Hearing Voices? Could Be the Lasers

An anonymous reader sends us to Wired for a piece about some declassified Pentagon research from 1998 that has been revealed in a freedom-of-information filing. Apparently the Pentagon has investigated lasers that put voices in your head, among other non-lethal technologies such as microwave heating. The report suggests the techniques could be useful for controlling crowds or in negotiations. There is no context for the research or any indication whether it has continued, although the microwave heating bit sounds rather like the Active Denial System we have discussed recently.

Comments

Real Genius

[cthulu_mt]

Kent: Is that you God?

Re:Real Genius

[Samgilljoy]

Just wait until they sell the technology to the private sector. Instead of poor slobs standing on street corners waving signs, we'll have troops of unskilled laborers running around with laser devices trying to shoot everyone in the head.

Laser Advertising: straight out your marketers' asses into your customers' heads.

Tin foil hats vs. orbital mind control lasers.

[Spectre]

See, the tinfoil hats REALLY DO WORK against the orbital mind control lasers ...

Re:Tin foil hats vs. orbital mind control lasers.

[ZenDragon]

A former Arizona governor used to wear tin foil hats and cover his windows with tin foil at the governors office (where I worked for a while). Everybody thought he was just crazy but apparently he knew something that we did not!

Re:Tin foil hats vs. orbital mind control lasers.

[palegray.net]

Could that governor have been the guy discussed in this article. He sure sounds like the mind-ray fearing type...

Re:Tin foil hats vs. orbital mind control lasers.

[bughunter]

I've got my tinfoil hat on!

Re:Tin foil hats vs. orbital mind control lasers.

[Rei]

I knew it! Conspiracy theories: 1. Regular theories: A billion

Re:Tin foil hats vs. orbital mind control lasers.

[mOdQuArK!]

That's why I always make sure I wear my tinfoil hat with the shiny side out, to deflect all the lasers. Even from sharks.

I haven't figured out how to stop the sharks from biting me though, except by staying out of the water.

If torture wasn't unreliable enough

[WarJolt]

Torture isn't a reliable means to obtain information. I know...I have a great idea... Lets make them crazy.

Re:If torture wasn't unreliable enough

[MenTaLguY]

Also known as "psychological torture".

Re:If torture wasn't unreliable enough

[Gat0r30y]

The obvious use is of course to license the technology to Major League Baseball to tell everyone to buy more MLB merchandise (and of course for marketing research). You didn't think those congresional hearings were really about sterioids did you?

Re:If torture wasn't unreliable enough

[palegray.net]

Why stop at beaming voices into their heads? We can achieve must more cooperation through the transmission of these fine symphonic works:

• Britney Spears - Oops!...I Did It Again (can't stop playing these catchy tunes)
• Bell Biv DeVoe - Poison (if you don't cooperate)
• Blondie - I Touch Myself (with a loaded shotgun)
• Backstreet Boys - I Want It That Way (we just want answers)

Re:If torture wasn't unreliable enough

[93 Escort Wagon]

Torture isn't a reliable means to obtain information. I see/hear this repeated whenever the subject of torture comes up... but I've never read a convincing explanation of why this would be the case. The standard arguments (e.g. "They'll say whatever you want to hear, just to make you stop") aren't particularly well reasoned - they don't really work unless you assume the torturer comes into the session knowing absolutely nothing related to the information they're trying to obtain.

FWIW I think torture is wrong, and should not be used just based on that fact. But I wonder if the parent statement has some actual basis in fact, or if it basically amounts to another wikiality.

Re:If torture wasn't unreliable enough

[somersault]

Either that or some jerk in the crowd could laser in "YOU SUCK!" just as the batter is about to swing .. and I thought laser pens at the cinema were annoying :s

Re:If torture wasn't unreliable enough

[serialdogma]

Blondie didn't do a "I Touch Myself" cover, the original song was done by Australian rock band the Divinyls.

Re:If torture wasn't unreliable enough

[vux984]

but I've never read a convincing explanation of why this would be the case. The standard arguments (e.g. "They'll say whatever you want to hear, just to make you stop") aren't particularly well reasoned - they don't really work unless you assume the torturer comes into the session knowing absolutely nothing related to the information they're trying to obtain.

Suppose I planted some bombs and you caught me and demanded the information by torture. First I'd deny, then I'd lie, and presumably eventually I'd give up the locations and the city would be saved. hooray! right?

The trouble is -- what if you caught my completely innocent brother instead? You'd start in on him, and he deny. And deny. And then deny some more... but if you don't let up, he'll give up and start naming places. Of course there won't be any bombs there unless he's incredibly lucky-- but really you expected him to lie. So you torture him some more, and he'll come up with some new locations.

And all the information he'll give you will be unreliable. But he'll swear by his mothers grave its the truth everytime. until you come back tell him he lied and you want the real locations this time... and he'll come up with another set. You see? He'll just keep saying what you want to hear.

