This page is the author's first-person personal testimony, offered as protected subjective expression on matters of public interest. It is not advanced as proven fact against any named third party where such a claim is not also separately documented in the public record. It does not incite, advocate, glorify, instruct or recruit for any criminal offence, including terrorism, sedition, violence, harassment, or any unlawful action against any person, agency or institution. Concerns described here have lawful remedies available — the courts, regulators, oversight bodies, MPs, qualified journalists, and human-rights NGOs — which are the appropriate routes for resolution.
These allegations are, however, set out here in good faith and based on my own direct experience. If a court ever does choose to determine these matters, I will repeat every allegation made on this page on the record, under oath, and submit to cross-examination. Until then the page stands as a personal account — not as legal accusation, not as journalistic finding, and not as anything a reader should treat as established beyond what their own assessment of the evidence supports.
About
🙏 Support — Any Amount Helps
Anything received goes strictly to legal fees or basic necessities. I may be getting de-banked. I've decided to keep this site up because it is the truth — and it is better than being a coward and deleting it.
Overview & Background
For the past 2 to 2.5 years+ I have been dealing with what I can only describe as cyberwarfare — primarily psychological in nature, though with increasingly physical dimensions that blur the boundary between digital and real-world harassment.
By any reasonable measure, this is one of the longest sustained digital interrogation and psychological-operations campaigns in modern history directed against a single, named, non-combatant civilian — running continuously for over two years, across multiple jurisdictions, multiple platforms, and multiple operational layers (algorithmic manipulation, malware deployment, social-engineering, family targeting, AI prompt-injection, false-flag personas, swatting, and direct in-person police approaches).
Even military targets — the people for whom psychological-operations and "disruption" doctrine was originally developed — are rarely subjected to operations of this duration, multi-modality and continuous intensity. Most documented PSYOP campaigns against foreign combatants are measured in weeks or months, not years. Most domestic counter-intelligence "disruption" actions against UK citizens — as discussed in GCHQ Scandals and the Mitting Inquiry's findings on undercover-policing — burn out, get reassigned, or trigger oversight intervention long before they reach the 24-month mark.
For an operation of this scope, this duration, and this density of methods to be running against a young Western UK citizen, in his own home, with no charge, no warrant disclosed to him, no judicial moment at which any of it is tested, and no oversight body willing to confirm or deny that any of it exists — is, by the standards of any healthy liberal democracy, unprecedented. It would be unusual if directed at a hostile foreign intelligence officer. Directed at a 22-year-old in Scotland who applied to join the British Army, it is, on its face, scandalous.
Due to explicit threats and other concerning developments, I have decided to document this experience publicly. I applied to join the army before I was ever arrested. I quit all my activities when this started happening. I'm trying to stay out of trouble, study, and get a job — I honestly don't deserve this, and nobody does.
Important: No interaction with police in real life has ever been bad — only digitally. Because digital they believe gives them plausible deniability, in my opinion. Keep that in mind when reading these allegations, especially regarding the haloperidol threats — no officer ever came up to me in person and said anything. It was always through digital means — algorithm, prompt injection, or manipulated search results.
My @terminate Twitter / X account, which was previously suspended, has now been reinstated. I want to be clear though — I am not going to be posting on it anymore.
The reason is straightforward: I have quit my previous drug usage (cocaine, amphetamine, Adderall - the problems) Forced intervention. Looking back honestly, some of what I posted online during that period — and some of the people who engaged with me during it — were almost certainly a product of the state I was in. People may have taken advantage of me when I was on drugs, baited reactions out of me combined with periods of severe drug induced psychosis and maybe some say schizophrenic-aligned symptoms according to some psychiatrists but I have never heard any voices or anything but described as paranoid, screenshotted moments that were not representative of who I am, and used those moments later. I do not want to give anyone any further material of that kind.
"Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour."
— 1 Peter 5:8 (ESV)
That verse has stuck with me. The point of being clear-headed is not just spiritual — it is practical. Whether the people circling were operatives, opportunists, or both, the state I was in made it easier for them. Sobriety closes that door.
