The use of nerve sensors on military personnel

Ministry of Defence did not have the information requested.

Dear Ministry of Defence,

I would like to request the following under freedom of information legislation:

Could you tell me whether or not neural sensors have been used on the Army or other British military personnel for the purposes of monitoring and or influencing nerve behaviour?

Could you tell me whether the type of sensors used include a wireless type or types?

Could you specify whether such sensors are delivered using injection or other method; and whether these were solely for brain activity monitoring or not?

Yours faithfully,

Donnie Mackenzie

Galloway Kim,

1 Attachment

Dear Mr McKenzie,

 

We attach our response to your FOI request.

 

 

 

FOI Department

"This e-mail and any attachment(s) is intended for the recipient only.  
Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. 
Communications with Dstl are monitored and/or recorded for system
efficiency and other lawful purposes, including business intelligence,
business metrics and training.  Any views or opinions expressed in this
e-mail do not necessarily reflect Dstl policy."
 
"If you are not the intended recipient, please remove it from your system
and notify the author of the email and [1][email address]"

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Ms/Mr Galloway Kim,

Thank you for the response sent from DSTL. I welcome the open copy of this letter and whilst interesting, I must say that I feel that the response is inconclusive.

Since I do not know the position or scope of the specific responder, it is entirely possible that that person might not be aware of such technology. Especially given that DSTL employs over 3000 people in different locations.

Also, much research is done in allegiance with Universities, Private Companies, hospitals, and of course foreign allies. The work done on nanosensors in the US Defence sector has been especially rapid in recent years.

Can I ask that you forward my request through the appropriate channel of the Framework Agreement for Technical Support (FATS) Team as well as any other parties you might feel appropriate in light of the above?

If there is a specific party or group who would vet the deployment of all in Vivo technology then that might be most appropriate?

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

Dear Galloway Kim,

I am writing to request an indication of intention. If your intention is not to respond as I have requested then I would like the matter to be moved toward an internal review.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

Galloway Kim,

Dear Mr McKenzie,

Thank you for your email dated 15 October. I must apologise for not responding sooner.

I have spoken to one of our Chief Scientists who has agreed to engage with you on a one to one basis if you would be willing to supply a contact telephone number.

If you would like to respond to [email address] or our central enquiries [email address].

FOI Department


"This e-mail and any attachment(s) is intended for the recipient only. Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. Communications with Dstl are monitored and/or
recorded for system efficiency and other lawful purposes, including business intelligence, business
metrics and training. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect Dstl policy."

"If you are not the intended recipient, please remove it from your system and notify the author of
the email and [email address]"

Dear Galloway Kim,

Whilst I would say that the involvement of a named individual who might potentially be a full authority on the subject would be welcome; the informal nature of a phonecall is undesirable.

What I tried to convey in my last communication on the matter is that I would like conclusive answers which encompass the full breadth of bodies who would be experimenting in such a way; and that I believe this is unlikely coming from one anonymous source at one location of one organisation.

I believe that in order to answer the questions conclusively that you would probably have to pull responses from more than that source.

Can you inform me as to whether you contacted the FATS team? Also could you tell me if there is anyone who would have to authorize/oversee all such In Vivo experimentation?

If the Chief Scientist has complete and conclusive oversight of all such MOD activity, then his/her guarantee would be appropriate.

If you are unhappy to handle this as I wish then I would ask that you refer the request to internal review.

Thanks again.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

Thank you for your email which is receiving our attention. I anticipate writing to you during the week beginning 26 November 2012.

Thank you for your patience in this matter.

FOI Department

show quoted sections

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

 

We attach our FOI response.

 

FOI Department

 

"This e-mail and any attachment(s) is intended for the recipient only.  
Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. 
Communications with Dstl are monitored and/or recorded for system
efficiency and other lawful purposes, including business intelligence,
business metrics and training.  Any views or opinions expressed in this
e-mail do not necessarily reflect Dstl policy."
 
"If you are not the intended recipient, please remove it from your system
and notify the author of the email and [1][email address]"

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Dstl FOI,

Thanks for your response. I appreciate the statement saying that the original reply was full and conclusive for the purposes of guaranteeing what I have asked.

As I mentioned previously, the reasons for my references and concerns were that I believed that there was a possibility that such activity may have occurred and that the individual responding would be unaware. So I am slightly confused that you followed your statement of conclusion by adding the refusal to consult with members of the FATS team.

Are you telling me that there is a possibility such activity has been carried out on British Military Personnel by companies/organisations under the FATS umbrella (or elsewhere)?

I also appreciate the offer of phone consultation once again; however I am happy with the specificity level of the original questions. I would however appreciate if the person giving these categorical responses could be named though, and it would add some credence to the information.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

1 Attachment

 

Dear  Mackenzie,

 

We attach our response to your FOI.

