full-disclosure - Illegal mind control rtrc.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <41EEF057.9070903@sbcglobal.net>
From: chromazine at sbcglobal.net (Steve Kudlak)
Subject: Illegal mind control rtrc.

I think the thing in question was it was capable of telling if a person 
"recognized something".
Nothing about "lying" per se.  Many of these things they haven't been 
statisticly tested.
The thing that was discussed was supposedly a signal a person's brain 
puts out when they
recognize an item. The forensic idea would be you would show somebody 
"the murder weapon"
and if they produced the "recgonition signal" it wouldn't matter whether 
they said they did or not.,

As far as I can tell it has never been checked with any tests like the 
following. A person is given
a .38 Police Special to fire and he does. He is then after a week or so 
shown another different . .38 Police Specisl. Does he generate a 
recognition signal?  Does he generate a recognition signasl for that. 
thing?  Does a gun naive subject generate it for "a gun? or any gun? If 
the person and is shown a .45 does it still generate a recognition 
signal etc?

Defense attorneys will have a Perry Mason field day with this sort of 
thing if there are any
cracks in it.  If anyone has the references to this story I'd love to 
see them. It ran on BBC World
Service awhile ago.

Havae Fun,
Sends Steve

Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:22:28 CST, Ron DuFresne said:
>
>  
>
>>of course, on a semi serious note, elctromagnectic imaging scans have
>>proven to be pretty effective in noting the difference in a lying brain
>>and a truthful one.  Now if they can just consolidate all that equipment
>>into a small handable wand kinda device...
>>    
>>
>
>What we *really* need is a portable cluon-flux detector, so that we can wave
>it past somebody and tell if they're a net emitter of cluons, or a cluon sink,
>or a null-cluon.
>
>Interestingly enough, it can be shown that cluon sinks are preferable to
>null-cluons - sinks will absorb cluons and accumulate them, eventually becoming
>cluon emitters once they reach a critical mass of cluons.  Null cluons react
>with cluons in about the same way as neutrinos react with normal matter - they
>very rarely hit-and-stick.
>
>OB-Full-Disclosure:  The effect on your organization's overall security stance
>when a null-cluon gets appointed into management.
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
>  
>