www.newdawnmagazine.com
"Totalitarian
Technology"
By SUSAN BRYCE
Over the last decade,
Science
fiction perhaps?
Reality yes! Much of what we see on the big screen is not the latest fantasy of
A recent report published
by the European Parliament, "An Appraisal of the Technologies of Political
Control", shows just how far these new technologies have come, and how
they are being actively employed against citizens in countries across the
globe.
The report warns of
"an overall technological and decision drift towards world wide
convergence of nearly all the technologies of political control",
including identity recognition; denial; surveillance systems based on neural
networks; new arrest and restraint methods and the emergence of so called ‘less
lethal’ weapons.
Developments in
surveillance technology, innovations in crowd control weapons, new prison
control systems, the rise of more powerful restraint, torture, killing and
execution technologies and the role of privatised enterprises in promoting such
technologies pose a grave threat to our immediate and future freedoms.
Trade in Technologies of Control
Cutting edge developments made
by the Western military-industrial complex are providing invaluable support to
various governments throughout the world. The report "Big Brother
Incorporated", by surveillance watchdog Privacy International, presents a
detailed analysis of the international trade in surveillance technology.
Privacy International says
it is concerned about "the flow of sophisticated computer-based technology
from developed countries to developing countries — and particularly to
non-democratic regimes where surveillance technologies become tools of
political control."
The international trade in
surveillance technology (known as the Repression Trade), involves the
manufacture and export of technologies of political control. More than seventy
per cent of companies manufacturing and exporting surveillance technology also
export arms, chemical weapons or military hardware.
The justification advanced
by the companies involved in this trade is identical to the justification
advanced in the arms trade — i.e.: that the technology is neutral. Privacy
International’s view is that in the absence of legal protection, the technology
can never be neutral.
As "Big Brother
Incorporated" points out, "even those technologies intended for
‘benign’ uses rapidly develop more sinister purposes. The UK manufactured
‘Scoot’ traffic control cameras in Beijing’s Tianamen
Square were automatically employed as surveillance cameras during the student
demonstrations. Images captured from the cameras were broadcast over Chinese
television to ensure that the ‘offending’ students were captured."
Privacy International cites
numerous cases where this type of technology has been obtained for the express
purpose of political and social control...
·
ICL
(International Computers Limited) provided the technological infrastructure to
establish the South African automated Passbook system, upon which much of the
function of the apartheid regime depended.
·
In
the 1980s Israeli company Tadiram developed and
exported the technology for the computerised death list used by the Guatemalan
police.
·
Reported
human rights abuses in Indonesia — particularly those affecting East Timor —
would not be possible without the strategic and technological support of
Western companies. Among those companies supplying the Indonesian police and
military with surveillance and targeting technology are Morpho
Systems (France), De la Ruue Printak
(UK), EEV Night Vision (UK), ICL (UK), Marconi Radar and Control Systems (UK), Pyser (UK), Siemens Plessey Defense
Systems (UK), Rockwell International Corporation (USA) and SWS Security (USA).
Tools of Repression for 'Democratic' States
We should not forget that
the same companies supplying regimes with repression technology,
also supply ‘democratic’ states with their totalitarian tools.
Leutcher Associates Inc. of Massachusetts
supplies and services American gas chambers, as well as designing, supplying
and installing electric chairs, auto-injection systems and gallows. The Leutcher
lethal injection system costs approximately $30,000 and is the cheapest system
the company sells. Their electrocution systems cost £35,000 and a gallows would
cost approximately $85,000. More and more US states are opting for Leutcher’s $100,000 "execution trailer" which
comes complete with a lethal injection machine, a steel holding cell for an
inmate, and separate areas for witnesses, chaplain, prison workers and medical
personnel. Some companies in Europe have even offered to supply gallows.
In the 1970’s, J.A. Meyer
of the US Defense Department suggested a countrywide
network of transceivers for monitoring all prisoners on parole, via an
irremovable transponder implant. The idea was that parolees movements could be
continuously checked and the system would facilitate certain areas or hours to
be out of bounds, whilst having the economic advantage of cutting down on the
costs of clothing and feeding the prisoner. If prisoners go missing, the police
could automatically home in on their last position.
Meyer’s vision came into
operational use in America in the mid 1980’s, when some private prisons started
to operate a transponder based parole system. The system has now spread into
Canada and Europe where it is known as electronic tagging. Whilst the logic of
tagging is difficult to resist, critics argue that the recipients of this
technology appear not to be offenders who would have been imprisoned, but
rather low risk offenders who are most likely to be released into the community
anyway. Because of this, the system is not cheaper since the authorities gain
the added expense of supplying monitoring devices to offenders who would have
been released anyway. Electronic tagging is however beneficial to the companies
who sell such systems. Tagging also has a profitable role inside prisons in the
US and in some prisons, notably, DeKalb County Jail
near Atlanta, where all prisoners are bar coded.
