Got WII? Up on the latest 'games'?

[Guest guest]

Not just fun and innocence... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va & aid=8263 New Instruments of Surveillance and Social Control: Wireless Technologies which Target the Neuronal Functioning of the Brain Excerpt: Emotional gaming and dangerous intentions: Inside the social–civil sphere The use of EEG brain scanning has now moved into the gaming industry with up–to–date developments in sensory gaming. Recently Emotiv publicly released information on their upcoming ‘Project Epoc’, a developmental technology that interprets electrical signals emitted by the brain and

converts them into actions on a computer. In this way the user/gamer is able to direct actions via their thoughts in the online environment. Below are pictures of two prototypes which the company expects to market some time in 2008 [18]. The company Web site claims that they provide the ultimate human–computer interface and that they

are pioneers in brain computer interface technology. In their press release of 7 March 2007 they state that Emotiv has created the first brain computer interface technology that can detect and process both human conscious thoughts and non–conscious emotions. The technology, which comprises a headset and a suite of applications, allows computers to differentiate between particular thoughts such as lifting an object or rotating it; detect and mimic a user’s expressions, such as a smile or wink; and respond to emotions such as excitement or calmness. [19] In the same press

release the company foresees in the future that ‘Emotiv’s technology has the potential to be applied to numerous industries, including interactive television, accessibility design, market research, medicine, and security’ [20]. A similar corporate gaming company, NeuroSky, claims to have gone even further than Emotiv and reduced ‘the brainwave pickup to the minimum specification imaginable — a single electrode. Existing versions of this electrode are small enough to fit into a mobile phone and ... they will soon be shrunk to the size of a thumbnail, enabling people to wear them without noticing’ (Economist, 2007). The company Web site claims its ‘bio sensor and signal processing system for the consumer market’ will unlock ‘worlds of new applications such as consumer

electronics, health, wellness, education and training’ [21]. Clearly there is a potential commercial market envisioned here for wireless–brain technology that goes beyond the sphere of gaming. Somewhat on the extreme to this, wireless acoustic transmissions have now been developed to ‘stop’ people from over–gaming; in other words, as a treatment for gaming addiction. In highly technologised Asian countries such as South Korea teenagers are spending an unhealthy amount of time at their computers in gaming environments. There have even been instances where gamers have died after extensively long sessions in front of a computer without a break, such as in MMORPGs (Massive Multiplayer Online Role–Playing Game). South Korean company

Xtive, established in 2005, spent a year of research to develop a system of acoustic sound waves that act as subliminal transmissions during the gaming experience: We incorporated messages into an acoustic sound wave telling gamers to stop playing. The messages are told 10,000 to 20,000 times per second ... . Game users can’t recognize the sounds. But their subconscious is aware of them and the chances are high they will quit playing ... . Game companies can install a system, which delivers the inaudible sounds after it recognizes a young user has kept playing after a preset period of time. (Tae–gyu, 2007) This emphasises that research into techno–information flows are increasingly being developed that wirelessly interact with a person as a biological construct,

utilising the already present bio–neural functioning. And this is a trend that is attracting more corporate players wishing to enter the field. Gaming giant Sony Corporation has submitted and been granted a patent on a device for transmitting sensory data directly into the human brain. Sony’s patent describes the device as firing “pulses of ultrasound at the head to modify firing patterns in targeted parts of the brain, creating ‘sensory experiences’ ranging from moving images to tastes and sounds” (Hogan and Fox, 2005). This is based upon a technique known as transcranial magnetic stimulation that activates the nerves by using rapidly changing magnetic fields to induce currents in brain tissue. The patent also claims that this technology could give blind or deaf people the chance to see or hear. Niels Birbaumer, a neuroscientist at the University of Tübingen in Germany who has himself developed similar devices, examined

the Sony patent and commented that ‘I looked at it and found it plausible’ (Hogan and Fox, 2005). Since Sony’s initial patent application in 2000 (granted in March 2003), a series of further patents have been applied for. However, this line of research is not totally new. For several years there has been research conducted into decoding thoughts from the brain for sending signals to an external device such as manipulating cursors on a screen, which has been developed for disabled people, as in the case of Matthew Nagle (Pollack, 2006). In recent years several other companies have emerged claiming to offer brain–computer wireless interaction for either gaming purposes or for various health impairment benefits. One example is S.M.A.R.T. BrainGames, a company based in California that offers EEG caps designed to treat people with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder. The company claims to offer superior neurofeedback

