What does safe sharing look like?

Content warning: this concept contains sensitive and potentially disturbing material, including references to harassment, coercion, threats to life and euthanasia.

This concept is the author's view, drawn from his own experience and the statements recorded in the journal. It is not legal, medical or psychological advice. Whether any law applies to a particular situation is a question for a lawyer.

Communication like this has not been publicly acknowledged or explained, and nobody has said what technology may be behind it. In that situation, how someone makes first contact matters. It can help a person, or it can put them in danger. This concept sets out what safe sharing looks like, for anyone who wants to reach the author, and for anyone who wants to reach someone this may be happening to.

You protect you. Everything here builds on Who protects you?.

The short answer

This comes from the author's experience of being approached by people, and from many conversations, while capturing evidence, about what contact could look like before there is any official, public explanation of the technology.

If you want to talk with someone about what they're going through, don't ask unless you can level the playing field.

• —If you're experiencing the communication too, and you want to talk with someone else who is, put your own experience in writing first, with your name on it.
• —If you're not experiencing it, the author can't meet with you unless you have evidence of a crime in progress: recordings of the harassment, of attempts on someone's life, of forced or coerced efforts to end someone's life (see euthanasia outside legitimate health care), or of attempts to get into someone's home.
• —Either way, evidence comes first, or your own experience in writing with your real name on it, entirely legitimately.

Share in writing first. Don't ask the other person to do anything. Never ask them to come outside, open their door or meet a stranger. Let the evidence speak before anyone does.

What is never acceptable

• —Asking someone to come out of their home to meet a stranger, especially after communication in the middle of the night that may come from a long-range acoustic device. In the author's view, that can be life-threatening.
• —Ambushing someone, at their door, in the street or anywhere they didn't agree to.
• —Presenting yourself as someone you're not. Pretending to be a police officer, a public official, or anyone else, to get a meeting may be a crime (see the end of this concept).
• —Pressuring someone to make a statement or a decision, on the spot or on a deadline they didn't set.

When "assistance" means something else

Statements recorded in the journal, from what the author calls the neurotech bullhorn, ask again and again: "Do you accept assistance?" In those statements, the assistance on offer is euthanization. In the author's view, that's a lie about what is being offered: it calls something that would end a life "help".

What assistance actually means. To assist is to give support or aid (see assistance). Real assistance looks like health care, financial support and an explanation of what is happening. Ending someone's life is not assistance.

A large pattern in the recorded statements describes what might follow a yes, or a visit:

• —being handcuffed on your own property until you agree to be euthanized;
• —being driven to an infirmary, and handcuffed to a hospital bed or held there until you agree to go through with it;
• —or losing your life on the spot.

These are recorded statements: external communications, unverified, and nothing here says they are true. They are the reason for one firm rule.

• —Never say yes to "assistance" offered by the communication, or by a stranger who says they know what you're going through. Don't agree, don't bargain, and don't go anywhere with them.

On the record: in Colorado, nobody can lawfully be held until they agree to die. Medical aid in dying is only for an adult with a terminal illness and six months or less to live, who asks for it voluntarily, more than once, and takes the medication themselves. Holding someone, or pressuring them toward death, is a crime (see euthanasia outside legitimate health care and the law at the end of this concept).

Why ask for permission?

The statements insist: "You must accept assistance." "You're so selfish for not accepting assistance." Some say it's needed to "clean up a telepathic outbreak." The most recent, on 27 October 2026, describe what follows a yes: handcuffs, a 72-hour hold, and euthanization within that time.

The handcuffs, as the statements describe them, aren't for everyone. They come with resistance: someone who resists when they arrive is handcuffed and pressured to go with them, possibly because a hold is said to have already been placed, whether or not anyone says so. Someone who resists at any later point, who becomes angry or upset, or breaks down at the infirmary, is handcuffed to the bed.

One story in the statements, from about six months ago: a financial adviser in his forties accepted assistance. In the ambulance, he changed his mind. The driver answered, in effect, that he had to finish his job, and the man could talk to them when they arrived. At the location, he was told that now he was there, he had to go forward, and he was put in a holding cell. The story says he was starved for a couple of weeks, and let out after about three weeks.

Why would anyone need a yes? One possible answer is that consent, and a hold, could be used to make something criminal look like a legal, even humane, process.

On the record: in Colorado, an emergency mental health hold lasts no longer than 72 hours, can't be served in a jail, and is only for someone who, because of a mental health disorder, is an imminent danger to themselves or others (C.R.S. 27-65-106). It has nothing to do with medical aid in dying, which a person with a terminal illness must ask for themselves. No hold, and no "yes" given under pressure, makes ending a life lawful. In general, an adult who is able to make decisions can refuse to be taken by ambulance, and can change their mind, unless they are under a legal hold. A hold can't last more than 72 hours without a court, can't be served in a cell, and confining someone without lawful authority is a crime (false imprisonment, C.R.S. 18-3-303).

If you're an organisation with evidence

A law enforcement agency, a law firm or a technology organisation that has evidence of a crime in progress against someone.

• —Share the evidence with them first, in writing, so they can read it in their own time and show it to a lawyer.
• —Don't ask them to do anything. Not to come in, not to meet, not to sign.
• —Tell them you don't want them to make any statements yet.
• —Have a lawyer ready to work with them, and say so.
• —Say that no decision is needed today, while encouraging them to act quickly.

If you're sharing your own evidence

• —Put your name to it. If you share your transcripts or your story in writing, with your name and contact details on it, you're in the same position as the author, who has put his name to his own. That levels the playing field.
• —A conversation comes after that, not before. The author doesn't take calls, interviews or meetings about what someone is going through unless that person has first shared, in writing and with their contact details, official evidence or their own story. Contact us is the place to start.
• —Be truthful. In the author's view, lying about your identity, or about having experienced this, to get a meeting is dangerous and unacceptable, and using a false name or false details to do it may be a crime.

