuttal" however methinks you fail to see the points that I am trying to make.
One of the points that I am trying to make is that the EM spectrum has many many
more frequencies than we are talking about here. This is an evolving thread that does
have a destination. The human body is for the lack of better words a bio electrical,
chemical, mechanical organism that can be and is controlled by various methods.
Our Soul is not for sale. There are ways to control people with words, actions and
symbols, It is a type of "programming" but by no means defines who we are. We can go
on about the details however I'd like to explain what I mean by examples if you are willing
to go that route. (I have not had a good debate in a long time )

So,your brain sends signals,in electronic pulses to other parts of the brain. If a chip was implanted into you,and it intercepted these signals,yes it would be possible.