technology at what it calls ‘affordable prices’ [22]. The body–brain is increasingly shifting towards becoming a biologically–enhanced data processor for wireless reception and transmission. Computer software giant Microsoft is aware of this and already ahead of the game. In 2004 Microsoft was awarded U.S. Patent 6,754,472, titled ‘Method and apparatus for transmitting power and data using the human body’ [23]. In this patent Microsoft is granted exclusive rights to a technology that uses the electrical capacity of the human body to act as

a computer network (Adam, 2004). Microsoft envisages ‘using the human skin’s conductive properties to link a host of electronic devices around the body, from pagers and personal data assistants (PDA) to mobile phones and microphones, although the company is uncharacteristically coy about exactly what it may have in mind’ (Adam, 2004). This supports what Bill Gates himself has said about the computer finally disappearing into the environment and the world around us (Gibson, 2005). This may be the ultimate wireless network, using the complete skin of the body, from fingers to toes, receiving and transmitting flows of information. The patent also proposes that an area of skin could even act as a keypad making a person capable of typing by tapping on their arm (Adam, 2004). This is a powerful example of how technologies and technological thinking is shifting away from external hardware devices towards using the natural

bio-properties of the human body for integration into a global informational environment. As way of some examples, here are just two from many of the patents filed that claim to develop wireless transmission technologies: patents 4,395,600 and 5,507,291. Patent No. 4,395,600 is titled ‘Auditory subliminal message system and method’ and is geared towards subliminal messaging to influence consumer shoppers: Ambient audio signals from the customer shopping area within a store are sensed and fed to a signal processing circuit that produces a control signal which varies with variations in the amplitude of the sensed audio signals. A control circuit adjusts the amplitude of an auditory subliminal anti–shoplifting message to increase with increasing amplitudes of sensed audio signals and decrease with decreasing amplitudes of sensed audio signals. This

amplitude controlled subliminal message may be mixed with background music and transmitted to the shopping area. [24] In a similar manner for affecting an individual’s mental state is patent no. 5,507,291 — ‘Method and an associated apparatus for remotely determining information as to person’s emotional state’ — which comes very close to what has been discussed on military uses of information warfare: In a method for remotely determining information relating to a person’s emotional state, a waveform energy having a predetermined frequency and a predetermined intensity is

generated and wirelessly transmitted towards a remotely located subject. Waveform energy emitted from the subject is detected and automatically analyzed to derive information relating to the individual’s emotional state. [25] In this scenario information flows are two-way with the body-brain emitting as well as receiving. Yet with the human body–brain becoming a site for data transfer and reception, there are concerns that it is increasingly becoming a target for various corporate interests. And not only corporate interests are involved in these developments, however, for there are also recent innovative technologies in this area that offer serious implications for social privacy and liberty

at a state level. At first the idea sounds like nothing more than science fiction. Indeed, it even appeared as a central feature in the film ‘Minority Report’. This is the notion of pre–cognition: to be able to know a person’s actions before those actions are committed. Yet now a team of neuroscientists have developed a technique that can scan a brain and learn from the patterns of neuronal activity what a person is thinking or intending to do. This research is the culmination of recent studies where brain imaging has been used to identify particular brain patterns pertaining to such behaviour as violence, lying, and racial prejudice (Sample, 2007). To achieve this the team ‘used high–resolution brain scans to identify patterns of activity before translating them into meaningful thoughts, revealing what a person planned to do in the near future’ (Sample, 2007). This is the first acknowledged instance of having the

technical capacity to judge whether people have the intention to commit a criminal act regardless of actual hard physical evidence of the crime. According to Prof Haynes: ‘We see the danger that this might become compulsory one day, but we have to be aware that if we prohibit it, we are also denying people who aren’t going to commit any crime the possibility of proving their innocence’ (Sample, 2007). Since this technology is so new there are no current ethical or moral debates on this issue and the implications for its civil use are worrying. If developed these ‘techniques may eventually have wide–ranging implications for everything from criminal interrogations to airline security checks. And that alarms some ethicists who fear the technology could one day be abused by authorities, marketers or employers’ (Cheng, 2007). A hypothetical situation in the future might place these scanning devices within regular