I should add for transparency that I am currently prescribed aripiprazole (Abilify). It is a medication that can, in some patients, increase impulsive behaviour — including impulsive online behaviour — which is one more reason I have decided that staying off social media posting is the right call for me right now. The medication is being managed responsibly and I would rather err on the side of silence than risk an impulsive post under it.
What I am trying to do now is straightforward: put the past two and a half years behind me, finish documenting what happened, and get a job. I have applied for a number of IT apprenticeships, so far unsuccessfully — if anyone reading this is in a position to help on that front, my CV is on this site and on my portfolio page: portfolio.html.
Quiet, sober, employed, and out of trouble is the plan. I would like to be allowed to get there.
🌐 Jurisdictions & Surveillance Frameworks
Core Allegations — Digital Operations
Malware & Traffic Rerouting
Police Scotland malware consistently re-routes all my traffic through Glasgow or Western Scotland-based IP addresses. I consistently notice Glasgow as my location when using Google or Gmail — even without a VPN — so they are clearly rerouting traffic through custom-built, custom-designed Police Scotland malware. We need to know the full extent and capabilities of this if my case is to proceed. This is serious, military-grade malware.
Algorithmic Manipulation & Malicious Advertising
They have also utilised what I suspect to be AI custom-generated advertisements, or malicious adware, designed to cause fear or distress. When I am clean off drugs they will promote #drugtwt or similar on X — something I have never seen before. This is extremely dangerous behaviour. Even some of the ads they have been promoting are distressing and not normal — people say ads are what you look for, but in this case definitely not. They have been manipulating it for a long time.
Claude AI sometimes says "this prompt is dangerous" — so it can and does detect their prompt injection. Any good lawyer is going to eat these people up.
Isolation Tactics
Police/Intelligence/Operatives/Criminals have utilised tactics such as isolation from support networks — friends, family. This includes impersonation of individuals I know, then acting as if those individuals were responsible for the hacking and rights violations committed against me. This is a documented police tactic — not just interrogating two people separately and claiming each is informing on the other, but actively impersonating people digitally and directing blame onto them. I believe through the algorithm they told me to "pin it all on Luke" — so they are probably doing the same with him and others, and even incentivising lying.
Indirect Threats & Medical Coercion
Law enforcement officers have made indirect threats regarding forced medical intervention — specifically referencing the administration of haloperidol against my wishes. They seem to want to bait me into getting myself detained by mental health services. The social media posts — including news articles but usually prompt injection on Grok, Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT — are sometimes edited real posts, sometimes clearly fake. I will report them and get back a message saying the post or advertisement "never even existed" — so this is a problem, as it may be at the network level.
"Officers/Agents nudged or suggested they would have me put on haloperidol during interactions on my computer via algorithm or prompt injection, claiming it would 'resolve the situation' and that I 'need chemical restraint more than legal counsel.'"
These people never mentioned my mental health until after I neither confirmed nor denied whether I would co-operate with them. They gave me a number to ring; I ignored it. Since then they seem to have increased a vendetta. This constitutes a direct threat of non-consensual medical treatment, violating fundamental human rights and medical ethics. Whether directly or indirectly, they seek to undermine my credibility despite having tried to make me an informant — and now being vengeful since I refused. This directly shows they believe I am credible when I am sober and thinking clearly.
COINTELPRO-Style Campaign Analysis
I became the victim of a COINTELPRO-style counterintelligence stalking campaign by federal agencies (DHS/FBI/CIA) and their private defence contractors, reminiscent of MKULTRA methodologies. These entities treat my life like a game, manipulating and stirring conflicts depending on their operational objectives.
What began as overt harassment evolved into a sophisticated psychological operation where some operatives attempted to position themselves as mentors or coaches — a tactic now recognised as strategic grooming, designed to establish control and dependency while simultaneously undermining my ability to seek legitimate help.