'Non-Lethal' Technology of Control
The increasing
militarisation of police forces throughout the world is reflected in the spread
of "less lethal" weapons such as pepper gas. Benignly referred to by
the media as "capsicum spray", pepper gas was recently used by
Australian police in the state of Victoria to subdue a man. According to media
reports, the Victorian police also used "a weapon they don’t want to disclose".
The effects of pepper gas
are far more severe than most people realise. It is known to cause temporary
blindness, a burning sensation of the skin which lasts from 45 to 60 minutes,
upper body spasms which force a person to bend forward and uncontrollable
coughing making it difficult to breathe or speak for between 3 to 15 minutes.
For those with asthma or
subject to restraining techniques which restrict the breathing passages, there
is a risk of death. The Los Angeles Times has reported at least 61 deaths
associated with police use of pepper spray since 1990 in the USA, and the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has documented 27 deaths in custody of
people sprayed with pepper gas in California alone, since 1993.
The US Army concluded in a
1993 Aberdeen Proving Ground study that pepper spray
could cause "Mutagenic effects, carcinogenic effects, sensitization,
cardiovascular and pulmonary toxicity, neuro-toxicity,
as well as possible human fatalities."
The existing arsenal of
weapons designed for public order and control will soon be joined by a second
generation of kinetic, chemical, optico-acoustic, and
microwave weapons, adding to the disabling and paralysing technologies already
available. Much of the initial work on these new technologies has been
undertaken in US nuclear laboratories such as Oak Ridge, Lawrence Livermore and
Los Alamos. The European Parliament Report "An Appraisal of the
Technologies of Political Control" lists a Pandora’s box
of new technologies including:
·
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).
·
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 tranquillisation
may be another’s lethal dose.
·
Microwave
and acoustic disabling systems.
·
Human
capture nets which can be laced with chemical irritant or electrified to pack
an extra disabling punch.
·
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.
·
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.
·
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.
"An Appraisal of the Technologies
of Political Control" says "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 them. 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. Other companies are promoting robots for
use in riot and prison control.
Advances in Biometric Identification
Through the inevitability
of gradualness, repression technology, in the form of biometric identity
systems, is permeating our every day life. Biometry involves using a physical
characteristic such as a fingerprint, palm print, iris or retina scan to
identify individuals. These unique identity charact-eristics
are digitally stored on a computer system for verification. This way, the
identity of each person can be compared to the stored original. Christians will
be interested to note that with biometric systems, the original print is stored
not as a ‘picture’ but as an algorithm. The number of your name will be
literally in your hand (thumb print) or in your forehead (eyes).
Biometric identification is
not something that we just see at the movies. It is here, it is with us now.
Governments in Australia, the USA and the UK are planning its widespread
introduction by 2005.
Both the Dutch and
Australian public rejected plans for a national information and identification
scheme en masse several years ago, but have reacted more passively to
equally intrusive (but less blatant) schemes in the 1990’s.
Uses of the Social Security
Number in the USA, the Social Insurance Number in Canada, the Tax File Number
in Australia, the SOFI Number in the Netherlands and the Austrian Social
Security Number have been extended progressively to include taxation,
unemployment support, pensioner benefits and, in some cases, health and higher
education. Functional creep is rampant.
Large scale government
computer based schemes have been shown in several countries to be much less
cost-effective than was originally estimated. Years after the governments of
the United States and Australia developed schemes to match public sector data,
there is still no clear evidence that the strategy has succeeded in achieving
its goals. The audit agencies of both federal governments have cast doubt that
computer matching schemes deliver savings.
A nationwide survey by
Columbia University last year reported that 83% of people approve of the use of
finger imaging. Biometrics is being embraced on a global scale. The Australian
company, Fingerscan, a subsidiary of Californian
based Identix Inc, recently won one of the biggest
bank contracts for biometric security in the world. Fingerscan
is working with the Bank of Central Asia in Jakarta, Indonesia to replace
numeric passwords for employees at 5000 branches with fingerprint based system
access.
Fingerscan also has the world’s largest
application of biometrics in the servicing of automated teller machines. In
conjunction with contractor Armaguard, which services
ATMs for Australian banks, many ATMs are now unlocked by the representative’s
fingerprint. The representative brings a portable scanning device that plugs
into the back of the ATM and connects the bank’s server which grants him or her
admittance.