x–ray scanning machines at airports. On passing through to the passenger lounge all travellers will be scanned not only for potentially dangerous physical objects but also for dangerous intentions. Yet who has not had a ‘dangerous intention’? Or rather, to quote a more familiar phrase: ‘He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone’ [26]. In this manner all travellers will have to safeguard their thoughts at all times; who is to know whether such scanning devices are embedded into the walls of the airport lounge and corridors? Or in the toilets; on board the airplane? This uncertain and somewhat dystopian scenario is one that could shift technologised states into psycho–civilised societies where thoughts and intentions become part of terrorist

discourse. This could be seen as an extreme case of convergence between the social compromises required to facilitate efficient physical–digital infrastructures and the need for securitised mobilities (Wood and Graham, 2006). It also resembles the extremity of constructing an all–inclusive technological web of complex information flows that bypasses traditional forms of interface. This sees a shift away from earlier prototypes of the hardware–heavy cyborg, such as the early ‘wearcam’ work of Steve Mann [27], towards people actively engaging with their informational environments both in terms of security and surveillance. In some ways these developments have contributed to a rise in acts of self–surveillance, or

sousveillance. (In)Securities, self–sensoring and sousveillance: Inside the social panopticon Fears over security and safety have reached new levels in the opening decade of the twenty–first century. It is, in all respects, a post–millennium state of insecurity. The older and more familiar paradigms of warfare and security were based upon binaries (e.g., Democracy vs. Communism; friend vs. foe). To some degree this binary distinction is still maintained and played out in media and cultural discourse as Freedom vs. Anti–Freedom, or West vs. Islam. Yet upon deeper scrutiny this manifests as an asymmetrical arrangement: order/authority vs. guerrilla non–compliance. A terror suspect can therefore no longer be easily identified as ‘the enemy’ which requires that all civilians be categorised in a state of ‘potential terrorist’. This is

especially so since the notion of ‘home–grown terrorist’ is playing out the role of insurgency and resistance from within. This subtle shift in categorisation has seen a parallel move in the increase of the militarization of the civil sphere. By this I argue that civil space is increasingly becoming a ‘censor/sensored zone’ where security issues — surveillance, tracking, identification — are played out. This zone, which mobile bodies pass through and negotiate, is characterised by a pervasive field of information, code, and signifiers that increasingly constructs the ‘social’. Such a coded environment has the potential to be extremely intrusive and goes beyond the normal ken of so–called civil liberties. Under the sway of a post September 11 scenario and amid an orchestrated ‘war on terror’ many of these intrusive technologies are in rapid development, so much so that the U.K. Government’s Information Commissioner himself

states that we live in a surveillance society (Information Commissioner, 2006) [28]. These systems of tracking and tracing surveillance involve step changes that are taking place gradually in many industrialised societies, especially in the U.S. and the U.K. [29]. Developments in sensor technologies and ubiquitous computing often focus on the interfaces between person and environment such that interconnectivity is likely to become more pervasive, intrusive, and ‘everywhere’. In a seminal essay from 1996 computer engineers Mark Weiser and

John Seely Brown coined the term ‘ubiquitous computing’ and envisioned the ‘social impact of imbedded computers may be analogous to ... electricity, which surges invisibly through the walls of every home, office, and car’ (Weiser and Brown, 1996). True to form, within a decade from this pronouncement computing interfaces developed from fixed locations of access to increased wireless connectivity. And it is predicted to become ever more ubiquitous in a manner that will dissolve connectivity into embedded environments (Greenfield, 2006). Greenfield considers this to be, in one form or another, an inevitability, and refers to this ubiquitous computing (ubicomp) paradigm as ‘everyware’: “Everyware is information processing embedded in the objects and surfaces of everyday life ... the extension of information–sensing, –processing, and –networking capabilities to entire classes of things we‘ve never before thought of as ‘technology’” [30]. This in turn is likely to trigger the ‘always–on’ surveillance of people in both public life and in private affairs. This inevitably blurs the boundaries between what is external and what is internal, and leads to forms of surveillance that turn inwards and emanates from the ‘self’ — an idea somewhat akin to that of sousveillance. Sousveillance was coined by Mann (1998) who describes it as form of ‘reflectionism’ or as a ‘watchful vigilance from underneath’, which is a form of inverse surveillance. Yet it more than inverses the notion; it embellishes it with a self–reflective responsibility. For Mann, reflectionism “holds up the mirror and asks the question: ‘Do you like what you see?’” (Mann, et al., 2003). Also, in this form, it requires that

surveillance is enacted as a form of self–control, as self–maintenance. It is the discipline of being inwardly secure; firstly vigilant towards the self; secondly towards other people/selves. This form of discipline seems to suggest that there is little room for negligence when watchfulness is the order of the day. Yet it also prompts the ‘user’ of sousveillance to be active and participate in the surrounding environment. Sousveillance, whilst it can encourage social responsibility, also suggests the need for the person to be guarded against unwanted intrusions and possible violations. Mann went on to transmit, in the mid ’90s, his daily life experiences for others to experience and interact with. This created opportunities for establishing a sousveillance network between Mann and his ‘readers’, or rather social network. This participatory/social panopticon into human–environment interactions was a forerunner to how