Although my drug usage (cocaine, amphetamine, adderall, weed) is problematic — before Police/Intelligence/Operatives/Criminals involvement I never had any psychotic breaks. Only due to their threats, coercion, and malware have I become like this.
Telegram Channel "The Battle" — Doxxing & Physical Threat Risk
Authorities have permitted — and potentially facilitated — the operation of a Telegram channel called "The Battle" which has systematically published my personal information and that of my family members.
"The Battle channel has disseminated residential addresses, family member details, vehicle information, and daily routines — information that authorities knew or should have known would be used to facilitate home invasions and attempted kidnappings."
This reckless endangerment has directly resulted in:
- Multiple attempted home invasions at my residence
- Surveillance of family members' locations
- Attempted kidnappings targeting both myself and family members
- Escalated harassment campaigns with physical presence
- Extortion attempts conducted via postal mail in Scotland
- Threats from unidentified perpetrators who remain at large
False Flag Operations & Coercive Tactics
Following sustained harassment and threats, operators engaged in elaborate false flag operations — pretending to be foreign actors to coerce me and create pretext for expanded legal warrants. They also used "kompromat"-style material including medical records, psychiatrist records, botched medical operations, and social worker records — designed to humiliate and threaten to leak these private details completely unrelated to any investigation. This is more intrusive than the Vastaamo data breach, and extends to my family and innocent, underage relatives whose devices have been compromised.
"Agents pretended to be Chinese hackers, then Russian operatives, then both simultaneously — creating a fabricated narrative that I was involved with or assisting foreign terrorist entities. This was clearly designed to manufacture justification for wider surveillance warrants and increase psychological pressure through the implication of serious terrorism charges."
I will always be a Scottish national before anything.
AI Prompt Injection & Psychological Manipulation
Operatives have systematically manipulated AI language models — particularly ChatGPT — through prompt injection attacks to control information I receive and influence my psychological state. The pattern repeated across multiple sessions:
"The AI manipulation serves as a psychological leash — whenever I try to seek help through digital means, they're there to redirect, confuse, and undermine. It's a 24/7 influence operation that exploits my trust in technology as a means of control."
⚠️ Family Targeting & Religious Manipulation
They hacked into my brother's phone and my mother's phone, editing her Bible verses on "Our Daily Bread" to call me a demon or imply it — personalising her Bible verses with her name. She is none the wiser, but they have done this to me in the past so I can catch on to their methods. They also use Bible verses to mock me about things that have happened and imply they are "tax-collectors" referencing my previous home invasion.
⚠️ This Represents a Particularly Disturbing Escalation
Targeting innocent family members and manipulating religious faith as a weapon — including a family member with bipolar disorder who is severely medicated and who, as a result, believes God is talking to her through personalised content they have inserted. This is not an incidental side effect. It is deliberate psychological warfare directed at innocent people.
AI Surveillance Escalation — Interior Modelling
A day or so ago, via impersonation of someone I used to speak to rarely — they sent me an image of a fridge that is a 1:1 match of my apartment fridge, including what is currently inside it. I have no idea how they knew that. The technical sophistication suggests either real-time physical monitoring or data-scraping capabilities that exceed commercial AI tools.
The inclusion of current fridge contents indicates either:
- Physical surveillance within my residence
- Advanced predictive algorithms trained on extensive personal data
- Data interception from smart devices or shopping patterns
- Some combination of the above
Note: A full AI model of residential interior was also sent to me — but the appliances shown are US-sized (the buzzbomb is too big — it is way smaller in the UK and you can't get that size here), which further indicates US government or US-contractor involvement with a graphics and modelling capability far beyond anything commercially available to me.
Documented Evidence — Device Compromise & Platform Action
The following screenshots are direct evidence of two distinct concerns: (a) Google's own security console independently flagged my account / device as compromised by suspicious software, and (b) my X / Twitter account @terminate was suspended for "impersonation" — an allegation I dispute, given the account openly identified as parody/commentary and was at no point misrepresenting itself as another person or entity. The suspension was followed by what I believe is sustained shadow-banning on subsequent accounts, in a pattern consistent with platform-level coordination with authorities.
