The morality of mind probes

Megabot · Post by **Megabot** » 2008-08-19 06:52pm

I've recently been thinking about a scenario where a means of seeing into someone's mind and directly reading their thoughts and memories is devised, and wondering if such a device could be implemented in law enforcement, along with its ramifications. Assuming it was 100% accurate, it would be a way of finding out for sure if someone committed a crime or not, and would eliminate innocent convictions. The most obvious objection to such a device is that it's an invasion of privacy, since there is nothing more private than someone's mind. On the other hand, if I were accused of a crime I knew I didn't commit and was going to be convicted, I think I would rather have my mind read than risk going to prison for years, and was wondering if anyone else felt the same way. One way around the privacy angle could be to make such a device voluntary, but if so, would refusing it be a possible admission of guilt?

Darth Ruinus · Post by **Darth Ruinus** » 2008-08-19 06:54pm

Well, I guess if they narrow it down to a few people, and the people who know they aren't guilty all submit to this test, then they are immediately ruled out.

The one who didn't submit to the test would be the guilty one.

docfrance · Post by **docfrance** » 2008-08-19 07:03pm

If you treat it like any other private property else that can be searched, I don't think there would be any issue. The psicops would just have to get a mind probe warrant.

kc8tbe · Post by **kc8tbe** » 2008-08-19 07:09pm

It depends on how much of your mind the device reads. If it can be made to read only enough to find out whether you are guilty of the crime you have been accused of, then it would be quite useful. If it has to read pretty much your entire mind, then it would not be quite so useful.

"Well Mr. Smith, it turns out you didn't kill Mrs. Sanders. However we need to have a talk about the cocaine you did three years ago..."

Either way, use of the device would have to be voluntary in this context. Forcing the device on someone would amount to self-incrimination, which the 5th amendment protects you from in the USA.

Another ethical dilemma is whether or not the device amounts to "torture." Suppose we don't suspect Mr. Smith killed Mrs. Sanders, but we have a strong reason to believe that he knows who did kill her. A court compel him to testify on the matter, and hold him in (i.e. imprison him for) contempt of court if he refuses. However the court can't torture him (although in the USA, waterboarding may be acceptable) in order to obtain the desired information. Could we use the mind reading device to find out who killed Mrs. Sanders? Would that be considered torture?

docfrance · Post by **docfrance** » 2008-08-19 07:21pm

kc8tbe wrote:It depends on how much of your mind the device reads. If it can be made to read only enough to find out whether you are guilty of the crime you have been accused of, then it would be quite useful. If it has to read pretty much your entire mind, then it would not be quite so useful.

"Well Mr. Smith, it turns out you didn't kill Mrs. Sanders. However we need to have a talk about the cocaine you did three years ago..."

It's been a while since Law 101, but I'm pretty certain that if during a normal, legal search, investigators find evidence pertaining to an unrelated crime (say, if they're searching for the murder weapon and they find a stash of kiddie porn in the basement), then the suspect can be charged for that crime as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that precedent would just as easily apply to a mind probe, provided that the mind probe was legal as well.

Darth Ruinus · Post by **Darth Ruinus** » 2008-08-19 07:23pm

kc8tbe wrote:Another ethical dilemma is whether or not the device amounts to "torture." Suppose we don't suspect Mr. Smith killed Mrs. Sanders, but we have a strong reason to believe that he knows who did kill her. A court compel him to testify on the matter, and hold him in (i.e. imprison him for) contempt of court if he refuses. However the court can't torture him (although in the USA, waterboarding may be acceptable) in order to obtain the desired information. Could we use the mind reading device to find out who killed Mrs. Sanders? Would that be considered torture?

Why would it count as torture?

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2008-08-19 09:43pm

Personally, I think it would (and possibly, should) be used regardless of private rights or no: it would create irrefutable evidence of demand. This would be the nightmare of almost any criminals.

Let those gears of justice grind oiled up and smooth.

Of course, its not only the ethical ramifications of this. What would a government do with such power? Would criminals become even more desperate and dangerous in the presence of such a machine, knowing that they can't avert just punishment once caught? Will the legal system have to be redefined?

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2008-08-19 10:12pm

docfrance wrote:
kc8tbe wrote:It depends on how much of your mind the device reads. If it can be made to read only enough to find out whether you are guilty of the crime you have been accused of, then it would be quite useful. If it has to read pretty much your entire mind, then it would not be quite so useful.

