Has Any Hacker Accessed a Military Project on Brain Implants Neural Implants If so, Let us talk.

Mentifex mentifex at scn.org
Mon Aug 31 08:09:17 EST 1998


jagxr at mindspring.com (FGP) on 31 Aug 1998 asks a hard-to-believe question:

> Here are some web sites for starters.
>

http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume3/chap02/v3c2-4.htm#implanted_microscopic_chip

>This is the best example of what our tax dollars are paying for.
>>
>Implanted Microscopic Chip
>
>The implanted microscopic brain chip110 performs two functions. First, it
>links the individual to the IIC, creating a seamless interface between the
>user and the information resources (in-time collection data and archival
>databases). In essence, the chip relays the processed information from the
>IIC to the user. Second, the chip creates a computer-generated mental
>visualization based upon the user's request. The visualization encompasses
>the individual and allows the user to place himself into the selected
>battlespace.
>
>Why the Implanted Microscopic Chip? While other methods such as
>specially
>configured rooms, special helmets, or sunglasses may be used to
>interface
>the user with the IIC, the microscopic chip is the most viable. Two
>real
>operational concerns support the use of implanted chips and argue
>against
>larger "physical" entities to access the Cyber Situation.
>
>First, future operations will demand a highly flexible and mobile
>force
>that is ready at moment's notice to employ aerospace power. The chip
>will
>give these forces the ability to communicate, visualize, and prosecute
>military operations. Having to manage and deploy a "physical" platform
>or
>room hampers mobility and delays time-sensitive operations. US
>aerospace
>forces must be prepared to fight or to conduct mobility or special
>operations anywhere in the world on extremely short notice although
>some of
>these operations may be staged directly from the continental United
>States.111
>
>Second, a physical entity creates a target vulnerable to enemy attack
>or
>sabotage. A highly mobile information operations center created with
>the
>chip-IIC interface makes it much more elusive to enemy attack. These
>reasons argue against a larger physical entity for the Cyber
>Situation.
>
>While this is a reasonable portability rationale for the use of chip,
>some
>may wonder, "Why not use special sunglasses or helmets?" The answer is
>simple. An implanted microscopic chip does not require security
>measures to
>verify whether the right person is connected to the IIC, whereas a
>room,
>helmet, or sunglasses requires additional time-consuming access
>control
>mechanisms to verify an individual's identity and level of control
>within
>the Cyber Situation.
>
>Further, survey any group of commanders, decision makers, or other
>military
>personnel if they enjoy carrying a beeper or "brick" at all times.
>Likely,
>few like to carry a piece of equipment. Now, imagine having to
>maintain a
>critical instrument that allows an individual to access the Cyber
>Situation, and thus control the US military forces. Clearly, this is
>not an
>enviable position, since the individual may misplace or lose the
>helmet or
>sunglasses, or worse yet, the enemy may steal or destroy it. These are
>unnecessary burdens.
>
>Ethical and Public Relations Issues. Implanting "things" in people
>raises
>ethical and public relations issues.112 While these concerns may be
>founded
>on today's thinking, in 2025 they may not be as alarming. We already
>are
>evolving toward technology implanting. For example, the military
>currently
>requires its members to receive mandatory injections of biological
>organisms (i.e., the flu shot). In the civilian world, people receive
>mechanical hearts and other organs. Society has come to accept most of
>these implants as a fact of life. By 2025 it is possible medical
>technology
>will have nerve chips that allow amputees to control artificial limbs
>or
>eye chips that allow the blind to see.113 The civilian populace will
>likely
>accept an implanted microscopic chips that allow military members to
>defend
>vital national interests. Further, the US military will continue to be
>a
>volunteer force that will freely accept the chip because it is a tool
>to
>control technology and not as a tool to control the human.
>
>Lethal and Nonlethal Weapons
>
>A wide range of lethal and nonlethal weapons will be linked to the
>IIC,
>allowing authorized users to directly employ these weapons. A user's
>authority to employ weapons will depend on the person's position,
>responsibility, and rank.
> 
> http://www.wired.com/wired/5.02/esberger.html
> http://www.engin.umich.edu/facility/cnct/users.html
> http://www.nibec.ulst..ac.uk/nibec/research_groups/thin_film_body_devices.htm
> http://www.ece.iit.edu/faculty/PTroyk/PTroyk.html



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list