[Question] Need for safeguards to mitigate technology risk


My kin­ship with mat­ter re­lated to law leads me to pur­sue an ad­vo­cacy to miti­gate risk of ad­verse health when tech­nol­ogy is used for nega­tive pur­poses. This re­lates to how de­ci­sion mak­ing is prone to ma­nipu­la­tion when health of per­son in com­mer­cial busi­ness or gov­ern­ment and other walks of life is nega­tively mod­u­lated us­ing pow­er­ful elec­tro­mag­netic field (EMF) emit­ters. Com­monly found de­vices that func­tion based on pow­er­ful EMF (kitchen microwave oven, out­door high power uni­di­rec­tional microwave trans­mit­ters etc.) con­tain com­po­nents emit­ting pow­er­ful EMF (eg. Mag­netron in a microwave oven). When such com­po­nents are taken from their pro­tec­tive safety en­clo­sure and placed in an elec­tronic cir­cuit to have it func­tion as a weapon (com­pe­ti­tio­nun­limited.org/​​effect-on-rule-of-law), such a weapon placed in an in­nocu­ous lo­ca­tion at a place of work/​​re­cu­per­a­tion is effec­tive to in­duce dis­tress in a defense­less vic­tim when one be­comes a tar­get of phys­i­cal in­timi­da­tion. The defense­less plight of a vic­tim in this con­text is due to the ab­sence of di­ag­nos­tic/​​foren­sic tests to de­tect over­ex­po­sure to dele­te­ri­ous EMF and statutes/​​pe­nal code per­ti­nent to phys­i­cal as­sault/​​tres­pass, an­titrust etc. do not speci­fi­cally iden­tify com­mon types of pow­er­ful EMF emit­ters as a method of crime.

I re­quest your com­mon sense view of the need for much needed safe­guards (in tech­nol­ogy—pre­vent reuse of pow­er­ful EMF emit­ters, medicine—di­ag­nos­tic/​foren­sic tests to de­tect over­ex­po­sure and law—statu­tory sup­port) when pow­er­ful yet in­visi­ble en­ergy emit­ted by com­mon EMF emit­ters are ap­plied for mal­ice..


No comments.