"Well Mr. Smith, it turns out you didn't kill Mrs. Sanders. However we need to have a talk about the cocaine you did three years ago..."
It's been a while since Law 101, but I'm pretty certain that if during a normal, legal search, investigators find evidence pertaining to an unrelated crime (say, if they're searching for the murder weapon and they find a stash of kiddie porn in the basement), then the suspect can be charged for that crime as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that precedent would just as easily apply to a mind probe, provided that the mind probe was legal as well.

this is true IF say they found the kiddie porn in a place that could have concealed the murder weapon. So if they were looking for a gun or knife and found the kiddie porn on the computer hard drive, then they could not use the kiddie porn found as evidence because you can't find a gun or knife on a computers hard drive file.

as for this scenario, this would not really come into play because they are looking in the brain via mindprobe so that is the place they were looking.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2008-08-20 12:58am

I think it would be a tool with vast potential of abuse and that abuse would soon follow and it'd radically change society, likely for the worse.

The only way such a thing would be acceptable is through voluntary consent of the scanned and that only certain things would, or prefferably, could be scanned. We all got secrets, imagine getting ticketed for all those times I've done 10kph over the speed limit for instance? Or that time when I was 17 and snuck into a dance without paying? Or say you are an american and you fucked your 17 year old girlfriend when you where 18? Did pot, lsd, ecstacy? We're throwing the book at you druggie hippe rapist.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2008-08-20 03:47am

It's unlikely they'd be able to catalogue every single time you jaywalked or exceeded the speed limit or masturbated in the changing booth ; Much less put a date-stamp on it. Can you recall every time you did that? The brain just isn't that good at remembering stuff.

Most probably, you'd need to get a rather strict warrant for a "mind-search", you'd have the right to have your lawyer present there. It would work much like a house search, only stricter.

Best thing? The politicians would scramble to regulate the shit out of this thing, because a lot of them are dirty as hell, and wouldn't want it getting out

Of course, this may lead to criminals executing every witness if the device is good enough: essentially, it means you get a semi-clear record of the crime the instant it happens, and instant confirmation if you catch the right person. If the tech is good enough, you could load, say, a silhouette of the criminal from the witnesse's brain into image recognition software and have monitoring cameras find him or people similar to him.

How about a real ethical dilemma: Let's say mind-reading is unbelievably painful, but leaves no permanent physical damage and has a 100% success rate. Would it be justified to search innocent (but suspect) people this way? In what cases?

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2008-08-20 03:53am

I can remember I've speeded, even if I can't recall the exact datestamp, what does that change? It happened, I know, it was a violation of the law, now they know it and they got it on record, same thing with all the other examples. And who's to say such a fantastical machine can't extract more detailed info from the brain than oneself is able to?

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2008-08-20 04:04am

His Divine Shadow wrote:I can remember I've speeded, even if I can't recall the exact datestamp, what does that change? It happened, I know, it was a violation of the law, now they know it and they got it on record, same thing with all the other examples. And who's to say such a fantastical machine can't extract more detailed info from the brain than oneself is able to?

"Well, your honor, we are sure the accused here has speeded at least once in the last five years somewhere on a road trip to Berlin."

Memories become corrupted, embellished or downright useless after a while. Reasonable lawmakers would impose limits on what memories can be used in court, just like with video and photographic evidence. Shocking things like "I murdered my wife" are probably good enough not to be distorted in the gist of it, while minor things you can't even recall clearly probably aren't.

Unless you live in a totalitarian dictatorship, but then you're screwed no matter what you did

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2008-08-20 04:15am

Done with your crime? Escaped to your nefarious lair? Pop a couple of roofies!

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2008-08-20 05:05am

There's actually story potential here. Imagine a guy, pretty rich and all,and his wife gets murdered.

He's one of the suspects, but the mind-machine doesn't find any evidence of him doing the crime, so he's let go.

He goes on a personal quest to find out what happened and why his wife was killed ; As he follows the trail, he finds out, to his horror, that it was him who did it,and then popped some memory-destroying pills to cover it up.

It may have been done before, though

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2008-08-20 06:41am

PeZook wrote:There's actually story potential here. Imagine a guy, pretty rich and all,and his wife gets murdered.

He's one of the suspects, but the mind-machine doesn't find any evidence of him doing the crime, so he's let go.

He goes on a personal quest to find out what happened and why his wife was killed ; As he follows the trail, he finds out, to his horror, that it was him who did it,and then popped some memory-destroying pills to cover it up.

It may have been done before, though

Peter F. Hamilton did include a plot along those lines in one of his books, I believe. Of course, given the nature of society in his novels, she's not permanently dead, but she's still pissed about having to be restored from backup (and can't identify him because the hired killer wiped her memory implant). The man, it turns out, had his memories altered to remove knowledge of the plan.

I can't see any way that fucking mind reading could be ethical if done other than in a completely voluntary and noncompulsive manner. The contents of my brain are both more personal and more private than any form of everyday property.

Darmalus · Post by **Darmalus** » 2008-08-20 10:47am

Molyneux wrote:
PeZook wrote:There's actually story potential here. Imagine a guy, pretty rich and all,and his wife gets murdered.