‘wearable computing’ might one day emerge as a form of modern ‘intelligent image processing’ (Mann, 2002). Mann’s performance constructs a lived experience where the observation, recording, and dissemination of civic events have shifted towards a social panopticon, infiltrating daily physical encounters. It is a communal watchfulness of civil responsibility merged with a technical mandate for collective commentary, social analysis, and security of the self. It is also an enactment of performance ethnography, at the same time playful with notions of socialisation and breaching norms (Mann, et al., 2003). However, the question this raises, I argue, is whether social domains might not be in danger of becoming over–sensory realms, and what may emerge as the most convenient and/or efficient strategy for coping with this. Stross’s (2002) essay ‘The Panopticon Singularity’ considers this trend in a dystopian fashion as

‘the emergence of a situation in which human behaviour is deterministically governed by processes outside human control’. Stross argues, reminiscent of Foucault, that while the effectiveness of societal surveillance is dependent on the number of people involved ‘systems of mechanised surveillance may well increase in efficiency as a power function of the number of deployed monitoring points’ (Stross, 2002). In other words, as more people join the social panopticon, or sousveillant society, this will have a knock–on effect that encourages more people to join the securitisation of the self, rather than being left vulnerable and un–sensored. There is no denying that such panopticon devices are proliferating — they are carried around with us, increasingly as our own willing appendages. The debates at present are largely centred on surveillance, as state practices of pervasive and ubiquitous top–down monitoring of civil space,

rather than forms of self–monitoring, as in sousveillance. Perhaps the next step will be further towards practices of immersive surveillance and control, as indicated in this paper as a psycho–civilized society. The current surge in research and development of wireless sensor networks is likely to have a significant future impact upon not only how the human body is configured in terms of medical applications but, perhaps more importantly, how the human is cognitively configured in terms of the information–rich environment. One of the scenarios of ubiquitous, pervasive computing is to embed the environment with non–invasive informational systems that merge physical–digital infrastructures. Already much of our atmosphere is saturated with informational flows in various spectrum bandwidths — we are constantly walking through TV programs, mobile phone conversations, and even military broadcasts. Yet we are not

decoding these transmissions. The transformation that these various scenarios in this paper suggest is that the human body is becoming re–configured — or re–wired — into a biological antenna. Not only will this greatly facilitate our access onto the Net but will also re–form the human presence, or identity, into a coded wavelength. A wavelength that is more readily readable to various technologies. This may seem far–fetched yet such a future may not be a far leap away. Conclusion: The future a quantum leap too far? Socio–technical evolutionary trends predict a future that is wholly immersed in and conversant with an integral informational–digitised environment. Informational flows are envisioned to go beyond the bits and bytes of present computing into the qubits (quantum bits) and subatomic circuitry of quantum computing (Schwartz, et al.,

2006). Researchers into quantum computing are working with subatomic spins for exponential and staggering computational capacity. A possible future may look a little like this: Inside the hatband is Sharon’s communication center and intelligent assistant, which has scanned and sorted the 500,000 e–mails she received overnight. By the time she reaches the car, it has beamed the 10 most urgent ones and her travel schedule to her visual cortex. The text scrolls down in the bottom of her field of vision ... . At the airport there is no ticket check–in or security line. Sharon simply walks through the revolving door, which scans her for dangerous items, picks up her identity, confirms her reservation, and delivers her gate number, all in the space of a second. (Schwartz, et al., 2006) Perhaps the most common prediction prevalent amongst computer engineers is that computers — pervasive and non–perceptible — will be seeded and woven throughout the environment. They will be painted onto walls, on furniture and objects, inside the body, ‘communicating with one another constantly and requiring no more power than that which they can glean from radio frequencies in the air’ (Schwartz, et al., 2006). Quantum researcher and physicist Stuart Wolf anticipates that the next two decades will usher in a type of communications he calls ‘network–enabled telepathy’. Despite the fanciful name the method basically involves wearable devices (such as a ‘quantum headband’) sharing identity and downloaded information with others in the person’s social network; and all driven by the power of thought alone. However, as Wolf points out, ‘it will probably take a new generation raised to think of quantum headbands as normal for its