The US government has a
deadline of 1999 to implement electronic benefits processing for welfare
recipients, but this may be delayed to accommodate biometrics, which is
currently being piloted in five American states. The Australian government will
introduce a biometric identity system for welfare recipients by 2005.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield
in the USA have plans to introduce nationwide fingerprinting for hospital
patients. This may be extended into other medical applications. The Jamaican
Government is planning to introduce electronic thumb scanning to control
elections. Social Security verification using biometrics is used in Spain and
South Africa. In 1994, the UK Department of Social Security developed a
proposal to introduce a national identification card, which recommended a
computerised database of the hand-prints of all 30 million people receiving
government income assistance.
Big Brother's International
Network of Surveillance
Biometric identification is
the technology of today and the future. It is not a matter of if, but when, a
global network of computers will link all stored biometric images in a central
location, managed by a collective of international authorities.
In 1994, under the
leadership of US Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a
consortium of the world’s leading companies formed the Global Information
Infrastructure Commission (GIIC). Headed by the president of Mitsubishi, the
chair of EDS, and the vice chair of Siemens Corporation, the GIIC intends to
create a conglomerate of interests powerful enough to subsume government
interest in the regulation of biometric and other technologies. The effort is
being funded to a large extent by the World Bank.
Governments in 26 countries
are, at this moment, monitoring and cooperating with project FAST (Future
Automated Screening for Travelers). FAST was first
piloted in 1993 by US immigration authorities when a new lane at New York’s
John F. Kennedy airport was opened. The technology for the system is known as
INPASS (Immigration and Natur-alization Service
Passenger Accelerated Service System) which is a biometric identification
system used to expedite passengers through customs at international airports in
as little as 20 seconds.
Applicants for registration
with FAST are interviewed, and identity confirmed. Hand prints are taken,
converted to a template and stored digitally on a smart card. Once the last of
five green lights appear at the tips of the fingers, the glass exit door opens
and the passenger continues to the baggage claim and customs zone. The system
is currently a voluntary trial for frequent travellers to and from the USA who
are US or Canadian nationals.
With new technology, travelers can rest assured that their security is always in
good hands. The US Militech Corporation has developed
a Passive Millimeter Wave Imaging system, which can
scan people from up to 12 feet away and see through clothing to detect
concealed items such as weapons, packages and other contraband. Variations of
this through-clothing human screening are under development by companies such
as the US Raytheon Corporation, and will be an irresistible addition to
international airports everywhere.
Once upon a time,
surveillance was targeted at certain groups and individuals. In our time,
surveillance occurs en masse. Much of the ‘harmless’ computer based
technology necessary for our daily lives could actually be used to keep the
entire population under surveillance.
Telephone systems lend
themselves to a dual role as a national interceptions network, according to
"An Appraisal of the Technologies of Political Control". 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. faxes, to share the system with
existing lines. The ISDN subset is defined in their documents as "Signaling CCITT"-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. This effectively means that a national
dial up telephone tapping capacity is built into these systems from the start.
Further, the digital technology required to pinpoint mobile phone users for
incoming calls means that all mobile phones in a country when activated, are mini-tracking devices.
The issues surrounding the
uncontrolled and unregulated spread of tyrannical technology are immediate and
ongoing. The technologies of repression that are trialed
in so-called non-democratic countries are now being aggressively marketed in
the West, while Hitler’s Germany becomes a vague memory. It is up to us to do
what ever we can to stop the insidious spread of this technology, and to demand
the right to choose whether we participate in the biometric system or not. We
should ask ourselves... who will heed our cry for help once these technologies
are fully implemented?
REFERENCES
Davies, Simon,
"Touching Big Brother", Information Technology People, Vol 7,
No 4, 1994
Elllerman, Sarah, "The Rise of
Tempest", Internet Underground Magazine, June 1996.
European Parliament,
Scientific and Technical Operations Assessment, 1998, "An Appraisal of
Technologies of Political Control", available at http://jya.com/stoa-atpc.com
Jane’s US Military R
& D,
"Human Computer Interface, Vol 1, Issue 3 1997
O’Sullivan, Olara, "Biometrics comes to Life", http://www.banking.com/aba/cover_0197.htm
Privacy International,
1995, "Big Brother Incorporated", http://www.privacy.org/pi
US Scientific Advisory
Board, "New World Vistas", the proceedings of Fiftieth Anniversary
Symposium of the USAF SAB, November 10, 1994, (republished by International
Committee for the Convention Against Offensive Microwave Weapons).
___________________________________________________________
Susan Bryce
is an investigative journalist and researcher whose interests include issues
which affect individual freedom, environmental health, surveillance technology
and global politics. She can be contacted at PO Box 66, Kenilworth, QLD 4574,
Australia