Legal Ramifications of 'Mind Reading' Technology: An Ethical Debate

[redhawk41]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2009229,00.html

Some tidbits from the article:

The latest work reveals the dramatic pace at which neuroscience is progressing, prompting the researchers to call for an urgent debate into the ethical issues surrounding future uses for the technology. If brain-reading can be refined, it could quickly be adopted to assist interrogations of criminals and terrorists, and even usher in a "Minority Report" era (as portrayed in the Steven Spielberg science fiction film of that name), where judgments are handed down before the law is broken on the strength of an incriminating brain scan.

The use of brain scanners to judge whether people are likely to commit crimes is a contentious issue that society should tackle now, according to Prof Haynes. "We see the danger that this might become compulsory one day, but we have to be aware that if we prohibit it, we are also denying people who aren't going to commit any crime the possibility of proving their innocence."

FAQ: Mind reading

What have the scientists developed?
They have devised a system that analyses brain activity to work out a person's intentions before they have acted on them. More advanced versions may be able to read complex thoughts and even pick them up before the person is conscious of them.

How does it work?
The computer learns unique patterns of brain activity or signatures that correspond to different thoughts. It then scans the brain to look for these signatures and predicts what the person is thinking.

How could it be used?
It is expected to drive advances in brain-controlled computers, leading to artificial limbs and machinery that respond to thoughts. More advanced versions could be used to help interrogate criminals and assess prisoners before they are released. Controversially, they may be able to spot people who plan to commit crimes before they break the law.

What is next?
The researchers are honing the technique to distinguish between passing thoughts and genuine intentions.

So what are your thoughts on the legal and ethical ramifications of rapidly developing technology?

My opinion is that we are approaching a crossroads where freedom will be incapable of coexisting with technology.

 

[michibilly]

I agree with you and I doubt freedom will be the choice the demipublicans choose.

 

[SecDef]

What judge would ever support a conviction without a crime being committed? There will always be time between contemplation and acting, thus there will always be time to change ones mind.

The point of sci-fi is sometimes to take a concept to its logical ridiculous conclusion, and the Minority Report did its job with that.

 

[NukemJim]

Actually a very simplistic version of this has been tested.

There is an brain monitoring device that can tell whether or not you have seen something before. .gov did not believe it would work so they ran a test with FBI agents/non FBI agents, around 40 subjects about 1/2 agents. They were shown a picture of something that only an FBI agent would have seen. The technique was 100% accurate. This technique however only works once it is only the 1st time that you see a new/strange image that you get this response.

And this does not begin to go into the possibility of using fMRI (funtional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) as a "lie detector"

I am not say that they will be able to read minds tomorow or the next day but it is also certainly coming. I would rather rules be thought about ahead of time.

NukemJim

 

[Crosshair]

As NukemJim mentioned, the system they tested was a simple version. However for real world uses it would be FAR less than 100% accurate.

I work retail and see alot of people. If one was looking for a missing girl and hooked me up to that thing I would probably test positive for "recognizing" that girl as they may have been in 5 months ago looking for an extension cord.

Another problem is that the brain quite often makes mistakes. How often have we been convinced we saw something we we actualy didn't? Considering all the horror movies that are available I wonder how accurate this would be on some people. What are the effects on a tired brain, a drunk bain, a high brain. Considering many criminals arn't the most mentaly stable how would that affect the results? Can it tell if the brain is thinking "Hey I saw that on CSI six months ago when the guy took a shotgun to the face." instead of "That's what they guy looked like after getting hit in the face with a baseball bat fifteen times."

It would also be incredibly easy to taint the evidence by subliminaly showing the suspect one of the photos before the "test". They then would test "positive" in the test.

This device seems to be basicly like the Polygraph, just slightly more accurate. However this device is worse in the fact that tests are non-repeatable. There are many things about the brain that we don't know and we cannot predict everything 100%. If a persons brain is shown X and the result is supposed to be Y or Z, what happens if the result is Q. The test is non-repeatable and thus the results cannot be tested again.

Once you have one occurance of Q instead of X or Y, the system is broken. You need to then explain Q, why it happened, and when it can happen. If you cannot, then the system cannot be considered 100% reliable and an inherent innacuracy in the system must be accepted. Such problems are usualy reserved for physics and not the courtroom. At least in physics you can reduce the effects of any inherent inaccuracies by simply repeating the test several times and making a conclusion from the results.

Thus, this system should be treated like a polygraph. The police can use it as an aid. However it should be inadmissible in court.

 

[revjen45]

"What judge would ever support a conviction without a crime being committed? "

A judge is a Govt. lawyer in a black robe. They know who signs their cheques.

 

[SecDef]

Which is precisely why Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life.. they owe nobody nothin'.

 

[Slugthrower]

Reading a persons mind without permission is a violation of...

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


... it is just a piece of paper though.

 

[redhawk41]

"What judge would ever support a conviction without a crime being committed?"

Well...

One can be convicted of conspiracy if sufficient evidence is available to indicate "general intent" and/or an "overt act" to violate a particular law or laws, without an actual violation of said law(s) taking place.
[DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television. Anyone with better input please feel free to interject]

How could an "incriminating brain scan" fall legally into a conspiracy type of conviction?

 

[NukemJim]

This device seems to be basicly like the Polygraph, just slightly more accurate. However this device is worse in the fact that tests are non-repeatable

Uhmm I think there may have been a misunderstanding. The device I was refering to that can only be used once is a variant of evoked potential or specialized EEG testing IIRC.

What the article is talking if I understand it correctly is with MRI/fMRI wich if I understand correctly can be done numerous times.

NukemJim

 

[SecDef]

"What judge would ever support a conviction without a crime being committed?"

Well...

One can be convicted of conspiracy if sufficient evidence is available to indicate "general intent" and/or an "overt act" to violate a particular law or laws, without an actual violation of said law(s) taking place.
[DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television. Anyone with better input please feel free to interject]

How could an "incriminating brain scan" fall legally into a conspiracy type of conviction?

Conspiracy is an act that is a crime. However, conspiracy requires more than one person. I can sit and plan out to the smallest detail in my head exactly how to steal my neighbor's newspaper, but I have committed no crime.