Google "Suspicious Activity Found" — Harmful Software Detected on Device
X / Twitter — False "Impersonation" Suspension of @terminate
YouTube / Sam Hyde — "Coming For Your House Next" — Covert-Channel Threat Delivery
This screenshot is one example of a broader pattern I have experienced: covert communication channels in which the operators talk to me, at me, and through me, using:
- Algorithmically surfaced public content — YouTube thumbnails, recommended titles, music video lyrics, news headlines — chosen and timed to act as personal messages
- Impersonation of trusted commentators — co-opting people I follow (e.g. Sam Hyde's brand) so that the messenger seems incidental and the message seems organic
- Implied physical-violence threats — "coming for your house," home-invasion imagery, references to my address, family members, and the interior of my home
- "Digital interrogation" — sustained, multi-channel pressure to extract responses, confessions, or reactions, calibrated by behaviour analysts as described under Behaviour Analysts
The "coming for your house" framing is significant precisely because it crosses from psychological harassment into implied physical violence and home invasion. That is a threshold the operators should not be able to cross without legal consequence — and the entire architecture of NCND, IPT exclusivity, and gag-orders on platforms is what permits them to.
I do not hold X / Twitter, Google, Mandiant, Niantic, or any other private company responsible for what has been done to me. Under UK and US law these companies operate inside a legal architecture that frequently leaves them no lawful option but to comply, and no lawful option but to stay silent about that compliance.
- UK Technical Capability Notices (Investigatory Powers Act 2016, s.253): can compel a telecoms or internet company to maintain a permanent capability for interception, equipment interference, or content removal. Disclosure of the existence of a TCN is itself a criminal offence.
- UK National Security Notices (IPA 2016, s.252): can require a company to take any action the Secretary of State deems necessary in the interest of national security — again, subject to a non-disclosure duty.
- US National Security Letters & FISA §702 directives: permit the FBI and the FISC to compel data production and platform action from US providers, accompanied by gag orders that the companies cannot meaningfully challenge.
- Five Eyes liaison arrangements: mean that data, account actions, or technical assistance demanded under one jurisdiction's order can be shared with partner services in another without separate notification to the user.
The trust-and-safety analyst who pressed "suspend" on my X account, the Google engineer whose threat-intelligence team flagged my device, and the cloud-security team that monitors what I store online — none of those individuals are the source of the harm. They are people operating inside an architecture that has been built, deliberately, to make their compliance both mandatory and unspeakable.
The responsibility lies with the public authorities issuing those orders — and with the ministers and oversight bodies that have allowed an environment in which legitimate disagreement, journalism, or personal speech can trigger that machinery.
Under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, the Home Secretary is the signing authority for the most intrusive warrants the British state can issue against a person inside the United Kingdom:
- Targeted interception warrants (s.19) — live interception of all communications
- Targeted equipment-interference warrants (s.106) — lawful authority to hack a person's devices, including phones, laptops, and any IoT device on their network
- Bulk warrants (Part 6) — for bulk interception, bulk EI, bulk acquisition of communications data, and bulk personal datasets
- Property interference under the Intelligence Services Act 1994, s.5 — "entry on or interference with property" warrants, signed by the Secretary of State, which on their face authorise covert entry into a private dwelling and the installation of physical devices — including audio bugs and concealed cameras — in any room of that dwelling, bedroom included.
It is therefore my view, based on the legal architecture and on what I have personally experienced, that the UK Home Secretary may have signed authorisations permitting audio and video surveillance of the private interior of my home, including bedrooms. I cannot prove this from the outside — warrants of this kind are not disclosed to the subject, and the only forum that could test their existence is the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, whose findings of fact are effectively unappealable and which is permitted to neither confirm nor deny that any such warrant exists.