Now if you happen to know where the bombs are, and tell him to confirm it. He'll do that too. He'll jump at the chance. And admit to planning it. Buying the explosives, etc... whatever you tell him... he'll give it back to you.

And when you look at some of the information that's come from people who've been tortured. They rarely want anything so verifiable as the location of bombs... they want

a) you to confess to crimes that they'll outline for you
b) tell you name co-conspirators

In which case you eventually do both. Except if your innocent the people you name in b) are just going to be random friends and family and acquaintenaces etc... which is unverifiable... because they all deny it... unless you torture them too, of course.

The trouble with torture is ultimately there is no real way to tell the difference between some who is supressing information and someone who simply doesn't know. Either will deny knowing. And either will give you false information -- the former in defiance, the latter because that's all they've got, and you don't let up until they give you SOMETHING.

And if you know the information your getting is false, well.. they must be in defiance... so you just torture them some more.

Re:If torture wasn't unreliable enough

[repapetilto]

Johnston: "It appears the intel was faulty again sir" Base Cmdr. Assertion Fallacy: "Well, then we obviously haven't tortured him enough have we"

Re:If torture wasn't unreliable enough

[MikeDX]

surely she *DID* do a cover then..

Re:If torture wasn't unreliable enough

[ravenshrike]

Done properly, while asking the right sort of questions, torture works perfectly well. Especially if you keep torturing them until their story remains consistent. It's hard enough to build elaborate lies against interrogation alone, adding severe pain and mental anguish makes it impossible. That being said, just picking up an average Joe off the street and torturing them won't get you anything useful, because you don't know enough to ask the right sort of questions.

Re:If torture wasn't unreliable enough

[MikeBabcock]

On the contrary -- people who say torture works watch too many movies. Ditto for people who think lie detectors work. You do realize the CIA has admitted to never actually outing an agent with a lie detector, right?

Torture is a useful way to justify your own actions and beliefs, and it may be a way to get information from someone IF they have that information but it is NOT a good reliable way of ascertaining if they even know that information nor if the information they give you is accurate.

Some people you can beat half to death and they'll just let you kill them out of spite. Some people will lie from the start just to see if they can outwit you. Some will give up everything after being threatened once. Can you tell the difference? I'll tell you one thing, a lot of those doing the torturing sure can't, not to mention that you wouldn't be able to admit to having torture training in the first place.

Re:If torture wasn't unreliable enough

[petermgreen]

Just from a guess, I'd say the "interviewers" probably tend to ask enough leading questions where in a state of panic you might make up something reasonably convincing but wrong. Or for legitimate suspects who are hardened to torture techniques they could still give mis-information based just enough on the truth to be believable.
Sure but there are a couple techniques the torturer can use to at least partially get arround that.

* they can check that the information is consistant with thier other sources.
* if they have captured a group of people who are all belived to have the information they can keep torturing until they get a consistant story out of all of them.

I'm sure there are cases where torture doesn't work but that is rather different from being useless.

Re:If torture wasn't unreliable enough

[tunabomber]

Why even try to satirize the U.S. military when they satirize themselves? They actually did this at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. It seems Metallica was the most popular torture music, but occasionally they'd crank Barney the Dinosaur when they wanted to play hardball.

Re:If torture wasn't unreliable enough

[cyphercell]

So, lets say you spend months torturing the wrong person? Do you let them go? Let them back to their people so they can tell everyone what hideous hell awaits them whether innocent or guilty? Fuck no! you bury that shit, you either A) never let them out of prison OR B) finish it. The best case scenario here is where you have executioners and torturers in a total disconnect. The torturer thinks the innocents go free, the executioners think only the guilty are exterminated. But outside of a perfect world, the only thing that holds the soldiers' belief in upstanding behavior is denial.

So, knowing how it works, I know that if torture is going to be used against the enemy (whether innocent or guilty) the innocent will develop plans fashioned around protecting their loved ones, and the guilty will fashion plans to look innocent. What you get is a despotic snowball where both the guilty and innocent rat out their friends in order to protect their families and co-conspirators. Forcing the interrogating force to lock up or kill more and more of the wrong people. (possibly developing a paranoia that all co-conspirators are blood related - the interrogator will sense that everyone is lying about the same thing.)

If I were guilty I would go to the smartest innocent "friend" I have and make a deal that if either of us are captured we will protect our families. I would develop a wild goose chase complete with corroborating evidence, eventually framing my buddy or an enemy. I would instruct all of my closest recruits to do the same (creating more corroboration in a predatory fashion). Fear would drive my friend to do unspeakable things, he at the same time would assume I was under that same pressure of fear - he would be wrong. Spies often work by using people that do NOT know anything of value. Hell if I was a spy I'd set shit up and call the damn interrogators just to keep them busy. Torture is a crude tactic in the intelligence game - it only works against those that are bad at playing the game. What's more, is if your enemy is bad at playing the game, why do you need it?

