April 1, 2026
Justice Legion International

Laws that Should Protect Targeted People from Targeting, but Don’t

Why aren’t federal and state laws being enforced against federal and state employees and contractors participating in targeting?

Federal Law

DODM 5200.01, Volumes 1-3, and the NISPOM: The only lawful reason to classify information is to protect national security. And that information must be declassified as soon as it no longer qualifies for classification. Information must not be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified for any other reason. Information is prohibited from being classified to conceal violations of law, inefficiency or administrative error, to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency, to restrain competition, or to prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interests of national security. In addition, basic scientific research and its results cannot be classified unless that information is clearly related to national security.

Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 2261A) outlines the elements of federal stalking, which include actions like crossing state lines with the intent to harass, intimidate, or place someone under surveillance, and engaging in conduct that causes the victim to fear for their safety or suffer emotional distress. In the U.S., stalking is generally a felony, particularly when it involves interstate travel or electronic communication.

Section 18 U.S.C. 2340A of Title 18, United States Code prohibits torture committed by public officials under color of law against persons within the public official’s custody or control. Torture is defined to include acts specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering. (It does not include such pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions.) The statute applies only to acts of torture committed outside the United States. There is Federal extraterritorial jurisdiction over such acts whenever the perpetrator is a national of the United States or the alleged offender is found within the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or the alleged offender.
(a) Offense.—Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.—A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

State Laws

California Senate Bill No. 1223 – SB 1223, Becker. Consumer privacy: sensitive personal information: neural data. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) grants to a consumer various rights with respect to personal information, as defined, that is collected by a business, as defined, including the right to direct a business that collects sensitive personal information about the consumer to limit its use of the consumer’s sensitive personal information to that use which is necessary to perform the services or provide the goods reasonably expected by an average consumer who requests those goods or services, to perform certain other services, and as authorized by certain regulations. The CCPA defines “sensitive personal information” to mean, among other things, the processing of biometric information, as defined, for the purpose of uniquely identifying a consumer. The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, approved by the voters as Proposition 24 at the November 3, 2020, statewide general election, amended, added to, and reenacted the CCPA.

This bill would define “sensitive personal information,” for purposes of the CCPA, to additionally include a consumer’s neural data, and would define “neural data” to mean information that is generated by measuring the activity of a consumer’s central or peripheral nervous system, and that is not inferred from nonneural information.

 
Colorado HB 24-1058 – Colorado HB 24-1058 is a new law that strengthens privacy protections for people’s biological and brain-related data, making Colorado one of the first states to do so. This law expands the Colorado Privacy Act to include biological data—like genetic, physiological, or biochemical information—and neural data, which refers to data collected from brain activity. That means if a company collects or uses things like your DNA, brainwave patterns, or other body-related data, they now have to treat it as sensitive information and follow stricter rules about how they handle it. This includes getting your consent before collecting it, being transparent about how it’s used, and giving you rights to access or delete it.

 
The bill passed with strong bipartisan support and was signed into law in April 2024. It’s a proactive move to keep up with emerging technologies like brain-computer interfaces and biometric tracking, which are becoming more common in healthcare, tech, and even consumer devices. By recognizing the unique risks tied to biological and neural data, Colorado is aiming to protect residents from misuse or unauthorized access to some of the most personal information imaginable.

 

Minnesota MN SF1110 A bill for an act relating to data privacy; establishing neurodata rights; modifying certain crimes to add neurodata elements; providing civil and criminal penalties; amending Minnesota Statutes 2022, sections 13.04, by adding a subdivision; 609.88, subdivision 2; 609.891, subdivision 3; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 325E.

This bill establishes “neurodata rights” in Minnesota, which grant individuals the right to mental privacy, cognitive liberty, and protection from unauthorized access or manipulation of their brain activity. The bill prohibits government entities from collecting data directly from brain activity without informed consent and bars companies from using brain-computer interfaces to bypass an individual’s conscious decision-making. The bill also imposes civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation and enhances criminal penalties for computer crimes involving brain-computer interfaces. The bill aims to safeguard individuals’ mental and cognitive rights in the context of emerging neurotechnology.

 
Montana State Bill 163 Senate Bill 163 aims to regulate the collection and use of genetic and neural technology data. It establishes stringent guidelines for entities that collect such data, requiring explicit consent from consumers, parents, or guardians before any collection, use, or disclosure. The bill mandates separate consent for actions like transferring data to third parties, using data for purposes beyond initial testing, and retaining biological samples after testing. It also requires consumers to be informed if their data will be used for research or marketing based on their genetic information. The bill has sparked considerable debate, with both proponents and industry stakeholders expressing differing views on its implications for consumer rights and innovation.

 
Section 30-23-101.(d…) states, “neurotechnologies, including devices capable of recording, interpreting, and altering the response of an individual’s central or peripheral nervous system to its internal or external environment, raise particularly pressing privacy concerns given their ability to monitor, decode, and manipulate brain activity;
 
(e) data concerning the activity of the human brain and wider nervous systems, or “neurotechnology data”, is extremely sensitive and can reveal intimate information about individuals, including information about health, mental states, emotions, and cognitive functioning;
 
(f) each human brain is unique, meaning that neural data is specific to the individual from whom it is collected. Because neurotechnology data contains distinctive information about the structure and functioning of individual brains and nervous systems, it contains sensitive information that may link the data to an identified or identifiable individual.
 
(g) the collection of neurotechnology data involves the involuntary disclosure of information. Even if individuals consent to the collection and processing of their data for narrow use, they are unlikely to be fully aware of the content or quality of information they are sharing.
(h) neurotechnology users cannot decide what specific neurotechnology information they would like to disclose, and they are unlikely to understand the extent to which their neurotechnology data can be decoded, currently or in the future. Neurotechnologies can collect and process information about an individual that the individual did not even know existed.”
 
Proposal for Electronic Torture Act from targeted individual Amy Holem in State of Nevada that should be adopted nationally to implement adequate protections for targeted people. “The purposes of electronic torture are known to alter the human mind and behavior without authorization and consent of the person. Electronic Torture is a form of psychological warfare and social engineering tactics that alters the persons thoughts views and perspectives and religious beliefs. It also a form of video voyeurism that sexually assaults the victim or person to Violate their privacy, their privacy, first amendment rights, perform cruel and unusual punishment under the eight amendments. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th, amendments are all being violated. The use of Electronic Torture through electronic weapons, electronic devices and non-lethal weapon systems allows the victim to be discredited when filing a complaint to any law enforcement and federal agencies.”

 
Oregon HB 3756 – Relating to electromagnetic weapons, Chief Sponsor: Representative Nosse
Oregon House Bill 3756 establishes a Task Force on Electromagnetic Weapons to study the weapons’ usage in the state and identify gaps in Oregon law. The task force will specifically investigate how these weapons are being used and recommend revisions to the state’s legal framework to address any identified issues. The task force will report its findings and recommendations to the legislature’s interim committees related to the judiciary by December 1, 2026 and the task force will sunset on December 31, 2026.

You might also like

Radio Frequencies May Indicate Parties’ Associations with Non-Consensual Human Experimentation

Self-Identified Targeted Individuals’ Words of Advice Based on Their Experiences and Perspectives

Merchandise

Shielding Techniques to Block Various Energies

Talking to Angels

Definitions and Terminology Associated with Organized Stalking, Targeting, and Electronic Harassment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.