He's one of the suspects, but the mind-machine doesn't find any evidence of him doing the crime, so he's let go.

He goes on a personal quest to find out what happened and why his wife was killed ; As he follows the trail, he finds out, to his horror, that it was him who did it,and then popped some memory-destroying pills to cover it up.

It may have been done before, though
Peter F. Hamilton did include a plot along those lines in one of his books, I believe. Of course, given the nature of society in his novels, she's not permanently dead, but she's still pissed about having to be restored from backup (and can't identify him because the hired killer wiped her memory implant). The man, it turns out, had his memories altered to remove knowledge of the plan.

I can't see any way that fucking mind reading could be ethical if done other than in a completely voluntary and noncompulsive manner. The contents of my brain are both more personal and more private than any form of everyday property.

There was a similar plot in Altered Carbon by Richard Morgan, only I'm not going to give spoilers if anyone wants to read it.

docfrance · Post by **docfrance** » 2008-08-20 04:39pm

Here's the important question though: would a night of heavy drinking count as tampering with evidence?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-08-20 05:53pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:I can remember I've speeded, even if I can't recall the exact datestamp, what does that change? It happened, I know, it was a violation of the law, now they know it and they got it on record, same thing with all the other examples. And who's to say such a fantastical machine can't extract more detailed info from the brain than oneself is able to?

A crime is defined as a collection of facts: Who, when, where, and how. If all they have is a what and a who, that's not enough. They have to issue tickets for specific incidences of speeding. Otherwise they could pull two toll tickets and say 'You crossed this bridge at 3:05 p.m. and this bridge at 6:30, and they're 275 miles apart...'

Darth Ruinus · Post by **Darth Ruinus** » 2008-08-20 06:03pm

docfrance wrote:Here's the important question though: would a night of heavy drinking count as tampering with evidence?

Well, if we are treating memories as evidence, then drinking or eating anything that fucks around with the brain and might destroy memories would be tampering with evidence.

BountyHunterSAx · Post by **BountyHunterSAx** » 2008-08-20 09:27pm

To add my lot to what's been said already, we already have what is considered a not-100% mind-test available, the polygraph lie detector test. If that were to (magically) become 100% accurate, then I can't see much potential for abuse. The person has the right to not incriminate themselves, and can refuse any seemingly incriminating question.

-AHMAD

Mobiboros · Post by **Mobiboros** » 2008-08-21 04:32pm

How would you make it 100% accurate? The brain has a hard time distinguishing fantasy/dreams from reality in itself. What if you're someone who has fantasized about shooting their boss. Then someone else shoots your boss. They see a "memory" in your mind of you shooting your boss. Can the machine flag "real memory" from "Daydream memory"?

And given the 5th ammendment not only couldn't you force this on someone, you can't use their refusal as evdience of guilt.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2008-08-21 07:26pm

Mobiboros wrote:[How would you make it 100% accurate? The brain has a hard time distinguishing fantasy/dreams from reality in itself. What if you're someone who has fantasized about shooting their boss. Then someone else shoots your boss. They see a "memory" in your mind of you shooting your boss. Can the machine flag "real memory" from "Daydream memory"?

In order to extract a single thing, and ensure you have it in the correct context, a mind probe will probably have to read out the entire brain of the subject. Human memories are stored as chains of references to basic sets of objects, or to other memories which share similar references. It's not like the brain is a hard drive hooked up to a video recorder which can be rewound and replayed at will.

For example, to answer the question "Did Frank kill Joanne?" First, you'd have to understand that the smell of Chanel No. 5, Herbal Essences shampoo, and bacon remind him of her. You might also get that yelling and being angry also remind him of her. Unfortunately, all these references can also refer to his first wife Suze, his secretary Charlene, his mother, and that one woman he had that really awesome one-night stand with back in college . . . so you have to keep digging until you're sure that you've consistently got his concept of "Joanne." Then you explore outward from there. You might even get an image of him standing over her beaten, bloody body . . . only you can't be sure if this visual is in his head because he had a nasty fight with her once and imagined doing this to her, or planned to do it to her, or if this is related to a nightmare he had once, or if this is a 'real' memory of him standing over her dead body. And you can't be sure that he'd really remember if he did . . . what if he got really drunk before killing her, so the memory of killing her didn't make it out of his short-term memory. So you poke around some more and see if you can gather enough circumstantial evidence about possible plots and schemes to convict him that way. And you'd have to get the context behind all that too, so you can be sure you're looking at an actual, coherent scheme, as opposed to having inadvertently glued together entirely unrelated bits of context.

By the time you're done, you'd have essentially read out the entire contents of Frank's brain just to answer a simple question. That means, without programming in some means to get the mind-probe to only retain the answer you posed to it, and to automatically discard the rest . . . you now know everything Frank knows.