 

FOI Department

 

"This e-mail and any attachment(s) is intended for the recipient only.  
Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. 
Communications with Dstl are monitored and/or recorded for system
efficiency and other lawful purposes, including business intelligence,
business metrics and training.  Any views or opinions expressed in this
e-mail do not necessarily reflect Dstl policy."
 
"If you are not the intended recipient, please remove it from your system
and notify the author of the email and [1][email address]"

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Dstl FOI,

Thanks for that response.

So are you telling me that your previous response which you describe as 'full and conclusive' from the 'Chief scientist' at DSTL who is an 'expert in field' means that no private companies or other parties have conducted such activity on was specified in the request, or are you telling me that there is a possibility that they have and that he/she wouldn't know about it?

Now would be an appropriate time to remind you that where information cannot be found which conclusively answers a question, it is good practice for an authority to provide guidance as to where that information would be found.

Thanks again.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

Donnie Mackenzie left an annotation ()

* Above text should say 'as was specified'

Dear Dstl FOI,

I am still waiting for clarification on my last response.

In addition to this, I would like to add a new FOI request.

1.I would like to know whether the MOD has any information on wireless Brain Computer Interfaces (BCI/MMI/BMI)?

2.I would like to know whether the MOD has any information on the use of Synthetic Aperture Magnetometry?

3.I would like to know whether the MOD has any information on Magnetoencephalography done with the use of Synthetic Aperture Radar or other related devices?

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

Thank you for your email and new FOI request which has been received today and is receiving our attention.

You also mention in your email that you are "waiting for clarification on my last response". We are not sure what this refers to and ask that you resend so that we may address your concerns.

FOI Department

show quoted sections

Dear Dstl FOI,
Thanks for the response. The request for clarification was sent on the 15th of December and is visible above. If you are recieving this as an e-mail, the web address is as follows:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/th...

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

1 Attachment

Classification: Unclassified

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

 

We attach our response to your FOI request dated 6 January 2013.

 

FOI Department

"This e-mail and any attachment(s) is intended for the recipient only.  
Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. 
Communications with Dstl are monitored and/or recorded for system
efficiency and other lawful purposes, including business intelligence,
business metrics and training.  Any views or opinions expressed in this
e-mail do not necessarily reflect Dstl policy."
 
"If you are not the intended recipient, please remove it from your system
and notify the author of the email and [1][email address]"

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Dstl FOI,

I am looking for clarification on the latest response.

Can you confirm which departments of DSTL made representations in this consultation?

Can you confirm whether those with full knowledge of Information Operations activities were contacted?

Can you confirm whether all those responsible for the operation and usage of Synthetic Aperture Radar (satellite or non-satellite based) such as the relevant departments of the RAF were contacted?

I should also remind you that I still await clarification on the previous request which was mentioned multiple times above.....

Thanks.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

Galloway Kim,

1 Attachment

Classification: Unclassified

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

 

We attach our response to your FOI request

 

FOI Department

"This e-mail and any attachment(s) is intended for the recipient only.  
Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. 
Communications with Dstl are monitored and/or recorded for system
efficiency and other lawful purposes, including business intelligence,
business metrics and training.  Any views or opinions expressed in this
e-mail do not necessarily reflect Dstl policy."
 
"If you are not the intended recipient, please remove it from your system
and notify the author of the email and [1][email address]"

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Galloway Kim,

Thanks for your response dated 8th February. In it you state:

"If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about any aspect of the handling
of your request, then you should contact me in the first instance."

I would like to politely request that each question I have made for clarification be answered individually, with specific reference to the parties mentioned.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

1 Attachment

Classification: Unclassified

Dear Mr Mackenzie

 

We attach our FOI response

 

 

 

FOI Department

"This e-mail and any attachment(s) is intended for the recipient only.  
Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. 
Communications with Dstl are monitored and/or recorded for system
efficiency and other lawful purposes, including business intelligence,
business metrics and training.  Any views or opinions expressed in this
e-mail do not necessarily reflect Dstl policy."
 
"If you are not the intended recipient, please remove it from your system
and notify the author of the email and [1][email address]"

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Donnie Mackenzie

Dear Dstl FOI,

I would like to request an Internal Review. The reason for this is that I believe information is held within the scope of my request by the parties mentioned.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

Galloway Kim,

1 Attachment

Classification: Unclassified

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

 

We attach or response.

 

 

 

FOI Department

"This e-mail and any attachment(s) is intended for the recipient only.  
Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. 
Communications with Dstl are monitored and/or recorded for system
efficiency and other lawful purposes, including business intelligence,
business metrics and training.  Any views or opinions expressed in this
e-mail do not necessarily reflect Dstl policy."
 
"If you are not the intended recipient, please remove it from your system
and notify the author of the email and [1][email address]"

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Donnie Mackenzie

Dear Galloway Kim,

Thanks for your response. The request for an Internal Review was for the latter response which we have been corresponding about recently.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

 

Please see attached,

 

Yours sincerely,

 

FOI Internal Review Team

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org