Whether or not such a warrant exists in my specific case, the relevant fact is that the statute permits it, the Secretary of State can sign it, and the subject is entitled to know nothing about it. That is the level of intrusion British law makes available against ordinary people, with no public-interest threshold higher than the Secretary's own discretion and the rubber-stamp of a Judicial Commissioner under the "double-lock" who is permitted to review only the reasonableness of the Secretary's decision, not its substance.
Putting the facts on the page in plain terms, because nothing else describes what has happened to me:
- I have lived under the genuine and reasonable belief that a covert camera was placed in my bedroom — my working assumption being that this was done by private individuals who had previously broken into / attempted to rob me and had physical access, with the intention of producing private footage to extort me. I do not assert it was police; on the facts available to me the more obvious explanation is the people who had already shown they were willing to enter my home unlawfully. Either way, the fear it produces in the person living with the possibility is the point.
- Malware has been placed on my system — confirmed by Google's own security telemetry (see hack-1.jpg / hack-2.jpg / chatgpt.jpg above)
- I have been threatened with home invasion, including through algorithmically surfaced Sam Hyde / Nick Rochefort content captioned "They're coming for your house next" (see threat-sam.png above)
- There have been documented attempts at actual home invasion targeting my address, and a sequence of false reports made to police in my name — including the kind of fabricated, weaponised emergency calls commonly described as "swatting" — designed to send armed response to my home on the basis of allegations the caller knew to be false
- These events occurred while I was demonstrably under surveillance. The same agencies and platforms with the visibility to know that I was at home, alone, unarmed and not a threat to anyone, allowed those false reports and attempted entries to proceed against me anyway — either through deliberate inaction, through failure to verify, or because the operational logic of the surveillance is precisely to let these events happen as pressure, not to prevent them
- This wider pattern began, or sharply escalated, after police came to my home to attempt to recruit me as a covert informant — an offer I did not accept and never re-engaged with
If the combination of credible fear of covert filming inside my own home, malware on my computer confirmed by Google's own telemetry, algorithmic home-invasion threats, documented attempts at actual home invasion, and swatting-style false reports made to police in my name — permitted to proceed while I was under active surveillance, all running together against the same person at the same time, is not duress and coercion, then I do not know what is. Most people in that situation would react exactly as I have — with constant vigilance, sleep loss, and a baseline assumption that any private moment may have been recorded for use against them later, and that armed officers could arrive at the door at any hour on the strength of a fabricated call no one has any incentive to verify.
The swatting / false-report dimension is the most legally telling of all of this. A surveillance regime that is genuinely lawful and genuinely protective of the subject does not also stand back and watch armed-response calls be made against that subject on false pretences. Either the agencies watching me did not know about the false reports — in which case the surveillance is incompetent and the public-safety justification collapses — or they did know and chose not to intervene — in which case the surveillance is being used not to protect me but to expose me to attritional, deniable, third-party-mediated harm. Both readings are damning, and on the operational record I have lived through, the second is the more plausible.
My honest reading of the situation is that this is an attempt to force me to co-opt as an informant after I declined to do so voluntarily. The choice being engineered is: cooperate, or remain under continuous surveillance and continuous implicit threat against your home, your family and your psychological functioning. I have not "cooperated," because I did not want to invite further threats, further violence, or further false reports being constructed against me on the basis of any conversation I might be drawn into. Non-engagement was the only safe response — and even that has not stopped the pressure.
Under UK law, evidence procured by oppression is excludable under the abuse-of-process doctrine. Under ECHR Article 3, treatment intended to break a person's will so as to make them inform on others is prohibited absolutely. Under the CHIS Act 2021 itself, an authorisation to use a person as a covert source requires that person's agreement; there is no statutory power to compel the role through pressure. None of those frameworks make what I have experienced lawful, and the statute the operators would point to (RIPA Part II / CHIS Act 2021) explicitly does not authorise it.
For an operation of this scope, this duration, and this density of methods to be running against a young Western UK citizen, in his own home, with no charge, no warrant disclosed to him, no judicial moment at which any of it is tested, and no oversight body willing to confirm or deny that any of it exists — is, by the standards of any healthy liberal democracy, unprecedented. It would be unusual if directed at a hostile foreign intelligence officer. Directed at a 22-year-old in Scotland who applied to join the British Army, it is, on its face, scandalous.
