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!

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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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: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.

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.