GRANT REQUEST FOR NEURAL AND NECRO-NEURAL INTERROGATIVE TECHNOLOGY
PROBLEM
There currently exists no tried-and-true method of information retrieval from suspects and victims of serious criminal activity; suspects (and victims) are capable of deceiving law enforcement personnel, and the effectiveness of current interrogative methods produce variable results per individual. This unpredictability is further compounded by the advent of commercial transhumanism and augmentation - modification of self has become incredibly commonplace, to the extent that it reduces the effectiveness of physical and psychological interrogative methods by law enforcement due to the resistances these alterations create.
SOLUTION
The concept of neural implant technology is not new; many people, both in public and private sectors, are host to various technologies that enhance memory and cognitive functions already. What the proposed solution entails is the development of a secondary technology designed to interface with such devices (as well as the brain directly, should subjects lack these devices).
This technology will act as a one-way neural link between an operator, typically an investigator, and subjects; operators will have full-spectrum memory access in order to ascertain the full scope of the nature of a crime or incident from perpetrators and victims - regardless of their communicative abilities, state of consciousness or even whether or not the subjects are still alive.
The benefit in using human operators for this technology allows for a much more empathetic and nuanced approach to evidence retrieval and analysis; a degree of tact that is oftentimes needed (and underutilised) in serious cases where emotional input cannot be replicated by a machine.
Due to the invasive nature of this method, a Use Protocol will also be devised and proposed, which defines use standards that are to be enforced not only by operators but also by the hardware and software itself where applicable.
A proposition for the Use Protocol is as follows:
Full-spectrum memory access is deemed lawful and appropriate IF:
- there is a clear indication that the person(s) is/are key suspect(s) in a serious crime and there is a refusal to cooperate with personnel,
- the person(s) is/are unable to communicate to personnel and is/are (a) suspect(s) or (a) victim(s) of a serious crime,
- the person(s) is/are deceased and are therefore unable to provide a statement to personnel
BUSINESS CASE
Profits from the technology would initially come from partner groups of interest; as the technology and its use protocols become more refined, it will be extended to mundane government bodies and eventually civilian law enforcement. A significant reduction in unsolved crimes will provide incentive for the purchasing of such technology, and may eventually lead to an overall dissuasion from, and reduction in, severe incidents and crime among groups of interest and civilian bodies alike.
USE OF FUNDING
Working prototypes are expected to be completed by the end of a period of 13 months; deriving this from pre-existing frameworks for neural implant technology, it is estimated this will initially cost around $30,000,000 USD.
A multidisciplinary team will be involve over the course of development; a group of 24 personnel consisting of neuroscientists, bio-engineers, cyberneticists and psychologists will be the primary makeup of the development team for the project. Each team member will earn a baseline salary of approximately $9,100 USD per month.
Conditioning and training of specialist personnel to operate the technology will cost an additional $8,000 per month per individual; an initial 5 personnel will be trained in the useage of the prototype technology over a period of 12 months. Should trials prove successful, further refinements may be proposed.
KNOWN ISSUES
A few issues have been identified with the current proposal, which have been addressed to the best of our ability.
Issue 1: Ethical concerns with regards to perpetrators and victims have been raised, due in large part to the nature of neural access both in living and deceased subjects. We intend to address this by not only establishing clear protocols of use, but by also imposing hardware and software limitations where applicable.
Issue 2: Psychological well-being of the operator remains of concern regardless of imposed limitations. To combat this, operators will be rigorously trained to withstand significant psychological duress. Should this training prove insufficient, the hardware and software will automatically disconnect an operator from a subject under particular physical conditions - typically if the heart rate is measured in excess of 180 BPM, in conjunction with elevated stress hormone levels.
Issue 3: The hardware used by operators to interface with subjects will need to be engineered for two particular scenarios: hardware-to-hardware interfacing, and direct brain interfacing.
While pre-existing neural ports are typically standardized the existence of outliers - however rare - must be accounted for, as much as the lack thereof. The proposed solution is as follows:
Hardware-to-hardware interfacing is to be standardized to the most common form of neural access port (9AXO); a procedure not unlike a cerebral shunt will be utilized for direct access. The hardware will deliver a probe direct to the brain via sterilized shunt that will allow an operator to neurally access a subject.
Due to the nature of the probe-shunt method, subjects will need medical intervention to prevent accidental overdrainage of the cranium. Operators will need appropriate training in order to deliver the probe in the correct location non-lethally.
Project ID: #77621b55e
Codename: Project DEAD EYE
Summary: Project DEAD EYE's primary objective is the development of a prototype neural-interrogative technology, capable of accessing interrogation subjects' memories when utilised by interrogative personnel, for the purposes of obtaining supplementary evidence in instances of serious crimes and/or malpractice.
