This is nothing new. Remember when the US pressured Sweden into taking down the pirate bay (Very unsuccessfully)? Using global influence to get countries to do something that they would not do on their own has always been the case.
Pretty successfully I would say. Armed police raided the server hosting provider scaring the shit out of some dudes who were just monitoring the power basically. And people went to prison.
Depends on your definition of successful. If the goal was to take down the website that didn't work as it was back online hours after and is online to this day even if the organization behind it probably changed.
To those in the know, it's not really uncommon knowledge.
Whenever you have control over somebody else's organism, suicide isn't something which makes sense definitionally, even if his own body was used to kill him.
You're welcome to look into what those around him said regarding his detention and death.
He is just a well-publicized example.
Many of you here have probably used darknet markets, if so, your vendors are likely neurocompromised as well.
> Whenever you have control over somebody else's organism, suicide isn't something which makes sense definitionally, even if his own body was used to kill him.
> your vendors are likely neurocompromised as well.
Much of the drug trade is ran less than consensually, as is common knowledge.
Often even people envolved aren't even aware these technologies are being utilized, to those who are, their position is often simple: you do what we say or we torture you, even in protective custody, as surgery isn't really practical.
To be clear, your claim is that 'much of the drug trade is r[u]n less than consensually' via some kind of undocumented, unknown-to-most brain implant that can be used to remotely torture people for non-compliance?
That claim falls apart as soon as it touches reality: there are a _lot_ of people who are involved in the drug trade, now and in the past. At some point, one of those people would definitely have had a CT or an MRI on their skull (e.g. my dentist does a whole head CT every 5 years as part of the normal process and insurance pays for it). Surely _one_ of those people would have noticed a brain implant.
>At some point, one of those people would definitely have had a CT or an MRI on their skull
The tech is adversarially designed, you're assuming the medical supply chains are not compromised, and are dramatically underestimating the sophistication involved here generally.
You can't even assume the people interpreting the results are uncompromised, are trained to interpret results in the context of adversarial technology, or are even physiologically able to accurately interpret what they are looking at. This has it's roots in military intelligence, it's not a trivial compromise.
There is a long history of militant and/or criminal (what's the difference) usage of adversarially designed brain-computer interfaces that you will not find documented.
Unless you have proper clearance or are involved with one of the parties propagating them, anyway.