potential to be truly realized’ (Schwartz, et al., 2006). Yet Wolf isn’t alone in his thinking. Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson has speculated upon the possibility of what he calls radioneurology. Radioneurology refers to a hypothetical future technology of observing neural processes inside a brain by means of locally deployed radio transmitters (Dyson, 1997). For this to be feasible, speculates Dyson, requires a technology to allow for the building and deployment of small transmitters inside a living brain similar to integrated circuit technology on a silicon chip: We know that high–frequency electromagnetic signals can be propagated through brain tissue for distances of the order of centimeters. We know that microscopic generators and receivers of electromagnetic radiation are

possible. We know that modern digital data–handling technology is capable of recording and analyzing the signals emerging from millions of tiny transmitters simultaneaously. All that is lacking in order to transform these possibilities into an effective observational tool is the neurological equivalent of integrated–circuit technology. [31] Given these speculations, and what has been discussed in this paper, it is likely that the major technology for the future is neurotechnology. The information age that emerged out of post–war technologies, and which has guided most of the technologies of the early twenty–first century, has made it possible to collect, utilize, and transfer information/data

at unparalleled speeds. Communication, information, and data have been flowing at exponential rates. However, they are yet to merge into a systemic environment. Neurotechnologies are set to change this with the rise of ‘nanobiochips’ and brain imaging and scanning technologies that will eventually lower the cost of neurological techniques and analysis as well as making the procedures efficient and profitable. Neurotechnologies, combined with wireless sensors, may possibly usher in a communications revolution greater than that caused by the arrival of the transistor and the microchip. Zack Lynch, executive director of the Neurotechnology Industry Organization (NIO), writes that ‘When data from advanced biochips and brain imaging are combined they will accelerate the development of neurotechnology, the set of tools that can influence the human central nervous system, especially the brain’ (Lynch, 2004). Although

neurotechnologies are likely to be put to therapeutic and medical uses, such as for improving emotional stability and mental clarity, they also open opportunities for intrusive strategies of control and manipulation. Part of this paper has been focused on the dangers of an increasingly wireless world. These dangers may include the potential for invasive technologies, based upon transmitted/received signals and wavelengths, to shift social order towards a psycho–civilized society. By psycho–civilised I mean a society that manages and controls social behaviour predominantly through non–obvious methods of psychological manipulations, yet at a level far beyond that of the ‘normalised’ social manipulations of propaganda and social institutions. What I refer to are the technologised methods of psychological interference and privacy intrusions in the manner of creating a docile and constrained society. And here this brings us

back to the problematics involved in opening a Pandora’s box. In this paper I have asked whether innovations in wireless and neuro–technologies are not in danger of shifting human behaviour towards a psycho–civilised society, where greater emphasis is placed upon forms of social control and pre–emptive strategies. What are the moral and ethical implications of using wireless scanning surveillance technologies for evaluating pre–emptive behaviour based on thoughts and intentions alone? Is this not a dangerous path towards psycho–terrorising the social public? As Thomas (1998) reminds us, the mind has no firewall, and is thus vulnerable to viruses, Trojan horses, and spam. It is also vulnerable to hackers, cyber–terrorists, and state surveillance. Whilst this may sound a little too far out, they are reasonable questions to ask if technologies are racing ahead of us in order to better get into our heads. Becoming wireless also means becoming increasingly immersed within an information–saturated environment. From the evidence of present trends and developments it seems likely that a greater systemic interconnectedness and interdependence is being formed between human–object–environment facilitated through and by information flows. This may herald the coming of a ‘wonderful wireless world’, yet it may also signal unforeseen dangers in protection, privacy, and security of the human biological body within these new relationships. It is the suggestion of this paper that such issues and concerns need to become more public, visible, and open; the very opposite of these technologies. Kingsley Dennis is a Research Associate in the Centre for Mobilities Research (CeMoRe) based at the Sociology Department at

Lancaster University, U.K. His doctoral work focused on complexity theory and information communication technologies. Post–doctoral research now involves examining physical–digital convergences and how these might impact upon social processes. He is concerned with the digital rendition of identity and the implications of surveillance technologies.Web: http://www.kingsleydennis.comBlog: http://www.new-mobilities.co.ukE–mail: Kingsley [at] kingsleydennis [dot] co [dot] uk

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.