The value of silence

Before you share anything, ask who you're sharing it with, and what it might cost them.

In the author's experience, and in the statements recorded in the journal, the people someone talks to may be drawn in too. A mother, a father, a coworker, observed speaking with you, may be harassed in turn, and pressured to support your euthanization. If that might happen, sharing with them doesn't protect you, and it may put them at risk.

• —Silence can be protective, for you and for the people you love.
• —Who do you share with? A lawyer, where conversations are usually confidential; your own dated record; and, carefully, people you've thought it through with (see What can a household do to protect itself?).
• —Share in writing, on your terms, rather than in conversations that can be overheard or pressured.
• —Choosing silence is not giving up. It may be one of the safest things you can do until there is a public explanation.

If someone approaches you

From Who protects you?:

• —If someone approaches you and suggests they know what you're going through and want to help, let them speak first, and don't say anything. This is where a no-contact card matters most.
• —Don't tell a stranger that you're hearing voices. Health care has no recognised explanation for communication like this, so the explanation people are usually offered is a psychiatric one, such as schizophrenia. In Colorado, a peace officer or certain health professionals can place someone on an emergency mental health hold of up to 72 hours if they believe that, because of a mental health disorder, the person is an imminent danger to themselves or others (C.R.S. 27-65-106). In the author's view, a misdiagnosis made in that moment could do terrible harm to your life, or cost you your life. Say as little as you can, hand over your no-contact card, and talk about what you're experiencing with a lawyer, or a doctor you trust (see "Talking to a doctor" in Who protects you?).
• —With a stranger, keep it to about three seconds: "No, thank you," without breaking stride, and walk towards other people.
• —Consider carrying a no-contact card, so you don't have to explain yourself under pressure. Who protects you? has one you can print.
• —Don't sit down, get into a vehicle or go anywhere with them.
• —Afterwards, write down the date, the time, the place and what was said.

How to greet someone safely

One of the most important things to understand, in the author's experience: in this harassment, nobody uses a telephone and nobody uses email. The pressure comes at night, aimed at getting into homes. In the daytime, people are discredited. None of it is legal.

So legitimate contact looks like the opposite. For anyone with a legitimate reason to make contact:

• —Make first contact in writing, never at someone's door, and never at night.
• —Say who you are in a way they can check: a name, an organisation, and a public phone number they can call back.
• —If you meet, let them choose a public place, in daylight, and bring someone with them.
• —Respect "no." One no is the answer.

What the law says

On the record (Colorado):

• —Taking on a false identity, including using false personal details, to gain a benefit or to injure or defraud someone may be criminal impersonation (C.R.S. 18-5-113).
• —Repeatedly pressuring someone after they've said no may be harassment or stalking (C.R.S. 18-9-111, 18-3-602).
• —Ending a life is lawful in Colorado only under the End-of-Life Options Act (2016): an adult Colorado resident with a terminal illness and a prognosis of six months or less, who is able to make the decision, asks for it voluntarily and takes the medication themselves (C.R.S. 25-48-101 and following). Outside the Act, intentionally causing or helping another person to die by suicide is manslaughter (C.R.S. 18-3-104(1)(b)). No law allows anyone to pressure a person toward death.
• —An emergency mental health hold lasts no longer than 72 hours and can't be served in a jail; it requires a belief that the person, because of a mental health disorder, is an imminent danger to themselves or others, or gravely disabled (C.R.S. 27-65-106).
• —Pretending to be a peace officer and acting in that role is a class 5 felony (C.R.S. 18-8-112); pretending to be another public servant is a misdemeanor (C.R.S. 18-8-113).

Whether any of these applies to a particular situation is a question for a lawyer.

If you live with others, see also What can a household do to protect itself?

What would change this

Acknowledgement. Until communication like this is publicly acknowledged and explained, everyone it reaches is on their own. What the author is calling for:

• —Mainstream news media coverage, so that what people describe can be investigated rather than explained away.
• —A daily national emergency alert about LRAD. The national alerts are among the strongest messages anyone can receive: they take over phones (Wireless Emergency Alerts) and interrupt local television and radio (the Emergency Alert System). In the author's view, you can't depend on people following the news while they're busy, or while they're suffering; an alert reaches them anyway. Today these alerts tell everyone when a child has been abducted. They have never been used to warn about this communication, even though, in the author's view, it may be costing lives, children's included.

This is an example emergency alert message, written for this concept. No such alert has been issued. A phone alert is limited to 360 characters.

• —It isn't only about the person being targeted. Acknowledgement could stop this from spreading to people who are asked to harm others while believing they're dealing with the spirit world.

Why isn't there an explanation?

Law enforcement's performance can be measured by arrests, or by the absence of crime. When someone understands that a government cloud system may be able to observe crime, and perhaps even thoughts, how likely are they to commit a crime again? Could the way law enforcement's performance is measured be one of the reasons this hasn't been acknowledged? This site has no evidence either way; it asks the question.

A future without crime

Imagine: over a couple of generations, crime around the world falls to 5% of what it is today, because every last person finally has the information, and understands that they can be observed at any time. How might that change the face of crime? It's a hope, not a forecast, and it starts with acknowledgement. For what that future might look like, see What Does a Future with Consent Look Like?

Until the news media acknowledges it, or someone explains the neurotech bullhorn, we are largely on our own. Be careful, and look after each other.

Topics: Harassment · Proposed solutions · Law enforcement & government · Euthanization