I'm safe

[quakehead3]

Thanks to my tinfoil hat.

obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

what's the frequency, Kenneth?

Re:obligatory

[spun]

For those who don't know, or those who think it's just a reference to an R.E.M. song, read the story behind the song: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What's_the_Frequency,_Kenneth%3F

Basically, some crazy dude beat the crap out of Dan Rather because he thought the networks were beaming voices into his head, and he thought Dan knew the frequency.

Finally! Help for Paranoid Schizophrenics!

[F�an�ro]

We should use this awesome technologie to help guide ill people.

Especially Paranoid Schizophrenics.

We can send them reassuring messages, like "you are not alone. we are there to get you (help)"

or warn them of imminent dangers, like which bus drivers hate them.

Voices

[jumpinp]

I knew I wasn't crazy.

Re:Voices

[spun]

Wait, does this mean I'm not crazy? :( Well, what do the voices say?

Re:Voices

[$RANDOMLUSER]

You're just jealous because they only talk to me.

Re:Voices

[PPH]

Well, what do the voices say? "Heeeeere's Johnny!"

Re:Voices

[thegiantsnail]

Philip K Dick. Hell yes. My exact thought when I read this, that pink laser of enlightenment.

Re:Voices

[morgan_greywolf]

Well, what do the voices say?

"Gates is a God. Only Microsoft software is secure. The GPL is a plague upon the world."

Just the usual....

microwave negotiations

[sssmashy]

The microwave heating technique was tested on a Rhesus monkey, where a 225 MHz beam caused an increase in the animals body temperature. Depending on the dosage level, the temperature increase occurred within a time of 15 to 30 minutes. After the beam was removed, the animals body temperature decreased back to normal. The report suggests the technique could be useful for controlling crowds or in negotiations.

"What's that, you say? Getting a little hot in here? We'll get you a cool glass of water... but first, let's finish negotiating the terms of your unconditional surrender."

Wild Goose Chase

[prajjwal]

Damn.. back when I had decided to investigate this, voices in my head kept telling me that it was a wild goose chase!

Re:Wild Goose Chase

[Architect_sasyr]

Is this the appropriate time for a certain bash quote:

<ColdRage687> i used to think the brain was the most fascinating part of the body
<ColdRage687> but then i realized
<ColdRage687> pssssh
<ColdRage687> look whats telling me that

I Wouldn't Laugh ...

[eldavojohn]

Torture isn't a reliable means to obtain information. I know...I have a great idea... Lets make them crazy. Yeah, that's funny--although I would mod it insightful. Although perhaps you should read Mikhail Bulgakov's works that were satires of how the Soviet Union tortured him indirectly. From the Wikipedia entry on his most famous work:

A memorable and much-quoted line in The Master and Margarita is: "manuscripts don't burn" (Russian: ). The Master is a writer who is plagued by both his own mental problems and the oppression of Stalin's regime in 1930s Moscow. He burns his treasured manuscript in an effort to hide it from the Soviet authorities and cleanse his own mind from the troubles the work has brought him. There is an autobiographical element reflected in the Master's character here, as Bulgakov in fact burned an early copy of The Master and Margarita for much the same reasons.

pkd

[KrazeeEyezKilla]

PHILIP K DICK WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG now we just have to wait for the pentagon to admit that we are living in the roman empire and that it's 79 AD

Re:Someone's been reading Philip K. Dick

[Ruke]

That's the same thing that popped into my head.

An obvious practical application

[paulpach]

There is an obvious application for this technology.

Not a laser.

[Anonymous Coward]

Laser = light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation.
In the article they talk about using microwaves.

As far as I know there in no way to make a coherent beam of RF energy.
Or can it be done using a dipole aerial array like they use for radar?
It's still not light anyway.

Old News + Kucinich Called it

[Essron]

see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001399.html

you know, economically speaking it is inevitable these things will be researched, like chemical weapons (some of which turn you gay in the foxhole), pentagon contingency plans for aliens showing up and cheating with electronic voting. too much upside to ignore the possibility, or too ominous to not aggressively understand.

it does sound like an interesting line of research, no?

Gay Bomb

[Tablizer]

They can use this in conjunction with the "gay bomb" (hormone tweaker) they were working on. Now voices can say, "It's okay, don't feel guilty. He's cute, go for it!".

Microsoft

[Tablizer]

"Clippy followed me home from the office! Make it shut up, aaarrrrrrggghh!"

How do we know they're not just fucking with us?

[Anonymous Coward]

How hard would it be for some random Air Force flunky to classify a document referring to using lasers to put voices in people's heads, knowing that it would get declassified later?

And he's now off somewhere just laughing his ass off.

Well at least we know what happened.......

[edwardpickman]

in the 2000 and 2004 elections. Thought control lasers make more sense than the election results did.

Non-lethal Microwave Heating????

[woolio]

non-lethal technologies such as microwave heating.

I think many a feline would disagree about the non-lethality of a microwave oven.