Dear : In the past few months, I have written you concerning the unique problems in applying current criminal laws to the new breed of electronic surveillance and neuro-influence weapons. These weapons leave no trace, and if applied in short bursts and when no witnesses are present, are, under present law, the perfect crime. Perpetrators using this weaponry can harrass and torment a chosen vengeance or recreational victim for years and never come even close to prosecution. I have been the target of both surveillance and acoustic weaponry for the past couple of years, and I can't even go for a walk in the woods without having unknown persons follow me with weird shrieks and whistles originating from the acoustic weapon known as an "acoustic heterodyne", currently manufactured by American Technology Corp. in Poway, CA. (This technology was used by military intelligence during the Persian Gulf War.) When I complain to police and police visit my premises, the activity (naturally) ceases and they say they can't help due to lack of evidence. In response to this late-90s situation, I'd like to offer some suggestions to both legislators and to the police as to how to deal with this new and growing threat to peace and privacy. 1. The cornerstone of civilized justice is presumed innocence; that can't be changed. 2. Day-to-day POLICY, both legislative and at the law enforcement level, CAN be changed, however. The 1990s have seen policies put in place which now make it mandatory to believe victims of domestic abuse and stalking. I suggest this same policy be extended to those who claim they are being stalked and harassed by electronic surveillance and neuro-influence weapons. It is extremely important that WRITTEN policies plainly spell this out. Verbal won't help when someone enters a police station with a complaint of this type. (The Jan. 22/98 article from Nature magazine, which I sent you not long ago, will remove any doubt that such weapons are feasible with current UNclassified technology. I can furnish you with other unclassified electronic weapon articles if you wish further confirmation.) 3. Police agency policy must make the gathering of evidence by police, not the victim, an obligation of police agencies. This too must be IN WRITING. In the matter of sophisticated surveillance and neuro-influence weapons, there is no possible way an ordinary working citizen can pay for their own evidence collection. 4. Because the cost of evidence collection is high, the forensic lab agencies at both the federal and provincial levels must be equipped with their own test equipment. Since this type of case is not likely to be continuously reported at this time, the contracting of e-weapons detection experts would be done at the times of specific need. All police agencies should be able to request the services of these equipment and expertise "depots" AT NO COST TO THEIR LOCAL BUDGETS. This "no cost" suggestion is ESSENTIAL to ensure the willingness of busy local police, snowed under by drug cases and robberies, etc. It will be federal and provincial taxes which will fund these e-weapon detection units, not local governments. 5. Nobody, in any line of work, likes to have nearly impossible assignments "open" on their desks for long periods of time. This type of case is VERY likely to be of the open-for-lengthy-periods type. In light of this, policy should require the complainant to renew their complaint every six months in order to keep the matter open. The complainant should be able to freely add relevant information to their file, by transmitting or delivering to their local police station. In my case, any material I have submitted is returned, politely, but with the statement "I'm too busy to read that." The officers who are assigned such cases must be allowed the time to read or view the evidence submitted, and secure storage space to keep it. This too must be IN WRITING. 6. There will be, no doubt, cases where the complainant is not satisfied with the actions taken by their police agency. In such cases, the policies of all of the Police Civilian Review Boards must make their services freely available to the complainants, and in such a way that the complainant does not fear additional prob- lems coming from local police authorities. I'd like to suggest that all of the above points can be easily added to EXISTING boards and agencies with no fear of political cost. All I'm suggesting is the ENHANCEMENT of existing policies and lab facilities, not the creation of entirely new agencies. If such legislative and policy changes attract the attention of the media and public, such changes will very clearly paint the legislators and administrators carrying out the changes as highly forward-looking. Remember that enough of the surveillance and neuro- influence technology has now been made public that no politician now need fear for their credibility. The cost is not particularly high - the equipment needed to cover both radio frequency and acoustic (ultrasound) detection might run $350,000 CDN for a federal and/or each provincial lab. That is far beyond what the victim can pay, but is not a large percentage of federal and provincial budgets. One modern bus or street car can run close to that price. I sincerely hope you will seriously consider taking part in preparing for this relatively new type of crime, and I stand ready to furnish detailed infor- mation on the weapons technology already in the public domain. Sincerely,