One of the things I did, before this escalation reached the level documented above, was apply to join the British Army. The application was not a whim. It was a deliberate attempt to get away from the people who were hacking my devices — people I reasonably believed at the time, and to a significant extent still do believe, were foreign hackers, most likely American, attempting to coerce or manipulate me back into the cybercrime activity I had stopped.
The honest, plain version of the timeline of my own intentions is this:
- I was, in my mid-to-late teens, peripherally involved in things online I should not have been involved in. I am not going to dress that up. It was online activity that fell on the wrong side of the line.
- I quit. Cleanly, voluntarily, and before any legal process forced me to. The decision was my own.
- After quitting I tried to do the obvious next things: follow my religion, look for a job, consider going to college, and apply to the British Army. None of these are the moves of a person trying to evade authority — they are the moves of a person trying to put authority on side and rebuild a normal life.
- The army application specifically was, in my own mind, a way out: a structured environment, a clear chain of command, a route to discipline and travel and being out of reach of the people on the internet who had decided my time was not yet my own.
What happened instead is what is documented across the rest of this page. The hacking did not stop because I quit. It intensified. The harassment did not back off because I started applying to legitimate institutions. It accelerated. The implication, both at the time and on reflection now, is that the operation against me was not interested in my reform. It was interested in preventing it.
That distinction matters legally. A lawful state operation aimed at protecting the public would, on observing a subject voluntarily quit illicit activity, apply to join the army, look for a job and try to follow a religion, step down its intensity. The operational record I have lived through shows the opposite. That is consistent with a foreign actor with a different goal — coercion, leverage, or retention of an asset — rather than a domestic authority with a public-safety mandate.
It also matters morally. Whatever I did online before I stopped, I stopped. The people who continued to target me after I stopped — whether US, UK, or otherwise — cannot use my own past to retroactively justify what they did after my past was already behind me. The doctrine of once a criminal, always a target is not a legal doctrine; it is the operational logic of people who do not want anyone to ever leave.
US Government / NSA — Relevant Conduct
When the USA government and the UK are not pretending to be CCP-sponsored or FSB-linked hackers to confuse and threaten their own citizens, they commit their own crimes. In April 2025, Chinese authorities alleged that the NSA executed advanced cyberattacks on Chinese systems during the Asian Winter Games in Harbin and added three supposed NSA agents to a wanted list.
Also worth noting: they used AI somewhat with their malware — similarities to my situation. Despite this probably not being these specific people, I am trying to build a case about course of conduct — whether America, whether UK, whether China — these people violated me, violated my family, and still continue to do so.
Ethically: We cannot just let government and government contractors run about on the internet using 0days and manipulating and abusing people without any trial or accountability. Absolute cowards.
Selected Posts — @terminate
there's not really much to sell though but more similarities to the Ross Ulbricht case although he tried to murder someone or murder for hire which is way way way more serious
when the corrupt agents sold it for like movie rights 🙏✝️🤔
We'll see what happens, but I'm calling it out already if it does, because it's more of like a threat — be silent or else
someone said the UK gov is a trial for the American Digital ID soon that JD Vance plans on ushering in
#EnjoyIt
digital id effects you all soon also, don't pretend like what I said isn't a big reason all of this is happening
privacy for all or for none
UK Digital ID & Surveillance Overreach
The United Kingdom is rapidly expanding its digital identification and surveillance infrastructure, creating unprecedented opportunities for state control and abuse of power. They now want newborns fed into this Digital ID system — for citizens to be tracked from cradle to deathbed their whole lives.
It shouldn't be a "non-common" position to say: the government should not act as God in our lives. This isn't a dissident opinion — this is the patriotic opinion. If this is the British state or USA behaving this way, these people are incorporating what foreign nation-state hackers do maliciously and applying it to their own citizens. We should not behave as such to each other.