Estimated duration of development: 24 months
Staff: Dr. David Parks, Dr. Harvey Sutton, Dr. ██████ ██████, Dr. Irene Clark, Dr. Patricia McDowell, Dr. ████████ ██████, Dr. Stella Manning, agent Marc Graves, Dr. Dan Wiley, Dr. Isidora de la Cruz, agent Nathaniel Reynell, Dr. Alan Boyer, Dr. ██████ █████, Dr. ████ █████, agent Charlie Walton, Dr. Victor Whitley, Dr. Farah Saab, agent Sarah Long, Dr. Mary Gibbs, agent Kacper Patek, Dr. Thomas Miles, Dr. █████ ██████, Dr. Lawrence Bolton
Technical Overview:
This documentation will stand as the first Foundation-standard specification for neural and necro-neural interrogative technology, originally proposed by Dr. Elenor Bridgerton of Prometheus Labs, Inc.
The device, henceforth referred to as a Neural Relay, will be composed of two primary parts: the neural implant, which is attached to an operator's occipital lobe; and the neural 'link', which hosts the primary external connector that allows for hardware-to-hardware interfacing with pre-existing neural implant models.
This 'link', known as a Cerebro-digital Interface, is to be standardized to port type 9AXO 'micro'. Modifications to the 9AXO 'micro' male connector's central pin will be made to accommodate the delivery of a cerebral shunt if necessary, without disrupting overall hardware-to-hardware functionality of the device. Further modifications will be made to allow for a two-way exchange of information along the connector.
The neural implant will serve as the 'brain' of the whole device in and of itself; it passes information from the target brain to that of the operator via the occipital lobe, which then allows the operator to form his or her own memories based on the information relayed by the implant.
The implant will also serve to monitor vital functions within an operator's body; should an operator exhibit physiological signs of duress, such as an increased heart rate or elevated stress hormone levels, the implant will then terminate the connection between the operator and subject.
For further technical details, as well as design schematics, please consult supplementary documentation #77621b55e_SCHEM.
Use Cases:
The Foundation have identified several use-cases in which this technology may be deemed appropriate. These use cases are outlined in full and described as follows:
- Incidents of civilian felonies,
- Incidents of felonies within paranormal institutions,
- Incidents of malpractice within paranormal institutions,
- Instances of civilian armed conflict,
- Instances of armed conflict within or between paranormal institutions
Foundation ethicists have reviewed the original documentation, and from this have devised terms and conditions of use which must be upheld by operators and, where applicable, must be enforced by hardware and software limitations within the Neural Relay itself.
The revised terms of use and access are as follows:
Full-spectrum memory access is deemed lawful and appropriate IF:
- there is a clear indication that the person(s) is/are key suspect(s) in a serious crime and there is a refusal to cooperate with personnel,
- the person(s) is/are unable to communicate to personnel and is/are (a) clear suspect(s) or (a) victim(s) of a serious crime,
- Corollary: and it is UNLIKELY that the person(s) will regain communicative abilities within a timeframe appropriate to the urgency of the incident(s),
- the person(s) is/are RECENTLY deceased and are therefore unable to provide a statement to personnel
Concerns of neural integrity in subjects post-mortem have been identified; it is proposed that this method of interrogation be utilized ONLY in subjects with a neural integrity of 50% or more, due to both degradation of quality of evidence below this threshold as well as risks posed to operators' psychological well-being.
Project DEAD EYE is based upon proprietary documentation and schematics devised and created by Prometheus Labs, Inc., and has been purchased for use by the SCP Foundation. This documentation is not to be distributed to individuals outside of those listed in this document, nor is distribution to other parties permitted.
RESPONSE FROM THE FOUNDATION ETHICS COMMITTEE REGARDING PROJECT 'DEAD EYE'
On the 13th April, 2011, agent Nathaniel A. Reynell of Foundation project #77621b55e 'DEAD EYE' was taken into protective custody by Foundation psychological staff following concerns for his well-being. This decision was preceded by a number of events that were the cause of great concern and distress to multiple Foundation staff.
In a subsequent investigation, Dr. David Parks of the Technological Research Division was found to be in violation of sections 3.7, 7.2 and 9.1 of the Foundation Workplace Ethics Standard. Dr. Parks, and those complicit in these violations, have summarily been suspended while further investigations are ongoing.
As stands, the current development project has also been suspended. It is uncertain as of this time whether research efforts will resume due to the severity of infractions.
In the interests of transparency, evidence in regards to ongoing abuse of staff has been released. If anyone has any information pertaining to the ongoing investigations, please contact your Ethics Committee departmental representatives.
— Evan Daw, Chairman of Personnel Affairs, Ethics Committee
SUTTON: Sutton speaking.
PARKS: Hey. Just got off the phone with Harpur.
SUTTON: What's the news?
PARKS: We're gonna need to find another volunteer.
SUTTON: Well, obviously…
PARKS: Harpur says Walton's lucky to be alive after that attempt.
SUTTON: Shit…
PARKS: I'm gonna reach out to some more agents, see if anyone's interested. Keep quiet about this, yeah?
SUTTON: You sure this is a good idea? Our guys are getting scared, David.
PARKS: We need people who can trial the Relay. It'll never go anywhere if we don't.
SUTTON: But -
PARKS: It won't improve if we don't.
SUTTON: …okay.
PARKS: Anyway, I'll talk to you later on - I've work to do.
SUTTON: Okay.
PARKS: Buhbye.
To: Nathaniel Reynell (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|951llenyeran#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|951llenyeran) and 1 other
From: Dr. David Parks (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|377skraped#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|377skraped)
Subject: Neural Relay Program
Dear Mr. Reynell,
I am Dr. David Parks, one of the lead researchers of the technological division located on Site-96. I am reaching out to you on the advice of my peers following a review of your service history.
We are currently seeking agents with records of exceptional performance in investigative divisions - both Foundation and civilian.
We are trialling a new investigative technology - as such, we are reaching out to agents with these investigative backgrounds to have input from personnel experienced in this field. This input will allow us to make this technology as safe and efficient as possible for its purposes.
I've included a PDF below with more details regarding the contract. Should you be interested, I have also included the appropriate consent forms.
I do hope you consider this offer and decide to work with us.
Best regards,
Dr. David Parks
Technological Research Division
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the user responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
To: Dr. David Parks (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|377skraped#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|377skraped) and 1 other
From: Nathaniel Reynell (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|951llenyeran#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|951llenyeran)
Subject: Re: Neural Relay Program
Dear Dr. Parks,
Apologies for the delay - I wanted to fully consider the offer before I responded.
I would be more than happy to join the program. I hope that my expertise in the field will be useful for the team in achieving your end-goals.
I have signed the consent forms and attached them below.
Regards,
Nathan Reynell
Field Operations
[ MORE SHIT TO BE ADDED BETWEEN THIS POINT ]
To: Dr. David Parks (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|377skraped#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|377skraped)
From: Dr. Farah Saab (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|749baasf#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|749baasf)
Subject: Wellbeing Reports
Dear Dr. Parks,
As per usual, I've included the reports for your team - however there is a concern I wanted to bring to your immediate attention, which is why I am writing you directly.
Agent Reynell's evaluations have been showing increasingly worrying results. He acts erratically when confronted about this, moreover he is showing signs of intense paranoia bordering on delusionality. I would appreciate if you could corroborate with my findings by filling out the peer assessment form I've attached - I highly doubt he would have been able to entirely mask this behaviour at work.
Should there be sufficient evidence, we may have to take agent Reynell into protective custody and discharge him from your program.
Kind regards,
Dr. Farah Saab
Psychological Services
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the user responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
To: Dr. Farah Saab (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|749baasf#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|749baasf)
From: Dr. David Parks (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|377skraped#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|377skraped)
Subject: Re: Wellbeing Reports
Dr. Saab,
As always, I greatly appreciate the work you do for our team.
With regards to Reynell, I've observed none of the behaviours you describe, both in your email or your report. Sure, he can be a little high-strung after a dive, but they all usually are. Beyond that he's his quiet, hardworking self.
Regarding the peer assessment, as there is nothing to report that corroborates with your findings, I have nothing to submit. I would advise against unnecessary worry over your patients; I have no doubt you have grown close to some of them over the course of the project.
That being said, I remind you that any reports submitted to Ethics without my prior approval will be heavily scrutinised. Kindly do not put my staff through such grievances unless you have undeniable evidence.
Regards,
Dr. David Parks
Technological Research Division
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the user responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
[RECOVERED FROM DR. SAAB'S SAVED DRAFTS]
To: Dr. David Parks (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|377skraped#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|377skraped)
From: Dr. Farah Saab (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|749baasf#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|749baasf)
Subject: Re: Wellbeing Reports
ATTENTION: this document has not yet been sent. | Dismiss
Are you serious? When are you going to stop neglecting your staff like this?
Reynell needs help. Help that we — no, you won't allow for because of your stupid confidentiality clause with this project. How many of your staff are going to end up in protective custody before you realise how dangerous this is?
My hands are tied here. I am begging you to listen to me, David — someone is going to get seriously hurt. Again.