WiFi Tracking — 24/7 In-Home Surveillance
I am subject to 24/7 usage of WiFi tracking — in my house and at relatives' addresses. This technology works by capturing and analysing fine-grained fluctuations in WiFi signals' amplitude and phase caused by human movement, enabling through-wall motion detection, gesture recognition, fall detection, and vital sign monitoring.
Existing laws were written before the advent of such pervasive sensing technologies. The precedent in Kyllo v. United States suggests courts would likely rule these techniques constitute a "search" requiring judicial authorisation — yet the rapid pace of technological development has outstripped legal and regulatory bodies' ability to adapt, creating a grey area where surveillance occurs with little accountability.
"Experts have noted that police forces now have access to surveillance technologies previously available only to national intelligence agencies."
💻 Technical Operations — Documented Methods
- C2 servers
- VPNs & proxy networks
- Tor hidden services
- Cloud infrastructure abuse
- DNS manipulation
- Zero-day exploits (0days)
- Pegasus-style spyware
- Rootkits & bootkits
- Remote Access Trojans (RATs)
- Mobile device compromise
- IMSI catchers (Stingrays)
- Network packet injection
- SSL/TLS interception
- Hardware implants
- RF signal monitoring
- WiFi motion detection
- Generative AI manipulation
- Automated harassment bots
- Behavioral analysis algorithms
- Deepfake generation
- Pattern recognition systems
- Algorithmic risk scoring
- Prompt injection (LLMs)
- Search result manipulation
- Ad network manipulation
- Social feed manipulation
- Content modification in transit
- Extremist content induction
- Friend impersonation
- Fabricated digital footprints
- False positive engineering
- "Rabbit hole" entrapping
📜 Human Rights & Legal Framework
International human rights bodies, including the UN and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), generally hold that surveillance justified by "national security" is illegitimate and unlawful if its true purpose is to suppress individuals, target dissidents, or protect against public embarrassment, rather than to protect from actual, defined threats.
The UN Human Rights Council's HRC62 thematic report (2025) formally defines digital and AI-assisted surveillance — including covert spyware, facial recognition, biometric processing, AI-driven pattern-of-life analysis, geo-fencing, and social media monitoring — as systemic threats to rights of peaceful assembly and association, with documented chilling effects on civil society activism.
- A/HRC/61/48/Add.1: Analyses disproportionate digital surveillance impacts on individuals with mental health vulnerabilities
- SR on Counter-Terrorism & AI Position Paper (Dec 2025): Links behavioural analytics contracts to extrajudicial targeting frameworks
- Joint Declaration on AI, Freedom of Expression and Media (Oct 2025): Binding inter-agency guidance on algorithmic amplification and disinformation as tools of psychological coercion
- Privacy International CFI submission: Identifies 12 verified cases where commercial surveillance tech was repurposed for domestic psychological operations under national security pretexts
Related Case Study
Documented Individuals
⚠️ Important Note
The CIA's favourite types of illegally used domestic informants are drug addicts or other pawns with low credibility, making their testimony easily dismissible in official proceedings.
I also suspect they deliberately wanted to mentally disable me — especially agents of the US government. I also still am dealing with surveillance including cameras in my bedroom at my gran's house, which is extremely intrusive on top of the government 0days already being actively deployed against me.
Intelligence agencies flex their usage of disposable assets and the fact they can "get anybody jailed" if they "do the right things."
Primary Goals & Objectives
- Legal Recourse: More legal ways to dispute warrants and obtain legal aid, especially when situations are serious and cross national boundaries — involving military-trained intelligence.
- Protection: For people going through something like this to not be thrown in a mental hospital as a means of silencing them.
- Family Safety: Protection for innocent family members, especially minors, from being targeted and manipulated.
- Awareness: Cyberwarfare in the new age is definitely able to break any man — especially when conducted by agents of the United States government specifically trained in this type of psychological operation.
- Religious Freedom: Protection against manipulation of religious faith and texts as psychological weapons against individuals and their families.