Dr. Farah Saab
Draft saved at 2:33A.M.
To: Dr. Harvey Sutton (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|262nottusbh#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|262nottusbh)
From: Dr. Farah Saab (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|749baasf#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|749baasf)
Subject: Agent Welfare
Dr. Sutton,
I'm at my wits end with Dr. Parks. He has moved from simple ignorance to full-on wilful negligence of his staff — I'm sure you've seen this, too.
I recently contact him with my concerns regarding agent Reynell, however he seems to be actively avoiding any kind of acknowledgement of a problem. I know for a fact that my concerns are not unreasonable — we're all well aware of what happened with Walton and Graves.
I've enclosed the psychological report of concern, as well as a screenshot of my correspondence with Dr. Parks.
I have serious reason to believe Reynell is in danger here. Please, if you can, help.
Regards,
Dr. Farah Saab
Psychological Services
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the user responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
PARKS: Dr. David Parks speaking.
SUTTON: Only me, David.
PARKS: Ah! Hello, Harvey. What can I do for you?
SUTTON: I've been asked to field some concerns about uh, one of our operatives.
PARKS: Let me guess — Farah's been in touch, mmh?
SUTTON: …aye, sir.
PARKS: What's she been saying?
SUTTON: She's worried about Reynell — says the reports aren't looking good for him. I honestly agree with her.
PARKS: Go on.
SUTTON: I really think we should do something. Y'know, nip it in the bud before something happens like with the other two.
PARKS: I'll be honest with you, Harv — Farah's just on edge 'cause of the last two. Truly, I understand her worry here — it would be a shame to lose another agent. But she needs to understand that not everything's a red flag, and I know I've certainly not seen any of the behaviours she's been describing.
SUTTON: David —
PARKS: — it's important we maintain our current roster of personnel, especially as we get closer to our deadline. Our agents are incredibly valuable to the process; we can't afford to lose any more. And we can't keep crying wolf every time one of them gets a bit upset.
SUTTON: [Sighs]
PARKS: Is that all you wanted to talk about?
SUTTON: …yeah. That's all.
PARKS: Alright. Talk to you later.
SUTTON: See ya.
To: Dr. Farah Saab (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|749baasf#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|749baasf)
From: Dr. David Parks (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|377skraped#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|377skraped)
Subject: Notice
Dr. Saab,
I remind you that the contents of our correspondence are strictly confidential, as are the evaluation reports. As this is your first infraction, consider this to be a warning: do not share sensitive information between other members of staff without my approval.
Regards,
Dr. David Parks
Technological Research Division
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the user responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
To: Dr. Farah Saab (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|749baasf#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|749baasf)
From: Dr. Harvey Sutton (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|262nottusbh#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|262nottusbh)
Subject: Sorry
Dr. Saab,
I'm really sorry — he just wouldn't have it. He doesn't want to risk unnecessary losses towards the deadline, especially our agents.
I wish I could do more. I really do.
Dr. Sutton
Sent from my iPhone
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the user responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
[MORE SHEIT TO COME]
To: Dr. Harvey Sutton (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|262nottusbh#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|262nottusbh)
From: Dr. David Parks (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|377skraped#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|377skraped)
Subject: The 'incident'
Harvey,
I'm sure I don't need to remind you, but this incident with Reynell has gotten us into serious hot water with the Ethics Committee. Him being the third one isn't doing is any favours, let alone the fact he publicly tried to off himself. They're in talks about launching an investigation if Reynell decides to press charges.
I've enclosed a copy of an Incident Response statement for you to proofread. I've also included EthComm's statement, in case you think I'm bullshitting here.
We need to protect the future of our program. I refuse to let this be the end of it.
Regards,
David
Technological Research Division
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the user responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
To: Dr. David Parks (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|377skraped#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|377skraped)
From: Dr. Harvey Sutton (tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|262nottusbh#tenPiCS.69.noitadnuof|262nottusbh)
Subject: Re: The 'incident'
Dr. Parks,
Look, I'm going to be frank with you, and I honestly should've been sooner - your handling of, well, all of this has been nothing short of absolutely vile. I've sat complicit in this shit for far too long just because you're my superior. The other two incidents were bad enough, but this is outright and blatant fucking neglect. I'm drawing the line here.
Do me a favour: stop trying to save face. Go to EthComm, and give them the file I've sent. Reynell is absolutely going to press charges against us — I suggest giving him some God damned fucking dignity for once and owning up before he has to.
Consider this a preemptive and informal resignation from DEAD EYE. I'll be sending a copy of my official notice separately. If your project somehow survives this disgrace, I'm sure as shit not hanging around to see what other stunts you pull.
Dr. Harvey Sutton
Sent from my iPad